1986-02-07

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, recently my office received representations from a constituent who was having difficulty getting a cheque out of the Department of Supply and Services. My constituent was represented by a local lawyer who prepared the submission and delivered it personally on October 29, 1985, to Mr. Lloyd Spiro, who is a counsel for legal services in the Department of Supply and Services. Following the submission, my constituent received word from Mr. Spiro saying that she would have a cheque by December 27, 1985, and then December 27 became February 1, 1986.
Out of frustration my constituent came to my office. One of my staff contacted Mr. Spiro's office. But, before returning my secretary's call, Mr. Spiro called my constituent's lawyer and was absolutely livid and rude. Then Mr. Spiro undertook to call my office and proceeded to call my constituent's lawyer a liar on several occasions and said that he would love to punch him in the mouth. During his tirade on the telephone to my secretary, Mr. Spiro accused my constituent's lawyer of misconstruing everything, and made some very degrading statements about him.
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that a public servant who acts in this manner does not deserve to be employed in the Public Service of Canada, and I am requesting that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) take action. There is no way I will tolerate any member of my staff or a decent hard-working constituent having to put up with this kind of conduct and verbal abuse. The very least that I can expect is an apology to my secretary and to the lawyer concerned.


SHIPBUILDING
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the closure this month of B.C. Marine Shipbuilders, the oldest shipyard in British Columbia, terminates 250 permanent jobs
in Vancouver East. The campaign promise of the Conservative Government to revitalize our shipbuilding industry was another betrayal. The only concrete action the Government has taken has been a complete elimination of all Government support for this once thriving industry. A workforce which once boasted 15,000 jobs for skilled workers across Canada will dwindle to 5,000 by the end of this year. On the West Coast, B.C. Marine Shipbuilders will be the third shipyard in three months to cease operations.
Instead of taking action to save these jobs, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) have ignored telegrams and letters requesting immediate meetings and clear answers on policy direction. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) has made a complete mockery of the Government's promise to aid shipbuilding by failing to ensure that two new CN ferries planned for the East Coast are built in Canada. Although he told the House in November, 1984, that these ferries will be built here, he is now considering using foreign-built ships at a cost of 10,000 person years to Canadian workers.
I urge the Government to act now to save our shipbuilding industry. Go West and meet with the people in the industry. Ensure Government support so that ships operated in Canada are built and serviced by Canadians. Give back to those proud and skilled workers their jobs.


CHINESE NEW YEAR
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, as all Members with Canadians of Chinese origin in their ridings know, Sunday, February 9, marks the beginning of the Chinese New Year. I know Hon. Members will join with me when I say on behalf of this House and the Government of Canada that we join with all Canadians of Chinese origin in welcoming the Year of the Tiger.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 7, 1986
5.0. 22


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Government campaigned on the theme of economic renewal, always stressing the strategic importance of job creation. The results of a questionnaire which I circulated in my riding indicate that my constituents strongly supported the Wilson Budget of last May. This morning, editorial after editorial, recognizing that over half a million new jobs have been created across Canada in less than a year a half, are complimenting the Government on the 129,000 new jobs created in January.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Tupper: This pushed the unemployment level below 10 per cent to 9.8 per cent. In the Province of Ontario some 14,900 new jobs were created every month for the last 17 months, for a total of 239,000 new jobs. In the last months some 21,000 new jobs were created in Ottawa-Hull, 17,000 in Hamilton, 61,000 in Toronto, and 12,000 in London.
Think of the joy and satisfaction in the hearts of 500,000 Canadians who are back in the workforce, and the new economic wealth being created by them.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Census Day in Canada is rapidly approaching. However, the Conservative Government is threatening its accuracy by eliminating all funding for media advertising. Historically upwards of 2 per cent of Canadians are officially omitted from this statisticsgathering process, while unofficial reports claim the figure is significantly higher. A very worrisome statistic, however, is that of those omitted the majority are Canadians from ethnocultural communities. It stands to reason that without media advertising, including the important third language media outlets across the country, these numbers will inflate dramatically. That would indeed be most unfortunate.
Third language newspapers and magazines are widely followed, as are multilingual television and radio programming. In addition, ads placed in these media tend to offer greater prominence and therefore greater value for the advertising dollar, and better communication. I therefore urge the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism to urge his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) at the very least to approve census advertising in Canada's third language media. It is vital that our national statistics accurately depict the real and contemporary Canada, including the integral and inseparable multicultural components.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, 211 Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament were elected because we promised jobs, jobs, jobs. Today's figures from Stats-Canada have proven that we can deliver, deliver, deliver.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: Not only has the rate of unemployment dropped across Canada to 9.8 per cent, the lowest in five years, but my home Province of British Columbia saw one of the biggest drops in the rate of unemployment of any province. Under a job-intensive Progressive Conservative Government the B.C. unemployment rate has gone from 15.2 per cent in 1984 to 12.9 per cent today. That is down 1.2 per cent in the last month alone. To put it in human terms, tens of thousands of British Columbians who were not working before the last election are working today.
There is an old saying that at a party the host sees the glass as half-full but the guest sees it as half-empty. Applying that philosophy to our job-creation figures, to the pessimist 9.8 per cent of Canadians are unemployed, but to the optimist over 90 per cent of Canadians are working.
However, beyond partisan pride I think every Member in this House is encouraged by today's figures. They mean that hundreds of thousands of Canadians who ask for nothing more than the feeling of accomplishment that comes from meaningful work have come through a horrible recession and bounced back into the workforce. Obviously there is more to be done. We want more Canadians working. However, today we acknowledge that we are well on our way to recovery and that the Government is fulfilling its mandate with jobs, jobs, jobs.

[DOT] (M!0)


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians should not be surprised that the number of visits by American ships carrying nuclear weapons increased in the last two years, but this increase makes news in Canada, and that tells me that something is very wrong in the country. Canadians really have no idea of the extent to which their country is tied into the nuclear weapons race. They like to think that Canada is nuclear weapons-free because our forces do not actually have their fingers on the button. However, this is not true.
Nuclear weapons are anchored in Canadian ports, tethered to our docks by a few feet of rope, overflying our air space in B-52 bombers, and making test runs a few feet under the surface of our waters and a few hundred feet over Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Other nuclear weapons are ear-
February 7, 1986

marked to be sent to Canada in times of crisis. Canadians are either unaware of these facts or are ignoring them because their implications are too horrible to face. However, Canadians must face up to these facts if we are ever to deal effectively with the question of nuclear arms control and disarmament.
Governments, both Liberals and Conservative, have been guilty of keeping Canadians in the dark on nuclear issues. It serves their political purposes to avoid this controversy by hiding nuclear weapons agreements and asserting that Canada is nuclear free. This claim rings false to those who control the nuclear arsenals and know of our complicity in their deployment. Neither Moscow nor Washington will ever take seriously our plea that they cut their nuclear forces as long as we aid and abet the nuclear arms race.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has embarked on a policy of selling the Crown jewels. First it was the threat of logging national parks, then selling our national aircraft manufacturer, then the possibility of privatizing Air Canada, and, finally, the potential sale of part of Mile Circle Park right here in the city of Ottawa to build a U.S. embassy.
This park is bordered by a residential neighbourhood. Hundreds of average Canadians live there and hundreds of children go to school there. It is the worst possible site for such a building. In the past American embassies have been the targets of very unfortunate events. Could the safety of innocent people living in the area be affected by the potential construction of such a structure in their neighbourhood?
As the opposition critic for the Department of Public Works, I call upon the Government to reject any American offers to buy or lease Mile Circle Park. I call on the Government to send a clear signal that Canadian parklands, our natural treasures, are not for sale. I call upon the Government to state clearly that it will not act improperly by selling Mile Circle Park or locating an embassy in it.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, 15 months ago, after our Economic Statement, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and his soulmate, the Leader of the NDP, the "Nearly Departed Party", (Mr. Broadbent), were clamouring to whomever would listen that our policies would destroy thousands and thousands of jobs in Canada. Figures were being brandished around by the opposition Parties stating that 50,000, even 100,000 jobs, would be
lost. What happened to these predictions of gloom and doom? They were shattered.
This morning Statistics Canada announced that the Government had just established an all-time record for job creation in a single month. One hundred and twenty-nine thousand new jobs were created in January of this year. The Liberal legacy of unemployment has dropped to under 10 ten per cent for the first time since April, 1982. The rate now stands at 9.8 per cent, a level which the Opposition claimed to be unattainable only 15 months ago.
The NDP and the Liberals are shuddering in their boots, they are shuddering in their skirts, and they are shuddering in their drawers, at this tremendous achievement. We have shown that, when you have a Government with vision, goals can be achieved and objectives can be attained and even surpassed. We in the Conservative Party have faith in Canada. We have faith in the ability of Canadians. We know, and we have proven, that as a nation we can stand with the best.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada announced this morning that we have set a new all-time record for the number of new jobs created in one month, namely 129,000.
One hundred and twenty-nine thousand new jobs for Canadian men and women, in January!
Mr. Speaker, since we were elected, we have created more than 589,000 jobs. More than one-half million! That is leadership. That is effectiveness. That is what excellent policies can do! Unemployment, that Liberal legacy, has dropped by
17,000	and is now around 9.8 per cent, its lowest level since 1982.
Mr. Speaker, these Figures will probably not be well received by the Opposition nit-pickers who always try to see the negative side, nor will they be good news for those who set the interests of their party above the national interest. And they will certainly not be good news for all those people who like to spread gloom and doom in this country.
Well, Canadians have had enough of these tactics. It is time for Opposition members to start working for the well-being of their constituents by making a positive contribution to the debate in the House and being constructive instead of constantly criticizing and obstructing the proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, there are now 580,000 Canadian men and women who know the Government keeps its promises.
10572

February 7, 1986
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. With yesterday's increase in the bank rate, Canada will have the highest interest rates in the western world. Mortgage rates will climb, inflation will go higher, and business will be hard hit. What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that high interest rates do not undercut economic recovery?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of these matters have to be considered as a comprehensive whole. I am sure the Hon. Member would like me to advise her today that last month we had a record high level of job creation of 129,000 jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Since the Government took office, 1,100 jobs per day have been created for a total of
580,000	jobs.
Last year we had the largest single increase in job creation-a half million people. Over 1,100 jobs a day were created. That is the full measure of the comprehensive economic policies that this Government has followed, and that is what the Hon. Member should be focusing on rather than walking around under a little black cloud.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, interest rates were jacked up in order to prop up the dollar. There was massive borrowing to prop up the dollar. The dollar, which closed at 71.12 cents yesterday opened at 70.99 cents this morning, although it had moved up very slightly at eleven o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Aideen Nicholson: What does the Minister propose to do now since yesterday's massive intervention is clearly not having the dramatic effect that was hoped for?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we had what is probably the largest two-day increase in the level of the Canadian dollar in history. I think the Hon. Member is totally off base with her preamble.
I have always stated in the House that we must view economic policy as a comprehensive whole rather than nit-pick at little items of the policy without recognizing that-


Mr. Gauthier:: What about the interest rate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member is laughing. I suggest that he go to the streets of Ottawa-Vanier and ask his constituents-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do every day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was short. The answer can be short.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You come down to my riding, Michael.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to accept the Minister's invitation to put the matter into a broader context. May I just remind him that he inherited a dollar at 77 cents which he let drop to 69 cents. He inherited an economy that was growing at a rate of 6 per cent which he let drop to 4 per cent. When will he replace this ineffectual manoeuvring with a coherent policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been for the last little while. We inherited an unemployment rate of 11.7 per cent. This month that rate is down to 9.8 per cent, the first time in over four years that unemployment has been below the 10 per cent barrier.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We inherited a deficit of $37 billion. We have got that figure down a good deal lower. I will be coming out with a precise figure in a very little while so the Hon. Member will know exactly what it is.
We inherited a country that was growing much more slowly than is the case now. We inherited a country where the estimates of economic growth were far less than we were able to demonstrate through actual figures. This is what we inherited, Mr. Speaker. But more so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a speech.


DOLLAR'S EXCHANGE VALUE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been in office for over a year and a half. It has to stop talking about what it inherited-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: Because it is embarrassing to the Liberals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If everything is going so well because of what the Government is doing, can the Minister explain why the dollar was worth almost 77 cents U.S. when it took office and it is only in the 71-cent range today? Can the
February 7, 1986

Minister explain that, because he is not really doing as well as he is trying to pretend today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are 580,000 more people working today, over 1,100 more people a day over the last 16 months. Eighty per cent of those jobs are full-time jobs. Only 20 per cent are part-time jobs.
The rhetoric which the Hon. Member throws at us here says nothing when you look at the facts. Facts speak louder than the empty rhetoric of the Hon. Member. 1 will match those
580,000	jobs against his rhetoric any time of day, any place in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the facts are the dollar today is in the 71-cent range and it was 77 cents U.S. when the Minister took over. Because of the Minister's action, interest rates today are at a 15-month high, costing consumers more, costing small business more, and costing homeowners more. Why is the Minister sitting by and letting those rates climb? Why is he revelling in that instead of bringing them down?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Hon. Member went out to Sparks Street and asked Canadians about the things that are important to them, they would tell him that 580,000 jobs are important.
The Hon. Member is talking about what we inheritated. We inherited a youth unemployment rate of 18.4 per cent. Last month that rate was down to 15.9 per cent. That is what we have done with our inheritance. We have improved the position of many, many thousands of Canadians, young Canadians and other Canadians, far, far more than had been the case for a number of years. That is much more important than the empty rhetoric of the Hon. Member.


MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
On my way down Sparks Street this morning I was stopped by a number of people-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: One must have been a policeman.


Ian Deans: They wanted me to ask


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You asked for that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the people on Sparks Street want the Hon. Member to be able to put his question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Ian Deans: A lot of ordinary Canadians were on their way home or to work.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: From work or to work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Obviously, you don't understand. Many ordinary Canadians work nights.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: And days too.


Ian Deans: The interest rate increase will affect 30,000 people this month who will have to renew their mortgages. It will affect numerous small businesses that have to carry inventory. They will have to charge higher prices as a result of additional costs, which will detrimentally affect the already high level of consumer borrowing costs. What action does the Minister propose to take now to ease the burden on those who will have to renew their mortgages during this month at higher interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was also stopped on the way to the House today. I was not sure that I was going to be able to make it because of all the people who were stopping me and shaking me by the hand and saying: "Things are going pretty well with 580,000 jobs".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member has raised the question of interest rates. As I indicated to him and to his Leader yesterday in the House, what we have done in the last few days has to be viewed as a package approach, or a comprehensive approach, to dealing with the problem of speculators in the market-place. However, I should remind the lion. Member that current levels of mortgage rates still show a $70 per month saving, whether it is a one-year mortgage, a three-year mortgage or a five-year mortgage, from what had been the case when we took office. That is an annual saving of about $835.
We are not happy with the level of interest rates. We want to get them back down to a more normal level, but in order to preserve the balance in the economy it was necessary to do what we did over the past week.


SITUATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister seems happy with interest rates for mortgages and does not propose to do anything, what action does he propose to take to ease the burden of high interest rates which will have to be carried by small businesses and which detri-

February 7, 1986
Oral Questions
mentally affects the cost of consumers because it will ultimately have to be passed on to them? Does he have anything to offer them by way of some action?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member is focusing on the right point again. If he analyses what has happened to small businesses over the last 16 months, he will see that they are at the heart of the 580,000 jobs which have been created since we took office. Those 1,100 jobs per day have been created by small businesses because they are responding positively to the economic environment and economic policies set out by the Government. That is what we are doing for small business.


Ian Deans: There is no action for mortgages and there is no action for small business costs.
[ Translation]


INTEREST RATE INCREASES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: What action is the Government going to take to counter the effect rising interest rates are having on the purchasing power of consumers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker ... Excuse me, Mr. Speaker!


Mr. Speaker:: This had better be a short answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would like to say that in Montreal, we created 1,000 jobs a week throughout 1985. This is very important for small and medium-sized businesses, because they have created jobs in Quebec, and I think it is very important for the Government to maintain the policies that have created the environment for this marvelous performance of our economy.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We welcome the improvement in the general rate of unemployment-
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allmand:: -but unfortunately the Government is using that moderate improvement to divert attention from-


Some Hon. Members:: Moderate improvement!


William Warren Allmand: -and avoid action on some very serious underlying problems-regional unemployment, part-time employment, older workers, and the enduring rate of 15.9 per cent for youth unemployment.


Mr. McDermid:: Down from 18.4 per cent.


William Warren Allmand: What will the Minister and his Government do to break the log-jam and alleviate that rate of 15.9 per cent for youth unemployment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has forgotten what I just said in response to a previous question. We have done something about youth unemployment. We have brought the youth unemployment rate down from 18.4 per cent to 15.9 per cent, still too high, but a considerable improvement over what it had been prior to our taking office.
[DOT] (U30)
I would also like to comment on another element of his preamble. He was talking about full-time jobs. Conservatives jobs are full-time jobs, 80 per cent of the jobs created have been full-time. Liberal jobs are part-time jobs; it is just about the reverse.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister can pat himself on the back all he wants. Is he saying that 15.9 per cent for youth is acceptable? This week the Government cancelled Katimavik. It cut back on transfers for post-secondary education to the provinces. What specifically are you going to do to break that log-jam because it is stuck at 15.9 per cent?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Challenge '86 is a program which has been introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. She has also, in the comprehensive Canadian Job Strategy Program, set out in a very focused way a much greater target of training as part of our job creation, working with the private sector and working the provinces to ensure that young Canadians are assisted in learning skills which can help them get full-time jobs. I think the performance that we have demonstrated in getting the youth unemployment rate down from 18.4 per cent to 15.9 per cent is a clear demonstration of the success of our policies.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns his comprehensive interest rate policy. Since December prime rates have increased 2.25 per cent, which for farm
February 7, 1986

people means that falling farm land prices fall even faster, debt-to-asset ratios grow, and even more people are pushed out of farming. How does that help Canada's economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, has addressed the questions that the Hon. Member has put on these topics in the past in a very effective way, demonstrating the actions-I think it is 145 pieces of specific action-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You're turning farmers into truck drivers.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that we have taken to address the problems in the farm community. Yes, there are problems in the farm community. Yes, those problems are caused by some international phenomena over which we do not have control. But we are doing a tremendous amount to deal with the problems within our total control, and we will be doing more in the future.


FARMERS' NET INCOME
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, virtually all of those 145 actions that the Minister of Agriculture relates would have taken place whether there was this Government, the old Government, or no Government. Would the Minister explain what his Government is proposing to do to turn around the dismal net income situation for farmers, which has stayed virtually the same since 1974, even though those same dollars will buy only half as much?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is widely recognized that the agricultural industry has gone through one of its toughest years in 50 years. There is also a great recognition out there that there are a number of areas to which the Hon. Minister of Finance has referred in the international market-place which cause us great difficulties. Since assuming office this Government has supported the agri-food industry consistently. We are going to continue to support it. We know that we have to do more in the area of farm finance. As the Hon. Minister of Finance indicated, that is exactly what we are going to do.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that unemployment in Atlantic Canada is very high and his economic policies are not working. I want to ask the Minister, and ask him sincerely, what he proposes to do now to change that dramatic situation in those communities, whether they be Halifax, Saint John, Cape Breton, Moncton or Summerside. What will he do now to try
Oral Questions
to alleviate the hardship with which those communities are confronted?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. The main increases in employment have been in the central part of the country, and to a lesser extent in the western provinces, but we have always acknowledged the very important need on the part of the Government to address regional unemployment problems. My colleague, the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, has addressed this issue on a number of occasions in this House. The Hon. Member knows full well that in the region he comes from we have the most generous tax incentive programs in order to draw business to that part of the country. This is a continuing concern of this Government and will be a focus of our policy in the weeks and months ahead.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR CHANGES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say sincerely to the Minister that response will not provide comfort or hope to the thousands of Canadians who are unemployed or have no hope of getting any employment at all. Will the Minister amend the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program and put in place a special job program for Atlantic Canadians in order to give them an equal opportunity, as is inscribed in the Constitution?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Hon. Member has said in his question and what 1 said in my answer to his first question are pretty consistent. We both share the concerns of those in Atlantic Canada who are out of work. We know there are greater numbers out of work in Atlantic Canada. As the broad recovery taking place in this country continues there will be clear results for those in Atlantic Canada. As I have indicated, there will be specific policies directed toward developing more employment opportunities in Atlantic Canada.


