1989-12-08

Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me very great honour to note on behalf of all members of this House that Sunday marks the forty-first anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
When the universal declaration was adopted without a dissenting voice by the young United Nations organization on December 10, 1948, it immediately established itself as the fundamental expression of the highest hopes and ideals of the human spirit. It remains so to this day.
For most of these 41 years, however, the anniversary of the declaration has served more as a reminder of how far human action has fallen short of its principles than of their attainment. If this year is different, it is because today we have reason to believe and hope that the balance is, at long last, beginning to change.
In recent weeks we have witnessed extraordinary events. In Brazil and in Uruguay there were held the first free elections in years. In Namibia and in South Africa developments which, while they have far yet to go, cannot be ignored. India, the world's largest democracy,
went to the polls and again reaffirmed the triumph of freely-elected representative government.

What can we say, Mr. Speaker, about the events in eastern Europe?
It would be pointless to try to describe in a few words the images and feelings which come to us every day from Warsaw, Budapest, Sophia, Berlin, Prague and other cities and which have so much immediate personal significance for so many Canadians.

What will not fail, what is undeniable, is the need for freedom and the need for dignity, the need for those equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family which lie at the heart of the universal declaration itself. They have proven stronger and more enduring than either the instruments of repression or the blandishments of states and institutions which have so long denied these rights.
No less important is the vision and compassion with which this great journey is beginning. In Leipzig, on November 9, the same night that the Berlin wall finally opened, the crowds answered the call of New Forum by the tens of thousands as they had on previous nights. They assembled not only to renew the call for change, they also met to observe and remember the events of 41 years earlier, November 9, 1938-Kristalnacht, Crystal Night-and what happens when a society forgets that human rights are inseparable, that they must belong to all or eventually they will belong to none.
Disrespect and contempt for human rights can only lead to acts of barbarism, as the Declaration itself reminds us. It is very encouraging for the future that the new societies in eastern Europe are arising from a recognition of this.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, none of us can forget that full respect for human rights remains one of the major challenges of civilization.

December 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings

Millions of people in the world live under regimes which continue to deny their citizens the rights and freedoms most Canadians take for granted.
Countless countries around the world still practice torture. Thousands die annually at the hands of death squads. Thousands more simply disappear. And if this is a year which we will remember by the end of the Berlin wall, it is also a year we will remember by what happened in Tiananmen Square.
It is so important therefore that we observe December 10, Eluman Rights Day, not only for the progress that has been achieved this remarkable year, but also for the distance we must yet travel.

I hope that as Canadians, we will use that day to think seriously about these basic principles of freedom and justice and to ask ourselves what each of us can do to promote them.

Many Canadians have made and continue to make exemplary and inspiring contributions to the fight for human rights around the world. But I would ask that we think about the work yet to be done to secure those rights here in our own country as well.

Our Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our laws and democratic institutions all show a deep national commitment to the principles of equality and justice.
Nevertheless, prejudice and discrimination still exist in many parts of our society. Whether they are based on colour, race, religion, language or any other difference between Canadians, they are an affront to the dignity and freedom of every one of us.

With this so important anniversary clearly in mind, I therefore call upon Canadians to share in accepting the responsibilities of citizenship as readily as we accept its privileges, and that we join together to eliminate discrimination and prejudice which continue to deny equal rights to many in our society.
Canada has long stood as a symbol of freedom and liberty to many of the world's peoples. By working to ensure the full participation of all Canadians in the life of our fortunate country, we will continue to do honour to that tradition and to that obligation. No less, we will confirm the inherent dignity, the equal and inalienable rights which must be the common inheritance of every Canadian, as instead they must be of all mankind.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too am honoured on behalf of members of the Official Opposition to recognize the occasion of the forty-first anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration entitles everyone to equal treatment without distinction based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Canada, of course, fully endorses this and has, in fact, used this declaration as a basis for our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as brought in by this party in the early 1980s.
It is unfortunate though that Canada has not played a more substantive role in promoting these goals internationally. We have the ability and the international credibility among the world community to encourage human rights developments, but Canada's approach has been inconsistent. Wherever we go to attend meetings, Canada is the first country to say, as the Prime Minister leaves, that we are in favour of human rights and that we will raise human rights issues.
When we went to the Commonwealth, the government said it was going to raise human rights concerns. When it came back, it said nothing. When this government joined the Organization of American States, it said that one of its priorities was human rights, but it came back and said nothing.
We could be playing a major role in the struggle in El Salvador. If we are going to be using the Organization of American States properly, this is an opportunity for us to state what the protection of human rights really means in a troubled country. We have been silent on that issue. We have not used the Organization of American States. We have not used our own goodwill in a troubled part of the world. I use this as an example only because it is the most current example of the problems that we face in trying to persuade the government to use Canada's goodwill in international forums to promote the human rights that we value so dearly.
December 8, 1989

Why have we not raised our objections to this and other issues? What about the disturbing increase in human rights violations in Guatemala or in East Timor? What do we hear these days from our government about China, or about the events in Ethiopia? The government waits far too long and allows Canada's great record to fall behind as events unfold.
The 1987 report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade entitled For Whose Benefit? states:
Canada's performance on international human rights to date has
been criticized as episodic and primarily reactive.
This government has obviously chosen not to pay attention to this observation. I would like to ask why we are not more consistently outspoken against human rights abuses, when members of this House, including members of all parties, feel very strongly about this.
This human rights declaration is not just a statement. By being a signatory, Canada has accepted to demonstrate a commitment to human rights around the world and at home.
We do not want to try to impose our beliefs, our values and our institutions on other countries, but Canada has an obligation to assist other nations in recognising the value of a free and democratic society where individual rights and freedoms are fully respected and protected.
Clearly, that is what people want; and, clearly, it is not what we are hearing enough about from this government. We are witnessing this almost daily with the dramatic changes taking place in the eastern bloc. As we watch changes take place both within the Soviet Union and in eastern European countries the silence of our government on human rights issues has been one that most Canadians cannot understand or accept. Canada can and should be confident in stating our views to other nations when it comes to human rights abuses.
I would also like to say that this party joined with the other two parties of the House in forming a new subcommittee of the Human Rights Committee on international human rights. As participants on this committee we plan to set out a research agenda and bring in witnesses from the various interest groups around this country who want to hear Canada speak out more consistently on human rights. Through the work of this subcommittee we hope that the government will begin to understand the tradition that this House has held in areas of human rights and begin to speak out on our
Routine Proceedings
behalf. We look forward to working with other members of the House to present this case to the government.
Unfortunately, our own government and this country cannot claim total innocence in the violation of human rights. Our own Canadian Human Rights Commission clearly pointed out our negligence when dealing with people facing poverty, homelessness, undernourishment, child and spouse abuse, racial discrimination and, of course, the tragic situation facing our native people.
As a member of Parliament from Manitoba, I can tell you that issue is uppermost in the minds of people from my province, as the aboriginal commission on the state of the justice community in dealing with native rights has come to an end. We await the report. We do hope the government will respond as quickly as possible.
It is also incomprehensible as to why this government has not acted more rapidly in developing a children's bill of rights within this country, and why Canada has not yet signed the UN declaration against torture, and why Canada has chosen not to ensure automatic refugee status to those escaping repressive regimes.
This Universal Declaration of Human Rights has tried to provide a guideline for all nations to respect the rights of all persons. We truly support the objective of this declaration. But to support it is not enough. It is only through the actions of our government that we can ensure equal treatment for all people.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have been delegated by my party on behalf of my leader to join with hon. members on all sides in the observation of the forty-first anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is particularly noteworthy that I should do so when my party has given substance to the dream that men and women equally should aspire to equal political participation. In Canada, on this day, we are encouraged to express the broader hope foreseen in the UN declaration and that in this country every citizen, regardless of colour, race, language, religion and disability will some

Government Orders
day see a similar confirmation of full citizenship and participation in all walks of Canadian life.
Beyond our borders there are other signs that provide hope of. progress toward the achievement of the ideal supported with such unanimous idealism 41 years ago. Television screens have provided dramatic images of the changes in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria which mirror the near-revolutionary impact of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union itself.
Yes, we are encouraged by elections in Brazil, Uruguay, India and Namibia and by mildly encouraging signs in southern Africa. Surely, the tenuous basis of our optimism was severely tested by the bloody massacre in Tiananmen Square.
As we-look elsewhere can we say that religious conflict and intolerance, torture by governments and the disappearance of dissidents, genocidal nationalistic conflicts, denials of basic human rights and justice, exploitation of the poor and suppression of democracy have in any fundamental way diminished?
Are we gaining a greater recognition as we in the developed nations continue to foul the earth and greedily consume most of its resources and impose escalating debt on the Third World, that we ourselves are negating all hope that three-quarters of the world's population will indeed ever be able to live lives in environments that can sustain them or where humans rights and freedom have any real value or relevance?
For Canadians, do we see a strengthening or diminishing by our government of Canada's traditions in defence of freedom and the pursuit of peace? In NATO are we the leaders for disarmament or are we the mere echoes for our U.S. allies? In Central America are we voices for a different way? Have we lost our resolve in southern Africa?
Here at home where the events of yesterday dramatize the inhumanity of human kind, have we made real progress in terms of the kind of understanding between the sexes that we had hoped to achieve and which was symbolized by my leader's victory?
Is it possible to argue that Canada acts in a way consistent with the dream enunciated in the universal
declaration when we have 1.1 million children living in poverty, when more and more Canadians go to food banks in order to eat, when so many are without homes in which to live, and when there is increasing disparity between rich and poor? One asks whether one can say that we are making progress even in our own country for producing those conditions which are necessary to achieve the ideals of the universal declaration.
In that context, it would be useful for our government to recognize whether, in fact, it is now acting in terms of those higher ideals, or whether this new pursuit of the ends of greed really are or ever can be consistent with the universal declaration. Can we have a nation in which there are people who hunger for jobs and hunger for food and at the same time expect there to be inter-racial understanding? Can we have a nation in which the imperatives are those of wealth and still have the hope that our aboriginal peoples will have control over their own lives? Is it possible to engender conflict among people worried about their future and truly seek to have understanding among those of different cultures and who live in different regions of the country?
Here at home we have enough to be concerned about, but unless we are able to transfer our ideals in terms of understanding and accepting the differences within our own borders and having as our highest imperative that to ensure all people have equal opportunity, economically and elsewhere within our own borders, one has to ask whether there is any hope for us to provide leadership in ensuring that those ideals that we talk about today will in fact be the basis for our future on this earth.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That debate on the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-49 and on any amendments proposed thereto shall not be further adjourned.

Government Orders


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The hon. member for Quebec-Est on a point of order. [Translation]


Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, since I have been appointed Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-49 and considering the attendant responsibilities, I abstained from voting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Parkdale- High Park on a point of order.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote because I walked in after the vote began, but I abhor any closure motions in a democratic government.

December 8, 1989


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the horrible tragedy which took place on Wednesday in Montreal confirms that it is still too easy to acquire powerful and lethal firearms. If we are genuinely serious in wanting to stop this sort of crime, then we must take definite steps to better control the availability of these deadly weapons. Each time we tighten our gun-control laws there is a reduction in gun-related crime.
In the circumstances, I want to recommend the following that, one, there should be a mandatory two-week waiting period before any firearms' acquisition certificate is issued. Two, the FAC should be required to purchase ammunition as well as weapons. Three, we should require any applicant for an FAC to obtain the signature of two guarantors from the community who would support the application. Four, the FAC should be renewable every two years rather than every five years; and five, the government should designate the STRUM semi-automatic rifle as a restricted weapon.
Stricter gun laws are not the entire answer but they will help reduce this type of crime.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the needs of our environment for cleaner and safer ways to produce energy both here at home and around the world. Canadians are also becoming increasingly aware that nuclear energy and technology is an essential element in any policy to meet the world's future energy requirements, particularly Canada's nuclear power technology which ranks as the best in the world, both in terms of design and proven performance.
Therefore, I want to commend our government on the support which has been provided to Canadian nuclear
energy development and to encourage further continued investment which will be required to advance our nuclear technology, particularly toward the construction of the prototype CANDU III reactor, hopefully to be located in New Brunswick.
The Candu III concept appears to offer new design horizons in performance, cost and safety, for clean nuclear power generation on a scale to help solve the growing world need for electricity in an environmentally effective way.
I am convinced that the time is rapidly approaching when Canadian world leadership in nuclear energy technology will prove to be a critical and compelling factor in helping to solve the earth's intensifying environmental dilemma, particularly with regard to atmospheric pollution and global warming. We must continue to provide that leadership.


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, housing in Canada is in a crisis, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, where rental vacancy rates are only .5 per cent. Yet, this government now refuses to pay its share of the cost of the Toronto Seniors Central Housing Registry which helps seniors find what little affordable housing there is available.
In June, 1987, the registry was officially opened by the Ontario government and by David Crombie, representing the federal government, who gave a commitment for joint funding.
In October, 1988, at the height of the federal election, CMHC conferred upon the registry a national housing award for innovation in seniors housing. However, once the election was over it reneged on its promise to provide funding. The registry is now on the verge of closure.
I call upon this government and the Minister of Housing to meet with Metropolitan Toronto representatives, including Councillor Roger Hollander to resolve the funding impasse. This needed service for seniors cannot be arbitrarily abandoned by a heartless government.
December 8, 1989


ISOLATED COMMUNITY STATUS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Mayor Jacques Berube, speaking on behalf of the people of Chapais, has written to the Minister of Finance of Canada, urging him to let the town keep its status of isolated post. The loss of these tax benefits will inevitably and tragically contribute to the exodus of workers to the south.
Chapais has no government services as such. Its residents must travel long distances by car to obtain special services or specialized care which are mostly available in Chicoutimi, 378 kilometres away or Quebec City, 524 kilometres away.
The Quebec government has set the southernmost boundary of Quebec's northern region at the 49th parallel.
Mr. Speaker, life in the north is harsh, isolated and expensive. We have very little compared to the south, and we are producers rather than consumers.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, in commemorating human rights day our government earlier in the day indicated a desire to match deeds with our words on the subject of human rights.
The new Government of India with a new Prime Minister disposed to respecting religious freedoms in the Punjab and elsewhere in the Indian subcontinent gives us such an opportunity. V. P. Singh, the Prime Minister of the world's largest democracy, has taken steps to heal political wounds emanating from religious persecutions.
Thousands have died since the attack on the Golden Temple in 1984. Police brutality evidenced by the so-called encounter killings, systematic rape of defenceless women in the Punjab, political persecutions, arrests, and torture in jails must come to an end. Our government should exert moral pressure to enhance V. P. Singh's initiatives and also provide tangible evidence of support
by establishing a permanent diplomatic presence in the Punjab.


CANADIAN POLISH CONGRESS
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, the Council of Canadian Polish Congress is holding important deliberations in Ottawa today and this weekend.
The council consists of division presidents and presidents of central organizations and has an important voice in the affairs of the Canadian Polish Congress.
Poles have thrived in Canada and we have contributed our own distinctive colour to the multicultural quilt of Canadian society. The 400,000 Canadians of Polish origin have also kept a special place in their hearts for Poland, as all Canadians witnessed during Mr. Walesa's recent visit to Canada.
It is my deepest hope that as eastern Europe is alive with joy and hope and great expectations, we recognize Poland as a key part of that bright new future.
May the friendship between Canada and Poland continue to develop and promote opportunities for Canadian business to channel our expertise and assist Poland on its courageous course toward a market-oriented economy.
Again, congratulations to the Canadian Polish Congress.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, at least one in ten is beaten by the man she lives with; one woman in four is sexually assaulted or abused; a woman is raped in Canada every 17 minutes. For women, violence and the threat of violence is an everyday occurrence. Both as children and as adults women are sexually abused and assaulted in their homes and in their communities. They are the victims of crime in the streets. They are subject to harassment in their places of work. They are degraded through violent pornography that perpetuates lies about women.
The horrifying massacre of 14 young women in Montreal was an extreme manifestation of violence against women. I know that we all grieve together. Members of this House must concern themselves seriously with the sexist and violent attitudes in our society, with the

December 8, 1989
structures that enable everyday violence and such extreme violence to occur.
As Members of Parliament we have a responsibility to change our society so that women may be full and equal participants.


FORESTRY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it was with great pleasure that I learned the government of Canada has concluded negotiations with the province of New Brunswick and is now in a position to sign a new federal-provincial forestry agreement.
The forestry sector is the largest single industry in New Brunswick employing over 38,000 people both directly and indirectly. It accounts for 47 per cent of the province's total exports. This $91 million agreement will provide the essential funding to ensure and enhance the future management of this vital resource.
The Minister of Forestry has remained steadfast in his strong commitment to forestry in New Brunswick throughout this long and involved negotiation process. I know I speak for all my colleagues, particularly the Member for Fundy-Royal and the Member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury who happens to chair the forestry subcommittee when I say how pleased I am to see that this agreement has finally been concluded.
  *


VIETNAM
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, today in the Centre Block of the House of Commons over 100 people from the Vietnamese Canadian community are meeting to form the original chapter in Canada of the International Committee for a Free Vietnam.
Canada now has more than 120,000 people from Vietnam who have emigrated as a result of the difficulties in that country. This international committee has members not only from the Vietnamese community but also from all parties in the House of Commons and the
Senate. This Parliament is showing its support of the struggle they have with the government in Vietnam.
There are several things we think the government can do on behalf of the Vietnamese people. It can help pressure the Vietnamese government for new respect for freedom of religion for the people; new respect for the cultural traditions and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Vietnamese people. We should request the immediate release of all political prisoners, all public servants and military personnel of the former regime and all religious ministers presently detained in re-education camps. It can help allow religious and charitable organizations to carry out relief activities directly within Vietnam in the areas of health and food assistance. It can help develop respect within that country for freedom of information for both domestic and foreign news media.
I also call upon the government to work more diligently in helping families with family reunification problems throughout the refugee camps in Asia.


FIREARMS CONTROL
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, no one could remain unmoved by the tragic events in Montreal. Fourteen young women, in the flower of their youth, killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon.
Why are weapons of this kind allowed in Canada? Why do we let people own such dangerous and destructive weapons? For recreational purposes? That doesn't make sense. Protecting the public and public safety should be our prime concern. A mother doesn't let her children play with knives. She knows something might happen. She acts preventively.
I therefore urge my fellow members and my government to take action to ban the possession of such weapons in Canada.
* >k *


PEARSON AIRPORT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, residents adjacent to Pearson Airport are going to be
December 8, 1989

abused once again. News reports suggest that the sonic boom created by the Concorde jet is about to contribute to the noise and emission pollution adjacent to Pearson Airport on a weekly basis.
Residents of the area have already been complaining of the lack of citizen participation in the environmental assessment of the runway extension program. They should have their own representative on the Environmental Assessment panel to ensure that the concerns of area residents are addressed properly. They should also have the right to a full environmental impact study on the introduction of any new, large-scale aircraft into Pearson Airport. Specifically, there should be a full environmental impact study conducted on the proposed Concorde service before permission to use Pearson is granted by the Government of Canada.
We, on this side of the Elouse, call on the government to initiate such a study now.


POLISH CANADIAN CONGRESS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Gan Dobre, Mr. Speaker! I have the privilege of welcoming to Ottawa and especially to this place members of the many Polish Canadian organizations that make up the Polish Canadian Congress, the official body representing the interests of Polish Canadians here and abroad.
They are in Ottawa today for their annual general meeting at which they will discuss, among many other things, their future co-operation with the Canada-Po-land Business Council which has recently been incorporated to facilitate Canadian and Polish economic co-operation. A good working relationship between the two working groups will speed up the economic recovery of eastern Europe.
While the recent changes to the political environment in Poland and the Eastern Bloc have astonished, even amazed the world, there is simply no time to waste, no time for us to stand back, watch and wait.
I encourage this government, all organizations, and all individuals who can contribute in any way to begin now. We must ensure that these economically fragile countries survive the sudden change from totalitarianism to
democracy and take their rightful place among first world nations.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the strike, which has closed the St. Lawrence Seaway, again reminds western Canadians where the NDP really stands.
The NDP does not hesitate to support the demands of big labour while prairie farmers are struggling to get by. The NDP members stand in this place pretending to support prairie agriculture while, at the very same time, they filibuster and delay much needed back to work legislation.
Some one million tonnes of grain bound for export is being held up thereby tarnishing Canada's reputation abroad and hurting our producers here at home. Where is the outcry of indignation from Saskatchewan NDP members? There is none and there will be none. Their silence exposes the hypocrisy of the NDP who pay lip-service to prairie farmers while dancing to the tune of their real masters, the big eastern labour bosses.


TRAGEDY IN MONTREAL
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I was incredulous and astonished when I heard the news of the carnage at the Ecole Polytechnique. I am deeply saddened by this senseless act.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine that anyone whould commit such a crime. It is hard not to lose one's faith in mankind. This outrage should make all Canadians stop and think about the kind of society we have today. We are too easily inclined to tolerate various forms of violence in our society.
The families of these young women need to know that we support them in their grief, because these families will now have to live with the loss of a daughter, a sister, a granddaughter, a niece or a friend.
We can only hope that the personal faith of the persons who have been affected by these events, the support of their friends and relatives and the solidarity shown by millions of Canadians will give them some comfort at this time of suffering, and in the months and years to come.

December 8, 1989
Oral Questions
I want to join all members of this House in extending my condolences to all those who mourn their loss today.


NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask all Canadians to help improve highway safety, especially during national highway safety week.
The week's theme is: "Courtesy is-". We should realize how important attitudes are when driving, since they have a direct impact on the safety of road users, including ourselves and our passengers.
Eighty-five per cent of highway accidents are due to human error, speeding, neglecting to yield and reckless driving.
If drivers were courteous and acted responsibly, most collisions could probably be avoided.
I invite you all to support the efforts of the Canada Safety Council during national highway safety week.
You can help make our highways safer.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, we are all in mourning after the tragedy in Montreal but Canadian women bear a double burden, the burden of sorrow and the burden of terror.
Wednesday night's catastrophe was just the extreme of the continuum of violence against women that Canadians face every day.
Will the Prime Minister respond to the overwhelming atmosphere in this country and agree to the appointment of a joint House and Senate committee to seek solutions to the all-pervasive problem of violence against women in Canada?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, all of us are searching our hearts for a way in which we can deal with the
tragedy that has befallen the young women this week, and particularly their families.
In terms of what our government's role must be, it must continue to be to try to reduce violence within our society through a number of ways. First, as the hon. member knows, a year ago we introduced the largest addition of funding for family violence which is a very fundamental factor in many of these cases. Over the coming months there will be more options developed in terms of how we deal with this issue with which we are all trying to come to grips.
Let me say as well that it is much broader than this, and I want to use an example. This morning on Canada AM some of the journalists covering this very tragic event did so with great sensitivity. They then went on to review a movie which was supposed to be a comedy which deals with the violence between husbands and wives. It is so pervasive to try and accept that this is a normal part of our society, and our government intends to play its role in dealing with this issue.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, intending to play a role is fine but concrete action would be better.

My question is again directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, a number of representatives of various women's groups got in touch with me, from various parts of Canada, to talk about the events in Montreal.
Does the Prime Minister intend to consult with these groups immediately, in order to take advantage of their expertise and help wipe out violence against women?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I went to the University of Montreal, at the Ecole Polytechnique, where I met a number of students, both men and women, as well as members of the board, to offer the sincere condolences of all members of this House.
I also spoke to some of the women students about the nature of the problem just raised by the hon. member.
Today's questions concern one of the most serious problems in our society. We are using any number of means to try to wipe out violence, while in many other ways we are encouraging violence. Increasingly, this violence is directed against family members but especially against women, in a society that calls itself civilized.
December 8, 1989

This is a matter of grave concern for me personally and for the members of this government, and also, I am sure, for all hon. members.
We will act on all the suggestions that have been made, and I want to thank the hon. member for her comments. We intend, as a government and as a people, to deal with a situation that is having such a disastrous effect on the status of women and on social justice in this country.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I hope that soon we will hear the concrete plans of this government to act in this area.
Given that the most recent budget saw drastic cuts to the Secretary of State women's program, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking today to restore funding at the very least to those programs that deal with violence against women and accepted a 15 per cent cut.


