1986-04-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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 Government's response to the nine following petitions: Nos. 331-40, 331-48, 331-118, 331-144, 331-361 to 364 inclusive, and 331-366.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Second Report of the Canadian Section of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, which sent a delegate to the Conference on European Agriculture in the Year 2000, held in Switzerland on April 8 and 9, 1986.



STRIKING


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Thirty-First Report of the Striking Committee.
(Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)


PETITIONS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a total of 26 petitions containing the names of approximately 1,075 signatories. These petitioners request the Government of Canada to ensure that any reduction in the price of crude oil is passed on to consumers in terms of the price of gasoline paid at the pumps.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present another petition signed by approximately 50 individuals. These petitioners request that the Government of Canada reinstate with full funding the Katimavik program.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a group of people in my constituency and in Saskatoon who still have a concern about the approach of the Government to youth employment. They request that the Government reinstate the Katimavik program for young people in Canada.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 18, consideration of Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian
[Stage Direction]
April 24, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee;
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Cassidy)(p.l2436); and the amendment (Mr. Robinson)(p. 12444).
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we understand that some progress has been made as far as negotiations are concerned. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will rise in his place and give us some indication of whether or not government employees who have grievances in the established process are satisfied, so that we will be in a position to pass the Bill with some assurance that the employees have reached a satisfactory agreement.
The particular motion before the House has been adequately discussed, so I will not go into the need for the extension of time. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give us those assurances there will be no need at all for this kind of a motion. The procedures followed in this Bill have been very bad, and before we have any other divestitures or privatizations we should be discussing procedures.
I would like to put before the Government, and possibly 1 will during third reading, the kinds of concerns the people of Canada, the employees affected and the business community have about the procedures used by the Government, procedures which are not necessarily for the good of the employees or for the good of Canada, but are based on an ideology the Government has accepted and is pushing through without any particular concern for the people involved. If the Government insists on doing that, it would be necessary to have a procedure which would allow the people involved to know that all of the information is before them and that they have had an opportunity to protect themselves and Canadians as a whole.
In every case that we have had of a formation of a Crown corporation the reason for the formation was well established. Public interest required it and in most of them we passed a Bill in this House to make sure the public interest was served by the formation of such a Crown corporation.
It is incredible, after a long and basic discussion to establish a corporation, to find that suddenly the Government can sell it and ask Parliament to rubber stamp the procedure after the sale is finalized. The Government has made the sale with such little information available to the public, to the employees and to Parliament that nobody really knows what is going on. We have had three cases of Crown corporation divestitures. In each case the amount of information available to Parliament, to the people and to the employees has been inadequate, and concern for the employees has been inadequate.
Even as we now discuss report stage and this amendment which asks to defer the process, the real concern is whether the Government is ready to establish the kind of procedures which would avoid the anguish these employees felt when they found themselves being pawned off. They felt some concern was their
due as long-standing and loyal employees of a government corporation and members of the Public Service Alliance.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to stand in his place and give us some assurance that negotiations have progressed to a point where the employees are satisfied, that would be the main concern of Parliament now.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated speaking until third reading, but at the request of my colleague in the New Democratic Party I will do so. In relation to assurances that everything is fine-


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary but if he is going to be speaking to the amendment before us, then he should be pertinent to the amendment. I do not think he wants to speak to the amendment particularly, he wants to give us further details, at third reading, in his speech telling us the progress the Government has made with this dossier.
I do not want to call for relevancy here, but I would ask the Hon. Member to wait for third reading. We have an agreement to put this Bill through this morning. It may be more advantageous to all of us not to get involved in a debate that is not relevant to the motion at hand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Bradley) will speak on the amendment, which is a matter of dates.


T.A. Bud Bradley: No, Mr. Speaker. If the recommendation by my colleague in the Liberal Party is acceptable to my colleague in the NDP, I will speak on third reading.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That is fine, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the kind of commitment he has now given, that he will give us that information, and that is acceptable to me.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Cassidy.
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 35 to 37 at
page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"12. This Act shall come into force after December 31, 1987, on a date to be
fixed by proclamation."
And the amendment of Mr. Robinson.
That motion No. 4 be amended by deleting "1987" and inserting "1989".
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
April 24, 1986

Canadian Arsenals Limited
(Division No. 241)
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the Bill now before the House.
Call in the Members.
And the bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first question is on Motion No. 1. Mr. Mclnnes moves:
Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-87, be amended by adding immediately after line 34 at page 5 the following:
"12. (1) To the extent provided by the regulations made under subsection (3), the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the regulations made under those Acts continue to apply to a person who meets all the following criteria:
(a)	immediately before the coming into force of this section, the person was employed by the Corporation and was a contributor under the Public Service Superannuation Act;
(b)	the person is employed by the Corporation or an amalgamated corporation during the whole of the period between the coming into force of this section and the making of the election referred to in paragraph (e);
(c)	the President of the Treasury Board has not made a payment to the Corporation or to an amalgamated corportaion pursuant to section 30 of the Public Superannuation Act in respect of that person;
(d)	the person has not received or opted to receive any annuity or other benefit under section 11 or 12 of the Public Service Superannuation Act in respect of the pensionable service that he has to his credit under that Act immediately before the coming into force of this section; and
(e)	the person elects, within one year after the coming into force of this section and in such form and manner as the Minister directs, to have the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the regulations made under those Acts continue to apply to him to the extent provided by the regulations made under subsection (3).
(2)	An election referrred to in paragraph (l)(e) is irrevocable.
(3)	The Governor in Council may, in relation to persons who make the election referred to in paragraph (l)(e), make regulations
(a)	specifying which provisions of the Acts and regulations mentioned in subsection (1) apply, and to what extent they apply;
(b)	adapting provisions of those Acts and regulations for the purposes of this section; and
(c)	generally for carrying out the purposes of this section.
(4)	Regulations made under subsection (3) may be made applicable on and after a day before their publication if they so provide."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to the order made at the beginning of this matter, that vote disposes of Motion No. 2 and applies to Motion No.
3.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Mclnnes) agreed to.

April 24, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time, at the next sitting of the House or by unanimous consent now?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Stewart Donald McInnes: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be part of the wrapping up of this legislation, Bill C-87, which has taken quite a long time to get to this stage. It appears that during our deliberations the major concern has been that of the employees' pensions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We are in debate. Come on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for controlling this unruly crowd.
Before I was interrupted by the mass exodus of those who were here to help us get through report stage of the Bill, I was about to delineate the agreement and to discuss its main points, as requested by my colleague from the New Democratic Party.
Our main concern in the second reading debate and committee stage was that of the employees' pension. I am pleased to say that through input from the committee and Hon. Members from all Parties, the employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited and the Government of Canada, through Treasury Board, have reached an agreement. Treasury Board has confirmed this agreement by letter. SNC has agreed and has accepted the agreement. Perhaps I could be offered the opportunity of informing my colleagues in the House of what the decision was, if they have not already been so advised. It
involves a transfer to each member who so elects the actuarial value, with a minimum equal to twice the members' contributions with interest, of the pension accrued at the date of privatization. That is on an ongoing basis.
Under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, in a defined contribution plan, a money purchase plan, the actuarial value being based on the actuarial assumptions used by the chief actuary in his report on the valuation of the plan as of December 31, 1980, SNC should treat these contributions as vested in the name of each member, and those members who are presently buying past services will be given the option to carry on.
I feel this is a tremendous move. I would like to personally thank my colleagues in the Liberal, New Democratic and Conservative Parties who spent those hours in committee and in the deliberations behind the committee. It is very difficult for the Government to dictate to private sector employers how they will treat their new employees, but we are very pleased that through the recommendations by all three Parties and Members thereof a behind-the-scenes agreement was reached with the Government of Canada and Crown employees, and that SNC has ratified that agreement, all parties are now satisfied. Again, I would like to thank all Hon. Members for their participation in this very worthwhile debate.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate on Bill C-87 has gone on far too long, for the simple reason that from the outset the Government should have proceeded differently. We were not satisfied with the way the Government decided to sell the corporation while providing very little protection for its employees. We have spoken at length about this Bill, not because we object to the principle of privatization or because we object to the sale of Canadian Arsenals Ltd. in particular. On the contrary, we think that manufacturing munitions is not an area in which the State should be involved. Nor do we have any difficulty with the prospective buyer, SNC, which is entirely responsible and which we hope will be able to run this company so that it makes a profit and also in a manner that is considerate of its employees.
However, as we said in the House last week, and more specifically last Friday, we realized that employees at Canadian Arsenals Ltd. were getting very little protection under this Bill. Earlier in the debate, there was a reference to a study made at the Government's request by a number of consultants, a study the Government refused to release, and that is why our party was for some time very much against giving Bill C-87 speedy passage through the House, and that is also why my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) spoke several times in the House and, in fact, spearheaded an attack to have the Bill amended. And we are surprised that Conservative Members from Quebec did not rise in the House to defend Canadian Arsenals employees.
April 24, 1986

Mr. Speaker, the first draft introduced by the Government was more or less a package deal to sell the captive employees along with the corporation - 450 or close to 450 employees at the Le Gardeur plant and about 50 more at Saint-Augustin in the riding of Portneuf. However, some amendments were made and we are now prepared to support the Bill. We would have been quite concerned had the sale been concluded without guaranteeing more employee protection, for it might have created a dangerous precedent now that the Government is intent on selling other Crown corporations to private interests. We wanted to avoid such a precedent. As a matter of fact we are somewhat surprised that the Government's first version of this Bill should have been an attempt to take CAL employees for a ride.
Be that as it may, I want to say that our victory does not leave a bitter taste. As Liberals we feel that we have played a leading role in changing this Bill. As I mentioned earlier, we took this initiative under the guidance of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and we are pleased with the outcome of this matter.
I want to commend the Public Service Alliance for leading the fight on behalf of its membership, particularly Mr. Jean Bergeron. I also extend congratulations to the buyer, the SNC firm, for being so patient during the many weeks it took to get the Bill through the Commons. In all honesty, the Government deserves praise for finally seeing the light and introducing amendments which CAL employees and Opposition Parties can live with. The ultimate result is that all Members of the House are now prepared to pass this measure. It goes to prove that constructive debate can indeed make Members of different political persuasions see eye to eye. Again I applaud Government Members for showing flexibility in this instance. Hopefully this will be a precedent, in the sense that if ever the Governent wants to sell other Crown corporations to the private sector the sale terms will provide adequate protection for the transferred employees.
That is all I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Bill will get swift third reading passage today.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is on third reading of Bill C-87 which deals with the privatization of Canadians Arsenals Limited and its sale to SNC Group of Quebec. A number of points have been raised during the course of the debate with respect to the general questions of privatization.
In opening my remarks I would like to say that it has taken a long time to carry out this sale. One of the major reasons being that the Government did not think through exactly what it intended to do. Because of the program of privatization it is a sale which has been driven by ideology as opposed to common sense. I say this because the figures we have indicate that Canadian Arsenals is an extremely profitable company and its profitability was rapidly rising. Of course, it is in a
Canadian Arsenals Limited
managed market, in the sense that most of its sales have to be to the Government of Canada for defence purposes. Therefore, its profitability has to do with the prices paid by the Department of National Defence for munitions and other goods it buys from this firm. Nonetheless, it had to have a substantial amount of efficiency. It was being run effectively since it achieved such a profit turn-around and has shown dramatic improvements in profits over the last few years. If it was so good, and if it was making a contribution to the people of Canada in terms of money coming back, then why sell it? Why not look at other alternatives?
Canadian Arsenals has indicated that it has a fairly major re-equipment and investment program to carry out. Under those circumstances the rigidity of the Government has been in not understanding that Crown corporations should have commercial freedom to do such things as raising money privately, if it is not available through the Treasury. That is stupid. It seems to me that it is an ideological decision. The Government, in being conservative, wants to prove that public enterprise does not work. Therefore, it hamstrings public enterprises in various ways. It makes it difficult for public enterprises to work effectively by such measures as denying them access to capital in the market if they cannot obtain it through the Department of Finance or through the Treasury.
I am suggesting that what the SNC Group intends to do in terms of future development of Canadian Arsenals could just as easily have been done in public hands. I know that SNC is looking at the possibility of exploring export markets for Canadian Arsenals. It has said that CAL was not very vigorous in this area.
I believe there is a moral question here in terms of what export markets we will see. I for one do not want to see Canadian Arsenals in private hands selling to racist regimes such as South Africa, or selling into the hot spots around the world where there are shooting wars going on, or selling to dictators such as General Pinochet of Chile. I do not care whether the company is in public or private hands. As Canadians we share the view that there ought to be some fairly substantial regulation of where munitions being produced in Canada are sold. What is the restraint on Canadian Arsenals from selling to the Americans or to our NATO allies? I think the restraint, if it existed, has been largely a self-imposed restraint. After all, the Royal Canadian Mint sells its services in terms of coinage to many countries in and outside the Commonwealth. I believe it sells to some 20 or 30 countries. It has developed a thriving export market. Therefore, there is no reason, in principle, why CAL could not have done the same thing while it was under public ownership.
We will not resolve all the questions concerning privatization now. However, the Government seems to have the view of "heads you lose and tails we win". If a Crown corporation is having difficulties, or losing money, the Government says: "Look, it's a loser. Let's get rid of it". If a Crown corporation, such as this one, is making money, it says: "Look, it's making money. Let's get rid of it". There do not seem to be any

April 24, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
circumstances under which the Government is prepared to understand that Crown corporations have been established for public purposes. They have been established with a public job to perform. That should have a substantial influence on the way Crown corporations are operated and run. I think Crown corporations can and should be models of the way corporate activity can and should be carried out in the private sector as well. Unfortunately, the Government does not seem to share that vision.
In terms of Crown corporations, one of the problems which has to be addressed-and I hope it will be addressed by some of the committees under the new system-is the question of accountability and direction. Amendments to the Financial Administration Act passed in 1984 have changed the situation somewhat. But, in many cases, there is no effective accountability to committees of Parliament. There is no effective means of reminding a Crown corporation of what its original mandate was when it was set up and of how it should interpret it. Crown corporations tend to be left on their own to interpret their mandates. In a case such as Canadian Arsenals, a company which has existed in public hands for many years, that can mean it can go off into limbo and no one-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The ex-Minister of Science and Technology seems to be busy elsewhere. He will soon be an ex-Minister of everything; but that is another question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the mandate for a company such as Canadian Arsenals could tend to become lost because it has been a Crown corporation for so long. I do not think the former or the present Governments have understood that these mandates have to be reviewed. It is not understood that there has to be some real accountability and thinking in terms of who sits on the boards of Crown corporations and what kind of responsibilities they will fulfil. It is not just an ordinary private corporation. Nor is it an instrument of Government. It is something in between. Canadians have not done too badly in terms of development in that intermediate area. However, we tend to lose the thread from time to time. The Government's practice of saying that it does not understand what it is all about and, therefore, it will get rid of it, is not the best solution.
During the course of debate we raised a number of specific issues concerning job security, pensions and the recognition of union rights under various labour codes. I suggest that before any other privatizations take place involving a change in labour jurisdiction the Government should ensure that the question of successor rights is hammered out before hand and not after, as was the case in this particular circumstance. In this circumstance, technically, the workers could wind up with no union, or another union after the switch is made to Quebec
labour jurisdiction. I am sure that the Public Service Alliance has been doing some work to try to ensure that it can continue to represent the workers, something which it has done for many years.
In the private sector under Ontario legislation, for example, there is the concept of successor rights. When selling a company, new management cannot evade the responsibility of adhering to the contract which the employees had with the previous mangement. The concept of successor rights does not mean that the union which happens to be there has the right to be there forever, because there are processes of decertification. This being a free society, I am sure the Alliance would accept, as would any other union, that that should continue to be a potential recourse for employees who decide they do not want to have a union or want to change the union which they have. Sometimes it is necessary because the union loses the track itself and is no longer effective in defending its members, or it becomes like certain unions which no longer really work in the true interests of its members.
However, it seems to me that at least there should have been an agreement between the Canada authorities and the Quebec provincial authorities which would have provided de facto successor rights in this particular case and, therefore, bridged the transition from federal labour code jurisdiction to provincial. I call upon the Government to ensure that that occurs in the future. I should now like to turn to the issue of pensions.

I gather the Government has learned a few lessons concerning the pension entitlement of Canadian Arsenals Ltd. employees who were participants in the Canada Government Pension Plan and who will now have the option either of transferring their pension contributions into SNC's plan or keeping their entitlement until the date of sale in the Government of Canada Pension Plan.
That is not the best of solutions, but it is much better than the situation that was provided for before the amendment we just supported was introduced.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the reason why our Party supported Amendment No. 3 moved by the Minister, and which we just voted on, was specifically that we are now satisfied, after contacting our friends in the Public Service Alliance, that the pension problem of those employees is now adequately solved.
It is not an ideal solution, but it seems the union representing the employees is satisfied that it is the best available to protect those 800 employees' vested interest with respect to their pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that the work done by my friend the Hon. Member for Price Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), the Members of the New Democratic Party and of the Liberal Party and our representations and our insisting on the matter
April 24, 1986

of the pension entitlement of those 800 employees have finally led to an acceptable solution for the employees concerned.
It seems that employees who elect to retain their pension entitlement in the Public Service pension system, will not only qualify for their pensions, but that their years of service with the new owners, SNC Corporation, will be taken into account when determining their pension entitlement. It seems that the existing indexation that covers the Public Service Pension Plan will carry over for those employees.
Unfortunately, this will not apply to that portion of their employment that will continue with the new owners. However, indexation on 20, 25 or 30 years of service, according to the situation of a number of employees, will apply.
I am therefore quite pleased that Parliament, through its efforts, has succeded in convincing the Minister, and perhaps the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), the actual owner of the Canadian Arsenals Ltd. Corporation, of what the problem was. Perhaps it was Treasury Board, or perhaps even Government officials who did not realize how important it was to be flexible on such an issue.