HIGH INCIDENCE OF CANCER SUFFERED BY GOLD AND URANIUM MINERS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns an extremely serious matter. A recent Government of Ontario study revealed that gold and uranium miners in Ontario, particularly at Timmins, Elliott Lake, and Fort William, suffer a tragically high incidence of lung and stomach cancer. It was also revealed that between 1943 and 1979 the mines introduced aluminum prophylaxis treatment which was not voluntary but involuntary.


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

February 7, 1986
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Is he prepared to work with the Steelworkers of America and the Province of Ontario to launch an in-depth study with respect to the effects of aluminum prophylaxis on those who worked in those mines during that period of time?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the problem with aluminum prophylaxis, and the health and safety aspects of it. Much of it is handled by the Government of Ontario. I think it is important that perhaps a joint study by Ontario and the Govern-menbt of Canada, the unions, and possibly the companies, should be examined. I am going to take this matter up with my colleague, the Minister of Labour, the bottom line being the protection of the Canadian miners' health.


REQUEST THAT MINERS' REGISTRY BE ESTABLISHED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer. My supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour prepared to co-operate with the Steelworkers of America and the Province of Ontario in establishing a registry for all those miners who worked within that period of time in the gold and uranium mines? Will he also help them in their efforts to obtain recognition of and compensation for their illness?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we would assist in any way that we possibly could, recognizing that the responsibility and jurisdiction rest with the Government of Ontario concerning gold miners. The other thing that should be drawn to the Member's attention is that for three years the Ontario Ministry of Labour has been researching literally mounds of documentation to try to establish a probable cause for the injuries suffered by the miners. However, we recognize that this has been a serious occupational health and safety problem. If there is any way that Labour Canada or the federal Government can assist, we would be only too happy to do so.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and involves the announcement that unemployment has dropped for the first time in the last five years to single-digit figures in spite or opposition predictions that-I am trying to work my preamble up to only about half the length of opposition preambles.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member has a question now, just a question?


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister. Would he like to comment further on this dynamic, exciting revelation-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Minister would, but the Hon. Member will know that that question-I think I will simply go to the next questioner.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and I will give him the opportunity his colleague wants him to have. Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration refused to agree or disagree with the assertion, based on Statistics Canada's unpublished figures, that real unemployment in Newfoundland is a full 10 per cent higher than the figures officially announced by Statistics Canada. Is the Minister aware that with the exception of one area in Newfoundland where fishermen have gone back to work, unemployment has increased everywhere else in Newfoundland this month, including the ridings of the Hon. Member for St. John's East and the Hon. Member for St. John's West? Unemployment on the Avalon Peninsula has increased from 18.4 per cent last month to 20.6 per cent this month. Where are the jobs, jobs, jobs that have been promised?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Hon. Member's seatmate, we are very conscious of the fact that the recovery is not as strong in Atlantic Canada as it is in other parts of the country. I indicated very clearly in my response to the previous questioner that my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, is working on policies to encourage a greater degree of economic activity in Atlantic Canada. I am sure my colleague would welcome the suggestions of the Hon. Member if he has any ideas on how to best do that. We share his concern and we are dealing with it.


INCREASE IN YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canada is not recovering, it is haemorrhaging to death. I would ask the Minister whether or not he is aware that youth unemployment in the Province of Newfoundland has increased from 29.6 per cent in December to 33.9 per cent this month, an increase of a full 4.3 per cent in just one month. Would the Minister agree that the only difference in job strategy for central Canada and Atlantic Canada is that there has been the election of two Liberal provincial Governments in Ontario and Quebec recently?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member would expect anyone in the House to be so naive as to fall for that one. He knows that the job-creation performances in both Quebec and Ontario were
February 7, 1986

improving considerably long before any Liberal administration took over.

And the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie said he has a problem with the employment and unemployment figures. I may remind the Hon. Member that in the province of Quebec, we have created, I think ... Just a second please-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will join the impoverished people of Haiti in the one thing over which they have to rejoice, the departure of the autocrat.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: I wonder if the Minister can give us the latest word on the situation in Haiti, on the transfer of power, on the role of the militia, and a word from the 2,000 or more Canadians who are in the country.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. The House will know that I am answering this question in the absence of the Minister of External Relations who has been handling this file with skill and effectiveness. There appears to be an atmosphere of calm in Haiti and the new Government seems to be in control of the country. Naturally, we are monitoring developments on an hourly basis.
With regard to the some 2,000 Canadians who are in Haiti, the Canadian Embassy there has established direct and systematic contact with them. We have every reason to believe that they are all safe although I must indicate to the House that, given the dispersed nature of their presence in that country, there cannot at this stage be a 100 per cent guarantee, but that is our impression at the moment. We are working now with various other countries to put in place a system by which Canadians who might want to leave Haiti would be helped in doing so if that were necessary and if that were their choice.


POSSIBILITY OF ELECTIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the House is glad to hear that from the Minister. I wonder if he could elaborate a little further on the nature of the Government now in power and the Minister's information on the possibility of elections being held.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have no other developments. The
Oral Questions
initial assessment of the officials of our Department is that it is in fact a representative Government and one that is able to establish authority and control over the country, and that indeed some of its more prominent figures are people who have taken positions with regard to questions of human rights that Members of the House would find very encouraging.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Over the last four years there have been large deficits of billions of dollars in the unemployment insurance account as a result of record high unemployment. How much will that deficit be reduced next year as a result of nearly 600,000 jobs being created in the next year and a half and consequently more people paying in and fewer people collecting? My own estimate is that it will decrease by over half a billion dollars a year. Is the Minister's estimate more, or less?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I do not have a specific number to give off the top of my head of what that change would be. Clearly the breadth of the economic recovery and the resultant decreasing number of unemployed will have a very positive effect on the Unemployment insurance Fund. However, that does more than just change the numbers in the fund. It conveys a much greater sense of confidence and well-being to people in Canada, gives Canadians the sense of confidence that their jobs are secure, and gives them the sense of confidence that will lead them to make big-ticket purchases such as a new refrigerator or a new-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS BY ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Why are members of the Canadian Armed Forces forced to pay unemployment insurance premiums at a time when they do not qualify to collect benefits when they retire, because of changes made in the UIC regulations by the Government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a question that the same Hon. Member put to my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, just yesterday. Oh, that is right, the Hon. Member bumbled when he asked the question. I forgot that.
The answer to the question is quite simply that these changes were announced in November, 1984. They have been referred to the Forget Commission because it is a very complex issue. It is something which will impact not only on the people in the Armed Forces but on others who might be taking early

February 7, 1986
Oral Questions
retirement as well. The Hon. Member's concern is well noted and the Forget Commission will be giving us some good advice on this matter, I am sure.


CHANGE IN REGULATIONS-APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister stick to the subject matter and explain to this House and to all Canadians why the Government changed the unemployment insurance regulations, which have virtually denied the right of former members of the Canadian Armed Forces to collect benefits therefrom, and then, after the fact, it appointed a commission to review the Unemployment Insurance Program? Why did the Government not wait until at least its own commission had reported? It changed the regulations and then it asks someone to review the whole thing.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are a very wide range of issues which have been referred to the Forget Commission, not just the single issue referred to by the Hon. Member. We have not had a full review of the unemployment insurance system for a number of years now-


Mr. Axworthy:: It was 1981.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and a lot of changes have occurred in the system. There have been changes in a number of social programs to assist people who are out of work, and there have been changes in the economic environment in which people are living and working.
It was because of all of these things that we felt, in the middle of last year, that it was very important that we refer the whole question of unemployment insurance to the Forget Commission. I would ask the Hon. Member to watch for the results of this Commission and to give us some advice when the Commission comes down with its report.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is in regard to the statement in last year's Budget that the Government intended that the indexation of Public Service pensions would be replaced by a new formula. Is the Minister aware that just before New Year's the President of the Treasury Board told the press that the level of benefits under the new plan would not be inferior to the level of benefits under the existing plan for the 200,000 superannuates who have already retired from the Public Service? Can the Minister confirm that it is now Government policy that people who are retired from the Public Service, from the RCMP or from the Forces, will not suffer because of new plans and will not lose the benefit of indexation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which I will take as notice and refer to my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. The Hon. Member and the President of the Treasury Board have had a number of discussions on this subject, I know, and 1 am sure the matter will be considered and discussed with the Hon. Member within a very short time.


POSITION OF SUPERANNUATES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware of the fact that a number of his colleagues from the Conservative Caucus have in fact raised this question in the House of Commons? Why can he not now confirm that these people who have been retired from the Public Service should not be forced to suffer because of retroactive changes in the plan to which they contributed in good faith in order to receive an indexed pension?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board was in the House yesterday. I am sure he will be in the House next Monday or Tuesday. I would think it would be far more appropriate for the Hon. Member to refer that question to the Minister who is responsible for this particular issue.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the gasoline excise tax rebate which is received by disabled Canadians who require the use of their automobiles. In light of the increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline, would the Minister consider increasing the rate of this rebate for disabled Canadians from the current rate of 1.5 cents a litre to 3.5 cents a litre to reflect the increase in the excise tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the interest of the Hon. Member in this matter. His interest in the well-being of disabled Canadians is certainly very well known.


Ian Deans: How come you don't thank us when we ask those questions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As the Hon. Member knows-


Ms. Copps:: Yes, and he passed a Bill taxing the blind.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to compete with a canary on the other side of the House.
February 7, 1986


JUSTICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I would like to get back to the case of the judge and to the appointment at the Ontario Court of Appeal where a bilingual Francophone was replaced by a unilingual Anglophone. Mr. Speaker, in his reply on February 5, the Minister informed the Flouse:
In 1985, there were two appeals among 1,400 applications which required a French panel.
Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister use the small number of appeals in 1985 to justify his refusal to appoint a Franco-Ontarian to the Court of Appeal? Does the Minister consider economy before rights? Is the number that relevant?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there is no refusal to appoint a Francophone judge in Ontario; certainly not. In fact, of the 15 judges appointed in Ontario by this Government, four of them, or 27 per cent, were bilingual. Mr. Justice Lacourciere has not retired from the Bench. He is going to act as a supernumerary judge. He is available now, just as he was a month ago, to sit on appeals of anyone who requests that their appeal be heard in French. We have seven other bilingual judges in the Ontario Trial and Appeal Court. So this attempt on the part of the hon. gentleman to suggest-


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are bilingual like you.


John Carnell Crosbie: -that we are not interested in appointing persons who speak both official languages, or Francophones, to the Court, is simply not correct. Forty-three per cent, or 35 of the judges we have appointed to date, are Francophones or have French capabilities. That is a very high proportion.


DEMAND THAT FRANCOPHONE JUDGE BE APPOINTED TO ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages has also commented on and objected to this appointment, as have many others.
I would ask the Minister whether he is aware that in Quebec, out of a total of 17 or 18 judges, all are bilingual, 8 are Francophones and 8 are Anglophones. Why doesn't he reconsider his decision? Why doesn't he appoint a Franco-Ontarian to the Court of Appeal, and I am not talking about any of the other courts, but the Court of Appeal of Ontario?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of the Ontario Liberal Government, Mr. Scott, was consulted about
Oral Questions
the appointment of Mr. Justice Krever, and has authorized me to say that he has stated he approved of that appointment. In a press scrum yesterday after Question Period in Toronto, when asked about this, Mr. Scott stated: "Who is Gauthier, anyway?"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Did he give you permission to say that?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Bravo, John.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


BIRTH CONTROL RESEARCH
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The serious concerns of Canadian women regarding safe birth control methods were highlighted today by the call of the Vancouver Women's Health Collective to remove the Copper 7-IUD from the market. Safe, effective methods of birth control must be found. Will the Minister assure the women of Canada that increased money will be designated in the upcoming Budget for research into safe, effective birth control?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the Copper 7-IUD is well known to me and to the Department. The Hon. Member will possibly be aware of the fact that this product has been removed from the American market by G. D. Searle and Company due, at least from our information, to its concern about lawsuits. We are looking very carefully at the situation in Canada. We believe there are approximately 100,000 Canadian women who are using this product, and all of our research from a health point of view shows that the product is safe. However, I have indicated to the Department that I want a very close monitoring of the situation, and if any further action is necessary, we will take it.


DEPOPROVERA-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister if he would put more money into research instead of cutting it, as he has done this year. Will the Minister now take preventive steps to reduce the health risks to women? And will he agree to hold public hearings on DepoProvera as requested by the growing coalition of women and health groups across Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong again. I have given her this information in writing. She cannot read so I will give it to her in the House. In 1983-84 the Government of Canada

February 7, 1986
Oral Questions
spent $8,525 million. In 1984-85 it spent $9,891 million. In 1985-86 it spent $10,782 million. That is an increase. It is not a decrease.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You haven't answered the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In addition, the Minister responsible for CMHC could tell the Hon. Member that in 1983-84 there were 63 transition houses which were funded in part by CMHC.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What does that have to do with it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Today there are 228 transition houses funded by CMHC.
There was the question of CAP and that there should not be a means test. We removed the means test, and she is not happy about that. We have had the Badgley Commission and we are responding to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), one question.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: have only one question and it is directed to the Minister of Finance.
I must say that this morning, representatives of the Gulf Refinery employees called me on the telephone, and they are in no mood to shake hands with the Minister of Finance, certainly not, now they have met the President of Ultramar.
Considering the fact that unemployment has gone up in the Montreal area, is the Minister prepared to support the Montreal East Survival Committee's request to have this area designated "Zone 4", which would release funds for modernizing businesses and creating jobs, thus preventing plant closings and the loss of 5,000 jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says there is an unemployment problem in the province of Quebec and in the city of Montreal. I may remind him that we have created 10,000 jobs a month in the province of Quebec since September 1984. In Montreal, we created 1,000 jobs per week last year.
To answer to Hon. Member's specific question-if the Hon. Member would care to listen, I will give him his answer. His representations are important, and my colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and I will consider them and will give him a reply.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with one exception, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, February 6, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Roman) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government House Leader is now in a position to respond to a question with respect to the Business of the House for today and next week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Official Opposition House Leader. I would like to take this opportunity to outline the Business of the House for the next several days.
As you are aware, the first item of business today will be second reading of Bill C-93, an Act relating to the establishment of self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band. Following that we will resume consideration of Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans. If the debate on Bill C-90 concludes, the next item of business will be resumption of second reading debate on Bill C-45 concerning the creation of unions on Parliament Hill.
On Monday the first item of business will be Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act at third reading. If that debate is completed, the House will move to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, which is at report stage.
On Tuesday the focus of debate will be House of Commons reform. Following extensive consultations with Members from all sides, yesterday I tabled a revised package of proposed Standing Orders and a Notice of Motion which seeks to implement the proposed rules for a trial period commencing with the return of the House following the February recess and ending on the last sitting day of this year. I hope that after Members have had the opportunity to register their views in debate the House will take up the challenge of reform and agree to what I believe would be a very constructive experiment.
February 7, 1986

In the event that debate wraps up early, and in keeping with the other reform initiatives, the backup to the debate on the proposed Standing Orders will be Government Order No. 71. That order is the motion referring to the paper entitled Lobbying and the Registration of Paid Lobbyists: A Discussion Paper to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for their consideration and recommendations.
Finally, I hope that we will have made sufficient progress by Wednesday to call Bill C-86, an Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. If that debate is completed it would be my intention to commence consideration of Bill C-92, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, which is at second reading.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Minister for his statement. I want to make sure he realizes that so far as the Official Opposition is concerned, we have not entered into any agreement that the motion on the changes to the Standing Orders will be disposed of on Tuesday. We will take part in the debate in a positive and forthcoming way, but we do not want any misunderstanding. We are not saying at this point that we are ready to come to a conclusion at the end of business on Tuesday.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of making sure that everyone's position is clear in this regard, I want to say on behalf of my colleagues that we do believe there has been a considerable amount of time spent in the negotiation process. I am not entirely satisfied that everything will work according to the way it is interpreted. I hope it will. However, we are prepared to deal forthrightly and expeditiously with the package in an effort to have it in place for a trial period on the understanding, of course, that as problems arise we will meet and resolve those problems and not delay the resolution until the end of the trial period.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement by the Government House Leader but I would like to ask him if the Government intends to proceed with the non-procedural reforms? What we have on the table deals with the procedural recommendations of the special committee, but there are I think some 29 non-procedural reforms having to do with support services, administration of the House, et cetera. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with these?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and responses of the House Leaders and I look forward to dealing with this matter expeditiously.
It was my intention that the matter would be debated at an early date so there would be an opportunity for participation. I think we have a very acceptable package. We have attempted to meet the concerns expressed by the opposition Parties in particular with respect to the provisional rules to be implemented.
With respect to my very distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and I see sitting beside him the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), as well as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaik-
Point of Order-Mr. Hopkins
ie), to whom we all owe a very great debt of gratitude with respect to the work they have done, let me say unequivocally that the Government has already announced it has the firm intention of proceeding with those non-procedural items with dispatch. We intend to carry out the intentions which the Hon. Member as chairman and his colleagues brought forward in their excellent report.
We look forward to entering into this new period of reform and I want to again compliment him and his colleagues for the excellent work and leadership they have shown in this area.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat along the same lines as the discussion relating to House reform. Yesterday the time for Private Members' hour was shortened to Private Members' half-hour as a result of the encroachment of Government business and a vote during that hour. That was the latest in a series of encroachments on Private Members' hour which have taken place since the beginning of this Parliament. In fact, Private Members' hour was shortened on two occasions for Royal Assent and on seven occasions for other Government business. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and all of the House Leaders, if you will be kind enough in future, in the spirit of parliamentary reform, to guard Private Members' hour as jealously as you do Question Period.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a twofold and brief answer to the Hon. Member's question. I know he is very, very active in the affairs of the House of Private Members' Business.
First, the rules of the House provide for postponing Private Members' Business until later in the day but not for a curtailment of the time which is used for that business. Second, it is my intention with respect to the reforms that have been tabled to enhance Private Members' Business and, indeed, give it a profile which it has not had in the history of the country. I look forward to that experiment so that all private Members will be able to participate fully in the deliberations of this House.



Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to bring to the attention of the House that yesterday's Hansard shows that I was, in fact, in the middle of a question when I was cut off by you.

February 7, 1986
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! Hansard may record, as it does, what the Hon. Member said in the House. Hansard does not record, as the camera records, when I rose. If the Hon. Member wishes to check the tape, he may do so.


SECHELT INDIAN BAND SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Orders:
February 5, 19S6-Second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill C-93, an Act relating to the establishment of self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated the first item of business for today. I have given my opposition colleagues a copy of this order. There has been an agreement with respect to Bill C-93 with respect to the Sechelt Indian Band that, rather than going to a legislative commitee after second reading it will, by consent of all Parties, go to the Standing Committee.
Therefore, I think you would find a unanimous disposition to accept and have adopted without debate the following draft order:
That the order for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-93, an Act relating to the establishment of self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band be altered to provide for reference of the said Bill to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the order just read by the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), I want to indicate that this matter was discussed in the standing committee. It was the wish of the standing committee that the Bill be referred to it rather than to a legislative committee. We concur in that and give our consent.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to confirm that we supported that particular order and we concur in it as well.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the order. Unanimous consent is required to introduce the order. I take it there is that consent and agreement that the order carry.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 70(16), I have the
honour of tabling the Government's response to the report of the Sub-Committee on Copyright.


PETITIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition compiled by Mr. Alex Blake of Coquitlam, B.C. and signed by 3,499 residents of my riding of New Westminster-Coquitlam and of surrounding areas in the lower mainland. The petition protests the exorbitant price charged for gas by the oil companies at the pumps and the injustice of gasoline tax increases imposed by the Government on the consumer.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, rather than presenting 13 petitions today with over 1,000 names on each of them, I comply with your request made several times, and will simply table one petition. The petitions are all approximately the same and contain 13,000 names in total. Since I am not permitted to make comments, I hope that your Honour will recognize me at two o'clock on Monday to make relevant comments.
The prayer of the petition is quite simple and quite brief. Whereas Air Canada has made application to move its international flights from Gander to St. John's, and whereas this move will cause Gander Airport to lose its international status which will have a disastrous effect on the Town of Gander and the surrounding area, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, ask the Minister of Transport to reject Air Canada's application to move international flights from Gander to St. John's. The number of petitioners will increase over the coming days, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the spirit of democracy is very much alive and well in my riding as well. Last night I was presented with petitions signed by almost 2,000 persons who are opposed to the National Capital Commission's proposal to develop the parkland around the Mile Circle into an embassy row. It is my honour, my duty,
February 7, 1986

and my privilege, to present their petitions to this distinguished House on their behalf.


Hon. David Crombie (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-94, an Act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing, and to make related and consequential amendments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, today question No. 517 will be answered.


Mr. Caccia: Did Mr. Simon Reisman divest himself of any role, interest or responsibility related to the Grand Canal Company (Grandco) of St. John's, Newfoundland, and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Reisman has never received any remuneration; he has never owned any shares nor has he held any office related to the Grand Canal Company of St. John's Newfoundland. Mr. Reisman acted as an unpaid advisor to the Grand Canal Company, at the request of its President, during 1984 and 1985. Mr. Reisman has had no contact with the company or any of its officers since accepting his present assignment.
(a) Mr. Reisman has no role, interest or responsibility to divest, (b) Answered above.


John Horton McDermid: I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government a question in the spirit of reform which was discussed earlier this morning. I would like to have the attention of the
Order Paper Questions
Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on this issue, if possible. I wonder if the Government House Leader could indicate to the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions may be put to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary in this regard. This procedure is to allow Members to make representations on matters which they regard as urgent rather than to ask questions of Ministers about questions that are on the Order Paper.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was only attracting the attention of the Minister who was responsible for answering the question to start with, as I understood it.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister responsible for responding to those questions when the questions that were put on the Order Paper over a year ago will be answered by the Government, if the Government is at all serious about reform. I refer specifically to question No. 285 dated February 28, 1985; question No. 287 of March 6, 1985; and question No. 319 of April 1, 1985. There are numerous other more recent questions. It is quite obvious that if the Government wanted to, it could respond to questions after a one-year delay.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raised that point. It gives me an opportunity to point out that in the package of reforms which the Government is bringing before the House there is a time limit suggested for the answering of questions on the Order Paper. Therefore, the Government is acting responsibly. We are hoping that when we debate these reforms the Opposition will be supportive of them.
I also point out to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that, if one takes a look at the Government's performance in answering questions on the Order paper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Order!


Don Boudria: I never heard such nonsense.


An Hon. Member:: Do you ever listen to yourself?


Don Boudria: Well, it's arrogance on your part, and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please come to order?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, some days ago on a similar occasion I asked the Parliamentary Secretary, then responsible for answering Order Paper quesions, why I have waited since November 9, 1984 for an answer to my question about the then economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I was advised by the Parliamentary Secretary some days ago that I would have an answer forthwith. I would like to ask this Parliamentary Secretary when I am going to get an answer to a question that was put on November 9, 1984, on a budget matter which interests all Canadians.

February 7, 1986
Sechell Indian Band Self-Government Act


John Horton McDermid: I have been assured by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis), that the Hon. Member will get an answer in the fullness of time.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


David Edward Crombie: that Bill C-93, An Act relating to the establishment of self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to ask all Hon. Members to consider legislation that will restore self-governing rights to the Sechelt Indian community of British Columbia. Moreover, the proposed legislation will demonstrate the Government's commitment to advancing self-government for all Indian people and thereby advance the cause of Canada.
I believe that this legislation is in the best tradition of Canadian federalism, demonstrating creative flexibility and power sharing not only for the benefit of the Sechelt community but for the country as a whole.
There was a time when all Indian nations had self-governing powers in this country, those very powers which Canadians enjoy today, but which they very often take for granted. These self-governing powers, the most basic of all human rights, were taken away from Indian people. But today with this legislation we have the opportunity to recognize those rights of self-government again, at least for one Indian community.
This proposed Act will catch the interest and I hope the imagination of native people all over the country. Canadians in general and, I can assure some, indigenous people the world over.
As I have already mentioned, self-government is not new to Indian people. In fact, finally there is a growing realization in this country that Indian culture has been fundamental to the growth of democratic and political institutions in this country. Those who are familiar with the rich Indian heritage will know that various forms of Government existed among Indian nations in this country for centuries. What better example, and perhaps one of the best known, than the formation of the League of the Iroquois, inspired by Hiawatha around 1570.
That confederacy over 400 years ago, which consisted of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca and later, the Tuscarora, exerted a dominant political and millitary influence throughout eastern North America for more than 200 years.
The political and social structure of that League, its emphasis on an equal voice for all members of the confederacy, its respect for human dignity and its emphasis on rights, obligations and participation has remained an enduring legacy in this country for those who have the wit to look at it. I could mention scores of other examples, from sea to sea to sea, which act as historical beacons for Indian people in their quest for the renewal of self-government in our own time.
For the broader public, self-government for Indian people has raised interest, support and a lot of questions. How will it be worked out? What will it mean in practice?
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in his opening remarks at the First Ministers Conference on Aboriginal Rights on April 2, 1985, put the situation very well when he said:
We Canadians are a cautious people and self-government is a term which is worrisome to some of us. But self-government is not something that I fear. It is not an end in itself, but rather a means to reach common goals.
He said:
The federal Government's approach to self-government for aboriginal peoples takes account of these realities, of the inventiveness and creativity that Canadians have always shown in developing their democratic institutions. It is through self-government that a people can maintain the sense of pride and self-worth which is necessary to productive, happy lives.
The Sechelt proposal gives us one set of answers to what self-government can mean to one community and how it may be worked out for other communities. But even as this Parliament works to afford the Sechelt concept the recognition of law, I can assure you that there are hundreds of Indian communities right now who are fashioning their own forms of self-government and who will be looking for our support in the very near future.
They include the Swampy Cree in northwestern Manitoba; the Nishawbe-Aski Nation representing Cree and Ojibway people in northern Ontario; the Kahnawake; the Akwesasne; the Tyendinaga community proposal on Mohawk self-government; Pointe-Bleue in the Province of Quebec; the Enoch band in Alberta; the Kootenay Indian Area Council representing five communities in the interior of British Columbia, the Robinson Treaty Nation proposal submitted through the Union of Ontario Indians; the Pas band in Manitoba; the Yellowhead Tribal Council; the Sushwap Nation of British Columbia; the Caribou Tribal Council and so many, many others.
Of course, a number of Members in this Chamber will know that self-government arrangements have been tried before. In 1984, through the James Bay and northern Quebec land claim settlement, the self-government aspirations of the Cree and Naskapi peoples of northern Quebec were given recognition in law by the House. I am looking forward to an implementation plan that will match the imagination of that understanding.
February 7, 1986

The current push for self-government emerged from a well known history of discontent. After Canada's national Government took shape in 1867, it was the Indian agents who controlled a large part of Indian life. In the last 20 years, Government tried to turn over more management to Indian people, but usually kept the final say for itself.
Indian people now want to put on their own face and their own stamp on their own Government. Here is one Indian community which wants to chart its own course, to plan its future and turn its dream into reality. However, I can assure you again that it is a vision that is shared by all Indian communities in this country.
When Parliament's Special Committee on Indian Self-Government in Canada held hearings in 1983, Indian native people from all parts of the country said that they wanted two main changes. First, they wanted a new and more self-reliant relationship with the federal Government; second, a better and stronger economic base.
Both these goals involve more community power to determine their own membership; to control such matters as health, education and social services, to manage their own economic enterprises and their own lands and to determine the form of Government under which they will live.
Today, some communities are eager and some are cautious. Some want one approach and some another. However, everyone agrees on one thing-that the time has come to establish Indian self-government in Canada.
All Parties in the House endorsed the recommendations of that Special Committee. The Government has accepted that report as the important fundamental document from which Indian self-government will proceed. That is why the Government has taken a community-based approach to self-government because it means that Indian people can tailor their own form of Government, one suited to their own circumstances, which reflects their own past and one in which they can mould their own future.
There are many forms of self-government, many degrees of self-sufficiency and many dimensions of self-determination. It might take place by legislation, by new funding arrangements that transfer responsibility, in conjunction with native claim settlements, or by a maximum use of by-law powers in the present Indian Act.
Our concept is a simple one. Instead of making communities fit our legislation, we will make legislation that fits the community. Self-government will be more than the end result; it will also be part of the process. Working in this way, Indian people can build self-government at their own pace and according to their own lights.
But who are these Indian people? What sort of people are
they?
I think my colleague and friend, the right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) described very eloquently who they are. He was
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act
participating in the debate in this House nearly one year ago when we were amending the Indian Act with Bill C-31. The changes this Government introduced, which he so vigorously supported and which this House endorsed at that time, provided for equality of men and women under the Act and a measure of self-government by giving Indian communities the power to control their membership. During that debate he put it this way:
The children of the Eden Valley Reserve west of my home town were as free as I was to run, to ride and to be children. However, when we stopped being children, the youngsters of Eden Valley were not as free to be themselves as the youngsters of High River because to be Indian in the land which the Stoneys, the Blackfoot and the Cree discovered was to have your life run by someone else. There is somewhat more freedom now for the Stoneys, the Cree and the Blackfoot, but their memory and our legacy was of Ottawa running Indian lives, Ottawa setting Indian standards.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me look at the specifics of the Bill by which we are untying the strings.
After many discussions with the Sechelt people and the B.C. Government, we have agreed on a form of enabling legislation. Instead of a skeleton framework that leaves everything too vague, or an exhaustive agreement that sets too many rules, this legislation will let various new powers come into place over time, subject to negotiation within certain clearly defined parameters.
The enabling legislation sets up the community as a legal entity with all the capacities, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person. With this legislation, the Sechelt community may enter into contracts and agreements; acquire and hold property; sell and dispose of property; expend, invest or borrow money.
Under this legislation, the community will develop its own written constitution, a document which will be the fundamental cornerstone of its government. Under the constitution, the community can establish the composition of the Council, its terms of office and tenure of its members; establish procedures or processes to be followed by council in exercising the band's powers and carrying out its duties; provide for a system of financial accountability of the council to the members of the band; include a membership code for the band; establish rules and procedures to be followed in respect of the disposition of interests in Sechelt lands; set out specific legislative powers of the council and provide for any other matters relating to the Government of the band, its members or its lands.
This brings us, Mr. Speaker, to the legislative powers of the council. I will note some of those things, but the list is obviously not exhaustive.
The council will have the power to make laws in relation to matters coming within any of the selected classes of matters to the extent that it is authorized by the constitution of the band: access to and residence on Sechelt lands; zoning and land use planning; expropriation for community purposes; use, construction, maintenance, repair and demolition of buildings; taxation for local purposes of interests in Sechelt lands and of occupants and tenants of Sechelt lands, including assessment, collection and enforcement procedures and appeals; administration and management of property belonging to the band;

February 7, 1986
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act education; social and welfare services; health services; preservation and management of natural resources; preservation, protection and management of fur-bearing animals, fish and game; public order and safety; construction, maintenance and management of roads, operation of businesses, professions and trades et cetera.
In short, the Sechelt people will have a Government accountable to their own electors and not accountable to a remote bureaucracy in Ottawa. They will have a Government determined to use its resources to strengthen that community.
Their type of Government will nurture culture, give life to language and will extend the dimension of this country.
In 1984, the Sechelt people held an historial celebration and placed three carved figures in their community; a young warrior, a mother figure representing culture, and a father figure or headman with a talking stick. But unlike the traditional talking stick, it had no carvings because the Sechelt felt that they lacked achievements under their own authority.
They believe their real identity will come with their understanding of self-government. In the words of the ceremony of that day, they said as a community:
We want to carry our own stick and govern ourselves and be a resource to this great country of ours ... Canada.
I am asking the House, Mr. Speaker, for its best consideration for this Sechelt legislation. I do so for three important reasons. First, it fulfils a dream of the Sechelt people for self-determination and self-government. Second, it represents a first expression of this Government's commitment to a community-based approach to Indian self-government. Third, it is a beginning, a moment in Canadian history to be marked, a time to affirm the Canadian heritage of freedom so clearly intoned in this House on July 1, 1960, by that great parliamentarian, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. He said:
I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what 1 believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern-
The people of Sechelt want that freedom to be Canadian in a way that respects their history, their culture, their language and their pride in who they are. They want to begin, and they need our help.
That is my appeal to this House for them and for other Indian communities who are working and planning to build their own expression of self-government, which I hope we will have the privilege of considering in the months ahead.
I would normally close now, but before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I thought I might conclude my remarks by offering some acknowledgements and thanks to a number of people who worked so very, very hard over the last number of months. Most Bills that come through this House are faceless in the sense that we sometimes fail to recognize the folks who actually do the work.
In this case, the Bill, whatever its advantages, whatever its shortcomings may be seen to be, is the product of some very creative work done by a number of people both in this place and outside of it. I want to make sure they are recognized.
I would like to offer my congratulations and my heartfelt thanks to Chief Stanley Dixon, to his Council and to the people of Sechelt. They exhibited tremendous tenacity, patience and imagination. I want to offer thanks to Mr. Graham Allen, and Mr. Gordon Anderson, advisers to the Sechelt community. I thought of what words to describe their contribution. Tough insistence are the two words which I came up with. I want to thank John Tait, Mary Dawson, Fred Caron and Claude Bisaillon, all from the Department of Justice. They were willing to engage in some imaginative and creative law which can be found in the Bill. Also I want to thank Audrey Doerr of my own Department who pushed, pulled, prodded and pleaded to get it done and bring it home. She was ably assisted by Steve Aronson, Graham Swan and Carol Ann Brewer. I acknowledge the tremendous "beyond the second mile" effort on their part.
Finally, if I could have the indulgence of the House for a moment or two longer, I should like to thank Theresa Nahanee, my legislative assistant, who dreamed and worked and wrote a wee poem which I want to share in my concluding remarks. I received the poem the other day; 1 hope I will not embarrass her. She called it "Sechelt". Theresa Nahanee is not only my legislative assistant; she is a Squamish Indian women from Vancouver. Her poem reads: a giant step for Indian-kind if the arrow is true to its mark -a drop in the ocean if the target be missed (easily corrected) a microcosm of Indian-life to sift through gently to learn from in earnest -the strong, survive the weak, perish in the dustbin of history each minute particle of change represents heroic effort of herculean proportions celebrations of an era -in its time, fought for with vigour in the future, remembered with dignity fling the future to the wind but never to chance for nothing is fixed in man's mind historic changes are marked in light-years, like little sparks flying,
Sparking, dying in their time littering history like a milky way. to the victors, spoils, to the vanquished, defeat for those who struggle, reward for those who don't, nothing opportunities to cast a giant shadow or shed a great light, come not often in a lifetime, but here you have another opportunity, what will it be?
February 7, 1986

What will it mean? history will record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the Minister and to speak on behalf of my Party in respect of what has to be regarded as a most important piece of legislation for the Sechelt Indian people, a piece of legislation for which they have worked and looked forward to for a very long period of time.
When the Minister introduced Bill C-93, it was accompanied by a communique that spoke about a Bill establishing Self-Government for the Sechelt Indian Band. In that communique, the Minister said: "This Act allows the Sechelt Indian Band of British Columbia to move toward Indian self-government".
I would just to indicate, and only in passing, that the word "allows", meaning that the federal Government will permit, will certainly grate upon the ears of some Indian elders in the country who would be very swift, if they had the opportunity at this moment, to remind us that the right to Indian self-government was never at any time in our history relinquished. It was never given up or transferred to any colonial power or to the Government of Canada as we know it today.
The Minister's phrase in the communique, "move toward Indian self-government", perhaps could have been "move further toward Indian self-government". I say that to point out that in fact the Sechelt Indian Band, which consists of 33 reserves and covers some 2,500 acres situated north of Vancouver between Gibson's and Powell River, has already taken advantage of all the optional powers available to it under the Indian Act. In other words, it has occupied all the space which we as a Government allowed them. Of course Hon. Members, and most particular the Minister himself, know that occupying that space is self-government in name only. It is not genuine self-government because under the Indian Act there are still many strings attached, many guidelines and many circulars issued when we allow an Indian band or an Indian Government to take certain over responsibilities.
Nowhere can that be better demonstrated than when we consider how the Government-not just this Government but the previous administration as well-has a different interpretation of Indian control over Indian education. When the document "Indian Control of Indian Education" was first introduced by the then National Indian Brotherhood, it meant exactly what it said, that Indian people were to have full control. It was to be community-based control. But we know that the current administration and the previous one interpreted that as meaning that it was only to allow a degree of participation, which is quite different from Indian control over Indian education.
Be that as it may, I simply point out that the occupying of space under the Indian Act is not Indian self-government. The Sechelt Indian people have occupied that space. They virtually operate all programs and services made available by the Department of Indian Affairs which are appropriate to their
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act
circumstances. For example, the Band has its own primary school. It administers its own social assistance program. It has a housing authority, and it looks after its own economic development. However, let me remind Hon. Members that it is always with provisos, restrictions or limitations. With Bill C-93 the Sechelt band will be able to go further in the direction of self-Government.
This Bill alloows-and again I point out the word "allows"-or devolves power or responsibility from the federal Government, and also some from the provincial administration, but it does not recognize that self-Government is a basic, essential and primary aboriginal right. I will return to that point later in my remarks. Nevertheless, with the passage of Bill C-93, the Sechelt Indian Band will be allowed to become a legal entity. I want to tell my colleagues in the House what that means.
In its own right, the Sechelt Indian Band will have the power to enter into contracts, to hold property, to borrow and to spend money, and even to sue and be sued. At the present time none of those rights can be undertaken by the Band without the consent of the Minister and his officials. Bill C-93 will allow the Sechelt, to a certian extent, to get out from under the totalitarian regime of the Indian Act. Let us be fair and accurate in this regard.
This is not a Bill giving total emancipation to the Sechelt Indian people. It moves toward that and, therefore, my Party and I support it. However, we want it to be seen in its proper context. It moves toward, it allows the Sechelt people, to a certain extent, to get out from under the totalitarian regime imposed upon it by the Indian Act, and out from underneath the paternalism, as well meaning as it often is, of the Minister and his officials. The Sechelt band will be enabled to go on its own to a greater extent than is now possible living under the Indian Act and under the full authority of the Minister. So it will become, first, a legal entity.
Second, Bill C-93 will enable the Sechelt Indian Band to gain legal title to its reserve lands. These lands will be transferred in fee simple to the Band, subject, of course, as I have said before, to certain restrictions. Many Canadian people would be amazed to learn that Indian people do not have legal title to their own reserve lands at the present time. Bill C-93 will change that situation, as the Minister said, with respect to one band which has 2,500 acres of land. There are restrictions, however, but I am not going to dwell on those now. We will examine them more carefully when this Bill is in committee. There are restrictions relating to the ownership and exploitation of minerals, for example.
I want to remind the Minister of the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-government to which he referred. He indicated that it is now a document that has been accepted by this administration, and for that we express our gratitude. I remind the Minister that the report of the special committee was convinced that in order to ensure that self-government becomes a reality, each Indian First Nation must have full

February 7, 1986
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act rights to control its own lands in the manner that it sees fit. That is somewhat different from what we have in Bill C-93. The legal title to those lands is given, but harken, there are restrictions.
Third, the Band will have its own constitution. It should be noted that the Government must give its approval to any constitution that is adopted by the Band. The Band will have to seek Ottawa's consent for the original constitution, for the approval of that constitution, and later on if there are amendments it must come to Ottawa, to the Governor in Council, to have those amendments approved. That will be of interest to Hon. Members because-


David Edward Crombie: Every government in Canada, all governments.


