1986-04-29

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 Governement's response to the following six petitions: 331127, 331-193, 331-194, 331-407, 331-423 and 331-425.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present three petitions to the House this morning. The first is signed by residents of the Dryden area who call upon the House of Commons to ensure that PetroCan passes on lower oil and gas prices to consumers.
The second petition is signed by residents of the Ignace and Dryden areas, duly certified by the Clerk, and on the same subject of ensuring lower gas prices.


John Edmund Parry: The third petition is signed by residents of the Dryden, Red Lake, Ear Falls, Ignace, Balmertown and Cochenour areas. It calls upon Parliament to ensure that all retired employees retain their pension benefits and receive unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 545 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 545 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Frith: Since September 17, 1984, to date what are the names and places travelled to by each Member of Parliament who has accepted travelling expenses paid out of public moneys of Canada where the travel was undertaken at the request of the Governor in Council pursuant to section 14 of the Senate and House of Commons Act?
Return tabled [Translation]


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 25, 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.
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly about this Bill now that it has come back for second reading.
I regret that employees of the House of Commons, far from being treated as a model of what labour relations should be, are being relegated to a kind of back basement and treated with the utmost contempt because of the actions both of the court and of Parliament. According to a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal last week, which has been appealed, these employees do not have the benefit of certification or of falling under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code. They are being given second class status under Bill C-45, a Bill which purports to give them the same rights as other employees of the Public Service but which falls far short of that. I want to comment about the torturous reasoning of the Court whose decision I have had the opportunity to read. Frankly, I am appalled by the thinking put forward.


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
The court has suggested that Parliament must have intended to exclude its employees from coverage under the Canada Labour Code. However, it also points out that Parliament did not include those employees under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act. The consequences are that, according to the reasoning of the Federal Court of Appeal, staff members of the House of Commons have been left in a legislative limbo where they have neither the right to organize under the Canada Labour Code or as other employees of the Government of Canada. The basis of that argument is the position taken by the court as to whether or not Part V of the Code applies. It points out that it applies in respect of employees who are employed upon or in connection with the operations of any federal work, undertaking or business. I would have thought that the House of Commons is a federal undertaking, or a federal work, or a federal business, particularly when you consider the reasoning of the court and its consideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Canada Labour Relations Board versus the City of Yellowknife, and the fact that members of the House of Commons staff prepare meals, help to look after the grounds, drive the small buses and do many other things which are works in the traditional sense of the word.
In addition to that, the definition section of the Canada Labour Code states:
"Federal work undertaking or business" means any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, including without restricting the generality of the foregoing-
Then there are a number of references to various things such as transportation, aircraft, radio and banking. The general definition is that any work, business or undertaking that is within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada is a federal work, undertaking or business.
The Federal Court of Appeal has basically stood that definition on its head. It has looked at all of the particulars, but has not realized the general fact that the Parliament of Canada has clearly the legislative authority to legislate for its employees and should make the work of its employees federal works, undertakings or businesses, and, therefore, entitle them to certification under the Canada Labour Code.
The situation is that the Court of Appeal's decision has basically removed negotiating or bargaining power from these employees who have been waiting for three years to get those rights, and who have been trying for more than 20 years to get some effective means of redress and some effective means of speaking collectively on their own behalf.
This is a big place; there are 3,000 employees here in the House of Commons. A number of problems and grievances have emerged which drove the employees to form a union and to seek certification in the first place, and now they have had the rug pulled out from under their feet.
It is damn well about time that the courts of this country woke up and moved into the modern age. It is a perverse decision for them to say that because of legalisms going back into the 1870s they judge that Parliament did not intend to give to its employees the right to organize. The citations they make, which reach back many years ago, as I just said, indicate that Parliament was thinking of other things. I doubt very much whether Parliament was thinking whether or not its employees should have the right to organize. It may have been felt at one time that the employees of the House of Commons should not, but, nonetheless, in the 1960s the Parliament of Canada made a very major decision in extending collective bargaining to employees of the Government of Canada. There was no specific exclusion in saying that members of the House of Commons staff should not have the right to organize, although they were not given the same rights as other public employees.
There are many employees of the Government of Canada who are, in fact, certified under the Canada Labour Code. There are certain other staff, including I believe the staff of the Governor General, who are certified under the Canada Labour Code. The employees of other Legislatures in the country are certified under the relevant provincial labour codes. Therefore, it is very hard for me to understand why it is that we at this level have to present such a bad example as a Bill as flawed and inadequate as Bill C-45.
The major argument for Bill C-45 is that the employees will have something if they decide to go ahead and form a union with the limited rights of bargaining which are given to them. Those rights of bargaining are very limited. They are not entitled to appeal to an impartial body over issues such as classification, promotions and issues like that which provoked the employees to form a union in the first place. Therefore, the employees must go through the whole tortuous process of organizing all over again, of signing cards for the third or fourth time in order to get an adequate bargaining right in a regime in which they have no confidence and with a feeling that the deck is stacked against them and in favour of the House of Commons.
I counsel those employees, ever if they again have to sign cards, to form a union and get some consultative mechanisms to try to resolve problems informally, even if they are barred directly from settling them formally. If they are upset about the situation created by Bill C-45, assuming that it does eventually go through, then I have every reason to sympathize with them, because it is a bad Bill. It is an unfair Bill, and it is not right that their lengthy efforts to organize should be greeted in this kind of way.
I want to say to the back-bench Members of the Conservative Party, in particular, that it is time Members of that Party woke up to the fact that for many years now we in Canada have had a Canada Labour Code which affirms, as the provincial labour codes do, the right of collective bargaining, the right of employees to have a union. Those who are members of the Catholic faith may be aware of the May Day


message of the Council of the Conference of Bishops which just came out today, which again, in harmony with recent statements from the Vatican, reaffirms as a basic tenet of Catholic teaching the right of employees to have a union, to speak collectively, to bargain collectively and to have that kind of collective voice in determining what their working conditions should be. Surely in a free and democratic society like we have this country we in the House of Commons should do our best to try and respect those basic rights rather than working in the other direction. Unfortunately, I fear that there are too many Members in the Conservative back-benches who do not understand that, who are unsympathetic to the desire and need of employees, particularly in large organizations like the House of Commons-to have a union to represent them and, therefore, who have been putting pressure on the Government, and on you, Mr. Speaker, and on the House of Commons, to resist in every way possible the extension of adequate collective bargaining rights.
The only hope for Bill C-45 is that in good faith the legislative committee which looks at this Bill will consider it very thoughtfully and very seriously. At the very least, and I recognize that some members, even if I disagree with them, may have hesitation about the full range of powers under the Canada Labour Code, I believe the employees of the House of Commons should have bargaining rights equivalent to those enjoyed by other employees of the Public Service of Canada. That is the least we can do to the extent that we improve those bargaining rights for employees of the Public Service of Canada, that framework should be extended to employees of the House of Commons. I would urge and plead with those Members of the legislative committee who are here for the debate right now, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, that they consider amendments in a thoughtful and constructive way in order to try to improve a Bill which is a bad Bill, a Bill that I am afraid we in our Party find to be unacceptable.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45 and to express on behalf of my colleagues our appreciation of the words of the Member who just spoke. I think we find ourselves, in not a rare instance, but nevertheless too rare, in total agreement with the views that have just been expressed.
Bill C-45 is, in the final analysis, the product of a profound misunderstanding by Members of Parliament of the legitimate aspirations, the legitimate demand for basic rights by the 3,000 people who make this place function. Given the very nature of the institution, the adversarial nature of the chamber, the Commons, I believe the 3,000 employees involved serve us and the country very well. Why then is it that these employees should be denied the same kind of basic rights enjoyed by every other member of the Public Service of Canada? Why is it that as a Government we would seek to rest behind the decision of the court with respect to whether or not employees can be covered by the Canada Labour Code, when
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
in the final analysis the highest court in this land in determining, enshrining and in protecting our citizens' rights- including those 3,000 citizens who service this Hill-is indeed Parliament itself.
In my province of Newfoundland we are experiencing a very destructive and acrimonious labour strike. While one cannot easily assign blame for that strike, because two sides are always involved in a dispute, that action occurred fundamentally because the Government assumed the worst case scenario that might happen with the people who worked for the provincial Government of Newfoundland if the union were given proper collective bargaining rights. In its paranoid consideration of what would be the worst scenario if these employees were given collective bargaining rights, it designated 49 per cent of every bargaining unit as essential and wiped away the fundamental principle inherent in the right to collective bargaining. That is what Bill C-45 does to the employees on Parliament Hill. It singles out 3,000 employees of the Government of Canada who service Members of Parliament.
We have decided as Members of Parliament that we are unique, more important and more sacred than all other Canadians who are served by the Public Service. We have decided to implement special measures which we believe will give us protection. By taking away the rights of the 3,000 employees of this place, we assume the worst possible scenario in the case of those 3,000 employees who service Parliament Hill. We assume that there will be the worst possible abuse, in our judgment, of the rights to which they are entitled. The fact is that we are satisfying our paranoia by denying them their basic rights. That is wrong and cannot be justified.
The unions representing the 3,000 employees on the Hill have said that they would, in effect, go so far as to forfeit the right to strike if Bill C-45 included a strong binding arbitration procedure. Therefore, we are not dealing with a group that wants the right to shut down Parliament Hill. We are dealing with a group that wants the same fundamental rights enjoyed by any other groups of federal civil servants in this country.
Our failure to amend this legislation or ensure that the employees on Parliament Hill fall within the guidelines of the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Labour Relations Board is an act of cowardice on the part of Members of Parliament. Furthermore, it represents an assumption of motives on the part of the employees of Parliament Hill which they frankly do not deserve. When one looks at the long history of service provided by employees on Parliament Hill, there is nothing to suggest that our employees on Parliament Hill deserve anything but our appreciation, our respect, and our determination to ensure that they enjoy the same rights and protections as every other Canadian who is in the employ of the Crown.
I plead with those Members opposite who will sit on the legislative committee on Bill C-45 to do what they know in their own hearts and souls is the right thing. I ask those


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Members who are in fear of Parliament Hill being held hostage by those employees, whom I believe should be granted full rights, to examine the historical facts to see whether or not that is really the nature of the people who are asking that their rights be granted through a different version of Bill C-45.
We should always be cognizant of the fact that the eyes of the country are always on us and that the way we treat our employees and operate this place sets an example for many other institutions and employers across the country. If we as elected representatives seek to make this an elitist institution, giving ourselves special privileges or guarantees by denying the rights of our employees, I suggest that Canadians will not judge this institution kindly.
Hopefully the legislative committee will sit in a non-partisan and non-adversarial atmosphere. Therefore, I add my voice to those who ask members of that committee to make a considered judgment, and ask themselves whether we have the right to act as an elitist group of commissars and deny the employees of Parliament Hill the full rights and protections to which they are entitled as citizens of this country and employees of the Government of Canada.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address Bill C-45 today I do so with no great enthusiasm, because this pale apology for the conferral of rights on the employees of Parliament Hill does the Government no credit. If passed, it will do this Parliament no credit.
I would like to quote the words of Stanley Knowles 19 years ago when he was talking to a special committee. He said:
Therefore, there has been a rule up here on the Hill that the Civil Service Commission stays out except for the odd bit of advice and for statistics to be used for comparative purposes. But it strikes me that by leaving out of this Bill and out of all other Bills any reference to parliamentary staff, we are in effect making no statutory provisions with respect to the rights of employees on Parliament Hill.
We see that situation being repeated today. Far from making statutory provisions for rights, Bill C-45 merely institutionalizes what would be reasonable practice in a traditional master-servant environment. It really has very little to do with collective bargaining rights. I fear that we may be seeing some sort of paradigm for the sort of labour legislation that the Government would like to apply across a whole range of industrial and civil service sectors.
The so-called rights that are provided in Bill C-45 fall far short of free collective bargaining rights within the normal understanding of those terms. They fall far short of the protection that is necessary for workers in any organized situation. They fall far short of the procedures which are necessary if grievances or disagreements are to be addressed frankly and sincerely, and they fall far short of what is necessary if they are to be fairly resolved.
Much has been said about Parliament's status. Parliament is the highest court of the land. After all, privilege is something that is exercised by Parliament and defined by Parliament. However, as Members on this side of the House have said,
with those high powers and that high authority goes a higher responsibility. This, the highest court in the land, should be acting not only as the highest authority but also as the highest example. How better to show that high example than in the way in which Parliament and the House of Commons deals with parliamentary and House of Commons employees?
I believe that, far from being the shadow of collective bargaining legislation, a Bill to regulate relations between the employees of Parliament and Parliament itself should be a model, a paradigm, for the sort of industrial labour relations we would like to see throughout this country. What do we have instead? We have a Bill which essentially imposes a mere staff association type of environment on the employees of the House of Commons and of the Library of Parliament. We have the sort of loose, limp set-up whereby certain things will be able to be taken to management, and certain things will be subject to the collective bargaining process. But what is more noteworthy is what is left out, which is what is generally understood to be the rights of workers in collective bargaining situations.
There is a saying that, "In order for the people to trust the Government, the Government must trust the people". That I think applies very well to the situation before us with Bill C-45. The evidence suggests to me that those who drafted Bill C-45 are not seeking to extend collective bargaining rights to Parliament Hill in the true sense, but are seeking rather to give some minimal concessions, to throw some sops before the legitimate demands of the employees in order to diffuse the political pressure which the Government and the administration are feeling. It is an adaptation of earlier versions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and as such it is very plainly a throw-back to an era we should be glad has gone by. The results will be statutory protection and traditional management prerogatives which cannot be claimed as necessary either to preserve the supremacy of Parliament or the merit principle. The people who have been organizing have provided a long list of the type of abuses which could continue under Bill C-45 and which this legislation does not really address.
Privilege, of course, is something which has to be considered very fairly. Privilege, after all, is an institution and a convention which is framed for specific purposes. I challenge the Government to draw the logical lines of connection between privilege and what rights in fact are being taken away from Parliamentary employees. Sir David Lidderdale defines privilege as:
-the sum of rights exceeding those rights of common citizens enjoyed by each House of Parliament collectively, by the Supreme Court, and by the individual members of the legislatures or judiciary that are necessary for the performance of their functions. Privilege is a traditional convention, not precisely defined, that like many traditions, changes with the passage of time.
We are not, fortunately, today facing the sort of pressure on Parliament that privilege was originally framed to insulate against. We are not likely to see a monarch accompanied by a file of armed infantry come to Parliament and attempt to

disrupt its proceedings or to detain its Members. For any legislation to be framed in that sort of context today is clearly ridiculous.
Beauchesne also has a definition of privilege for the conduct of public business and the procedure of the House generally including the acts of the Speaker himself in the chair. Neither the Government nor any authority has the power to deal with the staff of the House of Commons unless specially authorized to do so by statute or resolution of the House. That, of course, is why the existing legislation governing labour relations in the Public Service cannot apply.
However, this surely does not relieve Parliamentarians of the responsibility for framing legislation which reflects contemporary society in Canada, the legitimate aspirations of organized workers and the essential sense of justice and fairness which most Canadians feel. It is not as if an adventurous step was required, because we know that even in 1981 the Parliaments of the United Kingdom, Australia, Ontario and Quebec all recognized the rights of employees in those Parliaments and all afforded collective bargaining rights on the same basis as the provincial Public Service. It is also noted that in fact in Australia, Parliament was the subject of strike action. That Parliament as an institution did not find itself severely diminished by such action. The dispute was indeed regulated in the normal course of events.
Our opposition to Bill C-45 is based on its failure to provide those collective bargaining rights. I would like to list a couple for the benefit of people who do have collective bargaining agreements which are full, fair and unfettered so they may know what exactly is being denied the staff of the House of Parliament.
Public Service employees can, for example, appeal staffing decisions such as appointments or demotions to an independent third party. This right to appeal will be denied under Bill C-45. Bill C-45 eliminates any recourse to the rights available under the Canada Labour Code without providing any corresponding appeal or rights mechanisms. We should have an attitude of noblesse oblige to the employees of Parliament Hill.
While there has been considerable documentation of abuses, it would appear that they have been ignored in a framing of the legislation.

As is clear from a paper submitted by the PSAC, many employees have no job description, and those who do have found that they are obsolete and are often arbitrarily changed, especially in an environment that has recently been subject to considerable re-organization and technological change.
Mr. Speaker, I may add that the technological change will continue. And I would like to conclude by quoting the former President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr. Pierre Samson, who said:
There is no reason why parliamentary employees should be considered as second class citizens-
And the New Democratic Party, supports this position.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my views to those expressed by Hon. Members who have already taken part in the debate on Bill C-45, a Bill that on the face of it would seem to benefit the employees of the House. It is certainly better than nothing because we have employees here at this very moment who are not unionized and who have very little in the way of protection, and I must admit that this legislation is at least a step in the right direction.
However, as soon as we scratch the surface and look at what Bill C-45 really offers, we realize that the legislation is unsatisfactory. However, it does provide a basis, and I would not go so far as to say that the Bill should be rejected out of hand. It still provides a basis for discussion, so there is a possibility of improving the Bill in Committee, provided the improvements are substantial.
Actually, I think this is a Bill that is meant to make the Government and Government Members feel good. Now they can say: We don't intend to leave those poor House employees defenceless; now we have a Bill that will help them organize and unionize and defend their rights.
What I find very strange indeed is that when these employees of the House of Commons had received the permission of the Canada Labour Relations Board to organize with a view to forming a union, the Government decided to appeal the decision and go before the courts to have it reversed.
My own explanation for this behaviour is that if the employees had organized on the basis of the initial decision, they would have organized in a way that would be more in line with their own demands. The Government, however, preferred to cut short any such action by its employees and introduce a Bill to deal with the situation according to its own lights. I think this legislation does more for the Government than for its employees. Any legislation that allows employees to unionize should provide a fair balance. In other words, the employees must have sufficient protection. On the other hand, the employer must be able to manage the entreprise. In this case, however, and I shall give some details later on, the employees are not being given enough power to look after their own interests. I would say this is a Bill that cries out for improvement. I am rather surprised that several back-benchers representing ridings close to Parliament Hill on the Hull side, in Gatineau and in Ottawa seem to be taking so little interest in this Bill. One would expect them to spring to the defence of some of the House of Commons employees who happen to be their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for some time now, 17 years in fact, and I can tell you that discontent among House of Commons employees is proverbial. Not that there is a general outcry, but a Member of the House cannot walk in the corridors or cafeterias for more than a week without coming across an employee who has a grievance. They will even corner Members from distant ridings such as mine in the Montreal region. None of my electors work on Parliament Hill, yet employees come


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
up to me to complain about some of the administration's unilateral decisions. For quite some time I have been hoping that our employees might be covered under an acceptable collective bargaining system which would guarantee fair treatment. More significant still, they would have their say about the way they are treated, as is the case now for their fellow workers in some other Government departments.
Let us look at some of the more frequent grievances drawn to our attention in recent years. Staff reductions in certain sectors is one of them. I did not have time to check into all these allegations, but I have been told that maintenance staff cutbacks have reached 40 per cent in some cases. I have no supporting evidence but if the employees were unionized and could confront the employer these figures might be verified and the employees would be in a better position to defend themselves against cut-backs.
They also talk about reductions of some benefits which had been considered as vested rights. For instance, it is now more difficult -for newer employees to get days off, and the latest trend is to hire even more part-time employees. Employees who thought they had permanent jobs are worried that they may eventually be displaced by part-time workers. More and more services are contracted out to and provided by the private sector. We can appreciate that some employees are afraid to learn practically overnight that, as a result of an arbitrary decision, their work will be done by a local firm, yet they did not have a chance to bargain or defend themselves.
Various comments have been heard about questionable hiring and classification practices. I do not want to exaggerate, but I would simply say that some people claim that promotions are not always based on merit alone. Without giving specific examples, I would point out that if we had an acceptable collective bargaining system some of these points which are now the subject of grievances would be discussed directly with the employer and settled amicably rather than continue to feed the rumour mill on Parliament Hill. Employees who feel they have been shortchanged keep chasing Members up and down the corridors to argue their case and, now and then, some of their complaints are picked up by the media. Hence the bad reputation of the House of Commons as an employer, something which should not even exist in 1986.
I would say therefore it is important and essential, in our Party's view, that our employees should join a union and have a collective agreement in which they would participate and under which they would be reasonably protected. Unfortunately, although Bill C-45 looks in that direction, it has flaws that will have to be remedied, if the legislation is to have both the support of the Liberal Party of Canada and probably more important still, the support of those who will be using it, those who are to be protected, namely the employees of the House of Commons.
For instance, I would like to point out that one of the provisions that needs the most to be amended is Clause 5(3) of Bill C-45, because it would prohibit the negotiation of certain
problems that are linked primarily to classification, job description, employee remuneration and job evaluation.
So this is one of its major flaws. How is it possible to prevent employees from negotiating the classification system under which they work, which sets up the level at which they will be working, their job descriptions and above all their level of remuneration? There is reference to salary. In fact, there is no one in any collective bargaining process, even in the private sector, who cannot negotiate both the level of employee remuneration and job evaluation.
There is also Clause 55(2) dealing with staffing. In effect, it prevents any possibility of sending to arbitration any matters for instance dealing with appointments, job evaluation, promotion, demotion, transfers, lay-offs or dismissals, all matters that are subject to grievances under any collective agreement. Those two most contentious areas could not be referred to third party arbitration. That flaw in the legislation will have to be corrected.
Mr. Speaker, let me bring to your attention, for instance, the area of classification as viewed by the Public Service Alliance, and I quote from documents they were kind enough to make available to me: "The Public Service Alliance of Canada had the chance to evaluate at close range the classification system as applied in the House of Commons."
And they gave an exemple-I am concluding, Mr. Speaker- concerning messengers who filed a grievance in 1982 for having been reclassified from GS-4 to OP-2, and it is obvious that following that decision they are getting $5,000 less in salary today.
One will understand that in a normal collective agreement system, it would have been very hard to negotiate a $5,000 salary cut.
In this instance, since there was no collective agreement, an arbitrary decision was reached.
Mr. Speaker, I am giving that example only to illustrate the main thrust of my point, which is that the legislation is in dire need of amendment.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, good democratic government operates with the consent of the governed. Bill C-45 is an attempt to deny employees of the Hill, the governed in this case, from the rights which over a half a million workers under federal jurisdiction enjoy under the Canada Labour Code. Therefore, this Bill is an attempt to put one group of employees in a situation much different from the one in which their co-workers in other parts of the Government find themselves. Hill employees have been without protection from either federal or provincial laws and they continue to be so. That was a bad situation because the employees were in a no-man's land in which the employers could do what they pleased, and quite often did.