Barbara Jean McDougall: 
GUN CONTROL
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: My question is for the Minister of Justice. People say that tough gun control legislation does not deter the professional criminal. The Montreal tragedy reminds us of the undeniable fact of crime in Canada and that most murders by firearms are not committed by professional criminals. Since we brought forward tough gun control legislation in 1978, firearm related crime has declined. I want therefore to ask the minister if he is prepared now to bring forward even tougher gun control legislation?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have been consulting for some time with the interest groups, the police
Oral Questions
officers' associations throughout the summer. My officials have been dealing with the interest groups on both sides of this issue in an effort to bring forward a package of amendments which will eliminate the further importation into Canada of automatic weapons, that is, weapons that are designed and manufactured and assembled to fire in the automatic mode.
Second, there is a package of what might be called housekeeping amendments. I can assure my hon. friend that within those amendments there are provisions to both eliminate administrative irritants and toughen gun control legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Just to get back to specifics, I would like to ask whether the Minister is prepared to impose a compulsory waiting period when an application is made for a firearms acquisition certificate, and whether he is prepared to require that each application include third-party character references.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think there is in fact a delay time between the application for the firearms acquisitions-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Same day service.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A delay in order to allow the officials to review the application and to do the checks that they want. However, my friend makes an interesting point. We are interested in improving legislation.
This law has been in place for 10 years and I think, by and large, it is working. But it can always be improved. That is the attitude we are taking. I think that this is the kind of thing that can be explored in debate. When we get to committee with the bill it is something that can be looked at there.


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It deals with published reports which indicate the government is prepared to now sell Petro-Canada completely.
Petro-Canada is a crucial public instrument to work for energy security, to work for environmentally safe energy development. The Prime Minister himself said in

December 8, 1989
Oral Questions
1985: "It is Conservative policy to maintain Petro-Cana-da."
Will the Prime Minister keep his promise to maintain Petro-Canada, or is this yet one more broken promise to the Canadian people?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision on Petro-Canada yet. If a decision is made by Cabinet it will be announced in the usual manner.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the minister has outlined to the Toronto Star a complete plan for the privatization of Petro-Canada.
Of course, as we have learned in this House, this is simply a kite being flown but I suspect it is in fact a plan being set out.

I have a question for the Minister of State responsible for privatization. The minister says that Canadian control in the oil sector is growing rapidly. Doesn't he know that his own government's statistics indicate Canadian control is now 3 to 5 per cent less than it was in 1985, when it was 43 per cent? Why is the minister prepared to reduce Canadian control even further in the oil industry?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not, in fact, reducing Canadian control of the oil industry.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in the past we have heard from this government that it did not plan to sell Air Canada. We heard that it planned to support VIA Rail. Now we hear it saying, "Of course, there is no plan to sell Petro-Canada," when in fact, the minister has outlined details to the newspaper saying that these are the ways in which it will be done. Clearly a kite is being flown in this case.
I ask the Prime Minister, why won't the Conservatives take no for an answer? Why won't they realize that the "no" which was given to the previous Conservative government is a no which deserves to be maintained for the future of this country and for the future of all of us in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in reports of the speech that the hon. gentleman made to his convention. I didn't see it but it was reported to me. He spoke very glowingly
of the dramatic and dynamic changes taken within the economies of eastern Europe.
One of the principal actions that they are taking in eastern Europe is the privatization of all kinds of industries to get the state off their back.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. We all know that a senseless killing occurred this week. A particularly disturbing aspect of this tragedy is that the killer singled out women as his victims. This fact has heiglitned the growing fear women have of going out at night.
I would like to know when-and no pretty speeches please!-the government intends to do something about the increase in violent acts against 52 per cent of our population.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, because this has been such an active file for us over the last three years we have taken some action and will be continuing more.
There is $40 million going toward the building of shelters, toward education, toward developing more options. This is a problem for all of society and not just for government, and this government has taken the lead in helping to protect women.
You may recall as well that in our last session we did introduce a bill having to do with pornography which I think is another contributing factor and the kind of thing on which we want to continue to take action.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, we were all deeply moved by the tragedy in Montreal. I would like the Prime Minister to answer the following question.
Our urban centres are fast becoming centres of aggression and violence against individuals, and especially against women. My question is as follows: Will the government start taking the problem of urban violence seriously and acknowledge that this problem has grown beyond the ability of municipal and provincial authorities
December 8, 1989

to control it, and will it agree to get actively involved? The money may be there, but how much has been spent?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, our actions to date have been very specific. There has never been a program that has pulled together all the kinds of initiatives that have been pulled together by this government. I think that has demonstrated the commitment of the Prime Minister and of this government. It is not a case of starting at the beginning. We are in the process of some very important initiatives that have to do with dealing with violence in our society, particularly in urban areas, and those initiatives will continue.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that our economy was in serious trouble. Today, we have seen a further increase in our unemployment rate. More than one million Canadians are out of work. According to some experts like Nesbitt Thompson, Montreal Trust, the Conference Board of Canada and even the Alberta Treasury, we are now either in a recession or on the brink of one. What new measures does the government have in mind to deal with this new situation?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member is misinterpreting what the Right Hon. Prime Minister said yesterday. He did acknowledge that we have a high level of interest rates, but that is in response to an economy that has been operating at a very high capacity, beyond its capacity to produce without inflationary pressures and we are seeing inflationary pressures. They are very clear.
I think it is important to realize that an economy cannot keep operating at those high levels the same way as an individual cannot run four-minute miles around a marathon course. What we are trying to do is manage some easing in the rate of growth in the economy so that
Oral Questions
we can get a reduction in interest rates. We all agree that lower interest rates are going to be helpful to this economy, but they can only happen when we are assured that the level of inflation has subsided.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. He is giving the same answers that he has given to this House since 1984, because he obviously does not realize that we face a new economic situation in Canada. It is not a question of our economy running a marathon. This government with its high interest rates and its high dollar is putting the brakes to an economy that is already stalled. These policies are driving jobs out of Canada. In the month of November alone, Canada lost 45,000 high paying jobs in the goods producing and manufacturing sectors.
When is the minister going to get off this high interest rates- high dollar policy? When is he going to recognize Canada's new economic realities?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite aware of the job creation capacity of this economy and the success that we have had in the period since we came into office in 1984. That has continued through and is still there this year.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Forty-five thousand jobs lost in manufacturing alone. That is in the last month.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member can use selective statistics to prove any case that he wants. The bottom line is that we have had a very successful economy over the course of the last five years and we are determined to keep that going over the years into the future. But there are signals of problems on the inflation front with which we must deal.
The hon. member shakes his head, because he forgets that in 1976 we had an inflation rate of 5.5 per cent that the government of the day swept under the carpet, ignored and within four or five years, we had inflation running at 13 percent and the high interest rates that were needed at that time to deal with that inflation problem.
Surely we have to understand how we can avoid those problems now and avoid the disaster that we ran into in 1981-1982. This is exactly what we are trying to do as a government.

December 8, 1989
Oral Questions GUN CONTROL


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, over three years ago the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police unanimously passed a resolution noting that there is presently a world-wide surplus of automatic and semi-automatic weapons, primarily designed for purposes of warfare, now finding their way into the Canadian marketplace.
Over three years ago, the then Conservative Minister of Justice promised to act soon to bring forward legislation to deal with this serious problem.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice today, as all Canadians are asking, how much longer must we wait before this Conservative government finally acts, not to ban all semi-automatic weapons as the Liberal Party has proposed, but to ensure that we finally have in this country, much tougher, more effective gun control legislation? Specifically, will the minister agree to table a bill on this important subject before the House rises at Christmas?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in the House, we have been consulting with the chiefs of police organization, the firearms protection officers from Canada, the Wildlife Federation, the Shooters Association, in an effort to come up with not only tougher firearms control legislation but firearms control legislation that works better for both the user and the enforcement officers.
I am not going to say yes, I am going to rush it in today, because it is not exactly where I want it in terms of being finalized. But I can say to my hon. friend, that it is very close to being finalized. When it is properly there, we will bring it into the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting three years for this legislation. It is long overdue.
I have an ad for a Mini-14 rifle which speaks of the rifle as one that: "speaks with real authority", and it talks about the possibility of having a 30-shot clip with the rifle, a 30-shot clip, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question. Would he be prepared to table
amendments here in the House to restrict the number of bullets that semi-automatic weapons can contain? Would the Minister be prepared, for example, to introduce a waiting period between the time a weapon is acquired and the time a permit is issued to the new owner? Would the Minister be prepared, for example, to finally proclaim the Criminal Code provisions which require firearms courses but have never been proclaimed since 1978?
When will this Conservative government finally act by bringing in new stricter weapons control legislation?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this is not something we started yesterday. It is something that was started in March, on my initiative, on the automatic weapon banning and looking at the FAC certificate fees and a series of amendments.
This law has been around for 10 years. Obviously any law that has been around for 10 years can be improved. We all realize that. We are moving to take out the irritants and to increase protection for the public.
My friend makes a good suggestion, a suggestion that I think is well worth looking at in committee where members from all sides can bring in experts, many of whom have been before my officials already, where we can try to improve it further. I welcome his participation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister is aware that approximately 100 Canadian leaders of Vietnam origin are here today and, in fact, most of them are in the gallery, from as far west as Vancouver to Quebec City, for the founding of the international branch of the International Committee for a Free Vietnam.
The minister will know, too, that untold numbers of priests, religious leaders, teachers, poets, trade union leaders, former businessmen, public servants, and soldiers are in custody in so-called re-education camps in Vietnam.
December 8, 1989

Will he tell the House what his government is currently doing on the eve of International Human Rights Day to push for greater human rights within Vietnam? Perhaps he would, in addressing that point and also recognizing the question of International Human Rights Day tomorrow, advise members of the House what he knows about the recent initiative in the Middle East with respect to the peace process?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me on behalf of other members of the House express our great satisfaction to the presence in the gallery of Canadian leaders of origin in Vietnam. Many of us have had the privilege of working with them now for more than a decade since actions were taken by a government I then had the honour to lead with respect to the boat people.
There is movement and change in Indo-China, but not as fast as in other parts of the world. We are urging that change move forward quickly with specific reference to the question of human rights abuses in Vietnam. We draw them to the attention of authorities in Vietnam regularly. The ambassador based in Bangkok is in that country regularly, and on each visit raises those issues.
I dispatched a special task force to the region earlier this spring. Those questions were raised then. Last year there were concerns about the fate of two Bhuddist monks. A Canadian intervention, among others, helped I believe to preserve the lives of those two individuals and we naturally will continue in that spirit.
With respect to the second question, Canada is very encouraged by the acceptance of U.S.A. Secretary Baker's five points by both Egypt and Israel. That is a most welcome and significant step toward eventual negotiation among the partners directly involved. That itself is a necessary step for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement. On behalf of the Government of Canada I would encourage all the parties to show maximum flexibility so that prospects for dialogue would not be encumbered by assumptions or by preconditions.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the government knows that any fish plant closures on the east coast of Canada, that could be announced as early as today, are only the tip of the iceberg because this government has yet to announce its quota cuts. It is going to announce them in about two weeks for eastern Canada and that is going to affect the fishing industry.
This is the only government in the world that permits foreign boats to fish within its 200-mile zone.
I want to ask the government if it will rescind an agreement made recently for NAFO managed fish stocks and cancel the U.S.S.R. cod quota in 3NO, half of which is inside of our 200-mile zone? Will it cancel their massive red fish quota, 10,000 tonnes in 3L which is within the northern cod stock area? Will the government cancel all those foreign allocations?
The government may think this is the spirit of glasnost but Canadian fishermen think this government deserves a punch in the nose.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, he must have been up all night practising that one.
With respect to the question of quotas, the hon. gentleman gave it all away in this question when he said NAFO managed stocks. That is the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, which manages the stocks in 3NO. I know that only the hon. gentleman and I know what 3NO is. It is a zone off the east coast of Canada which NAFO manages, not Canada.
With respect to quotas within the 200-mile limit, the only quotas that foreign countries receive are stocks surplus to Canada's needs, which under the Law of the Sea agreement we have to offer to other countries if our own fishermen and businessmen will not use them, as I explained yesterday in connection with the silver hake.
Many other countries also permit foreign countries to fish within their 200-mile zones. All over the globe foreign countries are fishing in the 200-mile zones of coastal states as they are permitted to do under the Law

December 8, 1989
Oral Questions
of the Sea or other agreements all over the world. If that were not the case we would not have foreign fishing fleets at all. The hon. gentleman is completely wet as usual.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, did you ever think we would see the day when our fish companies would be going to the Soviet Union, as they did two weeks ago, hat in hand, asking the Soviet Union, as the last resort, for fish to be brought to Canadian fish plants so that we could keep our fish plants open.
I want to ask the Government of Canada, which is a 20 per cent shareholder of National Sea Products Limited, to confirm that neither the Government of Canada nor the governments of Nova Scotia or Newfoundland can lift a finger and give any assistance at all to these fish companies about to fold, all because of the free trade agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, a week ago-


Mr. Duhamel:: You think it's funny, do you?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, does he want to bawl out a bit louder or am I allowed to answer?
A week ago the hon. member blamed the decision by Abitibi Price to shut down a 63-year old paper machine at Grand Falls on the free trade agreement. Today he is blaming these other results on the free trade agreement. He has got free trade agreement-itis.
The hon. member mentioned glasnost. If he is not careful he is going to have a "perestroke"!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: How do you follow that, Mr. Speaker?
My question is for the Prime Minister. Last night a news report aired throughout Atlantic Canada predicted imminent plant closings which could mean a loss of as many as 2,500 jobs in fishing communities in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
What steps will the Prime Minister and his government announce today to protect the jobs of those fish processing workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we all know that we have a very
serious situation off the east coast of Canada with reference to the total allowable catches and the situation with the northern cod.
Last February, I think it was, our marine biologists who advise the government stunned us by advising that the total allowable catch for northern cod, which they had recommended could be 295,000 tonnes in 1988, should be reduced to 125,000 tonnes in 1989.
We could not accept that advice because it would have devastated the whole offshore eastern Canada fishing industry, so we set the TAC at 235,000 tonnes and appointed Mr. Leslie Harris and a distinguished group to review this whole situation.
Undoubtedly it appears that the total allowable catch which will be decided upon by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government by the end of December or early January will have to be reduced again. In light of that, the offshore companies have to make decisions which I think they are going to announce some time in the next short-term future.
When they do that we will announce our response. Our response will be based on helping the people involved who may lose their jobs, the fishermen or trawlermen involved. We will be ready to announce programs to help look after the people involved. It is tragic, but we cannot do anything about the total allowable catch. However we will act to respond to the results.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the residents of these fishing communities have been on the edge for weeks. They know there is a crisis.
Why does the government refuse to take this crisis seriously? Why will the minister not take immediate steps to prevent the closure of these plants?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, why does the hon. gentleman not get together with his colleagues? There is a fisheries critic for Nova Scotia in the opposition. There is one for P.E.I., there is one for New Brunswick, and there is one for the fisheries generally. Why don't they get their act together?
Only two days ago the member for South West Nova was up demanding that we transfer to inshore fishermen quotas from the offshore. It is the offshore fishermen and fish plants that are going to be affected which the hon. gentleman is now up protesting about.
December 8, 1989

Why does he not speak to the member for South West Nova and decide what it is they want to do? Is it the offshore fishermen they want to protect or the inshore fishermen or none of them? Perhaps they are just trying to score political points.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On July 5, two fishing vessels were seized by the U.S. coast guard in Canadian waters south of the Alaska boundary allegedly for fishing in U.S. waters, but they have not been charged for fishing in U.S. waters. The Canadian fishermen using sophisticated Loran equipment and witnesses assure that the ships were operating south of the A-B line in Canadian waters.
It was only when the Department of External Affairs advised those fishermen to surrender that they surrendered to the U.S. authorities and were taken to Ketchikan, Alaska, and only when they were offered assistance by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Those fishermen have been asking for assistance for the last six months. They go to a hearing in Alaska on December 19. They have deposits at risk, boats at risk, and their homes at risk. They do not have the money to hire lawyers. When is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to provide the assistance that he promised and that the surrender of those boats was based upon?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member describes part of the situation as he knows. He is correct in saying that the matter comes before authorities in Alaska on December 19. We are looking to see what kind of help the Government of Canada might be able to provide in the circumstances. I can assure him that I am actively following the case personally myself.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In the last several years Canadian fishermen have been harassed in that area by the U.S. coast guard on a number of occasions by having U.S. coast guard ships run at them at high speeds and circle them at high speeds. The wash has damaged their equipment and their boats and put crews at risk.
Oral Questions
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs call upon the Minister of National Defence and the minister responsible for the coast guard to make sure that Canadian fishermen fishing in Canadian waters are protected from acts of violence and piracy by the U.S. coast guard?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in a sense that would be a very easy question to answer if the issue were only acts of violence and piracy. Of course the answer is very straightforward and of course we protect Canadian fishermen against that kind of difficulty.
As the hon. member knows, the situation is considerably more complex there because of a difficult boundary dispute. As the hon. member also knows, the resolution of that dispute one way or the other has very significant implications for the Canadian fishery.
I know that in a calmer atmosphere than in Question Period in the House of Commons, the hon. member would want us to take account of all of the aspects of this very difficult problem between Canada and the United States, one that impacts directly upon people engaged in the fishing industry on both sides of the line. We are trying to approach it in that constructive way, and we will continue to do that.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Agriculture pertains to the seaway strike which is harming Canada's grain exports.
Yesterday, an NDP member asked: "Does every province in this wonderful country of ours have to take control of agriculture because this government cannot be trusted to protect the interests of the Canadian farm community?"
Which side of the NDP policy coin will the minister choose to follow? Will it be heads, the side which at three o'clock yesterday purported to make a plea for the farm community, or will it be tails, the side which at exactly the same time is delaying and filibustering back to work legislation which would reopen the seaway and enable the movement of Canadian grain exports to continue?
Will it be heads or tails, Mr. Minister?

December 8, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it will be heads or tails, but I can assure the hon. member that it will be in the public interest and particularly the interest of the farmers. That is the position that this government will take, as it always has in the past.
I find it passing strange with over 1,334,000 tonnes of grain ready for movement through the seaway system in store in Thunder Bay and, as the Minister of Transport pointed out yesterday, there are 51 ocean going vessels in the Great Lakes system west of the St. Lambert lock and of these 33 are still above the Welland Canal. There are an additional eight Canadian inland vessels per day, and the average operating cost of these vessels varies from $5,000 to $25,000 per day in demurrage costs.
I urge the NDP and the Liberals to put the public interest ahead of their own partisan interests and get on with the job of passing this legislation in the interest of the farmers.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I have learned that Les Boiseries de I'Outaouais, which is located in my riding and, remember, was given by the Prime Minister barely a year ago as an example of a company that could meet the challenges of free trade, went bankrupt recently, putting many out of work. This company had asked the Federal Business Development Bank for financial assistance to help it continue its activities, but was refused.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for regional development at all costs. Are the loans given recently by the Federal Business Development Bank for companies featuring nude dancers rather than companies like Les Boiseries de I'Outaouais, for which the Prime Minister called me a hypocrite last year-
I would like to know whether the Minister can tell me if the Federal Business Development Bank again made a mistake.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the question of making loans to nightclubs and whatnot which feature nude dancers, the policy is very clear. I have stated it repeatedly in the House to repeated questions. I do not know what that has to do with the particular company the hon. member talked about.
As the hon. member knows we live in a dynamic economy. There are new firms being created and some firms going out of existence. Every year, according to Statistics Canada, four million people change jobs in this country.
If the hon. member wants to bring the details of the company in question to me, I will ask the FBDB about the nature of its dealings with it to see in fact if it has been treated fairly, which I am quite confident it has.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister or the Prime Minister explain to me how come, for companies like Les Boiseries de I'Outaouais providing skilled jobs, the loan was refused, while the present policies of this same government give more support to companies that could surely be self-sufficient?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am told by the FBDB that approximately 20 per cent of the businesses that contact it actually apply for a loan and about 80 per cent to 85 per cent of those which apply in fact receive a loan.
The hon. member is asking me why the company in question is part of the 15 per cent which did not receive a loan. Give me the details; I will look into it and reply to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will close Question Period with one question from the member for Winnipeg-St. James and one question from a member of the New Democratic Party.
December 8, 1989


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
As he well knows Alberta Pacific has proposed a major pulp mill for northern Alberta. People living in that area, as well as environmentalists, are scared stiff by that project because of the damage it would cause to the environment of northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, as well as the harm it would bring to the way of life of natives living in that region.
The minister also knows that other similar projects have been proposed for that region of Canada over the last couple of years.
Will the minister commit the government today, right now, to a full and comprehensive federal environmental impact assessment of that major pulp mill in northern Alberta?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member raises this question today.
This government is very proud to have concluded the first agreement with a province through which the federal government is allowed to participate in a joint evaluation of the environmental impact of such a project.
This was done in Alberta last July and that is why we now have a very important ongoing review process to assess the impact of the Alberta Pacific pulp mill. This government will do the same thing each time there are federal areas of responsibility affected by a project.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday we learned that both Canadian and Saskatchewan regulatory agencies have recommended to their Attorneys General that charges be laid against Camico as a result of the spill of 440,000 gallons of contaminated mine water into Wallis-ton Lake on November 7.
In light of the fact that AECB inspected the site at least 25 or 30 times since the alarm system which would have prevented the spill was disconnected, and since I also learned yesterday that six years after a serious incident occurred at Camico's Port Hope facility AECB
Point of Order
still allows that facility to operate without an emergency community response system being in place, I would ask the minister: When are we going to start investigating the role of the regulators themselves in all this? Surely they have blown the right to investigate themselves.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the Rabbit Lake spill the hon. member knows that the investigation by AECB is continuing. AECB is looking at the recommendations respecting the review that has taken place. These are being examined in respect of alleged violations.
It is the responsibility of the prosecuting counsel for the Attorney General's office to make a final decision in respect to any other actions that might be taken. Until those actions have been taken and made public I cannot give any further information.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, in Question Period yesterday the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs read from a document and quoted words that were attributed to Mrs. Woodsworth of the One Voice Seniors Network and also to the National Council on Welfare.
I had occasion to inquire from One Voice whether it was aware that a transcript was being taken of its remarks in its pre-budget meeting with the Minister of Finance. It acknowledged that although note takers were present, it was not aware of nor had it received a copy of a transcript such as the document the minister seemed to be reading from appeared to be.
I have asked the Clerk as well whether the document was tabled by the minister voluntarily. I therefore would like to ask that the minister table the document from which he was reading in yesterday's Question Period.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I was not quoting from a document yesterday. I was quoting from one-page notes that I had in front of me. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.