B. Keith Penner: -that is exactly what we had to do when our Constitution was changed. We had to go to Westminster and have that approved. The difference is that we did it for the last time, we do not have to do it again.


David Edward Crombie: Every Government in Canada has to do it now, the federal Government.


B. Keith Penner: I have to remind the Minister who is interjecting-the Minister is interjecting here that all Governments have to do it.


David Edward Crombie: Yes, they do.


B. Keith Penner: Being in conversation with his colleague he missed the point that I was making earlier-


David Edward Crombie: I heard every word. Every Government has to do the same thing.


B. Keith Penner: -that the right to self-government by Indian First Nations was never at any time relinquished to any other power. There is a big difference and the Minister knows that. At the time that our Constitution was formed the powers between the federal Government and the provincial Governments were divided and constitutions had to be approved within a federal state. The Minister is very, very touchy, so I must have hit upon a point that bothers him.


David Edward Crombie: I don't wish you to diminish something that was a real stride forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


B. Keith Penner: The Minister recognizes that this is a touchy point, but when I move on further in my remarks I want to make it clear that this is not something that is being imposed on the Sechelt people, it is something that they are prepared to accept and live with, and something that they participated in.
I want Hon. Members in this House to know that when they build their constitution and put it together it has to be approved by Ottawa. If they change it at any time it has to be approved by the Governor in Council. That point should be known.


David Edward Crombie: The whole Constitution of Canada has that obligation.


B. Keith Penner: The Minister wants to keep arguing. I want to ask the Minister to stand in his place and tell the Indian people of the country, or to tell this House, when that power was relinquished and given to the federal Government, so that now you have the power to approve Indian constitutions and the power to approve of amendments. When did that happen? Is the Minister prepared to answer that?


David Edward Crombie: If you want to ask the question, I will answer it. Yield the floor and I will answer it.


B. Keith Penner: I will yield the floor. If the Minister can answer the question then let him answer it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to make a comment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The floor will then go back to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the point I make to the Hon. Member, only because I respect his contribution over these many years, is that the Sechelts' obligation to come back with respect to any constitution or any change is indeed the same restriction we have for every government in this country, whether it is provincial, federal or territorial. Constitutional changes have to go through a process which involves the Governments of this country. That is all. It is no more or less. 1 might say, it is a striking advance over anything that was brought forward by the previous administration.
The reason I keep interjecting is because I know that the Hon. Member needs to say some things which are not of a laudatory nature. While he is doing that-and I respect the Hon. Member very much, as he knows-I do not want anyone to believe that somehow there was not a striking legal advance made in the development of that point in this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, on the latter point, there never was an argument with the Minister. What the Minister did not address is the historical reality with respect to the aboriginal right to Indian self-government. That is the historical point, and the Minister did not address that.


David Edward Crombie: I would be happy to. The federal Government's position, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the right to self-government in the Constitution is well known and was indicated at the last conference on aboriginal rights between the federal Government and the provinces. Indeed, that position of the federal Government is one which is supported by constitutional aboriginal groups in this country, as the Hon. Member may well know.

February 7, 1986


B. Keith Penner: We were at the point where it was indicated that the Sechelt Indian Band will have their own constitution, and how that constitution will come into existence, and how that constitution will be amended. The band will, under its constitution, be able to know what powers it can exercise and what procedures it must follow in the exercise of that self-government. When the Special Committee on Indian Self-government was holding hearings representatives of the Sechelt Indian Band, came before the special committee, and demonstrated that they were progressive and forward-looking in their approach. They did so by presenting to us an example, or a draft of enabling legislation that would permit them to opt out of the Indian Act and operate under a band charter, or constitution, which would have the force of law for that Band.
During those very same hearings we heard also from the Grand Council of the Cree, and they described for us their negotiations with the Government which led eventually to the drafting of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, which has already been enacted into law by the Parliament of Canada. This particular Act was a follow-up, as the Minister said in his speech, to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. I want to point out to the House that at the time the Cree appeared before the standing committee to tell us about the negotiations leading to their Act they made it very clear that the legislation they were working toward was, and I quote, "the Cree aspirations and the Cree position".
Chief Stanley Dixon and the council of the Sechelt Band have also stressed that what Bill C-93 does is to meet their urgent needs to be delivered and to be freed from the limitations imposed on them by the powers and the jurisdiction of the Indian Act. I do want to point out, and the Minister has done this as well in his communique, that neither the Cree of northern Quebec, nor the members of the Sechelt Indian Band in British Columbia, have ever suggested for a moment that their particular pieces of legislation are to be regarded in any way as models. Other Indian First Nations are free to accept from either the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act or from Bill C-93, any appropriate elements. It should be understood that there is no imposition of any kind by this statute upon other Indian First Nations.
I would like to call it one o'clock and continue my remarks after the break.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the House is debating a Bill introduced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), Bill C-93, an Act relating to the establishment of self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band.
I was telling the House earlier that this Band, consisting of some 33 reserves and having 2,500 acres of land, is located in the Province of British Columbia North of Vancouver.
When we recessed at one o'clock I was pointing out, as the Minister did in his remarks, that this is by no means the first time the House has legislated self-government. The previous Parliament legislated the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. I think it could be argued quite convincingly that in many ways the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act was a more progressive piece of legislation. I am not going to take much time of the House to dwell on that. I will leave that to another spokesman for our Party. However, it should be pointed out that the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act did flow out of what may be described as the bilateral process.
The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act came out of an agreement that involved Quebec, Canada and the Grand Council of the Cree, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. However, the Act itself was negotiated between the federal Government and the Cree and Naskapi people. The Bill we are debating today could be more accurately described as one coming out of a tripartite process. According to this Bill, the British Columbia Government has certain major roles to play.
I will leave it to other spokespersons to point out what part the British Columbia Government will play in the implementation of this legislation. I believe some Hon. Members from British Columbia may wish to dwell on that, and I am sure they will want to express some concerns, because, as we know, in that part of Canada there has not been the most far-sighted understanding of the importance and prominence deserved by the recognition of aboriginal rights. In fact, in that province there has been a very reactionary situation that has led to many sorts of difficulties, the most recent being the case of the Haida people and Lyell Island.
With respect to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, I was emphasizing at one o'clock that the Cree themselves have said that that particular Act represents Cree aspirations and the Cree position. The leaders of the Sechelt Band have expressed the same view but in slightly different words. Chief Stanley Dixon and the Council of the Sechelt Indian Band have stressed that Bill C-93 meets their particular urgent need to be freed to a certain extent, but not entirely from the limitations imposed on them by the Government of Canada. Certainly they will be freed from the jurisdiction imposed upon them by the Indian Act. But as I pointed out earlier, there are still many restrictions imposed on this Band.
When I made those comments, the Minister reacted with some sensitivity, but I think he will have to admit that this is not in any way a Bill of emancipation. It does not in any way provide full self-government, even with respect to the transfer of legal title to the land. We know that there are restrictions of which the British Columbia Government will be very quick to

February 7, 1986
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act
remind the Band, restrictions particularly related to the exploitation of mineral resources.
Neither the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act nor the Bill regarding the Sechelt Band can be regarded as models for any other Indian First Nation. Never has that been argued, even by the Minister himself. Of course, it can be said that if there are appropriate elements in Bill C-93 or in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act that other Indian First Nations may wish to adopt, they are free to do so, but there is to be no imposition of any kind.
The Minister has indicated very clearly that he understands this particular point. In the communique he issued in conjunction with the introduction of the Act he said that this is an example of the community-based approach to self-government reflecting the specific, special or particular circumstances of the Sechelt Band. The Minister strested that it is not a model for other communities. Chief Dixon of the Sechelt Band echoed this very same view when he said that enabling legislation might not be the answer for other Bands and that they will have to choose their own path when they are ready.
I do not want to belabour this point, but again I make the argument that Members of the Flouse who are concerned with policy relating to Indian people are particularly distressed by the situation in British Columbia. None of us should think that Bill C-93 contains any avenues that will help us solve all the difficulties experienced by aboriginal people in the Province of British Columbia. We are not dealing here with a model, and that approach, of course, must always be avoided. I have said, as has the Minister and other Members of Parliament, that there is too much diversity in the Indian community of Canada to have a single model that in any way could Fit the needs or aspirations of all Indian First Nations, and therefore we must avoid imposing that approach. The Special Committee on Indian Self-Government became very much aware of the diversity that exists in Canada when it held its cross-country hearings. That is why in the report we tabled there is no model or description of what self-government should look like. I can remember how disappointed some members of the news media were. They asked us what Indian Self-Government looked like. They felt that there had to be a chart or a graph somewhere. But there was none because none can ever exist. Indigenous self-government must relate to the needs of the people and flow either from traditional sources or from present current needs. Of course, that is what we are doing with the Sechelt Band.
The Sechelt Band legislation is very modern. It meets the needs of these Indian people who are surrounded by other municipalities but cannot act as other municipalities can. They are limited by what we here have imposed upon them by way of the Indian Act and all of the policies and regulations that flow from that Act. It is that from which they are being relieved to a significant extent.
I have to express a little concern. The Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, when he appeared
before the standing committee, made this observation regarding the Sechelt Indian Bill: "It is not what we consider a model". Good. But then he went on to say: "But rather what we consider an indication as to how far we are willing to go as a department". In other words, what we have here today is the outer limits of how far-if the spokesman from the Department can be believed and that is an accurate reflection of Government policy-the Department will go.


Mr. Oberle:: How far we can go.


B. Keith Penner: My hon. friend who served on the committee asks how far we can go. That is exactly the point I want to stress. Perhaps it is how far the Department is willing to go or how far it can go, but it is for that very reason that Indian leaders are somewhat apprehensive about the route we are taking today, the so-called legislative path or avenue. That is why Indian leaders continue to stress with vigour that what we have to pursue is the constitutional route. When we have done that, and when we have been successful at the constitutional level, then it will not be how far the Minister or the Department is willing to go or, as my hon. friend opposite said, how far they can go. Rather, it will be what rights or powers flow from the Constitution of Canada. Legislation cannot replace the need for constitutional recognition.
Let us come back to where the Minister took us in his remarks. I have to concur entirely with him when he said that Bill C-93 is a major step forward for the Sechelt Indian Band. That is a fact, that is why I support Bill C-93 and that is why my Party will vote in favour of it. For that Indian Band, this is an historic occasion for which it has planned and worked with great determination and much skill over a very long period of time. But Bill C-93 has to be seen in context. We must return to what I consider to be the touch-stone of the policy of Indian Self-Government, to which the Minister referred, entitled Indian Self-Government in Canada, a Report of the Special Committee.
For the benefit of hon. Members who may not have been here at the time the report was tabled, I will give them the first two recommendations in the report. First, the Committee recommends that the federal Government establish a new relationship with Indian First Nations, and that an essential element of this relationship be recognition of Indian SelfGovernment. What the "new relationship" in this context means is cutting the strings, severing the ties that bind, letting go. I point out to the House that Bill C-93 does not cut all of the strings. It cuts the strings which are in the Indian Act but replaces them with new ones. In fact, it gives the province of British Columbia some strings it didn't have before.


David Edward Crombie: Stan Dixon says "We'll be free with 93".


B. Keith Penner: I do not know why the Minister did not take his full 40 minutes.


David Edward Crombie: I wanted to give you time to be a gentleman, that's why.
February 7, 1986


B. Keith Penner: He wants to interject during my speech. I don't know why he didn't use his full 40 minutes since he is so proud of Bill C-93. He should have taken his full time to praise it to the hilt. I think he is very disappointed-


David Edward Crombie: Disappointed in you, Keith.


B. Keith Penner: -that some other Hon. Members-


David Edward Crombie: In you.


B. Keith Penner: -are giving an objective analysis of the Bill.


David Edward Crombie: You are not, and you know it.


B. Keith Penner: Since when did an objective analysis become a problem for the Parliament of Canada?


David Edward Crombie: You're misleading people, and you know it.


B. Keith Penner: Recommendation No. 2 of the touch-stone of the policy of Indian Self-Government states that the rights of Indian people to self-government be explicitly stated and entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. All Hon. Members of that committee, representing all of the Parties, unanimously agreed that the surest way to achieve permanent and fundamental change in the relationship between Indian peoples and the federal Government was by means of a constitutional amendment.


Frank Oberle: Read on, Keith.


B. Keith Penner: An Indian First Nation Government would be a distinct order. My hon. friend remembers how we argued for days before we finally agreed that we would recognize that there was to be a distinct order of Indian Government with that jurisdiction defined.
These two recommendations continue to serve, I believe, as the beacons pointing to genuine self-government. They embody the hopes and dreams, unfulfilled aspirations and unrealized goals of the Indian people. The fact that such recommendations were made unanimously by an all-Party Committee indicates that there are unkept promises which have not been forgotten.
However, we knew that the constitutional process would not be an easy one. We knew it would be difficult, disappointing and frustrating, and that has turned out to be the case. Sometimes here and there in the constitutional process there have been some heartening aspects. There have been some small rays of light from time to time breaking through the darkness, fear and ignorance of those First Ministers Meetings as they applied to the whole vital issue of aboriginal rights. The Special Committee anticipated accurately that there would be these difficulties and that constitutional recognition of the right to aboriginal self-government would have to follow a very steep, rugged and slippery path. Therefore, we proposed that there be a temporary or intermediate fail-back position, and so while the Committee concluded that the surest way to lasting change is through constitutional amendment, it encouraged both the federal Government and Indian First
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act
Nations to pursue all processes leading to the implementation of self-government, including the bilateral process, and that was the third recommendation. That is how we got the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and, to a certain extent, it brought forward the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, although as I said earlier it is more trilateral than bilateral.
The Ministers who were involved, our present Minister and his predecessor, plus the Indian leaders who engaged in the negotiations leading to these agreements, deserve our praise, admiration and our gratitude. 1 am reflecting all of the good words the Minister said earlier. I do not know why he has been so troubled by a little objective analysis.


David Edward Crombie: Misleading.


B. Keith Penner: This House should encourage and support what has occurred but it has to be seen in context. That is my point and the point that Indian leaders have already made to the Minister and which they will make to the Minister again.


David Edward Crombie: Misleading.


B. Keith Penner: To this point I want to say to the Government that in what has been given today, or what will be given when we complete all stages of this Bill, let there be no reneging. Let there be no backing off, no hiding behind legalisms or obscure officialese. We cannot shortchange these Indian people who once again have negotiated and contracted with us in good faith. We must proceed on the same basis when we negotiate with the Indian people.
We have seen some of this before in the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreements. It was the standing committee which took leadership in the last Parliament with the previous Government and pointed out that they were trying to escape some of their obligations. We forced them into an inquiry and they finally had to admit that although they had not violated any of the legal aspects of the agreement, they had failed to live up to its spirit. I am saying to the Minister, let the letter and spirit of this legislation, as far as it goes, be lived up to.
We are still troubled by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act insofar as there was an accompanying Memorandum of Understanding signed by the previous Minister. We are still worried and want to be assured that, although that was not in the Statute itself, it is not seen as an obligation of this Government. Just because it was signed by a previous Minister-


David Edward Crombie: The Sechelt is in the legislation.


B. Keith Penner: -is no reason for this Government to back out of a memorandum entered into by agreement.


David Edward Crombie: It is statutory to the legislation. Why didn't you do it?


B. Keith Penner: That is why it was signed by the previous Government and-

February 7, 1986
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act


David Edward Crombie: It was not done right and you know it.


B. Keith Penner: It is this Government which has to live up to the renegotiation of the funding agreement.


David Edward Crombie: Quit playing politics with it.


B. Keith Penner: I am going to tell the Minister that Bill C-93 is going to be carefully examined by the standing committee.


David Edward Crombie: I hope so.


B. Keith Penner: We are going to hear directly-


John Horton McDermid: You are more of a man than that. Come on.


B. Keith Penner: We are going to hear directly from the Sechelt people. Mr. Speaker, why are these hon. Members so annoyed when I deal with legitimate concerns expressed by Indian leaders in this country? I raise it in the House and they become very sensitive.


David Edward Crombie: Because you are misleading.


B. Keith Penner: We know-


David Edward Crombie: They believe you and you are misleading.


B. Keith Penner: -that we are touching some pretty sensitive nerves today.


David Edward Crombie: No, you are misleading and they believe you and that is a tragedy.


B. Keith Penner: I ask that that be withdrawn.


David Edward Crombie: No.


B. Keith Penner: The Minister says I am misleading. There is none of that going on here and I ask that it be withdrawn right now.


David Edward Crombie: You are misleading.


B. Keith Penner: I ask that that be withdrawn.


David Edward Crombie: No.


B. Keith Penner: And I do not want this to be taken out of my time. I am raising a point of order, that there has been no misleading in this House.


Mr. Towers:: Don't tell the Speaker what to do.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the difficulty we find ourselves in today on the broader questions in Indian Self-Government, the expectations that raises among many Indian bands and the constitutional issues. However, this is a very proud day for the Sechelt people. It is the fruition of a decade of work and it would be of great benefit to all of us to consider the Bill before us, to the degree possible, in light of the requirements of the Sechelt people. We have some issues we wish to raise at another time. We will express many of the
points raised by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I hope we will not get ourselves into a procedural difficulty, but that we move forward in the spirit which has brought this Bill before the House today.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with my friend from the NDP. I have interjected and I apologize to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I did not mean to interject but there have been so many people who worked so hard on this legislation. It is not an uncomplicated matter, and I think with great respect it deserves a greater sense of understanding than has been offered. There are matters in the legislation which require examination and they are important to the Sechelt people. I did not want to have that lost in the kind of political rhetoric which the Indian people have had to pay for, for so long. I wanted to get down to what was important to them. I apologize to the Hon. Member for interjecting and I will of course, refrain, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is with some difficulty.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I concur entirely with the comments of my friend from the NDP. Of course this is an important day for the Sechelt Indian Band. If my remarks are examined coolly and calmly he will see that I indicated repeatedly how important it is to meet their needs. I never for a moment thought that what was taking place in the House of Commons today was a ceremony. I thought the House of Commons was a place-


David Edward Crombie: We are talking about the Sechelt.