I will say in English as well that I am pleased a solution of the pension issue which is satisfactory to the employees has been finally reached. We understand and they understand that it is not ideal but, nonetheless, it goes a long way toward achieving the goals they set out at the beginning. Certainly it goes an awful lot further than shoving people off into the private sector, giving them back their contributions, and basically not an awful lot more, after years of contributing to the pension plan of the Government of Canada and expecting to receive a decent pension plan as one of the conditions or benefits of staying with that particular employer, rather than moving to an available job down the street or in another community which might be more attractive or have a weekly wage that is perhaps a bit more attractive. I am glad that has been achieved. As I said in French, I think in large measure it is due to the efforts of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), our caucus and that of the Liberals. I see the Parliamentary Secretary encouraging me as I say that. I would say to him that I am glad he dealt with the matters seriously and worked hard to try to find a solution.
I suspect that one of the problems within Government was that the Treasury Board, being responsible for the Public Service superannuation plan, was being rather sticky and difficult to deal with. I will not describe the expression on the Parliamentary Secretary's face as I make that comment; it would be indiscreet for me to do so. However, I say generally to the Government that in these matters of privatization, the Macdonald Commission talked about the need for more flexibility in how we run our affairs. For goodness sake, that has to begin with the Government of Canada. We have to show some example.
Because many things are happening in mixed areas of the economy, because activities which were public are becoming
Canadian Arsenals Limited
private, like airport security activities that were privatized and are now coming back into the public sector, we must be realistic in understanding that we should be trying to accommodate to the best of our capacity the legitimate needs and desires of people in these cases. Treasury Board should not be digging in its heels and suggesting that it is a lovely idea but that it cannot be done because it has never been done before. We have not before had a Government with 211 seats. Many of the things which the Government has done have never been done before. In some cases it is unfortunate that they are being done now. However, I suggest that rules and regulations in terms of what occurred in the Government of Canada in the past should not impede necessary arrangements when it comes to such things as dealing fairly with people who completely, unwittingly and beyond their control are affected by the Government's ideological decision on privatization in this particular case.
While I am happy that a solution has been reached, I am sorry it took so much effort on the part of people who had to negotiate and struggle in order to obtain a solution. If the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister would like to join forces with people in our caucus in the future in order to overcome the ingrained resistance and conservatism of the Treasury Board and certain other central agencies within the Government of Canada, and if we can achieve some desirable results, we will be happy to do so. On the other hand, if the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister would like to join forces with people in our Party in turning back this pressure for privatization, this ideological obsession with privatization, we would be happy to do that as well.
Mir. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member take a few moments to express the concerns of the union on a couple of other points? I refer firstly to the fact that employees were unable to continue in the plan they had, and secondly, to the hiatus which appears in the transfer between jurisdictions and the possibility of grievances during that period.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have been away from Ottawa for the last two days or three days, so I do not know whether any satisfactory resolution has been reached of the question of what happens in terms of the administration of the contract between the time the sale is actually completed and the time of recognition, if granted, under the Quebec Labour Code. Even after that recognition is granted, there is still the period of time when the parties may be working out a new contract. Even if the contract is identical in spirit to the existing contract, it may have to be worded differently because of different requirements under a new labour code. There could be a lengthy period of time, not because of bad faith on either side, but because of the practical difficulties in doing something which has not been done before. This is why I am suggesting that there should have been a direct agreement between the Government of Canada and the Quebec Government over the question of how successor rights would be achieved.

April 24, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
In general, SNC is acting in good faith. It is biting off a fair amount here because the turnover of Canadian Arsenals is not that far short of what was SNC's total turnover just a year or two ago. It is a major acquisition for SNC, but it seems to be going into it with a constructive spirit. The Government of Canada could have had SNC bind itself legally to the Government of Canada in the Agreement of Sale. SNC could not reach a legal agreement with the union, but this would have had no accreditation in legal terms after the sale until recognition was granted. The Government of Canada could have put into the contract that SNC would respect the contract prevailing until such time as the new union was in place, a new contract signed or possibly have a cutoff date of a year or so hence in order to give ample time for the union to gain certification and get a new contract, or for the workers to reject it. Secondly, during that transition period I think that SNC should also have been required by the Government of Canada to agree that in the event of dispute there would then be an agreed upon means by which arbitration could be resorted to where matters could not be resolved otherwise.
I would remind the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), who is responsible for the Bill, that for some lengthy period of time the union was not able to meet with SNC. I suggested that that be done early when I met with the SNC representatives. They did not see the purchase agreement or the agreement in principle until the matter went to the legislative committee, and that was too late, Mr. Speaker. I am glad it occurred eventually but, as we found in the case of de Havil-land, there is no need to guard that information.
I was at a conference of public managers the other day where one of the workshops was on the theme of "consult with the public but don't tell them anything". Governments too often do exactly that, they say they are all for consultation but they are not prepared to share any information, therefore, there is no likelihood of meaningful consultation. I know my friend had another question on pensions,but perhaps what I have said answers the major question in which he was interested.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I have spoken in this debate on several occasions and now I shall, if I may, add some further comments on this Bill. My hon. colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who is out of town today on parliamentary business, has asked me to make a few comments on his behalf regarding Bill C-87 and the privatization of the Crown corporation Canadian Arsenals Ltd. by its sale to SNC.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government elected in 1984 wanted to meet its commitment to privatizing of certain companies, and had even suggested privatizing a considerable number of Crown corporations.
I think if we look back, we can see what the privatization policy has achieved, and wonder how it has worked, and in this
particular case, the sale of Canadian Arsenals Ltd., whether the exercise has been a successful and a beneficial one for Canadians. And that will be the main thrust of my comments.
Mr. Speaker, we know that since the privatization policy was announced, a secretariat was set up at Treasury Board, headed by Mr. Basil Beneteau, former Vice-President of the Board of Directors of Northern Telecom. His assistant is Mr. Lawrence J. O'Toole, previously federal co-ordinator of economic development in Ontario. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) selected Salomon Brothers as financial advises to the task force. So we have a privatization secretariat, and I imagine it is busy applying the criteria the Government has established, that is, how to privatize, what to privatize and under what conditions.
To date, Mr. Speaker, the Northern Transportation Company has been privatized, as well as de Havilland. The operation was less successful in the latter case because the de Havilland-Boeing transaction was somewhat confused and difficult. We even had to hold a special debate on it here in the House, and I think that this gave the Government the opportunity to learn something about privatization. There was of course the sales of Fisheries Canada, a sea product processing company in the Gaspe area, for an amount of $5 million, and the most recent case is the one now before us which concerns the divestiture of the Canadian Arsenals Limited Corporation to SNC.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, at the second reading stage, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell repeatedly asked two questions, with our support. One was: Did the Government consult the employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited before acting to privatize the corporation?
The second question we asked was this: If so, what was the result of this consultation and what are the concerns of the employees?
We knew from the unions and the employees themselves that the employees had not been consulted and that they were worried about such matters as their pension fund, and what the future held for them with the company which was to purchase Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Mr. Speaker, we then asked the Government to provide us with a report prepared by Arthur Andersen which the Government itself had requested and which apparently contained details of the transaction, but our request was rejected.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I remember having made speeches in the House on second reading to tell the Government: Listen, without the important information and data which we need concerning the consultations as well as the validity of the privatization and the benefits of this sale for Canadians, and because we are concerned about the working conditions and transfer of the company to the private sector, we want to see the famous Arthur Andersen report and we want to know what the conditions are concerning the employee's pension plans and the transfer of their jobs from the public sector to the private sector.
April 24, 1986

We spent a long time at second reading, Mr. Speaker, as you know, on this request in order to finally obtain from the Government the commitment that they would make public finally, at the report stage, the famous Arthur Andersen report. Then we moved from second reading stage to the committee stage. Finally, the Government made the Arthur Andersen report public, so that we realized, together with the Government, that improvements were required to the pension fund. Those are the problems which were addressed in committee and settled, I think, for the benefit of the Government, the SNC purchaser, but above all the benefit of employees who were seeking guarantees concerning their pension fund, its transfer to the public sector and many questions still unanswered concerning their benefits, their pensions, the indexation of these pensions, the future of their jobs, and especially their careers with the SNC.
I think that the Government has made an effort and I want to congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for listening to the requests of both the employees and the Official Opposition with the assistance of the New Democratic Party.
I think we should realize that Canadian Arsenals Ltd. is a company which five or six years ago managed to overcome serious problems with the help of its workers and has now become a profitable concern. Now, we wanted to get the cooperation of both employees and management, since they are the parties concerned, to come up with a solution that was equitable and fair, considering the employees' very reasonable demands concerning the conditions for transferring their pension fund contributions and also concerning their careers and their future with SNC.
Mr. Speaker, we do not object to privatization as such. The concept is aimed at letting the private sector take over activities that were controlled by the State. This can be done, as we know, either by selling the Government's shares or the corporation, or by the government simply getting out of the activities it was or is involved in.
Mr. Speaker, two words are foremost in my mind, and we hear them very often today: deregulation and privatization. Today, everybody is talking about deregulation and privatization, and the two are closely connected. Deregulation means that the State no longer tells people what to do, so it withdraws from a certain area it has been regulating, and that is a good thing. Privatization means that the State lets others act in its stead. In the case of SNC and Canadian Arsenals Ltd., I think the sale has some advantages for future jobs and there may be a bit of growth as well. However, one thing worries me and I think we should not overlook this possibility. The Government will on occasion be asked to scrutinize export permits for the goods being produced by Canadian Arsenals Ltd., and I am referring to munitions.
I wish to caution those who think that by privatizing Canadian Arsenals we will create many new jobs and foreign markets, that we will be in the export business, and that we will be expanding the sales of Canadian Arsenals. One must
Canadian Arsenals Limited
remember that export permits from the Canadian Government will still be required. We are just saying that Canadians are asking the Government to ensure that we not aid or abet certain groups or governments which take part in subversive activities or war. Even though the company may want to expand into other export fields, it will still have to apply for export permits which will assure Canadians that the company is not dealing with people, organizations, or governments which may be unfriendly to those in the western world who like to preserve democracy.
I only say that in passing because I was told by someone this morning that they saw great potential for expansion of the arsenals business. I do not think we should expect Canada to begin to export arms or war tools. I could probably make a long speech on that subject, Mr. Speaker, but I will avoid it because I know Members would prefer that I speak on the matter of the privatization and sale of Canadian Arsenals Limited under Bill C-87.

Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, comment briefly on the work done by my hon. colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who spoke in Committee and in the House, and who wrote to the Minister-this is a fact-and, practically single-handed, obtained the release of the Arthur Andersen Report. At least for us in the Official Opposition, he was someone on which people could count to strengthen the transaction. I think that the point that he was making was that, while we are selling a corporation, we do not necessarily have to sell its employees with it. We had to see to it that this transaction would be clean, open and absolutely fair for everyone.
It is my sincere opinion that the vigilance shown by the Opposition, led by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, protected the Government employees who were asking for and who deserved special attention.
Also, Mr. Jean Bergeron, Vice President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, played a major role in the negotiations; he said the following:
This is a victory for the employees. However, in the future, the Government should ensure that eventual purchasers are aware of the implications before entering blindly into privatization negotiations as they did in the case of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Mr. Jean Bergeron worked closely with the employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited and did a lot to make the technicalities of this transaction better understood.
I would simply like to remind the House that Mr. Bergeron first used the word "amateurism" and it was not to describe the transaction. I think that this was sufficiently well explained at second reading. Indeed, there have been rather strong comments from people involved in the transaction who had no hesitation in saying that, for some months now, and even since the beginning, the Government has acted amateurishly in this transaction. If the Government had listened to its Privatization Secretariat, it would not have had these problems. Perhaps then the Government would have been able to involve the employees much more than it did. In addition, perhaps it would have remembered that, when such a company is sold, its most important asset, its work force, is also sold and that such a
12600______________________COMMONS DEBATES___________________April 24,1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
transaction has certain human resources implications that have to be taken into account.
Mr. Speaker, since we are speaking about privatization, as you probably know, I could talk about the privatization of Government services. I am deeply concerned, and I would simply like to remind the House that whenever a corporation is sold, the privatization extends also to the services that the Government has been providing.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, I could mention the teaching of our official languages or language training in the Public Service of Canada. There were budget cuts that resulted in nearly 850 employees losing their jobs, for there are rumours of privatizing that service in the coming year. I can quote from page 6823 of Hansard a question I asked in this House, and in which I suggested it was irresponsible to privatize language training and thereby jeopardize the jobs of 788 employees, 62.6 per cent of whom were women. Moreover, 536 of those 788 employees are members of the teaching personnel and 59 per cent are professional women.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I also referred to the issue of translators in this House. Part of that essential service has been privatized. Nearly 130 persons were laid off, a majority of whom once again are women. It is hard to accept that Government services should be privatized without cost-benefit studies being made public, whether the service to be privatized will be maintained, whether it will be competent, whether it will be possible for the Canadian people to obtain from this Government an on-going quality of service. This is why we ask the question, and I keep coming back to this, because we always have such "darned difficulty" getting information about the Government.
I asked the Minister in this House to provide us with information on the costs and benefits of privatizing Government services. I am not referring to companies, corporations and so on. I am referring to services, and to this date we do not have many documents. We have had promises. The Minister told me he had handed over everything. I wrote to the Minister on a number of occasions, and I could read you the letters, Mr. Speaker, I still have some of them that were written last February, in which I asked specifically that he answer my question. The question dealt with the tabling of cost-benefit studies on privatization, dated February 11, 1986. I am still waiting for the answer from the Minister. I know the Minister will answer one of these days, but I would like him to do so in the forthcoming days, because it is important for us to know whether the Government has made across-the-board cost-benefit studies.
It was the Minister himself, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who told me in the House that studies were made with respect to the consequences of privatization. I would now like to read to you, as recorded on page 10246 of Hansard dated January 24, this reply from the Minister:
I will be more than happy to make available to him any studies which we have bearing on the rate of remuneration and on the cost-benefits type of information he is asking that we have at our disposal.
Mr. Speaker, I have yet to receive that information and close to two months have elapsed since it was requested. Now as far as privatization of services is concerned, perhaps the Government could be more forthcoming and helpful in its negotiations if it provided the information we require.
As far as privatizing Canadian Arsenals Limited is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we do not object, as I said earlier, to privatization. We have done our work as Members of this House and we have tried to convince the Government about two things: first, that the deal should guarantee the jobs and the pension fund of the employees. Second, we asked the Government to keep this transaction in mind and not to forget the mistakes they made and to remember that we will be on our toes in the future in case they try to sell out something else.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude my brief remarks by congratulating once again the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell for his contribution to this matter and also thank my colleagues who have taken part in the long debates in the House. I must say that I am glad we have been able to improve this initiative through amendments introduced by the Government and received very positively by the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that when Canadian Arsenals was initially established it was with the idea that it would eventually be privatized. However, under present circumstances, where the company makes money and is involved in arms production, would the Hon. Member, if he were a member of the Government today, be proceeding with this sale?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I shall try to answer this hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker, for I do not sit on the Government side and I do not know if one day that will happen. However, just like any other Member of the House, I look forward to the day when I will be in a position to make decisions for the benefit of the Canadian people.
April 24, 1986

As far as the current sale is concerned, I cannot say definitely whether I or a Government of which I was a Member would have sold Canadian Arsenals Limited.
All I know is that we would first make sure that this company remains Canadian, and we would protect the rights of Canadians, the collective bargaining agreements and the vested interests of employees.
Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that I have nothing against privatization. I feel that when it is Government policy to divest itself of a number of operations, as I was saying earlier, this could be justified. In this case, I do not see why a Government should continue making the quantities of ammunitions on the scale Canadian Arsenals Limited is doing.
On the other hand, as I indicated in my speech, there are serious constraints in the area of exports, because as far as export permits are concerned, the Government will have to look closely to make sure that these ammunitions are not provided to individuals, groups and countries which are not very friendly.
Except for my concern about the employees and their future,
I do not think I have much difficulty with the privatization of Canadian Arsenals Limited.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the decision to privatize Canadian Arsenals is part of the Government's policy and, I guess, ideology. It really has very little to do with any benefit to Canadians generally, or even the people concerned directly. Consequently, although I could spend a considerable amount of time discussing the pros and cons of this privatization, as has been done by others, I think it more important to suggest that, since this privatization has been so incredibly badly handled, perhaps the Government could have learned something. If the Government intends to proceed with its policy and ideology, maybe it has learned something which would make it possible that future privatization projects will be a little more carefully thought out, planned, and consequently function a little more smoothly. I think it is unfortunate that such a great amount of anguish and concern was raised among the employees of Canadian Arsenals by the Government in this process. Some basic openness and understanding in discussing the problems would have eliminated that situation. I want to explore the possibility of putting in place a better system for doing this.
Before doing that, I want to make a few comments on this particular privatization. First, does anyone really think that the privatization of Canadian Arsenals will benefit our economy? The purchaser, SNC Group, is a good employer. They see this as a good business step and they are an acceptable buyer. They are promising to expand the business and increase exports. That company is, to some extent, already in the business of munitions, although not necessarily dependent upon this takeover for expansion. If Canada wants to be listed among the exporters of
munitions, of death, if you will, around the world, then I guess it would be all right to divest ourselves of this operation and encourage a private company to expand its export sales. However, I am not sure that the people of Canada really want to go in that direction. I am not sure that the people of Canada were very unhappy with the idea that at least the production of large calibre munitions was controlled by a company owned and operated by the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. He will be able to continue this afternoon.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the social injustice created by the Progressive Conservative Government since it took office.
I got a letter from an accountant-not a taxpayer-who based his argument on the 1984 tax tables to prove quite clearly that a person with a 1983 taxable income of $2,030 did not have any tax to pay before the Conservative Government took over, whereas that same person ends up with a $188.50 tax bill for 1984 under the Conservative administration.
Mr. Speaker, that is social injustice and further proof that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.



ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION DAY


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, we know that on this day, April 24, we commemorate the Armenian genocide.
Since midnight last evening, 100 young Canadians of Armenian origin have been keeping a vigil on Parliament Hill to remind Canadians of the horrible tragedy of the first holocaust of this century. Theirs was a dignified demonstration and I want to commend their leader, Mr. Michael Iskedjian.

April 24, 1986
We have a good many champions of human rights in this House, but oftentimes they seem to be rather selective. As Canadians, Mr. Speaker, we must defend the rights of our fellow human beings, wherever they happen to be, whatever their importance or power. We must not be selective.
Most of these young people are Quebecers now, and proud Canadians. They know that Quebec's motto is "Je me souviens", and that is what they wanted to show on Parliament Hill by urging all Canadians to join them on this commemorative occasion.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, social policy has always been a priority for this Government and will continue to be a priority for a long time to come. Our social policies must take into account the need of five groups in particular. Barriers that prevent the full and equal participation of women, cultural minorities, and the disabled of Canadian society must be reduced. Canada's youth must be able to participate in the building of our economy through employment. Senior citizens must be assured a decent standard of living, as well as access to those social and community services necessary to support independence.
Our Government's approach is working, and it is helping business to create the permanent jobs that are the best form of income security. The Government is providing for those in need with carefully designed assistance programs, such as housing strategy and measures to help the disabled, that give people every opportunity to help themselves. Our pension reforms give countless new advantages to people planning for retirement. These policies are working, and all Canadians have a reason for hope.