Bill C-45 does address some of the deficiencies that exist, but it does not establish a framework which would put the employees on the Hill on the same footing as other workers in Canada. The Bill establishes a new framework for the employees on the Hill but does not give them the rights which they should have as employees of the Government. Why should the employees on the Hill be treated differently from other people who work for the Government of Canada? The employees have a right to question these differences. We as their technical employers have a responsibility to make sure that those rights are at least equal to the rights of other employees of the Government of Canada.
In the 10 minutes we are allotted today it is impossible to pinpoint all of the shortcomings of the Bill. I would like to bring to the attention of the House those particular shortcomings in the Bill which will allow to continue the things that have caused the most dissatisfaction in the past.
First, the Bill does not cover MPs' staff, Leaders' staff and Party research staff. These employees work for us in a much more intimate way than do the custodians and the cafeteria staff. They have the same kind of problems as the other Hill employees and, therefore, they should have the right to be included under this Bill which establishes only minimal rights. They are excluded entirely and will be in the same position after the Bill is passed as all employees are at present. They will not have any basic rights.
Second, the Bill does not provide for negotiation of classification issues and things like job descriptions, assignments of pay levels and changes in duties. If this Bill passes as it presently reads, the present system of classification will remain unchanged. If we were to look back at the history of Parliament, we would probably find that this particular problem has been the cause of most occurrences of employee dissatisfaction. Many employees do not have job descriptions at all, and many find their job descriptions out of date or having little bearing on the work they actually perform. There is a particular need to establish job descriptions so that people know what they are doing, what they are being paid for and whether or not they are being paid for it at the right pay level. This Bill does not provide for negotiation of that matter.
Third, there is a clause in the Bill which can only be called a union-busting clause. That clause eliminates the recognition of any attempt made by employees to establish a union. It does not allow the applications for certification that have already been made to be recognized.
I could go on. The Bill removes the right to strike. It does not provide for the arbitration of awards, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers, layoffs and releases. Disallowing those things takes away from the rights of the people who should be given the same kind of rights as other workers in Canada. It becomes obvious that the shortcomings in this Bill should be looked at in committee very closely and changes should be made to the Bill so that it more closely resembles the
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
kind of Bill the public servants of Canada have a right to expect.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise this morning to make a few comments on Bill C-45 in the 10 minutes provided me. Bill C-45 is an Act to provide employees of the House of Commons and the Senate with a framework of representation. A central issue in this debate is that we in the Opposition are not trying to delay or oppose the Bill simply for the sake of opposing it. Once again, we are trying to bring something to the attention of the Government.
Bill C-45 is a piece of legislation that in theory and in principle tries to improve the lot of workers on Parliament Hill, both in the House of Commons and the other place, and to bring the workers up to a standard that is fair and comparable to the standards of workers outside the House of Commons and the Senate. We are trying to bring to the Government's attention the fact that Bill C-45 is simply not good enough. Bill C-45 will not do what Government Members purport it will do.
In its present form, the legislation is being rejected by both the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians. As well, the very people this legislation addresses, the employees on Parliament Hill, have rejected it.
Earlier in debate we moved an amendment to hoist the Bill for an extended period of time so that the Government would have an opportunity to go back to the drawing-board and to begin to take seriously the complaints made against this particular piece of legislation. At that point in second-reading stage, that amendment was not agreed to.
We are saying once again at this point that there are serious frustrations being felt on Parliament Hill with respect to this piece of legislation. The feeling about this legislation is that if we are going to move to enhance the position of and respect for these workers, we should not go halfway or three-quarters of the way, but should go the full distance. Some of these employees feel that if we are not prepared to go the full distance then we should not bother doing anything at all. They feel that the last thing they need is to be used in a parliamentary debate and to be carted out at election time by a government Member who is pretending to be the champion of this particular cause. They are saying that they are not naive or gullible and that they do not wish the Government to proceed on that basis.
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, a very similar argument was presented to us when we were debating Bill C-62, the employment equity Bill. Not only in the House but in committee we were debating a piece of legislation that was attempting to ensure equity in the workplace for four target groups, the visible minorities, the disabled, women and natives. Every target group and every organization within the framework of those four classifications appeared before the committee and at meetings across the country to say that they were not satisfied
12736


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
with the piecemeal, band-aid approach of this piece of legislation. It was a very frustrating process for me, and I was involved from square one until third reading in the House, because we could not address seriously or in a genuine fashion the concerns of those four target groups. We were putting in place a piece of legislation for those four communities in Canada, and those four communities were saying that the Canadian Government was not listening because the piece of legislation was not moving on the issues on which they wanted to move.
Now, in a very similar fashion, we have Bill C-45 before us. Rather than talking about employment equity, we are now talking about equity for workers on Parliament Hill so that they will be on equal ground with outside workers. To simplify the debate to its common demoninator, basically they are saying that cafeteria workers on Parliament Hill and cafeteria workers outside Parliament Hill should somehow within Government framework be on equal footing. Those two groups of workers should be receiving equal treatment from the federal Government. Those workers somewhere else in the federal bureaucracy and those on Parliament Hill should be treated with the same degree of respect. In essence, they are providing the same type of service in their own areas. Therefore, under the umbrella of the federal Government, why are we not prepared in this piece of legislation to allow workers on Parliament Hill the same rights presently enjoyed by workers off Parliament Hill? It is not a question of giving special rights. It is not a question of saying that we will give them the privileges of a, b, or c. If Bill C-45 were strengthened, we would be ensuring parity among workers under the federal Government and the rights of those under the Public Service Alliance of Canada within the federal bureaucracy would certainly prevail here.
There are a number of very contentious issues which and provide the basis of disapproval for Bill C-45. One is the inability of workers under this piece of legislation to deal with serious issues affecting their jobs, that is to say, under Bill C-45 individuals would have the right simply to dither about working conditions, numbers of hours, and salaries. However, this particular piece of legislation would not provide for important matters such as job classification, appointment, appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off, and the release of employees. If we do not allow for movement and opportunity for discussion and representation on these issues, what will this piece of legislation do?
In the few seconds remaining, I should like to refer to the issue of complaints on the job. Rather than employees having the benefit of a union body or organization bringing forward a complaint on their behalf, this piece of legislation would dictate that the individual would have to come forward and identify himself or herself. That is not good enough. It is almost a form of intimidation. Basically it does not say: "If you have a legitimate complaint, we do not wish to have your name or identity known. As long as it is a legitimate concern
within the system, we will allow the union to raise it on your behalf so that not only your concern will be corrected, if the problem is of particular importance to other individuals who are experiencing it their lot could be improved". That is not guaranteed in the Bill. It places the onus on the individual to come forward; individuals are intimidated and threatened to come forward under the present system.
I see you motioning, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. I appreciate having had this opportunity, and I look forward to the Government moving on some very serious concerns and very serious flaws which are presently embodied in the Bill.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-45. It is a very important issue because there are some 3,000 employees of the House of Commons. It strikes me as being very embarrassing that in 1986 some 3,000 employees of this House do not have the right to form a trade union or the right collective bargaining. They do not have the rights of other workers in all kinds of other industries. This is 1986. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have all kinds of rights for all kinds of people who work in the country from coast to coast.
In my own riding there are trade unions and workers with rights. They negotiate their salaries, working conditions, and conditions regarding safety on the job. In some cases they negotiate for their pensions. However, the House of Commons, the supreme law-making body of the land, has workers who do not have those rights. This is very shameful in 1986.
Here we are being sanctimonious as a Parliament on all kinds of issues, yet we have people working for us who do not have basic, fundamental rights. As I said, it is an outright shame. We do not practise what we preach. I see a Member from Cape Breton over here; there are trade unions in Nova Scotia.


Mr. Peterson:: Hamilton West.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In fact, in Hamilton there are even more trade unions. They have rights. The workers of Stelco have rights to collective bargaining, and rights vis-a-vis grievance procedures. They have rights with regard to working conditions, health and safety, and so on. Why do those workers have those rights and employees of the House of Commons do not have them? A tremendous amount of shame is reflected on every Member of the House of Commons. I hope, with all these new Members of the Conservative Party we can somehow break this terrible precedent of the past and give workers on the Hill, be they in the cafeterias, the Library, messenger services, the post office, or whatever, full and total collective bargaining rights and privileges like those enjoyed by employees of the Parliament of Great Britain.
Margaret Thatcher is a very conservative Conservative; she is more Conservative than most Conservatives in our House. However, she does not try to roll back the clock in terms of unionizing the employees of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Why are my friends in the Conservative Party


afraid to bring in full and total collective bargaining rights and unionization rights for the employees of the House of Commons? They tend to hang their hats on that old thing called parliamentary privilege, as if we are supreme gods in the House of Commons and whatever we say goes. They seem to think that if workers have the right to collective bargaining and grievance procedures, suddenly our sacred privileges go out the window. That is a bunch of crap, a bunch of bunk; it is about time we called a spade a spade. It does not even happen in Margaret Thatcher's Britain, yet it happens in the boy from Baie Comeau's Canada. It is an utter national disgrace. I call upon Members of Parliament to ensure that the 3,000 employees of this place are given the right to collective bargaining and the right to have some say over their working conditions, health and safety, and hiring procedures.
I have been in the House for almost 18 years. I have heard story after story about how people sometimes get jobs in this place and how they are pushed around. Mr. Speaker, if you want some evidence of this, go to the Library and listen to some of the tapes which were dictated by Lloyd Francis, a former Speaker of the House, some of which were released to the press about seven months or eight months ago. In them this former distinguished Speaker of the House talked about sexual harassment where some women had to disrobe to qualify for their jobs. He talked about nepotism, about the fact that it is who you know and not what you know which got you a job in this place over the years. He talked about all kinds of other things that go on in the hiring of staff for the House of Commons. This was former Speaker Lloyd Francis. I know that from experience because we have heard these stories year in and year out.
I call upon the Conservative Party to make sure we have full collective bargaining rights for the employees of this place. It is not only the Parliament of Great Britain that has collective bargaining and trade unions in its Parliament. In fact, the employees there have the right to strike. That is Margaret Thatcher's Britain. In some of our provincial legislatures, for example in Saskatchewan, the employees have their own unions and collective bargaining process. Why can't we do it here? Why do we insist on being dinosaurs in the 1980s? That is beyond me, Mr. Speaker.


John Edmund Parry: It is a Tory Government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is a Tory Government. The answer comes from the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). Even Margaret Thatcher has given these rights to the employees. I see a friend of mine in the Conservative Party agrees with me. Why can't the boy from Baie Comeau do the same thing, Mr. Speaker?
Bill C-45 does not go far enough. It is only a partial loaf. I wish Members of the Conservative Party would rear up on their hind legs and rebel a little bit. They should exercise a little bit of their authority and show the Prime Minister (Mr. Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Mulroney)-maybe we do not have four-legged Tories, I withdraw that-that they are not going to tolerate the kinds of laws that do not allow employees of the House of Commons to unionize in 1986.

Mr. Speaker, we have 3,000 employees in the House of Commons. They do not have the right to collective bargaining. They are not entitled to negotiate their salaries. They are not entitled to negotiate a number of items dealing with benefits, pensions and so on and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, this is 1986, not 1886. Now is the time to act, to let employees of the House of Commons have their rights. Mr. Speaker, in England under Margaret Thatcher, employees have the right to strike, they have unions, and we can do exactly the same thing here.

I call upon Members of the Conservative Party to do a little bit of rebelling, repent their past sins, as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would say.


Mr. Nickerson:: We don't have any sins.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Nickerson) says "We don't have any sins". I would like him to defend the system. I am quoting Margaret Thatcher. It must be getting really bad when a socialist has to quote Margaret Thatcher as evidence. I don't even like Margaret Thatcher but that shows how bad it is, having to say that Margaret Thatcher is setting a good example.


An Hon. Member:: It shows you are growing.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why can't the Conservatives in Canada come at least as far as Margaret Thatcher by allowing basic, fundamental democratic rights to the employees of the House of Commons? I hope some of them will tell us why they do not allow employees of this place to have their fundamental democratic rights. Why in 1986 should our employees not have the right to collective bargaining for their salaries? Why should the employees of the House of Commons not have the right to collective bargaining, vis-d-vis staffing? Why should they not have that kind of right?
We allow those kinds of rights for other workers, thank goodness. Why not right here in the House of Commons? It is an absolute disgrace in 1986 to treat the employees of the House of Commons, as we do in many ways, in a master-slave type of relationship. I hope we can get some Conservative Members of Parliament to explain today why they will not join those of us in the Opposition and change the system that dates back to 1896.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate to say how much I regret that the Gover-ment did not accept the motion presented by my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) asking for a one month hoist of


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
this bill to allow the parties involved, that is the employer and employees, to agree on a measure which everyone would find satisfactory.
Unfortunately, this suggestion was not accepted, and we are now at the third reading stage of Bill C-45, which I find abusive and which will not have the support of the Members of the Official Opposition.
We regret the inflexibility of the Government in this case since this is the first opportunity for Parliament to act generously with its employees on Parliament Hill. However, the Government, through the Government House Leader, recently published a communique to explain the context of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Bill. This release says: "The issue of the right to collective bargaining for parliamentary employees has been debated at least since 1967. Since then, there had been many reports and studies, but no Government legislation had been proposed before."
In the fall of 1983 began a series of certification applications presented under the Canadian Labour Code by unions wanting to be recognized as the bargaining agents for certain parliamentary employees. The Canada Labour Relations Board said that it was asserted qualified to hear them, but until now, it has published no certification order.
The Canada Labour Code is the act which governs collective bargaining for private sector workers under the jurisdiction of Parliament. Some fear that certification under the Code accompanied with the full right to strike might seriously jeopardize the efficient operation of Parliament. This is why the Government introduced this bill which, in a manner of speaking, takes away the full right to strike from our parliamentary employees.
I find the attitude of the Government somewhat strange in this case. Indeed, would the fact that the messengers of the House of Commons and certain employees of the Parliamentary Library were on strike at a given time seriously compromise the efficient operation of Parliament? I ask this question seriously.
Our colleague for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who spoke before me in this debate pointed out quite rightly that the employees of other parliaments in the world have the right to strike. However, the mother of Parliaments in Great Britain has never been perturbed in its operation because some of its employees had the right to strike.
I have to ask myself whether the Government is not judging hastily and overly severely employees who have been working on Parliament Hill for many years, who have done their jobs as well as they could and who have never done anything to disturb the proper operation of this Parliament.
I find it somewhat strange that, while action is being taken before the Canada Labour Relations Board to have certain unions duly certified, the Government would disturb the normal process of this certification by introducing legislation which goes in the opposite direction and that it would continue
to harass its employees by taking legal action. I have already said so and I now say it again: The problem of labour relations with the parliamentary employees will not be solved before the courts. The best proof of this is the fact that the recent decision of the Federal Appeal Court will be challenged by the Public Service Alliance. One of the representatives of the Alliance, Mr. Jean Bergeron, pointed out immediately after this ruling by the Federal Court that he would take the issue to the Supreme Court itself. It is obviously a very bad beginning for this new system of staff relations with the parliamentary employees if the parties involved continue to bicker before the courts. We, of the Liberal Party, would have much preferred that the Government come to a negotiated agreement with the representatives of these employees.
It seems to me that it would have been possible to do so if the Government had been willing to grant clearly and specifically to the representatives of the employees a clarification in the legislation about what Mr. Jacques Audette, president of the Public Service Alliance local and responsible for the parliamentary employees, said in a public letter dated May 7, 1985, the contents of which have been known for a number of months. This letter addressed to all Members of Parliament and Senators said the following:
The issues which we were-and still are-most concerned about are classifications, job descriptions, competitions, promotions, transfers, as well as the fear to be laid off or dismissed.
However, I feel that the compulsory arbitration provided for under Bill C-45 is not a valid alternative, because employees who do not have the right to strike legally will, very often, strike illegally. The number of strikes which occur in Canada every year show to what extent workers, in order to make a point or get public opinion on their side, have often no other choice but to strike illegally. In my opinion, they have a poor knowledge of labour relations if they think that, through legislation, one can stop employees from going on strike when these employees feel that they have valid grounds to disrupt the normal order of things to convince their employer to show a little more understanding and compassion.
Therefore, I say to Government Members that if they think that by going ahead and imposing Bill C-45 on Parliament employees we will avoid strikes on the Hill, they are mistaken. It is not with strong-arm tactics that one can establish good labour relations.
I am quite disappointed with the uncompromising attitude the Government is showing with this Bill.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I made a speech on this Bill on Friday of last week in which I pointed out the historical master/slave relationship which has existed on this Hill since Parliament was established. As a matter of fact, when I first arrived here I was absolutely amazed at the subservience of the staff, brought on by what is known as parliamentary privilege. Members of Parliament are served,


saluted, bowed before and waited on hand and foot. I gave the example of the little green bus which goes from the Confederation Building to the Centre Block. If a lowly messenger gets on the bus and it is carrying a Member as well, it cannot stop at the West Block even though it has to go right past, even though the Member is not in a hurry. Even though there is no vote being taken in the House, the bus goes directly to the Centre Block.


Mr. Minaker:: Not when I'm on it!


John R. Rodriguez: That is the policy. We also have a parking area which is called the pit. The bus was not allowed to go down there until an employee on the Hill was assaulted in the pit at night. Suddenly our consciences got pricked and we sent the bus down into the pit again. The bus is for MPs. We are treated in a way which isolates us from the realities of this world. On the Hill it is unreal. People got jobs on the Hill in the messenger service, the cafeterias and restaurants, based on who they knew, based on nepotism. That is an established fact. In some instances that practice still exists today.
Now, finally, Parliament is shamed because the workers on the Hill are taking active steps to organize themselves into a collective. They have been embarrassing Parliament and parliamentarians into treating their employees with the kind of respect that collective bargaining ensures. That is why we now have Bill C-45 before this House. I want to and did give credit to the Conservatives for at least bringing it forward. It is something which the Liberals, even though they knew what was going on, never dared to do. We must not forget that. They will now parade around-and it is unfortunate that none of them are in the House at this moment-as the great friends of the workers. I will rephrase that. I cannot see any of the Official Opposition who will make an argument against what I am saying.
Bill C-45 has been brought into the House. I want to ask how Government Members can look those workers in the eye and say this Bill will ensure their right to negotiate grievances, staffing, classification, occupational health and safety, and technological change? How can Conservative Members look in the eyes of those people who serve them so well and say they are doing the best they can?
This Bill is a son of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. My colleague from Kenora-Rainy River says it is illegitimate at that. We know the PSSRA was the cause of most of the problems between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the post office management. It does not permit those items I have listed to be negotiated. If the Government really wanted to do something, there is an alternative. It could have covered these workers under the Canada Labour Code. That Code is far more comprehensive legislation than the PSSRA. If on this Hill, for example, there has been a demotion, a firing, or a cut in pay Bill C-45 does not allow the worker to grieve that. It does not permit grieving of that particular practice, which is still happening on this Hill. How can you look the people who
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
work for you in the eye and tell them you are giving them something that will provide protection.
On the question of grievances it does not allow workplace problems to be addressed by union grievances, or grievances filed by a group of workers. For example, health and safety in the print shop and in the cafeterias; air quality and other environmental problems in the Wellington Building cannot be subject to a union grievance. Technological change is overtaking this Hill rapidly; one only has to look at the introduction of the OASIS Program and the Micoms and the word processors, and a whole host of other technological changes. In fact, the House has been cutting the staff on the Hill. There was a 40 per cent cut in maintenance staff on the Hill. Workers under Bill C-45 would not be able to grieve such situations.
How can these Government Members look the staff on the Hill in the eye, those who wait on them hand and foot and serve them with a great deal of deference and respect? How can they the masters tell the workers on the Hill, "We are doing the best we can for you". Air Canada workers, railway workers, a whole host of other public servants across this country are covered under the Canada Labour Code. What skin is it off their nose to permit the workers on the Hill to come under the protection of the Canada Labour Code.
We had the example of somebody working in the cafeteria cutting their hand. He went to the nurse and the nurse said, "You can't go to work, go home". The worker reported to the supervisor and the supervisor said, "You get your buns on the job or else you get off the job". That kind of thing will continue under Bill C-45. It does not allow the right to strike. It is not that workers on the Hill all want to go out on strike tomorrow. But in fact that is the ultimate, that is the last resort. Bill C-45 does not give workers the right to remove their services. As my colleague from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) asked, what has been the reason for not going with the right to strike? We are told, "Oh, we have got to go with the privilege of Parliament. You cannot interfere with parliamentarians' rights".
The Mother of Parliament, which we have always traditionally looked to for our examples in our parliamentary processes, has have full bargaining rights for their employees, including the right to strike. I have not read where the workers at Westminster have tied up Parliament and prevented parliamentarians from doing their job. Yet we have this condition in Bill C-45. We have no grievance procedures that are of strength, no staffing permitted to be grieved, the whole question of classification is non-negotiable, occupation, health and safety are non-negotiable, non-grievable, and the right to strike is not there.
The Conservatives have not been participating in this debate, and I wonder why the benches on the government side have been so silent. I would like them to enter into debate on the principles of Bill C-45. They owe it to the workers on this Hill who have served them and who continue to serve them so


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
well. You cannot hide behind Bill C-45, it is transparent. It does not do a thing to cover you up. You are showing you do not give a hoot and you do not respect the workers on the Hill when you bring Bill C-45 into this House and ask us to pass it. That is why we are opposed to it. I want to hear some Conservative debate. We are entitled to hear it and I think the workers are entitled to hear where you stand because you are going to ask them for your vote on election day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Question?
[ Translation]


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to offer you a few comments on Bill C-45, especially because in the course of my carreer here in Ottawa, I have had the honour to serve as President of the Treasury Board. In this capacity, I have had a great many occasions to deal with issues raised and considered in this Bill.