B. Keith Penner: -where men and women representatives could debate issues and raise matters of concern. I was trying to raise these matters in a cool and dispassionate way. If I became rather heated at certain moments, it was not because I intended that to be the case, but because of the interjections of the Minister. He has apologized and I accept his apology. Certainly we want to praise the Sechelt people, but I wanted to point out that failures to live up to treaties and agreements and understandings are too much a part of the history of this country. The committee will hear the Sechelt Band and we will praise them for the work they have put into this. There has been an enormous input from these people and their adivisers. The committee will want to know exactly how this Bill will impact on these people over a period of time. Once the Bill has been passed, without any obstruction at all from us, then we will monitor the Bill and see how it is working in the communities under the jurisdiction of the Sechelt Band.
I will conclude by using exactly the same words used by my friend from the NDP. Bill C-93 is a significant achievement for the Sechelt people. All Hon. Members want it to succeed. In adopting this Bill we want to say from this part of the House that it has to be seen in the context of larger issues pressing upon the hearts and minds of the Indian leaders of this country. I raised those issues and I am sorry if I broke the ceremonial atmosphere which the Minister wanted to create, but my obligation as a Member of Parliament is not to come here and engage in ceremony, but to make sure we get the best
February 7, 1986

possible legislation. It should neither be underplayed nor overplayed. It should be seen in its proper and correct perspective. I believe that is our obligation.
It is an important day. We are not blocking this Bill. We only have two speakers from this Party. We are going to work expeditiously in committee to see that it comes back quickly for third reading. We are going to rejoice with the Sechelt Indian people on the day this Bill is finally proclaimed in law.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride and satisfaction that I rise today to comment on this legislation. Before commencing to do so I would like to offer my thanks to the Minister and the Government for bringing the Bill forward. It is an important step. A great many hurdles were overcome. It has been a long process. It has involved more than one Government. Direction has had to be established and the bugs have had to be worked out to bring us to the point we are at today. The Minister and his staff, as well as previous Governments and Parliaments, have worked on this problem and it has now come to a point where I think the Sechelt people are very pleased.
I would also like to extend my thanks to the Official Opposition representative who just spoke. He voiced many important concerns to native people. I know he has supported these people in their endeavours toward self-government and they have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superioe (Mr. Penner), as do many other native people in Canada. The points made by the Hon. Member were certainly not lost today. They will be raised again in committee. The issues which concern him and his Party, as well as ours, will be raised again.
Today is an important day for the Sechelt people in a lot of respects. This Bill is not a product of the current Government alone. It is not a product of the current band administration alone. This is the unfolding of aspirations of the Sechelt people which they have held for many years. There are about 650 people who live on the Sechelt Peninsula in British Columbia. They live in areas which have great potential. Over the years they have felt thwarted in their efforts to use the resources on the lands they occupy in order to bring about a better way of life for their people.
The Indian Act provided an impediment to progress. The Band has been lucky to have had good managers and very active participants in the government of their community. 1 believe the Band has been exemplary in the way in which it has developed. Eventually the Indian Act became a very serious impediment. Alterations were made which allowed Bands discretionary power. Those options were fully utilized by the Sechelt Band. They were able to make the decisions which affected their community in a number of areas. Later those powers became too limited. Progress for native people across the board in Canada did not move forward in a timely manner to aid the people of Sechelt. They began to think in terms of a piece of legislation which would enable them to develop their community resources in a timely way which
Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act
would be meaningful to them. I believe that the Band has always had responsible leadership which reflected the wishes of the people. The Bill before us today represents that particular situation.
The interesting thing about this particular legislation is that it goes back at least 10 years. Many people have been responsible for bringing it forward. I want to give credit, on the record, to the people who have been involved with it. They include Chief Stan Dixon and the present Council of the Sechelt Indian Band, Benedict Pierre, Clarence Joe, Lloyd Jefferies, Ann Quinn, Gilbert Joe, former Chief Calvin Crai-gan, and Ted Dixon, a very well respected member of that community who was active in bringing forward the concerns of the Sechelt people on this and other issues. There was a very strong force which assisted the people of Sechelt to bring this, as well as many other projects, forward. Involved in developing this concept, filling out the framework, doing the detailed work, and providing an enormous amount of the energy which brought it forward, were the Band's legal adviser, Graham Allen, and the Band's financial adviser, Gordon Anderson.
There have been years of blood, sweat, tears and enormous frustration and problems. Instead of yielding to those frustrations they reorganized, applied more effort and more resources, and overcame the impediments. They convinced people that their course of action was correct and needed to be heeded and dealt with. We have the ultimate product of that before us today.
Mention has been made of the provincial Government in British Columbia. There are certainly occasions on which we disagree with it. It is interesting to note that the provincial Government does appear to support the thrust and direction of this legislation. It would appear that it is prepared to make moves to complement the Sechelt Indian Band Act and bring the desires of the Sechelt Indian people to fruition. We support that. I think the Government of British Columbia will make an effort to co-operate with this legislation.
On the other side of the coin, the Member for Cochrane-Superior has alluded to the problems in other areas with native people. The Government does seem to have a course of action which is not conductive to co-operation with some Indian bands. Ultimately, as is the way in our country, the people of British Columbia will make the decisions on those issues.
I would like to conclude my remarks by again thanking the Minister and the representative of the official Opposition, the Member for Cochrane-Superior, for assisting in bringing forth an agreement today which will allow this Bill to pass through the House. We will definitely hear more about this in committee. There is no doubt in my mind that the Sechelt Indian Band will have this legislation which will be a tremendous boon to the development of their community and to the satisfaction of their people.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

February 7, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 28, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly because I believe there is consent by all Parties to move this legislation forward as well. It has been 10 years since the subject of pension reform was first raised in the country. There have been 10 years of study, and now is the time for action. I have participated in the debate for most of those 10 years.
It is interesting to trace how many levels of Government have studied the problem. The Quebec Government has studied the issue with the Cofirentes Plus. The Ontario Royal Commission has studied it. The Lazar Interdepartmental Task Force has studied it at the federal Government level, as has the Senate Task Force on Aging. We have had the National Pension Conference, which I was privileged to be able to announce in the House on behalf of the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) nearly seven years ago. There was the Ontario Select Committee on Pension Reform, as well as the House of Commons Task Force on Pension Reform chaired by the Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).
This Bill and those which will follow it are among the most important social measures that this House will examine in this session, because they deal with the issue of poverty among the elderly and the prevention of poverty among the future elderly. This Bill contains many specific provisions which will improve the situation of the elderly in the future. We are guaranteeing access to pensions for part-time workers. We are improving vesting, introducing, for the first time, portability provisions, providing for disclosure to employees and employee representatives of the state of the fund and of benefits accrued, looking after widows and widowers by making survivors' pensions mandatory, and looking after women by ensuring that they receive benefits equal to those received by men from pension funds. We are improving death benefits out of pension funds on a mandatory basis.
I am pleased, as I am sure are Members of all Parties, that the pension critics for the Liberal and New Democratic Parties
support this Bill. They raised three issues in their speeches on the Bill which I would like to deal with. The first issue raised by both Members was that of the CPP changes which are part and parcel of the reforms recommended by the House of Commons Task Force on Pensions. In particular, the Member for Sudbury argued that we should be bringing homemakers' pensions forward on a rapid basis. That is outside the scope of this particular Bill, but the Government agrees with him and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has indicated in the House that we intend to proceed with that measure as quickly as possible. We hope to have that measure in place by January 1, 1987. I hope that the Member for Sudbury will use his considerable influence on the new Government of Ontario to ensure that it feels as strongly as he does so that we can bring this forward on January 1, 1987. That is something which will dramatically reduce poverty among our elderly. As he is aware, I testified in favour of this at his committee when I was representing the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. Indeed, I was involved in bringing that measure forward to the Progressive Conservative convention when it was adopted as part of our Party policy.
The second issue raised by the Member is that the pension task force recommended that we should implement inflation indexing for pensions. Again, I agree with the Hon. Member for Sudbury and, as he is aware, I testified before his committee on behalf of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, not only indicating that it was desirable but also how we could do it.
The Hon. Member is very thorough and has read the Bill. I am sure he is aware that Clause 21(5) of the Bill makes provision for outlining what types of inflation protection will receive credit by the federal Government in recognition of the obligations that employers undertake.
Although we were unable to carry the provinces with us, we hope that the introduction of this clause will encourage the private sector to bring in these inflation protection measures on a sound financial basis and indeed encourage other provinces to buy into this procedure in order to make pension reform work.
When the committee studies this Bill, we will table papers showing how we chose the formula in Clause 21(5), and how employers can introduce sound indexing and inflation protection on a basis which does not expose them to unlimited cost. We will be in a position to explain why this basis was chosen, and I hope the Hon. Member for Sudbury uses his considerable influence to persuade the Ontario Government to replicate the provisions in our Bill. As he knows, that Government backed away from inflation protection and I hope it will recognize that we are taking a positive step forward.


Mr. Frith:: There is no inflation protection in the Bill.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Yes, there is. It is in Clause 21(5).


Royce Herbert Frith: Give me the formula.
February 7, 1986


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Seventy-five per cent of the cost of living less 1 per cent, or its actuarial equivalent, which would be excess interest over 5 per cent. It is in the Bill, Clause 21(5).
The Hon. Member for Sudbury and the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) raised the issue of withdrawal of surplus from pension funds. I believe they have identified a key issue which needs to be dealt with in the committee. This question has obviously received a considerable amount of attention recently, with the recent actions taken with respect to Dominion Stores. It is an important issue that deserves detailed study and action in the committee.


Royce Herbert Frith: Good heavens, Paul. You have a plan to provide indexation. You are not forcing companies to have indexation.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: That is right.


Sheila Maureen Copps: So tell the truth.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I am telling the truth. I would be happy to elaborate on that briefly. We have provided an incentive. As the Hon. Member is aware, the provinces wanted to have only a fifty-fifty cost sharing. The federal Government's position was that we wanted to encourage people to bring in the stronger basis of inflation protection. Therefore, we have provided an incentive in this Bill for employers to adopt mandatory inflation protection.
That is as far as we could go with the provinces. I believe it is an important step forward because once this Bill is enacted many companies will indeed opt for better formulae in the Bill; it can be set up on a sound basis.
Let me return to the issue of withdrawal of surpluses. I first raised this in 1980 with Wells-Bentley of the Pension Commission of Ontario. I still strongly believe that such protection for the workers is needed in law. Again, I give my undertaking to Members that I will try to help develop a response to their concerns so that we can have a much better pension system in the future.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Hon. Member has done a great deal in the debate on pension reform in this country, not only as a Member of Parliament but in his previous occupation. Will he admit on the record that there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-90 that will require inflation protection for pension assets on a mandatory basis? Will he also acknowledge that in the Lalonde Budget of the previous Government, Mr. Lalonde agreed with the recommendations from my task force that would allow for mandatory inflation protection on every pension fund in this country? Would he at least admit that?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I will admit both of those things. However, I will also point out to the Hon. Member for Sudbury that one of the key recommendations of his report was that we bring in uniform pension legislation across the country rather than a patchwork quilt system. The Hon. Member knows that the Progressive Conservative Government of Ontario and the federal Liberal Government at that time
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
were the only two Governments willing to go ahead and mandate inflation protection.
In order to put the package together last February, we had to make certain compromises. The federal Government held out for making a provision in the Bill that would encourage people to implement inflation protection, and indeed, that provision is in the Bill.
The question with which we must be concerned is, what is the greater need? We felt that achieving a consensus and moving forward on something which has been studied for 10 years in reaching unanimous agreement was most important, because in those 10 years many people have received inadequate benefits, lost their benefits and, indeed, people have retired without survivors' pensions. We must move forward.
We stuck to our guns and put in those provisions. We have clearly indicated our direction for the future by encouraging this type of inflation protection. We intend to build on this in the future. I am sure Hon. Member will recognize the practicalities of achieving unanimous consent among 10 provinces and the federal Government in this area.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that we agreed with Bill C-90 in principle when it was introduced for second reading. I also said that at committee stage we would move a number of amendments on areas in which we believe the Bill can be improved.
Will the Hon. Member give us some co-operation and undertake to at least consider these amendments in a straightforward way rather than on a political partisan basis?
I believe there are some serious deficiencies in the Bill, one of which is the definition of part-time under this law. There are also ways in which we can significantly improve pension benefits for all Canadians workers.
I would be the first to agree with the statement that in the interest of getting on with pension reform we at least approach this on the basis that the consensus package is the lowest common denominator for this reform and, therefore, we will not block the Bill at second reading.
Frankly, I hope we will be able to make progress with this in committee so that we can have legislation in place by January 1, 1987. Do I have the word of the Hon. Member that he will at least try to discuss with his Party, in a very straightforward and objective manner, the amendments I wish to put forward?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to give my word, provided that the Member lives up to his preamble. He asks that this Bill be dealt with in a non-partisan way, and I agree. To the extent that the amendments he proposes are indeed non-partisan and designed to further the interest of pensioners in this country, I would certainly be prepared to exercise whatever influence I have in my caucus to make sure that we bring in appropriate amendments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the issue of inflation protection. The Hon. Member has certainly left the House with the distinct impression that this legislation

February 7, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
includes inflation protection. One only needs read the clause which he cited to see that it does not provide for automatic inflation protection. In fact, the Conservative Government has backed down on a previous commitment by the federal Liberal Government to have full inflation protection. How can the Member make such a misleading statement in the House with a straight face when he knows that his Government has backed down on the issue of inflation protection?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I believe that was clarified in my remarks and in answer to the two questions from the Hon. Member for Sudbury.
If the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) feels so strongly about this issue, she should talk to her former Leader to make sure that he brings in measures that are in his Bill which he dropped in the Province of Ontario. It is about time we proceed with this, and if she feels so strongly about it let her act on it. I acted on it. I made sure this provision was in the Bill to ensure that we had a model for the private sector to follow. I have taken some positive steps. I invite her to take some herself.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the protection to which the Hon. Member alludes in this House is not in the Bill is under discussion by all Members today, and presumably I am here to make contribution to this Government and this Bill. You are leaving it up to the companies, if they so choose, to provide inflation protection. They will then be subject to the sections of the Act, but there is no inflation protection on a general basis.
Let me ask the Member again how he can continue to mislead the House on this issue when he knows full well the previous Liberal plan had included full inflation protection.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I conceded to the Hon. Member for Sudbury that the Lalonde Budget included mandatory inflation protection. I also reminded the Hon. Member from Sudbury about his recommendation that no significant measure go forward without the unanimous consent of the provinces, which it was not possible to get.
What is the greater principle? There was such a strong recommendation from everybody who studied this issue that we not have a patchwork guilt of legislation.
Very specifically, there is no mandatory inflation protection in this Bill, but there is a model to encourage employers to bring in voluntarily inflation protection which will protect the workers. I believe, and I believe history will bear me out, that many employers having seen the studies, which we are going to table in committee, will choose voluntarily to bring that in, and that we will see the issue take hold in the private sector.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the argument of the Member that we are in some way prevented from introducing, on federally regulated pension plans, the notion of the inflation protection eludes me. The Member will know that the Bill we are discussing today deals with federally regulated pension plans,
which cover the federal public sector and those employees covered under the Canada Labour Code. Obviously we would love every province in Canada to provide full inflation protection as well, but we are dealing with proposals for a federally regulated pension plan. Why does the Member hide behind the notion that somehow the federal Government cannot provide the lead in this area, and that without unanimity he is not prepared to move on the issue of inflation protection, specifically in federally regulated pension plans?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, there are two complementary ways of protecting workers to make sure that they get a fair shake in a pension plan. The first alternative, which nine of the 10 provinces favoured, was the imposition of a fifty-fifty minimum cost sharing of pensions. That provides considerable protection for workers, but it is not nearly as strong as having automatic inflation protection. The consensus was reached that the fifty-fifty which is referred to a couple of clauses earlier than the one I cited would be the main model to offer workers protection. Indeed, that does offer considerable measure of protection for workers.
In order to move on with this, the federal Government decided we would go beyond the provincial consensus. The provinces were arguing that it was too costly at this fragile time in the Canadian economy, when recovery is just taking place, to impose the most expensive item of pension reform on a mandatory basis. We said all right, we will bring in the minimum with which all the provinces agree, but we will provide an incentive for companies to move forward to what we believe is the ultimate step that should be taken.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, can the Member tell us why this legislation does not include a provision so that surpluses which may accrue in a pension fund can be pumped back into the fund for the benefit of the employees rather than simply taken over by the employer investor?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I raised this issue in my opening remarks. When the provincial consensus was being developed, there were no examples before us of the type of situation which had developed with the Dominion Store workers within the last few months. Almost without exception, employers had acted responsibly. When they had made surplus withdrawals, it had been to get money to keep the company alive. Many companies, and I am sure the Member is aware of them particularly in the transport sector back in the 1981-82 period, needed access to funds just to stay alive. The particular provision in this Bill says that the companies can have access to funds where that access does not impair the solvency of the fund. Companies cannot get any more back except that which was surplus to the obligations they committed to.
Since the time this Bill was tabled it has become apparent, and I think there is a well known high profile case I cited in my speech, and no doubt the Member will cite it in hers- where it is felt there may well be injustices to workers. The fact that there had not been a problem up to that time is the main reason that there is nothing in the Bill to prohibit it.
February 7, 1986

In the United States, which brought in a similar provision prohibiting entirely withdrawals of surpluses, there has been ample demonstration that that type of approach to the problem is counter-productive. It is counter-productive because employers stopped funding on anything other than the minimum basis. They left the minimum amount of assets in the fund, and when they got into Financial difficulty the funds folded and the workers were left high and dry.
If you bring in a strict prohibition against withdrawal of surpluses, as we can see now from nearly seven years of experience in the United States, the effect is to leave workers in a worse off position. Employers take steps to reduce their contributions to the bare minimum in order not to get caught. It is not as simple as just prohibiting the withdrawal of surpluses and saying that means workers will be better off.
We have all kinds of evidence. The pension benefit guarantee fund in the United States has lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the actions that employers have taken by minimizing funding and then leaving the fund high and dry when employers got into trouble.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in this debate because the Hon. Member who spoke to the Government's position on the proposed pension legislation has made a number of assertions, assertions that somehow this legislation would be of great benefit to those among our society who currently represent the poor, in particular women, and those women in poverty.
This piece of legislation does include a shorter vesting period. Obviously we in the Liberal Party support that because the Liberal Party in the budget of Marc Lalonde originally introduced the notion of reducing the vesting period. Our Party supports more portability in pensions. Our Party supports a reduced vesting period to allow the kind of pension mobility that we know is following the mobility of workers in society. It is important we have this portability so workers can feel if they move from job to job, as is currently the case in a highly mobile Canadian society, that those workers will continue to have coverage. However, the Government's position and refusal to look at the issue of full indexation in fact belie and contradict the very claims made by the Hon. Member in respect of the leadership of the federal Government on this issue.
We know that under the previous Liberal Government the national policy was committed to a full indexation of pension plans. Now we hear Government spokesmen saying that they would rather leave it to the private sector, somehow hoping that private companies will take their responsibility and in fact provide a clause for full inflation protection. That has not been the case in the past. The Government continues to support a pension fund where the excess of the investment can be withdrawn by the company for use in developing its profits
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
margins, supplying other products and expanding into new areas. Essentially this is not for the benefit of those who contributed to the pension plan, but for the benefit of shareholders of the company. There is a principle involved here which speaks to whose dollars are in the pension fund. Are they dollars for the shareholders? Are they dollars for company products? Are they dollars for workers who have contributed with matching contributions from companies to provide their own future inflation protection and retirement benefits? I suggest that we are speaking about the latter. Those pension funds should be solely directed toward the payment of pension benefits to retiring and outgoing workers. The company should not be permitted to skim off the cream of pension investments. Otherwise, the pension fund is not being used for the benefit of workers and the investment is not there to assist in the retirement of workers but is there to pass off an extra few cents or dollars to the shareholders, to the management of the company or to the company's bottom line.
Why does this particular measure discriminate against the majority of employees who work for small businesses in Canada? When I speak of small businesses, I am talking about businesses with less than 50 employees. Many of the provisions, including the establishment of a pension committee and an invitation to have some worker involvement in the investment process of the company, are restricted to those companies with 50 or more employees. If we are truly concerned about the tripartite approach of labour, management and Government which we as a Parliament have paraded over the last number of years, both previous Liberal Governments and the current Conservative Government, then we should encourage worker involvement in pension funds at the company level, even if the workers happen to work for a company with less than 50 employees. We should not only encourage that type of involvement, but we should facilitate it by suggesting that any worker in any organization where workers want some involvement in the kinds of investments which will be used to guarantee their future retirement should be permitted to do so. In light of current Government changes, as they specifically relate to the Government's consideration of pension benefits as income for the purposes of calculating unemployment insurance, we will see that more and more workers will want a direct say in what happens in their company pension plans.
At the same time as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is introducing the Pension Benefits Standards Act and subsequent Conservative Members are speaking to it, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is creating a disincentive to private pension plans by introducing the new notion that, for unemployment insurance, pension benefits will now be considered as income. That has created a two-class system of citizens. The first class includes those citizens who are not salaried employees. Not only does this particular measure indicate that those with pension benefits will not be allowed to collect unemployment insurance, it applies only to those who are salaried employees with a company pension plan. However, if one happens to be in business and has contributed to a private money purchase plan, an RRSP, the