December 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Notes were taken at meetings, advice was given. I relayed the advice that was given to the minister to the House yesterday. There is no document concerned. It was a consultation.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want the minister to be aware that when he quoted in the House yesterday he was quoting verbatim comments made in pre-budget discussions with various individuals.
I guess at that time a lot of us felt concern that the assumption presumably would be that many of these pre-budget discussions were not public meetings and presumably the contents of those meetings would be kept in the strictest of confidence.
The minister yesterday decided to breach that and read from notes or a document of some kind, as he said, the precise words of a certain individual. I think that is the point the hon. member is making. This is a very serious breach of confidentiality.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's comments surprising. This is what he said yesterday at page 6615 of Hansard:
It is very plain exactly what Mrs. Woodsworth, who was representing
hat group, said. She said it, and I will read it to you again. I will do so
slowly:
That is what he said, and then he read some words. Clearly he had some document from which he was reading. He said he was reading from it. I think it is only clear that he should table that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has heard the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa South, the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. minister. The Chair must take the minister's word.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the the interim report of the commission of inquiry into the Air Ontario crash at Dryden, Ontario.


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-fifth report of the striking committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 of the House of Commons. This petition is signed by 374 residents of the community of Vars, Ontario in my riding.
These people are objecting to the fact that Canada Post announced in October that it intended to shut down the post office in Vars, Ontario.
The petitioners have all asked that the Government of Canada and Canada Post rescind this decision and keep the post office at Vars open.
I whole-heartedly support this petition.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to table, in accordance with Standing Order 36, a petition that rejects the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. Your petitioners, who represent the isolated communities of Joutel and Matagami, are concerned that the report's recommendations will cause many workers to leave these isolated communities. They
December 8, 1989

believe that the Government of Canada has refused to adjust its policies to the needs of their daily lives. Life in the North is hard because of the isolation and the high cost of living.
People in Joutel and Matagami have very few possessions, compared to people further south. They are producers rather than consumers.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in accordance with Standing Order 36, objecting to the senseless and heartless proposed 9 per cent GST as it will relate to ordinary citizens carrying on with their ordinary lives.
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of my constituents.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 as the co-chair of the national task force on municipal infrastructure. These petitioners are all from the province of Alberta.
The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to recognize that the current infrastructure crisis is now a national problem requiring the combined efforts of federal, provincial and municipal governments.
They ask the government to support the efforts of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to have all levels of government working together on infrastructure to ensure a sound economy, a healthy environment and public health and safety for Canadians.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to table today. First is one from the egg producers of Middlesex County who are asking the government to reject any proposals involving tariffication, any increased minimum import provisions or any increased access to an already well balanced Canadian market.
Routine Proceedings
Middlesex County egg producers humbly pray that Parliament take action in this regard.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from the people of Lambton County who call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the pre-born child.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I also have a whole series of petitions from people throughout southwestern Ontario who are objecting to the proposed goods and services tax being brought forward by this government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from western Canada who point out their concerns regarding the goods and services tax and mainly the fact that it is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay.
The petitioners are simply calling on the government to cease with this proposal which will tax diapers and coffins, taxing Canadians from the cradle to the grave.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-IVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36. I have a petition that is signed by 51 of my constituents from Baie Verte, Brownsdale, Sibley's Cove, New Melbourne and Clarke's Beach.
These constituents are very concerned about what they consider to be the most unpopular government initiative in their lifetimes, that is the goods and services tax.
Their concern is that they are overtaxed. They are overburdened. Changes in the unemployment insurance system, Bill C-21, is going to affect them. They are concerned about all the cut-backs that we have witnessed in the last budget in Atlantic Canada, and they are asking Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. One is a petition signed by 38 people from Espanola and McKerrow, Ontario and another by a group from Victoria and Brentwood Bay,

December 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings
British Columbia, calling on the government to upgrade Canada's present national railway network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.
I have a second petition signed by residents of such points on the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway as Che-mainus, Victoria, Ladysmith, Nanaimo, Nanoose Bay, Parksville, Qualicum Beach and points north.
They are calling upon the government. The undersigned strongly recommend that the decision to cut passenger rail service in Canada be reconsidered immediately. In their opinion the statistics used to support these cuts are distorted and erroneous. In many cases it has been the deliberate policy of both the railway and the government over a long period to discourage the use of passenger services by means of inconvenient scheduling and disgracefully maintained facilities.
They are particularly concerned that the service on Vancouver Island by the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway be maintained and upgraded. Even with the present ridiculous schedule, the line is heavily used by both residents and tourists and passengers are being turned away. The potential exists for a profitable operation of this island railway.
It is addressed to the Hon. Prime Minister so I will have to deliver it to him directly.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have petitions on three different topics to present to the House.
First, I have a petition which is part of a larger petition from my riding of Northumberland, signed by constituents from all areas of my riding, from all walks of life. They represent people who are very concerned about the proposed goods and services tax.
They ask that the government withdraw from any consideration of the proposed goods and services tax.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, second, I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from my riding, again from all areas of the riding,
who petition the members of this House to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the lives of both mother and child.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, third, I have a petition signed by people from my constituency who believe that Bill 178 in the province of Quebec discriminates against the minority English language interests in that province. They call upon this government to do what it can to speak out against Bill 178 and withdraw it.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, submitted by people from Melville, Gerald, Cupar, Raymore and Perdue in the province of Saskatchewan who decry the government having taken oats out of the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
They point out that orderly marketing is such an integral part of the agricultural industry in Canada it is essential that products such as oats be under a marketing board. They are asking that oats once again be put back under the control of the Wheat Board through the Wheat Board Act.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House of Commons today a petition from a number of constituents of Scarborough Centre and also from other parts of Scarborough. This is in relation to the Rouge Valley.
The Rouge Valley is 5,000 hectares of wilderness area in metro Toronto. It has a herd of white tail deer in metro Toronto, if you can believe that, Mr. Speaker. It is true. White tail deer are roaming in the wild and we want to keep it that way.
The Save the Rouge Valley Organization is a group of thousands of volunteers whose representatives were in Ottawa this week, Jim Robb, Glen de Baeremaeker, Ron Moeser, and met with about 50 members of Parliament from all sides of the House to explain to them the importance of saving the Rouge Valley because of its tremendous wildlife wilderness setting. We want to keep it that way.


December 8, 1989

The royal commissioner for the future of the Toronto waterfront recognizes that this valley needs to be saved. The Ontario Government owns about 80 per cent of this land.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to work with the Government of Ontario to make the Rouge River Valley system a provincial park or a Canadian heritage park.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Ms. Clancy (p. 6637)
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker,. I rise to oppose second reading of Bill C-49. As I see it, the bill is flawed in principle and will be disastrous in terms of public policy. The background to this bill is that we have had not only a bungled set of negotiations but now we have a bungled bill.
I start by acknowledging the difficulty and complexity of bargaining in the federal Public Service. This is a big country. There are very significant and difficult problems, for Treasury Board, the union and the employees in trying to reach a good, sound and effective collective agreement. The bargaining comes as part of the process of general bargaining in this very large Public Service.
Government Orders
We have particular anomalies that need to be dealt with. To fine-tune the system to deal with these anomalies is difficult.
Having acknowledged that, I want to say that this whole dispute seems to be a series of mis-cues, mistakes and errors on the part of Treasury Board in how it has handled this. We have the initial problem of the long delay in even reaching serious stages of collective bargaining and we do not have a collective agreement yet.
We have the problem of bungling the issue of essential services. There have been a number of opportunities throughout this dispute to reach a collective agreement. The employees were effectively forced out on strike in order to negotiate demands, some of which were already agreed to by the government.
We have the government publicly distorting the claims of the union in the dispute. After three and a half weeks-it will be four and a half weeks by the time this legislation is driven through the House by the government-after a difficult strike leading to risks to the general public and a series of problems which the government now trots out in justification of this legislation, we have a bill that is going to force the workers back to work, bitter, unhappy and divided and which does not come close to resolving the issues in a proper and fair way.
Back to work legislation is always difficult. Let us go back to first principles. We live in what we like to think is a free society. One of the principles in a free society is the concept of free collective bargaining. That is simply the freedom to work under conditions and terms that one has voluntarily agreed to with one's employer, rather than work under terms imposed by law. The freedom of collective bargaining is the freedom to reach that agreement together with one's fellow employees, joining to provide a stronger voice at the bargaining table for reaching the terms and conditions.
That is a right which has been fought for politically over the years. It has been fought for industrially over the years and has been at least on the surface well established in Canada. Canada has agreed internationally to this. It is a term of covenant of the International Labour Organization.
We have seen the enthusiasm with which all Canadians have greeted the struggle in eastern Europe to achieve collective bargaining. In fact, it strikes us on this side of the House that there is a tinge of hypocrisy on the government's enthusiasm for free collective bargaining

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
in eastern Europe and its decision to impose this kind of legislation in this dispute.
Underlying the principle of freedom in this area is the common good sense of the policy of free collective bargaining. If people voluntarily reach an agreement on their terms and conditions, they will find that the regime in which they work is happier. People will be more productive, their lives will be fuller and we will have a better society. We should be tinkering with that freedom only with the greatest delicacy and care. Legislation to force workers to work under terms and conditions imposed should be done so only with the greatest care and delicacy.
What do we have here? First, I am informed that we have a dispute which covers three issues. These are the issues of wages, regional equity and pay equity as between men and women in sectors of the Public Service.
I come from Victoria, British Columbia. I know I speak for the members for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Esqui-malt-Juan de Fuca who share with me the pleasant task of representing the greater Victoria area in this House.
There are many employees from this area who are involved in this strike and who are pushing hard for justice in their collective agreement. They have sacrificed in the last three and a half weeks to make the point that they want, need and deserve justice at the bargaining table.
One of the very vivid issues in our area is the fact that the ships' crews who work for the federal government have significant pay differences from those who have similar jobs in other sections of the federal service and the provincial public service, for example the B.C. ferries. If we want to keep the employees who have given many years of service to the coast guard and to other areas involved in this strike, we must come up with a solution that recognizes those disparities. Equally, we must address, in tiying to solve the issues of this dispute, the issues of regional unfairness and pay equity.
We come now to a bill which forces the employees back to work. First, the government trots out a series of individual problems such as the freeze-up in the St. Lawrence, the Ste. Anne's Hospital in the province of
Quebec, other cases that would call upon the public to say: "Yes, this strike must be over". I say to that two things: First, if there are special cases in which the public interest in having services resume is so dominant, then let the bill be confined to those specific cases. Let us not have legislation which sweeps into the back to work order those whose work in that way cannot be described as essential to the public interest, although we all agree that the work done by all of these workers is vital to the public interest. What is equally vital to the public interest however is the principle of free collective bargaining and of the practical importance of reaching an agreement that the employees are happy with and willing to accept. That is the first point.
The second point is if the government wants a back to work order that will work and encourage productivity in the workplace, it is essential that the employees understand that they have won from this strike. They have won a number of important principles.
The government has stood in the House during this debate and acknowledged that it is prepared to agree to regional pay equity and it is prepared to agree to pay equity between genders in the Public Service, particularly on the hospital side. But the government has refused to include those provisions within the terms of this legislation.
If there is a back to work order emerging from this legislation, the government should make it absolutely clear within the terms of the legislation that the conciliation boards must proceed to a decision which is based on those two principles. We should have a term in this legislation which directs the conciliation board to take into account the gap between jobs in the Public Service in this component and comparable jobs in the public and private sectors.
This is a difficult bill. The government should not have proceeded with it in the first place. It is one that we are going to oppose with every fibre we can in this House at second reading, acceptance in principle. It is a bill that we are going to oppose on a clause-by-clause basis. We call on the government to listen to the position taken by its employees.
December 8, 1989

The government has in this collective bargaining dispute a weapon which is not available to other employers. It is bad enough for a government to bring in back to work legislation which has the broad axe of this legislation, but the government has a double responsibility in this case because the government is the employer. The government is using its legislative strength to hammer its will upon the employees in this case. That is wrong, that is unconscionable. That is being opposed by the New Democratic Party in this Elouse and we are proud to stand on the side of the employees in this strike.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-49 and to support the motion presented this morning by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, the strike by Canadian Coast Guard employees is now in its 27th day, at a time of the year when weather conditions are extremely harsh, especially this year because of the early onset of winter. Traffic on the Great Lakes, the Seaway and the St. Lawrence River must be made safe for crews, for the men and women working on ships going up and down the St. Lawrence River, and it must also be safe for our ferries and for crews and passengers on the ferries that ply between the two shores of the St. Lawrence every day of the week. We also must ensure that cargo transported by ships on the St. Lawrence is handled safely.
As I said ealier, navigation on the St. Lawrence is usually difficult at this time of the year, but it is even more so this year because the weather has rapidly deteriorated and the onset of winter is much earlier than usual. Conditions have become even worse because of the work stoppage by employees of Canada's Coast Guard.
I would like to mention very quickly the services provided by ferries on the St. Lawrence River. From Montreal to Matane, ferries ply daily between the two shores of the St. Lawrence. These ferries are used by many passengers, by travellers and trucks carrying shipments of food and other essential products to communities on both shores of the St. Lawrence, and these ferries must operate under the best and safest possible conditions.
Government Orders
I would also like to mention the Magdalen Islands which depend on shipping for their essential needs such as food, fuel and other items residents need on a daily basis. There again, both cargo and passengers must be transported safely. The crews on the ship that links the Magdalen Islands to the mainland must also work under safe conditions.
Can we run the risk of having serious accidents on the St. Lawrence during the strike, accidents that will endanger the lives of crews and passengers and may cause all kinds of spills in the St. Lawrence?
Dangers occur regularly. At all times of the year, every possible safety precaution must be taken regularly, the more so at this time of year when it is absolutely essential that all Coast Guard services be provided for the sake of the safety of the users, the cargoes and the people working there.
Mr. Speaker, the users are entitled to safe conditions, employees have a right to safe conditions and that is why it is important to act as soon as possible.
I would like to take a few minutes of the House's time to talk about the extremely negative impact of this work stoppage by the Coast Guard employees on the economy of the main cities in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, the economy of the region of Havre St-Pierre, Sept-Iles, Port-Cartier and Baie-Comeau in the riding of Charlevoix depends on shipping and marine traffic. From Havre St-Pierre, Mr. Speaker, we regularly send shipments of titanium ore to Sorel. From Sept-Iles, Pointe-Noire and Port-Cartier, large amounts of iron ore are loaded onto ships that go up the St. Lawrence and take the Seaway to Great Lakes ports to deliver their cargo. On the return trip, these ships bring grain from the Great Lakes ports to the ports of Sorel, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec City, Baie-Comeau and Port-Cartier on the St. Lawrence.
Mr. Speaker, the present work stoppage by Coast Guard employees is costing the economy of the North Shore, Quebec and Canada millions of dollars.
From information I have this morning, I know that the Quebec-Cartier mining company of Port-Cartier is in danger of losing tens of millions of dollars because ships are waiting at Port-Cartier to go up the St. Lawrence with their cargo of iron ore for Great Lakes ports in the United States and Canada.

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
In addition, ships carrying raw materials to the Que-bec-Cartier mining company plants are also being held up and this poses a particular problem, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that if the materials which are use to make ore pellets do not get to Port-Cartier the stocks will be depleted and, in the short run, this might force lay-offs in the industry.
A company operates grain elevators in Port-Cartier. We had managed to open up a large market in Europe and especially in Russia. But now two ships are anchored off Port-Cartier waiting to take on grain shipments which are stranded on the Great Lakes because they cannot get through the seaway and sail safely down the St. Lawrence River.
Here again the situation is harmful to the company and its employees, and that as well may lead to more lay-offs in the near future.
Sept-fles' Iron Ore mining company is another such case. Ships are waiting to leave for the Great Lakes with their iron ore cargo. We have a similar scenario with respect to Pointe-Noire's Wabush Mines. Hundreds of employees will soon be without a job because their work depends on free-flowing maritime traffic on the St. Lawrence River and through the seaway. The local economy is reeling, Mr. Speaker, and here again what we need is immediate government intervention to order Coast Guard staff back to work.
I should like to comment briefly on the work stoppage in DND hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I visited a friend of mine who spent a number of years in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue's veterans hospital. You have to visit one of these hospitals to realize to what extent the people who are there as patients for extended care need the full support of the staff and employees who work there.
Last night I drove by the DND hospital, the veterans hospital in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, and I noticed there was a picket line manned by employees on strike. Of course, I immediately pictured in my mind the residents and patients of that hospital who need care. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we can tolerate this
precarious situation much longer and the government must intervene as soon as possible.
Therefore, we must act immediately. We must pass Bill C-49. We must order Coast Guard and National Defence hospital employees to go back to work and allow the bargaining process to continue. Negotiations have been pursued assiduously and continuously. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has made reasonable offers in line with agreements reached with other bargaining units. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the bargaining process must be resumed as soon as possible and that Coast Guard and hospital employees must go back to work for the greater safety of the Canadian public.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I see it as my duty to speak to Bill C-49 and say that I disagree with the federal government's proposal.
This bill forces two groups of employees in the Public Service to return to work immediately. The two groups in question are ships' crews and hospital service employees.
The latter group represents 2,600 employees, including nurses, orderlies, therapists and support staff, including cooks, stockroom workers, cleaners and laundiy workers.
I may add that most of the employees are women. The Federal Court of Appeal said last September that a strike by these employees would be legal.
The President of the Treasury Board said that the strikers were a threat to the safety of Canadians and that he was prepared to negotiate an agreement at any time.
According to the Minister, 95 per cent of collective bargaining agreements in the Public Service were negotiated without strikes. A fair and reasonable offer was made to both groups- 4.1 per cent-according to the President of the Treasury Board. He wants a quick solution.
The penalties, said the Minister, would be from $500 to $1,000 per day per striker. Mr. Speaker, many of these strikers earn less than $20,000 annually. Can you imagine what a fine of $1,000 a day does to someone who earns $20,000 annually? From $10,000 to $50,000 per day in fines for the union president, and from $50,000 to
December 8, 1989

$100,000 per day for the union. A fair and reasonable offer! Four point one!
The government is in a hurry. It wants to pass legislation that will bring the most vulnerable and weakest employees in the Public Service to their knees.
The ships' crews have been on strike for three weeks. Hospital services employees have been on strike for one week. These employees have been working without a collective agreement for two years.
What was the government doing all that time? It was playing hardball. It was using all kinds of delaying tactics so that finally, at the last minute, it could swoop down and crush the unions.
The ship's crews earn an average of $20,000 annually, Mr. Speaker. They risk their lives to save lives. They say this group made unreasonable demands. Is it unreasonable for a seaman on the Atlantic Coast to claim the same salary as his counterpart on the Pacific Coast? Those on the Pacific Coast didn't think it was unreasonable, since they not only accepted parity, they were even prepared to take less to help their counterparts on the Atlantic Coast to earn the same salary they do. The ships' crews are asking to be treated the same way as naval seamen in National Defence. They work for the same employer. They are asking for a sea duty allowance.
I would like to quote from a Canadian press News Wire report datelined October 16, 1989 Ottawa.

MPs paid tribute Monday to four men believed to have drowned off the Newfoundland coast during the weekend.
Three Canadian Coast Guard members and a diver they were attempting to rescue were presumed dead after they were swept away by heavy seas Sunday just north of St. John's.
It brings to four the number of coast guard personnel lost while making rescue this year.
Transport Minister Benoit Bouchard called the losses a tragedy.
Bouchard said the coast guard members will be remembered as heroes, both personally and as representatives of the thousands of Canadians who endanger their lives to save others.
Their daily bravery is testimony to the finest and noblest aspects of the human character.
Search and rescue is a dangerous and sometimes deadly occupation, yet these men and women risk their lives on an ongoing basis in order to save others from injury and death.
Government Orders
I add to that: They get $12 an hour. What they are asking for is a 6 per cent raise which amounts to 72 cents per hour.

The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) stated yesterday morning the commercial shipping stoppage on the Great Lakes was costing $2 million a day. He stated earlier the legislation was put forward in the interest of the safety and security of Canadians. I would like to know what is meant exactly by safety and security of Canadians, when we know that crew members on the picket lines are still responding to emergencies, within the same response time as they did before the strike.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) stated the other day in this House that safety was not a factor. Federal ships' crews are getting 28 per cent less on average than those in the private sector. Hospital services employees are among the lowest paid workers in Canada. Their pay scale starts at $16,000 or $18,000 a year. Their yearly wages average $20,000. Those wages are at a the poverty-line level. Most of those employees, as we all know, are women and it is my guess that most of them have families. It has come to my attention that those employees are paid as much as 40 per cent less than those doing exactly the same work for the same employer in the Public Service. I am citing one of those places as being 240 Sparks street. I ask the Minister how come a male employee earns 40 per cent more than a female employee doing the same work? Where is the sense of equality?
I would have another quote, Mr. Speaker. I have here-

It is a press release of November 29, 1989:
Hospital Workers Offer to Provide Essential Services
Ottawa -Public Service Alliance of Canada members in the Hospital Services (HS) group are in a legal strike position as of today.
That is November 29:
And, according to PSAC Vice-President, Jim MacEwen, the union has contacted the government departments affected with an offer to provide essential services. ' 'We have not as yet received the response as to whether or not they are willing to agree with the conditions and level of service outlined in our offer", says MacEwen.

Government Orders
"We didn't seek this strike but we have an employer who stonewalled us during two years of negotiations, has refused to comply with a finding of the Canadian Human Rights Commission with respect to pay equity and has so exasperated the patience and goodwill of our members that they see no alternative but to take this type of action.
"We never go on strike happily but in this instance, it is even more difficult because of the people involved. They include the elderly and former combatants. The relationship our members have with these people can only be described as a loving and caring one. We are very unhappy that the employer is forcing us to take action that will, in all honesty, cause these people some distress.
McEwen says it is the union's concern for these people that led to the 'essential services offer'. It is true that a vulnerable segment of our community is going to be affected by this strike but it is also a vulnerable segment of our society that has to take strike action-a predominantly female group making the lowest wages in the federal public service.
I am asking the President of the Treasury Board: Does he have no sense of justice in terms of equal pay in the Public Service? How come women are not entitled to the same rights as their male counterparts in the eyes of this Tory Government? One hundred per cent of hospital services' employees, janitors, maintenance and cleaning staff, do not endanger public safety when they strike. For what reason did the President of the Treasury Board not establish earlier who should be designated as performing an essential service? Those people have been without a collective agreement for two years. Your employees have been waiting for two years for equal pay.