Over the time, Mr. Speaker, had the honour, and the privilege of that responsibility as President of the Treasury Board, to address in my own mind, along with my colleagues, and in dialogue with the citizens of Canada, the rights of public employees generally in terms of collective bargaining, the right to strike and, of course, in the latter days, the rights of those public servants who serve us so well here on the Hill. The bottom line is that our employees be treated fairly, that their rights be protected, but not in a paternalistic way. That is why it is essential that certain rights be extended to them.
Today in the very few moments allowed to me I want to address one of the rights which is not extended, and what one must do to ensure that right, in the absence of that very important right in labour-management relations to strike, to withdraw services, and that is the right of the employees to meaningful arbitration. There must be a mechanism for the settlement of disputes which is objective and fair. There is no room for paternalism in these relationships. The employees must be protected, but in a way which protects the public interest at the same time.
Without digressing, let me recount for the benefit of the Members of the House two experiences which I had as President of the Treasury Board which influenced me to a considerable degree in arriving at the conclusion that in many circumstances the right to strike is inappropriate, not in the interests of the employees, not in the interests of the employer, the Government of Canada, and certainly not in the interests of the public. Let me explain why, and why I believe that experience is important in excluding that particular right in this piece of legislation.
At one time I was faced simultaneously with strikes of employees who had a direct impact upon the public interest. Postal workers, of course, are a classic example. Now, the bargaining chip in the case of a strike by postal workers is not the Government of Canada; the bargaining chip is the public
interest. It is the holding of the public hostage which becomes the principal trading chip in negotiations. That is not what collective bargaining in the public sector should be designed to accomplish. The employer is not hurt, except perhaps politically, but the people of Canada are hurt. The same is true in the case of air controllers, where there is a public outcry, and the Members of the House would immediately have to be called upon to legislate these workers back to work. That is the very denial of any right to strike which has been granted.
On the other hand, I recall a strike of the translators. There was very little disposition on the part of the public to be generous, if I can use that term, with the translators because the public interest was not affected. In that case the right to strike was not serving the interests of the employees, and in the other case it was not serving the interests of the public. When I look at the circumstances of employees on the Hill, clearly the right to strike is inappropriate. It would be curious indeed if the operations of this institution were to be shut down by reason of a strike of employees. Even if the powers of designation which exist under the relevant public service legislation were to be used, so that those employees essential to the safety, health and security of the public were required to work, there would still be picketers and picket lines. Members of the House would be called upon to cross those picket lines in the interest of discharging the very important responsibilities that they have assumed as Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, these comments deal only with a few aspects of the legislation now before the House. However, I wish to emphasize just how essential it is for the rights and interests of all these employees to be protected effectively and in a way which is not, as we say in English, paternalistic.
Therefore, I am pleased that movement is being made in some directions. I believe from the debate that I have heard, the commentary on the Bill and my analysis of it, that this probably can be improved substantially in terms of providing employees the protection they require. At the same time, however, there must be the overriding consideration for the public interest.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45.1 am sure you would like to have an opportunity to express your views; I am sure that you would not support this piece of government legislation.
The employees on the Hill and those in the trade union movement who have studied this Bill realize very well that the Government does not really support collective bargaining. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), pointed out that the mother of Parliament in Westminster has had full union rights for many years. In Canada, these rights exist with the Supreme Court, the Privy Council, the Governor


General, Air Canada, CN, CP, CBC, the Mint, Canada Post, Canada Ports, CMHC and almost all of the other agencies associated with the federal Crown. They have appropriate mechanisms for collective bargaining rights.
This Bill flows from the 1984 declaration by the Canada Labour Relations Board that it had jurisdiction over Parliament Hill employees. This would have offered superior rights and tools to the workers on the Hill to those being offered under Bill C-45. On examination of the clauses of Bill C-45 this morning I find it to be a document designed to choke a donkey. It contains some 89 clauses and dozens of subclauses explaining what powers employees do not have and why they should not have them.
This Bill is extremely revealing of the Government, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and I suppose the entire front bench of that administration. They do not want to deal effectively with those workers who are deserving, more than anyone else in the country, of a demonstration of good faith by the Government.
The denial of these rights will affect committee clerks, constables and security, nurses, printing services, the staff of Members of Parliament, French and English indexers, the Senate maintenance and messenger service, the Library of Parliament, maintenance, the committee reporting services, the broadcast service, the messengers and distribution service, and the restaurant and cafeterias.
In the seven years that I have been here I have seen many occasions when workers on Parliament Hill have been very much in need of the protection that is provided by union rights and grievance procedures. As a matter of fact, this morning when I was taking the bus from the Confederation building, a Government Member on board wanted to get off at the front door of the West Block. The driver has been given certain criteria under which to operate the bus. He saw that there were other people on board who were coming here. He did not go to the side door, but stopped at the corner so that the Government Member had to get off and walk some 30 feet. The Government Member became upset and asked why he was not taken to the front door. It is because of situations like that that workers on the Hill require some kind of realistic protection, which is not provided in this Bill.
The Bill contains no solutions to the problems which originally led staff to begin organizing on the Hill. Bill C-45 very carefully prevents any real negotiations for the classification of position and assignment of duties. It very specifically prohibits any kind of negotiation on staffing with respect to job appointments, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers or lay-offs. As the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt pointed out, these are crucial rights because of the history of nepotism on the Hill, where a position has often been corralled by someone who happens to be related to a person with influence here. It is an example of another situation in which workers, whether or not they are new on the Hill, require some kind of procedure to protect their rights.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Grievance procedures cannot be truly negotiated because limits are set on what grievances can go to third party arbitration. Specifically, union grievances are not allowed. I can see the shame on your face, Mr. Speaker, that the Government cannot be controlled and brought into the 20th Century. Bill C-45 is a dinosaur egg. We will have to display a dinosaur egg every Easter to symbolize the reactionary tripe being drafted by the Government.
I believe Canadians want to know about some of the experiences of Parliament Hill employees rather than this lengthy Bill which consists of hundreds of pages, in spite of the Nielsen task force recommendation about saving money.
Let us examine the experience of a cafeteria service employee who cut his hand while working on the job. The nurse told him that it was not safe to go back to work because of the nature of his wound. However, his manager told the employee to go back to work or face disciplinary action. What kind of nonsense is that? This employee was working with food to be served to everyone on the Hill. He was told by the nurse to go home because he could not possibly stay on the job, for medical reasons.
The Government is not interested in knowing what is happening on the Hill. It must be stated and restated until the Government's dinosaur mentality fades.
The management, following their instructions, apply all kinds of criteria to the workers on the Hill. In the case I just mentioned, not only are these guidelines rubbish, they endanger the life and well-being, not only of the individual involved but of those who are eating the food. My friend from Sudbury raised the point-


John R. Rodriguez: Nickel Belt.


James Ross Fulton: Your official residence is in Sudbury. I do not mind letting the people who live in Nickel Belt know that the Hon. Member lives in Sudbury.


John R. Rodriguez: I don't live in Sudbury.


James Ross Fulton: You don't?


John R. Rodriguez: No.


James Ross Fulton: In Capreol, then. I am sorry Mr. Speaker, it was a small error. I want to ask why Hon. Members opposite are not speaking in this debate. Why are my friends from Alberta not speaking? The Ministers of the Crown are refusing to rise and explain why security workers on the Hill, those people who put themselves between us and any problems, are not allowed to have any kind of grievance procedure whereby there is some kind of arbitration process, some kind of realistic collective bargaining procedure where their rights and concerns are heard? What if one of the senior management in security is a little off base on some kind of security measure and the younger fellow, the guy who has been more recently


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
trained, says time and time again: "We should really be doing this and this" but the particular person in management says: "No, because I like to play golf at two o'clock or whatever"? I am not saying this is necessarily the case. What I am saying is there needs to be those kinds of mechanisms in place so we can increase the morale of those who do the tough work, whether in relation to Members of Parliament or to the administration of this huge complex. Real changes can then take place and we could see true efficiencies coming forth. We should not just be getting rid of people and shuffling them around.
I must say that the dinosaur egg is being hatched. I think the people of Canada should hear from some of these 211 Conservative Members of Parliament as to why Bill C-45 is the route to go. I certainly intend to transmit any of those speeches to the trade unionists in my constituency.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to the debate on Bill C-45.1 do so from the perspective of someone who has been a union member and a member of management, having seen it from both sides.
First, we have to remember that the people about whom we are speaking are not our servants. They are our employees and there is a great difference. I come from the public sector and I know the phrase "public servant" has a certain connotation in the minds of the taxpayers. It also has a certain connotation here on the Hill. We have to keep in mind that these people are employees and not servants. They are human beings and deserve the dignity of having the right to have a union and for that union to have the ability to represent them in the best way possible. In order to represent Hill employees, the union must have the tools which are available to most unions, for example, the right to grievance procedures, the right to strike, and a number of other matters which have been raised so far in this debate.
Let me deal with the right to strike because it is a fundamental right. When we have two sides sitting down to negotiate, whether it is language in a contract, the wording of a job description, the wage and benefit package or the hours of work, the employees only have one thing going for them and that is their ability to withdraw their services. The employer has the power of the dollar and control over their work lives. The workers only have the ultimate power, after negotiations have failed, to withdraw their services.
I find it rather ironic that the House of Commons and everything related to it, as far as the public is concerned, shuts down for two or three weeks at Christmas and two months or more in the summer. Obviously, we can do without Members of Parliament in terms of this Chamber and committees, by and large, for that period of time. Therefore, we cannot argue that we must have security staff, bus drivers, the people who record our words electronically and in-print form and all the other people who work here. If they withdrew their services, the world would not stop, and nor would Canada. Perhaps, if I could be facetious, we might save a few trees because there
would be less Hansards printed. But those services are not fundamental.
We cannot argue, as some do, in terms of professions where nurses, doctors, policemen, firemen and so on are essential and should not have the right to strike. There all sorts of opportunities to deal with problems in these very clear instances where workers are considered an essential service. There are other mechanisms in place. In addition to grievance procedures which are built in, there is the arbitration procedure to establish the wage benefits and fringe benefit packages. The workers' loss of the right to strike has in some cases been reluctantly replaced with another mechanism. But here on the Hill what would be the problem if, as a result of an impasse in negotiation between employees and the Government, a particular group decided to withdraw its services as a means of expressing its frustration and desire to reach a settlement which ensures fairness to them? What would be the problem? What if the Clerks of the Table went on strike? Would this place come to a grinding halt? We would rely on you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues, to give us direction in terms of clarification. We do that all the time, so you, Mr. Speaker, could perform that role.
There are many other areas. If cafeterias and restaurant workers decided that their working conditions and wage benefits were not appropriate and went on strike we could go across the street. There are other alternatives. So there is no reason why we in the House of Commons should restrict the ability of those employees to withdraw their services if they feel they have no other choice in order to get an agreement which makes sense.
The ability to negotiate job descriptions is also fundamental. Without a job description in which you have some say there is a fuzziness of lines of responsibility, and the management side has an ability to manipulate one's duties without due consideration of whether it is really within "their job description". A job description should not just be laid upon the table and the worker told to do it. There has to be some give and take, some negotiation around the wording and interpretation of the wording. That can be very important. I have sat on the union side in negotiations and worked out job desciptions. As we do in the House of Commons, there was discussion over the words "may" and "shall" which have very specific meanings. If in a job description an employer says a worker "may" do this or "shall" do this, there is a lot of difference in the meaning. The workers and their representatives should have the opportunity to sit down with management and discuss these kinds of things. It should not be arbitrary.
We are getting close to the one o'clock adjournment. I would, therefore, ask permission to sit down and resume again at three o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the accident at a Russian reactor site near Kiev should not, and cannot, be discussed in such a way so that all reactors in the world will be considered to be the same. The design and safety features of the Russian reactor in question are considerably different from Canada's CANDU reactor. The safety features of the CANDU reactor are proven and outstanding.
We understand that the Russian reactor is a graphitemoderated reactor. We also understand that there is a fire in the reactor. Such a situation could not happen in a CANDU reactor because we use heavy water as a moderator.
The CANDU reactor has barriers of concrete between the reactor vessel and the environment. These barriers would trap any potential radiation leak. We use heavy water as a moderator instead of graphite. Heavy water will not burn. Therefore, there could not be a fire. At the same time, the CANDU has concrete shields for added safety from potential radiation.
At Pickering, Ontario-


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



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out on an issue of critical importance to concerned British Columbians.
With a provincial election looming on the horizon the enumeration of eligible voters is now at an end. Voters lists have now been tallied. The results are farcical-a sham. Bill Bennett's Government has been so niggardly with money for the enumeration that there are now 500,000 fewer names on the voters' list than there were for the last provincial election.
It is also more difficult to get on the voters' list now than it was before. If one cannot get to a registration office oneself, then one will not get on the list. If one moves between now and the election then one probably will not have the right to vote.
It seems that Bill Bennett and his scandal-ridden regime are afraid to face the verdict of all British Columbians. I urge
everyone who wants to give the boot to Mr. Bennett and his cronies to get on the list. Democracy is too precious to be left to the scheming, manipulative machinations of Bill Bennett and his Government.



DISASTERS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the nuclear disaster in Ukraine yesterday has become an international issue due to the detection of high levels of radiation in countries bordering the Soviet Union. Experts have already indicated to us that the safety standards in place in the Soviet nuclear power station were less than acceptable. There is now fear that radiation fall-out could reach as far as North America.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to follow every avenue at his disposal to bring about a full multi-nation investigation into Soviet safety standards in nuclear power. This disaster could cost many lives. It is time that the Soviet Union put the rights of its peoples and the peoples of the world above technological short-cuts.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is making political capital at the expense of workers at Northern Telecom in Aylmer. The facts are not at all like that.
On March 25, I met with union representatives from Northern Telecom in my riding office. I suggested a meeting with the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) and forming a common front with federal and provincial members and mayors of municipalities. I advised the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) of the problem.
On April 18, I received a letter from the national union saying that it preferred a personal commitment from all these people instead of a common front.
Meanwhile, the union local wanted a common front but did not pursue the idea, probably under pressure from its national union.
Northern Telecom's decision was made on the basis of product demand. Furthermore, unlike what was claimed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, jobs will not be transferred


to Atlanta, Georgia, since this U.S. plant has also suffered job cuts. The number of jobs at the plant has dropped by 270.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds are up. The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, is nuclear war inevitable? Is war inherent in the fabric of history? What is to be done about it? Is there a special role for Canada? These were some of the questions asked and answered at an extraordinary conference on peace and security held in Montreal last week.
The writer, Elie Wiesel, stated the evident: the next summit conference between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev must take place. He added that it should take place in Hiroshima.
Our Amabassador to the U.N., Mr. Lewis, stated that Canadians must promote a comprehensive test ban treaty, without the slightest equivocation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should forcefully convey these views to President Reagan and the western leaders in Tokyo next week. He should insist that concrete steps be taken to arrive at a comprehensive test ban treaty in the near future. Canadians will be watching, and Canadians demand no less.



TOURISM


Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the importance of tourism in the outer regions. In the riding of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, the most beautiful riding in Quebec, tourism is becoming a very important industry.
Unfortunately, our road system has not kept up with these development. However, things are changing. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a $ 100-million program was announced for repairing and developing the Outaouais road system.
The federal Government has agreed to give $45 million for this project, under a shared-cost program with the Government of Quebec.
This project, which is to be completed over the course of the next four years, will allow easier access to the wonders of our region. Golfers, skiers, anglers, hunters, and nature lovers will now be able to come to our towns and villages by way of a modern and safe road system. With increased tourism, the economy of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle will prosper and our young people will no longer have to leave friends and family to find jobs.



TIMING OF PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Well, folks, do you remember that new Tory youth program promised by the end of the last fiscal year-oops, I mean by the end of spring? We now have the latest updated report from the Minister of State in charge of opening youth employment centres. She says to look for it in the fall, or perhaps even in the winter.
I have a better idea. Start looking for the program close to the next election when the Minister will be pursuing her real job, trying to capture the youth vote. That is when the program will be announced. However, for both youth and the Tories, that will be too late.

[ Translation]



FISHERIES


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, we were overjoyed to hear that a Gaspe co-operative was able to take over Pecheries Cartier Inc., a Crown corporation with three seafood processing plants and a sales office.
This sale is in line with our renewed economy and our Government's privatization policy. By selling this Crown corporation to a flourishing and well-managed co-operative, we are guaranteeing not only its survival but also its future development.
The new owner, Cooperative Purdel, will continue to operate the plants and will maintain about 500 jobs.
In a region like the Gaspe, it was imperative to improve the productivity of a company that was in danger of closing down. By putting it in the hands of people in the industry, our Government has again shown its confidence in the entrepreneurship of Canadians, the Gaspe and Quebecers.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the CBC released a poll that was recently conducted in the national capital region analysing residents' views on the Government's restraint measures and on the Public Service. Given that a large majority of these residents are public servants, the results were extremely interesting.
Forty-five per cent of public servants think there are too many public servants and only 8 per cent think there are too few. When asked to judge the value for taxpayers' money, 69 per cent of public servants answered either "fair" or"poor". Thirty per cent of public servants feel more services should be contracted out to the private sector, and 23 per cent feel the over-all effect of the Government's restraint measures are positive.
It is refreshing to know that public servants realize that Government bureaucracy is out of hand. The Liberals and NDP should get their heads out of the sand and recognize what all other Canadians have known for years. We are often too quick to criticize and too slow to praise. Today I, along with millions of other Canadians, praise the public servants on their objective analysis of the Government's performance and direction.


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



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to speak about yesterday's CBC poll. It said in part that, if an election were to be held tomorrow, the Tories would get 23 per cent of the vote, the Liberals would get 29.1 per cent of the vote, and the NDP would get 12 per cent of the vote. The moral of the story is that the people of the national capital area have had it with the Tory Government and the next time around they will get rid of the Tories and will bring the Liberals back to power.

[ Translation]



OBJECTIVES OF FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES

Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, free trade negotiations between Canada and the United States are aimed at
boosting economic growth, creating more jobs, and making our industries more efficient and more competitive on world markets.
Contrary to the views expressed by United Auto Workers President Bob White, we do not want to sell our technology, we do not want to sell our culture, and we certainly do not want to sell out Canada. If Mr. White believes he can help Canadian negotiations by hiding facts from the public, he is badly mistaken.
Instead of holding his union workers to ransom he should be defending their interests. If he wants to get into politics, let him hand in his resignation, get himself elected leader of the New Democratic Party, and take his seat in the House of Commons where he can display his true socialist colours.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) has begun to change funding criteria in his sector before the House approves his new multicultural policy. The result is a reduction in funding to hard-pressed community organizations in various regions. Some organizations which were rejected because of the spending freeze last winter are likely to be missed again in the 1986-87 Budget.
The Minister has decided that multiculturalism means business, and some of his limited funds will be directed to support that initiative. The Minister knows the inevitable consequences of that. Some organizations will be cut off, or all of them will receive less than they need.
In the Manitoba region multicultural program officers have only 90 per cent of last year's funding to fund this year's programs. It is more than time for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism to issue a policy paper and to consult with ethnocultural communities about his funding priorities. It is also more than time for the Government to rediscover the vital work of multicultural organizations and to fund their efforts accordingly.



INCREASE IN EXPORTS FROM SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Saskatchewan economy has encountered the difficult combination of declining world markets for wheat,


oil, uranium, and potash. Despite these set-backs in the resource industry, the latest trade indicators show that Saskatchewan is faring well with a Progressive Conservative provincial Government.
By working in partnership with the federal Government, total Saskatchewan exports in 1985 increased 11.6 per cent from 1984. Manufacturing exports grew by over 14 per cent. Already in the first two months of 1986 over-all Saskatchewan exports have increased by an impressive 48 per cent from the same period last year.
This should interest the New Democratic Party particularly. As we know, the NDP is against more trade for Saskatchewan. The NDP favours conflict and harassment in federal provincial relations. This is in stark contrast to the Government of Grant Devine which sees the value of trade and the success of harmonious federal-provincial co-operation.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, over the past year members of the opposition Parties have tried to mislead Canadians with regard to the upcoming trade negotiations with the United States. Their strategy of spreading doom and gloom scenarios has been quite irresponsible.
Let us look at some facts. Eighty per cent of our exports go to the United States, and approximately 2.5 million jobs are dependent upon trade. If we want to maintain and build upon our past successes, surely we should not bury our heads in the sand like an ostrich. Surely we should welcome the opportunity to sit down with our largest trading partner to discuss our trade issues and theirs. However, it is vitally important that we do our homework and be well organized for these discussions.
I believe we have a superb structure in place, under the leadership of Simon Reisman, with which to enhance our trade opportunities with the United States.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, residents of new housing projects in the Municipality of Saint-Leonard and Ville d'Anjou in my riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou state that they pay taxes just like residents of older wards.
A petition is being circulated in my riding, Mr. Speaker, but I will be unable to present it to the House because it was prepared before the new Standing Orders came into force. That is why I mention it today. Up to now I have 411 signatures from people of my riding who complain about Canada Post.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I want to ask him if he has obtained the resignation of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, in light of the sleazy spectacle of a Minister in financial difficulty cashing in on ministerial connections to seek a very favourable loan agreement from a company which has benefited from his Department's programs.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not secured, nor have I asked for, the resignation of the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion, and the Hon. Member for York Centre sets new records for indecency with his question.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the Prime Minister for his understanding of the facts. Surely if his new guidelines mean anything, and if the guidelines from 1984 mean anything, especially in light of what the Prime Minister said in the House to me on June 6, 1985:
We must seek to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
-surely that standard is violated by the spectacle of a Minister's wife getting benefits-


John Kenneth Gormley: Where is your question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -seeking to obtain benefits for the family business from a company which has-


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


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -benefited from his departmental programs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is not a question, Mr. Speaker. That is just an attempt to slander somebody who is not here. The Member will have to do a lot better than that because what he has been associated with is character assassination, McCarthyism, and slander, and that is not good enough in Canada.