[ Translation]



ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION DAY


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate an event that has tarnished forever the conscience of humanity-the horrible slaughter of one and a half million Armenians, murdered during World War I. Survivors were forced to leave their ancestral homeland, later to disperse throughout the world.
In Canada, year after year, Armenians and Canadians of various origins commemorate that event in remembering all
the innocent victims and the sufferings of those who met with atrocious and unnecessary deaths.
As Members of Parliament, we have an opportunity to contribute to peace and understanding between nations. But to that privilege is tied the responsibility of preventing such atrocities for all times.
We must do everything we can to ensure that such events will never be repeated.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, recently there has been considerable controversy created by a decision of the Cape Breton Development Corporation to cancel its participation in the apprenticeship training program. Thousands of people throughout industrial Cape Breton signed a petition, which I will have the honour of presenting in the House in the very near future, calling upon this Crown corporation to reverse its cold and short-sighted decision. However, I have been informed by the executive of the United Mine Workers of America that, due to the intense pressure, the President of Devco has indicated that he is willing to re-enter discussions with the objective of reinstating the apprenticeship program. That, indeed, is good news, not only for the men who were terminated by the corporation as a result of the program's cancellation, but also good news for the future of this Crown corporation.
At a time when productivity is the key to a healthy coal industry, ensuring that the workforce remains up to date with the latest technological skills is crucial. Even more critical is an improved relationship between management and labour. I hope this new willingness on the part of the management to discuss rather than dictate is a sign of a genuine willingness to improve a rather dismal labour relations record.


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



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 24, is a special day of remembrance for the Armenian community of the tragic events of 1915 during the last days of the Ottoman Empire. Each year in Parliament,
April 24, 1986

Members stand to express their sympathy to victims of those events.
However, I believe that it is now appropriate for Parliament as a whole to institute a formal annual remembrance of these and other events which typify man's inhumanity to man. Therefore I have tabled a motion, which I hope will receive the unanimous consent of the House, to designate this week in April, each year, as a week of commemoration for man's inhumanity to man.
Legitimate remembrance of the past, however, should not extend to violence in Canada. To do so would be to jeopardize the foundations of our society. Yesterday three individuals pleaded guilty to such a violent act. Today, within the best traditions of Canada, we have seen a peaceful demonstration of remembrance in Ottawa.
Let us work together to build a better future for Canada and for the world, where the rights of all are fully protected.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to read the following statement into the record:
I was released from the Canadian Armed Forces in 1972, at age 40, after 16 years of service, for medical reasons.
He goes on to say that because of high unemployment he lost his part-time employment in October, 1985. He is 54 years old, with a grade 8 education, and is unable to obtain further work. He goes on to state:
However, I was able to meet my financial commitments with my pension, and full UIC benefits.
As of January 5, 1986, when this new legislation came into effect, my UIC benefits have been reduced $58 a week, or $251.33 a month.
As a result, he lost his home and his automobile and, if it continues, he will be forced into personal bankruptcy.
The present Conservative Government has brought this affliction on Mr. Cornelius Funk, who had served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 16 years and was honourably discharged, and has brought it upon tens of thousands of other members of the Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Do the Minister and Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) need more of these letters-


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



BALTIC EVENING


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, today Canadians of Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian background are meeting with government officials here in Ottawa. Tonight, on Parliament Hill, they will hold the Fourteenth Baltic Evening to celebrate the cultures of these three countries-cultures that are under severe assault through Russification-as well as to hold high the cause of selfdetermination for these three countries that are occupied by the Soviet Union.
Too often only lip service is paid to the doctrine of national self-determination. In this struggle for democracy, every signal, no matter how small, and every message, no matter how symbolic, should be sent to Soviet Russia. For this reason I call on the Government of Canada to list the acting Honorary Consuls General of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the registry of diplomatic, consular and other representatives in Canada.


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



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, since Tuesday last, Canadian borrowers have begun enjoying the interest rate reduction announced Monday by most American banks, even before the Bank of Canada could set its new discount rate.
That, Mr. Speaker, is ample evidence that leaders of the Canadian financial community have confidence in this Conservative Government.
That significant .25 per cent reduction will benefit all Canadians by allowing for new jobs to be created. Small businessmen can make new investments, and young Canadians can own their own homes. Moreover, that reduction will result in new investors' confidence in the business community and will attract foreign investment to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that interest rate reduction will have a favourable impact on the economy for all Canadians, and they will certainly appreciate it.

April 24, 1986



OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in 1982 Canada had 1.21 million work-related injuries. These were injuries affecting over 12 per cent of our workers. There were 555,000 disabling injuries. The benefit payments alone totalled $1,627 billion. Despite these horrendous figures the federal Government has seen fit to cut funding to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, despite the fact that government officials admitted in committee last night that there is increased demand for the services provided by that centre. In addition to that, although Section 96 of the Canada Labour Code calls for the setting up of an advisory committee on occupational safety and health, the federal Government has decided it cannot afford to do so.
The Canadian Labour Congress has declared this coming Monday a day of mourning for those who lost their lives and limbs in Canadian workshops. The least the Government can do is recognize that day of mourning and provide funding for the centre-


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

[ Translation]



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Everyday, Mr. Speaker, our economy is improving. Our Government has created the proper climate for this economic growth, but we must also share the credit with businessmen within our communities. Business people have understood the dynamism of our message. The private sector and the Government of Canada are now working as a team. Within my riding of Levis, in the city of Charny, business people will hold an exhibition this coming weekend. Our dynamic business people have organized this Quebec South Shore exhibition without subsidies; moreover, the admission will be free. It is the most significant exhibition of all those held in the South Shore cities of Greater Quebec. Our congratulations and thanks to these business people for their contribution to the economic recovery. Let us all go to this exhibition.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, 34,000 people in Canada have been deceived once again by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney); those who have taken an early retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne). Both these Conservative members are blaming their Government for willfully stealing the money of Canadian taxpayers, of 34,000 Canadians and servicemen who came here to demonstrate on the Hill their disapproval of the Government's decision.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that these people have worked hard all their lives. They have contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and their private pension plans. In Trois-Rivieres, the Government has robbed Philips' and Wabasso's employees who have been laid-off.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all Conservative members to follow the example of the Hon. Member for Champlain and all the other Members of the House and pressure the Prime Minister into reversing this stupid and idiotic decision.



CHALLENGE '86 PRIVATE SECTOR'S CREATION OF CAREER-RELATED JOBS FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday members of the opposition Parties criticized the Challenge '86 Program for stressing the importance of private sector career-related jobs for students. There is obviously not one business person amongst the lot of them. Do they not realize that the vast majority of people work in the private sector? Logic would suggest that students should acquire career experience in the private sector to increase their opportunity for employment.
In Etobicoke North the success of Challenge '86 is evident. Six hundred students have already registered under the program and 70 per cent of the jobs available are in the private sector, jobs such as technicians, accounting assistants, computer programmers, sales and marketing jobs, bookkeeping, and the list goes on and on. I suggest to members of the Opposition that they go back to their ridings and witness the success of this program for themselves.
April 24, 1986



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on the evening of April 24, 1915, 254 Armenian intellectuals were arrested in Istanbul, never to be seen again. Talaat Pasha, who was Minister of the Interior, said: "I will deal the Armenians such a blow that they will not be able to raise their heads for 50 years". He was the cruel, prophetic architect of the genocide which began 71 years ago today.
Before World War I there were two million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. After the war there were only 100,000. Canada must help to right this wrong. The facts are clear. A recent United Nations subcommittee's report refers to "The Ottoman Massacre of Armenians". We stand with Mr. Hagopian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of Canada, and all Canadians of Armenian heritage, to win this battle of human rights recognition that the genocide did occur.




Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate the seventy-first anniversary of the Armenian massacre. Hundreds of people gathered on Parliament Hill today to recognize what has been stated to be the first great act of genocide in this century. It is time for our Government and other Governments to do something about it.
Many of us will gather this evening at the Baltic dinner to recognize the actions of the Soviet Union against the Baltic republics. We do not expect to have very much influence on the Soviet Union. But when we are dealing with allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization we do expect to have some influence. It is time for the Government of Canada to press the Government of Turkey to recognize and acknowledge the atrocity of 1915, and to press that Government to provide redress to the Armenian people.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF COMMISSIONER OF YUKON

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery of Mr. Ken McKinnon, Commissioner of the Yukon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, when I saw the Tory Members rise to their feet I thought that perhaps President Reagan was in the gallery.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deans:: They would be on their knees if that were the
case.


Lloyd Axworthy: My question is for the Prime Minister. Last evening we saw that in staving off defeat of the trade proposal President Reagan made several very important promises to members of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. I would like to ask the Prime Minister about those promises and the significance which they hold for Canada.
With respect to the question of lumber, Senator Packwood said that he has been promised a letter from the President of the United States outlining proposals for separate and quick negotiations to resolve the lumber issue between our two countries. Considering how vital this is to our interests, have we asked to be consulted on that letter? Does the Prime Minister still stand by his statement that there will be no concessions whatsoever even though last evening he said that we have to be prepared to make trade-offs to serve the best interests of the United States?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing. That is an absolute and untrammelled falsehood and must be withdrawn. I said no such thing. I want the Hon. Member to rise in his place and withdraw what is an absolute falsehood.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONSULT UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want the Prime Minister to answer the question, not get on this false high horse of his. Is he prepared to reiterate his commitment not to make concessions? Will he consult with the President of the United States about the letter he is sending in regard to lumber negotiations so that we will know what is going on and so that we will not sell out the lumber interests of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is different, Mr. Speaker. That is just the usual Liberal distortion. We can deal with that.
The President of the United States said that the negotiations will begin without conditions. That is the position of the

April 24, 1986
Oral Questions
Government of Canada. That is what transpired, exactly what transpired. I know that it causes the Hon. Member from Winnipeg anguish and heartache because he has been predicting the contrary for weeks. He will just have to live with it.


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if I were playing the Prime Minister's game I would ask for a retraction of an obvious distortion. We have said no such thing and the Prime Minister has still not answered the question.
The President has made a promise to U.S. Senate Finance Committee members to resolve the lumber issue under separate negotiations. Have we agreed to those measures? Will we be consulted on what are the proposals? Is the Prime Minister still prepared to stand by his previous statement that there will be no concessions on lumber?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the comment of the hon. gentleman is prefaced with at least two or three, if not more, falsehoods. I can tell him that there are no preconditions. The President of the United States has said it. The Government of Canada has said it. If that is not good enough for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry, it is good enough for Canadians.


REQUEST FOR FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates as well to the proposed free trade negotiations with the United States. In today's editorial, La Presse pointedly emphasizes, and I quote:
Ottawa's internal preparations have not been as thorough as Washington's: Mr. Mulroney does not have the kind of wide mandate which Mr. Reagan has just secured.
Here is my question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister intend to convene his provincial counterparts as soon as possible to shed light on the Premiers' position in the forthcoming negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Notwithstanding the editorial opinion expressed in La Presse, Mr. Speaker, I think you would agree with me that other editorialists have taken the opposite view. Several major American newspapers recently stated that-


Jean-Claude Malépart: There are others besides Americans.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are talking about complexes, so the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie wants to put in his grain
of salt.
As early as last November be began the process of inviting the provinces to get in on this. The Secretary of State for
External Affairs is actively involved in the process, which is about to be completed. Once that is done I will be pleased to advise my colleague.


NON NEGOTIABLE ITEMS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, extremely important matters are raised in negotiations with the provinces. A number of issues included in the negotiations with the United States fall under provincial jurisdiction. I should like to ask the Prime Minister-my question relates to several of these issues-whether he intends to live up to his commitment not to put on the negotiation table such subjects as agricultural marketing boards, the Auto Pact, social services, and cultural industries?


Martin Brian Mulroney: On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, including last September 26, I outlined Canada's position and we intend to stand firm.


PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LAWS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Washington many Senators stressed their opposition to our patent laws on drugs, laws which save Canadian consumers and seniors billions each year on generic drugs. Will the Prime Minister guarantee Canadians that no concessions will be given to the United States in the form of changes to n these patent drug laws during or prior to the free trade negotiations?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have two points. First, when the Hon. Member uses the word "billions", it is simply inaccurate, and he should not use it to embellish his question. Second, the Government has said if there is any legislative change, the Hon. Member, like everyone else, will have to wait for that legislation to be introduced.


Steven W. Langdon: In fact our research shows that billions are at risk.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LUMBER EXPORTS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Senator Packwood says that President Reagan won his vote when he promised him legal actions to "make sure timber is protected". Does the Prime Minister consider such an attack on our softwood lumber producers to be a good faith beginning to the free trade negotiations with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume the researcher who predicted the billions was the same one who predicted the loss of 100,000 jobs under the last Budget and 580,000 new jobs were created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 24, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: The statement which was given applies. There are no preconditions. Of course we recognize that in any civilized bargaining event there is give and take. That is what it is all about. This is not a zero-sum game. We believe that both the United States and Canada can negotiate an arrangement which will enhance their possibility of economic growth on both sides.
A successful negotiation does not mean less for one and more for the other. A good negotiation is a good deal for both sides, and it means more jobs in Canada, greater riches in Canada, and greater prosperity in North America. That is what we are looking for.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: In short, Mr. Speaker, our timber producers better watch out.


Mr. Dick:: He didn't say that.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister give Members of Parliament the same role and input as U.S. Senators have now won and agree to set up a special all-Party parliamentary committee to watchdog these proceedings and report back regularly to this House?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the Hon. Member gives me an opportunity to remind not only the House but the country about the incredible new reforms that we have instituted in this House which give committees of this House self-start ability. They are able to draw up their own agendas, and I hope the Hon. Member will take on a constructive role rather than always carping and being negative, as he always is on this issue.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will put my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is aware that the Secretary of State's warning to Canadians to leave Libya has caused concern. In fact it has been described as having baffled, puzzled, and dismayed the international diplomatic corps, not only Canada's but others. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why the Secretary of State made that quite extraordinary statement?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not think the statement was extraordinary. I thought it was a prudent and thoughtful statement in the circumstances by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which reflected his view and the view of the Government of Canada.


GOVERNMENT'S VIEW
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State twice said last night on the program The Journal, and I have the transcript here: "The calm might not last". Was the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressing the view of the Government and, if so, what factual basis does the Government have for making that kind of declaration?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Westmount has clearly not spoken with his Leader because his Leader last night agreed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it was the right thing to have indicated to the country. Indeed, there is a period of calm and the Secretary of State for External Affairs invited Canadians in Libya, given the delicacy of the situation, to take advantage of that period for the reasons that he set forward, which I thought were very prudent.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-IMPACT STUDIES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the free trade negotiations. I am sorry the Government is reluctant to commit itself to having a select committee in the process. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the Government intends to do with the wide range of studies about the cost impact and benefits of free trade to different regions and industries in Canada, information which so far has been kept private?
Does the Government intend to share that information with Canadians now that the free trade talks are under way in order to ensure an informed basis for consultation, and when will it start making that information available?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, many studies have been done. We have shared those studies to date with the provinces and, to varying degrees, we will be sharing them with the trade advisory committees that have been set up under rules of confidentiality.
It is not our intention to share these studies with the public at this time because the studies would then become the information of the United States, with whose representatives we are going to sit down and negotiate. It does not make sense to arm, so to speak, the people with whom you are about to
12608

April 24, 1986
Oral Questions
enter negotiations. That is very foolish. You do not show your hand to the other party prior to the commencement of negotiations, nor will the other party be showing their studies to us.


FREE TRADE-INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT TO DIVULGE CERTAIN STUDIES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am frankly shocked at the statement made by the Minister as, according to him, 25 million Canadians will be excluded from the process.
Since the Conseil du patronat du Quebec and the Canadian Manufacturers Association have clearly indicated that they want the assessments of the impact of free trade on their industries to be made public, why is the Government refusing to share this information with the public and the industries concerned?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, representatives of all sectors of our economy, including the manufacturing, labour, and farming sectors, will be involved in the elaborate advisory system which we have set up. They will be helping us with those studies. They will be interpreting them for us. There will be full participation.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Not by ordinary Canadians.


James Francis Kelleher: That is what Canadians want, and that is what we have set up the system to achieve.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and is with regard to the CN workshops in Moncton. The Minister has a reputation in the House of being an honourable man. What sort of pressures would have to be exerted upon him in order for him to live up to the commitment he made to the Member of Parliament for Moncton when he said he "could not support any massive reduction in the CN workforce in Moncton"? Will the Minister now honour his commitment of June 7, 1985?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Moncton has been very effective in drawing to my attention, and to the attention of our caucus, concerns with respect to the CN workers in Moncton. He has done that in a very fair manner. He has not engaged in the
kind of flimflam and rhetoric which stirs up anxiety and fears among the people of Moncton.
As I have indicated in the House before, there is an excess capacity problem with the three main shops in CN's network. That is being examined. CN is looking at it very carefully. When adjustments have to be made I am sure they will be made in a fair and reasonable manner.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, if there has been any anxiety experienced by the people of Moncton, it has been caused by the Minister's indecision and waffling with regard to the CN workshops in Moncton.


REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO MINISTER
David Charles Dingwall: Would the Minister of Transport tell the House whether or not he has received representations from the Government of New Brunswick? If so, when did he receive those representations and what is the nature of them? Would he at least give those answers to the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if we were to take the Hon. Member at his word, the CN shops in Moncton would have been closed a year ago. The fact of the matter is that they are not closed. We are trying to work out the capacity problems and are considering a number of alternatives and solutions. The Hon. Member should cooperate and be a little constructive rather than being destructive-


David Charles Dingwall: Just answer the question. Stop waffling.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and using this as a means to further his own political interests.


Raymond Garneau: You should answer the question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Tremendous hardship is being experienced by many former Armed Forces personnel as a result of the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act vis-a-vis the inclusion of pension income as earned income. Does the Prime Minister not agree that waiting for the Forget Commission to report on this issue is a flagrant abdication of his responsibility for the men and women who have served the country so well?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, as well as other Ministers, stated, we are very conscious of these concerns. This issue and a number of others, have
April 24, 1986

been referred to the Forget Commission. Other matters have been brought up before the Forget Commission during the course of the review which it is presently completing. We expect to have the report sometime later this year and are prepared to consider the recommendations in that report and act accordingly.