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, I am not particularly enthusiastic as I rise to speak in this debate which will end with the House of Commons adoption of special legislation to put a stop to the legal strike of a number of Coast Guard employees who work on ships and others who staff veterans hospitals. I am all the more sincere when I say that, Mr. Speaker, because in my riding office I had the pleasure to greet a delegation of men and women who work aboard ships.
In the Quebec City region we have 210 people who work on ships to provide safety and maintenance services. More often than not they work under trying conditions. One thing I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that my meeting with these workers proved to be a very enriching personal experience. I must admit I had no idea how hard these people work, often in difficult conditions, far from their families and at the employer's
call on a few hours' notice. In that respect I would suggest that their strike has made the public at large more aware of the low-profile yet very effective work done by these employees. I take this opportunity to pay homage to these people who, for the first time in 21 years, exercised their right to go on strike.
Even so, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the admiration and respect one may have towards Coast Guard workers, their right to strike is not absolute. We have to keep in mind that there are many rights in life, and we know full well that health and safety rights are also extremely important.
After 27 striking days, at a time when many people, including the workers themselves, are beginning to wonder about safety conditions on the St. Lawrence River-and I am thinking of the Quebec City region where an oil carrier supplies the Ultramar refinery which provides petroleum products to a large market in the province-we cannot ignore the right to safety, the right to a standard of living. Mr. Speaker, I am taken aback by the somewhat irresponsible approach of my colleagues opposite. We would be first to bear the blame if, after some time when these people have publicly aired their reasonable and legitimate grievances- I have in mind pay parity between east and west coast workers, a normal demand. We are going to correct this unfairness which the Liberal governements before us accepted. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) promised that as soon as the contract is signed, Coast Guard employees on the east and west coasts would be paid the same. This was not done by the Liberal governements, but we are doing it the first time the collective agreement is being renegotiated. I and my colleagues on this side of the House are proud of it.
Even though we defend workers' rights, which I do with conviction, we must agree that we have reached an impasse. The workers are now asking for a salary increase of about 49 per cent over 36 months. Labour does not challenge these figures. Furthermore, the President of the Treasury Board exceeded the limits he set for 95 per cent (of the Public Service) and which were accepted in bargaining with the Public Service Alliance. I would say he made an exception to correct the pay inequity by offering 24.5 per cent over 46 months. We do not have to be experts to realize that we face a big gap between the management offers and union demands. That is why at some point we must draw the line. The cold weather is now upon us and large amount of grain and ore are blocked in the river, on the Great Lakes or in
December 8, 1989

Canada's waterways. If we do nothing, again, we would be irresponsible.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, let me draw upon my past experience. This will surely mean something to you as a former journalist. For about ten years, I was parliamentary correspondent for the TVA television network at the Quebec legislature. On four occasions, I covered negotiations with public and parapublic sector employees- some 300,000 people. On a few occasions, the Government of Quebec, whether it was Liberal or Parti Quebecois, had the Quebec National Assembly pass special legislation. So I think I have some experience, a certain expertise with respect to special legislation.


Ron Fisher: They don't use scabs!


Charles Deblois: I think it is fair to say, and certainly this will be of interest to my friend from the New Democratic Party that in the area of special legislation there are pieces of legislation that are much harsher than this one. The bill now before us, Mr. Speaker, is not shotgun legislation because it does not set the terms and conditions of the contract.
In Quebec city, I remember very well the former Minister of Social Affairs, Mr. Claude Forget, whom many of us here know, and who indeed formely chaired the Commission on Unemployment Insurance. I should say to my NDP friend that Mr. Forget had a principle with which I do not agree, and that principle was that where government employees forced the government or the National Assembly or Parliament to legislate, they should be penalized. And Mr. Forget's contention was that special legislation should give them less benefits than provided for in the government's last offer. Here is how that logic goes: If Parliament stepped in too often, Parliament would be trivialized. Parliament should step in as seldom as possible in labour conflicts. And therefore it could be argued that where government employees knew that they could always use Parliament, they could be tempted to use Parliament repeatedly and never accept government offers knowing that they had nothing to lose because Parliament would legislate anyway. But if they knew that Parliament would give
Government Orders
them less generous terms than those last offered, then they would think twice before forcing the government to legislate. Mr. Speaker, this is not the approach used here. Bill C-49 is no shotgun legislation, it does not set the terms and conditions of the contract. It does not say: You are forcing Parliament to legislate, then you will get less than the last government offer. This was done in some parliaments. I covered that.
I was there, Mr. Speaker. But that is not what is happening here. The government has not slammed the door on negotiations. The President of the Treasury Board even admitted that the conciliation board, which will include a representative of the union, might well give more-I will be careful, Mr. Speaker, but the conciliation board, which has 90 days to hear both parties, might decide to give more than the final offers made by the President of the Treasury Board.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tolerate our colleagues opposite telling us that we are crushing the workers and that we are anti-union. When I go back to my riding this weekend, I will have no hesitation in telling my constituents the following: "Listen, there are a number of rights involved. You are right to demand better working conditions. I agree, your salaries are not very high. You are perfectly right. We are making strides towards employment equity, but at the same time, we have to consider safety conditions on the river and pollution, and there is also a considerable economic factor."
Mr. Speaker, there are ship owners, and they are not criminals, who operate ships and pay $50,000 and $25,000 a day in docking fees and who are being penalized. We also have to consider possible claims for damages and, at the present time, there are a number of buoys on the St. Lawrence River, since that is the area I know best, which are out of service.
I don't want to get to involved, but I would also like to say that patients also have rights. I am thinking of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital, the veterans institution, and I think that between the right to health and safety and the legitimate right of workers to strike, we must get our priorities straight, Mr. Speaker, and when there is a conflict between the two, I have no hesitation in saying that patients come first.

Government Orders
The elderly patients who are listening at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, some of whom may not be getting all the services they would normally get, can count on my support.
Once again, I know this is a heart rending situation because those Coast Guard workers are my friends, but in an emergency situation, when a third party is responsible for determining working conditions, we must act responsibly, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I deeply regret that our friends opposite give in to partisanship, which reminds me that the Elon. Member for York-East said recently that the role of the Opposition is to oppose to any bill introduced by the Government and that according to British tradition, the Opposition must oppose! -Somehow I regret that! I would expect that Hon. members on the other side would be sensitive not only to the workers rights but also to the quality of life, the environment and finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say the economy of the country.
It is easy to talk about the jobs that are lost. Some jobs, Mr. Speaker, are actually linked to sea-going shipping and if they are lost, our friends from the NDP will be the first to blame the Free Trade Agreement. Free Trade has nothing to do with that, Mr. Speaker.
There comes a time in life when one has to make difficult decisions and I am not ashamed to say that what I am doing here is not against labour but in the national interest, Mr. Speaker. And I think that national interest requires right now that we-


Ron Fisher: Whose side are you on?


Charles Deblois: -but, Mr. Speaker, my friend from the NDP- I cannot believe it! You actually care about the common good?
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this. Firstly, I think that the common good we have been elected to look after in this House must prevail over individual and business interests. Once again, I believe that, by asking, with this bill, a third party to clear the ground and make a decision for all practical purposes, this government is respecting the rights of these workers while recognizing that, given the emergency, by agreeing to go back to
work the employees will allow ships to move again in this difficult period and carry their cargo to destination. Secondly, we must give veterans and the most vulnerable members of our society the quality of service they deserve.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill on second reading and I hope that my colleagues in this House will think it over and cooperate with us so that life can go on in this great country of ours where transportation is such a vital part of the economy.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an unfortunate bill. It is regrettable that we have at this time to be dealing with the bill in the House. I totally reject what the previous speaker said with respect to this bill.
I think the government had an opportunity over the past two years to negotiate with the hospital employees and with the ships' crews to reach a conclusion to this collective agreement that would be fair for all concerned, would be fair for people throughout the country and would avoid even the perception of an emergency taking place now-something which many people reject-which would motivate this bill and force us to deal with it at this time.
The real problem is that over the last two years the government has been motivated by its own ideological inability to deal in good faith with its employees. I share the opinion of another speaker in this House who spoke on this legislation yesterday who indicated that nowhere is the government's ideological problem in terms of dealing with trade unions more evident than in its relations with its employees in the postal system. That single corporation has five times as many grievances against it as compared to any corporation of a similar size operating in Canada. The type of labour relations that take place at the Post Office is provocative and destructive of employee-management relations. That type of destructive and provocative labour relations is characteristic of this government and characteristic of its agencies.
What we are dealing with here is not a problem of negotiating between an employer and an employee, the problem is that the employer is ideologically motivated and ideologically hampered, being the reason that we
December 8, 1989

have difficulty with the negotiations between the Government of Canada and its employees.
I was not surprised to see in the explanations contained in the last annual report of the post office that a tremendous amount of money-millions of dollars-had been spent by the Post Office in hiring scabs, for preparing and training them to break the strike at the Post Office and to provoke the employees of the Post Office. That action precipitated a great deal of violence on the picket line and many people were seriously injured. This left a residuum of bitterness that will govern employee relations between the Government of Canada and the postal workers for a long time to come. One cannot argue that that same type of bitterness has not overflowed into other wage disputes that this government has had with its employees. This particular strike is no example.
I do not have one of the components in my riding that will be affected by this dispute, the hospital employees' component, but I certainly do have the ships' crew component which is front and centre and very evident in my riding. We have Coast Guard establishments up and down the west coast of Vancouver Island. We have lifeboat crews at Bamfield and Tofino which put out to sea every day in rough conditions to protect the lives of mariners and to protect vessels and their cargoes, as well as the people who use the west coast of Vancouver Island in what has been traditionally called the graveyard of the Pacific. These men and women in the Coast Guard risk their lives virtually every day in the service of Canadians and in the service of the maritime industries that serve Canada. '
We also have the ships' crews aboard naval tugs, Coast Guard vessels, research vessels and other Coast Guard ships that service buoys and light stations and other Department of Transport facilities up and down the coast. Yet in spite of the critical work that these ships' crews do up and down the coast of British Columbia and throughout my riding, this government does not seem to have attached as much importance to them as it should have over the last two years when it should have been bargaining in good faith with those employees with a view to reaching a settlement with them. As I said before, it appears that the ideological problems that this government has with trade unions is probably the main
Government Orders
barrier that prevented it from reaching an agreement with those employees.
When I look at what ships' crews earn in the federal service on the west coast of Canada it is clear to me that the employees have a very solid case for improvement in their wages and working conditions. For example, a seaman in the federal service makes $11.68 on the west coast, while B.C. ferry employees in the same position make $16.49 an hour and those in a similar position with the Stena Line, a privately-owned line operating on the west coast, make $15.53 an hour. Thus private-sector crews make 33 per cent more than those in the federal service. Those in the provincial public sector working for the B.C. Ferry Authority make 41 per cent more than the crews working in the federal Public Service-and that is after the results of this settlement have been included in the wage rates.
So there is no question that the employees of the federal government working for the Coast Guard, on research vessels, on naval tugs and other fisheries ships in the federal Public Service definitely have a case for improving their wage rates and for bringing them in line with the wages being earned by other people doing similar jobs but under less dangerous conditions on the west coast. The ships' crews for the federal service are not even asking for parity. They are asking simply for a reasonable wage rate.
Look at the fact that the average wage of the hospital employees is $18,000 and the average wage of the ships' crews is $23,000, and the fact that many of these employees are sole supporters of their families in many parts of the country. Even though they are working hard, even though they are risking their lives, and even though they are dedicated to the Public Service of this country, they are still living at or below the poverty line, depending on what region of the country they live in. That situation should be redressed. The government should have seen the necessity to redress that situation and should have negotiated in good faith and with commitment to those employees to the point that a collective agreement could have been reached long before now and that those situations which are totally unacceptable should have been redressed long before now.
We are very proud of the workers in the Coast Guard on the west coast in my riding. They do terrific work on behalf of the people of Canada. Even during this strike, working on a voluntary basis, Coast Guard workers have taken lifeboats out and have rescued people on the west coast of Canada. They have made it a policy during this strike that they will defend the life, health and safety of persons, but not necessarily of property. They have gone out in stormy and difficult conditions. They have

Government Orders
rescued people on a volunteer basis at personal or union expense during the period of this strike. They have said that they will never let the people of Canada down. They will provide those emergency services. They will be available to the people of Canada when they are needed during the strike even though they are on strike.
It is the government that has let the people of this country down and that has delayed a collective agreement for so long. The reason for this-and I cannot repeat this too often-is an ideological problem that the government has of negotiating in good faith with its employees. Why else would these crews be paid so much less than their counterparts in the public service in the provinces and those in the private sector? Why would they be paid so much less than those people when their jobs are so much more critical and so much more important because of the involvement of risk to life, health and safety?
It is the government that is at fault for this problem. I suspect that the government has delayed this issue so long because it knows that in the end it has the power to come into the House of Commons to hold legislation of this type like an axe over the heads of the workers. It knows that it can undermine the process of collective bargaining by having this axe.
It is interesting to note that the minister responsible for the Treasury Board is the minister not only negotiating with the employees but the one who has brought this legislation into the House of Commons. On the one hand he knows that he has the axe that he can use to cut off negotiations, forcing those people back to work under whatever conditions he chooses because he has the majority in the House. On the other hand he seems to believe that he is capable of negotiating in good faith. That just is not happening.
After long protracted negotiations during this strike there were people in my constituency who actually suffered physically as a result of violence on the picketline. An employer recommended that employees who are not part of this bargaining unit-and in fact who are not even citizens of Canada but Americans working on testing American weapons at a Canadian naval facility-use their cars or trucks to bump their way through the
picketline. As a result a picketer in my constituency was injured and hospitalized with broken vertebrae as a result of violence on this picketline, violence said to be recommended by an employer. Even today charges have not been laid against that American citizen who committed the act.
Serious problems have resulted as a consequence of the frustration experienced by the employees who were trying to negotiate with the government in good faith, but who saw no good faith coming from the other side of the negotiating table.
There is a serious problem here, a problem of regional equity, a problem of gender equity and other problems that have to be dealt with. In this country in this day and age these problems should not really be part of negotiations. It should be taken without it being said that people who do the same work, whether on the west coast of Canada, the Arctic coast of Canada or on the east coast of Canada should be paid at precisely the same rate, given that their jobs are precisely the same and fall within the same classifications. A lot of the things we are discussing should have been dealt with years ago in the collective agreements of these people.
It is interesting that the only time the national government recognizes that there might be an emergency is when the St. Lawrence freezes up. When the St. Lawrence freezes up and no matter happens on the St. Lawrence River seems to become a national emergency. Then we legislate everybody back to work on both coasts because this government seems to view a very small part of Canada as the most important part and the rest seems to be forgotten in its deliberations. That is a serious problem which is certainly evident in this case. Conservative after Conservative has stood up and indicated that the problem of the imminent freezing of the St. Lawrence Seaway system and the lakes is the problem and the reason we have to legislate these people back to work.
You know what the weather conditions are in this country. You know when the freeze-up comes. You should have felt compelled to negotiate and to achieve a settlement in anticipation of that change in weather this winter. Instead you sat on your duffs. You knew at the very end of it that you could rely on coming into this
December 8, 1989

House to force those workers back to work using the scanty argument you are using at this point.
I feel that there is a need for a type of bargaining between the federal government and its employees that takes the political impediments of the government in power away from the bargaining system. There should be some impartial bargaining process so that the same minister who might bring legislation into this House cutting bargaining or the process off and forcing a settlement on these people would not be the same minister who is also negotiating. There should be some separation to avoid a conflict of interest, and we do not see it in this case.
We have seen this system operate to the detriment of our employees in the past, and I use as an example the maritime employees, the longshoremen who work in the ports throughout Canada. As a result of strikes which have been terminated through legislation in this place, those longshoremen now make less than their counterparts in the United States, and their pensions have not been dealt with adequately because the settlements that were imposed on them by the House of Commons have fallen far behind settlements that were freely and collectively negotiated elsewhere on this continent. As a result, our longshoremen are being paid much less and the pensions they enjoy are much lower than maritime employees elsewhere on the continent. This is due directly to the fact that this government always feels it has the power to terminate a bargaining process by bringing it into the House of Commons, by imposing a settlement, and by undermining the collective agreement process with employees within its jurisdiction.
I intend to vote against this legislation. I hope that legislation, and take those two days to negotiate in good faith, because it cannot be done with this legislation hanging over the heads of the parties to the collective agreement. If the government withdraws this legislation or accepts the resolution that it will be dealt with six months hence, it could then use the interregnum as an opportunity to negotiate with its employees in good faith with a view to reaching a collective agreement.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, at first glance this appears to be a question of back to work legislation and in reality of course it is. But it also raises a number of important questions that I think need to be examined. I can understand, as can most Canadians,
Government Orders
implementing back to work legislation perhaps when the security of the country or people are in great danger and, as well, when the workers have been unreasonable.
Let us look at the facts and whether or not in this particular instance the workers have been unreasonable. We are talking about men and women who have not been treated fairly and who are not being treated fairly even now. I believe that this particular legislation shows the government's inability to understand the fundamentals of pay equity, that is equal pay for work of equal value.
I suspect that all members will know that the human rights commission ruled that the hospital services group is under-valued and under-paid. It is true that the classification system was changed but only equalization payments were made, proper adjustments were not made.
With respect to the ships' crews group, we are talking about wages, hours of work, sea duty allowance. Wage parity on the east and west coasts is possibly the most contentious issue, and it is a question of fairness. The whole designation process, the missed dates, is another source of contention and one that is considered reasonably unfair.
What we are talking about is dangerous work. As my colleague mentioned, we are also talking about conflict of interest: the same minister negotiating and bringing in back to work legislation. We are talking about workers who have been without a contract for approximately two years.
Let us look at some of the facts of this particular situation. In the case of the hospital services groups, we are talking about elderly patients who are now dependent upon volunteers for feeding, cleaning and all normal services. Meals have deteriorated and cleanliness is suffering. As an example, soiled bed linens are being shoved into laundiy chutes. We are talking about people being frightened, being frustrated, and being angry.
What about the effects of the ships' crews group? Routine search and rescue has been cut, although the crews go out on any emergency. There have been many such indications, and I shall not repeat them. There is $6 million worth of summer navigational aids in the Great Lakes seaway system alone that are at risk because they are out in the freezing waters. Winter navigation aids have not been placed and this is tying up shipping at a

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
cost that has been mentioned of $2 million a day which is roughly equal to three days of strike losses.
The same situation affects all harbours. The response to environmental disasters such as oil and chemical spills would be virtually impossible if they were to occur. There is no supervision of the fishing grounds, leaving foreign boats free to illegally overfish Canadian waters and research vessels of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada cannot function.
These are serious consequences and while many individuals would like to try to blame the workers for those effects, I think it is really quite unfair, particularly recalling some of the points that I have made with respect to the conditions surrounding this situation, for example, waiting for a couple of years for a contract, not being given pay equity, or certainly minimal advances being made, and low wages, if one compares them to the national average. It is in fact very insensitive.
Let's look at some of the broader questions. What are the underlying issues here? Why these problems? Again I say that it is too easy to blame the workers. We have to ask ourselves what are the fundamental underlying principles that propel government to do what it wants to do.
There are at least two. One is a question of fairness and the other one is a question of trust. How can one trust and how can one feel that one is being treated fairly when you realize that you are among the lowest paid groups? In some particular groups, the majority are women. How can you feel comfortable with government when you know that you are being paid badly and when you are, in fact, part of a group that has been discriminated against over many years?
It is quite clear that people generally no longer trust the government and that is no news to members opposite. If they look at some of the most recent newspaper reports and the polls that they will see that this is true. They do not believe that this government has been fair, is being fair, or can be fair. If you look at the record, you can see why this is so.
This is the government that propelled us into a trade deal with the United States when, at one time, their leader had said that there would be no free trade with
the United States. He even ridiculed members of his party who were forthright enough to say that they thought it was a wise move on their part. This is the same government whose leader indicated that Air Canada was not for sale. What's happened? It has now gone.
This is the same government whose leader, or at least one minister and probably more, indicated that there would be no unemployment insurance changes. Of course, we know what has happened there.
This is the government that really attempted to persuade Canadians that rather than destroying the rail system, it would invest in the system. You will recall some of the statements made by prominent members of government before they came into power that they would invest rather than destroy. What has happened now? Half the system has been closed down. Over 2,700 people will suffer. Some of those people have been calling constituency offices throughout the country. What a Christmas present for the 2,700 plus people, and their spouses and children.
This is the government that said it would maintain the transfer payments to the provinces for health and education. What has happened? In 1986, they were reduced by 2 per cent and in the last budget by another 1 per cent. There will be $24 billion less given to provinces for health and education over eight or nine fiscal years because of the decisions made after the government said that it would maintain that formula.
Why the malaise? Let us talk about some of those 31 tax increases during the last five years. We are talking about a goods and services tax which is to be imposed and well over 80 per cent of Canadians are saying it is vicious, unnecessary and insensitive. This is a government that has doubled the debt in five years. Yet, it likes to tell us that it is being fair with Canadians, that it knows how to manage the country and the economy. This is the government that failed in 1985 to reduce benefits to seniors. It came back with the clawback and, of course, have been able to get the seniors finally. How can anyone trust this government? It tries one way and fails, then comes back and gets you another way. This is a government that imposed cutbacks to organizations who
December 8, 1989

are advocates for women and advocates for native groups.
Part of the platform of this government was that its leader was a great conciliator and negotiator. There is tension everywhere in this country. If the leader is a great conciliator and negotiator, let him come forward and put an end to this particular dispute. Let him come forward and negotiate in good faith.
The truth of the matter is that this government's policies have pitted one region against another, one group against another and one person against another. I do not believe there has ever been in the whole history of the nation so much malaise, discomfort and tension. I hope that the government returns to the bargaining table and negotiates in good faith. I hope that it considers the workers, the situations under which they work, and clearly the fact that they have been without a contract for a long, long time.

As I have just said, Mr. Speaker, that issue is, of course, very important to all Canadians, and it affects in a very special way this back-to-work legislation.
Other issues are also extremely important. I for one believe that sometimes the government has to act when the security of our country, of some individuals, or of some groups is seriously jeapordized, or when the workers are not being reasonable. But is it the case here?
These men and women have not been treated fairly, and are not being treated fairly even as we speak.
But one thing is sure, we now see that the government does not really understand the very serious concerns of these workers, for example, pay equity. There has been some changes, some progress, has been made but there is still a lot to be done to settle that very sensitive issue.
What are the basic principles and the main issues underlying this bill? Why are we having those problems? There are at least two fundamental reasons: fairness and trust. When you have a badly-paid job in a predominantly female group, how can you trust anyone? How can you feel you are being treated fairly by this government?
Sad but true, the majority of Canadians do not think the government is being fair to them! If we look at what the government has done in the last five years, how can
Government Orders
we blame them. We were told their leader, even before he was elected as leader, had made fun of his colleagues who questioned him when he said there would be no free trade agreement with the United States. After he became Prime Minister, he said that Air Canada was not for sale, and we all know that it was sold. We also heard during the election campaign, not only from the Prime Minister but from other ministers as well, that no changes would be made to the unemployment insurance program. What did we see after the election? Before they became the government, the Conservatives had proposed investments to encourage VIA Rail, so that we would have a national system across the country that would allow all Canadians to travel. Again, what did we see after the election? They cut our passenger service by half. That will affect more than 2,700 jobs just before Christmas. What a nice present for all husbands and wives, for their children, for the whole family, for then-relatives!
This same government indicated that it really wanted to keep the formula with respect to transfer payments to the provinces for health and education. Well, it kept the formula, but forgot to tell us that it was going to make some cuts. The Conservatives cut the transfer payments by 2 per cent in 1986 and by 1 per cent again this year, in the last Budget. That means that provinces lost $24 million for health and education. This same government raised taxes more than 30 times since it has been in office and is ready to hit us with a proposed goods and services tax, to which a vast majority of Canadians are opposed. This government will have more than doubled the debt in five years of running this country. This is a government that tried to reduce senior citizens' benefits, and when it failed it came round the back door with its famous clawback provision. This is a government that cut funding, support to women and native groups and many others.
You are aware the Prime Minister views himself as a great negotiator, an individual who can build bridges- but everyone knows that night here in Canada tensions are everywhere. This is a government that succeeded through its initiatives to pit one region against the other and one group against another, that made one person feel very unconfortable towards another. It is time to go back to the negotiating table. It is a time to negotiate in

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
good faith. I would like to suggest to the government it should do so immediately.