NEWSPAPER REPORT-FAMILY BUSINESS TRANSACTION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has an opportunity to explain the facts. What explanation can he put on the story made public today involving the Minister, the Minister's wife, a family business, that brings it within his conflict of interest guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now the
Hon. gentleman finally asks a question, Mr. Speaker. Finally he asks a question.


An Hon. Member:: Give us an answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You will get your answer. When the report appeared this morning, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, because I was chairing a meeting of P and P Committee this morning prior to my departure, to meet immediately with the Deputy Registrar General of Canada who is responsible for conflict of interest guidelines. The Deputy Prime Minister met and reviewed the facts as alleged, and received the assurance from the Deputy Registrar General that the Minister was in full compliance.


ACTIVITIES OF MINISTER'S WIFE IN LOAN NEGOTIATIONS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, under the conflict of interest guidelines the company, constituting a principal asset of the Minister, was in a blind trust, yet the Minister's wife actively negotiated a loan. She first approached a company which at that time was actively discussing with the Minister a tax advantage and a sizable investment in Cape Breton. Does that not constitute, in the Prime Minister's mind, a violation of his conflict of interest guidelines, not only with respect to the blind trust but with respect to an appearance of wrong-doing on the part of the Minister and the Minister's wife?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this series of questions is very similar to the question asked on April 7 by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor based on a very similar newspaper article. The right hon. gentleman is surely clutching at straws when he suggests in the words that he uses in his preamble that wives and spouses of Members of Parliament are not free to seek an independent and separate career-
Oral Questions
company and a gentleman with whom the Minister was having active discussions about an investment in Cape Breton.
My question, and the Deputy Prime Minister may attempt to answer it, is for the Prime Minister and only he can answer it. Will he relieve this Minister of his duties until we have an opportunity to have a full inquiry into how that company got a $2.6 million interest-free loan? How are we going to satisfy that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition clearly believes in the novel principle of pretrial hanging. We do not, and neither do Canadians. Nor do we believe in acting on unverified speculation in newspapers. The matter is-


Mr. Lapierre:: It is your duty.
[Translation\


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, you are right. It is my duty. It is my duty to proceed in accordance with these guidelines. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister met with the senior Government official responsible who advised him that there was no conflict of interest. And now he is talking about ethical guidelines. I fail to see why any action should be taken on the basis of unfounded allegations by journalists, which in themselves do not warrant enforcement of the regulations.


IMPOSITION OF U.S. DUTY ON FISH IMPORTED FROM CANADA
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We just learned at noon today from Washington that the first victim of the so-called clean launch free trade talks is Canada's East Coast fishery. The International Trade Commission in Washington has decided there will be a 5.8 per cent duty on Canadian whole fish exported from Atlantic Canada. What does the Government of Canada propose to do to look after the interests of our East Coast fishery?


James Ross Fulton: Not interest-free loans.


Erik Nielsen: And, as a former Leader of that Party admonished us on one occasion, "wives are not chattels".


REQUEST THAT MINISTER BE RELIEVED OF DUTIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are not suggesting that Mrs. Stevens is anything of the kind. We are suggesting that she is a partner with her husband. Instead of a blind trust she actively negotiated a loan for that asset, there being no blind trust, and she approached a
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first of all it is the grossest of distortions to suggest that this decision had anything to do with the discussions on trade arrangements with the United States. Indeed, if those discussions are successful it may be that we will have in place a more effective instrument to protect Canadian interests. That is what we are looking to do.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this decision has everything to do with free trade. What was under


Oral Questions
consideration in part in the U.S. reaching this decision was Canadian regional development and fishery research programs which they regard as an unfair subsidy. Given that, is the Minister now telling the people of Canada that in order to get free trade with the U.S. we have to abandon all such programs which are essential to the development of this country?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, of course I am not saying that. No reasonable person would.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what the U.S. is saying.


Charles Joseph Clark: I suppose that if one were playing in the House of Commons the role of delivering paid poitical announcements for the Canadian Labour Congress, one might say that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But that is not the truth.


Mr. Crosbie:: Bob White's Charlie McCarthy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will take my stand with Canadian fishermen any day, wherever he may want to stand.


FISHERY PROGRAMS INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I was talking to representatives of the Canadian fishing industry this morning and I want to ask the Minister-


An Hon. Member:: In Toronto.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Yes. Believe it or not, fishermen from Atlantic Canada go to conventions in Toronto. It may surprise him but it does not surprise them.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are pulling your chain, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Is the Minister saying that in order to meet free trade requirements, according to this U.S. ruling, Canadian fishermen have to get rid of fishery research grants and regional development programs? If he is not saying that, what is his position with the U.S? Is he going to tell them their decision is wrong? Is he going to stand up for Canadian fishermen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the first decisions I had to make as Secretary of State for External Affairs was whether or not we would accede to an American request to delay for one year the application of an international court decision which was in the interests of Canadian fishermen. I said no, we would not delay justice for Canadian fishermen for a year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In that tradition of standing up for Canadian fishermen we are now examining all the details of this decision today. We are looking particularly at what aspects might be appealable under the GATT. If there are any, then Canada will appeal.


John Carnell Crosbie: And we fought it all the way. Next smear.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he knew that his wife had successfully negotiated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order!


Raymond Garneau: -negotiated a $2.6 million loan free of interest for one year from a person closely associated with the company that had had major financial dealings with his Department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The last part of the question does make it in order.


Erik Nielsen: As the Prime Minister has just informed the House, he asked me this morning to look once again, personally, into the same matter that I looked into last April 7 in response to a question by the Member for Essex-Windsor.
I met with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General and he assured me that the Minister had fully complied with the very exacting demands of the conflict of interest guidelines. Now, that is a fact. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has taken the trouble to speak with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General himself, but were he to do so he would get that response from him.


INQUIRY CONCERNING DATE $2.6 MILLION INTEREST-FREE LOAN WAS NEGOTIATED
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary. It is quite simple: When did you find out that your wife had negotiated a $2.6 million interest-free loan for the period of one year, through a person closely associated with the company with which your department does business? The question is quite straightforward. Just answer yes or no or give a date.


Erik Nielsen: First, what the hon. gentleman is raising is a matter with respect to conflict of interest, although he does


not apparently have the courage to come right out and make an accusation with respect thereto. Second, if he had read the conflict of interest guidelines that were tabled in this House last September 9, 1985, he would know that they do not apply to spouses of Members of Parliament, who, we maintain, are not chattels.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISASTERS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to either the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Health and Welfare, whichever one is speaking for the Government with respect to actions taken by the Canadian Government in relation to the accident in the Ukraine. I wonder if either Minister could bring the House up to date on what special surveillance mechanisms are being put into place by Environment Canada, what has been discovered, and bring the House up to date on the possible effects of this accident on the Canadian atmosphere.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to abuse the time of the House and I will try tobe very succinct. I am sure all of us in the House regret the accident that has taken place in the U.S.S.R. I want to say from a Canadian point of view that, as Minister of National Health and Welfare, I have the lead responsibility under the federal Nuclear Emergency Response Plan, in conjunction with other colleagues in the House, regarding incidents such as this.
As of noon today we have activated the emergency response team. Environment Canada is using 28 airports and they are starting to monitor as of noon today. Weather stations which tested weekly have been asked to do so continuously now on a daily basis. As these stations are on our northern frontiers I would possibly be in a position to be able to make a further statement on Thursday.
I intend to keep the House and the public as informed as I can. I can say I believe from a Canadian point of view the best information we have at the moment is that Canadians are not at risk, but obviously we are checking this literally minute by minute.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I would hope that the Minister might consider making a statement at an appropriate time, either tomorrow or Thursday, to keep the House up to date.
Oral Questions


SAFETY STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS-SWEDISH CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does Canada intend to support the call by Sweden for an international conference on safety standards with respect to nuclear power plants, and will we also be supporting the desire of the Swedish Government that the world have more access to inspection of nuclear power plants within the Soviet Union?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long-standing position of Canadian Governments that we would want to support initiatives of that kind, and certainly Canada would actively support any initiatives that were born out of these tragic circumstances.
I might take the opportunity to indicate that, on the instructions of the Prime Minister, Canada is today communicating to the Soviet Union our willingness to provide any kind of technical help that may be within our competence and may be useful to the Soviet Union in these circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPOSITION OF U.S. DUTY ON CANADIAN FISH IMPORTS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, this action today by the United States Government represents a serious derailment on the fast track to free trade talks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: Does the Minister not believe that this is a clear slap in the face to the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada? Was there not an understanding, if not an agreement, that no new duties would be imposed while these talks were on?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Members of the House, facing a situation where there is real harm done to Canadian fishermen, would try to put partisan advantage in the House of Commons ahead of the interests of Canadian fishermen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are concerned about the interests of the Canadian fishermen who are affected. That is


Oral Questions
why we have been making the strongest possible representations for one long year in order to achieve a different result than came down from this particular agency. We supplied counsel. We won half the case; we lost half the case.
According to American law, the President of the United States has no power to intervene. We have the power to look under GATT to see if there are means by which we can appeal the decision. We are going to do that.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, Canadian fishermen are saying that if this is what it is like to be on the fast track to the United States, perhaps we would be better off on a slow boat to China.


REASONS FOR U.S. ACTIONS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, fishermen want to know why the United States imposed a duty on Canadian saltfish last year, for the first time in history, a duty on round ground-fish today, and they say that they are starting their investigation tomorrow to impose a duty on frozen fish. Why has this happened only since the Tory Government came to power?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member was conspicuous by his silence during the years when his Party was in office in the House of Commons. But that does not suggest that history began in September of 1984. History of reform began at that time-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -including a history of reform in the trading arrangements between Canada and the United States so that we might put in place a system that better protects the interests of Canadian fishermen than the system that was left to us by the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, now that fishermen have fallen as first victims to the fast track, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. A few days ago President Reagan made the statement to Senator Packwood that the United States would:
-continue to retain full access to multilaterally sanctioned U.S. trade remedies.
Is it not the case that precisely the same kind of countervail action and duty is now possible and in fact enforceable in relation to softwood lumber?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the President's statement in his letter, as any literate reading would show, indicates that until there is a new arrangement, brought about by negotiations with Canada or some other means, existing remedies stay in place. That was made very clear yesterday. The United States has
those remedies now. If we believe that those remedies do not serve Canada's interests, then it is very much in our interest to try to achieve better relations, which we can only do in the context of the trade negotiations which we are now pursuing.


POWERS OF U.S. SENATE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister pretended to be literate. He said that countervail is at the very heart of these negotiations that are going on in the United States. Since the U.S. Senate retains the power on countervail during this whole process, is this not a bit like a poker game in which, during the next two years of negotiations, the United States builds up countervails on fish, lumber, hogs and everything else, while there is damn little we can do about it except sit around the House of Commons frittering time away?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know that accords with the Canadian Labour Congress script which is being read in the House of Commons by members of the New Democratic Party. It does not accord with any real set of apprehensions. Of course the United States retains a countervail capacity until there is a new agreement. So does Canada. The point is that we are seeking to find some negotiations that will result in a better situation for Canada. The New Democratic Party, guided by the Canadian Labour Congress, does not want to do anything at all except slip further into the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Instead of slipping right into the United States.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Tell the Leader of your Party to write a letter.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister wrote to his Ministers, saying that: "I wish it to be understood clearly to all Ministers that they have an individual responsibility to prevent conflicts of interests, including those that might arise out of activities of their spouses, or dependent children, or their dealings in property or investments which are owned or managed in whole or in part by their spouses or dependent children." That was the Prime Minister's letter to his Ministers in regard to conflict of interest. Surely he does not expect Canadians to believe that the spectacle of the wife of a cabinet Minister seeking terms for a loan that are unavailable at normal lending


institutions does not constitute, at the very least, according to his own letter, the appearance of a conflict of interest?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member quotes a passage from my letter of September 9, 1985, but neglects to read the sentence prior thereto. It indicates that this code, as was the case with previous guidelines, does not apply to the spouses or dependent children of public office holders. This does not apply, and it was consistent with a letter of April 28, 1980, from Prime Minister Trudeau to his erstwhile colleagues which said: "I would remind you of our decision not to apply the requirements of these guidelines to our spouses and dependent children." This qualification which appears-


Mr. Frith:: Minister's assets.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -in my letter was explored with the-


Royce Herbert Frith: Minister's assets.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says the Minister's assets. You can be absolutely certain that Noreen Stevens is one of the greatest assets that any Minister could have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANAGEMENT OF MINISTER'S ASSETS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can twist and turn all he wants. He cannot swallow himself whole over this letter that he wrote on September 9. Does he not realize that the questions by Members in opposition refer to the management of assets that are owned by the Minister himself and do not refer to separate business activities that might be legitimately undertaken by the Minister's spouse? We are referring to the management and the borrowing of moneys, interest free, by the Minister's spouse for the Minister's company which was in financial trouble. Does he not realize that?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can only describe that lengthy bundle of assertions as absolute tripe. If the hon. gentleman took the trouble to call the Registrar General, he would be informed as I was, as late as this morning, that the Minister concerned had fully complied with the conflict of interest guidelines. If the Hon. Member does not choose to believe me, why does he not make that phone call and speak with that public official himself?


GRANT APPROVED BY MINISTER
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, if that in fact is the case-


Mr. McDermid:: Why don't you make the call?
Oral Questions


Steven W. Langdon: -it just proves the inadequacy of these conflict of interest guidelines. What we have here, frankly, as we look at it, is a clear case of family and friends-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Steven W. Langdon: -being caught up in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Question.


Steven W. Langdon: Does the Prime Minister consider it consistent with his own conflict of interest guidelines for a Minister to approve $86 million in support of a company-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: -from which at the same time the Minister was receiving a $2.6 million loan for his company?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: Is that consistent with the conflict of interest guidelines?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I give the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor the same advice I gave him on April 7, 1986. What is consistent is for me to stand here, as has the Prime Minister, and tell him that the very exacting requirements of the conflict of interest guidelines have been met by the Minister. I have received that assurance personally from the Assistant Deputy Registrar General.


Mr. Gauthier:: How long ago was that, Erik?


Erik Nielsen: Why don't the hon. gentleman, and others who have not taken the trouble to receive that assurance personally, do just that?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Oh, come on. That's nonsense and you know it.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we have read the letter of the Prime Minister of September 9, 1985. Does the Prime Minister, when he actually goes back and looks at that letter, not believe that these extensive financial transactions contradict that 1985 letter where it was said very clearly: "All Ministers have an individual responsibility to prevent conflict of interests-",


An Hon. Member:: Come on.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: "-including those that might arise out of the activities of their spouses-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is in order.


Oral Questions


Steven W. Langdon: You cannot escape that.


Mr. Andre:: How many lectures do we get from this guy each day?


Mr. Speaker:: How many interjections do we get?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to that question, Sir, but the hon. gentleman gives me the opportunity to remind his Leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition that on the same day, September 9, 1985, a letter was sent seeking their co-operation, and that of the Parties they lead, in the area of conflict of interest. The Prime Minister has yet to receive a response from either gentleman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed- to the Minister of Agriculture. Quebec farm producers have been waiting for some time for the Quebec-Ottawa subsidiary agreement on agriculture to be signed.
Could the Minister inform Quebec farmers on the latest developments and on Quebec's participation?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the continuing representations of the Hon. Member on behalf of Quebec farmers. The Hon. Member will know that this Government has been anxious to sign an agricultural sub-agreement between the federal Government and the Province of Quebec, not only with the previous Government of the province but also the present Government. The Hon. Member may take some satisfaction from the fact that late last week I had confirmation from my provincial counterpart that he is prepared to enter into an agricultural agreement between the federal Government and the province in the amount of some $36 million.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister and I would hope he would stop hiding behind the skirts of the Deputy Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -in the same way the Minister is hiding behind his wife's skirts on this particular issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: What a sexist remark.


An Hon. Member:: Sheila the sexist.


An Hon. Member:: Next question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there a question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am asking my question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Hurray for the rodent group.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On December 6, 1984, in response to the press question: "What does a Cabinet Minister have to do to get fired in a Mulroney Government?", the Prime Minister answered: "I think anything that violated-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The other side is not being helpful either. The Hon. Member was asked for a question a minute ago. Is there a question?


John Carnell Crosbie: Name her and get it over with.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Does the Prime Minister not believe that this particular loan violated the public trust?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, for God's sake.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member obviously has not read and become familiar with the conflict of interest guidelines- because that is the subject she is raising-which were tabled in this House last September, 1985. She is obviously unaware of the mechanisms which are in place that would provide her with information which is of public record, and available to anyone who takes the trouble to call, with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Come on, Erik! Sit down if you haven't anything else to say.


Erik Nielsen: -who has the job, as a public official, to enforce-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Short supplementary, please.


MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions

Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister in all sincerity-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there is a prima facie case that conflict of interest did in fact take place-


Sheila Maureen Copps: -whether he expects the Canadian people to believe the statement of the Minister that in fact he knew nothing about a loan of over $2 million? Does the Prime Minister really believe that the Minister was at arm's length with his own wife with respect to this transaction?


Erik Nielsen: I think the Hon. Member would be the first to support me in the proposition that spouses are not chattels. They have their own lives and their own independent careers to lead.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Government is keeping the heat off him.


Erik Nielsen: They are not subject to the conflict of interest guidelines. If the Hon. Member would take the trouble to phone the public official to whom I made reference a moment ago, she would be reassured of the compliance of the Minister in every respect.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: No such thing.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -will the Government agree-


John Carnell Crosbie: Call Bob White. See what Bob says.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -as a matter of urgency to have this matter referred for consideration to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that all Members of this House may satisfy themselves as to whether or not a conflict of interest has in fact taken place?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House is interested in the Perry Mason opinion of the hon. gentleman, but I have yet to leap to that quantum conclusion-


An Hon. Member:: You will tomorrow.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Does he remember his letter dated September 9, 1985, in which he advised, and I quote:
-that all Ministers understand it is their personal responsibility to prevent conflicts of interest, including any that may arise from activities of their spouse or dependent children or from real estate transactions or investment operations in which the latter are directly or indirectly involved.
Does the Prime Minister believe there was no violation of this guideline in the transactions involving the department, Magna International Inc. and the company controlled by Mr. & Mrs. Stevens, the Minister and his wife, namely, York Centre Corp.?


Erik Nielsen: Once again, Mr. Speaker, on the instructions of the Prime Minister, who was engaged in a very important and full agenda at Cabinet this morning, I personally spoke with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General and received his assurance that there had been full compliance by the Minister with the very exacting demands of the conflict of interest guidelines. If the Hon. Member is not prepared to accept that assurance of this public official conveyed through me, I invite him and other Hon. Members to do the telephoning personally.


Erik Nielsen: -which would lead me to believe that I have seen-since I have been reading it-a prima facie case on the front page of The Globe and Mail. If it was there today, it was there on April 7 and a few other dates in the past.


FINANCE
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In a recent message to Congress President Reagan said that consideration should be given to the creation of a capital budget which would be distinct from the budget for operating expenses. Since the Auditor General supports this concept, does the Minister intend to give it serious consideration?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue in which we have been interested as a Government. There is an element of the Budget Papers devoted to a certain aspect of this particular issue. I might just say that while we are considering this issue, and while the Auditor General has expressed interest in it, the amount of capital spending which has been carried out by the Government of Canada is not great. The difference between capital budgeting and the type of budgeting that we are presenting right now would not be that much different.


Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in a September 9, 1985, letter the Prime Minister stated, and I quote:
We have taken great pains to ensure that the new Code leaves no doubt that the ultimate responsibility for the ethical standards of the federal government rests with the Cabinet and, more particularly, with me.
Will the Prime Minister stand up in the House now and account for this action instead of passing it on to the Deputy Registrar General? Will he take the necessary action and relieve his Minister now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is a distinct lack of either an understanding of the guidelines, which would not surprise anybody, or a wilful inclination to malice on the part of the Hon. Member, because in reference-


Sergio Marchi: Put your seat on the line, big shot!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: Put your seat on the line!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You really do your Party proud, fella.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is a rising star of the Rat Pack, I tell you. Aren't they a bunch of sweethearts?
The guidelines state very carefully and specifically, as did those of Mr. Trudeau, that they do not apply to the spouses or dependent children of public office-holders. Notwithstanding that, the Deputy Prime Minister met with the appropriate officials this morning and received the assurance that there was full compliance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Take your responsibility seriously!


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER BE RELIEVED OF DUTIES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about the spouse's assets, I am talking about the Minister's assets.
In view of the fact that in the same document the Prime Minsiter stated:
But making use of these instruments will not relieve the Government of the responsibility-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister-


Sheila Maureen Copps: We don't want to hear from a self-confessed liar!


Erik Nielsen: -did, indeed, exercise his responsibility-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: Did you hear that?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw, withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe I heard something from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, who will know what it is she said. I think she said something unparliamentary. Would she please do the House the courtesy-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I made a general reference. But if the Speaker demands that a general reference be withdrawn, then I will certainly be happy to comply.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As usual, no class.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was explaining, as I have before, that, indeed, the Prime Minister discharged his responsibilities this morning when he instructed his Deputy Prime Minister to assure him. I have done that, that is, I have assured the Prime Minister, on the basis of the assurance of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General to me, that there had been full compliance with the guidelines.
I know the Hon. Member is one of those who did call the Assistant Deputy Registrar General this morning. But he was obviously very unhappy with the answer that he received as to compliance.


Don Boudria: I wasn't even here this morning.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Your buddy system is not working, Erik.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're bugging the wrong office, Erik.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Get a new antenna!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a preamble. May I have a question, please?


Don Boudria: Will the Prime Minister now exercise his role of accountability to Parliament and immediately relieve that Minister of his functions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Get a new splice!