Ian Deans: There is no need to wait for it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can he and his Government be so cruel, uncaring, and unfeeling as to deny these people the unemployment insurance benefits to which they are justly entitled?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more I can add to my previous response. As the Hon. Member well knows, this decision was taken about a year and a half ago. A good deal subsequent to that decision being announced and referred to on many occasions, the Forget Commission was appointed.


John R. Rodriguez: Is it the Government now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The matter has been the subject of some discussion with the Forget Commission We expect that the Forget Commission will report on this in due course.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Employment and Immigration always tells us that the Forget Commission was appointed to correct the UIC inequities which were in fact created by her and the Minister of Finance.
Why did the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration make the decision to deny unemployment insurance benefits, in whole or in part, to retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP, and others? Let us get to the crux of the matter. Why did the Minister make the decision in the first place?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the crux of the matter. The Government appointed this commission to study a number of inequities and problems which have developed with the unemployment insurance system over the past 15 years. That is the reason the unemployment insurance review is being undertaken right now. We believe it is important not to prejudge the results of its report because I am sure there will be a great deal of interaction among the recommendations of the commission. I think that if the Hon. Member sat down and thought about it he would agree with me.
Oral Questions


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I have been thinking of it since November 8, 1984, and I do not agree with it.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister not admit that he brought this measure forward without any debate in Parliament or consultation because he was concerned about his own image, and because he and the Government could not care less about people retired from the Canadian Armed Forces who earn low incomes? These are the very people they said they would support during their campaign.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute garbage. The things which the Government has done to help people with low incomes proves that it is garbage. We have increased the child tax credit. We have accelerated the payment of the child tax credit.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You increased their taxes by 23 per cent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would listen, he might learn something. In the last Budget we introduced a refundable low income tax credit. That tax credit will help people in-


Jean-Claude Malépart: It's a bluff.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie says that's enough. He can't stand the truth.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, he said: "It's a bluff'.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He is unable to stand the truth because he knows the truth hurts. He knows that this Government has one of the best records on social justice that any Government has had.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT ON EX-SERVICEMAN
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is with regard to the cutting of unemployment insurance benefits of retired members of the Armed Forces. The Prime Minister has a letter from Mr. Cornelius Funk who has lost his home and his automobile and is in danger of being driven into bankruptcy because of loss of unemployment insurance benefits.
Would the Prime Minister indicate what action the Government will take to protect those retired members of the Armed Forces who are being bankrupted by this provision? Will he forget the business of the Forget Commission? What action is the Government going to take to protect these retired members of the Armed Forces?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a couple of the things the Hon. Member

April 24, 1986
Oral Questions
stated. The provisions which were introduced do not take away unemployment insurance. They simply provide that pension income is to be treated as income for unemployment insurance purposes.


Ian Deans: Would you care to explain the difference?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If there are people who are receiving low pensions, they will receive unemployment insurance. It is there according to the rules.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. He has had an opportunity to read the letter. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether the Government has any plans to protect those retired members of the Armed Forces who are losing their homes and possessions because of the Government's action in cutting unemployment insurance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is neglecting to mention the fact that through the economic statement of November 8, 1984, under the leadership of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Government increased the pensions which veterans receive.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the problems facing the Canadian shipbuilding industry. I would therefore like to ask the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services whether he will have any developments or good news to announce, especially as concerns Versatile Vickers in my constituency. Representatives of the industry are here today and they would certainly like to hear some good news if the Minister has any to give them.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, we think there will be a number of developments over the next number of months which will be received with enthusiasm in the Montreal shipyard area. However, I can announce that Montreal Vickers has been the successful low bidder amongst eight tenders for the repair of two destroyers, the Skeena and the St. Croix. I think that is immediate good news.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He should have some respect for the 34,000 people who are waiting for his answer.
The 34,000 Canadians whose unemployment insurance benefits have been cut off would like to know why the Prime Minister, when he closed down Iron Ore, bragged about having a good pension plan for the workers of this company. They were entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits while he is now refusing to pay the same benefits to the employees of Philips, Wabasso and Dominion Textile throughout Canada even though they contributed to the plan.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was then in the private sector, as were the financial critic of the Liberal Party and others. The leader of the Liberal Party himself was in the private sector. What we did at the time should be examined closely by the public, including the Hon. Member.
However, I can say that the package which we put together for the employees of the IOC mining company in Schefferville was described by the metal workers as the most generous retirement program in Canada.


APPLICATION OF REGULATION GOVERNING BENEFITS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister takes pride in having put together a retirement plan thanks to the Liberal Government. He put this plan together to save his political skin. Today, the Prime Minister does not want to give us answers. Why deny the employees of Philips who were laid off in Trois-Rivieres the right to the same unemployment insurance benefits as the Liberals gave to the employees of Iron Ore? Why do you treat these Canadians unfairly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no injustice, quite the opposite. The reasons which were-


Jean-Claude Malépart: You do not know the facts. Do not get all excited, you simply are not aware of what is going on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If we do not know the facts, we shall sit down. However, I must say that the Schefferville voters in the Manicouagan constituency certainly examined whether the situation was fair or not, and they gave me a majority of 18,000 votes in the last election.
April 24, 1986


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the hardship which will be felt by present and future retirees from the Canadian Armed Forces if the Government proceeds to deindex their pensions, would the Government assure the House that it will not proceed with that Draconian measure?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions, we are proceeding with the review of the federal pension arrangements under the PSSA, as well as those for the Armed Forces and the RCMP. I have said time and time again that review is being done with full respect to the commitment we made as a Government and Party to be just and equitable to everyone concerned. We certainly will be just and equitable to everyone concerned.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree that the Government will not live up to the commitment it made as a Party through the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands in January, 1982, when she assured Armed Forces personnel that the Conservative Party would oppose any such measure, when the Liberals tried to do the same thing?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would only like to remind the Hon. Member that we, as a Party, have said that there were some fundamental reforms which had to be introduced to the public sector pension plans. Those reforms are meant to put the pension funds on a sound financial basis with due respect to equity and justice for all concerned. That is exactly the intent of the document now before Cabinet for discussion.


ABORTION
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.

The people of Ottawa recently witnessed the tragedy of a young woman dying as a result of an abortion procedure after the therapeutic committee had not met with the patient to discuss her circumstances and alternatives prior to the abortion. Can the Minister indicate if there is any way our
Oral Questions
Government can ensure that these committees fully exercise the serious responsibility given to them under our Criminal Code?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of the administration of health and hospital services which is, of course, one of provincial responsibility. The supervision of therapeutic abortion committees in hospitals rests with provincial Governments. I am sure they will have taken note of the coroner's inquest into that matter here in Ottawa and will act accordingly to see that there is proper supervision of these committees, and that they operate in accordance with the law.


PENSIONS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have a letter here from that Minister when she was a member of the Opposition, in which she stated she and her Party would fight any attempt by the Government to remove indexation of servicemen's pensions. Can the Prime Minister contradict the statement of the President of the Treasury Board today and reaffirm the faith of the people that Flora MacDonald is in fact a-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That the Minister of Employment is a Minister who keeps her word?


Raymond John Skelly: What about six and five?


Ian Deans: That was when the Liberals were introducing it.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration keeps her word, and this Government keeps its word.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Oueliet:: You cut the pensions.


Robert René de Cotret: We have promised equity and justice in the review of public pension arrangements. At the same time we promised to put the fund on a sound financial basis, which has never been the case before. We are moving along with these commitments. We have promised to protect the rights acquired by people already in the service, and we will deliver on every one of those commitments.


REPRESENTATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister if he deigns to

April 24, 1986
Oral Questions
answer. He answers the President of the United States. I would hope he would answer-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: That is one way to guarantee you will get an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Can we have a question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister refuses to listen to his own Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.


John Carnell Crosbie: Question!


Sheila Maureen Copps: He refuses to listen to the Hon. Member for Champlain.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Will the Prime Minister listen to the servicemen who were forced for the first time in history to march on the Hill today, or will he at least listen to the Progressive Conservative Women's Association of New Brunswick who came all the way to Ottawa to fight against his Government's unjust changes to unemployment insurance-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Will he at least listen to them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It may be supplementary to an earlier question but it was not supplementary to the Hon. Member's first question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You shouldn't laugh at it, Brian; it's going to haunt you for a long time to come.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Remember Madame Denis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Remember Madame Denis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both sides. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister laughs.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East and other Hon. Members will come to order, please, and will stay in order. The Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I will give it a try. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy. We all know now why the gas consumers are not getting the full benefit of the drop in crude oil prices. Jack McLeod, the President of Shell Canada, just announced that his company is holding up to 4 cents a litre of the consumers' money in order to boost the shareholders' profits. Will the Prime Minister now pick up the telephone and telephone Bill Hopper at Petro-Canada and ask him to take the lead and lower the price of gasoline by at least 4 cents a litre so the consumers will enjoy the full savings they deserve?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points that have to be made here. The federal Government does not set gasoline prices, never has and does not now. Second, the Minister of Energy has wired the companies and asked them to pass the savings on to the consumers. It is obvious that it has been done because gasoline prices in Toronto alone have dropped from 50 cents a litre to 36 cents a litre, a saving of some 13, 14 cents a litre, or 59 cents a gallon. The consumers are benefiting from the lower crude prices.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ASK PRESIDENT OF SHELL CANADA TO REDUCE PRICE OF GASOLINE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister, and as a friend of big business maybe he can answer the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Order. Let me make it clear now that questions, as all honourable Members know, are to the Government. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has a supplementary?
[ Translation]


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister of Canada prepared to call his friend, Shell Canada President Jack MacLeod, and suggest to him that he should immediately lower the price of his gasoline by at least 4 cents a litre? Would he do that now?

April 24, 1986


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that on the one hand the NDP ask for a floor price so that the oil companies can survive, and on the other hand they are asking to lower prices more and more and more. Moneys that come to the companies go into exploration, and if we can keep exploration going in this country from these moneys that they are keeping, then it is all the better for jobs in Canada out west where we need them in the energy industries.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of equal pay for equal work has been violated by this Government in negotiations with the PSAC in that unequal pay for exactly the same work has been forced on the general trades and labour, and Newfoundland and most of the Maritimes are at the bottom of the heap. My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Does not the President of the Treasury Board feel that the Government is guilty of promoting discrimination and "how can this be justified?"


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the preamble to my honourable colleague's question. Nothing has been forced on anyone. This is a matter, as I am sure my honourable colleague knows, that is subject to negotiation. I will say that about one-fifth of federal Public Servants are paid on some form of regional pay basis where we attempt to compare the pay rates in the federal Public Service with the pay rates available for similar trades in the different regions. That has been a practice that has been longstanding, as he should know from his side of the House, and it is a practice that is equitable and fair and respects the regional pay practices of the different regions of the country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the charge discrimination and the question "how can this be justified?" is from the Minister of Justice in a letter to the President of the Treasury Board two weeks ago on this same issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


George Baker: I agree with the Minister of Justice. How can the Government justify what the Minister of Justice says is unjust?
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in open negotiations with the PSAC I am very happy to say that we were able to reach an agreement to reduce the regional zones from 22 to 16, and that was accepted by the negotiators at the table, and furthermore ratified by the general membership. Subsequent to the ratification the question was raised by labour as to whether or not we would entertain further reductions during the term of the present contract. I have maintained my open door policy and I am willing to discuss it with them. They have been invited to meet with me. 1 can only tell you that in terms of our record in labour management relations we have no lessons to learn from the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Government make public the report of special counsel George Cooper's investigation into whether Canada was involved, or for that matter was aware of CIA funded brainwashing experiments conducted on nine Canadian citizens?


John Carnell Crosbie: The report which I commissioned on this issue, which had been ignored by the previous Government, was received about three weeks ago. I am studying the matter with some of my colleagues. We have to consider not only what is in the best interests of the people of Canada and what the Government should do, but what is in the best interests of the plaintiffs in this matter in the States as well. When we are finished with our consideration we will be in touch with the representatives of the plaintiffs to discuss the situation with them and we will announce our decision. This is an open Government unafraid to look at the record and to bring it forth to the people of Canada to see.


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE FURNISHED TO VICTIMS OF EXPERIMENTS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether, in the circumstances, after he has completed his investigation he would make available to the lawyer representing those nine people a copy of that report in order that he can determine what would be in the best interests of those nine clients of his in this very important matter that should be resolved now?


John Carnell Crosbie: I certainly accept this as a representation, and I can also assure the Hon. Member that if it is our

April 24, 1986
Oral Questions
decision the report should be made public we will certainly see that the person representing the plaintiffs will receive the report before the report is made public.


EXTERNAL RELATIONS
Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of External Relations. In light of current construction doubling the size of the Polish consulate located in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, even though no apparent reason exists to justify this increased activity, could the Minister inform the House whether the Government of Canada has authorized any increase in the number of Polish government representatives accredited to work at this consulate?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, departmental staff requirement assessments are based on two criteria, namely reciprocity and assessment of needs.
As to the consulate mentioned, I can tell the Hon. Member that we have recently recommended that one Toronto consulate position be transferred to the Montreal consulate.


INQUIRY WHETHER SEPARATE NEGOTIATIONS WILL BE HELD WITH AMERICANS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, earlier, failed to answer the question put to him by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I therefore repeat the question: Will there be separate talks with the Americans on softwood or was Senator Packwood misled by the President of the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the President told Senator Packwood. All I can say to my hon. friend, who was far more specific in the way he phrased his question than his friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry, is that we have an agreement with the U.S. Government to start the negotiating process, without any preconditions. That is the spirit in which we intend to approach the entire process.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON NEGOCIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister being facetious? If he agreed with the President of
the United States there would be no preconditions, does that mean that they agreed on a full set of "post" conditions, so that there are conditions just the same? The Prime Minister may have been alluding to this in a press conference, when he referred to trade-offs. He may have said there were no preconditions, but there may be a whole series of conditions agreed on beforehand that will be discussed once the talks have started, and what are those conditions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can inform my hon. friend that there is nothing of the sort. When I said that we had no preconditions, there were no other kinds of conditions involved either.
Yesterday, I mentioned in a discussion that I know from personal experience, and in fact anyone who has any experience in this area knows perfectly well that in negotiations as complex as these, which involve trade worth $150 billion a year between our two countries, there will be an exchange of views and there will compromises. That is the very nature of fruitful negotiations. So from the outset one says: I am not going to touch that or I won't do this, we will see. But we know that there will be an exchange of opinions and views throughout the talks on this subject, and we hope that the ultimate outcome will be very favourable for Canada and the United States.
If that is not the case, Canadians will decide not to accept it, and the Americans will do the same. However, we are convinced that as a result of serious and mature talks, our prosperity will be enhanced and that here in Canada we will create a new dimension of wealth and new jobs for Canadians as a result of these bilateral talks.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, if you are
going to make a statement on the matter which I raised with you yesterday, would you reserve any statement in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is absent from the House? It is my understanding that you undertook to look at the "blues".


Mr. Speaker:: As the Hon. Member knows, the normal practice is that when the Speaker is asked to consider a matter in the "blues", if he thinks there is anything to bring back, he will do so.


ACCEPTABILITY OF SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would request that Your Honour look at the "blues" because we on this side of the House are surprised

April 24, 1986

by Your Honour saying that a second question by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), would not be a supplementary to the first question she asked. Perhaps something was not clear as a result of the noise in the House, but would Your Honour undertake to look at the "blues"? It appears to us, at least, that the question was on the exact same subject and would directly follow the first question.


Mr. Speaker:: I will look at it. If I remember correctly, the first question I heard concerned the deindexation of pensions and the second question was about the unemployment benefits issue. That is what I heard, but I will be glad to check the "blues".


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy House Leader in a position to give us the menu for the coming week? If not, will he tell us when a House Leaders meeting to discuss that is likely to be held?


An Hon. Member:: Where's Lewis?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Deputy House Leader-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is my intention to convene with the Hon. Member who is acting in the place of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) as Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition, with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the assorted members of their staffs, to have a cup of tea and discuss the business of the House for the next week.
I hope we can have the unanimous consent of the House to come back later this day on a point of order to announce the fruits of our discussions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services) that Bill C-87, An Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for lunch, I was attempting to explain some of our concerns about the procedures in this Bill.
I believe we can show that this divestiture is not necessarily in the best interests of the economy of Canada. It is very definitely not in the best interests of the employees of Canadian Arsenals who were concerned about their pensions and job security. Furthermore, since this divestiture would involve a transfer from one labour code to another, they were concerned about not being covered by a bargaining agent during that transfer and that there would be no protection for their collective agreements.
I am disturbed at the Government's lack of effort to attempt to come to a satisfactory agreement with SNC, or at least advise that company what was involved in its purchase of Canadian Arsenals. It is obvious that the Government intended to use its majority to push the Bill through the House without any consideration for its side effects on the employees.
Canadian Arsenals Limited had good labour relations, and I understand that these good relations still exist with the new company. However, the Government was prepared to make the transfer without ensuring that those good labour relations would continue. If the Member from the Liberal Party and I had not held up the Bill and insisted on negotiations with SNC, it is not unreasonable to believe that the employees of Canadian Arsenals would have been prepared to strike as a result of being dealt with unfairly during this takeover period. That is not the kind of company that SNC thought it was purchasing.
Perhaps Members will recall when the employees of Canadian Arsenals demonstrated on the Hill. The fact that they found it necessary to do this is unbelievable in itself. Those demonstrators wore buttons saying that they were an explosive union. The point they were making is that labour unrest is very dangerous in their kind of work and therefore the Government should have ensured that everything was in place before the transfer was made.
This Bill has now reached third reading stage, which means this is the final opportunity to discuss the Bill. Can we expect the Government to take a much more careful approach to privatization in the future? In this particular case every step of the process was sloppy. There was sloppy planning and an arrogant disregard for the people involved. The employees were left out of the negotiations. The whole process was kept secret to the point where everyone involved with it was uncomfortable. I believe that even Members of the Government felt they did not have enough information.
I want to spend a few minutes on the procedure because I think procedure is critical to the concerns of Government with respect to the divestiture of future corporations. Possibly there will be a less disturbing procedure in the future because the