For the sake of those workers, and for the sake of Canadians generally, let us get back to the bargaining table. Let us not use a law to bludgeon the workers. Let us sit down, as equals, as men and women, as Canadians, who care about this great country, who care about what we do and take pride in our work, and talk honestly, fairly and reach a settlement.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise somewhat reluctantly in support of this bill because I believe that it is a most unfortunate and regrettable circumstance that makes necessary the legislation that exists in Bill C-49.
I believe that one of the most fundamental rights in a democratic society is the right to free collective bargaining. Indeed, on behalf of the individual, one of the most fundamental rights is the right to withdraw one's labour, providing all contractual agreements have been met, if one is unsatisfied with the circumstances in which one finds oneself and, indeed, in accordance with the free collective bargaining process. Of course, that is what this legislation does. This legislation necessitates the disruption of the free collective bargaining process.
However, I must point out at the same time the reason why I am prepared to support this legislation is because the government of the day, the Government of Canada, has a responsibility to see to the interests and the needs of all Canadians, and has a responsibility to see to the safety of Canadians where that safety is imperilled.
It is one of those unfortunate circumstances which happen from time to time, where principles come in conflict, one with the other, and the responsibility of government is not to be effusive with its rhetoric so much as to respond to its responsibilities by doing that which the national need compels.
Indeed, the same responsibility exists, to some extent, for the leadership of collective bargaining associations, the leadership of unions. It is obviously their responsibility to seek the best terms possible for their members. It is also their responsibility to see to the interests of their
members by achieving contracts that will give them the best possible deal under the circumstances and to take that deal back to the members and indicate, in a fair and honest way, that that is the best that can be achieved under the circumstances, and not to needlessly put people in a position where they are either forced into or seemingly forced into going on strike or find themselves remaining on strike beyond the point that makes sense or beyond the point that is in their interest.
I know it is a very contentious issue that brought about this strike situation. I note that in my own province of Nova Scotia, there is a very strong divergence of opinion on the issues among those who are members of the bargaining unit and who voted-and I noted that it was only a very narrow vote-in the locals to which I refer by which the decision was taken.
In the final analysis, the government must see to its responsibility. It must see to the public interest, and in this case the public interest involves public safety. Canadians must be able to count on the Coast Guard to rescue them when their lives are in peril at sea. Canadians at sea and those aboard the vessels of other nations must know that the navigation aids that are there to prevent tragedies and accidents at sea are, in fact, the ones that are supposed to be there.
With respect to the other part of this strike, Canadian veterans must be able to count on being given proper care in hospitals. Canadians have a right to expect this and want them to have it.
Others can speak of the St. Lawrence Seaway, hospitals in Quebec, or the situation on the west coast. Quite frankly, my main concern is that a week ago Monday the lobster season opened in southern Nova Scotia. Twenty-five hundred lobster fishermen are going to sea every day. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not a very pleasant experience to go to sea in December. It is very cold, the sea can be high, the winds are high. So far the catches have not been too bad and we are very encouraged by that. The prices are not as high as we would like. The days at sea are very, very difficult. This year winter came early to Nova Scotia, just as it would seem to have come early to Ottawa. It is very hazardous to go to sea in inhospitable circumstances.
On the other hand, people must make a living. Lobster fishermen must take advantage of the limited opportuni-
December 8, 1989

ties that exist for them to pursue their activities. In southern Nova Scotia, our season opens on the last Monday in November and closes at the end of May. However, it is only a very limited period that the lobster harvest is at its best, and it is during those first two or three weeks in the season that every individual is anxious to get out and attend his pots and hope that this harvest will provide the base for the year to come to support the family.
Unfortunately, those hazards mean that lives are in peril every single day. Without the availability of the Coast Guard to answer the call, the risk is even greater. I know that the members of the Coast Guard who provide those near-shore coastal services, with those small vessels out of places like Port La Tour and Clarke's Harbour are particularly concerned because what they are faced with is in conflict with what they know they should be doing. Either way, on either side of this issue, they are good solid members of their organization. They wish to stand with their colleagues in their organization. Indeed they wish reasonable salaries and working conditions. I personally feel that those people are very much underpaid. I would like to see the government continue to increase those salaries and bring them up to levels where they should be so that people do not find themselves in the situation where they have to go on strike.
What we are dealing with, in terms of those people in the Coast Guard, are people who are at the lower end of the scale, notwithstanding the fact that they face very hazardous jobs in very hazardous circumstances on a daily basis. At the same time, those people do not feel comfortable staying at home while friends and neighbours are at sea and their lives may well be imperilled. Many of these men are themselves former fishermen. They know what it is like to be out at sea at difficult times of the year and they want to go back to work.
It might surprise members opposite to know that as a member of Parliament from an area that is very directly affected by this, I have had phone calls from members of the bargaining units who are in fact out on strike saying: "Please can't you get the government to legislate us back to work so that we can have an end to this situation and we will not be forced to come to grips with this unpleasant conflict situation in which we find ourselves".
Government Orders
What are the issues at stake here? Fundamentally, it seems to me, there are two issues which have been the source of controversy in this labour dispute. One has to do with equal rates of pay on the east and west coasts. I must say that as maritimers, and particularly as Nova Scotians, for many years it has grated on us knowing that people on the west coast are paid higher rates of pay for doing precisely the same jobs which our people are doing and indeed often not under as hazardous climatic circumstances.
Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that the breakthrough came in breaking down this villainous principle that had been with us for a long time. I have heard members opposite speak of this. It surprises me that the previous member who spoke, the member from St. Boniface, made reference to it. He seems to have forgotten that this principle of unequal rates of pay was one that became a standard practice through the auspices of the former Liberal government, a government which presumably he would have supported.
I think it is important for this House to recognize that the breaking down of this villainous principle occurred during the past two or three years by the actions of this government. I want to remind all members that it was the former member of Parliament for Halifax, who is no longer in this place, who fought on behalf of the members of that bargaining unit in Halifax and got a break in that principle. We have seen a gradual change begin in the last contract with a one-third amelioration of that principle that started to break the ice, as it were, for what is now on the table. That in fact is an offer that eradicates once and for all this principle.
I do not know why members opposite still get up and speak of this differential because in fact, as per the offer that is on the table right now, this government has finally caught up to the fact that work should be at the same pay on one side of this country as the other. I commend the minister for bringing it here as I commend the former minister and member for Halifax for making it happen in the first place.
The other issue, of course, is whether there is a fair offer on the table. There is no question that the Coast Guard workers, particularly those along the shore, deserve and should have higher salaries and higher wage rates than they have. But the government has a variety of responsibilities. It has a responsibility to all its employees. It has a responsibility to see that where there

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
are people being paid salaries below what they should be, that it raises them as quickly as it can, but the salaries must be fair to all people within the public service.
Therefore I think it is important to note that the offer that has been rejected at this point is an average 5.23 per cent offer, whereas other members of the public service have only received an average rate of 4.2 per cent.


Mr. Mills:: Fifty cents an hour. It can be ended for 50 cents an hour.


Peter L. McCreath: I might say, as a Member of Parliament, that I would be quite happy to receive a 5.23 per cent increase. However, percentages are not the beginning and the end of these things, because if the rate is low the percentage naturally should be higher.
It is important for the government to gradually move in the direction of bringing these salaries up. As for the circumstances now, it is important to recognize that the offer that is available at this time is a higher percentage offer than has been received by other members of the public service. Under this bill those people will not only receive that equality, not only receive those increases but, at the same time, will have an opportunity before arbitration to make their case. If it is a just one, quite possibly they will get an even better settlement.
Therefore, I think the bottom line is that the offer which the government has made is fair. The legislation, while regrettable in the sense that it does interfere with free collective bargaining is in the public interest and therefore the government is acting responsibly and properly to introduce this legislation. It will provide an opportunity for this dangerous situation to come to an end, for the people to get back to work. I know they want to get back to work and indeed for this House to get on with the important business of the nation.
Therefore, I would urge all members to support this bill at this stage and subsequent readings.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this important debate on the Government Services Resumption Act.
The use of back to work legislation at this time raises some very important questions about the government's role as an employer and as a proponent of pay equity.
I would like to register my deep concerns that the government is imposing the back to work legislation on the employees of the hospital service group and ship crew workers. Historically back to work legislation has been used 20 times over the past 40 years: 10 times to end strikes in the ports and shipping sectors, 5 times to keep the railway operating, twice to get grain handlers back to work, twice to resume postal services, and once to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services.
The majority of these actions were taken when disputes involved strikes, negotiation deadlocks and a definite and immediate danger to the well-being of the Canadian public.
Is there such a national emergency facing us today? The answer to that question is no. We have the workers themselves to thank for that. We should commend these workers for their dedication and commitment in light of the circumstances. The ships workers, for example, have responded to each and every emergency call that has occurred in the past four weeks.
The hospital workers, on the other hand, have also offered to leave the picket lines should an emergency situation arise in National Defence hospitals or veterans homes.
These people are not holding the safety or health of Canadians for ransom. They are simply using the only means available to them to arrive at fair and decent contract settlements.
When there is no immediate danger to the Canadian public, it is difficult to understand the justification for resorting to back to work legislation in the situation we are facing today. Taking away a basic right of Canadian workers cannot be taken lightly and cannot be done lightly. The truth is that the right to strike exists in this country for a reason.
Back to work legislation does not only limit the bargaining power of the striking employees. It seriously limits the government's ability to negotiate an agreement in the best interests of the country. This can be construed as an abdication of the responsibility of both the employees involved and the Canadian public at large.
The use of back to work legislation is generally regarded as negative. When everyone knows that the government has this tool in hand the incentive to reach an agreement through bargaining is weakened. Are
December 8, 1989

there not better ways to foster co-operation and avoid confrontation? In my view there are.
The government has introduced back to work legislation. There is no national crisis at stake. This is an admission that our system of collective bargaining has failed.
Can the government assure Canadians that every effort has been made to arrive at a fair and equitable agreement? Have all the avenues been explored? Is the government willing to go back to the bargaining table? So far the answer is no to all of these questions.
This dispute involves the government on the one side and over 3,500 of the lowest paid members of the Public Service on the other.

The government is employing 2,200 ships' crew employees on Coast Guard vessels, fishing boats, lifeboats and other boats of the Department of Public Works, both on the eastern coast and the west coast and the Great Lakes. Those skilled workers are risking their lives on a daily basis to ensure the safety of margation of sea and on our seaways. Their average salary, which is 16 to 28 per cent less than that of their counterparts in the private sector, is only $21,000.
In the area of hospital services, the government employs 1,200 workers who on a regular basis extend care to our veterans and people in National Defence hospitals and homes. There are nursing attendants janitors, kitchen attendants, and so forth. They are to every patient some kind of an extended family. The majority are women, Mr. Speaker and forty-eight per cent of these workers earn $20,000 a year or less.
They are not striking without reasons. They are on strike because they could not get decent, fair salaries. The issue of equal pay for equal work is central to these two labour disputes.

The Canadian Human Rights Act has three sections referring to the equal pay for work of equal value principle. Equal pay for work of equal value became law for federal public servants in March 1977. The govem-
Govemment Orders
ment has made commitments to Canadians over and over again that work will be judged on its value, on the basis of skill and knowledge, mental and physical effort, responsibility, and the nature of working conditions.
People must not be paid based on which part of the country they live in, whether or not they are man or women, black or white. It is a principle we have endorsed as a government and as a nation. This is what we are all about. This is what Canada is all about.
Fairness is a principle which is extremely important to the productivity and efficiency of our Public Service. Yet here we are in 1989, almost 1990, and coast guard crews working aboard vessels on the east coast are paid $2,000 less than similar crews working on the west coast of our country. They are doing the same job for the same employer and getting substantially less money for it.
At National Defence hospitals here in our city and elsewhere in Canada hospital service workers, the majority of whom are women, have had to fight for over a decade to achieve wage parity with their general service counterparts. They went to the Human Rights Commission because their rates of pay trailed by 10 per cent or 40 per cent the wages of those in the general service category. The Human Rights Commission agreed with them. They were awarded $28 million, the largest pay equity settlement in the history of the Public Service. More than two years later these employees are still not getting the pay they deserve.
Retroactive pay from 1980 to 1987 based on new classifications has not yet been received by these workers. Retroactive pay from 1987 to the present also has not been paid out by the Treasury Board. These hospital workers are living on wages close to the poverty line. On average, they are entitled to an additional $3,000 per year. Given that the salary range of these workers is between $16,000 to $22,000 a year, an additional $3,000 is a lot of money.
The President of the Treasury Board assures us that he is working to comply with the equalization order given by the Human Rights Commission. He has stated that the various stages of the pay equity process are to blame for these delays which are proving so costly.

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
Blaming the delays on the pay equity system is not a valid argument. If we have a system where workers earning poverty level wages must wait for two, three or ten years to get fair wages and pay equity, then I say there is something wrong with that system. We cannot ask these employees to bear this burden.
Our Public Service is already burdened with serious problems such as downsizing and job insecurity, the increasing age of the workforce and the lack of promotion opportunities. Women are still under-represented in upper levels of the Public Service, representing only 12.3 per cent at the management level and 83 per cent in support positions.
So far attempts at employment equity have not been very successful. The matter before us today is only a symptom of the problems facing public servants and their employer, the government. The bottom line is that these workers want a fair deal. As a government, we should be setting an example for the private sector, an example which includes real efforts to address critical issues such as wage equity and constructive collective bargaining practices.
The federal government must be a role model for other employers in this country. It is disheartening to see Public Service employees having to fight for fair treatment from the federal service. The government has told this House that these employees are essential employees and should therefore not be allowed to strike. I would reply that every single public servant in this country is an essential employee. Each one deserves to receive a fair wage for his or her work. Each one, regardless of gender or region, deserves to be paid the same wage as another employee doing a comparable job.
Back to work legislation is not the answer. The striking employees are responsible and dedicated to their jobs. They want to go back to work. The Public Service Alliance has offered to go back to the bargaining table.
This morning we have received a call from Mr. Whalen of the hospital services union who indicated that the President of the Treasury Board's statement that employees were seeking 14 per cent for each of the next three years is an unfair statement. In fact, they are seeking 6 per cent for each of the next three years. He
also said that the dispute is about two issues: resolving the pay equity first and getting the pay increases second.
It is time for the government to make the concerns of these hard working Canadians a priority and resume negotiations. Legislating these workers back will not resolve the deep-seated concerns at issue today. We must work out a fair and equitable solution at the bargaining table, not on the floor of the House of Commons.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill before us, Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services. As Your Honour can well imagine I will be speaking mainly on the part of the government services provided by federal ship crews.
Late last week, on the advice of the Canadian Coast Guard the Laurentian Pilotage Authority and the Corporation of Lower St. Lawrence Pilots, the Minister of Transport announced that navigation would be temporarily halted on the lower St. Lawrence because safety could not be assured.
Subsequently, on September 4 after a further review and assessment of the situation, it was decided to permit navigation in the lower St. Lawrence with certain restrictions such as daylight navigation and the requirement to have two pilots on board the vessel.
The cold weather has caused earlier than normal ice formations in the river from Tadoussac west. Floating aids have become iced up. Ice floes have moved many others out of position and these now pose a navigational hazard. Still others submerged by the ice will come to the surface as a ship passes by with the risk that the buoy's anchor cable will foul up the ship's propellers. These are among the reasons navigation was temporarily closed between Quebec City and Les Escoumins.
By this time of year Canadian Coast Guard buoy tenders usually have recovered the summer buoys and replaced them with winter aids, but they have been tied up by the strike since November 14. The Seaway's reopening in 1990 could be affected by the loss and displacement of the buoys.
The temporary closure of one section of the waterway left some 100 merchant ships waiting to start or to continue their voyage. In addition, other ships are
December 8, 1989

currently in the seaway system above Montreal and will have to exit the seaway by December 19, the announced clearance date of the shipping season.
Ice-breakers need to be deployed without delay to ensure the safe and orderly exit of these vessels and to assure the safety of ships carrying general cargo and petroleum products to St. Lawrence and seaway ports. These ice-breakers are normally assigned to the Quebec City-Trois Rivieres area from mid-December to midMarch each year. The federal government must step in now to restore safe navigation in the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes and ensure the safety of mariners and fishermen in all parts of Canada.
The St. Lawrence Seaway system is the world's foremost inland waterway, used for decades by ships of every seagoing nation. The provision of essential services such as aids to navigation and ice-breaking are fundamental to the safety and integrity of this ocean link to central Canada and the industrial heartland of the United States.
The provision of these services is a key mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard. We have a long-standing commitment to ensure the safety and efficiency of this route for trading nations of the world. Transport Canada has a reputation of efficient and reliable safety services to shipping and the fisheries. The recent cold weather serves to remind us of the importance of these services, especially search and rescue operations.
Many fishermen who go to sea in the perilous winter months are alive today thanks to the Coast Guard search and rescue efforts. Since the strike began, basic search and rescue services have been provided by Canadian Coast Guard SAR operations through co-operative efforts with the union. I want to compliment the unions on the co-operation that they have shown throughout this labour dispute.
While the arrangement has also allowed for the provision of search and rescue services in life threatening circumstances, the strike has curtailed the full range of SAR services. We are thus hindered in our efforts to fulfil our national and international commitments to provide safety services on a continuous basis. Our external trade depends on the provision of these services.
Many of the ships now in the St. Lawrence system are loaded with export grain. It is estimated that one million tonnes of grain must be shipped overseas from ports along the St. Lawrence from now to January, but the
Government Orders
Seaway must be open if our grain shipments are to be set apart.
Canadians rely on the St. Lawrence system for a variety of other commodities. General cargo and petroleum products are moved by ship to remote communities and major cities alike. An interrupted supply route will have negative impacts on the livelihood of many people. A reduction in the supply of raw materials carried on the seaway to our industries spells economic hardship.
During 1988 the St. Lawrence Seaway carried over 20 million tonnes of bulk cargo such as iron ore and coal to and from ports in the Great Lakes system. Over 15 million tonnes were also moved through the Seaway. A further 4.5 million tonnes of general cargo were also moved by this great waterway.
The economic significance of such figures is enormous. The seaway's yearly cargo throughput is in the order of 40 million tonnes. Some 60 per cent of the Seaway's traffic is shipped to and from overseas ports chiefly in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
As of midnight, December 6, there were 51 ocean going vessels in the Great Lakes system west of St. Lambert lock. Of these, 33 are still above the Welland Canal. There are an additional 8 Canadian inland vessels per day requiring service. The average operating cost of these vessels varies from $5,000 to $25,000 per day and more, depending on the type of vessel. Many of the vessels face long delays. These delays will be longer if ice-breaker support is not available. Some ocean vessels may even be trapped in the system for the winter if ice-breaker assistance is not provided.
Should a number of the 51 ocean going vessels currently in the system be trapped, the losses incurred would be huge. Early system closure will also have a major impact on the viability of the Canadian inland fleet as it will be unable to meet all of its commitments.
With the outlook for below normal temperatures to continue for the remainder of December, the announced clearance date of December 19 may not be achievable and the dependability and reliability of the Seaway as a transportation route will be jeopardized. It is therefore critical that the Coast Guard services be restored as soon

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
as possible so that the seaway can be closed in an orderly fashion and all vessels can complete their transits.
In addition to the seaway, the St. Lawrence River ports have substantial impact on the local, regional and national economy. Traffic at Ports Canada facilities located on the St. Lawrence River generated over 16,500 jobs and $750 million in total income.
Let us look at the problem of ships currently delayed and the time lost. Today there were in excess of 70 ships experiencing delays in the St. Lawrence River below Montreal. In addition there were 51 ocean going vessels still to exit the St. Lawrence Seaway before its announced clearance on December 19.
This gives, in total, in excess of 120 ships affected or potentially affected if this strike is not immediately resolved. At an estimated daily cost per ship of from $5,000 to $20,000, the losses and ship time alone are presently about $1 million per day. This figure could escalate to millions per day if all the ships are not able to exit the seaway.
This strike has gone on for more than three weeks. Mediation talks began on November 26 and broke off three days later. We had hoped for a resolution on this labour dispute through mediation, but this strike which has gone on longer that we can tolerate has meant Canada has not been in the position to meet its national and international commitments to maritime safety.
I want people to note that we are not legislating a settlement to the issues that are involved in the strike. We are asking the workers to get back to their job so that they can carry on. They have an enviable record which is second to none. They are world class in their work. Nonetheless it has a tremendous impact on the Canadian economy as a whole.
More important, this bill calls for the establishment of two conciliation boards, one for either side of the equation. They will bring forth a settlement to the issue but we are not legislating the settlement per se. That is a very fundamental distinction.
We still want the unions to have the rights of the collective bargaining process, but there does not seem to be a possibility of that settlement right now between the union and management.
Nonetheless, we feel it is paramount for the shipping industry of Canada and for the economic well-being of the prairie grain system as the cargo flows through Thunder Bay and through the seaway system that the facilities and the efforts of the coast guard be put back into service so that we can be dependable and have a system that is working for the good of our country.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that I get up to speak today in opposition to this legislation. Today is the forty-first anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
I strongly oppose this legislation and I want to outline the bad faith bargaining on the part of this government, which is the employer in this case. I would also like members on the other side of the House to understand the valuable contributions of the labour movement to our Canadian society.
The collective agreements for both the ship crews and the hospital services members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada expired in December 1987, two years ago. We are talking about the lives and the livelihoods of 3,600 people across this country.
In September 1989 the Federal Court rendered a decision that precluded Treasury Board from designating any of these members. For the first time all members of the hospital services and ship crews classification of the Public Service Alliance enjoyed the right to strike. Strikes commenced on November 11, 1989 for the ship crews members and on November 29, 1989 for the hospital service members. Emergency services were still being provided by the members of these unions. Ship crews suspended their strike on at least 10 occasions to respond to emergency search and rescue calls.
This is one of the many reasons why back to work legislation is terrible. These alliance members have shown themselves to be principled and responsible Canadians. That is more than can be said of this government. There is no reason to designate them as essential workers when they know when emergency services are needed, and they have demonstrated that.
The Federal Court obviously agrees that they like all other workers have the right to strike. They have the right to withdraw their labour. The right to strike, the right to withhold one's labour from a bad faith employer, is a fundamental right in our society. It is one of the most effective bargaining tools workers have in a society
December 8, 1989

where business has almost total economic control over many people's lives.
Along with destroying workers' right to strike, another reprehensible part of this legislation is the targeting of women workers as objects of contempt who do not deserve to be paid what they are worth. The majority of the federal hospital workers are women. They earn an average of $18,000 a year.
The key issue throughout the hospital workers' negotiations have been that of equitable pay. These workers have every right to expect restructured rates of pay and an economic increase reflecting the levels of the major economic indicators in Canada. These workers have experienced at least 10 years of pay inequity and have faced the refusal of the employer to address in any rational manner the issue of equitable rates of pay.
Instead the federal hospital workers were forced to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They did so on September 9, 1981. The government delayed for almost six years before agreeing to an interim settlement in July 1987.
As I said earlier, it is ironic that this is the forty-first anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
The consent order states:
The parties are agreed that the Hospital Services-Group, which
is predominantly female, has received less wages than the General
Services-Group, a predominantly male group, for performing work
of at least equal value.
The consent order lays out the method and terms for retroactive and future equal pay rates for the hospital service workers. The retroactive phase covered the periods from September 9,1980, to July 26,1987. On duly 26, 1987, the payments stopped. In November 1989 Treasury Board began to make retroactive payments for the period since July 1987 to the present.
These workers deserve more than haphazard retroactive payments for the money they earned long ago. They deserve the fair rates established in the pay equity settlement to be inscribed in the collective agreement. They deserve to see that money a week after they have earned it, not two years later.
The government is stubbornly refusing to be fair to these workers. The government is openly practising discrimination against women workers. Instead of nego-
Government Orders
tiating in good faith, establishing equitable rates of pay, entrenching the equal pay rates in the union contract, this government is forcing these workers who are on legal strike back to work.
I say abandon this legislation and just give these women the deal they deserve. The government is offering a settlement of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. The difference in the rates of pay between this group and the general services group is estimated at more than 13 per cent. This issue will not go away by legislating unfairly treated workers back to work. It can only be addressed with a fair settlement.
All of this really comes as no surprise from a government whose own record on employment equity and pay equity is abysmal. The 1988 report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission specifically berated the government on the incredible delays in its study on pay equity in the public service.
The Employment Equity Act came into effect in 1986. It has been roundly criticized by labour, by women's groups, especially immigrant and visible minority women's groups, and by the New Democratic Party as having no teeth.
It is unfair to have to rely on the individual complaint process through the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission is not equipped to handle all of these complaints. We should establish and enforce employment and pay equity plans with goals and with timetables in a systematic way.
Some of the other outstanding issues for both the ships' crews and hospital workers negotiations are Article M-16, a no discrimination clause. The bargaining team wish family status and mental or physical disability to be added to the grounds of prohibited discrimination in the union agreement.
The union is asking for changes to Article M-21 of the contract. It wants its members to be able to partake of the new parental leave provisions of the UI Act. It is asking for 26 weeks of maternity leave.
We can compare this with what most workers in some western European countries have access to. In Sweden, women are eligible for nine months paid maternity leave and at a benefit level of 90 per cent of their earnings. They do not have to negotiate with a tight-fisted employer for a 26 week maternity leave.