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


TOKYO ECONOMIC SUMMIT-DISCUSSION OF AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: A modicum of sanity.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In the last few days in the House we have often spoken of massive United States and European subsidies with regard to the export of grain around the world and their taking some of our traditional markets. In my hand I have a copy of the background material for the Tokyo Economic Summit. Why is agriculture barely even mentioned?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, agriculture is not only mentioned but it is very prominently mentioned in our communications. Our intention is to ensure that it is on the agenda as Canada's choice.
Each country is given an option with respect to the subject matter it wishes to carry forward for specific discussions. Ours is agriculture. I can tell my hon. friend that, pursuant thereto, we have invited the leaders of the Canadian agricultural community to meet with myself, the Minister of Finance, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Vancouver prior to our departure.
I can also tell my hon. friend that no later than tomorrow the Government will have a very important statement on behalf of farmers in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEETING OF GRAIN EXPORTING COUNTRIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of scooping the Prime Minister, will he now confirm that there will be a meeting on June 2 in Vancouver of the five major grain exporting nations? Will he also tell the House what position we will be taking as a country regarding the United States and European subsidies?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, that is something that Canada has been working at for almost a year. Since last June I have had a chance to visit the four other major exporters. The Hon. Member will know that Canada, along with the United States, the European Economic Community, Argentina, and Australia, account for 95 per cent of the wheat which is traded in the world.
We have suggested that it would be appropriate to come together at the ministerial level for a small and rather informal meeting at least to begin some discussion of the areas which concern us. We are very close to being able to announce that we will be holding that meeting on the West Coast on June 2. We have a few details to work out; but we are very close to being able to hold the first ever such meeting.
Oral Questions DISASTERS


SOVIET NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENT IN UKRAINE-SAFETY OF CANADIAN TOURISTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The nuclear accident at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine has caused anxiety for many Canadians whose family members are currently visiting that country. Can the Minister advise the House what action is being taken to assist any Canadian tourists who might be in the area?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, our embassy in Moscow has been in touch with the two Canadian tourists and the 16 students we know to be in the Kiev area. They are all reported to be well. We are looking for more information from the Soviet Union as to the nature, extent, and implications of the accident.
I think it would be well for Canadians who might be planning a trip to that region to wait until we have more of that information clearly in hand. I will be sending consular officials from our embassy in Moscow to Kiev to ensure that there is a monitoring capacity on the ground.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, despite the efforts of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to suggest that this is the conduct of a spouse only, and despite the Deputy Prime Minister's efforts to say that he has been in touch with the Deputy Registrar General, this issue goes further than checking the records of the Minister, or the wife's particular action. It relates not to her assets alone but to a principal asset of the Minister. That is what the issue is all about.
My question is directed to the Minister. I think he will want to clear the air before the Oral Question Period is over and before the House turns to other business. Last May, was he the controlling shareholder of York Centre Corp., which had a controlling interest in Cardiff Investments Ltd., and for which his wife approached Magna International Inc. with whom he was having dealings for Cape Breton investment? Was he the controlling shareholder at the relevant time? Was he aware of his wife making that approach to Magna International? Get up and say so.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows-


Mr. Deans:: Why does he not answer?


Privilege-Ms. Copps


Erik Nielsen: -that this is an area within the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, namely, conflict of interest.


André Ouellet: Why does he not answer himself, then?


Erik Nielsen: He has heard the Prime Minister say that he has asked me to speak with the public official who is responsible for compliance. I have done that and I have satisfied myself that there has been full compliance. If the right hon. gentleman has a contribution to make with respect to any improvements that might be made to conflict of interest guidelines, he might respond to the letter of the Prime Minister which was sent to him on September 9, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is now three o'clock.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I inadvertently misled the House during Question Period when I-


André Ouellet: How many times?


Erik Nielsen: -when I referred to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) as having called the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. That was not correct and I apologize if I have caused the hon. gentleman any embarrassment by saying that-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How do you know?


Erik Nielsen: How do I know? Because in fact it was the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), but they look so much alike that I was confused at the time.
My question of privilege is an extremely important one. A representative from my office as well as one from the office of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston were on the phone today to the office of the Deputy Registrar General with respect to the obligations of every Member to comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. I would like to know what right the spy from the Deputy Prime Minister's office has to receive reports on what is happening about Members of Parliament regarding a quasi judicial function which is supposed to be carried out by the Deputy Registrar General. Why is he reporting to the Government on actions of opposition Members which have to do with the disposition of their duties as Members of Parliament? I think it is a very important question and I would like the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen)-


Don Boudria: Where is he going?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like an answer from the Speaker because I feel that my privileges as a Member have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is quite correct in raising that matter after Question Period if she feels it is a matter that flows from Question Period. I take it she feels her privileges were affected earlier today and I am perfectly prepared to look at the question she has raised.


An Hon. Member:: Are our phones being bugged now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member may wish to submit precedents as to how this will affect her privileges, but I will be happy to look at it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that you have reserved judgment on this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Sheila Maureen Copps: So I assume you are-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I have given the floor back to the Hon. Member yet. Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the statements made by the Minister. First, I would like to advise him that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is not here today.


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have about three


minutes left to complete my remarks on this matter. If you could hear me through the movement, Mr. Speaker, I would-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is absolutely correct. The clock on the Hon. Member's time will not run for a moment. Order, please. Order. The Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) and others who have meetings, please hold them somewhere else. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), order, please.


Iain Francis Angus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously they are all talking about the finer points of Bill C-45 and its impact on the employees of the House of Commons.
In the few moments left to me I would like to continue making my argument. I appreciate that you are in the chair, Mr. Speaker. Our concern is for how the employees of this place are treated. What avenues do they have for a collective bargaining process that goes beyond simply setting wages but allows them to work out their duties without any interference from senior management? How may they ensure that their job descriptions are appropriate? Do the cleaning staff, the cafeteria staff or security guards have a grievance procedure as it relates to promotions?
We see from time to time that people are shifted from various places of employment because they are lacking or have certain levels of qualifications. They need to have the right through their union to go through a grievance procedure if they feel that they have not been treated fairly. Union members across the country have that right and I think we have a responsibility to ensure that those people who work for the Parliament and for the Senate have the same opportunities, or are they second-class citizens in the eyes of the Government? Clearly, the way Bill C-45 is written indicates that these employees are perceived to be second-class citizens. I think that is very unfortunate and unfair.
As this Bill goes through committee and we hear representations from these workers, whether through what they hope to be their union or as individuals, I would ask that we listen to them and ensure that the opportunities are made available to them that are made available to many other Canadians. These opportunities include grievance procedures, the right to strike, negotiations for job descriptions and the like. It is extremely important that we treat these employees no differently than we treat the other workers of Canada.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me an opportunity to participate in this debate. I look forward with interest to seeing the final wording of the Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say some of the last words in this round of debate on Bill C-45. While the aim of the Bill is to provide restricted collective bargaining rights for employees of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament, it is seriously lacking in a number of areas.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Our major opposition to the Bill in its present wording is based on its failure to provide the rights required to resolve many of the problems which draw staff members to a collective bargaining option. For example, the Bill itself prevents any real negotiation of classification, appointments and assignments of duty. Surely this is a critical component of any collective bargaining process. There must be the ability to renegotiate classifications and the assignment of duties. I do not think there is a progressive institution in the world, if it wishes to keep management-labour peace, that does not offer the option of negotiation on these critical issues.
Second, there is the entire matter of staffing, including job appointments, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers and layoffs. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are well aware of long lists of abuses in hiring practices. Insiders often hire friends. I will give you an example of that, Mr. Speaker.
In a technical service, a senior position became vacant. Several employees inquired about a competition but no competition was held. The husband of a manager from another Department of the same service was brought in to fill the position on a temporary basis. Several months later a competition was announced, the now experienced husband was hired permanently and the appeal of employees in the service was denied. This kind of hiring practice has in many instances become the rule. It is an exception when a fair and open application process is at work.
Imagine what that does to the morale of employees on Parliament Hill. Good morale is required in order to carry out our duties sufficiently and efficiently and for Parliament Hill to operate in the most progressive and positive manner possible. I have lists of instances such as this where favouritism is often used, where sons, daughters and spouses of existing employees often use the back door to obtain positions of employment, and where the normal application process is circumvented. It is all too frequent; it is too often the rule.
I should like to identify our concerns with Bill C-45. In terms of grievance procedures, limits are set on what grievances can go to third party arbitration, and union grievances are simply not allowed. Can anyone show me a collective agreement wherein union grievances are simply denied or are not allowed as part of the process? I do not believe they exist anyplace. We are using a rather creative approach to collective bargaining and are saying that we will deny union grievances as part of the grievance procedure. Quite frankly it is inane to think that this provision ought to remain within Bill C-45.
The Bill goes on to say that the staffs of Members of Parliament are excluded from the right to collective bargaining. I think it is important for us, as New Democrats, to state our experience with employees in our offices. For some years now we have had, as much as circumstances permit, a collective agreement with the people who work in our offices. We are now in the process of looking at extending that collective bargaining process to those people who are working


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
in our constituency offices. I say without any hesitation that the process has worked extremely well. There have been no serious problems, and there have been serious efforts to negotiate a collective agreement which satisfies both Members as well as their staffs. I know I speak for all members of the New Democratic Party caucus when I say that we are pleased with the collective bargaining process we have developed. We are pleased with the way in which it is functioning now and would like to see it made available to the staffs of all Members of Parliament in a true collective bargaining environment. We are restricted under the existing rules, but we have enabled the collective bargaining process to advance as much as laws and regulations permit us to do. We are anxious to see it extended, not only to other employees so that they can take advantage of the progressive and positive management-labour relations which have existed in New Democratic Party offices, but we are anxious to see it expanded into law.
Another problem we have with the particular Bill is that the right to strike is prohibited. When the right to strike is prohibited in a collective agreement, one has to ask whether that provides an imbalance in terms of negotiating strength. As any progressive individual would say, of course it does in that it biases the process heavily in favour of one side of the equation.
I should like to return for a moment to Bill C-45 wherein it excludes employees of Members of Parliament. It seems to me that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a clause which indicates that no discrimination will be permitted in Canada on the basis of association. Basically this means that people are free to get together to negotiate collective agreements. It seems peculiar that Members of Parliament would not permit freedom of association for those men and women who work in our offices. We feel that this point flies right in the face of the work which went into our new Constitution, particularly the section dealing with rights and freedoms as they apply to the staffs of Members of Parliament.
We are also concerned about the certification process, and that procedures will require that all union cards signed on Parliament Hill will now have to be re-signed. It seems to be a deliberate effort on the part of the Government to ensure that collective bargaining does not take place on Parliament Hill. It is unbelievable that in a free and democratic country, a country which prides itself in people being able to associate with whomever they please and in having the right of association in our Constitution, such a blatant step would be taken and men and women working for Members of Parliament would be denied the right to form a free collective bargaining unit.
One could go on and on. There are many shortcomings which various groups and individual groups have brought to our attention to date. We will now have an opportunity to fine tune Bill C-45 in the hope of eliminating some of the concerns which have been registered. We would only be doing our job if we developed a Bill which would enable all employees of Parliament Hill to participate in free collective bargaining and
to have the benefits of all rights and privileges accorded to them by the Canada Labour Code and the labour codes of various provinces, so that they are treated in the same way as employees elsewhere in Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, at least to those of us in the Liberal Party, that although the Bill before us signals movement in the right direction, it requires improvement in a number of ways. I will concentrate on one of them in the limited time available to me.
In essence, the initiative behind the Bill which we welcome is that the last bastion of employer-employee relationships that has existed for so long is now being removed, namely, the group of people working on the Hill can finally organize themselves and enjoy the same rights, privileges and duties enjoyed by workers in the private and public sectors who are organized and do not work on the Hill. At last we on the Hill are adopting the same or similar principles and rules which govern Canadians who work in the public and private sectors off the Hill. It is a welcome development.
The people who toil on the Hill in a variety of activities work hard. They put in long hours, and sometimes working conditions are not the best. The final form of Bill C-45 will hopefully recognize the desirability of setting into motion an organization which will permit people who work on the Hill to put forth their requirements, their legitimate claims and the improvements which they desire at work in the same manner and fashion as workers in places other than Parliament Hill.
Specifically the Bill is weak in the provision relating to arbitration. We on the Liberal side of the House want to stress the necessity and desirability of a stronger arbitration process when required. This was the substance of submissions made by NABET and by PSAC when they made representations, particularly on subsection 5(3) and subsection 55(2). These two sections prohibit unions from referring to the arbitration process certain very important matters, namely, job classification and the questions of appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, appointment, lay-off, and release of employees. We realize that these are very key issues. Quite rightly and understandably, any union would want to have these considerations included rather than excluded from the arbitration process when required.
Federal public servants who are governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act face certain limitations in terms of what can and cannot be taken to arbitration. In the case of these issues and the workers on the Hill, consideration will have to be made in order to produce a piece of legislation in tune with the times and also in tune with contemporary labour practices. We know that there is criticism and opposition to the Bill per se. We know progress has come very, very slowly.
The assumption has been made that workers on the Hill have worked until now under adequate and appropriate health and safety rights. If that is the case, we would like to see this


consideration of health and safety rights included in the specifics of the Bill. That would include the importance of indoor air quality and the safety of those who work on buildings and structures winter and summer.
Bill C-45 is due to move on to committee. We hope that examination in detail will be guided by the major consideration and principle that workers on the Hill deserve the same democratic instruments and ability to express themselves as to what they expect at work from their employers as Canadians elsewhere. It seems to me that is a most reasonable and highly desirable criterion that at last will be adopted on the Hill. With reinforcement of the arbitration process to include the items referred to earlier in this intervention, maybe we will be able to produce a reasonably good piece of legislation to the benefit of the women and the men who work on the Hill, and provide such a valuable service to all of us, and by reflection, to the people of Canada.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity prior to today to speak on this Bill. It has been a piece of legislation in which I have been vitally interested for some long period of time, as you know. I want to set out what it is about the legislation that I find offensive, and why I think the Government is heading down a path that will only cause difficulty for itself and its employees over the long haul.
What we have is a Government that writes laws that govern collective bargaining at the federal level within federal jurisdiction and sets those laws within the context of either the Public Service Staff Relations Act or under the auspices of the Canada Labour Code, and yet it refuses to give to our employees, those who work for Parliament, the same fundamental rights that we would give to all other people.
There is an inconsistency in this position with which I find it very difficult to grapple. If we believe that people in the workplace have the right to organize, and I think we have all pretty well expressed a belief in that, then why do we not permit the normal channels available to all others to be used by the employees of Parliament Hill? Why do we find it necessary to draw a piece of legislation so restrictive in its nature and scope that it makes a mockery of the collective bargaining process that we have, over many years, developed for all other people who work in our society? In essence, that is what I find most difficult to understand about the position being taken by the Government.
I could appreciate that the Government in its normal right wing way might not want to grant the right to strike, would want to take the right to strike away from everyone, and I realize that, Mr. Speaker. However, the Government has an obligation to at least give some reasons for the decisions it has taken in denying that right to one group in society.
It has long been held that it would be appropriate for a Government under certain circumstances to refuse to extend the same rights of withdrawal of services to certain employees that are afforded to all other employees. Those circumstances
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
have to be quite clearly set out under the normal processes. Generally speaking, it is because someone works in what is deemed to be an essential service that the individual is refused the right to withdraw his or her services during a dispute over a collective agreement.
One could hardly claim, and I say this quite bluntly, that all the employees of Parliament Hill, vital though they are to our daily lives, and vital though they are to the ongoing work of Parliament, could be designated as essential in the true sense of the word. It is handy to be able to go to the restaurant and to the cafeteria, but one could hardly make the claim that the people who work there are indeed essential employees within the meaning of essentiality that is normally used for the purposes of depriving employees of the same rights enjoyed by all other people in society. The same thing could be said of a whole host of people; maintenance people, people in the library of Parliament, the Senate maintenance and messenger services, and you could come to the conclusion that though their services are appreciated by most of us, underpaid I might add, but nevertheless appreciated by most of us, they really do not fall into a category of essentiality. That is one of the areas in the Bill that I find is drawn much too finely.
The Bill does not meet the tests one would normally apply in determining whether or not the rights generally given in a collective bargaining situation are being afforded or given to the employees of the Parliament of Canada. I want to say in addition to that aspect, there are a number of other things denied our employees. To begin with, our own individual employees are denied the right to negotiate at all under the structure. Were it not for the NDP's commitment to the collective bargaining process there would be no collective bargaining process on Parliament Hill at all, at the moment. Because we believe that process works well, and because we believe in guaranteeing employees certain rights that are inviolable in the process, we have that arrangement with our own employees, the only group who has that opportunity at the moment.
What we do have is a whole host of serious restrictions placed in this piece of legislation on what would normally be afforded to employees either of the Government of Canada outside of Parliament Hill, or to other employees working in the private or the public sector provincially and municipally across Canada.
Let me suggest, for example, that there can be no negotiation of any worth within the terms of this Bill for classification of positions or for staffing. There can be no appeal of such things as job appointments, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers or lay-offs. There is a very limited grievance procedure. When you start looking at it, those are the very things for which you need a collective agreement, if you are to make any kind of protection affordable and possible. Yet this Bill denies those things to employees of the Parliament of Canada.


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
It is almost incomprehensible to me that we have a Government which has, on the one hand, laws in force and effect to grant certain rights and, of course, impose certain obligations, on the part of employees in both the public and private sectors under federal jurisdiction, and on the other hand a Government that claims need not and therefore will not give those self-same rights to its own employees on Parliament Hill. I find it difficult to come to grips with the insensitivity shown by this Government towards its employees. The Government displays a lack of confidence in its employees by drafting legislation that is so limited in scope and application. I believe, consistent with what has happened in most sectors of the economy, that the collective bargaining system works and works well. I believe the people who work for the Parliament of Canada are dedicated to work in the best interests of Parliament, Canada and Canadians. I believe those people would exercise their rights in such a way as not to be disruptive. They would work within the normal collective bargaining process which is in place in most other areas. The reason we are so concerned about the Bill is that it displays an attitude of distrust. It does not pay proper attention to the worth of the people who work for us. It denies them rights which we claim ought to be afforded to everyone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is the following one. Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), moves that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
(Division No. 244)
++YEAS
Members
Andre	Gagnon	NielsenAttewell	Gass	NowlanBertrand	Gerin	OberleBinns	Gervais	O'NeilBissonnette	Gormley	OostromBlackburn	Gray	Peterson(Jonqui&re)	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	PorterBlais	la-Madeleine)	PriceBlenkarn	Greenaway	RavisBourgault	Gris6	RedwayBrightwell	Gustafson	ReidBrisco	Halliday	ReimerBrowes	Hamilton	RicardCadieux	Harvey	St. GermainCaldwell	Hawkes	St-JulienCardiff	Hnatyshyn	SchellenbergChampagne	Hockin	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Howie	ScottClark	Jacques	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ShieldsClifford	Jelinek	SparrowClinch	Jepson	StackhouseComeau	Jourdenais	StevensCook	Kilgour	StewartCooper	King	TardifCorbett	Lanthier	(Charlesbourg)Cossitt	Lawrence	TaylorCote	Layton	Thacker(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Lesick	TowersCote	Lewis	Tremblay(Langelier)	Lopez	(Quebec-Est)Crofton	MacKay	TremblayCrouse	Mailly	(Lotbiniire)Darling	Malone	TupperDaubney	Marin	Turnerde Cotret	Mayer	(Ottawa-Carleton)Della Noce	McCuish	VankoughnetDesjardins	McDermid	VincentDesrosiers	Mclnnes	WarnerDomm	McKenzie	WeinerFennell	McMillan	WilsonFerland	Merrithew	(Etobicoke Centre)Fontaine	Minaker	WinegardForrestall	Mitges	WiseFraleigh	Murta	Witer-123.Fretz	Nickerson	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Gagliano	McDonaldAlthouse	Garneau	(Broadview-Angus	Gauthier	Greenwood)Benjamin	Gray	NicholsonBerger	(Windsor West)	(Trinity)Blaikie	Guilbault	NystromBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	OrlikowBroadbent	Henderson	OuelletCaccia	Hopkins	ParryCassidy	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeCopps	Langdon	RiisDeans	Lapierre	Robichaudde Corneille	Marchi	RodriguezFulton	McCurdy	Tobin-37.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Multiculturalism-Establishment of Multicultural Business Centre; the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)-Western Grain Stabilization Act- Size of payment to farmers, (b) Request for announcement of deficiency payments; and the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Transportation of Dangerous Goods- Request that legislation be strengthened.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Brian Vincent Tobin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that Your Honour will understand. I did not hear the words of the Table Clerk with respect to Bill C-75 in which I am very much interested. I did not hear because of the movement of Members in and out of the House. I wonder if it could be repeated.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Table Clerk could reread the Order.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon a Table Clerk read the Government Order.]


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House Leader if he could clarify what business he expects the House to debate this afternoon. There was some suggestion that we would deal with Bill C-96 as opposed to Bill C-75.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with members of the Hon. Member's Party with respect to moving on to the report stage of Bill C-75.


André Ouellet: With whom?
Canada Shipping Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: With both Parties. I understand that there has been an agreement that we would proceed with Bill C-75. It was requested by members of the New Democratic Party that we deal with this Bill first since members of the Transport Committee will be travelling next week. Therefore, it was felt that it would be more appropriate to try to deal with the report stage of this Bill while members of the committee-


James Ross Fulton: Are they going to Expo?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not know. They are planning on travelling. As a result, I have ceded to the request. I received a letter, a copy of which went to my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has an introductory ruling to make with respect to Bill C-75 which the Chair would like to read now. Whatever else happens the Chair is prepared to put the ruling on the record since it has been distributed. I think, in fairness, the Chair should do that. Perhaps the House Leaders may want to have further conversation while I am reading my ruling.
There are 11 report stage motions on today's Order Paper in amendment to Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Canada Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof.
Motions Nos. 1 and 4 in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) seek to limit the ability of the Crown to pass on to the user the cost of the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. In particular, Motion No. 4 specifically sets a ceiling on the amount which can be charged. Clearly, this is a relaxation of the conditions and terms of the Royal Recommendation attached to the Bill. As the Hon. Member knows, such a proposal is out of order. It would be my intention to rule this motion out of order. I would refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(7), which states in part:
An amendment is out of order if it-relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3, moved and negatived in committee, would omit certain major classes of ships from the provisions of subsection 1 of Clause 4 of the Bill.
Like motion No. 4, this also has the effect of relaxing the terms of the Royal Recommendation. Therefore, it would be my intention to also rule these motions out of order.
Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 which deal with the oil and gas provisions of the Bill will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motion No. 10 was debated and negatived in committee and will not be selected.