February 7, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 Minister of Employment and Immigration has said in her wisdom that one is exempt from the new regulations. In other words, an upper-middle income Canadian, who has had an opportunity to contribute to a private Registered Retirement Savings Plan, which has accrued and built up over the years, and has retired from work, will be entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits for the 52 weeks following retirement if he or she has not yet reached the age of 65 years. At the same time, salaried employees who are in company pension plans are denied that right.
When we adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we said that all citizens and residents of Canada were created equal, with the same rights and obligations. It is not only this particular pension measure which discriminates against employees of companies with less than 50 workers. A concurrent measure of another Minister dealing with pension benefits indicates that salaried employees, such as steelworkers in the riding of Hamilton East, will not be allowed to collect unemployment insurance as long as they are receiving a pension from their companies. At the same time, if I am forced into retirement by the voters of Hamilton East and have an RRSP-and subsequently I can take another job or cash in my RRSP-I can collect unemployment. Is it more important for the steelworker in the riding of Hamilton East, the salaried employee or company person, to collect a pension or is it more important for the upper middle-income Canadian who has contributed to a private money purchase plan to be able to collect unemployment insurance?
We have been elected to protect those who are least able to protect themselves. Those of us who can afford private money purchase plans, who can afford to play the stock-market and who can afford accountants to give us the loopholes we need so that we do not have to pay as much in taxes as we might have to do if we were straight salaried employees, have built in protection. It is the salaried company person who does not even have any input into how his or her pension funds are spent who is hamstrung by the decision of the Government. If in fact good pension investments should result in a higher than average yield and in an increase over what was expected for the pension plan, such workers, unlike private RRSP investors, will not be able to take advantage of that excess. That excess can be skimmed by the company and sunk back into its profit margins, its president's salary and its shareholders' return. The people who will be left holding the bag will be those who thought they had a greater say in pension funds as a result of the mesures about which we are talking today.
Many issues have not been addressed in this particular Bill. They have actually been ignored. The difficulties have been compounded by the current position taken by the Government in respect of the calculation of pension benefits as earnings for the purpose of unemployment insurance.
When the Hon. Member commented upon the situation facing the women of the country, he neglected to say that while the particular Act will obviously be of benefit to those people who are currently in a pension plan or are currently in a company with over 50 employees, it does nothing to speak to
the basic inequities currently being faced by senior citizens and elderly women between 55 and 65 years of age who may find themselves, through no fault of their own, never having been in a company pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, this Government which is talking about equity for women and the poor, which has just announced a program under the Bill for women or widows between the ages of 60 and 65, this Government is at the same time discriminating against women who have never married or who for whatever reason are divorced or separated. In other words, the Government Member would have us believe the Government is doing its best for women who have no other means of support. However, we all know that under the Bill announced in 1985 by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which concerns women between the ages of 60 and 65, these women were not covered if they were single or divorced. They were not entitled to the same pensions offered to widows, a group the Government had decided to give a pension.
So there are some very large gaps, not just in this Bill but in the Government's whole policy on pensions.
Speaking of the Bill, I think it has two major shortcomings, one being the Government's decision to reject the policy of the previous Liberal Government by saying that every pension plan must contain guarantees against inflation.
Mr. Speaker, we now know, whatever may be said from time to time in this House by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that the real rate of inflation in 1986 is practically the highest ever. For instance, the banks are offering us from 6 to 7 per cent on our investments, while they are charging from 11.5 up to as much as 14 per cent on mortgages and other types of loans.
So, the so-called spread between the real rate and the rate charged by the banks is 6 or 7 per cent, which is much higher than what we had two or three years ago.
When we see the spread between the interest rates and the rates charged by the banks, we have to conclude that the Government has ignored the pleas of Canadians, of employees and companies, for real protection against inflation, while we also know that the real rate of inflation continues to widen the gaps.
I would say that especially the elderly and those living on pensions are among those who are least protected against inflation. We young people who are in good health can always go out to work or find another job, or even have two jobs or find some other way to save money. When we look at a person who has to take early retirement at 60 for health reasons, that person does not have the same ability to adjust to inflation rates of 6 per cent, 7 per cent, 8 per cent, 10 per cent, 11 per cent, 12 per cent and 13 per cent, as is happening at the present time.
February 7, 1986

1 think it is much more important for the Government, first of all, to provide protection against inflation, and second, this would have been a very good Bill if the Government had decided that the funds invested in these pension plans... If the investment happens to be a good one and the pension fund has a surplus over what it is supposed to have, I think this would have been a good piece of legislation if the Government had decided to give employees the right to return these funds to the pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening now is that if we end up with a surplus in the pension fund, we allow the companies and employers the possibility to use these surpluses either as profits or to return them to the investors, without really giving employees the opportunity to benefit themselves from the surpluses in their pension funds.
What is the purpose of a pension fund, Mr. Speaker? It's not intended for the investors, for the company or to make profits. The pension fund is there to help employees when they retire. That is the reason why we are dealing with this Bill today. That is the reason why the federal Government has decided to act in a responsible manner and to create a climate where uniform pension funds can be developed.
But when the Government refuses to allow these pension funds to be re-invested for the benefit of the employees, it shows it is more interested in protecting the interests of companies than those of the workers who, in all fairness, should have the opportunity to benefit from surpluses which result from their own investments in the company.
We see, Mr. Speaker, that because of these two shortcomings the Government has failed to recognize the importance of employee involvement and employee contribution to private company pension plans by refusing to provide full inflation protection and by refusing to allow surpluses that may occur in pension funds to be pumped back into the employee's pension benefits. The federal Government is saying that, in fact, it does not really believe that employees, first and foremost, should be involved in the management of their company pension plans. Employees should not have that opportunity except if, by some happenstance, they are employed by a company of 50 or more people and if, by some happenstance, the company happens to have agreed to some type of inflation protection. It is the same kind of voluntary approach of the private sector that we see has failed so dismally when it comes to the so-called Challenge '85 and Challenge '86 programs.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration said: "Leave it to the private sector, they are going to create jobs. Leave it to the private sector, they are going to give us inflation protection". I dare say that the workers in the steelmills in Hamilton know they have been able to accrue some inflation protection by the sweat of their brows and not because of any largess on the part of a company boss. In fact, some of those workers have gone on strike, some of them have been forced to walk a picket line to get the kind of inflation protection that is
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 now built into their pension plans. In the same breath we see that that inflation protection, that particular benefit-if you want to consider it so, a carrot that might encourage people to take early retirement-has not only been ignored by the lack of inflation protection in this particular Bill, but has been further jeopardized because of the action of the Minister of Employment and Immigration when she told the workers and the salaried employees of this country: "You will no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance because you are on a pension plan".
Mr. Speaker, if you were a union negotiator and you were negotiating a contract which would be coming up for renewal in 1986, would you tell your older workers that they should be looking for more pension contributions? Would you tell your older workers that the company should be building up the pension funds and encouraging early retirement to allow younger employees to come on to the job? No, you would tell them to get the bottom line now, get into private RRSPs and get out of the pension company system, because the Minister of Employment and Immigration has introduced discriminatory legislation. I would hope the Government would consider some amendments to those regulations while we are discussing this issue of extreme importance to all Canadians, that is, pension protection for all workers, not just those who are lucky enough to have their own private RRSPs.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very leading question of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). It will facilitate the workings of this House this afternoon, as Members are in the middle of those discussions right now.
Under present legislation the definition of part-time work is 35 per cent of the year's maximum pensionable earnings. That definition will not cover 80 per cent of the women in this country who work part-time within the federal jurisdiction. Would she be in favour of that definition or does she think it would be better defined in committee?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) has a great interest in this question because he chaired the committee that came up with a number of good recommendations in this particular piece of legislation. However, where the Government has missed the boat is on the question of part-time workers. Unfortunately, it chose to ignore the recommendations of the Wallace Report as it dealt with part-time workers. The Wallace Commission travelled across the country and talked not only to women but to men to find out how we could deal with the ever-growing workforce of part-time workers, both in terms of getting them the kind of benefits protection they want and also of ensuring they are working part-time because they want to and not because they cannot find full-time jobs. It seems to me that by ignoring the recommendations of the Wallace Commission, the Government is trying to reinvent the wheel.
I think there will be some very good presentations brought before the committee, and I know the Hon. Member for

February 7, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 Sudbury has been in close contact with groups across the country that are concerned about expanding the definition of part-time work for the purpose of receiving benefits under this particular piece of legislation. However, the Government has had all the facts in its possession since its overwhelming mandate began on September 4, 1984. To date, the Government has chosen to ignore those recommendations.
While I know the Hon. Member for Sudbury will be doing his best to get the message across, I am not optimistic about Government Members unless we can get through to some of them who seem to think that women are working part time for little money and no benefits because they want to do so. Unfortunately, there are still many Members of the House who feel that a woman's place is only in the home and that a woman does not have the right to the same type of job and protection that men have. We have to convince these Members of Parliament that women have the right not only to compete equally but also to be afforded equal protection in part-time employment. We must convince them that women need protection regarding the question of the social costs of bearing children and having families.
We know that the Government is talking about taking maternity benefits out of unemployment insurance. Again, that is a Neanderthal attitude on the part of the Conservative Party that does not really believe in equality for women. The Hon. Member for Sudbury will be highlighting those issues in committee, but I would encourage those members of the Government who are not Neanderthals to join us. The Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) says that he is not a Neanderthal. I would encourage him to join us in committee to make sure that the Government brings in changes which allow part-time workers, primarily women, to take advantage of the same kinds of pension benefits and protection that are currently being awarded to full-time workers.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have a chance to say a few words on the matter of the Government's pension reform Bill. I would like to introduce what I am saying with a few comments on what I see as the background of the principle of pensions.
Private pensions are something that only a minority of the workers of Canada enjoy because most pension plans have been negotiated by unions with their employers and it is only a minority of the workers who have as yet attained union status. Therefore, pensions are always negotiated as part of the wage package. There are the official wages and there are other economic benefits in the contract, and then there are pensions, if there are pensions. Of course, by no means have all unions been able to negotiate pensions as yet.
I recall that for 12 years as an officer in my local union, I was helping to develop the pension policies of our company, Continental Can. The company did have a pension plan. We had to negotiate improvements to it. Every time we negotiated a new contract every one or two years, the company said that there is this much in the pension fund and that much in wages, or we could have it all in wages or we could have it all in the pension plan. There were different ways the package would be
offered, but the money in the pension plan was traded off against our wages. It is a very important principle that at least half of the money in the pension fund is the workers' money. The other half of it that the company puts in in the formal sense is also there by virtue of negotiations. It is part of the package that the workers negotiate. It is traded off against wages, against hours, against working conditions and fundamentally it is part of what is traded off for the goodwill and co-operation of the workers and the no-strike clause in the contract that lasts for the length of the contract. That point is not sufficiently recognized by many employers. Notorious for this is Conrad Black who took millions of dollars out of a pension fund because he felt he had a legal loophole which enabled him to do so. However, what he did was thoroughly immoral. Morally speaking, it was theft. He took money that belonged to the workers to use for his own private purposes without any moral excuse whatsoever. This Bill only goes a very small distance toward recognizing that principle.
Our Party will be supporting the Bill because it represents a small progress, but it falls far short of what would be just, and in fact it falls far short of what the Government promised. The main object of the Bill is to regulate the private pension funds of the country. It does not apply to the federal public servants who are already governed under the Public Service Superannuation Act. The Government says that it will extend comparable benefits to those employees, but of course it has not said when it will do so. Why the Government did not bring that forward at the same time as this Bill is something it has not told us. We are being asked to believe that the Government will do it reasonably soon and in reasonable conformity with its promises.
Although we are supporting this Bill because of its degree of progress, we have to object to, and hope there will be some improvement in, two particular faults of this Bill. One fault which has already been mentioned is the fact that it does not provide mandatory inflation protection. It does not protect the workers against having a pension that may have looked good at the time it was negotiated but may be peanuts by the time the workers have retired and are collecting on it. The Bill also notoriously fails to provide any protection against the kind of theft that Conrad Black practised against the workers of Dominion Stores. Why the Government refuses to protect against that, of course, is something that it has not told us.
In an inflationary situation, the workers get hit twice. They get hit once because retired workers find their pensions are worth much less than they thought they would be and much less than they were led to expect they would be. It hurts future pension beneficiaries because it encourages the employer, as in the Conrad Black case, to look at the surplus in the pension fund which has grown because of inflation and to decide to scoop it out rather than convert it back into benefits for the employees who paid for it and earned it.
We very much hope that in committee, Government Members will see fit to agree to amend this Bill in those two respects. At least, we hope they would honour the promise that was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his
February 7, 1986

Budget and to honour the Government policy statement, Better Pensions for Canadians, which was issued in 1982 by the previous Government and which many workers took as being a guideline for what the Government might do.
Two things are needed to bring minimal justice to this Bill rather than the half-justice for which we will have to vote if the Government refuses to relent. The first thing needed for minimal justice in this Bill is the provision of mandatory protection against inflation, not voluntary protection. I do not know of employers or vendors who have been willing voluntarily to give a break to their workers or consumers as against inflation. It has to be made mandatory, either through Government legislation or through union action. Union action may very well have to include strike action.
Workers may be forced once again to go on strike to get decent pensions for themselves, for those who have retired and for those who may come after them. Many Members on the opposite side deplore strikes and wish that unions would not use their only weapon, the strike. It would be sensible for those Hon. Members to amend this legislation in such a way that public opinion, which recognizes the need for pensions and the need that workers' money in these pensions should be used to their benefit, should find expression in legislation by this Government, by this Parliament, which would ensure that the pension funds are protected against inflation and that they are protected against theft by the employer.
There is, of course, a better way to do this. There is a better way still which our Party has advocated and which our predecessor Party, the CCF, advocated and which those who founded the CCF were advocating even before the CCF was founded, that is, a Government pension such as the Canada and Quebec pension. That would be the most just and economical way of ensuring a decent level of retirement income for all Canadians. But to do that, the rate of benefit of the Canada and Quebec pension would have to be sharply increased. Those workers who can negotiate with their employers, those minority workers who are in the fortunate position of being in unions and able to negotiate with their employers for a private pension, which will be in addition to their Canada and Quebec pension, of course, at the present time find that they are obliged to do that as a matter of prudence because they have no reason to believe that this Government will increase the Quebec and Canada pension to a level that provides for a decent living. But if this Government, on the one hand, wished to avoid strikes, by those workers in a position to struggle for better pensions, or if it wished, on the other hand, to avoid the compulsory, that is the mandatory, inflation protection we are asking for, the Government has a simple solution. It could announce that it will increase the Canada Quebec Pension Plan to a level that makes it unnecessary for workers to negotiate away part of their wages in return for a private pension plan.
The Government has two good options if it does not wish to promote industrial unrest, that is, either make a suitable
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
increase in the Canada Quebec Pension Plan or else amend this legislation by including genuine mandatory inflation protection and ensure protection against the employer lifting the surplus out of the pension fund.
I hope that suggestion will be taken quite seriously by the Government Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.

The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to comment briefly on Bill C-90 to make changes to the pension plans of companies and organizations under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.
We Find that this timely piece of legislation includes several measures which will be of great benefit to people who work for the Canadian Government or for companies under its jurisdiction.
Indeed the Bill takes into consideration the fact that the situation has changed drastically over the years. It will make it a lot easier to administer pension plans and give more leeway to individuals who will now be able to transfer their pension funds from one employer to another, an option which workers have now been seeking for several decades.
We want to see this Bill get second reading and be referred to committee, but it does not necessarily mean that we fully endorse all its provisions. For instance, we are anxious to send the Bill to a committee of the House for further consideration because we know that several groups have already expressed the wish to appear as witnesses in an attempt to amend some of the clauses of the Bill. Indeed, one of the changes on which the workers will certainly insist relates to the indexation of their pension benefits. In other words, they want those benefits protected against erosion due to increases in the consumer price index.
Unfortunately that is probably the most obvious shortcoming of this measure-it offers no protection whatsoever against inflation. Hon. Members who have been in the House for some time will recall some of the proposals made in the past. For instance, when the Hon. Marc Lalonde was Minister in the previous Government he proposed a formula which I will outline in a few moments. From the outset, Mr. Speaker, I can say I did not think it was overly generous, but at least the formula did take into account the fact that a worker's pension is regularly eroded by the ever rising cost of living. Mr. Lalonde's formula was simple enough: take the increase in the consumer price index, deduct 2.5 per cent from this and then grant 60 per cent of that Figure as an hedge against inflation. If the inflation rate were about 5 per cent, for instance, we would take away 2.5 per cent, which would leave 2.5 per cent, and pay 60 per cent of that amount, which would mean that,

February 7, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 in a period when the consumer price index goes up by 5 per cent, pensioners would receive a protection of only 1.5 per cent. That is not a lot. However, it would at least be somewhat more than a symbolical recognition of the fact that pensions are eroded by inflation, and I am quite surprised that this Government has not introduced such a minimal protection because it really is the least that we could do, and I am sure that many employees of companies covered by this legislation would not be satisfied with it. I have to ask myself why the proposals of the Government do not take into account the negative effects of inflation on the amount of pensions. When this legislation is referred to a committee, as it will be before long, it will be very important to think seriously about amending it to provide more than a symbolical protection for pensions so that they will not be constantly eroded by inflation.
Another part of the legislation which seems seriously defective is the description of part-time workers. As we know, in well-managed pension plans, full-time workers make contributions to the plan, or at least such is the case in most civilized societies. There are also companies where part-time workers have the option of contributing to the pension plan. However, I find the description of part-time worker contained in this legislation insufficient and defective. The Bill says that, to be a part-time worker, someone must have accumulated over one year 35 per cent of normal annual earnings, which means that he must have worked about one-third of the time, which seems reasonable at first glance. However, according to our research, if this standard is applied, there will probably not be more than 20 per cent of part-time workers eligible, especially in the case of women. And this for the obvious reason that there are more women than men employed in temporary jobs, part-time jobs in our Canadian society. It is more normal for a female employee to spend certain parts of her time at home, and certain times at work. According to our estimate, if we were to apply that 35-per-cent standard to maximum annual earnings, we would find ourselves in the situation where there might be four women out of five who might not have the opportunity to participate in a pension plan. This in our view is an aspect the Government should be considering and assessing before the legislation is passed.
Also, concerning protection against inflation, both in the definition or description of part-time work, it is our firm intention, when the legislation goes before the appropriate committee of the House of Commons, to suggest changes and to move amendments. I hope that at that point, after the debate in this House, the Government will agree to give particular attention to those two areas and make the changes that are needed in my view.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of protracting the debate on Bill C-90, but only to take the time needed to make the Government realize, before we go to committee, that it is most important that some of the shortcomings I have just described should be corrected before the
Bill is returned to the House at report stage so we will have before us, at the end of our discussions at the report stage and third reading, a bill that will be closer to perfection than this one. Those, Mr. Speaker, were the comments I wanted to bring to the attention of the House and the Government at this stage.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few comments about these amendments which have been so long in gestation that there must be people who have retired and died since they were originally proposed back in the 1960s. It is scandalous that so many pension plans seem to be designed to benefit not the employee but only the employer. They give the illusion of protection but it is not followed through. The rules for vesting are so inappropriate because they require that an employee attain the age of 45 and have more than 10 years of service before benefits can be vested. That is being changed in this Bill and it is a welcome change. However, it has taken a heck of a long time to get to that point. I believe the reason for that is that the employers and the pension industry have not wanted those changes to be made. I want to go on record as condemning their record and their failure to understand the necessity of providing income security for that large number of people who work for employers where there are pension plans regulated under federal or provincial legislation.
When I was in the Ontario Legislature the question of pension reform came up frequently. We had a royal commission. It was studied by a legislative committee. Vast amounts of studies and research were produced. However, what we could not get around was the lack of political will by the Conservative Government of Ontario and the then Liberal Government of Canada to make the necessary moves. The only place where reform really came forward was in the Province of Manitoba under an NDP Government. That province decided, regardless of the failure of other provinces and the federal Government to move, that they would make the necessary and desirable reforms in order to ensure that employees who contributed to pension plans had a good chance of actually benefiting from them.
We finally have some changes. They are watered down and inadequate. In particular, they are objectionable because they only apply after 1987. They do not take into account contributions people have made prior to the beginning of next year. Some might say it is better to have that than to have nothing. We say that too. The NDP is supporting this Bill. We discussed it in caucus and decided that although we object to the failure to back-date and the fact it falls short of what is needed, we had better support the Bill because it is the best we are going to get from this Government. It is a heck of a lot better as well than what we got from the previous Government when nothing was done on this subject at all. Nonetheless, let us not fool ourselves. There are still an awful lot of loopholes in the Bill which will allow our pension legislation to continue
February 7, 1986

benefiting employers to the disadvantage of employees who have a legitimate need of income security through the contributions they make.
The fundamental problem here is that there is a real quarrel out there as to just who pension contributions belong to and whether or not they are a form of deferred income. It has been increasingly accepted that they are a form of deferred income. If an employer contributes 7 per cent or 8 per cent of an employee's wages or salary to a pension fund, then as far as I am concerned that money should be seen as belonging to the employee and be used for his or her benefit. That should be a fundamental principle. These days it is becoming more and more obvious that long-term employment in one particular job will become less and less the norm. That is happening now and I suppose there are many Members of this House who have already had two, three or four different careers. Perhaps they were in business, perhaps they were teachers. Perhaps they began in a trade or they went on to take post-graduate studies or practise law. I was a journalist, an alderman, a provincial MPP and now I am a federal MP. I might be a business consultant some day trying to wake up the business community to the needs of working people.