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
In this case, the regressive Conservative government is also the employer. This government does not understand that policies that benefit workers also benefit the country. The government does not understand that progressive policies do contribute to a healthy economy. Tory economic policies such as the GST, the decimation of unemployment insurance and the constant attack on labour serve only to impoverish this country and to oppress working people.
The New Democratic Party has been enriched by the active participation of labour. When the Canadian labour movement and the CCF, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, joined together in the early 1960s to form a political party, a powerful force in Canadian politics emerged. Since then, labour has helped to guide the New Democratic Party to adopt the most progressive and sound economic policies of any elected political party in Canada.
Labour and the New Democratic Party have fought for medicare, unemployment insurance, maternity and parental leave, child care, collective bargaining rights, employment and pay equity. We have fought together for a better Canada, one not controlled by the rich few, a democratic Canada in which everyone has the economic and social resources to fully participate in Canadian life and Canadian society. We are committed to an economic strategy of full employment. We are committed to fairness for all working people, men and women.
In my riding, I consult with labour. Labour can always be relied on to come up with practical strategies to build a progressive Canada. Labour can always be relied on for energy and for a wholehearted commitment to bettering the situations of Canadian workers and the most disadvantaged of our society.
I am proud that the New Democratic Party is fighting for the rights of working people. Labour and the New Democratic Party are united against the unfair treatment of working people by this government. We are united in opposition to this back to work legislation.
I am also proud that our new leader, the hon. member for Yukon, is taking a strong leadership role on all of these issues, especially in opposing this back to work legislation. She is following in the footsteps of her predecessor, the hon. member for Oshawa.
We are a party and a movement that is united and forward looking. We put our common goals and our principles ahead of our individual differences. This government must bargain in good faith. It must not put back to work legislation into effect. I urge all members on both sides of this House to vote against this regressive legislation.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with my colleagues in this debate because of the very special significance that this concern that we are debating today in the House of Commons has for my riding at the west end of Montreal.
As many of my colleagues will know, the Ste. Anne's Veterans Hospital is an outstanding institution at the immediate western point of the Island of Montreal. It accommodates some 726 veterans, many of whom are in their final years, and is recognized in the community by the Legion groups which support it with their volunteer hours and by the many citizens who join with the professional staff to assist in providing services needed in caring for people in their final years.
Included in the Ste. Anne's Veterans Hospital are some 250 permanently bedridden patients. There are also some 400 who can move about in wheelchairs but who, without the assistance necessary to handle wheelchairs, are like the others, bedridden.
In the past days and weeks, my office has received calls expressing concern on behalf of families or volunteers having limited access to those needing care. All these people, my neighbours, electors in the riding of La-chine-Lac-Saint-Louis, electors in Vaudreuil to the west and Pierrefonds in the north, all are concerned about the health and care of the citizens in the hospital.
Patients with Alzheimers and dementia need routine in their life. If people change or meals are not regular, they become disoriented. It is a time when personal care and assistance is so vital to making life possible. All patients need care with bathing and shaving. Most need care with feeding.
One of the ladies who called my office and with whom I spoke expressed concern that regularity and meals for her family member was becoming very critical and that not receiving lunch until three or four in the afternoon is
December 8, 1989

having a negative effect on the well-being and health of these patients.
Those patients who need physiotherapy or psychological care are not receiving it. The absence of that care at this time in their lives carries with it without question a threat to their well-being.
The volunteers at the Ste. Anne's Veterans Hospital are themselves elderly, many of them senior citizens. Many are becoming very tired. They have been working long hours and extra time to fill in for the services that are normally rendered. It is difficult or awkward for them to cross picket lines.
The Ste. Anne's Veterans Hospital cannot function without its volunteer group. There are many hundreds who visit the hospital to assist the staff. The situation is now reaching a crisis point. Most staff members have been working hard, some of them for eight days straight on 12-hour shifts.
There was originally an evaluation of the work of the some 600-odd workers who service the hospital and it was determined that to keep it operating safely, operating with care, it would require that 90 per cent of the workers contribute. The offer that was made by the union to designate certain workers to assure essential services was 8 per cent of that number.
The seasonal events which are so much looked forward to at this time of year and enjoyed by all Canadian citizens will have to be cancelled at the hospital. Whether it is the music or whether it is the special food that comes with this holiday season, it becomes for those directly affected very much of an emergency.
A patient who is not able to receive physiotherapeutic treatment, perhaps for leg problems for some time, and is not able to walk on the wards, could be expected to suffer a major set-back to the point where he might never be able to walk again.


An Hon. Member:: Negotiate then.


Robert E.J. Layton: I know that the negotiations are continuing. We have sat in this House of Commons listening to the reports of the minister that negotiations are ongoing. It is my hope that there will be a negotiation that will bring the workers back together. In the meantime, we have to concern ourselves with the well-being of the veterans. These are the people who actually represented
Government Orders
this country with the risk to their lives in the wars of the past.
During the strike, the physiotherapy department has had to be shut down. Another major impact on patients is the change in routine that makes older people nervous, especially when the change is beyond their control. The hospital is for many of them, at this stage in their lives, their home and it is the one area where they feel comfortable.
Quite a number of the Ste. Anne's patients cannot eat by themselves. They require spoon-feeding. If any of the members of this House have shared in the experience of a senior citizen in his or her last years, they will know how key to their happiness and to their good feeling of still being alive comes from having someone there to help and someone there to care. Volunteers are doing that job at the moment, but they are not trained to recognize, for example, the onset of choking. Nor are they trained to act upon the problems of a patient once he has experienced choking.
How can we balance these tremendous needs in our community? On the one hand, the patients should have our very best in service. At the same time, we must consider those who are anxious to share fairly in the distribution of resources of the country, the workers who make it happen.
I can add concerns of their cardiac patients who are becoming more and more anxious. This anxiety is brought on when meals are not served on time and when medication is not being given at the usual time. Daily activities are being rearranged and activity rooms are being changed. These are not big problems for most people, but are part of essential routine for some cardiac patients to whom anxiety can lead to fatality.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs runs a hospital and two veterans' homes. The hospital is located in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, at the western tip of the Island of Montreal. There is the Rideau Veterans' Home in Ottawa and the veterans' home in Saskatoon.
I shall only talk about the situation in the Saint-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital. The problem is most serious

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
there, mainly because the patients in that hospital need much more care than those in our two homes.

In the Ste. Anne's hospital, more than half of the staff belong to the hospital services group. While there are procedures in the event of a strike, the House will be aware that there were provisions that allowed designation of positions. This requires people in such positions to continue to perform their services if a strike is called. In this case, the essential service is to safeguard the health and security of the patients and to maintain their welfare.
The department did receive an offer from the union, but it was considered impossible to maintain the services on the basis of that offer. The response of the department indicated that while it was prepared to make an offer, the offer of 45 employees was well short of what was needed.
Now that the hospital at Ste. Anne's has been operating during the strike, it is important first to recognize that the strain on the employees did not begin when the strike started but had begun some considerable time in advance. Doctors, nurses and professional and support staff have been working 12 hour shifts. The nurses, in addition to their own work, have been doing the work normally undertaken by the higher levels of orderlies. The situation is becoming more and more critical.

Our doctor, nurses and other professional staff are working 12-hour shifts. In addition to their own duties, the nurses are doing the work normally done by the higher level assistants. The work of the other members of the hospital services group has been done in two ways: first, by the group of volunteers who usually help at that hospital.

It is an immense team of volunteers who contribute to the well-being of our veterans. In addition, they have moved some of the staff from other centres to try to assist. All have been working long hours and all are now, as might be expected, very tired.
I think we should pay tribute, and I am sure the House would wish to join me in doing so, to those who are keeping services available to our veterans and who have committed themselves to this end. Despite our best
efforts, the health and safety of the patients is coming into jeopardy and this has been noted over these past days.
The deputy minister, as reported by the minister in his report to the House on this matter, studied personally the situation in Ste. Anne de Bellevue and concluded that we have to act now because the health, safety and security of the patients is in danger. I believe that we have demonstrated why this situation cannot be allowed to continue any longer.

As I already told the veterans, my department considers its employees most important and wants to treat them fairly. I believe that the arrangements proposed in this legislation will allow an independent third party to help solve the dispute.
Our personnel is entitled to expect fair treatment. [English]
I would like to ask that the House respond rapidly to pass this legislation so that we may properly care for our veteran patients and look after those who did so much for us and are now unable to look after themselves. It is for this reason that I fully support the government's back-to-work legislation which is absolutely justified under the circumstances.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services.
I am pleased to speak to the bill but I am not so pleased about what the bill entails. In addition to this motion, the government has moved closure on this bill to cut off debate on this issue, something that I find absolutely appalling.
I believe there is no one more anxious to go back to work than the health services and the ships' crew workers. We all know that the work of these two groups provide an essential service to Canadians. These two groups of public servants have a long history of being ignored by the federal government, a history of pay inequity. The hospital workers went out on strike in the wee hours of November 30 and the ships' crew workers went out on November 13.
There are provisions in the Public Service Staff Relations Act which allow for the designation of essential personnel who are prohibited by law from going on strike during a labour dispute. However, nine government

departments failed to meet the deadline for submitting lists of personnel that they felt were essential.
The federal court ruled that the departments' mistake could not be overlooked and that these groups had the right to strike. As a result, all members of any of those groups were in a legal strike position if talks broke down. These groups have exercised that right. They are among the lowest paid in the federal Public Service. Is it any wonder that there are also the same groups that rejected the tentative agreement in March?
The major issues that led to the ships' crew group's rejection of a tentative agreement in March of this year were wages, hours of work, a sea duty allowance and wage parity on the east and west coasts. As of July 1987, wages on the west coast were behind private sector wages by 16 per cent and on the east coast wages lagged by 28 per cent. An east coast ship worker makes $2,000 less than his counterpart working for the same government on the west coast.
Given private sector wage increases over the past two years, these percentages are now much higher. The Public Service negotiators are not prepared to compromise any of the employees' requests in exchange for one benefit.
The members of this group work on the east and west coasts, on the Great Lakes and on the Canadian Coast Guard vessels, the fisheries vessels, search and rescue lifeboats, Public Works vessels and on Canadian forces auxiliary vessels providing support for naval vessels.
During the strike these federal employees have shown their good will and dedication by leaving the picket line whenever emergency services to the Canadian public were required. This to me indicates that these employees are dedicated to their jobs. They were dedicated when an emergency arose and they laid down their strikers' pickets and went back to work for those emergencies.
They are proposing, instead of higher pay scales, that they be given across-the-board sea allowances of $210 per month. The Department of National Defence already pays $177 per month to all personnel. The higher amount is because their pay scale is so much lower. The government could have settled this matter for $6 million. Considering how many days that they have been out on
Government Orders
strike, they could have saved this $6 million by preventing lost business during the strike period.
The hospital services workers have been on strike since November 30. I listened to the gentleman across the way from a riding in Montreal who spoke just before me and his whole speech was based on the veterans' homes in Ste. Anne de Bellevue and on the volunteers and how great it was that the volunteers were providing this much-needed service. Only briefly did I hear him refer to the workers, those workers who have been so dedicated to these veterans all these years, and those workers who too do not like to see those veterans not being cared for to the extent that they know that they themselves would care for them. I did not hear the hon. member address that.
On July 15, 1987, the Human Rights Commission Tribunal ruled that this group of people is undervalued and underpaid. When is the government going to recognize that? The tribunal's consent order called on the employer to compensate the workers for past discrimination, re-evaluate seamstresses and community health representative positions using the federal general services standard and to revise the health services classification standard to parallel.
The classification system was changed but only equalization payments were issued. No salary adjustments have been made.
This is not something that has gone on for a year or two, it has gone on for years. The Human Rights Commission has ruled that they are being discriminated against, that they are undervalued, that they are underpaid and the government is not recognizing this.
On average, the health services workers are entitled to an additional $3,000 a year. Given that their salaries are as low as $16,000 and average about $22,000, this is a significant amount and a disgraceful wage.
Health services workers offered to provide emergency services but the government would not come to an agreement with them, thinking they could provide services with military personnel and volunteers. I kept hearing from the previous speaker about how these veterans were not being cared for and how these volunteers were overworked and how tired they were. Well, these public servants offered to do the job and they will

Government Orders
not let them do the job and they will not pay them for doing the job.
The bill orders back the ships' crews and the hospital services workers immediately to their jobs. It establishes penalties for failure to comply; $500 to $1,000 a day for an individual. Someone who is making $18,000 a year is going to have to pay $500 to $1,000 a day if he or she does not comply.
It is unfortunate that this government is making out that these workers are the irresponsible ones. It is this government that is irresponsible. It is not bargaining in good faith. If this were really a caring government, then it would bring these salaries into line and get how these ministers would like to live on wages of $18,000 and $22,000 a year. We come into this building every day and we see the limousines sitting there with the motors running to keep the chauffeurs warm. In the summer time we see the limousines sitting there with the motors running to keep the chauffeurs cool. It is probably costing $18,000 a year in gasoline to keep those limousines out there. And these people do not have the courage nor the strength of conviction to pay these workers what they are worth and get them back to work.
This is a disgraceful situation. We have our veterans in the Rideau Veterans' Home who deserve the best care that we can give them. This quality care is given by these dedicated employees. I beg this government, if it wants these people to go back to work and if it is going to legislate them back to work, to make the commitment that it will bring their pay into line with other workers and show that it is bargaining in good faith.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian marine aids to navigation system is one of the fundamental elements of marine safety in Canada. The system consists of both floating and fixed aids to navigation on the east and west coast and on our major inland waterways. In all, there are some 8,000 floating aids to navigation comprising buoys of various types and sizes, ranging from seven-tonne buoys to lighter smaller spar buoys. These floating aids are complemented by fixed or shore-based aids to navigation, including light stations, ranges and day marks. The larger floating buoys are complex pieces of equipment that carry radar reflectors, whistles, battery power
sources, lights, bells, and in some cases, radar transponders. These aids are marked and located in accordance with international conventions so that they are understood by the international marine community. The positioning of floating aids is carefully determined to take into consideration many factors such as channel configuration, local weather conditions, the presence of hazards and the local requirements of marine traffic.
Because of our Canadian climate it is normal practice for many lighted buoys to be removed from service at the end of the summer navigation season because they cannot withstand ice. In areas where navigation continues year around, in spite of the presence of ice, the summer buoys are removed and replaced by a limited number of winter spar buoys which are able to withstand severe ice action. In the St. Lawrence, lighted summer buoys are normally replaced by unlighted spars during the latter part of November. These spars do not provide the same level of service as the normal summer buoys. For example, it is most common on the St. Lawrence when the winter spars are set to restrict river traffic to daylight hours because of the absence of the lights on the buoys.
With the strike of ships crews, the Coast Guard's ability to bring in the summer buoys and, in some areas, to replace them with winter spars has been hampered. In the St. Lawrence, all buoys between Sept Isles and the Seaway normally would have been removed or replaced by this time, particularly with the present weather.
The situation which has developed in the St. Lawrence was entirely dependent on climatic conditions. In view of the severe and early winter weather this year, the summer buoys, beginning in the section between Quebec and Tadoussac, have become iced over. Others have capsized and some are partly submerged. With the accumulation and movement of surface ice, many of these buoys have also been dragged off position severely. Some have been dragged into the channel where they have become potential hazards. Some buoys have had anchor chains broken and some of these have actually floated free.
This situation is deteriorating upstream from Quebec, all the way up to the Seaway, with some 200 of the total 404 river buoys being iced over, off position and sometimes entirely extinguished. The safety of marine naviga-

tion was recognized by both the Canadian Coast Guard and the pilotage authorities. This has been compromised. It was for this reason that navigation on a section of the river was closed to traffic last Friday. As a result of the ongoing assessment of the safety of navigation, the lower section of the St. Lawrence was subsequently reopened to navigation on December 5 under restricted conditions.
The safety of marine navigation is a primary responsibility of this government. To let this situation continue is to risk an accident involving shipping on the St. Lawrence River. Such an incident could possibly result in the inability of all ships to clear the St. Lawrence Seaway above Montreal prior to the closing of navigation.
Because the aids-to-navigation system on the St. Lawrence is essential to marine safety, we must move immediately to remove any buoys that are potential hazards and to restore the system with winter spars so that traffic to and from Montreal can continue through the winter months. The current situation is most critical, given that a number of ocean-bound vessels remain in the St. Lawrence Seaway and must exit the system prior to the announced clearance date of the Seaway, which I understand to be December 19.
I would mention that critical situations also exist in other parts of the country, particularly off the Labrador coast where the Coast Guard maintains some 36 buoys that are normally lifted by this time of year. New Brunswick's Saint John River, now frozen over, holds some 27 buoys which normally would have been removed in May and will now be lost or will be hazards to the navigation system in the spring.
This situation has gone on long enough. It cannot be permitted to continue to threaten the safety of navigation and, most important, the economy and financial well-being of Canada.
I know that when we get into a debate like this, there is always a question of individual rights versus the rights and responsibilities of the Government of Canada. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to ensure safety in shipping. For that reason, I
Government Orders
think we have to move in the direction that we are moving. We are doing it for the good of the country.
We are talking about balancing rights in this House on almost a continual basis. This debate today is no different. It is something like the abortion debate in a sense; a balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn. I think in this debate the rights of Canadians to ensure the safety of their navigation is of prime importance. When the negotiation process breaks down we are all losers in a sense. We hate to see it happen but from time to time in a democracy it does happen. That is what this debate is about today. It has been a long day. It has been a long couple of days in this House. But I believe that we are doing what is right for Canada. We are doing what is right for navigation.
In conclusion, I would simply reinforce the fact that the Canadian government has a responsibility to move quickly. I believe we are doing the right thing for the Canadian people.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, After the series of articles that appeared in the press about this strike, which is clearly legal, after talking to some of the strikers living in the riding of Gatineau-La Lievre, who told me about their concerns and what they consider to be unfair-Obviously, I read the documentation. If I may be allowed to quote, I read a decision that came the PSAC, which said that the federal government's decision to introduce legislation ordering federal public service employees in the ship's crews and hospital services groups to end their legal strike constitutes unjustified abuse of legislative powers.
However, I would not go as far as to say that. I think that what we see here is negligence, when we consider the position of these workers, whether they are on ships or in hospitals.
During the three and half weeks they have been on strike, members of the hospital services and ship's crews groups made sure that public safety was never at risk by always providing essential services. Consequently, it is clear that this bill contravenes the international conventions on freedom of association ratified by that same Canadian government.

Government Orders

If you may permit me, there have been so many articles and so many declarations on this issue it is obvious that the whole issue gets cloudier as each day goes by. The strike continues and we want to put an end to it because we realize it has ramifications, not only for the hospitals, for our ships but for security on the St. Lawrence and elsewhere.
Another person involved in this strike is a representative of the workers. Instead of negotiating a contract for the workers, the government is spending it seems hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. It would make more sense to have the employer sit down to negotiate a settlement with the employees, ratify it with the union and get things back to normal.
When you consider that the Human Rights Commission, not last week or three weeks ago but over two and a half years ago, declared that these men were underpaid, it seems to me that knowing this issue would come to a head that sooner or later the President of the Treasury Board could expect that these men would be in a legal position to strike, which they are, and the whole thing would come to the surface.
If there is anything that governments do, it is to be sure that everything is done equitably; equal pay for equal work. This could be an anomaly, some kind of an exception that could have been overlooked, if we can use the term. We will give them the benefit of the doubt. But two and a half years after the Human Rights Commission declaration which is an independent body respected by everyone, it seems that that should have been the signal or cue to the government to say: "Let us go by the principle of equal work for equal pay, and sit down to negotiate a contract that will stand up to any rigorous examination, be it by the workers or their union". But that is not the case here.
We have had disputes and all kinds of excuses over the past few weeks. The problem is it is not the last three weeks of the strike. It is the fact that it is has been dragging on for two and a half years. Maybe this is unfortunately an aspect of government, that it constantly hedges on time. There is an expression in French that says: "Tout ce qui traine se salit. Evidemment.", and this is the case. Tout ce qui traine se salit. Evidemment. What was rather interesting to me was my Liberal colleague from Ottawa who wrote a letter of nearly two pages to the
President of the Treasury Board and concluded with the following paragraph:
I again assure of my strong commitment to the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value and ask for your support in helping our public to understand what can be a complex and lengthy process to implement.
Like I said, we will give them the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt that it is a complex and limiting process to implement. But it has been two and a half years. We are not dealing with thousands upon thousands of employees, we are dealing with a group who, for some time, were 26 per cent behind in pay compared with the private sector. Some workers, paid by this government, are 16 per cent behind.
For example, those who are responsible for the maintenance of the Parliament Buildings are paid 16 per cent more. It is not that they are being paid more. They are paid for work, which is justifiable. But here we have the same employees in another part of the country doing important work in our hospitals getting 16 per cent less.