Canada Shipping Act
To allow Hon. Members time to prepare themselves to present any procedural arguments which they may have on those motions about which I have expressed procedural difficulties, namely, Motions Nos. 1 to 4, the House will proceed to debate the first grouping, that is, Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11.
My notes here indicate that I intend to hear procedural argument on the next day the order is called, or earlier, if necessary, subject to whatever happens now.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with your consent, I would like to take a moment right now to comment on the ruling Your Honour has made. I believe with respect to Motions Nos. 2 and 3, in particular, Your Honour's ruling is fundamental to the entire Bill. I am sure that the Speaker, through his officials, has this material checked. Clause 4, which is what these amendments refer to, was the subject of, perhaps, 99 per cent of the testimony heard by the Legislative Committee considering Bill C-75. Clause 4 goes straight to the heart-


Mr, Speaker:: Order, please. I am perfectly happy to let the Hon. Member finish, provided he understands that I must require him to restrict himself not to the substantive argument he may wish to make about his amendment, but to the procedural admissibility question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. It goes right to the heart of the Bill.
As I understand it, the reality-and there was a ruling on this issue in committee-is that both Motions Nos. 2 and 3 do not in any way restrict the ability of the Crown on the question of raising funds through user fees. These motions would simply limit the Crown with respect to who can be charged. The Government's over-all objective of recovering x amount of dollars, whatever x happens to be-and we do not know yet because the Minister has not told us-would be entirely in the hands of the Government, except that the Government would be merely directed under these amendments not to charge certain categories of ships. Nonetheless, that would not prohibit the Government from recovering cost, as the Government has indicated it wants to do.
We debated this matter in committee. It was discussed fully at that time. Not only did the Clerk of the committee and the Chairman come to the decision that the motions were in order; but, ultimately, there was also some consensus in committee among members, whether or not they supported the amendments. We were very cognizant in drafting these amendments of the fact that clearly the Government's ability to recover costs would not be affected. This would limit the classes of people from whom the Government could recover costs but it would not limit, as some amendments proposed to do by completely wiping out Clause 4, the Government's ability to recover costs.
As you may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, in both cases but particularly with Motion No. 3, there was a very close vote in committee, a committee representing members of all three Parties. In fact, in one case an amendment was defeated by one vote, although it was supported by members of all three Parties.
Given the fundamental importance of this particular clause and the amount of testimony the legislative committee heard on it, I believe we deserve an opportunity to put our amendments before our colleagues to see whether or not the House will accept the rationale of the arguments we make. I do not know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now the Hon. Member is commenting on a Speaker's ruling. Let me repeat the citation from Beauchesne's in whole for the Hon. Member who has yet, in my view, to make an argument against the citation from Beauchesne's. This may help the Hon. Member to understand. An amendment is out of order if, first, it imposes a charge upon the public Treasury, and the Hon. Member has argued that this motion does not do that. Let us accept that. Second, it is out of order if it extends the objects and purposes, and let us accept that the motion does not do that. If it relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendations, it is also out of order. It seems to me to be very clear that the effect of Motions Nos. 2 and 3 is to relax the Royal Recommendation. If the Hon. Member wishes to make a case against that, I am prepared to hear it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it may be clear to you, having examined the matter as you have, that it relaxes the Royal Recommendation, but having spent months on this Bill with other members of the legislative committee under a reform measure of the House of Commons, it is not at all clear to me that this relaxes the recommendation. In fact, I would go further and say that if these particular amendments which seek not to wipe out the Government's cost-recovery ability but simply to target it are not acceptable, then I do not know what in heaven's name is the purpose of a legislative committee because this is not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member puts the Chair in a difficult position when he extends his argument into an implied criticism of the ruling of the Chair. I do not think he intended that since I know that the Hon. Member cares about those things. The Hon. Member knows that the Chair is trying to take seriously the substantive argument he is making, but the Chair is charged with resolving a procedural question. Perhaps I could read a citation from the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne's to the Hon. Member. I am prepared to reserve on this matter and to hear another argument, but not today. The Hon. Member may wish to think about that. Let me quote


as follows Citation 246(3) of the Fourth Edition which is explicit and at length:
(3)	The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Technically.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member wants to argue that somehow the motion does not relax the conditions of the recommendation which imposes the Act, which is that the charges shall be levied in the manner set out in the Bill, I am prepared to hear him but he has yet to make that argument.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Let us make that specific argument, Mr. Speaker. Clause 4 is a piece of enabling legislation only. Nowhere in Bill C-75 which is now before the House has the Government spelled out how Clause 4 as a piece of enabling legislation is to be implemented. The Speaker will be aware as well from the assistance he has received from the Table that the Minister, as part of his work with the legislative committee, has undertaken that the Government shall not spell out for a period of one year how Clause 4 is to be implemented or whether 1 per cent or 100 per cent cost recovery shall be enacted. The Government has further made clear by presentation of the legislation itself-and I invite the Speaker to review it-that there are no provisions whatsoever as to how Clause 4 will be enacted. It is a piece of enabling legislation giving the Minister power if he chooses-


Mr. Speaker:: The Crown.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -the Crown the power if the Crown chooses to exercise the ability to recover costs. There is no schedule of cost recovery attached to this legislation indicating how it will be done, to whom the moneys are charged or what percentages are charged on costs which have been assumed by the Crown. I ask you again, Mr. Speaker, given the central importance of this clause, to appreciate that since the Government has not laid out a schedule, my amendment merely asks that when that exercises occurs, this enabling legislation not apply to certain classes of vessels. It is perfectly in order because it does not take away something which to this point has not been spelled out to the House. It is a piece of enabling legislation that offers the House no idea how on earth it is to be used.


Mr. Speaker:: I repeat-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good argument.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a good argument. However, it does not change the Chair's view.


Mr. Henderson:: It changed my view.
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Speaker:: I will take the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) at his word that his view on this question has just been changed. It does not change the Chair's difficulty, which is that the Chair-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What is the point-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising a question that is not the Chair's concern. The Chair has to resolve the question of whether the Hon. Member's amendment creates indirectly or directly an infringement upon the royal prerogative, because only the Crown can do certain things by our traditions. The Hon. Member knows that that is what the Chair is up against. The Chair is prepared to reserve and consider the arguments made by the Hon. Member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no such thing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have a short point to make. I will do this for my benefit and not for the Chair's.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What the Chair is telling Members of the House is that in a new reformed Parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: No, no.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: No, the Hon. Member is about to comment on a Speaker's ruling.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, I am not going to comment on the ruling. You have not heard me, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no such thing as a point of clarification.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of information.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no such thing as a point of information.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Question then, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: That you do in writing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus) has a similar point of order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, if I may, in your ruling as to the grouping of Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11,1 would like to draw to your attention that Motion No. 5 and Motion No. 6 deal with an appeal mechanism that is tied into a timetable, whereas Motion No. 11 deals very specifically with the time in which the clause shall come into force.


Canada Shipping Act
I would argue that grouping Motions Nos. 5 and 6 together for the purpose of debate would be logical if Motion No. 11 were to be left by itself because it deals with a different subject matter. I would ask you to look at that, and the next time the matter is dealt with, hopefully you will be prepared to rule in favour of separating Motion No. 11 so that it will be debated separately.


Mr. Speaker:: Our practices have always been that when motions affect one clause, an attempt is made to group them for debate. Motion No. 11 does amend a different clause in terms of its effect but its effect is to apply to Clause 4. It is for that reason that the Chair decided that it should properly be grouped for debate on Clause 4. On that basis, I am prepared to leave that grouping as indicated.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my hon. friend opposite and indeed other members of the committee spent a great deal of time discussing the Bill. I understand his concern, but my notes in respect of Motion No. 4 contain the same comment on Citation 773(7) of Beauchesne's. We would argue-and we may want to embellish that argument if necessary-that the motion relaxes a condition of the Royal Recommendation and is therefore out of order in accordance with that citation of Beauchesne's.


Mr. Speaker:: The effect of what the Chair was saying in respect of Motion No. 4 is that because Motions Nos. 1 and 4 are connected it would take care of Motion No. 1.1 take it the Hon. Member is making the argument with regard to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having sat where the Hon. Member is sitting, the Chair has some understanding of the Hon. Member's problem in this matter. However, it does not change the obligation of the Chair to apply the precedents and our rules.
I take it we will call Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11 which have been combined.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For future reference, if I understand correctly the ruling in this regard, one could come to the House and move an amendment to increase the Government's ability to recover but not to decrease or delete-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is attempting to make a comment on the Speaker's ruling.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Am I correct in my assumption?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair does not enter into something which can only be called an obiter dictum. The Hon. Member may find that what he should do on any matter is make a procedural argument which he thinks is appropriate
at the time, and the Chair will give it all the consideration it can.
Therefore, we will proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11, which have been combined.


Iain Francis Angus: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 19 to 37 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor.
"(3) A copy of each regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make under subsection (1) shall be laid before either House of Parliament.
(4)	Where, within twenty sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before either House of Parliament under subsection (3), fifteen Senators or twenty Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, by notice in writing addressed to the Speaker, request that the proposed regulation be referred to a committee, the proposed regulation shall stand referred to the standing committee of the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, that deals with transportation matters, or to such other committee as the Senate or House of Commons may order.
(5)	A committee to which a proposed regulation is referred under subsection (4) shall forthwith consider the proposed regulation and report thereon to the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, within thirty sitting days after the referral is made.
(6)	Where a proposed regulation relating to any particular subject-matter is referred to a committee of either or each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (4), a regulation relating to that subject-matter may be made under subsection (1) within six months after the committee that reports or last reports, as the case may be, has reported under subsection (5).
(7)	Where a proposed regulation relating to any particular subject-matter is not referred to a committee of either House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (4), a regulation relating to that subject-matter may be made under subsection (1) on the expiration of the time limit set out in subsection (4) in respect of the House of Parliament before which the proposed regulation referred to in that subsection was last laid."
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 6 the following:
"(10) Two years after the coming into force of section 3.1 and every two years thereafter, the Minister shall refer section 3.1 to the Standing Committee on Transport for the purpose of reviewing its economic impact on users of services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard and the committee shall report not later than the sixtieth sitting day of the House, following the request for review."
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 87 by striking out line 32 at page 111 and substituting the following therefor:
"by proclamation, with the exception of section 4 which shall come into force on or after January 1, 1988."
He said: Mr. Speaker, briefly, the purpose of Motion No. 5 is to take Clause 4 one step further in its evolution as developed through the legislative committee. As it stands now, the Bill provides for publishing any regulation under Clause 4 dealing with who should be charged, how much they should be charged, and under what condition they should be charged. What about the requirement for a public review process? Let us keep in mind that ultimately the Minister of Transport on behalf of the Crown makes the determination. Officials may assist him or her in determining the mechanisms and the amount, but ultimately it is the Minister of Transport who signs the document which goes to Cabinet for the appropriate order. Under the current Bill the only public review provision


is that it shall be published in The Canada Gazette at least 90 days before the proposed effective date thereof, and a reasonable opportunity within those 90 days shall be afforded to interested persons to make representations to the Minister with respect thereto. In other words, an appeal can be made to the person who approved the regulation.
I am proposing in Motion No. 5 a mechanism which would allow someone who is concerned about a particular regulation to lobby his or her Member of Parliament. For example, such persons could have concerns about the impact of a regulation on the movement of grain west or east, or its impact upon shipping in the St. Lawrence and the ability of that industry to survive. It could be a concern about potash, iron ore, or any other bulk commodity which is moved by marine services. They could be concerned about its effect on the North, in Atlantic Canada, or on the Pacific Coast. They could also be concerned about its effect on fishermen or recreational boaters. In any event, if they are concerned about a regulation, under Motion No. 5 they would be able to lobby their Members of Parliament who in turn, assuming that they agreed with the concern, would collect the signatures of 20 Members of the House. This would open up a review mechanism by a standing committee. For example, it would be logical for the Standing Committee on Transport to consider transportation matters. This would provide for a public forum and provide for some consideration of the impact, whether it is a 1 per cent increase, a 10 per cent increase or whatever. When one is fighting for nickels and dimes, every added cost has a very real and detrimental impact upon one's ability to sell one's product or to move someone else's produce.
Motion No. 6 is an extension of that concept. It would put into place an automatic mechanism so that every two years after the legislation was proclaimed, the Minister would refer Section 4 to the standing committee for the purpose of reviewing its economic impact on users of services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, and the committee would be given 60 sitting days within which to report.
Similar mechanisms exist. We have seen them applied in the House. Although the report has not been tabled within the last few days, I would anticipate that very shortly a report under the Western Grain Transportation Act will be tabled as a review of the process enacted by Parliament. We want a chance. There are those of us on this side of the House-and I suppose there are others on the other side of the House who feel the same way deep in their hearts-who do not really want Clause 4 because we know what will be its impact upon the marine community. However, the reality is that the Government is not prepared to remove that clause, and we have to try to improve it as part of our job as Members of the House. We want to give the Government the opportunity, two years down the road, to review what has happened and to look at the impact of whatever fee was imposed upon grain producers and upon every other user of the marine service.
Motion No. 11 reads as follows:
Canada Shipping Act
"by proclamation, with the exception of section 4 which shall come into
force on or after January 1, 1988."
One may ask why that particular date was chosen or why we did not choose 1990 or the year 2000. If I wanted to play games with the House, that is what I would do. However, I wanted to be serious. During the debate in committee and the representations by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski), as well as those by his parliamentary assistant, we heard that it was not the intention of the Government to have Clause 4 proclaimed immediately. Even after it was proclaimed, we heard that it would take a year to put into place the regulatory regime to allow it to be implemented. We were also told that it was not the intention of the Government to proclaim it until January 1, 1987, or some nine months from now. Therefore, if we take into account the year in which the regulatory process would be developed, it takes us to January 1, 1988. All I am doing in this particular motion is taking the Government's word in enacting the piece of legislation.
The main problem with Clause 4 is one of process. Aside from any ideological opposition to user pay, cost recovery or whatever, there is a process problem. We argued before the committee that there is another way. The Minister and the Crown want to have the legislation now and then negotiate, discuss, consult, with the users of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Port of Vancouver, the Port of Prince Rupert, the ports in Atlantic Canada and the ports in the far north. The Minister and the Crown want to have that hammer so they can strike a deal to force the shippers into a corner where they have to take something that is not acceptable to them. Instead, they should be sitting down with representatives of the Dominion Marine Association, the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association, the International Association of Great Lakes Ports, the Canada Ports, the prairie producers of agricultural products, the coal, iron ore and the steel industries.
The Government should sit down and talk with the industries about their realities, not just the realities of the deficit the Government has that it wants to try to eliminate, which it is doing, by nickeling and diming certain industries. We already see our farmers having a 19 per cent reduction in the prices of their products, and we are going to add to the cost of moving those products, whether through the Seaway, Vancouver, Prince Rupert or Churchill. As a result of Clause 4, Mr. Speaker, those costs have nowhere to go but up.
What we would like to see is Clause 4 out of this Bill. We argued with the Government about it. Why not consult and see if a deal can be struck with the users of the marine services and Coast Guard services to pay for part of the operation? Perhaps it is just a matter of timing when these things should be implemented as opposed to the amounts. We heard in testimony before the committee that if this were 10 years ago when things were booming and everything was moving through the Seaway, there would likely be no objections to a Seaway toll, a coast guard fee, because the industry was booming and making money. Today, the industry is laying up ships. We


Canada Shipping Act
have seen the fleet on the Seaway decline in considerable numbers over the last three or four years. The timing is all wrong, Mr. Speaker.
If we cannot pull this clause out of the Bill, we will have to give the shippers, the producers, the users, an opportunity for a review process at the time when the regulations are tabled so they can go to some other body, that body being this House, to argue that those regulations as they affect them are not appropriate at this time. Second, there should be an opportunity for this House to review its own work every two years to make sure that we have not done something, then forgotten about it, only to find that year after year there are two or three fewer carriers in place.
I would encourage the Government to give consideration to providing this kind of an appeal mechanism. It is consistent with other Acts that have come out of this Parliament and it makes a lot of sense to adopt these proposals today.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to put a few words on the record regarding Bill C-75 which I know you know, and other Members of this House know, is not a terribly well drafted piece of legislation yet, but we are working at it today, particularly in relation to amendments to Clause 4.
This clause, as the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary knows, has raised the ire of those in the vessel ownership community from one end of the country to the other. I know that Clause 4 subsection 3.1, to which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) is directing his Motions Nos. 5 and 6 in particular, has been negatively received by communities in my constituency, especially Prince Rupert. Whether it is the commercial fishing industry or people involved with larger vessels that come in for coal, grain, wood or anything else, they have been quite alarmed at the potential effects of subsection 3.1 and the way in which it might be implemented. I know when I spoke before that I said it was a bit of a trojan horse regulatory clause. It does not provide for the specifics of what most vessel owners would like to see in place.
I know that motions have been passed by the city councils of Prince Rupert, Kitimat and Stewart. I know there has been extensive correspondence to the committee, to the Minister and myself from the Queen Charlotte Islands and from many other areas on the North Coast from Hartley Bay, Kitkatla, Metlakatla, Oona River, Queen Charlotte City, Sandspit, Point Clements, and Masset. They have all gone on record as making sure that the Minister is aware of their concerns, particularly about the size of the cost recovery which the Minister indicated on the record some time ago was what he had in mind, it being 15 per cent of the roughly $826 million which was the calculated cost for Coast Guard services for the coming fiscal year. This meant that the Minister was trying to get something well in excess of $100 million in user-fees from vessel owners.
While this clause has gone through committee stage and has had some further potential cost recovery items added to it, for that reason before going to Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11, which have been grouped for this afternoon, I would like to deal with the new wording of Clause 4 which would amend subsection 3.1. It says:
For the purpose of defraying the cost of services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting charges relating to those services, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, aids to navigation, sounding and dredging, vessel traffic services, icebreaking services and marine aid.
As I am sure Members of the House know, the words "sounding" and "marine aid" have been added. In an area of the country from where I come which represents many thousands of miles of coastline, including some of the most treacherous waters anywhere on the continent, in particular the Hecate Strait which frequently gets winds up to 100 miles an hour and where very large and very small vessels run into extreme difficulties, many large and many small boats have gone down with a great loss of life. Mariners generally, whether they go out to sail, to fish, or to operate tugboats or large vessels, are always concerned about weather changes and safety.
One of the elements of safety touched on by Clause 4 in subsection 3.1, as it is written, is that it brings in the idea of cost recovery without making it clear what the conditions are wherein cost recovery would be considered. As fishermen have pointed out to me, if you were out in a boat with waves only four feet high with winds blowing about 25 mph out of the southeast and you are trying to make a decision whether to call the Coast Guard because you know that one of your friends three months before had to put a similar call in similar wave and wind daytime conditions only to have had to pay full user-fee costs to be brought back into Prince Rupert, you would have to weigh the situation. You might wait until the waves are five feet high and you are taking on water, a couple of hundred gallons a minute, but then it might be too late.
The Canadian economy shares generally in the benefits that come from the northern B.C. coast, $500 million this past year, from the fishing industry, the export of coal, grain, wood or regular transit of tourist vessels, the B.C. ferry system and everything else that goes on in marine commerce on the West Coast. Or, as my colleague has so ably pointed out, as regards the Seaway, and our northern and eastern coasts. These kinds of things need to be responded to much more clearly by Parliament and the Minister than has been the case to date. That is why my colleague has put before us Motions Nos. 5 and 6. Those affected by the new regulatory mechanisms, everyone who owns a company, large or small, and who has something other than that which is rowed around or sailed around is seriously interested in where these regulations are going to go. Yet we do not have them. As the Speaker said earlier today, there is no schedule in this Bill as to what the regulations are going to be. It is a big unknown. It is still a Trojan horse document. Vessel owners and operators do not know what the cost is going to be. Since it is a prerogative of


the Crown to provide a precise regime within which the regulations could come forward, my colleague has put forward a way in which those affected by new regulations can go to their Member of Parliament. He or she can get in touch with 19 other Members of this House and launch a process whereby a regulation can be reviewed by a parliamentary process. There is a precise time frame within which that is to be reported back and dealt with.
Motion No. 6 goes further than that. It provides for an economic review of the impact of these user-fees on various sectors. That is a good idea, particularly when we look at what is happening in the U.S. There is legislation before the U.S. Congress to remove all Seaway fees. Here we have a Republican administration saying it does not think this idea of user-fees and licence fees and all these other things is good for commerce. Our country benefits generally from this kind of commerce so we are going to do away with the fees.
There you have the right wingers to the south of us saying that this is not the way to go. Yet here we have the Minister of Transport and his colleagues saying that they are looking for some other way to raise another $100 million or $200 million or $300 million, so we are going to have regulations. "We will not tell you what they are or how you can change them or when we are going to proclaim them, or exactly how they are going to affect you. Just, here it is, you voted for us and you are going to get it anyway."
I think Government Members should, in good conscience, vote in favour of these two motions because they provide a mechanism to protect their constituents and local economies. They provide for a very important process whereby a badly drafted Bill such as this one can have some of its negative or positive aspects reviewed by the House. I think that makes good sense.
I see you are indicating that I am running out of time. That is too bad because I know my constituents are very much interested in seeing this Bill changed, in particular Clause 4. It tends to go after those who should not be subject to these kinds of costs. I am thinking again of those in the fishing industry running very close to the line. As we learned today, this Government does not intend to do anything about an inappropriate countervailing duty brought against all our fishermen on the East Coast. That duty will mean a couple of million dollars out of their pockets. Many of our coastal industries, the fishing industry and many of our commercial trades, are very close to the point of just breaking even. Many of these user-fees require very close scrutiny by this House. That is why I think these motions should be supported. I trust you will be voting the right way, Mr. Speaker, later today.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Canada Shipping Act


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, there should be no question here today until such time as Members have had an opportunity to discuss this Bill thoroughly. I know that Members, deep down, are concerned about the impact of Bill C-75. About 99 per cent of the representations the legislative committee heard concerned Clause 4. That is true regardless of where the representations came from, whether it be the Canadian Boating Association in Ontario or British Columbia, or fishermen in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. What they were most concerned about was that this clause gives the Government the power to impose user-fees on various boat owners. It does not matter whether they run great ships through the Great Lakes or paddle a canoe in an acid-filled lake in Ontario.
The great frustration for all those who came before the legislative committee, and the great frustration for every right thinking Member of the House of Commons about Clause 4, is that even though the Bill gives the Minister the power to impose charges for what was provided as a service by the Government, he has not defined who or how much he is going to charge. Is he going to charge 1 per cent of the cost of providing a service or is he going to charge 100 per cent? I suppose, at least in theory, the Minister could impose a charge equal to 150 per cent of the cost of providing a service. He could make money on the deal. He could make it a commercial operation under Clause 4.
The Government is asking Members of Parliament to pass a Bill which will allow the Minister to impose charges on Canadians without giving us any idea whatsoever how they are to be imposed. A fishermen in a community in P.E.I. is looking at a loaded gun with the trigger pull being passed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). He does not know whether the Minister is going to fire a warning shot, put one across his bow, or blow his head off. He has no idea whether a little bit of buckshot is to be sprinkled on the tail end of the boat, hitting a few lobster pots, or whether it is going to send him to the bottom. The Minister demands and will receive, if the majority responds in the normal way, the authority to impose these charges. We are not to be told how that gun is to be used. That is simply unacceptable. I ask Members to reach down inside themselves and question their conscience, their sense of democracy, their sense of the right of the individual in this country, and reject this archaic legislation, which of course is not deserving of consideration by intelligent men and women of conscience in this Chamber.