April 24, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Government has learned something from its unbelievably inept handling of this divestiture.
I would like to put before the House the following procedures which I believe should have been followed. First, when the decision has been made to sell the Government should follow the requirements of Section 99 of the Financial Administration Act and have the Minister table in this House his directive to the corporation. In this particular case the Government did not follow the law of the land and table before this House a directive saying this Company was going to be sold. 1 know the Minister suggested he did not have to do that, but the law says he does. The Minister failed to fulfil those requirements. Had he done so, we would have had a situation where everyone in the House knew the procedures which were to be followed. I think it is typical of the arrogance of the Government that it was unwilling to fulfil the requirements of the laws of the country.
Second, there should be full and complete disclosure of the tendering process and criteria, possibly in tabling the Financial Administration Act directive. The public, the employees and any possible interested purchasers have the right to receive that kind of information.
At the same time the Government should have put before Parliament a Bill-not after they sold the company but before-that would allow it to sell the company which could be discussed within the structure of Parliament. I believe it is very arrogant of the Government to require Parliament to pass a Bill forming the company and then bring a Bill before Parliament suggesting we rubber stamp it because it has already sold the company. A Bill to sell the company should have been passed before the tenders were called. In that Bill should have been placed the kind of information which would have allowed the bidding company to know it would be taking over a certain kind of agreement with respect to the employees, and that it had some responsibility to have a continuum of employee benefits. That was not in the Bill at all, and it was not done in this divestiture until it was forced upon the Government and the purchaser. The purchaser had already made the deal before it knew it had problems with the employee agreement. This, in my opinion, was very inept on the part of the Government.
The Bill should include a price which the Government thinks the corporation is worth, so that when tenders are submitted Parliament can make some decision and approach the situation with some secure knowledge that the corporation was not passed on as part of a patronage deal by the Government. Before the Government asked for tenders it should have established a price range within which it would be acceptable to sell the corporation. The Government should put itself beyond suspicion. It should say: "This is what the corporation is worth. Let Parliament look at that". It should then call for tenders. If it does not get that amount it could sell the corporation later or suggest to Parliament the reasons why it cannot get that price.
The Bill, and possibly the tender papers, should set down the rules as far as the employees are concerned. The tendering criteria must be included in the conditions of sale so that we do not have the same kind of situation we had in this divestiture where, for a period of several months after the actual sale had been completed, negotiations went on between SNC, the Government of Canada and the employees. That is an incredible way of doing business. If the conditions of sale show the contractual and acquired rights of the employees and include the vesting of their pensions and their rights within the Superannuation Act, it could then be maintained in the sale and the purchaser would know what it was getting into.
Finally, available to Parliament before the sale is confirmed should be all of the information with respect to price and the conditions of sale. If possible, they should be made public at that time so that no one could accuse the Government or the Parliament of Canada of allowing a divestiture to go through with the suspicion of patronage. I believe the agreement between the corporation and the Government of Canada should be in the public domain so that everyone could know that the deal was good, and acceptable.
In summary, I have laid down what I think would be an acceptable procedure. First, the required directive should be tabled in the House. The Bill should be brought before the House and passed. By passing the Bill Parliament gives the Government the athority to sell. It could not set the company up without the authority to do so, why should it be able to sell without that authority? The tendering papers should be made public. The Government should then go into negotiations for sale with the conditions passed by Parliament. When the purchaser has been identified and the price agreed upon, the Government should again refer it to committee as it did, at least partially, with de Havilland.
Finally, the agreement should be considered in the public domain which would, of course, be the case if the above course were followed. Before we go ahead with any further divestitures or privatizations we need to establish a procedure which is acceptable to the employees, to Members of the House of Commons and to the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no questions or comments, is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Mclnnes:
That Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be read the third time and passed.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
April 24, 1986

Business of the House


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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Employment-Reduction in trades training in Nova Scotia, b) Request for additional funding; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Regional Industrial Expansion-Matane paper-mill-Government position, b) Agreement permitting establishment of Matane paper-mill- Government position; and the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr.	Horner)-Communications-Bell	Canada
telephone bills-Refusal of cash payment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether he is now in a position to tell us what the House will be looking at in the coming week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we will now proceed with consideration of Bill C-45. We will continue with that tomorrow if we do not finish it this afternoon. Following that we will take Bill C-96 at second reading. That will be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-75. We will see what progress we make on that and perhaps I can stand up on Monday and tell the House what other business we have to complete in the following part of the week.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is rising on the business of the House question?

April 24, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could you let the record show that the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) objected to the showing of the Armenian genocide stickers in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


John Horton McDermid: Stuck on the front of the bench here!


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) please do the Chair a favour now and remove-


Marcel Prud'homme: As a favour.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will send it to the Member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I just wondered when we can expect to have an Opposition Day so we can get to the several important questions we would like to raise in the House. Can the Minister inform us when we can expect it? We have 13 to go with a couple of months left, and I would like to know ahead of time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Please!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This has been a preoccupation of mine since we came back after Easter.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You have been lying awake at night, I know.
Mr Hnatyshyn: I have been trying as hard as possible to get a lot of important legislation through. If we get through some of it quickly, then I will give the Opposition all the time it wants on Opposition Days.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I know that; the last two weeks!


PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 17, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment (Ms. Copps) (p. 833).
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-45 to establish a system of labour relations between employer and employees of the Senate and the House of Commons.
This Bill is obviously very important because, for the first time, legislation will recognize a basic right of the workers on Parliament Hill, namely the right to associate and to be represented by the president and officers of their union to defend their interests.
My colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) presented an amendment asking that this Bill not be read now, but in one month from this day. Why do we want this Bill to be read only in one month from now? It is because we want to give an opportunity to the representatives of the employees on Parliament Hill and the employer to agree on provisions which would be acceptable to both parties.
The Bill introduced by the Government does not satisfy the employees of the House of Commons. We have all received a document which clearly states ... If I can put a hand on it, I have a copy of it which I would like to read very quickly. This document, which was sent to all Members of Parliament and Senators and was signed by Mr. Jacques Audette, says the following:
You will soon be asked to vote on Bill C-45 respecting Parliamentary employment and staff relations. As those most closely affected, the employees of Parliament Hill ask you to consider the serious concerns raised by this Bill.
This letter refers to a number of points of which our employees do not really approve, namely:
The questions which were and still are of greatest concern to us are classification, job descriptions, competitions, promotions, transfers and the fear of being laid off or fired. The answer to these questions has always been left to the sole discretion of management and this has resulted in serious cases of abuse. Many of us are incorrectly classified and often have no job description. Many of us have applied in vain for promotions or transfers, because the rules governing the competitions were arbitrarily changed in the middle of the game.
I am still quoting Mr. Audette, Chairman of that local of the Association of Parliamentary employees.
Reading that document, Mr. Speaker, one realizes that Bill C-45 is not unanimously supported. More than that, it has given rise to a number of major objections on the part of employees.
What seems quite important, and I will quote yet another paragraph from that letter:
Under the Canadian Labour Code, it is possible to resolve problems through collective bargaining. However, Bill C-45 would not allow us to deal efficiently with any of the above matters. By not allowing us to negotiate classification or to refer staffing problems to arbitration, you will be maintaining the status quo.
Mr. Audette concludes, and I quote:
And the status quo means lower employee morale and sources of problems for all of us.
You know there have been representations made to the courts and that no later than today, the Federal Appeal Court issued its findings in the case of the House of Commons vs the Canadian Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
April 24, 1986

The judgment was delivered today by Mr. Justice Pratte and I believe it is a major new development that we must now take into account. What is essential in my view is that the motion to delay for one month the reading of this legislation, which was put forward by my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), becomes that much more relevant.
It is absolutely vital in my view that, if we are to legislate a new status for employees of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library, we should have a minimum of employee support and satisfaction.
I think one of the basic questions which the Government was concerned about and which prevented it from drafting legislation that would subject those parliamentary employees to the Canada Labour Code, is that under the Canada Labour Code they would have the right to strike. And I do not think I am being unfair to the Conservative Government when I say that the idea, the possibility that parliamentary employees might some day go on strike has sent such a shiver down our Government friends' backs that they have decided to have parliamentary employees subjected to the Public Service Staff Relations Act rather than to the Canada Labour Code.
Do we have a quorum, Mr. Speaker? I am looking all over the place because I wonder whether we do have a quorum.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall count the members.
And the count having been taken:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Indeed, there is no quorum. Ring the bells.
And the bells having rung:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is now a quorum. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has the floor.


André Ouellet: It gives me pleasure to welcome my colleagues from the Government. In my opinion-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We are here! We want you to listen to him and to listen properly!


André Ouellet: In my opinion, this Bill, which will change the system that governs Parliamentary employees, deserves the special attention and interest of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and I am happy to see him back in the House.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the wish not to provide the right to strike probably brought the Government to introduce a Bill which does not meet in its present form the hopes and expectations of Parliamentary employees.

I want to read here a note that has been given to me that I believe is one that could be a happy compromise. Bill C-45 does not allow Hill employees the right to strike, a right they
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
would enjoy under the Canada Labour Code, but it is believed that representatives of the employees on the Hill have said that they are willing to forfeit their right to strike if Bill C-45 included strong binding arbitration procedures, which at present it does not.

It is quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the concerns expressed by Mr. Audette, especially about classification, promotion and lay-offs, are points which we cannot take lightly and which deserve our attention. I therefore felt that I had to rise at this time to tell the Government Members that they should, in this first piece of legislation governing Parliamentary employees, show much more trust in these hundred of employees who have been working on the Hill for years faithfully and conscienciously and who have never caused any trouble. No one can say that these employees are trouble makers or that they have provoked many labour conflicts. I think that their past performance is a guarantee for the future and I would like the Government to show them a bit more compassion and understanding. The possibilities for an agreement between the employer and employees of Parliament are obvious. When I was myself Minister of Labour, I invited Parliament to legislate as soon as possible to give to the employees of the House of Commons the union and the legal status that they wished to have, and to do so before the case was referred to the Canada Labour Relations Board. I have to say that both this Government and the previous one took too long to realize that the employees of Parliament had every reason to want to organize and defend themselves better. The previous Government should have introduced a Bill well before this issue was submitted to the Canada Labour Relations Board, and the present Government should have negotiated with the representatives of Parliament employees and introduced a Bill more acceptable than Bill C-45 well before this case had to be heard by the Federal Court and the Appeal Division of the Federal Court.
I especially deplore some aspects of the Bill before us, and I must say that if we could obtain from the Government the assurance that it will introduce the appropriate amendments to give Parliament employees the guaranties they are seeking-I suggest, quite rightfully so-as to classification, job descriptions, promotions, transfers and dismissals, I am sure that on this side of the House, both my colleagues of the Liberal party and the members of the New Democratic Party would be more inclined to proceed quickly with this Bill. But neither the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) nor the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) have given us clear and definite indications that this Bill could be amended along the lines of the Parliament employees representatives' legitimate claims. As members of the Liberal party, we find that this Bill is not going in the direction we would have given it had we still been in the Government. I can tell you certainly that as a former Minister of Labour, if I were still Minister of Labour, I would make pressing representations to the

April 24, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
President of the Privy Council and the President of the Treasury Board to amend this Bill as soon as possible in a manner consistent with the views and requests of Parliament employees.
I find somewhat surprising, and even a little absurd, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who certainly has a general responsibility toward all Canadian workers, and especially those he meets daily on Parliament Hill has not come out more strongly on the side of Parliament employees. I ask the Minister of Labour to wake up, read this Bill, read the representations made by representatives of the Public Service Alliance, and especially those of Parliament employees, and then exert pressures on his colleagues to have Bill C-45 properly amended.
But the best thing that we could do at this time, Mr. Speaker, would be to accept the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), that this Bill be not now read a second time but that it be read one month hence, in order to reach an agreement negotiated in good faith between the employer and employees on Parliament Hill. I am sure that if we took advantage of that month to sit down, discuss frankly and reach the necessary compromise, we would not have to debate this Bill in the House. Following an agreement between the employer and employees on the Hill, the Government could introduce a Bill that would receive unanimous approval. We in the Liberal Party would be the first to support the Government if it could reach such an agreement after consultation and frank negotiations with employee representatives.
I am therefore asking the House to postpone this debate for one month to give the President of the Privy Council and the President of the Treasury Board a chance to notify the employer forthwith, ask him to sit down with the representatives of our employees and determine once and for all the details of the legal framework that will govern them in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for Papineau, as a former Labour Minister, has some experience in this area, I would like him to explain to the House what the result would be. Since the CLRB granted the employees the right to organize under the Labour Code, and that decision was reversed today by the court, whose decision may be appealed, could a Minister really proceed with a Bill like Bill C-45, considering the quantity of information released today?


André Ouellet: Of course, I don't know what the decision of the Public Service Alliance will be following that decision. Surely that ruling on the appeal by the Federal Court may lead to an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, what I have tried to say in my argument today is that we should not be using courts to settle the matter, this being the first major
concession the employer is willing to grant to the staff on Parliament Hill.
For the first time, the employer, through the Government, has tabled a Bill that recognizes not only the right of association but also the right to bargain for new collective agreement, a collective agreement that will provide for essential safeguards and protection.
Now, what I am saying is this: If that is what it is all about, let us do it in good faith on both parts, let us sit down at a table and negotiate an appropriate framework. However, the decision of the Appeal Division of the Federal Court only highlights part of the problem. And in my opinion the legal process at this time is in a way an adversary, not a consultation process. If the parties feel that they have to appeal to courts to have their rights recognized, there has to be a lack of communication and understanding somewhere between the parties.
I believe that instead of carrying on with this process of court settlements, it would be a lot better on the part of the employer to say: "Well, we won our case with the Appeal Division of the Federal Court, but that does not mean that our position is stricly adamant". In my view, the very fact that the employer has won should encourage him to be more magnanimous, more flexible, more generous with Parliament Hill workers, to sit down with them and agree to the appropriate trade-offs in Bill C-45, so that everyone can be happy. Then the employer and all the workers of Parliament Hill as well as Government and Opposition Members could unanimously pass an amended bill that would satisfy parties involved.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, sometimes one wonders if this is an Alice in Wonderland situation when one hears my friends to my right. I was here from 1972 to 1980. I know that our Party kept making representations to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and his Government, asking and demanding that workers on the Hill ought to have the right to collective bargaining.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Where were you yesterday when we needed you?


John R. Rodriguez: I have to do the job for the Tories. They were good as the Opposition but now that they are the Government, they do not know what to do. They are forgetting their opposition roots. The Government must never forget its roots. It began in opposition. The Conservatives were born in opposition and born to be in opposition. I think they have forgotten that.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member tell the House whether the New Democratic Party has ever been in Government federally?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must consider that not to be a point of order.
April 24, 1986


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House live in hope. If we continue to keep doing the right things it will only be a matter of time, brother. Just stay put.
I want to get to the question I have for the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). When his Party was in Government there were constant rumblings and rumours. The Hon. Lloyd Francis revealed some of those not so long ago. Apparently there were very bad practices going on. The odd Liberal is known to have got into the House in some position before he rose to be a Member of Parliament. It is known that those practices which were very detrimental to the collective rights of workers on this Hill always existed.
We in the New Democratic Party consistently asked the Government to give collective bargaining rights to employees on Parliament Hill. The Liberal Government of the day, in which the Hon. Member for Papineau was a cabinet Minister, consistently refused to do that. At least the Conservative Government put Bill C-45 on the floor of Parliament. I do not agree with everything in the Bill. I hardly think I would agree 100 per cent with anything the Conservatives could do in labour legislation. In fact, I do not think I could agree with 90 per cent or even 75 per cent. But at least the Conservatives put the matter on the table for discussion and debate.
Members of the Liberal Party are now doing a lot of pious breast-beating. They talk about how the Bill does not do some things and should do others. They talk about the great rights of workers. But when the Liberal Party was in government, it was the lousiest in terms of how it treated the workers on the Hill. It was awful. Was it the Hon. Member being struck by lightning on the way across the Chamber from the government benches to the Opposition benches which brought about this conversion?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member in his preliminary remarks mentioned that he was in the House of Commons for a little while until 1980. He has just returned. During the long period between 1980 and 1984 he was indeed absent and perhaps forgot to check the record and does not realize what was done by the previous Government in favour of employees, particularly by the then Minister of Labour who amended the Canada Labour Code on safety and security. This was asked for by the workers and given to them by legislation.
I just want to remind my colleagues that there was legislation presented in this House in favour of employees, including Hill employees. Legislation covering health and safety rights for federal employees, including Hill employees, was presented. The legislation, I believe, was Bill C-24. It allowed the Hill employees to be covered at least in relation to health and safety.