An Hon. Member:: Dream on.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Who knows? I am the only socialist MBA in this House, with the exception of my friend from Kenora-Rai-ny River who shares that distinction with me. Perhaps there are one or two back-benchers in the Conservative Party who have not revealed their true stripes.
We still have a long way to go before the principle that contributions made by employers as well as employees rightly belong to the employee is universal. I am glad to see that harmonized legislation is now coming forward from the provinces and the federal Government to implement Bill C-90. However, that is not going nearly far enough. Other elements of income security which are important have not yet been into place. In fact, the Government is actively leading the way in the opposite direction. Today I was preparing a brief to the Forget Commission on unemployment insurance. One of the points I want to make is that the Government's decision to disallow unemployment insurance benefits for any person receiving more than a certain amount of pension income prior to the age of 65 is a fundamentally objectionable principle. It will hurt ex-service people and Public Service employees who retire before 65. It will also hurt people in the private sector who chose early retirement or are compelled to take early retirement at a reduced rate. They are then looking for some form of income security from a job, but if they lose it they will have no right to unemployment insurance benefits in return for the premiums they will be compelled to pay. The Quebec Pension Plan allows for retirement before 65. The pension is less than the full rate, but the right exists and that has not yet been put into the CPP. Obviously it should be included in order to correspond with the right of early retirement provided for under federal jurisdiction in this Bill. The QPP provides for an increased rate of pension benefits to people who chose to
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 retire after the age of 65, and that is a flexibility we should see in our pension arrangements in this Bill as well as the CPP.
My colleagues have talked about specific measures in the Bill. This Bill does not apply to federal public servants and they are now being compelled to accept a situation where the indexation they have fought for is going to be taken away. It does not cover people in the Forces who have very serious problems and who are being given absolutely no say in the management of a pension fund which amounts to some $13 billion. This is nominally in their account but they have not say at all in its management. As my colleagues have said, this Bill does not ensure that all retirees will enjoy adequate, dignified retirement incomes. It only covers a proportion of people under federal jurisdiction who happen to have pension plans.
I do want to talk about those persons because, if we can get decent standards for them, they will not be in the position of requiring the guaranteed income supplement or other forms of assistance from the federal or other Treasuries after they retire. They will be able to live in dignity. They will be able to be sun-seekers, if they want, or to live in the country with dignity. They will not be under the constraints which govern people who live out their retirements in poverty today.
There are some fundamental principles which must be considered. The first is that the net effect of this Bill is very negligible for the next few years because vesting after two years is only provided for with respect to contributions after 1987. There are large numbers of employees under the age of 45 who work in federally-regulated jurisdictions who now have up to 15 or 20 years of service with an employer and who still stand at risk of losing the benefit of the employer's contributions and the benefit of vesting in the foreseeable future. That could continue for as long as 10 or 15 years with respect to persons who may have 10 years of service and are aged 30. They will not reach the magic age of 45 for some time, and they have no right to the employer's contribution for the years of service they have now.
There could have been some negotiation on that front. It could have been provided that the full rate of interest on employers' contributions would not begin to be paid until after this Bill was proclaimed. It seems to me that the Bill should now be amended to provide that when employees have been in a particular job for a number of years they should not lose the benefit of vesting if they should happen to lose or change their job prior to reaching the age of 45 and meeting the requirements under the previous Pension Benefits Act. That is very objectionable, Mr. Speaker.
I think the two-year rule is too long. It should probably be only one year, at least for anyone over the age of 25, at which time the work careers of people begin to settle down. To forward date it means that it will be a long time before people who are contemplating retirement now will be assured of substantial portability in their pension benefits. This Bill does not provide for instant portability, despite what the pension
10604

February 7, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 industry and private employers want to tell us. It provides for a very qualified amount of portability. The first portability provided for under this Bill, believe it or not, will not occur for about 1,000 days, that is not until January 1, 1989.
I welcome the fact that the Bill provides for making information available to employees. However, some improvements could be made in those particular provisions. The actuarial and other information should be on file at the administrator's office and should be available to plan members and their unions at any time. However, I do welcome the fact that that information will be available. I hope we do not get into silly situations whereby employees who seek to look at that information are denied the right to take copies or to make copies at a reasonable charge.
The provisions for the direction of the plans are quite unacceptable as far as I am concerned. I do not care how much protestation there is from employers about this. I find the idea that employers shall continue to be the sole administrators of pension funds objectionable and unacceptable.
I have given a great deal of thought to the question of how the Canadian industry should work in the future. Everything that I see and hear, not only from my friends in the trade union movement, but also from business consultants, from the example of Japan, and from management consultants in the United States, indicates that if we in North America are going to be competitive in a very difficult world environment over the course of the next years, we will have to build relationships built on trust and co-operation in the workplace rather than on the current practice which seems to prevail whereby the employer knows best and tries to treat the employees like dirt.
That means that pensions should be run on a joint basis by employers and employees with equal representation on the board directing the administrator, possibly with a neutral chairman. That kind of arrangement could and should have been included in this particular Bill. The current provisions give employees no guarantee of any say in the administration of pension funds if there are fewer than 50 employees. Most people who study the subject know that it is very difficult for employees to get together and say that they want to exercise their rights because they do not have an organized mechanism by which they can make the provisions stick.
In addition, this Bill says that there will be only a consultative committee and that employees will have the right to representation on some unexplained basis, direct or indirect, on that consultative committee. The committee could have 10 or 15 members and there would only be a requirement that one be representative of the employee. There is no guarantee that the committee will give any credence or voice to the objections or concerns which may be raised by the employee representative. There is no guarantee that the employee representative will not be that of the middle management employees covered by a particular plan. The blue collar, pink collar, or white collar employee may have no representation at all. I think that is inadequate and the Government should have recognized that in drafting the Bill. It should recognize that now and bring
forward appropriate amendments to that particular part of the Bill.
I believe the employees should have a substantial voice in the policies and investment provisions of the pension fund in which an important part of their future security is put. On the one hand, I think that is more effective than only having investment rules that are administered by a superintendent of insurance or of pension schemes here in Ottawa. Second, I think it lends itself to innovative forms of finance into which many employees may be prepared to have their pension fund enter.
What happens, for example, if a particular enterprise which has $10 million or $15 million in its pension fund is in a difficult situation? It may well be that employees under that situation would be prepared to see up to 25 per cent of the value of their pension fund used in a rescue effort to get that company back on the rails. That is a possibility. It may well be that a pension fund could be used to provide important benefits to employees. Many employees cannot currently afford to make an investment in a house. Yet, at the same time, they may have credits in a pension fund which, if they could draw on them, would permit them to make such an investment.
I am not sure whether there has been agreement among the House Leaders that this matter should come to a vote now. I understand that some of my colleagues may have some comments to make. If not, I am sure the matter could come to a vote later. I know that the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has a question and I will allow her to ask it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) whether he could comment on some specific concerns we have with respect to the definition of part-time workers in the Bill. The Government has chosen not to follow the recommendations of the Wallace Report. Does he have any comments on that? We are particularly concerned that from the federal Public Service perspective there seems to be a fair movement toward the contracting out of services and the use of part-time, unprotected workers, as opposed to full-time, fully-fledged civil servants under the Public Service Alliance Act.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The time is short so I will be brief in my comments. Without commenting on the specific recommendations of the Wallace Report, I gave a brief recommending that federal and provincial labour statutes should in fact be applied as much as possible to part-time workers. I believe that should be the case for people regularly employed as part-timers in companies that are federally regulated, just as it should apply to companies that are provincially regulated.
I agree with the Hon. Member's concern that the Bill is too restrictive in the way it is being applied to part-time workers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
February 7, 1986


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   PUBLIC SERVICE ADVISABILITY OF GRANTING RIGHT TO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 13, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cassidy:
That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be empowered to study the question of granting to federal public employees the full political participation enjoyed by other Canadians and, that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than June 28, 1985.
And on the amendment of Mr. Benjamin:
That the motion be amended by deleting the year "1985" and inserting the year "1986".
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment before the House that the motion be amended by deleting the year "1985" and inserting the year "1986". That would, in effect, require that the question of granting full political participation to federal public employees be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and that the committee report its findings to the House no later than June 28, 1986.
Hon. Members will recognize that this resolution has already been debated in the House on two previous occasions, on April 15, 1985 and on September 13, 1985. The purpose of this resolution is to give an opportunity for federal public employees, their unions and members of the general public to comment on the question of granting political rights to public employees of the Government of Canada. Its purpose is also to give some momentum to an issue which seems to have bogged down in the 17 months since the federal election.
I consulted with the Table Officers today concerning the specifics of the motion, anticipating that we might have to seek another amendment. However, I have been advised that that is not necessary.
The House Leaders are presently negotiating because of the new rules that will be debated next week. Therefore, should they decide that the subject matter of this resolution should go before another committee, they can do that by consent. That would be acceptable to our Party and I hope to all Members of the House.
However, it is with some frustration that I ask the House to allow this matter to be sent to a committee and to ensure that the matter is not talked out for a third time as it was on two previous occasions.
When this issue was raised last April and September we were assured by Members representing the Government Party that this matter was under discussion with the unions and, threfore, it would be inappropriate for a parliamentary committee to intervene at that time. I believe that excuse is becoming somewhat thin and I hope the House will take the necessary action to allow a committee to consider this matter over the course of the next few months.
Public Service
I point out to my hon. friends that this matter is under very active consideration in Ontario where it has been referred to the Ontario Law Reform Commission. In fact, they have had very short notice and will be preparing a report for the Ontario Government some time in May. The Ontario Government, with the support of the NDP in the Ontario Legislature, as a result of the accord between those two Parties, has undertaken to take early action on the matter of expanding political rights for provincial public employees. The question is whether we will forever be bogged down with this issue or whether action will be taken.
Let me also point out that this is a matter of importance to those of us who represent members of the Public Service of Canada not only because of a pending election in 1988 or 1989 but because it is posing a real dilemma for employees of the Public Service of Canada. Yesterday I received a phone call from an individual who has returned to the Public Service after taking leave and is now under great pressure to abandon his activities within the riding association of a political Party. He is identified in the community as being part of that political Party because he was a candidate in an election.
There is no law stipulating that he should not be part of a riding executive between election campaigns but the pressure is there, with no clear definition of his rights and responsibilities apart from the guidelines issued by the Public Service Commission. However, the court has determined that these guidelines have no legal effect. Nevertheless, these guidelines apply in terms of disciplinary action by his employer.
Let me read into the record a specific promise which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was campaigning for office in 1984. In a letter to Mr. Jack Donegani, who was then President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, stated:
We believe that this matter-
The matter of political rights for federal employees:
-should be addressed by an all-Party Parliamentary Committee in consultation with public service organizations and we believe the situation can be quickly resolved. Much of the work, after all has been done as part of the D'Avignon Report, but the current Government has not demonstrated the political will necessary to implement the long overdue changes.
I do not always agree with the Prime Minister, but with regard to what he said to the Professional Institute in August, 1984, I am entirely in agreement. The former Liberal Government lacked the political will. The reform in terms of granting political rights to Public Service employees is long overdue. While Members from different sides of the House may have somewhat different ideas about exactly what should occur-I believe there is harmony-its consideration is surely long overdue.
I have been proposing that this matter go before a parliamentary committee since last April so that the issue could get on the rails rather than being side-tracked as appears to have been the case due to other priorities of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Government.

February 7, 1986
Public Service
As the Prime Minister indicated a couple of years ago, the matter can be quickly resolved if there is the political will to do so. It is up to Members of the House to demonstrate that we have the political will to act. This question has long been a priority of the unions representing federal Public Service employees and they have indicated their support for quick parliamentary action on political rights.
I am somewhat disappointed that the Conservative Government has failed in its efforts to fulfil promises to Public Service unions so far. However, this is not a costly issue and involves a categorical promise made by the Government. For that reason I suggest we can send this question to a committee and allow it to come back with a report and recommendations that would expedite this matter.
Members are aware that there is a group of Public Service employees who are taking this issue to court in April. I have some association with that case but, frankly, I would prefer to see the matter settled by Parliament before going through such court procedures. I believe this matter can be decided in Parliament.
I also point out that the Equality Now report issued by a committee of this House gave a clear recommendation in favour of giving political rights to public employees. Members will recall that the committee considered representations from myself, the Public Service Alliance and others. Let me quote from the Equality Now report under the heading "Political Rights of Public Servants". It reads:
All Canadian citizens have the right to take part in the political process of their country. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are enshrined in section 2 of the Charter. The democratic right to vote and to serve as a candidate in provincial and federal elections is also recognized in section 3 of the Charter. The law does recognize a number of legitimate restrictions on these broadly state rights. Concern was expressed in several submissions to the Committee about the limitations on the political rights of federal public servants.
Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act forbids public servants from "working for, on behalf of or against" a political party or candidate for election to the House of Commons or a provincial or territorial legislature. Federal public servants subject to the Act are also barred from being candidates in such elections unless they obtain a leave of absence from the Public Service Commission. The participation of public servants in the political process is limited to voting, contributing funds to a political party or candidate and attending meetings. If a public servant engages in activities prohibited under Section 32, he or she can be dismissed by the Public Service Commission upon inquiry after a complaint is made by a candidate or former candidate for election.
This has been said many times. It is significant that, despite the fact that that law has been on the books for almost 20 years, no such complaint has, in fact, ever been launched with the Public Service Commission. In other words, we and our predecessor Members and all those men and women who ran as candidates have never ourselves been offended by the participation of federal public employees in election campaigns. As the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) and my other colleague from the Ottawa area know, I do think a few federal employees have taken part in campaigns.
The Equality Now subcommittee report goes on to state:
While we believe that the political neutrality of the public service must be preserved as a general principle, it seems to us that the rights of public servants are, at least in certain circumstances, unduly curtailed. The prohibition against campaigning, soliciting funds and assuming official functions with a political party applies to all public servants, even to those whose job classifications are such that no suspicion of conflict of interest or breach of trust might arise from the exercise of such political rights.
Again, that echoes some comments made in the D'Avignon Report which tried to draw the distinction between the 4,000 or 5,000 senior members of the Public Service who clearly exercise policy making or policy development functions on the one hand and, on the other hand, a large number of people who work as nurses, draftspeople, truck drivers, et cetera who clearly are not in a position to influence policy, were they to indulge in apparently partisan activities.
The recommendation of the Equality Rights Subcommittee reads:
We recommend that Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act be amended to ensure that no greater limitations are imposed on the political rights of public servants than are necessary to maintain a politically neutral public service.
I would have liked to have seen a little stronger recommendation, but nonetheless I think that is a challenge put out to the rest of us in this House by the Equality Rights Subcommittee. I think it is something on which we are in a position to act in view of the promise made by the Prime Minister.
Just what does that mean? The Equality Rights Subcommittee had to look at a vast range of other matters as well. It dealt with political rights only in one paragraph or two and in that one recommendation. I believe this is a matter which affects 250,000 federal public employees. Indirectly it affects some 600,000 people working for Governments at different levels across Canada. I do believe it is important for the Government of Canada to try to give a lead.
I will conclude my remarks so that other Members can have a chance to contribute to the debate. Since September 4, 1984, we have heard more about political rights for federal employees in this House than I think we had in a century before that. This has been good, the matter has been ventilated, and it is being raised. Now I believe it is time for all of us in all three Parties to implement the commitment that our Parties gave in the 1984 election, which was to take action on political rights so that before the 1988 election, hopefully sooner than that, federal employees can have the kind of rights that I think would be in the spirit of the report of the Equality Rights Subcommittee, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of what most other democratic jurisdictions give to their Public Service employees, that is, with very narrow restrictions, that civil servants can be treated like any other citizens of this country when it comes to political rights.
I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the amendment and then to send this out to a Commons committee for a report by the end of June, 1986.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity on behalf of my constituents in Nepean-
February 7, 1986

Carleton to rise this afternoon and offer some comments on the amendments before the House to the motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), respecting political rights of public servants.
I think we should congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre on his interest in extending the political rights of public servants. He has been an advocate of it while a member of the provincial legislature in the Province of Ontario, and an advocate of it in a very aggressive and thoughtful way since he has taken his seat in this House. He was particularly involved with the matter during the 1984 election campaign.
I think we should take note that the Hon. Member represents the federal riding of Ottawa Centre. This House should be cognizant of the fact that his predecessor from that riding was in many ways instrumental in delaying legislation relative to the extension of the political rights of public servants during the course of the previous Parliament.
I think every Government, regardless of its political stripe, requires at its side a strong Public Service, a competent Public Service, a contemporary and willing Public Service and one that is loyal.
The Public Service I know is that kind of Public Service. The people who work in the Department of Energy Mines and Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the National Research Council, and the Department of Communications are the ones with whom I am familiar in more detail, but that group of men and women are world class. I am sure the expertise they have can be found in all of the Departments across the Public Service.
I need to acknowledge, in all fairness, that during the 1984 election campaign, the political rights of public servants was widely discussed in my own riding. I was disappointed, to be fair about it, when a lot of my close personal friends, people who were neighbours, people who had worked with me in municipal campaigns earlier, were unable to become involved in my federal nomination or in my federal election campaign. In a way, they became political eunuchs. Much of the threatening aspect to them was derived from a communication issued in February, 1984, over the signature of Edgar Gallant and two other commissioners from the Public Service Commission who gave their interpretation of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. I found that Mr. Gallant and his commissioners' interpretation of that section was an enormously conservative interpretation of the guidelines. I think it forced in the 1984 election a large number of public servants, who might well have qualified under Section 32 to participate in some way in the political process, to withdraw from it. Because of that, the concern over Section 32 and the limitation on political rights of public servants was therefore highlighted.
What did our Party say about political rights? In many respects the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre correctly quoted the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his communications about political rights. The Progressive Conservative Party, in responding to the professional institute, as
Public Service
was noted earlier, indicated that it favoured a general removal of the restrictions on political activities, especially for those public servants covered by collective agreements. These restrictions are unnecessary and may not be justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are probably some senior public servants whose job responsibilities are very political in nature and whose rights should be somewhat restricted to prevent conflict of interest, but we are confident that these people could be covered separately, without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.
You know, Mr. Speaker, where the Prime Minister and my Party stand on this particular issue. I personally favour in style that recommendations which were put forward in the D'Avig-non Report. It is a concept which is fairly widely used in the British House of Commons and in the British Parliament, where public servants are in fact tiered. For example, there is a tier of persons who have total political freedoms and an upper tier of those who do not. In between there is a tier of people whose political activities can be structured in the framework to varying degrees. The system seems to work reasonably well. We should look at that model very carefully. There is one aspect about it which I find attractive. It is that the public servant knows, when he accepts a certain class of employment within the Public Service, what political rights he has at the time of engagement. There might be some difficulty in the initial moments, but I am sure that sort of thing can be phased in without a great deal of difficulty.
The issue of the right of public servants to participate in political activities has been with us for a long time. With the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we, as defenders of the rights of the individual, will have to make a decision quickly on the political rights of those who provide counsel to the Government. At issue is the fundamental relationship of the Canadian political system, with Parliament at its core, to the federal Public Service.
Canadians have a tradition going back many generations of being able to approach public servants without having to consider their political affiliation, or that of the public servant with whom they deal, and how it might make a difference in their treatment. I am proud of that tradition, as I think are all Canadians. In that regard we have set a world standard. I hold our Public Service in the same high standard as observers from foreign lands who have seen and studied the systems and operations both here and in other countries. For those individuals working in the Public Service, the present situation offers them perhaps the best career opportunities in Canada, where advancement is based firmly on the principle of merit, not on whom one knows, not on one's political connections, not on buying one's way to the top with influence or wealth. Canada has stubbornly rejected the American system of "across the board" high-level purges and firings when a new administration is voted into office. The Canadian Public Service has been impartial and, equally important, has been seen to be impartial since Confederation. A very notable thing happened in 1984 when in this country we had a democratic