Mr. 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.
12768


Designation of Nova Scotia


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   THE OFFICIAL DESIGNATION OF NOVA SCOTIA ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 30, 1984, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan that Bill C-201, an Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia", be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon Fast):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-201, an Act representing the official designation of Nova Scotia. I want to express the gratitude of the House to the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) for presenting this Bill, which obviously is important to him as a Nova Scotian.
This Bill's thrust is as follows: In every place where the words "Nova Scotia" appear in any Act, regulation, statutory instrument, report, contract, lease, licence or other document the proper designation of this name in both official languages is and shall be "Nova Scotia".
The purpose of this Bill is to retain the Latin title "Nova Scotia" for official purposes, in both English and French documents. This would mean, more specifically, that the designation "Nouvelle-Ecosse" would be changed to the Latin, "Nova Scotia".
These issues, especially where proper names are in question, can lead to emotional debate, and in my view these kinds of questions should be considered very seriously before decisions are taken on them.
There are also other very serious points of a constitutional nature which should be made with respect to this Bill. To begin with, as worded this Bill would apply to any report, contract, lease, licence or other document. However, by Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, jurisdiction over property and civil rights in the province belongs to the province, and to this extent the legislation would be subject to constitutional challenge. I wonder if it is the intention of the legislation to require, for example, that the Bank of Nova Scotia, which is well known in French as La Banque de Nouvelle-Ecosse change its French letterhead in writing to French clients. Indeed, if it could not use the French name in written documents, would it necessarily follow as a business matter if nothing else, that it would also need to change any signs on its building?
According to the Official Languages Act and the Constitution Act, 1982, both versions of Acts of Parliament in the official languages of Canada are equally authentic. It happens that the name "Nova Scotia", and its French version "Nouvelle-Ecosse", appear in some 40 federal statutes, including the Supreme Court Act, the Judges Act, and the Interpretation
Act. The French version "Nouvelle-Ecosse" also appears, of course, in other jurisprudence.
It appears that for at least 270 years "Nouvelle-Ecosse" has been the accepted French term to describe Nova Scotia. Encyclopaedias, text books, dictionaries, atlases, journals, periodicals, newspapers, et cetera, throughout the Frenchspeaking world have used and are using that expression as a matter of course, and nowhere is there any indication that there might be some doubt about its propriety.
You may agree, therefore, that we are dealing here with an issue that goes much beyond legal technicalities and that it is surprising to discover that a time-honoured expression such as "Nouvelle-Ecosse", which is solidly enshrined in a language as universal as French, should be questioned on grounds, allegedly, that there might not be a proper basis for it. It might be noted that common usage, when it comes to names of countries, places, et cetera, is recognized in Section 30 of the Interpretation Act.
In any event, "Nouvelle-Ecosse" was used to describe this area by France and Britain, the two successive sovereign authorities originally there, in the official French version of the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713. It would seem to me that several centuries of use give legitimacy to the words "Nouvelle-Ecosse".


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


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have known the Hon. Member from Nova Scotia a long time. In fact, he was a Member when I first came to the House of Commons almost 14 years ago. One of the things that I have always recognized is the dedication and the sincerity of the Hon. Member. Certainly he has been a very stalwart Member of Parliament, as well as a very imaginative one. He has made a tremendous contribution, not only to this House of Commons, but to Canada generally.
There is no doubt in my mind that in proposing this Bill he did it as a dedicated Canadian. He did it as he felt it was something he thought should be done, especially coming as he does from that province. Anything that we have to say is in support of his dedication.
When we look back at the debate which took place on this Bill on March 27, 1981 when it was a Bill called Bill C-217,1 must admit that I found interesting the various points of research which the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) presented at that time in support of his motion. That speech was really a mini-history lesson outlining as it did the origins of words like Quebec, Ontario and Canada. My earliest recollection of Canadian history was the native word for Canada which was "Kanata". No doubt that is one of the reasons we have a small community near Ottawa today that is called Kanata.
Without doubt, many Canadian words have their origins in various languages. Native Indian or Inuit words, for instance,


are very prevalent in place names. This is logical, taking into account the historical development of our country, and taking into account, first of all, the native population that was here when the early explorers found this part of the world. We had people from many nations that found their way to our country. I think one of the earliest stages of history found the North American continent divided, north and south, between the Portuguese and the Spanish. Then as history progressed, changes took place. Then there became a division on the 49th parallel. There have been many changes made, and each individual who came to this country brought with him a part of his own homeland, a heartland that he really appreciated.
For instance, there is Kananaskis, which is very much on the map now as far as Alberta is concerned, there is Lac la Biche, and then take the other word, "cafe". I have heard people from south of the border call it "cafee", and then, of course, others call it restaurant. There are many interpretations of different words that we have in our language.
Few Canadian place names can boast of a Latin origin, but Nova Scotia is one of them. In English that Latin designation has remained rather than being translated into "New Scotland". In French, "Nouvelle-Ecosse" was chosen as the name for Nova Scotia. Apparently, "Nouvelle-Ecosse" has been the accepted French terminology for at least 273 years. That is a long time in Canadian history. It is described as "Nouvelle-Ecosse" in the official French version of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. I do not know how many Members are aware that Utrecht is in Holland. One of my earlier relations came from that part of the world. This is no recent development. We are looking back at the very roots of Nova Scotia-aux vraies racines de la Nouvelle-Ecosse.
Place names become dear to our heart. It may be that Francophones, who over the years have known Nouvelle-Ecosse as either their province of origin, or as a splendid Canadian province that they would like to visit, cannot easily change their habits and suddently think of Nova Scotia. I wonder if there is any solid reason for doing so? Nowadays, Nova Scotia is commonly regarded not as a Latin name but as the English version of the Province's name. Surely Francophones would prefer a title which is clearly French and which has been so through the centuries.
I know that the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has gone to great pains to point out that the motivation for his Bill has nothing to do with the bilingual question but that it has to do with the importance of using proper names for places in this country: "The proper use of proper nouns", as the Hon. Member put it. At the outset I tried to make the point that the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is very sincere in what he is doing and what he is proposing. I am sure that many Hon. Members feel that "Nouvelle-Ecosse", a designation in use for close to three centuries, is indeed the proper use of a proper noun.
Designation of Nova Scotia
The Hon. Member for Annpolis Valley-Hants has stated on occasion that he would like to see the name changed in terms of tourism. Surely, saying: " Venez en Nouvelle-Ecosse" can be as great a spur to tourism as: " Venez en Nova Scotia".
Think of all the maps that would need to be redrawn, all the legislation which would need to be redrafted, all the signs which would need to be repainted if the name of the province were changed. Perhaps one of the weaknesses of the Bill is that the Hon. Member has not thought about the problems that it would create.
I am not opposed to change just for the sake of opposing change. I have always believed that I am a person who always looks to the future with optimism. However, we know that there are many reasons for changing place names. Istanbul versus Constantinople reflects a change in political power. Tanzania versus Zanzibar and Tanganyika reflects a change in geographic boundaries. Members of the House will be aware that even the names of our constituencies change from time to time as a result of the change in boundaries.
Pearson International Airport as opposed to Toronto International Airport reflects a means of paying honour to a respected statesman. Many changes are made from time to time for special reasons, but those reasons must be sound and reasonable.
There are all kinds of reasons for changing place names. In order for the change to stand the test of time, there has to be compelling logic behind it, because Canadians are logical people who want to know why changes are made.
In the present case, I can think of no reason so compelling that it would cause me to unseat the present nomenclature of "Nouvelle Ecosse" for another name.
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on a very important matter to the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants. I am pleased that we are able to express our own concerns and feelings in Private Members' Hour.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short intervention with regard to the Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). Personally, I have mixed feelings about this Bill. I understand the Hon. Member's desire to assert what he believes very strongly is the name of his home province.
I am reminded of my childhood, growing up in English Canada, and being told of a place along the St. Lawrence River called Three Rivers. Over time, with the change in official documents and the usage of the name, that community reverted to its original French name of Trois Rivieres. Similarly, I believe the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants is attempting to provide for the recognition that Nova Scotia, or New Scotland, is a name that reflects its Scottish heritage and should be recognized as such.
Having said that, I am not sure that we in the House of Commons are the ones who should initiate that kind of change. I would be very reluctant to do so unless we had a very definite


Designation of Nova Scotia
resolution passed by the Legislature of the Province of Nova Scotia indicating that there is the collective desire for such a change. At that time, perhaps with a petition from Members of Parliament from that province, the House could give further consideration to the Bill brought forward by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. However, I also have no objection to this Bill going to a committee of the House for further consideration.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I can't help thinking Bill C-201 is rather confusing, if we read the French title of the Bill: "Loi concernant le nom officielle de la "Nouvelle-Ecosse"", and then realize that the designation "Nouvelle-Ecosse" is being challenged by this Bill.
"Nouvelle-Ecosse" is a designation hallowed by a 300-year old tradition, as was already pointed out. It is the name we find in the Treaty of Utrecht, under which France ceded Nova Scotia to Great Britain in 1713. The region belonged to the French from 1667 to 1710. Originally called "Acadie", it was known as "Nouvelle-Ecosse" in the early 1700's. Mr. Speaker, personally I would hesitate, and so should all Members of this House, to reverse this historic tradition.
The French designation for this part of the country has been "Nouvelle-Ecosse" in all Canada's official documents, including documents of a constitutional nature.
As Hon. Members are well aware, the Constitution is a document that applies both to the provinces and to the federal Government. I do not think the federal Government can unilaterally change the official title of a province without obtaining prior consent from that province.
I don't think we have any reason to believe that there is a vast movement of support in Nova Scotia for this Bill. It seems that Nova Scotia's Francophones are quite satisfied with the name of their province. Substituting Nova Scotia, now considered more as an English than a Latin designation, for Nouvelle-Ecosse, would be of no benefit to Nova Scotians of French origin.
I also think that a particularly compelling argument is provided by toponymy or the study of place names. In toponymy, current and past usage is one of the main elements to be considered.
The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) emphasized that he was in favour of the Latin designation, not conformity with English usage.
With all due respect for Latin and its vital contribution to our civilization and even to both our official languages, there is nothing in Canada today that really obliges us, either historically or traditionally, to give precedence to the Latin version. The designation "Nova Scotia" is no longer considered a Latin term. Over time and in common usage, it has acquired an English connotation for the purposes of geographic designation.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should act prudently and without undue haste, since we lack a consensus reflecting all the views of the various groups in our society. I also have some hesitation in agreeing such a measure would be both practical and justified.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I find very interesting the arguments of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) for introducing this Bill which would supplant "Nouvelle-Ecosse" with "Nova Scotia". According to the Hon. Member, the name "Nova Scotia", because it is Latin, should not be translated because in translation it loses its status as a proper name.
When we travel abroad, we travel to Venice, not to Venezia. We go to Florence, not Fiorenze, and to Rome, not Roma. In our English and French usage, we have not hesitated to change the names used in various countries, adapting them to our own linguistic milieu. Similarly, there is nothing sacrosanct about the Latin words "Nova Scotia". In English we could have changed that to "New Scotland". But that did not happen, and over the years the fact that "Nova Scotia" was Latin became more or less submerged by the fact that "Nova Scotia" was the English designation for a Canadian province, otherwise known as "Nouvelle-Ecosse" in the other major language of Canada.
This is an historical fact. There is nothing peculiar about it. There is no law that says English and French must evolve in exactly the same way. Indeed such a premise would be an antithesis to all these persons who view the properties of our two official languages as being unique and unbridled. In short, just because English Canadians did not change "Nova Scotia" to "New Scotland" is no reason for French Canadians not to have changed the name to "Nouvelle-Ecosse". To seek linguistic conformity in regard to vocabulary would be an affront to both our official languages.
I wonder if the Hon. Member has considered all the changes which would be necessary if this Bill were passed. My colleague who spoke before me has already referred to changes in maps, legislation and signs which would be required to reflect the new reality. Changes would go far beyond matters of federal jurisdiction. Every town and hamlet in Nova Scotia would be affected. And while there might not be a wholesale rush to change the letterheads of companies, name plates on buildings and tourist maps and other written materials about the province, there would be a certain confusion about the whole situation. One could even envisage factions arising; one faction saying: "Leave the maps and name plates alone" and the other saying: "No, we must reflect what has been legislated."
Every benefit must be weighed against possible disadvantages. If the disadvantages are weightier than the benefit, then it is very much to be questioned if there is, in fact, a benefit.


This is a situation of that type. If indeed it is a benefit to have purity of form in respecting Latin, then let us weigh that against the factors of the effect on the population and the cost.
If this Bill were to lead to great happiness in the province by those persons affected by the change, I would favour moving ahead quickly with this Bill. However, I must admit that I can see no striking advantages.
I would like to add another factor for consideration, that of the image abroad. More persons than ever are travelling to Canada these days because of Expo and what is happening overseas, and we can assume that many of them will want to travel to our beautiful seaside province known in all Francophone tourist literature as "Nouvelle-Ecosse". Who is to explain to all these hordes of would-be tourists that, alas, Nouvelle-Ecosse is no more? What will Francophone tourists think of a province which has just lost its clearly French appelation? How will they interpret that, I wonder? Would they be disappointed or upset by this change? I think that would be unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
Nova Scotia, with its Acadian culture and its growing number of Francophone institutions is proudly Francophone, just as it is proudly Anglohone. Both parts of that collectivity deserve the right to express themselevs in the name which they have chosen historically and to which they have cleaved over the centuries, Nova Scotia in English, Nouvelle-Ecosse in French.
I also wonder what has happened to the Official Opposition. We do not have one member of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, not merely to contribute to the debate, but there are none here at all. Thank you and merci, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, my name is Carole Jacques, Member for Montreal-Mercier. Mr. Speaker, a lawyer's memory never fails, they say.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the Bill entitled An Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia" . I want to approach this matter from a national angle.
One might say that the name "Nova Scotia" is part of the cultural heritage of Nova Scotians and, in fact, of all Canadians. It is a part of our cultural heritage because it is the name which for nearly 300 years has appeared in all our official documents, all our newspapers, all our business or personal correspondence.
How would a Francophone used to saying "Je viens de la Nouvelle-Ecosse" feel if, henceforth, he had to say "Je viens de la Nova Scotia"? Probably the same way an Anglophone would feel when saying "I come from Nouvelle-Ecosse". One would get the impression the sentence was begun in one language and finished in the other.
The words "Nova Scotia" may very well be derived from Latin, but still they do sound English because they have been used for years to designate one of our maritime provinces. It would be too much to ask Francophones to say "Nova Scotia"
Designation of Nova Scotia
instead of "Nouvelle-Ecosse", just at it would be to ask Anglophones to substitute the words "Colombie-Britannique" for the words "British Columbia". In either case it would be foreign to the speaker's language.
Is there any logic in the fact that Anglophones did not translate the latin phrase Nova Scotia, as Francophones did? Rather than logic, what is involved is a historical process that led to the constant use of the words Nova Scotia on one side, and Nouvelle-Ecosse on the other. I feel it is not proper that we should be logical to the point of imposing uniformity in all areas.
Canada was not built on uniformity. The proof is that we have here today French-speaking Members and Englishspeaking Members. What gives this country its character is that it was developed under the influence of various stimuli, each evolving in its own right. Let us not now impose rigid uniformity.
Mr. Speaker, when I was a child, I had the chance to visit Nova Scotia, and its people with their extraordinarily warm hospitality that is well reflected in the words Nouvelle-Ecosse. It would be infringing upon their rights if we were to substitute the latin name Nova Scotia. The rights of citizens secured over centuries, contrary to toponymic usage, would require amendments to constitutional documents-and besides, this is a provincial matter-and a number of necessary changes dealt with by federal law, and soon and so forth, Mr. Speaker. This would have a negative impact on the French-speaking population, because Nova Scotia is perceived as an English name.
The translation of names goes contrary to good usage with respect to proper names. The name is Latin and not English. The name is to be found in the 1621 Charter issued by King James to William Alexander. We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that Nova Scotia has very dynamic minorities which have vested rights over time that we cannot infringe upon. We have to respect as a Government and as a federal Parliament the rights of the French-language minorities outside Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Debate. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Lanthier).


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity today to see our Anglophone Members in the House of Commons vehemently defending a French designation whose existence has been consecrated by history! I am very proud of my Anglophone colleagues today.
I am proud of my Anglophone colleagues who are defending so vigorously the French appellation "Nouvelle-Ecosse". This is an historic moment, not only in the House of Commons, but in the Progressive Conservative Party, which was once


Designation of Nova Scotia
renowned as an English-speaking Party. Today, we have direct proof to the contrary.

To get back to the debate, Mr. Speaker, some examples were given earlier of foreign designations of certain cities famous for their culture, such as the French "Venise" and the English "Venice" for the Italian "Venezia", and for centuries no one has objected to the different names in other languages. Even London, which is called "Londres" in French and London of course in English. There is Greece and the magnificent island of Corfu, Kerkyra, and here again there has been no objection to these different designations through the ages.
Mr. Speaker, the name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" has been hallowed by history and by the suffering of a people that deserves all our support and admiration, and I am referring to the Acadians.
It is probably the only vestige Acadians have retained of their country of origin, and I am referring to this very direct and very French designation, "Nouvelle-Ecosse", which was immediately accepted by all Anglophones in the surrounding area, even in Prince Edward Island.
I wonder what will happen if we have to change the name of a province. What all those lawyers are going to think up-some would say there are too many of them here in the House-what are all those lawyers going to say when the door has been opened by legal precedent? Will they dare change British Columbia to Canadian Columbia? Will they ask to change "Nouveau-Brunswick" to New Brunswick or Nouvelle-Allemagne? Where will that open door lead us?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to the House that the designation "Nova Scotia" was adapted and adopted by the English because of its cultural flavour, the ability to speak Latin then being the "in" thing in some European courts. That's the reason why the English had adopted it. It is clear, however, that if they had wanted to call it "New Scotland", they would have done so as they did for New Brunswick. I think that the designation "Nouvelle-Ecosse" is a time-honoured one which should be preserved jealously not only for the local people, but also for the people in Western Canada, in Ontario, as well as in Quebec who have always known our Canadian provinces by their own names. And the designation "Nouvelle-Ecosse" suits perfectly the fine province of Nova Scotia. I suggest, therefore, that we should keep it.
Second, I feel that this is not the proper forum to discuss such an issue, Mr. Speaker. I suggest it is the fact of a very old Government to say that we are going to send instructions to the provinces. The previous Government, missed by a small minority of Canadians, had the despicable habit of sending edicts to the provinces and to tell them: That is what you are going to do. We, from the province of Quebec, know it, because we were imposed similar things with the last Constitution. This Government, however, will respect the basic rights of the
provinces and we sincerely believe that, strictly speaking, it is up to the provinces to discuss at least their name.
I think, therefore, that we should first of all refer the matter to the province of Nova Scotia before coming up with this instruction to be imposed to an individual Canadian province.
Third, Mr. Speaker, we must realize that on all maps throughout the world, the designation "Nouvelle-Ecosse" appears. In my career, I have had the opportunity to work for Zaire, a Francophone country in Africa. And I have seen in that and other countries maps of the world showing Canada with its provinces where the names "Nouvelle-Ecosse" and "Nouveau-Brunswick" appeared. These people were aware that they had French maps of the world and that French is a universal language.
By the way, if we are to make or propose changes, I dare say that we should suggest in good French the expression "adjoint parlementaire" to replace "secretaire parlementaire". It would be a very good French designation which is used in Geneva, Paris and Quebec City. I think that the expression "secretaire parlementaire" is an anglicism which we shall have to rectify one of these days.
But that is not the issue now before us, the debate is rather concerned with a name change for a province that has not yet made an official request-even though it does not have to ask- and has not yet expressed any wish to have its name changed.
Therefore, I would like to suggest to the House that this would imply a number of changes, the updating of all world maps, charts, even radio systems, navigational systems that use the phrase Nouvelle-Ecosse in French.
Fourthly, it goes without saying that to our proud French Canadians who are struggling in that beautiful country that was Acadia and has been Nova Scotia for a few centuries now, we must not give the impression that they are being deserted. As representatives of all Canada, we must support the remnants of French culture that may remain in difficult areas of Canada. French Canadians who are a very small minority in those areas of Nova Scotia should not be made to feel they are being shelved for good by that change in the name of their own province.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should respect the vested, innate rights of our French-Canadians in Nova Scotia, who have always been proud French-Canadians and who come to visit us in Montreal once in a while, to show that the French spirit is still around, even among them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to sum up, I would like to bring to the attention of all Canadians today the fact that this Bill is being put forth, perhaps seriously, by people whom I shall not name but, as I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, who are now absent from the House.
Therefore, I humbly move, Mr. Speaker, that the name Nouvelle-Ecosse be and remain historically applicable to that province known in English as "the Province of Nova Scotia".