John R. Rodriguez: Collective bargaining?
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


André Ouellet: I made my view known publicly in the House of Commons while I was still a Member of the Government. I asked for legislation to deal with the Hill employees. Therefore, I do not have to defend my record. My record speaks for itself.
I want to say to my friends in the New Democratic Party that they are not the sole possessors of the right to defend workers. They sometimes tend to forget that. Although they might have some good friends in the hierarchy of the labour movement, there are other Members of Parliament from all Parties who have been fighting for workers. They have been representing workers and have been sympathetic to unions' demands in the past and currently. I can assure the Hon. Member that I will personally continue to fight for workers and for unions' demands in my career in politics.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate on Bill C-45 which relates to the question of collective bargaining for the staff of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament.
I note the question before us this afternoon is an amending motion for second reading a month hence-a one month hoist rather than a six-month hoist-but whatever the period of time involved, I want to speak in support of that amending motion because this not a Bill which deserves to become part of the statute law of Canada.
If we are to become concerned about the rights of parliamentary Hill staff and if we want to ensure that they have good working conditions and their lives on the Hill are the kinds of lives our employees should lead, then it seems to me the question becomes quite a fundamental one. This is a question of how we as parliamentarians treat our own, those who work for us here and those who are to be seen around us as we carry on the business of Government and the business of debating the national questions with which we are faced. I think also of those who serve us in our offices and those who provide assistance to us from the Library of Parliament. The question of how we are going to treat these persons who work around us and with us is a question which raises the most fundamental concerns about our own integrity and the honesty with which we handle people's lives.
This Parliament, after all, in years past established in the Statutes the Canada Labour Code provisions governing those workers away from the Hill who are under federal regulation. It was significant that the Canada Labour Code made many advances. It attempted to establish a fine standard for employees across the country in federal undertakings. What could one say, however, about the fact that the Canada Labour Code was not the basis for the relations with employers of members of the Public Service? What could one say when the Government of Canada presumed to impose on workers in federally regulated undertakings a high standard and then accepted a much lower standard in the form of the Public Service Staff Relations Act for the Public Service of the

April 24, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
country? Surely there is a kind of hypocrisy involved in such action which could lead the managers of the country, and much more so the workers and their unions, to wonder about the right of a Government through Parliament to impose on these various federal undertakings those standards when the Government of Canada was not ready to maintain the standards for itself.
We find now the question of the representation of workers on the Hill becoming a clear-cut issue when we see the Public Service Alliance pressing the organization of workers and seeking to establish before the Canada Relations Board that the Parliament Hill staff be regarded as a federal undertaking in the sense of bringing to bear the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.
What can we say about the fact that the Government's response to that was a tranposition of the Public Service Staff Relations Act on these employees? In this way their rights to collective bargaining in a number of very important ways is limited. These workers might very well feel that they have their rights provided for when, in fact, in area after vital area they do not have the protection they need. That strikes me as a kind of institutionalizing of hypocrisy of which any Government should be ashamed. I challenge my colleagues across the way to consider this question very seriously. I challenge them to ask themselves whether it is right to demand of employers across the country high standards while in our treatment of those who work for us every day we are prepared to allow all types of abuses to occur.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, during the time allotted for questions and comments reminded the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and all Members of the House, that abuse of workers on Parliament Hill has been controversial in the last year or more. He pointed out that there has been a certain putting on to the public record suspicions, rumours and allegations which only floated about in the past. Some of the worst abuses refer to suggestions of sexual harassment and charges of favouritism and of nepotism which have become bywords around the House of Commons.
My friend from Nickel Belt was quite justified in pointing out that, after having governed for the better part of two decades, the Liberals brought in the Canada Labour Code but settled for the Public Service Staff Relations Act for the Public Service. They did not really provide any reform or protection for workers on the Hill.
It is worth taking a look at what some of the results of this failure to legislate have been. I note, among a number of cases, that our employees have put forward such instances as the following. In a technical service a senior position became vacant. Several employees inquired when a competition would be held to fill the position. There was no competition. Then the husband of a manager in another department of the same service was brought in to fill the post-on a temporary basis, of course. Several months later a competition was announced.
The now-experienced husband was hired permanently and the attempt of employees in the service to appeal this particular piece of institutional nepotism was denied.
The next example I have occurred in a support service where several employees held working supervisor positions on an acting basis. They had been in these acting positions for seven, five, three and two years respectively. They were informed that they would be downgraded four levels. Their salaries dropped from $21,000 per year to $17,000 per year. During the same period of time new working supervisors were hired without any competition having been carried out. When the former acting supervisors attempted to appeal internally, their appeals were denied. This is an abuse of workers, particularly when one contemplates someone left in a working supervisor position on an acting basis for seven years. Surely, that in itself is outrageous.
The next example I have to put forward occurred in the printing branch. Staff on the Hill are well aware that there is a hiring freeze in effect. In fact, some employees in this branch had been transferred out to other government Departments or offered incentives to take early retirement. However, new casual staff were hired in the printing branch and at least in one case there is a close family link to the senior management of the branch. Again, one sees nepotism as a partial justification for the abuse of experienced employees in the branch.
The next case I have deals with employees in a technical service who were required to attend training courses on their days off, on weekends, without any pay. When they protested this abuse of their free time, they were told that the training courses were mandatory and they had no choice but to take them. That type of arbitrary behaviour from those in supervisory positions strikes me as an outrageous example of what can happen when workers do not have the rights which should apply to them as employees.
I would like to point out one last example of the type of abuses which have occurred. There was in place an employee assistance program which was established for employees of the House of Commons as a type of safety-valve. Given the examples I have just presented, I am sure a safety-valve was more than necessary. This was a means of having personal problems dealt with in confidence by a qualified counsellor. Early in 1985 the counsellor in charge of this employee assistance program was fired, the position was abolished and the program responsibility was turned over to the nurses. An appeal to the Speaker asking that the position be re-established was denied. Petitions signed by no fewer than 1,500 employees were ignored by the Speaker's office and by Parliament Hill administration. I note that there was a total of about 3,600 staff members on the Hill, at least in 1984-85, and 1,500 is not very far from one-half of the total number of employees.
Recognizing the types of abuses which have occurred and those which will occur when managers cannot be brought to book and when workers cannot carry through on appeals, I wish to take a look at some provisions of the Bill which is before us. The amendment to the motion suggests that it be
April 24, 1986

dealt with in one month hence, which might even kill the Bill. I note that there are a number of shortcomings which deal with the fact that classification cannot be dealt with under the proposed legislation. I have already noted some of the appointment weaknesses which are found in the Bill. However, Clause 5(3) would prevent any negotiation with respect to problems related to classification. There is no provision for the employees' union to negotiate job descriptions, or for an opportunity to negotiate the assignment of pay levels, or for the possibility of negotiations dealing with the evaluation of duties. This is, of course, a failure of the legislation to deal with one very large complex of grievances, a system which has evolved over the years, as far as job classification is concerned, which has been an enormous source of dissatisfaction for employees. Many employees do not even have job descriptions. Those who do find that they are often out of date and that they can be arbitrarily changed in an environment which we all realize has seen a good deal of change over the last years. The result is obviously a great deal of employee frustration, insecurity and poor morale.
Similarly, when it comes to the question of staffing, we find that Clause 55(2) prohibits the possibility of bringing the issues of job appointments, job appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers, lay-offs or releases to third-party arbitration. There is no possibility of having these equally contentious matters, at least in their potential, dealt with to a resolution which will be genuinely impartial through third-party arbitration. These are the types of issues which have been central to the drive by parliamentary employees to gain bargaining rights.
Parliament Hill has had a history of staffing decisions coloured by political influence, favouritism, nepotism, and administrative incompetence. The Government has no desire to change that fundamentally. I should like to add to these areas of weakness. The lack of a grievance procedure to deal with a great diversity of problems which can arise between our managers and our employees is surely the most fundamental weakness in the Act. If there is one thing collective bargaining should provide, it should provide a basis for resolving conflicts under the rule of law through a grievance procedure and, if necessary, into third party arbitration.
I have emphasized the importance of applying sound principles of collective bargaining to Hill employees. I have been critical of the present Government and of previous Governments for hypocrisy in legislating well for others but failing to apply the same principles to their own actions. In this kind of context it is quite appropriate for others to say something like: "Put up or shut up. You state these principles, but what will you do about them yourselves?" I say with some pride that the New Democratic Party caucus has been true to the principles which helped create the movement of the CCF and the NDP. We have been faithful to our employees.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Our power as Members of Parliament employing them has been constrained by the conditions which the Government imposes upon us through the Board of Internal Economy in particular. However, New Democratic Party members have in fact gone the route of collective bargaining with our employees. I say with pride that we have done so as far back as 1977. Obviously it was done by my predecessors such as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and others who made the decision at that time to negotiate with a parliamentary association of support staff comprised of our assistants on the Hill, assistants who were in fact, in full legal fact, some of the Hill employees about whom I am talking. In effect we created a bargaining unit of support staff, and our caucus members took on the responsibility of being employers and regarded themselves explicitly as employers. That process has continued.
There have been several rounds of negotiations and elaboration of the collective agreement. As is inevitable in these circumstances, we have found that difficulties can arise at times, that difficult questions must be answered, that collective agreements need to be refined, and so on.
Since becoming a Member of Parliament in 1984 I have had some involvement with those matters. However, in all honesty and honour, I say on behalf of my colleagues and myself that we accepted the principle that collective bargaining should apply to our relations with our staff. We knew that we could not control what they earned. We knew that there were various constraints upon us as employers which put us in a difficult position at times, a position our staff members had to recognize when they dealt with us. However, where we could, we provided for them in every area.


John R. Rodriguez: The grievance system.


Abram Ernest Epp: We particularly
provided for grievances. As a new Member of Parliament I discovered that particular matters had been carried through grievance to arbitration and had been resolved for the caucus. We sought by those means to deal within the framework of law, law refined and applied to our relations with our staff. We sought by those means to govern relations and to ensure that all the abuses of favouritism, nepotism, and so on-in other words, all abuses of management power which had been so common on the Hill-would not prevail in our offices.
I feel I have every right to say in all honour that the Government should recognize the same responsibility. We as Members of Parliament should appreciate our obligation to provide properly for the working conditions and the rights of our employees on the Hill. Therefore, I call upon Government Members, as well as my colleagues in the NDP and in the Liberal Party which put forward this motion, to join together in giving this Bill the hoist. I call upon the Government, which is responsible for bargaining matters, to elaborate an Act that will provide for the areas in which the Bill has failed. I call upon it to provide for proper classification and staffing and to ensure that grievances, if necessary, can be carried through to

April 24, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
third party arbitration. We need a far higher standard from the Government in these varied ways. I call upon it to recognize that fact and to respond properly to the amending motion before us. I thank the House for the opportunity to join in the debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Hon. Member. I followed his remarks attentively, and I think he spoke sincerely. Today's judgment in the Federal Court came as a surprise to many of us. Nevertheless, we will have to await the reaction of the unions to see whether they will go to the Supreme Court of Canada with the matter.
My question concerns the right to strike of Hill employees. The Hon. Member knows that in the Bill before us the right to strike is not given to employees on the Hill. He also knows that employees through their unions have held fast to the right to withdraw services if they feel there is a conflict between the employer and the employees, and they want to make it public. We all know the origin of strikes; it was to inform the population at large that indeed there was a conflict between the employer and the employees. He also knows that our employees have referred to meaningful arbitration. I do not know whether I should expand upon what is meant by meaningful arbitration, but it would include classification standards, promotions, demotions, and all other matters concerning nominations and appointments.
I am referring to the general subject matter of arbitrating conflicts and disagreements, and I know that our employees may be flexible on this matter. My question is not an academic one; I want to know where the Hon. Member stands. What would he do if we gave the right to strike to employees on the Hill? If indeed a picket was set up to protest, object, or inform the public of a conflict, would the Hon. Member cross that picket line?


Abram Ernest Epp: No, I would not.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that is the second such answer I have had from that Party. Other members of that Party have said that given a crisis situation where Parliament had to sit and they had to represent their constituents, they would inform the striking employees and come here to do their duty as they were elected to do. The Hon. Member said that he would not cross a picket line; I accept that as an honest answer. I simply say to him that there is disagreement within his own Party. Perhaps they should have a meeting of the minds in the NDP to find out what they would do in the event that the right to strike was given to our employees. They are always preaching about what we should have done and did not do. However, when they are called upon to make a decision, sometimes they are divided, as they are on this issue. I would like them to put their heads together and come up with a definition of what is a designated employee and a definition of what is an essential service.
The point at hand is whether Parliament is an essential service. If it is, then it must sit and do what it was elected to
do, that is, pass laws. If we read today's judgment of the Federal Court, we find that the House of Commons is not an ordinary place. It is the place where constitutionally we must pass laws. If it is our obligation to be in the House to vote, then the Hon. Member had better tell his constituents what he stands for and why he was elected to the House. If the picket line stops him from doing his duty, then the Member will have to tell us why he cannot take his place in the House and do the things he should be doing that he was elected by his constituents to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

['Order, please! On both sides of the House, please. Thank you.', "The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This being the first hour under the new rules for Private Members' Business, may I call to the attention of Members the provisional Standing Order 55(3) which states as follows:
(3) When the business of Private Members is being considered, no Member shall speak for more than ten (10) minutes.

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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because as you just said, this is a new rule for Private Members' Business under which we can rise and defend bills or motions that are of concern to us.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask for directions as to the procedure to be followed. As you have noticed today in the Order Paper, there is a list of approximately 20 Private Members' bills, which were drawn by lot, as we say, and which-


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the Member's Bill has been called under Private Members' Business and any point of order taking place in this hour should be pertinent to this hour's debate on the Member's Bill and not on any other subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to speak on a point of order on the procedure.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a serious point. I know this is during my hour of debate, but I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary it is a matter that has been of concern to Hon. Members, and the time to discuss it is Private Members' Hour.
April 24, 1986

Standing Orders 31 and 32 provide that an order of precedence will be established at the beginning of a session. This has been done. Standing Order 37 provides for suspension of Private Members' Business until the order of precedence is established. This also has been done. Section 39 provides that Members shall have no less than 24 hours' notice of items to be considered during the hour provided for discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to that, to the matter of those 24 hours especially.
Private Members' items of business have been dated. Each item bears a date. Mine reads, Thursday, April 24, 1986, C-203, and you can read in the Order Paper the dates concerning the various Private Members' items.
There lies the problem. If a Member, Mr. Speaker, cannot be in his place when the legislation is called, if a Member is prevented on serious grounds, whether because of illness or some other ailment, or for personal reasons from being here, what happens to his bill? What happens to that specific motion or bill?
Second, Mr. Speaker, because this is a matter that is somewhat vague in the Standing Orders, precedence given to Private Members' Business already has been established. When a Member is prevented from being here on the day his bill or motion is called, is that bill or motion sent back to the bottom of the list? I would appreciate it if the Chair would inform this House as to what happens to that motion because in the past, the item was unanimously suspended, and was returned to when the Member was back in the House. I understand this will no longer apply as of now, and we might have to innovate and find some other procedure.
My two questions are simple, Mr. Speaker. What happens to a bill or motion that has been dated, and as an example, we have for tomorrow, in the name of Dr. Isabelle, Bill C-208, Private Members' Bill, second reading and reference to a legislative committee of an Act respecting the International Airport at Ottawa.
As Party Whip, Mr. Speaker, I happen to know that the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) will be unable to attend the House tomorrow.
So on his behalf I would like to ask you what can be done. With unanimous consent, can a Member introduce the Bill for him, or is there some other procedure? Perhaps you might enlighten us, Mr. Speaker?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I know there are Members who want to speak during this hour devoted to private Members' debate. I would not want to abuse the time. The Hon. Member raises an interesting point. It is something that we would want to take under advisement.
We had a House Leaders' meeting at three o'clock and if we had known there was discussion taking place, this could have been a matter for the House Leaders. Since it is a matter of
Private Members' Business
procedure, we would certainly have included this in the agenda.
We would like to consider the matter, and would respectfully request that it be put over until tomorrow.


André Ouellet: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to seek your advice on this question. I would suggest it is a matter that should be decided by the Chair rather than by the House Leaders, for it really has to do with the time allocated for parliamentary debate on Private Members' Business. This time therefore is not available to the Government, but to all private Members, be they on the Government or the Opposition benches.
Now then, there is something new on the Order Paper for today, April 24, 1986, to the extent that for the first time we assign one day each to these Bills or motions, so that the 20 measures which have been selected at random have now been given dates which appear on today's Order Paper. We have a very specific calendar for the 20 measures, the last one being that which would normally be considered on Thursday, May 29, 1986, the motion of the NDP Member-I am trying to find the name of his riding-for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).
Therefore, for the 10 bills or motions, we now have an assigned date. I have had the honour to sit on the committee chaired by our colleague the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) which has recommended that some items be votable. But that committee wondered what would happen if a motion were called without its sponsor being present. Obviously, this timetable seems to be a rather definite order of the House. But we know that we must take into account a variable, namely the possibility that the Government House Leader might designate an opposition day. We know that on allotted days, there is no hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Unless we can obtain from the Government the assurance that it will not designate these days provided for consideration of private members' business as allotted days, the schedule could no longer work.
Mr. Speaker, it's a rather important problem which I submit to you and I should like you to enlighten us, because it would mean that an Hon. Member, let us say our colleague the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) whose Bill is supposed to be dealt with on May 2, assuming that the Governement House Leader decided to designate May 2 as an allotted day, it is clear that on that day the Hon. Member for Burnaby could not deal with his Bill. Does that mean that he would lose his turn? Or is it merely postponed until the next time? Or would a notice have to be given to all Hon. Members to have a completely new schedule? That's the problem I wanted to point out to you.
It is clear that the Members of the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) could not have settled this point, and we should like you to enlighten us concerning the procedure to be followed, because if the sponsor

April 24, 1986
Private Members ' Business
is not present, there are clearly two possibilities: with unanimous consent, another Member could introduce the motion and open the debate on behalf of the sponsor; assuming there is not unanimous consent, does it mean that there would be no private members' hours or is it that the time is automatically turned over to the Government for consideration of Government business?


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this point of order. I assume the decision will be made by the Speaker as opposed to the House Leaders. We are discussing the sequence of speakers during Private Members' Hour. I understand that speeches will continue to be 10 minutes in length and that there will be no period for questions and comments. Do you have any ideas which you would like to share with us with regard to how that process will take place?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any other Members who would like to make representations at this time on the point of order? The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Jacques Guilbault: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to take away from the time allowed for consideration of the Bill in the name of my hon. colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). After all, we share the same desk, and I want to stay on good terms with him. I simply wanted to add, while we are making representations on the subject, that there are other events that might upset our schedule. For instance, if the Chair has to call an emergency debate on a given day, this would suspend Private Members' Business, which would cause some problems if a Private Member's Bill were scheduled for consideration the same day.
Furthermore, some Members may be absent from the House, through no fault of their own, because they sit on a parliamentary committee that happens to be meeting somewhere else in Canada, and some Members may be travelling abroad as members of an official delegation. It seems to me that this calendar should be more flexible. Personally, I would suggest that when a day has been set aside for consideration of a Private Member's Bill, the Member concerned should be contacted several days in advance by House officials, to ensure that everything is in order and that the House can proceed with consideration of the Bill on the Order Paper for that date. No provision has been made for this eventuality, and I am sure that as far as the new Standing Orders are concerned, the Chair will have to provide some clarification to make the system more viable, because it is obvious that if this is not done, we will have quite a few problems.


Philip Derek Lewis: I would like to make another brief suggestion to the Chair. Although the Whip has made the point that this is Private Members' Hour, House Leaders invariably get seized
with some of these responsibilties. I am reluctant that you should make a final decision at this time. Neither the Whip nor the House Leader of the New Democratic Party is present, having had no notice that this argument would take place. They may wish an opportunity to participate in the discussion. I strongly suggest that this matter be reserved to give them an opportunity to participate.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the Chair's intention to reserve its ruling on the matter. I want to thank Hon. Members who commented on the new Standing Orders, and I intend to hand down a ruling as soon as possible, in accordance with Standing Order 39(1).
Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr.Prud'homme).



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 17, 1984, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gauthier that Bill C-203, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act) and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am of course very flattered that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), has asked me to speak to Bill C-203. And I feel particularly inspired because, as you see, today I am wearing this little badge commemorating the Armenian genocide, the first great holocaust. I do not intend to draw any parallels with current events, but I would like to try to draw a few lessons from past history and comment briefly on this Bill. I repeat, I am not drawing direct parallels.
In any well-ordered society, I think what seems to be most important is how one protects and respects one's minorities. If, at the time this genocide took place, minorities had been respected, we would not be commemorating today, as did so many Members from all political parties on the Hill, the history of this terrible tragedy.
Now just what does my hon. colleague's Bill involve? It is an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, since the Hon. Member is asking for the supremacy of this Act, and of course, it also amends other Acts in consequence thereof. For a better understanding of the debate that I have been following for many years, I would like to recall, for the benefit of Hon. Members, that our colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier, has always had this admirable determination to behave not as the aggressive but as the noble defender of the French fact, especially as it exists outside Quebec. And this gives us Francophone Quebecers a chance to say that the French fact is
April 24, 1986

not limited to the province of Quebec and should be reflected across this country.