February 7, 1986
Public Service
revolution. There was no political purge of the Public Service. I hope all Canadians and all Members of the House take note of that.
The very creation of a management category in the federal Public Service is predicated upon the goal of encouraging professionalism, merit and impartiality in the category of senior managers charged with effectively delivering needed Government programs to Canadians in all regions of the country. That falls into two parts-the creation of policy or offering policy alternatives to be decided upon by persons in the House and then, once decided upon, their delivery across the nation.
A great deal of energy and expense has gone into honing the skills of these fine and capable men and women, the majority of whom, from my experience, are genuinely instilled with a desire to be of true public service. Are we to clean shop every time a new Government is elected? What a waste. Nevertheless, a Public Service with certain political rights and freedoms is clearly an idea whose time has come. Which of the many issues in today's complex and whirlwind society that profoundly affect Canadians has not sorely tempted all Canadian citizens, including those who might happen to work in the federal Public Service, to voice their opinions to friends, to co-workers, to editors of newspapers, to their clergy and, perhaps more important, to their Members of Parliament? When is this hypothetical public servant about whom I speak to be considered as criticizing his or her employer on any of these issues? When does freedom of expression become political activity? By responding to a heartfelt emotion and appearing in a peace march? By reacting with honest emotion and concern over the shooting of a police officer and writing to a Member of Parliament about reinstating capital punishment? Which of today's pressing issues does not touch, at least in some way, the mandate of one of the hundreds of federal Government Departments, programs or agencies?
Surely it is obvious that a case can be made that almost any issue one cares to name falls in some way under federal jurisdiction. Common sense tells us that the issue of political rights of public servants is far more encompassing and pervasive than just the freedom to criticize politically the "employer". Have we really sounded out the views of public servants in an adequate fashion? Has the consultative process been complete? Do we fully understand whether public servants want to be involved and want to have total political rights?
In any case, the matter warrants serious examination. It should be studied, ideally it seems to me, in a respected and existing forum in which representatives of both the employer and employees can air their views constructively, suggest and discuss approaches, and arrive at a mutually agreeable course of action for consideration by the House.
Another reason that the time has come for the granting of certain specific political rights and privileges to public servants is that there is a great deal of intellect, expertise and ability to be found in the ranks of public servants. My constituents, many of them people of logic, compassion and talent, of all political stripes, make this Chamber the worthy institution
that is it. The federal Public Service, from my experience, has a large share of that kind of person. The Public Service is a great resource to the country, not just as a large employer. In it can be found men and women of great distinction who work in many cases far harder than many people in the private sector. It is a shame not to be making better use of this resource. We have sitting Members in the House who are veterinarians, pharmacists, lawyers, chartered accountants, why not public servants? Certain constituencies, particularly around the National Capital Region, are assured of having residing in their midst future Mike Pearsons or John Diefen-bakers with a great contribution to make to their country. Not just individual ridings, but the Parliament of Canada would be better served if these people could be brought into this House by the voters to share their gifts and participate in the free political process as all Canadians can.
The Government has every hope that this will soon be a reality and that the basic provisions contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be realized by as many public servants as possible. However, if we work hard enough and are smart enough, with adequate consultation with affected parties, which has been an overriding principle of this Government since it has been elected, the final result should be a Bill of enduring value and a real credit to all Members of this House. Only then should a fully thought-out piece of legislation be presented for debate and consideration, with all clauses having been thoroughly thought through in their scope and in their immediate and long-term implications, and without political impartiality entering into it.
I welcome the opportunity to share with the House some of my thoughts on the issue of political rights for public servants, on the need for this Parliament to provide public servants with much needed access to the political process, so they are not political eunuchs in the future. I very much hope that in the days ahead all of my colleagues will be able, in a unanimous fashion, to endorse legislation that will extend the political rights of public servants over and beyond what they now enjoy. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to comment briefly on the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), concerning the right of public employees to full political participation.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) who started by saying that it was not a matter for political partisanship, and that for a number of members from the National Capital Region, it was quite obvious that there were Liberals and Conservatives and New Democrats among public employees.
During the last twenty-five or thirty years, all Members from the National Capital Region have been trying to find some way for federal public employees, who are in the majori-
February 7, 1986

ty in the National Capital Region, to be free of any constraint on their political liberties and stop being second-class citizens.
Mr. Speaker, for years we have been hearing speeches and a lot of well-meaning phrases in the House, full of a desire to give public employees the right to take part in certain political activities.
We saw the split that occurred within the Public Service Commission in 1979, during the Quebec referendum, when we were unable to determine whether a referendum did or did not constitute a political activity.
Public employees were sent ambiguous messages, just as they were in February 1984 before the last general election.
Mr. Speaker, we should stop these well-meaning speeches and we say, now that we have the opportunity, that this Bill or rather this motion should be referred to committee. And why not? In committee, studies can be made, witnesses heard and just about anything can be done, to find a solution that will give public employees the same privileges as all other residents of the National Capital Region and across Canada. I refer specifically to the National Capital Region because that is where we probably have the largest number of public employees.
Mr. Speaker, the best thing to do, now that everyone has been praising our hon. friend from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), saying what a marvelous motion this is ... My hon. friend from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), who underscored the words of my colleague from Ottawa Centre on the motion before the House, well, I suggest that if everyone is agreeable-and I think everyone is, because just about everybody said the same thing about this motion-I suggest that we ask for the unanimous consent of the House to refer this motion immediately, without further debate, to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, for consideration.
So, I suggest we stop all this mutual admiration, and if everyone is agreed, I think we should act on my suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore suggest that you ask the unanimous consent of the House to refer immediately the motion by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to committee, for consideration.


John Horton McDermid: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate?


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order. I know that there are a number of people on our side who wish to address this issue and I feel that they must be given the opportunity to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize Hon. Members for debate if Members rise.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was a request for unanimous consent and I did not hear any
Public Service
nays. I heard one Member ask on a point of order and everyone else said yea-


Mr. Dick:: You're not in Ontario now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair saw the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) stand up on debate, so the Chair presumes there is no unanimous consent. On debate, the Hon. Member for Red Deer.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, although much debate has already centred on this important issue of political rights for public servants, once again this question surfaces in the House. The term public servant is self-defining. They are people entrusted with the responsibility of serving Canadians in an impartial and non-partisan manner. Public servants are responsible for advising the Government on matters and issues which affect the lives of every Canadian. This responsibility has, up to this day, taken precedence over the individual rights of public servants in the area of politics. They are also responsible for the application of policies and programs set forth by the Government. This requires the provision of nonpartisan and unbiased advice to Ministers on matters which must be dealt with by the Government. In the spirit of the British parliamentary tradition, the Government, and indeed the Public Service, have accepted the fact that certain restrictions be imposed on their rights as public servants to engage in various forms of political activity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

Order, please.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Members are not allowed to read from a prepared text. We are here to express our own views.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will allow the Hon. Member to proceed.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: Just ignore Miss Wonderful!


Thomas Gordon Towers: I have been around this House a lot longer than the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I think she still has a little something to learn.


John Horton McDermid: That's right.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the basic premise behind the principle of neutrality is one of trust, a trust that the Public Service has earned from both the Government and the Canadian public. It has earned the trust from the Government because of a reputation for offering advice that is untainted by partisan or political bias. This tradition goes back

February 7, 1986
Public Service
to the beginning of this century when laws were enacted to guarantee the neutrality of the Public Service. They were passed to ensure that it would not be used as a political tool by Governments and that Public Service positions would not be filled through patronage to further the cause of one political Party.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Private Members' Hour on behalf of myself, because that is what Private Members' hour is all about. It allows Members of Parliament to bring forth issues that are of importance to them. While we are extending the rights and privileges to public servants, there is one thing that must not be overlooked, and this has to do with an experience I personally had during the last federal election. A chief executive officer of one of the unions was a candidate for the constituency of Red Deer. He was funded partially by union dues. This was not fair to the members of that union because they had no choice as to whether or not they should pay their dues. They had to pay those dues in order to hold down their jobs. Of course, those dues or a portion of them went to support a candidate that was not of their choice.
When we are talking about political freedoms for the Public Service, I think we are going to have to take a serious look at that aspect of the matter. If the members of the union to which I was referring had paid dues of their own free will, I would not have any problem with this. However, they did not have any choice. They were forced to pay those dues and, as all Hon. Members know, those dues are quite substantial in a great many cases. When they are used for political purposes against the wishes of the union members to support a candidate not of their choice, I consider that to be an injustice and on of the things at which we must look when talking about giving civil servants freedoms.
Canadians expect as a right to be served in an impartial manner without consideration of their political beliefs or opinions. That right is a fact under the present regulations which ensure the political neutrality of the Public Service. The trust Canadians have in the Public Service extends to the Government, and it is conceivable that should citizens lose their confidence in the impartiality and neutrality of the Public Service, they may well lose their confidence in the Government.
The concept of neutrality extends to public servants themselves. Current regulations ensure that their careers and advancement are dictated by the merit principle. They are guaranteed protection from unfair or arbitrary dismissal or capricious career decisions due to political beliefs. This protection permits them to accomplish their responsibilities free from the fear that they may be subject to reprisals from new political leaders.
The last few years have brought a great many changes to the perceptions of individual rights and the balance between the rights and regulations governing the political rights of public servants. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression and of association for all Canadians, and that includes public servants. However, reasonable limitations must remain to ensure the impartiality and maintain the integrity of the Public Service. These limitations are required particularly in respect of those who are responsible for advising or counselling the Government on policy matters.
In examining the rights of public servants, we must not lose sight of the basic principle which I stated earlier, it being the trust that exists between the Canadian public and the Public Service. Whatever direction is finally decided upon must ensure that the confidence that has been developed be maintained and whatever trust exists between the Ministers and the Public Service must be protected to guarantee the impartiality of Government actions and programs.
I propose to the House that it would be unwise to proceed with the proposed Bill since it is the Government's firm intention to come to an understanding with the unions that would satisfy all parties and would deal with the aspect of this matter to which I referred a moment ago. I am sure all Hon. Members would agree that a solution should be arrived at that is mutually satisfactory.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that this Party has always believed that the best way to solve important issues facing the Government is to discuss them with the interested parties and to seek a mutually satisfactory agreement that this issue should be resolved in this manner. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux), has something he wishes to put before you at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as a private Member and as a representative of my Party, I would like to support the private Member's Bill put forward by the NDP Member on this particular issue. I think the Government has been confronted with a challenge at this point in time. Either it can support the private Member's Bill by agreeing to give it unanimous consent to move to committee or it can stonewall it. We see quite clearly that it is its intention to stonewall it by having Government Members speak until we reach the time at which a vote would be prevented from taking place.
For those Hon. Members who still do not know the rules, if in fact the debate on this issue ceases before five o'clock, there will be a vote on it and we will know where the Government stands on this issue. We do not know where the Government stands on this issue at the moment. Government Members are attempting to obfuscate the issue by talking the Bill out until five o'clock. It being 14 minutes to five, we are prepared to waive any future comment on this particular motion because we would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the Bill moved forward into committee. Again, we seek the unanimous consent of the House to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 7, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, I recognize the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux).


Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vaudreuil):: As a Member of Parliament, I too have the right to speak on Bills introduced in the House. Whether we are dealing with private Members' Bills or Government Bills, Mr. Speaker, I think I have the right to take the floor, and I would be grateful if my colleague would give me a break, considering that sometimes she seems to take that privilege for granted. Members on the other side often say that we never speak but when we do rise they say we should not speak. They will have to make up their mind one of these days, Mr. Speaker, and let us give our views on any legislative measure, whether private Bills from the NDP Members or from the Official Liberal Opposition. We are entitled to express our views and we intend to take part in the debate. Again I would point out to my colleague, whom we can hear from practically anywhere in the House whether her microphone is on or off, that even though I am a new Member in the House more private Members' Bills have been adopted in the last 15 months than in the 16 years under the previous administration. So, Mr. Speaker, we have made great progress in parliamentary reform, and if indeed Hon. Members want to be logical and if we want to have .. .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we have order and allow the Hon. Member to make his speech, please.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not easy to speak out when the Hon. Member is here, but I will try, in spite of her efforts to prevent the House and the Canadian public from hearing, to make my views known so that we may have the opinion of everybody about this important Bill. People, whether or not they belong to the Public Service, have basic rights which should be respected, but I believe we should look into the issue before accepting anything blindly as some would have us. Perhaps I should refer to my notes so that I won't put my foot in it. I shall continue by saying that the issue of political rights for civil servants deserves to be seriously and thoroughly examined. As a matter of fact, it is an issue which is raised each time there is an election, whether on the federal, provincial or municipal level. Thus a good many of us during the last election campaign, had to discuss the matter with our constituents to determine under what circumstances public servants could actively take part in the political process and when they should refrain from doing so.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Service should remain neutral as far as politics are concerned. If not, its credibility in the eyes of the Canadian public which it is called upon to serve would be jeopardized. Moreover, the Public Service Employment Act now in effect is there to ensure a certain degree of neutrality during election campaigns
Public Service
by restricting political activities of public servants. Thus the Act provides as follows and I quote:
No employee shall
(a) engage in work for, on behalf of or against a candidate ... or engage in
work for, on behalf of or against a political party;
However, this legislation provides that an employee does not contravene the legislation when he attends a political meeting or contributes to a candidate's fund. Moreover, public servants can stand as candidates to an election provided that they have previously obtained leave without pay for such a purpose.
Clearly, in the discharge of his responsibilities a Deputy Minister has to avoid any political partisanship. This is selfevident, Mr. Speaker, and of course there must be neutrality if operations are not to become very difficult, whatever the Government or the official concerned. To the same extent, various other officials must be absolutely neutral as regards Government policy. Indeed, when the Public Service Commission considers an application for leave submitted by any official wishing to be a candidate in an election, it takes into account the employee's group and level, to preclude any doubt in the public's mind as to the possibility of the official involved being in a conflict of interest situation.
Such a neutrality, which has been a tradition ever since the turn of the century and accepted as a rule, is viewed by some people as contrary to the basic principle of the rights and freedoms of public servants. An increasing number of people seem to share that view, especially since 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed. The Charter guarantees freedom of expression and, I believe, even for Members of Parliament, the freedom of thought, belief and opinion for all Canadians, and of course federal civil servants for that matter.
We should therefore look at the nature and scope of the limitations imposed upon civil servants in the area of freedom of expression and association. Perhaps we should even question the concept that they do not enjoy the freedom of speech in matters political and that they must seriously restrain their activities in that area.
Any restriction to the rights as enshrined in the Charter must be justifiable. Any change made to the provisions dealing with federal civil servants must both be in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and take heed of the concept of political neutrality in the Public Service. Any scrutiny of the matter of the right civil servants have to take part in political life must keep a fair balance between the rights of civil servants in light of the Charter on the one hand, and the neutrality of the Public Service on the other.
To the extent that we can safeguard the impartiality of the Public Service, the Government shares the view that the restrictions now in force concerning political activities of public servants should be mitigated. However, caution should be exercized in that respect, because it would be unacceptable,

February 7, 1986
Public Service
Mr. Speaker, to jeopardize the neutrality of the Public Service. This would involve reconsidering the concept of a permanent public service operating on the merit principle, a public service capable of serving the Government of the day with great objectivity and in line with the best interests of the Canadian people. Some questions remain-for instance, would a highly politically involved public servant still be in a position to provide the Government with his best advice? Could he remain objective and impartial? Would that same public servant be protected against arbitrary decisions that might affect his career? Could he be guaranteed that his promotions would be based on the merit principle?
Would he be protected against an unjustified discharge? It seems difficult to believe so, Mr. Speaker.
The Federal public servant knows that his future does not depend on the political party in power. He knows that the merit principle gives him some security. He has some means of redress as concerns decisions which affect his career. Perhaps because of these reasons, he may not wish to question the principle of his exclusion from the political scene, but is this a reason to refuse this right to the entire Public Service?
In any case, any examination of the neutrality of the Public Service and the right of public servants to take part in political activities will have to be made in consultation with the unions and will have to take into account public opinion on the matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is convinced that a proper balance can be reached in this area. Moreover, the Government will do everything possible to attain this balance.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, the numerous interventions of my colleague who had the possibility of speaking a few moments ago when you recognized her and decided to sit down-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Kill the Bill. You've got four more minutes to kill it.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I intend to use-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Mrs. Mailly:: Keep quiet, cry baby.
Mr. Speaker, I must protest. Will we have to listen to personal references until 5 o'clock and waste our time in this way?
We are discussing a serious subject and the Hon. Member should leave if she is not interested.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) and I hope that she will continue to defend me, but with your permission and notwithstanding the unwarranted interference of the Hon. Member who seems to preach the right to speak in this House, but who is always preventing others from saying what they wish without any partisan interruption, I propose to use the time allotted to me today, Mr. Speaker, and if necessary, 1 shall continue on Monday, if I have unanimous consent.
As I was trying to say earlier, and I shall try once more, perhaps the population-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on a point of order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I regret the fact that it appears the Bill will be talked out. However, I certainly would appeal to Hon. Members on all sides to work within their caucuses, particularly the government caucus, to ensure that next time we can in fact bring this to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, that is not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would like to reiterate that if these Hon. Members are in fact speaking from their heart, and in their opinion-


An Hon. Member:: That's not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -why is it that they are all reading from prepared texts-


An Hon. Member:: That's not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Because they intend to kill the Bill.


An Hon. Member:: That's not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why don't they just tell the truth?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why don't they just tell the truth Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -that they want to kill the Bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order! Please stay calm. There are only two minutes left. Let us keep calm. The Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux) has the floor.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope I will get my last two minutes because I think I am entitled to speak when I want to speak as a private Member in this House. I believe I am a Member of this House still and I intend to be here for a hell of a long time.
February 7, 1986


An Hon. Member:: That's right.


Pierre H. Cadieux: And I am going to use every occasion I have to speak on Bills whether or not it pleases my colleagues opposite.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A Government lackey, killing the Bill.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, because I do believe we are here-


Sheila Maureen Copps: A Government lackey.


Claudy Mailly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
Public Service


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is abusing my rights as a Member of this House. I wish you would help us. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is denying us our rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux) but the hour set aside for Private Members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 10, 1986