Madam Speaker, we could, of course, go on indefinitely about this issue and invoke all kinds of principles. I listened to the hon. member from the Quebec City area, I don't remember his riding, who spoke very well and very sensibly, but we cannot avoid the facts. It doesn't take a university degree to realize that the problem has been around for two and half years. It was bound to come to a head, and it was bound to end in a strike. Of course there was going to be strike. They said that after waiting for two and half years, they were not going to wait anymore.
The government had plenty of time. There was no problem from that point of view. However it was the kind of negligence that we see all too often. I am not saying that the present government, the Progressive Conservative Party, is more to blame than anyone else. That is not the point. I think that the problem is that the government underestimated the will and determination of the people who work in our hospitals, and who know theirs is an essential service, and as so often happens, our governments tend to think that these people are very conscientious and that the chances of their going on strike are minimal. However, after two and half years, especially considering the support they got from agencies like the Human Rights Commission, they knew some-
December 8, 1989

thing had to give. In fact, it is surprising that it took two and half years.
So I believe that under the circumstances we cannot- In their letter they ask that we understand the complexity of the issue. Quite so, but how can we defend the government's position when we know there has been enough negligence to trigger a strike. The workers walk off the job and obviously the government, faced with a situation it has ignored for two years, is unable to settle the issue once and for all in two or three weeks. So it introduces special legislation-I have seen some in the past-to force them back to work, promising it will negotiate in good faith. But I maintain that after so many years the employees are in a good position and their strike is justified. It is unfortunate to realize that some essential services might be curtailed, but I do not believe that such is the case. But we have to admit that the government is guilty of negligence in this case. It is as simple as that. Never mind the statistics and the various statements, practically anything can be justified, but still we have to acknowledge the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has indeed been very negligent.
Of course we cannot support them on this issue, but at least we can tell them we hope this is the last time we see a government-which can afford to do much better- bring in special legislation to order back to work a group of people who are underpaid when compared with colleagues doing the same job, a fact which has been proved by all organizations. Basically, the way I look at this problem, and I want to put this a simply as possible, is that I am convinced the government will order them back to work. However, as I read the last paragraph of the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board, I believe there will be a final meaningful negotiation to do justice to these men, the kind of justice they have not seen in years.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in a way I am very sad to be participating in this debate today. I am also sad from the perspective of producers in my riding, farmers who
Government Orders
depend on the system to export grain to market. This is their livelihood.
But I am also glad because it will give members and myself an opportunity to talk about what is wrong with the system that permits these sorts of stoppages and what we should be trying to do collectively to make a better system for the future.
I come from a riding on the prairies which is approximately 25,000 square miles in area and which is almost entirely dependent on agriculture. Indeed, agriculture produces, even now some 16 per cent of the gross domestic product of the province of Saskatchewan. It is quite clear that neither Saskatchewan nor, I suggest, Canada can long continue to endure these sorts of work interruptions. I am trying to be as non-partisan as possible in saying this because I am not anti-labour and not anti-management. I think what I am anti is this sort of senseless system we have which permits stoppages of work that do less damage to the parties than to the nation as a whole causing immense problems for third parties whether it be farmers, whether it be students, you name it.
Whenever the system of collective bargaining breaks down, the safety valve mechanism that we have dates back to the Stone Ages. We live in a modem, sophisticated society. We are capable of putting men into space. We are capable of transplanting organs. Messages can go around the world in the twinkle of an eye through sophisticated telecommunication systems. We live in a modem, sophisticated society and yet our dispute settlement mechanism is one which goes back, surely, to the days of the cave man.
When the system breaks down, it is time for the parties to start slugging each other on the forehead with rocks until one or the other falls down or, as is most often the case, it is time to come crawling into the House of Commons for some back to work legislation. Clearly things should change.
First I would like to talk about this particular bill from the perspective of prairie agriculture, then from the over-all perspective of labour relations generally. I will try to make what I believe to be a constructive suggestion. I think we all know that Canada has a mammoth handling and transportation system which moves grain from the prairies to market. The well-being of much of

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
western Canada hinges on the continuing flow of this grain, particularly wheat, through the system of rail, river, road, canal and sea to purchasers throughout the world.
I am told that there are some 37 unions involved in the handling of grain between the farm gate and the port. They are involved in the country elevators, the railways and the grain terminals, the seaway, the St. Lawrence, the various ports, and they represent all sorts of individuals and occupations: grain handlers, grain trimmers, grain inspectors, weighers and samplers, seaway workers, lake carrier deck hands, mates and engineers, port stevedores, longshoremen, pilots, tugboat operators, railway trainmen, locomotive engineers, non-op shop craft workers, rail traffic controllers, various country elevator and grain service union personnel. There is a considerable number of employees and a considerable number of employers as well-the grain companies, railway, seaway, port authorities and so on.
Any one of these groups, at any given time, represents a vital link in the chain that is capable of breaking down and curtailing really remains the lifeblood of the southern prairies.
Canada exports more than 80 per cent of its wheat crop. Canada enjoys her reputation as a reliable supplier to the world of high quality wheat. The Canadian Wheat Board, which this government supports fully as the sole marketing agency for prairie export wheat, has been doing a good job maintaining and even expanding Canada's share of the world market in the face of unfair and cut-throat foreign competition.
The European Economic Community and the United States are both offering substantial export enhancement bonuses in order to maintain their share of market. These programs seriously undermine world grain prices, and this, in turn, has had devastating effects on our country which is so heavily dependent on exports. The Common Market has some 330 million people to draw from as a domestic population. The United States has some 250 million people. We in Canada have about 26 million people and so we are doubly dependent on export. We export a far greater share of our product than any of the other major wheat growing areas and, in turn, we have a much smaller domestic population to be able to match support programs.
Clearly it is a buyer's market out there. The importing countries value the quality of Canada's wheat but they can buy wheat elsewhere. The buyers do not have to put up with uncertainty of supply and delays in delivery. So when interruptions occur in our grain handling and transportation system, causing Canada to be unable to meet its obligations, other grain exporting countries will. Indeed, even the threat of labour-management induced interruptions in grain movement could lead to lost sales.
The Canadian Wheat Board, in effect, has to sell wheat to make sandwiches. The wheat has to be there to make tomorrow's bread. The nature of the business is that importers require large quantities on short notice and if the product is not on the shelf then it is simply not going to be sold. Canadian Wheat Board Commissioner Kristiansen, speaking of another work stoppage a couple of years ago, said that the stoppages at Thunder Bay had resulted in a million tonnes in lost sales. He is further quoted as saying:
As things drag out longer you lose more. There is no question in our
minds that we lost sales and substantial sales.
The major cost of these interruptions is lost sales opportunities. Other costs involve demurrage and the back-up following the stoppage, as well as additional rail costs in the case of seaway closures. Given the past history of stoppages in this country I suggest that this legislation is absolutely necessary. I will later suggest that we come up with measures in this House which would deal not just with this problem but with all similar problems so that there will not be the necessity to keep coming back here to resolve problems for which there should be a modem up-to-date mechanism.
I do not believe for a moment that there is anything to be gained by adhering to this status quo, this business of either side bashing the other on the forehead until one drops and there is some sort of a settlement. Meanwhile, there are people out of work, there is grain backed up, there is misery being inflicted in the country. It is archaic; it is antiquated; it does not make any sense in our society today.
I have been disappointed to say the least with some of my colleagues in this House who tell two stories. They go home to the prairies and tell the farmers that they are 100 per cent behind them and that this government is terrible and does not pay attention to agriculture, and yet they come back to Ottawa with a different story. Then it is time for them to start kowtowing to the big union bosses and saying: "Yes, sir, Mr. Bean" or "Yes, Shirley,

December 8, 1989

whatever you want that will be the way it is". There is one story told on the prairies and then the farmers are stabbed in the back by those same people down here in Ottawa.
I think prairie producers are wise to this sort of tactic. They are getting sick and tired of it. I suggest that colleagues across the way in opposition would be well advised to co-operate in the passage of this bill.
I would in a way dare them to keep it going until Monday and Tuesday when we have the agri-food conference here in Ottawa. They will have the opportunity to hear first hand from producers and those involved in the industry right across Canada. They will tell them how they feel about the stupidity of delaying and continuing to filibuster this sort of measure.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Same old Tory philosophy. It is a shameful travesty.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing some interruptions of course from our colleagues in the NDP who like to hand it out but are of course are incapable of receiving anything. The difficulty with the simpering pantywaists who are sitting across the way is that they are too, too dependent on the apron strings of organized labour.
As a matter of fact, since we have been so rudely interrupted here by my NDP colleagues, I have to draw the attention of the House to a form letter from one Daryl Bean of the Public Service Alliance of Canada dated December 6, 1989. "Dear Member of Parliament," he states. He goes on to state that we are going to be asked to pass some back to work legislation. He points out that both groups provide services of enormous social and economic importance to the nation.
There is no argument there. Mr. Bean is right on. He is back. He is fresh from his bit part in "Saturday Afternoon Live" in Winnipeg which, as an aside, was really a marvellous spectacle for the nation to observe.
On the second page of this letter that Mr. Bean directs to members of Parliament, he goes on to get the old class knife in here. He states: "Could it be that some ice in the
Government Orders
seaway is causing economic pain to the friends of the government in corporate Canada?"
It seems to me that this has been going on now for some four weeks. Indeed there is important work to be done by these people. As Mr. Bean says, they provide services of enormous social and economic importance to the nation. I would think that four weeks of work stoppage is adequate. I would suggest that it is more than time for people to get back to work.
If Mr. Bean really means what he says on page one, he should be very pleased to see legislation such as this which recognizes that importance. I would urge all members to co-operate in passing this legislation as quickly as possible and getting these people back to work.
What is there to do in regard to the problem generally? I have been in this House for five years, and measures such as this have become annual exercises. Here we are now dealing with legislation in regard to the Seaway. Last year it was the Prince Rupert grain handling situation. The year before it was the Postal Services Continuation Act. The year before that it was the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act. We came back in the summer for that. The year before it was the Maintenance of Ports Operation Act. This has been the case all the way along. There is a long list of back to work legislation that had to be passed.
It is clear that the system is not functioning as it should. As I indicated earlier, we have a modern, sophisticated sort of society. Why is it that in the area of labour relations when the collective bargaining process breaks down it is necessary to have a work stoppage? Whether it is on the part of management or on the part of labour, I do not care. It is debilitating for all concerned. It is an embarrassment to the country. There is a great cost to various classes of Canadian people, generally those who can least afford it. In the particular case at hand it is prairie farmers who will bear the brunt of this thing. It is on their behalf that I urge members opposite to co-operate in this particular piece of legislation.
Over all, I say again that this is not a case of being pro-labour, anti-labour, pro-business or anything else. It is a case of wanting to be anti-stupidity. Our failure in our modern society to come forward with some better

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
way of resolving these impasses in the collective bargaining process is unforgivable. We have to do better.
This is a sort of abrupt cutting off. Hurtful, harmful measures inflicted upon people can cause damage, risk lives, costs innocent third parties considerable inconvenience and costs, cause embarrassment to our nation, threaten our markets and our reliability as a supplier. All these things point again and again to the need to do something better.
It is in that light and with that sentiment that I again make an appeal to this House, as indeed I have done through four or five private members' initiatives past and present, to try to work toward finding a better dispute settlement mechanism, some manner in which we can resolve these disputes before they get to this harmful, hurtful stage.
I do not pretend to know what the answer is, but it seems to me that we could form an all-party committee. Members from all sides of this House could hear evidence, could see what is being done in other countries. It may be a two-envelope system or it might be some form of court. There are specialty courts in some countries. There is the admiralty. There are obviously courts which specialize in matrimonial matters and probate matters. Why not in the resolution of labour disputes?
The collective bargaining process is good. It has to be there, clearly. There is no question about that. But let us have a better way of trying to resolve the breakdowns when they come, because the human cost and the dollar cost to our country are simply too great.
In regard to this particular bill I urge members on all sides to give speedy passage to the legislation in order to stop the terrible damage occurring to Canada's grain sector, to help out prairie agriculture and to help out farmers who are being beset by real difficulties in world export markets.
Over all, in regard to the big picture in terms of labour disputes generally-not just this one, but all of the other ones which have occurred and which we see in here year after year after year-I again say: let us look upon it from an all-party point of view. Let us try to get together to find some new mechanism to deal with it. I do not know what the answer is, but I think we have to get together. Surely collectively we can come up with something. We
live in a modern society. There is a lot of talent in here. Clearly there is a need which must be addressed.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House this afternoon to oppose this bill and oppose it strenuously.
This piece of legislation tries to deal with three fundamental points. First, it talks about pay equity between men and women, between the east and west coasts and it deals with equity between private and public labour. The government has brought this bill in because it has failed to live up to its commitments to bring in pay equity. That is one of the points which I will come back to later.
The second point that this bill is dealing with is the whole question of labour rights. It is part of a Tory government program to undermine systematically the rights of labour in this country. Workers have won the right to organize and to bargain collectively. They have won the right to work or to withhold their work. This bill is part of an agenda to undermine this right.
It is always comical to listen to the Tories at a time when the eastern bloc countries are recognizing as a part of fundamental democracy that one must allow workers the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Even the eastern bloc countries are now recognizing this. Yet the Conservatives are going in the opposite direction.
The third thing that this bill shows is the incompetence and bungling of this government. This is a result of total incompetence. Is this not part of a Tory agenda? I sit here bewildered, wondering why they are not willing to settle. It is going to cost $6 million. What is behind it? Why will they not give workers the rights and the money they deserve? It is a measly amount of money.
I begin to ask myself: What ulterior motives do the Tories have? Why are they being so hard-nosed about this? You begin to wonder if it because John Crow has said: "If you give these workers fair wages, with the GST coming in next year there is going to be a push for additional wage increases in the public sector and the inflation rate will go up". Is this not part of their GST package?
Much of this has to do with the lack of the government's fairness with its employees, particularly hospital workers. I have worked in long-term care. I have worked with veterans, particularly elderly veterans. Hospital workers form one of the hardest working groups you will ever get. It is difficult working with seniors. These are
December 8, 1989

dedicated people. They provide care and nurturing. They provide a whole range of services that must be recognized. Yet, in this case, there is a yawning gap between the fine words of the government and the meagre actions that have been taken at the ministerial level.
Let us listen to the fine words of the Prime Minister when he was debating the leader of the NDP in the 1988 election campaign on pay equity. The NDP leader said: "In this area of pay equity in which you have direct responsibility, you made a commitment in 1984 in terms of narrowing the gap between men and women. Why did you not act?"
The Prime Minister's explanation was: "Because we did. We passed the Employment Equity Act that Flora McDonald was responsible for in the first case. Second, we have the joint union-management committee to implement pay equity in the Public Service that is now going on to Treasury Board under Pat Carney, with all of our unions, where we are agreeing on a policy of pay equity for women for equal pay. This is what has been going on. This is the hard work that is going to produce, I think, quite remarkable results that will meet the objectives we both seek".
Those are nice words but nothing has happened. The Prime Minister is saying "a policy of pay equity for women". Why does he not implement it?
In the case of hospital workers they have been fighting for equity since 1981 and have argued successfully that their work was fully comparable to higher paid general service government workers. Finally in 1987 there was an interim consent order to give these workers $28 million. This was to be followed by job classification changes in a final settlement.
But the government has not kept its word. It has not kept its word on changing classification and pay scale. Instead, it has proposed a token payment as an attempt at compensation. The principle is not token, nor is the amount of money. These people are entitled to a full rate of pay of nearly $3,000 a year more than they are now earning. Their earnings are among the lowest in the Public Service, anywhere from $16,000 to $20,000 a year. That is not even what the members over there get for their tax free allowance, and they are expecting working
Government Orders
women, many of them sole bread winners, to support their families on that.
Let us go back to the fine words of the Prime Minister in response to the leader of the NDP. Let us realize that they were spoken on national television during the leaders' debate. Surely this is as close to another one of the Prime Minister's famous declarations concerning a sacred trust.
What did the Prime Minister say? First, the leader of the New Democratic Party said: "But the gap has been widening, not narrowing. The gap between men and women, since you have been Prime Minister, in the Public Service has been widening, not narrowing. Again you say that you have legislation here that is right. It has been passed. You could run off a nice little list saying that we have passed this, that we have done this, but unless it is followed up by administrative actions to bring about fairness and equity it means nothing".
The Prime Minister's response was: "Mr. Broadbent, I am trying to explain to you that this is precisely what we have done. This is being done by the Treasury Board as the representative of the employers of all Public Service unions to work out with the unions in a mutually safisfactoiy manner a program that will give rise to exactly equality".
Listen to this: "We are budgeting for funds required on an ongoing basis to make sure they are available so that this money will be given to those women who have been deprived of the degree of equity that we seek". That is what the Prime Minister said.
I will repeat that. He said, "We are budgeting for funds required on an ongoing basis to make sure they are available so that this money will be given to those women who have been deprived of the degree of equity that we seek". That is very nice for him to say during an election campaign, but it is so typical as happens with the Prime Minister. Once the election is over he forgets all about it.
What has happened then? The Prime Minister was talking as though there was an inevitability, that there would be pay equity. Have the workers been given the amount due to them? No. Has the government conceded their case as to classification and salary? No. Has the government even recognized that it is paying in some

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
cases below poverty level wages? No. In all of these things this is what the dispute is about.
Before I go on to labour aspects I wish to deal with the whole question of the people working in the coast guard, the ships' crews. I had a letter faxed to me today from one of my constituents concerning this legislation. I want to read it because it states succinctly what is involved here. It is addressed to myself and reads;
I am writing you to register my extreme dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Treasury Board has conducted negotiations with the men and women belonging to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, (Ships' Crews). I feel the Treasury Board has not bargained in good faith, indeed they have hardly bargained at all.
Please consider: That after 2 years without an agreement, the PSAC members (ships' crews), out of repeated disappointment and frustration, has engaged in a legal strike with their employer; that the Ships' Crews provide search and rescue functions, on both coasts of Canada, in addition to maintainence and supply services of the Canadian Coast Guards; please consider also that the union and the crewmen themselves, at the outset of the strike, agreed unilaterally to maintain vessel response capability in the event of a marine distress. This has been done. During the course of the strike there have been several instances where striking crew members have responded to emergency distress calls or co-operated in the handling of emergency situations such as the recent oil spill and resultant fouled beaches near Sooke, B.C.
If the Treasury Board is unable to conclude an agreement after 2 years, I submit it is either government policy to delay the implementation of a new agreement or indicative of ineptitude on the part of the Treasury Board. It certainly isn't due to unreasonable wage demands, as a comparison with comparable jobs and duties within the federal, provincial, and civic public services will show. In the event of either government policy or ineptitutde of the Treasury Board, the situation is wrong and should be corrected.
As employees of the federal government, these "-Brave and dedicated men and women - " (Minister of Transport, the Hon. Benoit Bouchard, in Hansard, October 16, 1989), to whom the House of Commons recently paid tribute, deserve better treatment from the Treasury Board. As Canadian citizens they have a right to believe that their government will treat them fairly and justly.
After having engaged in a legal strike, as a means of last resort, and after having conducted themselves in a responsible manner consistent with the finest traditions of seamen and democratic trade unionists and citizens, the government has proposed legislation to force these men and women back to work.
This is akin to moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. I urge you to vigorously oppose this forthcoming legislation and I further urge you to apply as much pressure as you can to the Treasury Board to end this dispute, by proper negotiation, in a fair and just manner, not by force of legislation.
I think that sums up a great deal of what is taking place in this House. What we now have is the Tory agenda to undermine the rights of workers in Canada.
I just want to recall a story about my father when he emigrated to this country. He arrived in Edmonton in March and he, like many other men, sought work. Most of the work available was manual labour. At that time there was a need for ditch diggers. The way the ditch diggers were hired was that the boss would put out 100 shovels and the men fought for the shovels. If you got a shovel, you dug and you worked. If you could not fight and get a shovel, there was no work.
Then they put the biggest man up at the top of the ditch. If he dug 10 feet, you dug 10 feet, because if you did not there was another man there to take your place.
It was because of these kinds of working conditions that my father was involved in some of the first organizations of trade unions in this country. I see, systematically, right wing governments like the Vander Zalm government in British Columbia and this Tory government, trying to return labour's rights and workers' conditions to those of pre-World War I.
Labour law in Canada is usually statutory law in which collective agreements between workers and management are worked out under the auspices of labour codes, labour standards and other legislation. Yet it should not be forgotten that the freedom of association is a hard won freedom which has a long and honourable history, both here and in the United Kingdom where much of the fight for labour recognition began.
This freedom of association was recognized-some would say imperfectly-in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981. Canada has further ratified international covenants recognizing collective bargaining. It is a member of the International Labour Organization which among its roles serves as an international watch-dog on
December 8, 1989

labour practices of members. It has been disturbing to many of us to see Canada, in the eyes of the ILO, turn from an international innovator to an international violator.
Unfortunately the truth has been that punitive and coercive legislation of several provincial governments and the federal government has brought the International Labour Organization's rebukes. The most recent case involved the federal government itself and its Bill C-68, the Postal Services Continuation Act in 1987.
Not only is there an attack on labour through direct legislation, but many of the other programs introduced by this government are intended to undermine the position of labour. Examples of this are the erosion of the Unemployment Insurance Act, to make it more difficult for people to receive unemployment; the continuation of a high unemployment rate which forces workers to accept underpaid jobs; and the harmonization of wages in Canada with the United States forced by free trade.
Yesterday I was at a committee meeting in regard to truck leasing companies. These are the companies that lease the big rigs and large trucks to truckers and do their servicing in Canada. Their representatives appeared before the committee. These companies are saying that now with the free trade deal it will be cheaper for them to establish their shops across the line and then lease back into Canada these large trucks.
The attack on labour legislation comes with such things as this high-handed piece of legislation that has been brought in by the very government which refuses to bargain in good faith.
If you ever want to see an inherent conflict of interest in labour-union management negotiations, it is when management has also got the power to legislate people back to work. Then they simply sit back and say: "We don't need to bargain in good faith because when the chips are down we will force the workers back to work."
It is also interesting to take a look at the timing of this back to work legislation. The strike has been going on for some time. The employees have acted responsibly. There has only been action by the government when its friends, the big shipping companies, start to get antsy that they are losing money, that they start to be concerned that they are going to lose income. Yes, they are.
Government Orders
It is so silly. Their loss of income is significant to this government, but the equity and fairness to the workers does not appear to be.
You wonder about the Prime Minister and how he is able to say that he is a self-proclaimed friend of the working man. Yet what does he do? He certainly does not believe in the rights of labour to organize, to bargain and to negotiate a fair and equitable contract. He certainly does not believe in the rights of women to pay equity and equal pay for work of equal value.
I am proud to be part of the New Democratic Party. I am proud of our alliance with labour. I am proud of the fact that I also have a union background and have been involved in a variety of unions from the steelworkers, to mine mill, to CUPE.
A fundamental part of a democracy is based on the freedom of workers to organize, to bargain for fair wages and to work with other people like the New Democrats for fairness not only in the workplace but for all Canadians.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset how well the chair becomes you. It is nice to see you back in your seat.
I have watched the individual presentations on this very serious subject since the outset. I think it is safe to say that I have seen practically every speaker. I put myself in the position of members of the public who have watched the debate. I think there is certainly a risk that some people may be confused about what precisely is going on here. Quite frankly, I don't blame them. It is difficult to understand.
We have a situation here in which people who do a great service for Canada and who, in the opinion of certainly this side of the House, are seeking what is at least a minimum fair compensation are being told: "We have not the time to discuss the problems with you. We are going to legislate you back to work."
I have never belonged to a union and I have not been involved in these kinds of activities. I think, however, there is a logic here that one has to look at. At least from the perspective of where I sit and the perspective of where I have been for the last 30-odd years, I wish to try to put some kind of a sense into what it is we are doing here on a Friday afternoon.