Donald James Johnston: Surely, Mr. Speaker, you have noticed the irregularity, the fact that I share the view of my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary who represents the constituency of LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier).
Indeed I fully agree with what he has just said: the name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" is part of our history.
I should tell the House that I do have some credibility because I married a Nova Scotia woman and I consider that province as our second home.
I am quite surprised that our colleague the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) should have introduced this kind of legislative amendment. It is with some surprise as well that I notice he is not in the House to-


Claude Lanthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Lanthier) on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, although I do not have as much experience as the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), I believe it is unacceptable to mention a colleague's absence from the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is quite right. Incidentally, I would point out to him that he should say "rappel au Reglement" rather than "point d'ordre". The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston).


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, he is quite right. As I recall, he did the same thing himself five minutes ago.
Therefore-
I do not intend to continue this debate at any great length. I was surprised that an Hon. Member from Nova Scotia would make this proposal to change the French version of the name of that province.
I must say I take issue with one comment made by my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Lanthier), namely, that the preceding Government had been insensitive to the aspirations of the provinces. On the other hand, this Government has to recognize that the very private Private Member's Bill that we have before us is being debated on the initiative of a Conservative Member of long standing. In my time in the House, I do not recall any such proposal coming from the Government of which I was then a member.
I would be interested in reading the interventions of some of the other Hon. Members of the House of Commons who are from Nova Scotia and find themselves on the Government
Designation of Nova Scotia
benches if they have already made interventions. I see that the distinguished Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is here today. I have not had the opportunity of discussing this particular Bill with him. Once again, in my judgment, it is totally inappropriate for a Private Member's Bill to raise an issue which is so important to so many people.

Our friend from LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) mentioned the importance of the Acadian community in Nova Scotia. Imagine the attitude of this community, where I know quite a few members. Many are involved in provincial politics in Nova Scotia. Imagine their reaction to changing the name of the beautiful province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that for us, at least for me because after all this is a Private Member's Bill, what our hon. friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) is suggesting is entirely unacceptable.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: The Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographic Names, the CPCGN, has for many years held the principle that, aside from entities that come under federal jurisdiction, such as Indian reserves, national parks and military bases, geographical names fall under provincial jurisdiction. The name of a province is of course another problem altogether. According to the Department of Justice, the name of a province is the name appearing in the Act under which the province entered Confederation. In the case of Nova Scotia, this was the British North America Act. Since these are constitutional documents, the federal Government cannot proceed with any changes without having such changes ratified by the provinces. Furthermore, the provinces cannot change their names without requesting the approval of the federal Government. I think we can conclude this is an area of shared jurisdiction, where it would be up to the provincial Parliament to take the initiative.
Mr. Speaker, in toponymy, current and past usage is one of the main elements to be taken into consideration. The name "Nouvelle- Ecosse" as used on maps, in treaties, in historical works and in geographic documents goes back to the eighteenth century at least. Its use has been maintained without interruption since that time, and the name remains in common usage, not only among French-speaking Nova Scotians and all French-speaking Canadians but also throughout the Frenchspeaking world. It is the name we find in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, under which France formally ceded Nova Scotia to Great Britain.
We must remember that, initially colonized by France under the name "Acadie", Nova Scotia was French from 1667 to 1710. Furthermore, even if the name Nova Scotia is of Latin origin, it has been a very long time since it was perceived as such by the population of that province and Canadians in general, who consider it to be the English name of a province with a strong English-speaking majority.


Designation of Nova Scotia
Perhaps it is nothing more than a formality-important though it may be-but we must not forget either that if we were to change the official name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" we would have to change not only all federal statutes but also all official documents, maps and what have you where the provincial name appears.
The name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" is part of the cultural heritage of Nova Scotians and of all other Canadians.
On the other hand, such a change now that the attitude of most Canadians concerning bilingualism is one of greater tolerance and wider acceptance might very well stiffen relations between the two linguistic communities and polarize their respective position.
This Bill would require many changes, modifications, maps, treaties, and federal laws. As we have already said, basically it is within provincial jurisdiction. I become a little nervous about the federal Government trying to pass any kind of law without the full consultation of the province and its people, especially when the law lies within provincial jurisdiction. I am even more concerned about the negative aspect of this Bill on the Francophone population.
Nova Scotia is considered an English name. Nouvelle-Ecosse fits in truly with the bilingual character of this great country of ours and of the magnificent Province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this Bill this afternoon. I noticed that the various speakers were in a seldom seen unanimous mood and shared a common view. I think there is much similarity in the considerations which prompted us to rise.
I have always been very sensitive whenever linguistic questions arise here in Canada, particularly in Quebec where I come from and where this has always been a prominent issue. I live in an ancestral house which has been passed on from fathers to sons since 1665, over 300 years, so I do not really know whether this tradition explains why I always find it difficult to accept changes to things which are so deeply rooted in our heritage, be it in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. I have very specific views on what constitutes our national heritage, and I think these are things that are very difficult to change. Changing a name or an expression would not really change what we want to change in this country, whatever that may be.
Take my name, for instance. It evolved in three different ways over 300 years. We never moved away, we never moved off our land, we never budged as much as three feet in 300 years, and in spite of all this, the name Blais managed to evolve and change three times. This is just an example.
However, we never had to come before Parliament to make that change. Lucky for us!
I was listening to the other speeches earlier, and I was thinking of the wealth of wonderful names we have here in Canada, including the names of our provinces and the names of our towns and villages. I was thinking, in Quebec, how much the Indian languages have given us in the form of names that are practically impossible to translate and that we would never even think of changing. For instance, the names of Quebec City, Peribonka, and Ottawa. These are all Indian names, and I feel I should name some of them to show how wonderful they are. For instance, Bellechasse, the riding I represent. We can't translate names like that. Some of my colleagues have tried to, but not very successfully. Take Sherbrooke. You could hardly translate that. I don't know in what language it would work, but you can't translate it. La Salle and Westmount. I don't know how the Hon. Member who just left us ... I don't want to bore you, but if we referred to the Hon. Member from "La montagne de l'Ouest", we might get mixed up with Members from other parts of Canada. It cannot be done.
I think we should keep the names we have in Canada. The evolution has to be natural. A moment ago I gave examples concerning my own situation.
The key question which made me think is this: How can we as a federal Government take over a provincial responsibility? In my opinion, the question is quite clear. It is not up to us to take this kind of initiative. The province itself should have expressed interest, but such is not the case. Otherwise we could seriously consider whether it is the common will of most residents of the province and what would be the reaction of other people throughout Canada.
We often hear various comments, and time and time again Governments are blamed for reacting instead of acting, which may be true in some cases. It may be true, but perhaps it is in cases such as this one where we must ask whether it is the proper way for a Government to proceed. If a Government goes too far ahead or wants to proceed too quickly to make certain changes which might antagonize people and lead to negative reactions on their part, I would suggest we have our work cut out for us if we as parliamentary legislators want to push ahead with this kind of legislative measure when we do not have an obvious consensus, either provincial or national.
Speaking sometimes in French and sometimes in English, my colleague the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), stealing my lines, dealt with the cost of the changes. Again, at a time when each cent and each dollar in Canada counts, where we have to borrow one third-nearly 33 cents-out of every dollar we spend, we would have to borrow a lot more to make the necessary changes in legislations, regulations, maps and treaties.
Mr. Speaker, it is never interesting to have to rise to oppose such a proposal, but I think that we ought to do it and do it simply. Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have no other alternative


than to oppose this initiative, to maintain the status quo and to keep the name as it is now.
I have the feeling that you want me to conclude. I have a lot more to say, Mr. Speaker, but I will continue another time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The hour allotted for consideration of Private Members' Business has expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) this item is dropped from the Order Paper.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, to amend and consolidate the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, my constituency of York East is made up of a portion of two of the six cities that compose the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. My constituency is composed of a portion of the borough of East York and another portion of the municipality, the City of North York. My municipality and constituency have a very multicultural population. In my constituency there reside over 60 different ethnic and cultural groups all together.
I had the privilege of serving as the Mayor of my municipality, the borough of East York, for a number of years. While serving in that capacity, we established a multicultural committee in East York. It later became the race relations multicultural committee of East York. A short time later, the City of North York established a similar type of committee. It is known as the Mayor's Race Relations Committee for the City of North York. We have a friendly rivalry in our two municipalities, Mr. Speaker, as to which one of these organizations was actually the first of its kind.
The East York Multicultural Committee was originally created for two purposes. One was to allow all of our residents, no matter from which cultural background they came or for how long they had lived in our community, to get to know and
Adjournment Debate
to understand one another better and, at the same time, to encourage the members of our community, whether newcomers or long time residents, to become involved and participate in the wider community activities and life.
The North York committee, on the other hand, was created to deal specifically with race relations matters. It grew out of incidents in Metropolitan Toronto in the late 1970s when race relations, relationships with the police, and relationships in various communities were of great concern. As a result of that, the focus and the main attention of that committee was placed on the race relations aspect.
I do not think it really matters which one of those committees was first. Both are geared toward promotion of good relationships in our community, whether race relations or the whole relationship of getting people to know and understand each other better. On top of those two functions, however, both committees are geared to ensure that all people have the opportunity to participate and become involved in the wider community. That is what multiculturalism is all about, in my view.
The Sunday before last in my municipality, the borough of East York, we had our great multicultural festival which is known as East York Day. On the platform that day we had two people who exemplified what multiculturalism is all about. One was the new Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Ontario, His Honour, Lincoln Alexander. He is the first black Canadian to serve as Lieutenant-Governor of a province. He was born in this country, in the City of Toronto. In order to take his full place in the wider Canadian society, he had to overcome great problems and obstacles. Another man on the platform that day was the Chairman of East York Day, a man by the name of Shamoh Kara. He came here as a refugee from Tanzania many years ago. He has become prominent in his own community and in the wider community.
Those are two great examples of what multiculturalism is all about. Our community is committed to multiculturalism, and so is our Government. It is moving beyond traditional multiculturalism into equality of economic opportunity. It has been doing that in two areas recently. One is the employment equity Bill which has just gone into committee. The other is an initiative which the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) recently took in Toronto through a conference called Multiculturalism Means Business. At that conference, and also in the debate concerning employment equity, one thing became quite clear: The concern of many of our fellow Canadians is about the question of whether or not there is discrimination, whether it be in employment or in business.
On April 14 I put a question to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and asked him if the new multiculturalism business centre which he proposed at the conference was going to deal with this issue. I asked him that specifically, bearing in mind the concern people have over the enforcement of the rules and regulations set out in the employment equity Bill,


Adjournment Debate
and the concerns people have about enforcing equality of opportunity and anti-discriminatory measures in business itself. I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell us that not only will this business centre deal with those matters but tell us specifically how, and tell us about the enforcement provisions which are needed to overcome discrimination in these areas.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to reply to the question of my colleague from York East (Mr. Redway). I am pleased to be able to speak to this matter which is important to all of us-equality of opportunity. This is what our Government stands for and the purpose of our multiculturalism policies and programs.
Of course, we are talking about equality in all aspects of Canadian life: equality of cultural opportunity, equality of social opportunity, and equality of political opportunity. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the remarks of our Minister at the Toronto Convention Centre on April 11,
1986.	He said, and I quote:
When I speak of equality, I mean all aspects of life in Canadian society:
Cultural equality-to preserve, encourage and promote the cultures, practices and customs which are the very essence of a truly multicultural society;
Social equality-to respect the right of every individual to take part freely in the life of society without coming up against the constraints imposed by racism, intolerance and fanaticism;
Political equality-to give everyone the opportunity to take part in the decisions made in municipal, provincial and federal affairs.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say, those are my own priorities, and I am quoting the Minister, and they are also those of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, our Government continues to support cultural retention and enhancement, as well as the greater integration of Canadian society, both through individual learning or skills acquisition and through the evolution of institutions to reflect and be open to Canadians of all cultures and races.
Such an open society is attractive to investors and entrepreneurial immigrants from countries around the world. They can feel welcome here and feel that their children will have equal opportunities for advancement. At the same time, such a society is open to a more effective use of all its human talents and resources.
The recent Multiculturalism Means Business conference is an example of initiative that promotes equality of economic opportunity. The conference brought together about 700 people from across the country from many ethnocultural backgrounds, representing all levels of Governments; community organizations; individual businesses of all sizes; business,
trade and professional associations. Many doors of opportunity were opened and many contacts were made.
The momentum generated by this conference will be continued and the issues raised there will be addressed. A multiculturalism and business centre is one initiative to increase economic opportunity for all Canadians, both in terms of business and employment opportunity.
The Government's commitment has not waned on social and cultural issues. The Government has already announced its commitment to the second decade to combat racism and racial discrimination. At the same time, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) released the progress report on Equality Now recommendations.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate this Government's commitment to a society where all Canadians enjoy equality of opportunity in all spheres of life, social, cultural, political and economical. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT-SIZE OF PAYMENT TO FARMERS. (B) REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Government has a responsibility to deal with the crisis in farm income, particularly in the grain producing sector. The extraordinary drops in income, caused partially by the EEC and U.S. action in the market, merits extraordinary response from the Government. Members of this House and many farm organizations have been asking, since the initial grain price announcements, for some indication that the Government intends to live up to its commitment to take some action.
The western grain stabilization payments of $600 are timely and appreciated, but they are also a very good indicator of the magnitude of the income reduction that has been taking place. The western grain stabilization makes up for income shortfalls for 1985-86. It does not deal with the projected shortfall or income reduction in the 1986-87 crop year. That shortfall, with $3 wheat indicated by the initial payment announcement, will be $1 billion. In fact, the Saskatchewan Pool Research Branch has indicated that it feels that, with all areas and grains included, it is likely to be a shortfall closer to $2 billion. The western grain stabilization plan may trigger another payout in 1986-87, but by its very nature it eats itself. Each time a pay-out is triggered, it indicates a lower income, which lowers the five-year average. Therefore, the next pay-outs are going to be progressively smaller, particularly if the pay-out is triggered in successive years.
The grain producing community is asking the Government to make a commitment to ensure that the incomes of farmers next year will at least be equal to 1985-86. If that is not done, there will be far fewer farmers to help in 1987. I hope the strategy of the Government is not to reduce the number of farms and eliminate a number of farmers so that the need for assistance will be less, as has been suggested by others, and implied in the Nielsen report.


I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will announce in his press conference tomorrow programs such as are available to United States and European farmers. Such programs would solve the problems for many farmers by assuring at least the cost of production in deficiency payments. As I said earlier, extraordinary drops in farm income demand extraordinary action. We would appreciate an indication of the Government's action now.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) raises a concern that is felt by all of us connected with agriculture in Canada. I should point out that it is not only an issue affecting western Canada-which many people have come to believe is the grain growing area of Canada-it also affects the total Canadian agricultural picture.
When we consider the amount of grain produced in various provinces of the country and rank them in order of the amount of grain produced, the Hon. Member's home Province of Saskatchewan is the largest producer; Alberta is the second largest; Ontario is third, followed by Manitoba. The fact is that Ontario produces a large amount of grain and is very much affected by what the Hon. Member for Prince Alberta referred to as an extraordinary situation.
It is an extraordinary situation, and we face a very difficult market as a result of the Europeans and the Americans essentially engaging in a price war. In my view, it is largely brought on by the actions of the European community as a result of dramatically increasing agricultural production, especially in the grain sector, through some very large subsidies.
Let me point out that it is not in any way the strategy of this Government to eliminate farmers. I hesitate to even dignify that question with an answer. The Hon. Member should know very well that this Government supports agriculture. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said at a press conference some two weeks ago that: "there's more we have to do for western agriculture and we're going to try to do it within the constraints imposed upon us by this economic situation". That is certainly a refreshing attitude on the part of a Prime Minister of this country, not only on behalf of western agriculture but Canadian agriculture as a whole.
I believe that our record in terms of supporting agriculture, especially western agriculture, has been very good. In the calendar year 1985, the federal Government was responsible for close to $1.5 billion of new initiatives or ongoing initiatives in western Canada to support the grain industry. That is a significant amount of money, and it should indicate that the Government is very willing to support agriculture.
The Hon. Member heard the Prime Minister state in Question Period today that Canada intended to raise the agricultural trade issue at the Tokyo meeting. Again, that
Adjournment Debate
indicates this Government's support for Canadian agriculture. In anticipation of the Tokyo meeting, the Prime Minister will be meeting a group of farm representatives from across the country on Thursday to hear their concerns and let them know that we in fact are concerned about agriculture.
I believe that our record of support for agriculture is good. We want to maintain that record and do whatever we can to improve it so that Canadian farmers are not the casualties in this very severe price war between the European community and the United States.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS-REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE STRENGTHENED
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) about the status of legislation concerning the transportation of dangerous goods. He informed the House that broad regulations covering the transportation of dangerous goods were proclaimed on July 1, 1985. The regulations cover all modes of transportation; air, water, rail and road. Interprovincial transport by road was the only important mode of transportation not covered by these regulations because it is a provincial not federal jurisdiction. As of February of 1986, the provinces and the territories adopted similar legislation to cover transportation of dangerous goods by road and which enforced the transportation of dangerous goods regulations. The ultimate aim of the transportation of dangerous goods regulations is to create a set of uniform regulatory requirements which apply to all means of transportation.
The Act and regulations are an attempt to rationalize the transportation of dangerous goods across Canada. Dangerous goods such as toxic chemicals, highly flammable or explosive products, radioactive materials, corrosives and so on constitute a real threat to our communities when they are not transported safely. The Mississauga derailment in 1979, in which a train containing cars of chlorine gas derailed, resulted in a massive evacuation of the city of Mississauga for several days. Fortunately, no lives were lost during this emergency. However, there are certainly no guarantees that we will be so lucky again.
The mode of transportation, the type of container, and the labelling of materials are all important aspects which contribute to the safer transportation of dangerous goods. Another factor which is of great concern to many, including the Corporation of the City of Toronto and a group of concerned citizens called "M-TRAC", the Metro-Toronto Residents' Action Committee for Rail Safety, is the speed at which trains pass through densely populated urban areas.
In March of this year the City of Toronto submitted a brief to the Acting President of the Canadian Transport Commission and to the Chairman of the Railway Transport Committee requesting that train speeds be reduced to 25 miles per hour on the CP North Toronto subdivision line. The brief points out that in 1981, the Railway Transport Committee


Adjournment Debate
imposed a maximim speed limit of 35 miles per hour on trains carrying full loads of special dangerous goods. The city is still greatly concerned, however, about trains carrying partial loads or empty cars with residue of dangerous chemicals. Unless some further action is taken, the risks will continue to increase and so will the potential for disaster. The City of Toronto states in its brief, and I quote:
-some risks cannot be avoided in urban areas. The transport by rail of ever increasing loads of toxic and explosive chemicals through high density areas, where evacuation may be difficult if not impossible, imposes an unfair and unjustified risk to many residents of the city of Toronto. The time for action is now for we are just one accident from a disaster.
In its response to the position paper of the Minister of Transport, "Freedom to Move", M-TRAC expresses its concerns that deregulation may lead to laxity in safety. Certainly the proclamation of the transportation of dangerous goods regulations in July of 1985 has alleviated some concerns. However, M-TRAC is more particularly concerned for the people in highly congested urban areas who are especially vulnerable to train derailment and resultant spillage of dangerous cargo.
There are many people who are concerned about this important issue. Harry Behrend, Vice-Chairman of M-TRAC, and my friend, Rose Dyson, are two people who have been greatly concerned about and involved in making the issues of transporting dangerous goods by rail and the speed at which trains pass through heavily urbanized areas, priority concerns. Last summer, my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), my wife Sandy and I went on a fact-finding tour of the CP Rail main line through Toronto to learn more about the situation and the risks involved. CP Rail officials were helpful in answering our inquiries.
One of the ways in which the railways are attempting to make their mode of transportation safer is through the use of a new type of wheel bearing to improve performance and safety standards. I believe CP has converted something like 75 per cent of the bearings to date.
It should be noted, however, that dangerous goods are not transported just by rail, although this is certainly the mode of transport which has attracted the most attention. The use of other modes of transportation, such as by truck or tanker, is also prevalent. It is vital that the appropriate regulations be followed to the letter to ensure that dangerous goods are transported safely, with no threat to the surrounding population. This is an important issue which concerns Canadians, especially those who live in densely populated urban areas, such as my riding of Don Valley East.
On a positive note, a federal task force was set up on March 14, 1986, by the Minister of Transport to study the transportation of dangerous goods by rail in the Metropolitan Toronto area. On the task force are representatives of CN, CP, M-TRAC, and the public at large. While they have two years to
conduct their research and compile their recommendations, speed reduction has been identified as an urgent issue. I look forward to an interim report in this regard. I also look forward to their final recommendations on how to improve the safety factors, thereby protecting the public when dangerous goods are being transported through Metropolitan Toronto so that we never have anything close to the disaster which occurred in Mississauga in 1979.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) has dealt to a great extent with rail passenger traffic and the establishment of the task force, I will direct myself more particularly to his concerns regarding trucking.
At the outset, I would remind Hon. Members that regulations respecting the classification of dangerous goods, the documentation and marking of them, the preparation of emergency response plans, the reporting of spills, and, above all, the training of those responsible for the handling of dangerous goods, have already been promulgated. In fact, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, these measures have been in effect across the country since July 1, 1985.
By long-standing agreement with the provinces, they will have the primary role of enforcing the regulations with respect to vehicular traffic, that is, truck traffic, as it respects dangerous goods. Ontario has taken the lead among the provinces in the application of regulations. It has trained all of its highway inspectors and weigh scale operators and it has been working closely with the Ontario Trucking Association and a number of private trucking associations, not the least of which is the Ontario Petroleum Association, to ensure that vehicle operators are fully aware of the nature and hazards of the products they are transporting. The other provinces are conducting the same compliance programs. In fact, all provinces have been enforcing the regulations since February, 1986.
Discussions with a view to amending aspects of the legislation are presently under way which I hope will address, in part, the Hon. Member's concern. However, I must underline for the Hon. Member that this is only enabling legislation. It is the regulations which give teeth to the legislation. It is an awareness program. It is in education that we will achieve safety, not through legislation or regulation alone. Education is equally important.
[Translation]	*


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. This House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, April 30, 1986