-my country, our country, all of Canada, rather than Quebec only. My very esteemed colleague was highly praised by the Hon. Member who now represents the House Leader and who spoke on this same Bill many years ago. He respects the determination of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).

I suggest we look back on all the various steps and the mature progression we have always seen in Canada when it is a matter of resolving difficult and controversial problems.
It is fitting to recall that a Bill introduced in 1969 was passed and became law, the Official Languages Act. It is fitting to recall, Mr. Speaker, that Section 2 of this Act was interpreted in 1976, for we know we want to acknowledge the equality of both official languages. There were several events, but it began in 1969.
It is fitting to recall the tragic incident of 1976, the Air Canada dispute, when the court decision did go against the spirit of the Official Languages Act by maintaining that the Act was declaratory, not executory.
Like us Francophones, Mr. Speaker, you too recall the serious problem that decision created throughout Quebec. It was called Vaffaire des gens de I'air. Nineteen seventy-seven was the year of that dispute.
You can see the determination of our colleague-and this has nothing to do with partisanship, for national survival is at stake-our colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who, on May 2, 1980, moved first reading of Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act).
On May 23, 1980, an order of reference created the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Official Languages. I urge Hon. Members to attend the sittings now and then. I have just begun to do so myself, something new for me, and discovered it is one of the most interesting committees.
When Bill C-214 was moved for second reading on July 15, 1980, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier suggested that this Bill be deferred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. An amendment deferred it instead to the new Special Joint Committee on Official Languages which had been created on May 23,1980.
We should remember that the Constitutional Act, 1982 was proclaimed on April 17, 1982. This provided linguistic guaranties enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Clause 16(1) repeats almost word for word Clause 2 of the Official Languages Act which enshrined in the Constitution an official
Official Languages Act
and equal status for French and English at the level of federal institutions.
On April 28, 1982-it will be four years ago next Monday, the Joint Committee on Official Languages examined the subject matter of Bill C-214. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier explained the origin of the bill, its purpose and significance. The deputy minister and other officials of the Department of Justice also appeared to explain to committee members the implications of the Bill.
On June 22, 1982, the Special Joint Committee of the Senate on Official Languages tabled its fourth report. One of its recommendations reflected the spirit and letter of Bill C-214 introduced by our colleague, amending the Official Languages Act to confirm its supremacy over the other Acts and Regulations.
In April 1983, three years ago now, the Special Joint Committee tabled its fifth report. The number one recommendation is the same as that of the fourth report tabled on June 22, 1982, on the supremacy of the Official Languages Act.
On December 22, 1983, the Government responded to the recommendations in the fifth report, and I quote: The present Government fully supports the objective of the first recommendation, but intends to carry out an in-depth study of the issue.
On November 9, 1984, the first session of the 33rd Parliament was opened under a new Government headed by the Right Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Mulroney). Immediately, that is on November 13, 1984, our colleague, who is not a quitter, introduced Bill C-203 which we have before us today, namely an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the the Act), which is similar to Bill C-214 which he had introduced during the 32nd Parliament, two years earlier.
On December 17, 1984, we had the second reading debate on the Bill to amend the Official Languages Act (Supremacy of the Act) introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier.
On April 8, 1986, just ten days ago, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier appeared before the Committee on Private Members Business to defend Bill C-203. However, the Committee did not see fit to give priority to this Bill.
I know that each Prime Minister leaves his own mark on this country. The former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mr. Trudeau, did so by giving us the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. We are all aware of the good intentions of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as concerns official languages. I know this and I am not ashamed to say so even though we sit on opposite sides of the House. I am certain that he would like to leave his own mark on all that has happened since 1969 and I would therefore find it difficult to understand why, at this time, we would not refer the purpose of this Bill to committee for further study as we have done in the past. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this is a very complex issue. It cannot really be

April 24, 1986
Official Languages Act
discussed here. If the Bill could be again referred to the Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Official Languages, as the Committee recommended unanimously that we do, I believe that we could bring this to a satisfactory conclusion and that the Right Hon. Prime Minister and his Government would be very happy with their role in this issue.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-203, to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act)
and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second
time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subjectmatter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages."
Of course, I appeal to my colleagues to give us this opportunity to refer the bill for further consideration, and that will require quite some time because, as I have said, it is a very complex piece of legislation and this way we could know how to deal with it.


M. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. The Chair finds it in order. Therefore, the debate is on the motion.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, it is with very great interest indeed that I rise after my colleague for Saint-Denis. In the light of that amendment, of course, my comments will be quite relevant to the debate.
It will be remembered that the amended legislation is aimed at ensuring that the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act) and amending other acts in consequence thereof, if you look at the explanatory notes to the Bill, is concerned primarily with the supremacy of the Official Languages Act over other acts and regulations of Parliament and the Canadian Government, in order to underline its nature as basic Canadian law.
As we were so aptly reminded by my colleague for Saint-Denis, this is not the first time we have dealt with the supremacy of the Official Languages Act over other enactments. As one may remember, that important question was raised in the late 70s, when a body of jurisprudence questioned the supremacy of the Official Languages Act in cases of conflicts with over pieces of legislation or regulations.
I would recall that the Official Languages Commissioner, in his Annual Report for 1978 recommended that Parliament should add to the Official Languages Act a section drafted along the lines of the Canadian Declaration of Human Rights providing that the Official Languages Act take precedence over any federal legislation is incompatible, except where Parliament so decides expressly.
It is the famous notwithstanding section. In 1979 we had Mr. Corbin's Private Members' Bill to that effect, and the first of a series of bills from the hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) which were aimed at improving the Official
Languages Act and many of which called for the supremacy of that Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier as well as the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) are undoubtedly the parliamentarians who did the most to improve the legal frame work of language rights. And if we had such an institution, they would deserve to be recognized as Defensores fidei linguaeque in Canada. Both of you would deserve that title. If I did not fear to offend your modesty in front of such a crowd today, I would ask every Member in the House to applaud both the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, who fought so intensely for the language rights, for the principle of Canada's official languages. Your determination and perseverance in this regard are well known, and every single Canadian who believes in official languages equality recognizes your sense of devotion in that regard.
With the coming into force of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms four years ago-as you have rightly recalled-the fundamental principes of the Official Languages Act are now obviously part of the Canadian Constitution. The enshrinement of these guarantees in this country's supreme legislation has given preeminence to the Charter's provisions regarding the equality of both official languages in all federal institutions, as well as to the provisions relating to the public service in Canada.
In its answer to the Special Joint Committee which had recommended the inclusion in the Official Languages Act of a clause regarding its primacy, the Government at the time had fully supported that aim, as you just reminded us. But in the light of the guarantees now granted in the Charter, its intention was to make a thorough examination of that important question. I know the determination and concern of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. As mentioned by my colleague for Saint-Denis, in April 1983 the Committee submitted its fifth report in which it again recommended giving supremacy to the Official Languages Act. However, even Prime Minister Trudeau, who must of course be praised for his support of official languages in Canada, hesitated to accept it. So much so, that he said in a letter: As for your proposal to give supremacy to the Official Languages Act, this is still being examined by the Government.
These words more or less sum up my feelings about the present situation. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be premature at this stage to go the supremacy route alone, since in-depth studies undertaken by the Ministers most involved in language reform, at the request of the Prime Minister, should very soon result in a number of proposals that will allow for consideration of all aspects involving the Act and its application.
Naturally, like my colleagues I am very anxious to see these proposals. The Joint Standing Committee of the Senate and the House will soon hear the Commissioner of Official Languages remind us once again that strong measures are needed to promote equality, ensure supremacy of the Act and
April 24, 1986

strengthen its application at all levels of our federal institutions.
In a letter dated October 24, 1985, the Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed to the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages policy and programs, the deep commitment of this Government to the promotion and expansion of official bilingualism in Canada. I would like to quote the Prime Minister who said:
Our willingness to advance the cause of the official languages was evident from the very first weeks of our mandate, when the President of Treasury Board, the hon. Robert de Cotret expressed the determination of the government not only to retain whatever gains have already been achieved in this area, but also to improve existing services to better meet the needs of Canadians.
That willingness was also brought to the fore in the Speech from the Throne of November 5, 1984, when the Government committed itself to ensure that the equality of both official languages would be enforced, in law and in fact.
The Government is currently reviewing the provisions of the Official Languages Act in light of the experience acquired since 1969, and also to make sure they do not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I can assure you that the many proposals put forward in the last few years to improve the legislative framework of the policy will be reviewed, in particular those mentioned in its fifth report to Parliament by the former special mixed committee, as well as those presented by the Commissionner of Official Languages.
I do not think that, whatever our political stripe, we could doubt for one moment the determination of this government to go forward and along the same lines as the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). We are all working towards the improvement of the principles which govern this fundamental Canadian legislation and justify its existence and cohesion. If we as Members of Parliament from Quebec are still here today, I feel it is precisely because successive governments insisted that we should be able to live in this country and use our culture and our language, our cultures and our languages.
As the Prime Minister himself indicated to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier on April 15, when the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages was tabled, and I quote:
Last year, Mr. Speaker, upon receiving the report, I set up a committee of Senior Deputy Ministers to deal with this problem and to outline an action program that would promote the development and expansion of Canada's two official languages and their use on a daily basis. I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that the committee has submitted a report. We are now at the ministerial level, and I think that in the near future, the Government will be in a position to make some important announcements with respect to this second facet, if you wish, of an action program to promote official languages.
Of course, we now know through recent information obtained in the Joint Committee of the House and Senate, that the new Official Languages Bill will probably be tabled early next fall.
With respect to possible amendments to the Official Languages Act, the Prime Minister on the same day replied as
follows, and I quote:
I indicated publicly after the last report that I would designate a committee of senior Deputy Ministers, which I did, to prepare amendments to the Official Languages Act in order to ensure that vital piece of legislation is strengthened and enhanced and adapted to new conditions and requirements. That has been
done.
Official Languages Act
The work is now at a senior ministerial level, it will go to Cabinet and will be introduced in the House at the appropriate time, and it will be of benefit to the country.
The Government's intention to go ahead with that important reform has therefore been clearly stated. However, the need to act cautiously on such a complex matter should be underlined. I understand the restlessness of my colleagues. Recent developments in Montreal have shown that we should never give in on matters pertaining to official languages-


Marcel Prud'homme: In Kapuskasing!


Charles-André Hamelin: -never give in either in any other province, as my hon. colleague for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) just pointed out. And following the example of my colleagues of St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I urge all Hon. Members of this House to take an active part in the work of the Joint Committee of the House and the Senate. What you are asking us today, is to speed-up this reform ... maybe. Therefore, I feel compelled as some of my colleagues, notwithstanding the respect and admiration I have for the determination of my colleagues, to ask this House to refrain from passing this Bill. We may be proceeding slowly, but with your determination and mine, the resolve of the Senate and this House, all together we shall achieve something far better than just asserting of the supremacy of the Official Language Act over the other Canadian statutes.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to join in the debate on Bill C-203 and the motion that would refer the matter of the supremacy of the Official Languages Act to the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages for study and recommendation.
I listened with interest and pleasure to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin). I do not believe he noted that he is the new co-Chairman of this committee, and perhaps I can take this opportunity to congratulate him on that particular election. I want to thank him for his observations on the actions which the Government intends to take on the matter of official languages.
As a member of that committee, let me say that there seems to be a certain appropriateness in our addressing the matter of the supremacy of official languages in this, the first Private Members' Hour following the establishment of the new procedures in which private members' committees consider some Bills for a vote in the House.
While this Bill was not one of those to receive that designation, the motion to refer it to the standing committee may in fact give it that kind of possibility since it becomes a report from the committee and therefore can return to the House through that means.
May I say that it is with a touch of trepidation that I speak only in English, but there is an appropriateness to discussing

April 24, 1986
Official Languages Act
official languages in that language as well. Perhaps I could expand on that by saying that I am a Canadian who is not of British or French origin. I spoke only German until I was almost seven and began attending school in Manitoba. I gradually underwent the inculcation of the schools of Manitoba. Although not unique, those schools were quite successful in turning many of us into a particular kind of Canadian.
In my case, I have learned over the years a great deal about the country. For several years I taught Canadian history to university students in the darkest depths of interior British Columbia as well as across the Prairies and into Ontario, at Lakehead University. In that time I have had the opportunity to teach Canadian history, think about it and come to my own deep understanding, if I may say, of the importance of official languages. It is because of that understanding that I repeat there is an appropriateness to our debating the supremacy of the Official Languages Act in this Private Members' Hour.
The traditions of this country are diverse. As critic for multiculturalism, I am keenly aware of those traditions. However, the traditions of this country have included, in a certain pre-eminent way, the great achievements of people who came from France and built on this continent and achieved great things in the fur trade, in missions and indeed in building an empire through the years of the 18th Century. It was those aspirations to an empire that collided with the desires of the British. It is between 1759 and 1763, with the collision of empires, that the traditions of this country began to move toward bilingualism.
We recognize the diversity of the native people and the aboriginal societies of North America. As far as European, non-North American language is concerned, French was first. It was in the last decade of the 18th Century that Canada became bilingual with the addition of the English-speaking population.
One could spend a great deal of time talking about history, but the important matter is recognizing the events of the last quarter century. I do not suppose there is anyone in the House of Commons who still questions the simple reality that domestic peace and political tranquility call for the establishment of two official languages and the provision of government services in both English and French in far more areas than even now is the case. Canadian citizens must have the opportunity to approach their Government and be served in either language.
Surely we can say that it is necessary for similar practices to prevail in a number of provinces. As a native of Manitoba, schooled to narrow views but learning broader ones through those years of teaching in western Canada, I regret the fact that Manitoba has not yet fully achieved it. It was not for lack of effort on the part of the New Democratic Government there.
I admire the achievement of making the Province of New Brunswick bilingual. 1 regret that Premier Davis of Ontario never took the step of establishing bilingualism in his province
when he surely would have had the support of the Opposition for doing so. If he had the courage at the end of his relatively long term as Premier to fight for separate school funding for Grade 13, why did he not have the courage to do it for official languages in his province? If that had occurred, I believe we would have a stonger case for pressing our friends in the Province of Quebec to establish both official languages in that province.
It is clearly imperative that we take action on these matters in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and possibly even farther west. I will not comment on the provinces farther east than New Brunswick because I am less familiar with those areas.
Much remains to be done. We need to establish and reassert bilingualism in the Provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Much needs to be done in those areas to ensure that the supremacy of the official languages in this country is recognized throughout the regions.
There are many citizens of this country who come from other countries and have their own interest in seeing heritage language programs established. They seek Government support in their efforts to have their heritage language programs established within school curricula rather than in continuing education programs.
Those among us who are sensible recognize that support for heritage languages also supports the position of official languages. Many people in these groups who want to see languages in addition to English and French maintained in this country realize that the establishment of official languages was part of a movement toward the multicultural policy of 1971. As a member of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism as well as the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages, I do not see any conflict or need for arbitrary distinctions. I can instead see the two working together to achieve the kind of Canada we want.
Having made these comments in general terms about the situation, obviously my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who proposed the Bill originally, as well as I, would appreciate the opportunity to consider in committee how we can ensure that on the federal sphere the Official Languages Act will be supreme and that Government will act on it and provide the services which it still seems federal Government employees are recalcitrant to provide. Those are the sorts of things which should be before our committee, so I support heartily the amending motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the subject of the amendments to the Official Languages Act which are proposed in the Bill before us today and, more specifically, on the amendments put forward by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).
April 24, 1986

The issue of primacy for the Act is one that has come to the attention of this House on a number of occasions, either directly in the debates on this Bill and very similar ones tabled over the years by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), or indirectly through the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages in his reports to Parliament and through the testimony before, and the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Official Langues and its permanent successor. All of these deliberations have led me to reflect on the advisability of adopting at the present time the particular instrument by which the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier proposes to achieve primacy for official languages rights and duties.
Let me state immediately that I am the first to recognize the fundamental nature of our language guarantees. As has been stated many times in these and other debates, Sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect our basic rights and values as they relate to the status and use of the English and French languages in the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada. By virtue of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, any law that is inconsistent with those sections is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. In other words, these official languages provisions prevail in the face of conflict.
The Supreme Court of Canada put it eloquently last June in its opinion on the Manitoba Language Rights Reference. The Court stated:
The importance of language rights is grounded in the essential role that language plays in human existence, development and dignity. It is through language that we are able to form concepts; to structure and order the world around us. Language bridges the gap between isolation and community, allowing humans to delineate the rights and duties they hold in respect of one another, and thus to live in society.
The Constitution of a country is a statement of the will of the people to be governed in accordance with certain principles held as fundamental and certain prescriptions restrictive of the powers of the legislature and government. It is, as s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 declares, the "supreme law" of the nation, unalterable by the normal legislative process and unsuffering of laws inconsistent with it.
There is another essential aspect to the constitutional protection accorded to our language guarantees. The official languages provisions of the Charter are not subject to the "override" provisions of Section 33. By that I mean that Parliament cannot derogate from the application of these guarantees by expressly declaring in an Act that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate "notwithstanding" a provision included in Sections 16 to 20 of the Charter.
In so far as the Official Languages Act is, or should be, a reflection of the Charter guarantees, it would appear to me that Parliament cannot simply invoke a ''notwithstanding" clause to overcome the official languages obligation on federal institutions that are set out in that Act. However, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier has proposed exactly that formula in Bill C-203. His primacy clause is worded as follows:
11.1(1) Every law of Canada, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of Parliament to operate notwithstanding the Official Languages Act, shall be so
Official Languages Act
construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe the rule set forth in Section 2.
Section 2 is, of course, practically identical in terms to Section 16 of the Charter, which guarantees that:
English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.
The primacy clause in Bill C-203 would allow for the overriding of this guarantee. This is because that primacy clause was drafted along the lines of a similar clause in the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960, and its wording has appeared unchanged in every Bill that the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier has presented on the primacy issue since 1979.
But what may have been an eminently reasonable means of attempting to ensure primacy in 1960 or in 1979 may not be appropriate in 1986. If primacy may be accorded to the substantive provisions of the Official Languages Act, it may be, I would be inclinded to believe, because the substantive obligations described therein should stand on the same footing as the Charter rights from which those obligations flow.
In any event, the Official Languages Act is soon to be the subject of amendments that will be proposed to ensure its conformity with the Constitution and, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) put it very recently, to strengthn and enhance "that vital piece of legislation". Thus, it would seem to me that we would be putting the cart before the horse in according primacy to the Act of 1969. I say with great respect to the Hon. Member who has proposed this legislation that the Bill before us today does very little to correct the deficiencies that have been noted in the Act as it stands. Instead it proposes to deal with a complex issue on a piecemeal basis, outside a comprehensive framework, using an outmoded and perhaps unconstitutional legislative formula. In view of this fact alone, I belive it would be unwise for us to proceed with this Bill or the amendments. However, Bill C-203 also contains consequential amendments to the Railway Act-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is one thing I would like to find out and it would be useful for every Hon. Member to know, because what we are discussing now is indeed a very important matter. Is it true that if the Hon. Member keeps on talking it will result in his talking out the bill, which means that he is opposed to the status of the French language being improved, and that hypocrisy prevails among Tory members?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! I am sure the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) knows what Standing Order 42(1) says about that.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Bill C-203 also contains consequential amendments to the Railway Act, the Winding Up Act and the

April 24, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Bank Act. The Bill would amend six sections of the Railway Act which govern language use on signs at level crossings and which restrict the mandatory use of English and French in notices, timetables, bills of lading and so on, to the Province of Quebec.
Could I have some order, please, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please!


Jean-Claude Malépart: The francophones will remember that. You will not stay there for 16 more years.


Mr. Valcourt:: If that happens, it will not be thanks to you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! On both sides of the House, please. Thank you.

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 1986, I asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) with regard to trades training in the Province of Nova Scotia. I regret to report that the answer which was given to me at that time was not a very thorough one. In fact, in my view, it was a complete denial of the facts which I presented to the Minister at that time.
Trades training is an important subject in the Province of Nova Scotia. Consequently, I would have thought that the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as other Ministers of the Crown, would have taken the representations I made much more seriously than they did. In fact, in the Province of Nova Scotia, we have had to sustain a 38 per cent reduction in moneys from the Government of Canada for trades training. This reduction comes at a time when unemployment in my province is well above the national average. I would have hoped that the Government would have been more forthcoming in its response.
Some Hon. Members may wish to doubt or call into question my statement and my facts with regard to the 38 per cent reduction of trades training in the province. A letter dated March 14, 1986, signed by the Deputy Minister, Mr. B. J.
Nicholson, of the Department of Human Resources, Development and Training, went out to various institutions in the province which were teaching courses. The letter states in part:
A substantial reduction in Federal funding is unfortunately resulting in a reduction of a number of training programs and related staff positions. The training program in which you are employed is part of this Federal Government reduction and therefore the program which you have been teaching will not be able to be offered in the coming year, and your position will no longer be funded.
A 38 per cent reduction in a small province such as Nova Scotia is overwhelming. We do not need less money for trades training, we need more.
To add insult to injury we in Nova Scotia-a have-not province-are being discriminated against by the Government. Hon. Members may ask why. I will tell them why. Arrangements have been made with the Province of Ontario which are entirely different. This is not an across-the-board reduction to various provinces. Ontario received a special deal while Nova Scotia did not.
I have in my hand a letter of intent between the Government of Canada and the Minister of Skills Development for Ontario. To substantiate my allegation of discrimination I will read paragraph 7 of the letter which states:
In addition, Canada will ensure that the sum total in fiscal year 1986/87 of both direct and indirect purchases of institutional training, including the associated administrative costs, and a targeted allocation of $9 million for training purchases by CITCs, will be no less than $166.3 million, representing 100 per cent of the institutional training allocation in Ontario for fiscal year 1985/86.
As Hon. Members can see, there is no reduction for the Province of Ontario while there is one for the Province of Nova Scotia. The issue is not a partisan one. The Tory Minister responsible in Nova Scotia, the Hon. T. Donahoe, said in the Legislature that he expects a $2 million cut in funding for Nova Scotia this year, to be followed next year by a further 15 per cent cut and yet another 20 per cent cut in 1988.
This will have drastic effects upon the economy of Nova Scotia, particularly upon the human resources of that province. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, Nova Scotia needs additional income from the Government of Canada in order to provide the necessary training and basic skills to Canadians living in that province so that they may take advantage of job opportunities which may be presented to them at some point in time.
Therefore, the logic of reducing this funding to my province is both discriminatory and unfair; it certainly does not meet with the favour of my provincial colleagues on the Government side and on the opposition side in Nova Scotia.
A parish priest from Holy Family Parish in Eskasoni, Nova Scotia, wrote to his local MLA seeking the reinstitution of the trades training programs. Also, a Conservative MLA who was written to made a statement to the effect that he would wish to have additional funding. There are individuals who are ready and willing to take advantage of the trades training programs.
April 24, 1986

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as a representative of the Government of Canada, to give us clear and concise answers as to why Canadians in the Province of Nova Scotia are being discriminated against, while Canadians in the Province of Ontario are receiving a distinct advantage. Again I say that it is both unfair and discriminatory. I hope the practice will stop and stop forthwith.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), I should like to provide the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) with a more detailed reply to his questions of April 8, 1986 which he directed to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) concerning an apparent reduction in federal funding for trades training in Nova Scotia.
To begin, I should like to point out that the federal funding for purchases of training programs will not be reduced this year. In fact, this year the federal Government will provide the same funding as last year-90 per cent will flow directly from the federal Government to the institutions and the remaining 10 per cent is available to flow to the institutions via purchases made by third parties under the programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Furthermore, the Government has agreed to pay the provinces an amount equal to the difference if third party purchases from public institutions are less than 10 pent cent. Funds will also be available to make up differences in 1987-88 and 1988-89, and to accelerate adaptation of provincial institutions and administrative structures to the needs of the labour market.
The direct purchase of institutional training programs responds to the needs of the labour market and is not arbitrarily pursued. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has referred to recent lay-offs in trades training. I would inform the House that these lay-offs are not the result of any federal reduction in funds. Rather, they are a consequence of the provincial government decision to emphasize construction trades training and de-emphasize industrial trades training because of changes in labour market demand.
The demand for industrial trades apprenticeship training in Cape Breton has fallen off over the last two years. This has resulted in more funding going to another institution in Nova Scotia for training in apprenticeable construction trades than is going to a Cape Breton institution for training in apprentice-able industrial trades. However, this choice is a provincial responsibility. The federal Government cannot be held responsible for lay-offs of teachers at provincial institutions due to a provincial decision on training for indentured apprentices. As I have said, the provincial decision is based upon a response to measured labour market demand.
The Government has been involved in negotiations for new training arrangements with all provinces since last July. Negotiations have been and will continue to be based upon the fundamental principles of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, principles to which all provinces agreed in February, 1985. We
Adjournment Debate
are not reducing the amount of federal dollars for training in the coming year, but we have indicated our willingness to guarantee that dollars for both direct and indirect purchases will be 100 per cent of those available last year.
Yes, we are proposing reallocation of some of our training dollars to increase the scope of private sector involvement in training. Reallocation of some funding to the private sector is needed to achieve the best possible blend of on and off-the-job training options with substantial but limited federal dollars.
We recognize the need to introduce change in a planned fashion to ensure stability for public training institutions as they adapt their training to tap a larger pool of training dollars outside Government.
This Government is confident the shift of some of our training purchase decisions to the private sector will result in more business, not less, for provincial institutions as the private sector begins to sponsor and pay for courses at these institutions and elsewhere.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION (A) MATANE PAPER MILL-GOVERNMENT POSITION (B) AGREEMENT PERMITTING ESTABLISHMENT OF MATANE PAPER MILL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker I wonder if I should take part in the late show in view of what has just happened, in view of the parliamentary hypocrisy in the debate on official languages. And it is the same guy who manipulated all that who will answer me.
But I will come back all the same to the question I directed on April 7, 1986, to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). I asked him why he would not sign the agreement after having given his word to the Quebec minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Ciaccia, regarding the Matane paper mill.
Mr. Speaker, as in several matters concerning Quebec, like the Domtar case, the Gulf-Ultramar case and this one, the Matane case, people in Quebec always notice that the ministers as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) do not keep their words.
In this case, the request does not come from just anybody. It is from a Minister of the Government of Quebec and I think I have a lot more confidence in him than in the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. These two peoples agreed on one common action. The Minister gave his word that he would sign the joint letter that he had received from Mr. Ciaccia following negotiations with officials. Mr. Ciaccia also sent the letter to the compagny so that it could discuss the proposals, that is the grant proposals as well as other opportunities made available by the government.
The Quebec minister knew, as well as his federal counterpart, that the company was to be involved in a takeover and

April 24, 1986
Adjournment Debate
that the whole deal was to be decided upon today, April 24. That was no reason to keep the Minister from signing the offer inviting the company to build in the Matane area, that it might pursue discussions and avoid undue delays.
But because of the stubbornness of the minister who did not sign the joint offer together with Mr. Ciaccia, although I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will come up today with some informations about the situation even if decisions are currently . .. That means that the minister will delay the implementation of that industry since it is only as of tomorrow that he will send the joint offer for grants that both the federal government and the government of Quebec are prepared to make so that the company can build this paper mill in Matane.
Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing in this case exactly the same thing that happened in the Gulf-Ultramar deal where Quebecers have been diddled to the bones if I may say so! We are living the same tragedy as was the case with Domtar in the Eastern Townships where once again Quebecers were conned. They did receive the money but it was their own money which was in the envelope; so they have been taken for a ride one more time.
Mr. Speaker, as I just found out once again, the Frenchspeaking Quebecers have been had because they could not discuss in committee the means to improve the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude, and I dare hope that this time, the Parliamentary Secretary, who was prepared earlier to kill this motion which is so important to protect all French-speaking Canadians, will have a very bright answer.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. When during his ramblings the Hon. Member said that I killed Bill C-203-Well, a conservative Member from New Brunswick, a province run by Premier Richard Hatfield, a man who fought for French-speaking people and Acadians, has no lesson to take from the Liberals-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Hatfield did not do what he should have done.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate such an answer.
We do not like to be reminded that Liberals have been in power for 16 years and that they did not amend the Official Languages Act since 1969. We are prepared to do it. But, to come back to the Matane papermill. The same thing has to be repeated over and over before some people can understand.
The Matane papermill issue consist of a project of an overcalendered papermill with a capacity of 180,000 metric tons a year, and the total cost is estimated at $327 million, in addition to the $25 million needed for the infrastructure off site.
We know who the sponsors are. Up to now, there have been many meetings between federal and Quebec government employees to explore the possibility of government funding in order for the project to proceed. In fact, a clear declaration of intent has already been issued.
When you listen to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), you would swear that he was with Messrs. Ciaccia and Stevens, the Quebec and federal ministers, when they discussed the Matane paper mill because he says that he gave his word. Now, as far as I know, and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie may agree with me, a proposed draft agreement is not an agreement. However, to further his own political interests, the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie says that Quebecers are being fooled by this Government, but Quebecers know better because they see what happened with the unemployment rate in Quebec since Septembre 1984. At any rate, when the decision on this matter is made, some factors will have to be taken into consideration.
They can listen because they might learn what will be considered. They will consider of course the social and economic impact of that investment in the Lower St. Lawrence region and the Gaspe Peninsula. But, Mr. Speaker, they will have to take into account as well the representations of the pulp and paper industry which do not favour discretionary funding of such projects, because those who know the market know what it means and what possible impact such funding will have, Mr. Speaker, on the trade negotiations which will begin shortly with our neighbours to the South, the United States of America.
A draft presentation to Cabinet regarding the Matane paper mill is under way and should be submitted shortly so that a final decision can be taken in this regard.


COMMMUNICATIONS-BELL CANADA TELEPHONE BILLS- REFUSAL OF CASH PAYMENT
Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I asked the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) a question relating to the payment of Bell Canada telephone bills. I asked this question because, with very little warning, Bell Canada unilaterally changed its payment policy. All of a sudden, only cheques or money orders were acceptable tender at Bell Phonecentres in Mississauga. When I asked the Minister for an explanation of this situation, the hon. gentleman responded by informing the House that such matters were within the jurisdiction of the CRTC and that the CRTC was looking into the situation.
Several weeks have since passed. The CRTC is still looking into the situation. For the following reasons, it is my submission that that is not good enough. First and foremost, since
April 24, 1986

when has cash minted at the Canadian Mint been unacceptable payment for Canadian goods and services? I question the legality of such a resolution. Second, Bell subscribers were not given adequate warning of this policy change. One morning my constituency office was inundated with phone calls from citizens who had made the trip to the Bell office. These citizens were following their normal practice of paying their bills in person with cash. I cannot accept that the powers that be at Bell would be so remiss as to forget to notify their customers of such an important change. Yet there were an awful lot of constituents who were not aware of this new regulation. I would be remiss if I did not suggest that, in this matter, Bell was just not trying very hard.
My third protest against this regulation is that many of my constituents must now pay a charge to their banks for the processing of cheques and money orders required for bill payment. One constituent calculated that this will cost him an extra $24 a year. This is hardly fair when Canadian legal tender can be used without service charge. I have a dollar bill here and it states on it: "This note is legal tender".
Fourth, the Bell Canada office in question in my riding will not accept cash payment for bills, but it will accept cash for the purchase of phones and equipment. I cannot wait for an explanation of Bell Canada's convoluted reasoning on this one! Worst of all is the fact that residents of nearby Toronto can still pay their phone bills in cash. I bear no ill will toward Torontonians, but this is a clear case of discrimination against citizens of the eighth largest and fastest growing city in the country.
My final worry is the relationship between the CRTC and Bell Canada. When this problem first came to my attention, I phoned the CRTC. I was informed that the Commission was looking into the situation. However, I sensed a certain reluctance by the CRTC to become involved. Personnel at the CRTC explained that it was not normal policy to interfere with internal administrative issues at Bell, that rates were the matter of greatest concern. What this means is that the CRTC is taking a long time to look into a situation, but in the final analysis no action will be taken. This is not good enough.
Of course, the role of Bell Canada cannot be overlooked. I have nothing in principle against Bell Canada. Bell does an extremely efficient job in allowing Canadians to communicate across this vast land and around the world. Yet Bell is a monopoly, one that makes a great deal of money. In looking over Bell's financial statements, we find that for the nine months ended September 30, 1985, Bell's net income increased 15 per cent from the corresponding period in the previous year. We find that total revenues rose by 28 per cent. For the year ended December 31, 1984, total revenues were up by 19 per cent. During 1984, Bell's acquisitions included new interests and remaining interests in several large corporations.
At the time of the drafting of this speech, Bell had not responded in the news media to complaints about this action,
Adjournment Debate
although I understand that a statement may be forthcoming. I have ascertained that Bell has taken this action in the name of cost-cutting and efficiency, and because Bell believes this action will keep phone rates at a reasonable level. Bell also suggested that this policy was justified because it was no different from that of other large utility companies. Iam 100 per cent in favour of efficiency, cost-cutting and reasonable phone rates, but Bell's action promotes none of these goals.
What is efficient about a Phonecentre which accepts cash for equipment, but which will not accept cash for telephone bill payment on the very same premises? How does this policy help to keep phone rates reasonable when consumers must pay a service charge on the cheques required to pay bills? For those who make few long distance calls, service charges mean that the total amount paid for phone bills could even increase.
After phoning both Ottawa Hydro and Mississauga Hydro in my riding, I was informed that it is standard policy to accept cash payment for bills. In the matter of cost-cutting, I would be very interested in seeing Bell's figures on how much this action will save. To my knowledge, Bell staff has not been let go, nor have Bell offices closed as a result of this. What and where are the savings? More important, is this action justified? Even if Bell Canada saves a few dollars, can this decision really be condoned? It is discriminatory. It causes inconvenience and expense to the consumer. It represents a unilateral decision made by a powerful monopoly. It may be illegal.
It has been said that the Progressive Conservative Party is the Party of big business. I have always found this view to be unfounded and uninformed. Especially in this matter, I have no intention of siding with the big guy, nor do the other members of this Progressive Conservative Government who have spoken out against Bell Canada's action.
I urge Bell Canada to waste no time in reversing this ill-advised policy. Barring this, I expect the CRTC to perform its duty in ordering a reversal of this policy. If all else fails, the Government should do everything in its power to have this decision revoked.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) has raised a very important issue, one that is of concern to his constituents and, indeed, to all Bell Canada subscribers. As I understand it, Last November Bell Canada started to phase out its teller facilities in its Phonecentres and teleboutiques. This means subscribers will no longer be able to pay their telephone bills with cash. While by far the majority of subscribers, 90 per cent, pay their bills by mail or at banks, some customers have been accustomed to visiting a Bell office and paying cash.
Bell Canada has indicated that it has taken this action because the role of the Phonecentres has changed in recent years. Phonecentres were originally set up to display phones

April 24, 1986
Adjournment Debate
that could be leased and, more recently, purchased by consumers. Today the telephone equipment market is highly competitive and Bell has apparently found that it is expensive to maintain teller facilities in its Phonecentres. According to Bell, this means the general body of subscribers are subsidizing the cost of these tellers that are only used by a small number of subscribers.
I can understand Bell's motives in its efforts to be cost efficient in its operations. However, I have greater sympathy for those subscribers who feel they are inconvenienced by what they perceive to be a lower level of service. For many years the terms and conditions relating to the provision of telephone service have been set out in the company's general regulations. In a comprehensive review, begun in 1983, the CRTC has reviewed the regulations. With the benefit of a thorough public consultative process, the Commission has revised the regulations "terms of service". The terms of service will provide customers with adequate safeguards against possible abuses by companies providing services on a monopoly basis.
One of the old regulations, number 28, specified that subscribers must pay their bills at the company's business offices or at authorized agencies. The new rule adopted by the Commission in March of this year deletes the provision relating to locations where customers may pay their accounts. The Commission was of the view that customers should be able to pay their accounts by mail as well as designated company offices.
The CRTC has a solid record of proceedings and decisions which have maintained a high level of service provided to the public. With respect to this issue, I am advised that the Commission has received several complaints regarding Bell's refusal of cash payments. Furthermore, I understand the Commission has been in contact with Bell Canada to obtain more information and a full explanation for this change. The mechanism for this request is a formal interrogatory in connection with the Commission's proceeding to review Bell's rate of return. This proceeding, which is similar to the one which is conducted when Bell Canada applies for a general rate increase, will afford the general public and interested groups the opportunity to comment on Bell's operation.
Given that the Commission has only recently adopted new "terms of service" for Bell and the formal proceeding on Bell's rate of return is under way, I think it is opportune that the Commission fully investigate this issue and subsequently determine the extent to which provisions should be made by the company to accept cash.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, April 25, 1986