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
I would like to begin by giving a recount of some of the maritime activities that Canada is involved in and what things maritime mean to this country. I would like to go on and have a look in a little more detail at what this bill does. I would like to have a look at what it does and to whom. Then I would like to be able to give you, Mr. Speaker, some of the ideas that I have on the question of whether it is right or whether it is wrong, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues on this side of the House.
We tend to forget from time to time but those of us in Atlantic Canada are constantly reminded of the great maritime country in which we live. Canada is a great maritime country. We also have extensive maritime interests and substantial maritime obligations to go along with that.
I would like to quote some figures. To begin, we border on three of the world's largest oceans. We have the largest coastline in the world, 250,000 kilometres, the second largest continental shelf and our economic zone is so large that it covers about 8 million square kilometres in the three contiguous oceans. That is nearly equal to our land mass of about 10 million square kilometres.
Our continental shelf is rich in oil, natural gas and other exploitable mineral resources. In addition, it is no news to Atlantic Canadians or Pacific Canadians, and I hope to all Canadians that large rich fishing grounds lie off both our coasts. Canada claims jurisdiction over them to a distance of 300 nautical miles now and we on this side of the House are hoping that in the future we will be claiming jurisdiction for a little bit outside the 200 miles, so we can put some order into what it is that happens and we can take control of our own resources.
Canada is the world's largest exporter of fish. One sometimes wonders if that is true by the importance the government gives to the fishing industry. I can assure all members that in the very near future when we talk about total allowable catches on the east coast of Canada off the coast of Newfoundland that it is going to get a profile here that this House hasn't seen in some time. I am certainly guaranteeing that those of us on this side of the House will make sure that that is so.
Our seaborne trade, which is what is involved here, has grown impressively in the last 20 years. As a major trading nation, Canada has to transport many of it products to western Europe and to and from several trading partners along the Pacific Rim, including Japan, which is a very large trading partner of ours.
Exports today represent 30 per cent of Canada's gross national product, making it the third most trade reliant nation in the industrialized world, and 35 per cent of these exports leave Canada by sea. Those exports include wheat, grain, oil. Bauxite and tin are, in addition to some of the strategic materials in the import field.
The last figures I had which I could quote with accuracy were in 1982 and our international seaboard shipping, both exports and imports, totalled approximately 200 million tonnes. That is a lot of shipping. The value of the deep sea portion of the water based trade, excluding the shipping to and from the United States, was $40 billion. To move these goods, to give you some indication of the volume, Mr Speaker, some 110 merchantmen and tankers enter and depart Canadian ports daily.
I want to look at the third ocean, the one that we tend to forget from time to time. Over the past two decades the strategic importance of the Canadian Arctic archipelago has been enhanced for a number of reasons. We have had the discovery of high grade mineral deposits and the development of technologies for their extraction and transport. In addition, the increase in commercial scientific military use of the Northwest Passage has kept the Canadian Arctic in the forefront and indeed has kept all of us in this House in debate on that subject from time to time.
Last, but certainly not least, the three oceans contribute vitally to Canada's security in that they separate our countiy from the territories of potential enemies.
That has given some indication of the maritime interests that we have in Canada. To say that they are vital is perhaps the understatement of the day.
Who are the people involved in making sure that these maritime interests continue to be served properly? This is not the time or the place to speak about Canada's navy, and I am hoping that there will be other occasions to do that.
December 8, 1989

It goes without further explanation. It is axiomatic that a country that has a maritime interest must also have personnel, services, measures and policies to make sure that these interests are properly served.
One of the things that we have been very proud of in this country is that we have always responded to the call of the sea, and I think I can say from personal experience and from the knowledge of my history of Canada's maritime heritage, we have done it well.
To quote you one example, and I do not think it would be out of place, I would remind this House that when World War II started, Canada's navy had 10 ships and 2,000 people. By the end of World War II, in something like 2,150 days, the Canadian navy was the third largest allied navy. It had 100,000 officers and men and it had close to 400 ships. If you work that out on the back of a cigarette package, it is around one ship every five days and about 50 men a day.
For my own case in my own province, less than two weeks ago I was honoured to have been the guest speaker with a group of Newfoundlanders called The First 200. They were the first 200 men who answered the call when the call for volunteers went out in Newfoundland in 1939. Within two months of World War II beginning, 200 men were on the Furness Withy jetty in St. John's, Newfoundland, to set sail to serve their country. I was delighted that a goodly number of them attended this meeting and they were as ready to go now, 50 years after the event, as they were when they were in their late teens and their early twenties.
This is one example of the kind of fortitude that our people who served Canada and our maritime needs have shown and will continue to show in the future.
Let me have a look at our auxiliary forces. I am talking now about the crews involved in this particular issue. We are talking about the coast guard. We are talking about the auxiliary forces that serve the Canadian navy. We are talking about fisheries and oceans and we are talking about certain elements of the research categories.
I say in modesty and with a certain amount of humility that I suspect that there are a few people in the House who have a real feeling for what it is that these men and women have to do. I have a real feeling because I have had the honour, the privilege, the duty and the responsibility of being a sailor at sea, all my life. I might add also that my family have followed this tradition for seven generations. I come from a fishing family. I come from a
Government Orders
family of seafarers. All my colleagues from Newfoundland have had personal experiences in the sea and with the sea. It is a heritage that we are very, very proud of. I know that I speak also for my colleagues from Atlantic Canada and from other parts of the west coast.
Let me try and paint a picture for you, Mr. Speaker. If it is a a normal situation, you proceed to sea on a Monday morning. If you are lucky you will have a reasonable sea and you will return to harbour with few difficulties. You are not in communication other than by radio with the rest of the world once the lines are slipped until you return to harbour. The captain of the ship is in his own way master of all he surveys and the ship's company, the team that makes up that crew, live a life and death situation from the time they leave until the time they get back.
Let me take an unusual situation. You may sail at any time and you may never return. I reluctantly make reference to a very sad occasion which I recall more vividly than I would like. In mid-October members of the coast guard rescue team went to rescue a diver in distress in a cove just outside St. John's, Newfoundland. Due to the nature of the elements, the crew of four, the coxswain and the crew of that fast response vessel, within view of the public essentially were lost at sea. In fact, their bodies have not been recovered. How do you portray that in the heat of a negotiation? How do you translate that to somebody, either in the highest court in the land, in this House, at a negotiation table, or in any other way, shape or form. It is very difficult.
As I stand and talk with my colleagues here today, I am told that there is a storm in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and around 250 kilometres off Prince Edward Island at least one ship is in dire straits and we fear that something even more difficult may have happened to another one. Eight metre seas, that is a 25-foot swell. Can you imagine launching a small craft in a 25-foot swell to carry out a rescue operation?
Well, Mr. Speaker, enough of the drama, but it is not meant to be drama. These people are on strike through a proper organization. It was deemed totally legal what they were doing. They would not let life and safety suffer. On many occasions they met the normal criteria, they laid down their pickets and placards and went to sea and, in some cases, carried out some of those rescues

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
that were attempted off Newfoundland that ended so tragically.
People who would do that I believe deserve something in return. I believe that they deserve in return more than an unprecedented action of legislating them back to work, an unprecedented action of closure to do this and an unprecedented action of rewarding those people who give of their time, energy, talents, heritage and, yes, their lives, with an order to go back to work and the inability to continue to negotiate for what is theirs, a fair settlement.
These people earn around $20,000 a year. These people I just discussed take home $240 a week. What are they asking for? They are asking for 50 cents an hour. Should we legislate them back to work for 50 cents an hour? I have no shame and I have absolutely no second thoughts about standing in this House today and going to bat for these people. I do not think they would expect anything else from anybody with a seafaring background, and I do not think they would expect anything else from a background of people who care, like my colleagues around me here today.
We are not asking for something unreasonable. Where I stand on this issue is not determined by where I stand on this side of the House. I feel strongly about this, I feel almost emotional about it and I believe that these people are not getting a fair shake. This is why I am speaking here today and if I were allowed to, Mr. Speaker, even with the great flexibility that you have allowed me in this House, I would go on as long as you would allow me, because I believe it is an issue that needs to be discussed and I hope I have the credibility to do that.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there are not many of us in this House who can speak on this issue with the knowledge of our colleague who has just spoken. Perhaps, with the unanimous consent of the House, the hon. member could be given another five minutes or so, because I do believe he is able to contribute something that few of us could in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there agreement? The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with giving the hon. member another five minutes or so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered.


Fred J. Mifflin: I have heard the figure of $2 million per day for the ships; I have heard the $6 million total that will make up the difference. Perhaps there is a principle involved on the other side of the House and with the President of the Treasury Board that we do not know about. If there is, could the next speaker please tell us? Will somebody let us know?
There is something that I do not understand about this. If it is as simple as the 50 cents that we are talking about, in return for the services that are provided by these brave men and women, then I cannot understand why we are here on a Friday afternoon and why somebody does not just go back to the table right away and negotiate. There is not a great deal of negotiation to be done. I think it is very fair.
There is another aspect that bothers me. I do not have evidence for this, but I find it passing strange that the hospital service workers for the veterans' hospitals are included in the same business. It was not too long ago that the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs stood in this House and gave a very eloquent and excellent presentation as a tribute to the men and women who served this country. I believe there are still 144,000 veterans, many of whom are being cared for by the hospital service workers that are the subject of our debate here this afternoon.
From what I know about the issue, these workers are looking for parity. They were, according to the Human Rights Commission, at some point in time at least $34 million behind in what they were owed by an objective standard. That leads me to believe that perhaps what they are looking for is perhaps as fair as what our sailors are looking for. Equally, I have difficulty understanding why we cannot seem to be able to go back and bargain with them, because I think what they are asking for is equally fair.
I am told that the 144,000 veterans, or a number of them who are hospitalized, are receiving care. My colleague, the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis described the circumstances at Ste. Anne de Bellevue. It is not in my riding, but I made it my business to be in contact with some of the people as part of my responsibility as critic for Veterans Affairs, and I was equally satisfied that, at some cost to the government, these services are being maintained. Therefore, what are we dealing with? We have a situation of dedicated people who are asking for fair treatment. We are not asking for
December 8, 1989

the world for them. In both the case of the ships' crews and the hospital services workers, their demands seem reasonable, and after less than two weeks' of negotiations, everything has come to a standstill.
The logic of this I find very difficult to understand. There will be a great disappointment when we stand in this House and vote on closure. It will be a great disappointment, I believe, for those people who are affected: 2,300 sailors and 1,300 hospital services workers. I think they will believe, and they have every reason to believe, that they have been let down.
I hope that in my small way I have made some contribution to those of us who are going to vote to try and convince them that in my heart of hearts and on this rare occasion, I must say, speaking totally apolitically, but speaking more as a sailor and as somebody who has been involved in this way of life for many years, I can honestly say that what they are asking for is fair and just and, I believe, quite frankly we owe it to them to go back and have another look.
If I had a closing remark, if I had a closing statement, I think I could convey the business of being a sailor and going to sea by quoting a remark made by Samuel Johnson a few hundred years ago. He said: "Should a man contrive to be in jail, he would never go to sea because being at sea is like being in jail with the chance of being drowned."
That is what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, and we need to respect that and do something just and real about it.
I thank you for your indulgence and I thank all my colleagues for their indulgence for the extra time.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, in some 21 and a half years in this place, this is the tenth or twelfth time I have been present dealing with back to work legislation.
I want to say at the outset, Sir, that the passing of such legislation has never been a sign of success by the government. It has been a sign of failure by the government on all those occasions. I will not deny that there will be a rare exception that would cause a national emergency or something like that when Parliament
Government Orders
probably unanimously would pass back to work legislation, but it is so rare as to be almost inconceivable.
I listened to speeches of spokesmen for the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Veterans Affairs yesterday and may I say something about the matter. As I recall, it was stated that in the realm of safety, security and emergencies this legislation was necessary.
Of course, the coast guard and the people in the onshore facilities guaranteed that they would be there in the event of an emergency, in the event of a requirement for search and rescue. On this very day they stood by their word and they did their job. Apparently two ships have been lost in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and tragically 39 lives may have been lost in the most horrible of conditions. Our search and rescue and coast guard people are still there trying to find survivors. I do not want to hear any more nonsense from government spokesmen about emergencies and search and rescue. The problem is that the Department of Transport is going to lose quite a few thousand dollars on buoys that should have been stored for the winter, but are going to be sunk by the ice.
I listened to the Minister of Veterans Affairs yesterday. He gave a good speech, particularly about what was happening at Ste. Anne de Bellevue. If it is that serious, how come it took this long to take action? I will tell you why it took this long. It was not until it cost the ship owners a couple of million bucks and they put some heat on the government that we got the legislation. Then and only then did it happen. If the government had been bargaining collectively, we would not have reached this impasse.
When you have a stupid or bad employer you are going to have a tough, mean union. It is inevitable. When you have a good conscientious employer, you have a good conscientious union and there is a minimum of difficulty. I have been through this too many times, both in this House and when I worked on the railroad. The deck is stacked. They play one group in society against the other.
PSAC put it very well today in its circular. When the hospital services group attempted to negotiate similar arrangements as the coast guard did regarding emergencies and providing a minimal number of staff, the government would not agree. I would like the Minister of Veterans Affairs to explain that. It was a negotiable item in the immediate term. Nothing happened. They go on to say, and I agree with them, that it was deliberate. The employer and the departments are preferring to pit

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
one vulnerable societal group against another, making hostages of aged people, the infirm, veterans and poorly paid hospital workers. In terms of being any kind of a manager, that is despicable. It is not good, sound, fair management.
These people have been two years without a contract and three years without a raise in pay. Nobody could say that they were impatient. They have been more than patient. That is a degree of tolerance that I doubt most of us would have. MPs automatically get 2 or 3 per cent every January and do not even have to bargain for it. It is laid on.
However, when there is a situation where employees go two years without a contract, three years without an increase, any government or any management, any bargainer on the government side who would think that these people are not going to fight for and demand to catch up are kidding themselves. If they refuse to recognize and face up to that, they are faced with a strike. Their solution is to fly in the face of every tenet of free collective bargaining. It is called stacking the deck, and the government holds the cards.
I have suggested to various unions for a number of years now that they should return to what John L. Lewis always did with the United Mine Workers. Six months before a contract expired they would submit their demands for the next contract. If a settlement had not been reached when the contract expired they went out on strike. His principle was no contract, no work.
These people have gone two years without a contract. There were instances when they have gone three years without one. I remember once, when I was in the railway, we went two years without a contract. When we had a strike, mostly over retroactive pay as well as the 40-hour week in 1950, it was a chief justice who told the government and the railroads where to head. We got retroactive pay and we got the 40-hour week. We had to shut down the whole country for 10 days and I can tell you the employees were the first ones not to enjoy it.
When you have a situation where management sits around on their hands for two years and there is no contract settlement then something is fundamentally wrong. I listened to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek talking about the poor farmers. I think he mentioned a million tonnes of grain that is in the Great Lakes Seaway ports, the St. Lawrence ports and on board ships. My first point is that the whole western half of Saskatchewan, all of Alberta and the Peace River country in British Columbia ship their grain west, not east. So, none of the grain in the hon. member's constituency goes east. There might be the odd rare carload of malting barley or something. He was weeping tears for the farmers in his riding.
The point is, as the PSA said, here we have the government playing off one societal group against another. I have always been straight with my farmers and the trade union members in my riding. On countless occasions I have tried to put each side's case for argument to the other. Thanks to the Farmers' Union and the trade union movement there have been countless conferences on the prairies among fanners and workers to sort out the problems that they both have.
There is a principle here that gets continually ignored, not just by this present government but by the previous one too on several occasions. The principle is that when you have a collective agreement, management submits its proposals for the coming year, and the union, on behalf of the employees, does the same thing. I would not mind seeing something in the law that requires both sides to submit proposals at least 90 days and maybe six months before the expiration of a contract so they would be required to bargain.
I am not suggesting for one minute that there have not been occasions when the union has not been wrong. The union doesn't claim to be perfect, but in the overwhelming majority of cases in my experience it has always been management which had the economic power and the political influence, either by the government or from the government, to get its way. Today is another classic example of how any employer, but particularly this government as an employer, could sit back and watch its own lowest paid employees go three years without an * increase.
December 8, 1989

Now, I expect my friend from Fraser Valley to take that into consideration, the fine Christian gentleman that he is. It must twinge his conscience a little bit at least. I would like to think and hope that he went to people in the Department of Transport, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Treasury Board and said that it is not right. I hope he has done that. If he has not, maybe he should, like an hour ago.
There has been a certain atmosphere here for the last several years when it came to collective bargaining no matter whether it was in the private sector or between the government and the employees. But have you not noticed and remarked, Mr. Speaker, that in the last few years most of it has been between the government and its employees.
A remarkably high degree of settlements are reached between the trade union movement and the employers in the private sector. In 'fact, the truth of the matter is, that 95 to 96 per cent of contracts are reached through collective bargaining. A very small percentage end up in a strike or a lock-out. I remember when the longshoremen went out on the west coast. They appreciated then, as they do now, the difficulties that the grain producers of western Canada and the potash producers were having. So they went to the government, the Maritime Shippers Association and the port authorities and said: "Look, we will move grain. Our disagreement is not with the handling of bulk commodities. This strike is about containers, shift work and how far away we have to go to go to work". They said: "We'll move the grain". There would not have been a single bushel of grain left sitting.
You know what, Mr. Speaker? Management refused. Management refused to see the grain moving. Then I listened to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek saying that we should have some kind of a law. Well, I can tell him the kind of law we should have. He mentioned marriage breakdowns and so on although I noticed he did not mention mortgage deals, like that happens as happened to the grain handlers and the employer says no, the law says the employer is going to have to do it anyway.
I am sad to say that even our own Prairie wheat pools would not agree to keep the grain moving even though the strike had nothing to do with the movement of grain. Why? Because the other shippers and owners were calling the shots.
Government Orders
I have something else I want to mention and I am glad the Minister of Veterans Affairs is still here, because I want to talk about what the cost of the strike is to the department, the government, Treasury Board or whoever. I have figures which I received from a reliable source. I would like him to check on it and tell us if it is true that the government is paying $50,000 a day for catering? Is it true that the government is paying $163,835 per week to provide extra security over and above what it is already paying for?
Can you imagine, $163,835 per week is what the government's stubbornness and the strike is costing. I would like to know if it is true or not. Nurses being hired from various agencies are costing $350,000 a week. That is what this strike is costing.
The government is currently paying in overtime at St. Anne de Bellevue $840,000 per week. The total cost to the employer during the strike is $1,633,835. Before the strike the cost was $385,000. In other words, the government is putting out $1,300,000 more than it was before. Even if the employees got all they were asking for these figures would only increase by 6 per cent whatever the cost would be of the human rights settlement.
Who do you think is getting that $163,835 for security? Pinkerton's, naturally, those friends of the working man for the last 150 years. Pinkerton's are getting an extra $163,835 a week. It pays to be friends of the government. This government has no objection. I want the minister to get up and tell us if these figures are inaccurate because we are looking at something over $2 million per week that he has frittered away because of his stubbornness and his refusal to be fair.
Some employees have not had an increase for three years. My goodness, it is a good thing he is not commanding a regiment under those kinds of terms because he would have to watch his back more than his front. The doctors are getting an extra $100 a day at St. Anne de Bellevue on weekends. Some of them are prepared to say, and we are looking for some of them, that the patients are starting to suffer. If that is true there is nobody else to blame but the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I can assure you we will find out.
The staff and nurses who are still working have been given an extra $300 each in overtime bonuses. I am assuming that those are bonuses over and above the overtime they made. The government has brought in 80

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
agency nurses at a total cost of wages, living expenses, travel et cetera of $500 per day each.
I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the President of the Treasury Board have something to answer for. How can they say that somehow or other this legislation is necessary because the unions are not being reasonable? The one not being reasonable is this government. The government is not being fair and is victimizing farmers and shippers as well as employees. It is this government and nobody else. You are the architects of your own problem and you are the perpetrators.
I have enjoyed doing this, although I did not relish it. I have enjoyed getting after these birds for what I have seen this government and the previous one do repeatedly. They never learn. Governments continue not to learn, and they will keep making the same mistakes.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate all afternoon and I think there are some fundamental facts we are not putting forward. The government stated earlier today in one of the speeches settlement is equal to a 49 per cent increase over 36 months. The government talked about the fact that it cared for the quality of life in this country, about the fact that legislating these people back to work was for the greater public good. It talked about the fact that it cares about the deficit. It talked about the fact that the only reason we are here today is to oppose for the sake of opposing.
Well, I know we are here today to challenge this government's value system. To state that this is a 49 per cent increase over 3 years is really not putting the right face on this legislation. These men and women are making $18,000 a year and they have to be on standby 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They have to put their lives at stake because they are going to sea to rescue others. Obviously most of these rescue missions are at times when they are in danger. They must face twenty-five and thirty-foot waves.
People in my community in downtown Toronto cannot imagine that. These are waves two or three storeys high. We get three and four foot waves in Lake Ontario and we run the other way. These men and women who are at
sea are guarding our waters, our fisheries, and they are asking for 50 cents an hour more on a base of $18,000.
I cannot understand the logic of the government because I know there are many members on the other side who care. They are approachable, and they love this country as much as we do, but I think we are going to have to change our style in this House and when situations like this arise from time to time we are going to speak up. This has nothing to do with unions or government. These are basic values and we are just looking the other way.
I have never been on a coast guard vehicle. I probably would not have the guts to go on a coast guard vehicle on the high seas. However, I tried to imagine who in my community has a similar task, provides a similar public service that my constituents of Toronto can relate to. I thought of fire-fighters in Toronto, a group of men and women whom we are proud of and are on stand-by 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They put their lives in danger for the public service. Their starting salary is $31,500. After five years on the job, a first-class fire-fighter receives $42,800.
We are here talking today about coast guard crew who are only making $18,000 a year. They are asking for approximately $2,000 a year more, 50 cents an hour. I cannot understand this, because when I think of a husband and a wife and maybe one or two children with the take-home pay of $18,000 to $20,000 a year which I calculate to be approximately $260 to $280 a week, I do not know how these men and women make a go of it.
We are sitting here in the national chamber, where we are supposed to have national standards, where the person in an outpost in Newfoundland has as much chance and as much opportunity and is given the same dignity as a person in downtown Toronto. This bill is not meeting that national test.
It is December, the Christmas season, and we are supposed to have a spirit of generosity. We are supposed to have a spirit of understanding. We are sitting here on a Friday afternoon arguing about 50 cents an hour for people who are putting their lives at stake.
I think, and I have seen this repeatedly with this government, that the government is really tearing away at the national will. It breaks down the national will by not showing respect for our human capital. In my mind
December 8, 1989

that is not only bad nation building but it is also bad economics. What of an incentive? What kind of motivation does one have? What kind of pride does one have in one's job when his employer does not think he is worth 50 cents an hour? I just cannot understand the logic.
The Prime Minister of Canada has a reputation for being one of the best deal makers in Canada. After an 11-hour marathon discussion with the premiers of Canada he was able to come through with a constitutional deal. Why can this same Prime Minister, who has children as I do and as do the fathers on coast guard crews who are risking their lives, not display the same leadership and ability to craft a deal? Why can he not do that on an issue like this one? It is a mystery to me. It escapes me.
That is another problem we have in this House. Sometimes we only pay attention to those voices, to those lobby groups and to those organizations that are well financed and the best organization behind their cause.
We are not in this chamber to oppose for the sake of opposing. We are here to oppose constructively. We are here to care about deficit and debt as is the government. Yes, we have made some mistakes in the past, but I must tell Your Honour that there is no excuse for us to be bantering back and forth today in this House for 50 cents an hour for men and women who go to high sea, without notice, saving lives of others, protecting our waterways and protecting our oceans. There is no excuse.
Sometimes the government becomes captive of officials who will tell it that we have to save 15 per cent of this budget and 10 per cent of that budget. They just calculate the gross amounts and they never see the human capital that exists behind those numbers. I believe this is another example where we are just looking at the gross numbers and we are not looking at the bottom line. The bottom line is the human capital, the men and women who put their lives at stake.
I do not want you to think that I am forgetting about hospital services. The hospital service system of this country is the envy of the world. If we are going to play around with the spirit, the attitude and the dignity of
Government Orders
hospital workers, I think we are putting a lot more at risk than the government realizes.
I want to repeat: we are not here to oppose for the sake of opposing. What we have today is a situation where there are people who are genuinely disadvantaged and it is our role to speak on their behalf. Again I repeat: a fireman in downtown Toronto after five years of service makes over $40,000 a year. The crews on the coast guard want $20,000.
We have got to be fair here. We have to be daring. The minister with the stroke of a pen could get an order out and deal with this situation immediately. We tend to forget because these organizations are not well organized as lobby groups, but we should prick our conscience and remind ourselves that we are here in this House not for the privileged but for the disadvantaged.
While I was listening to some of my colleagues speak today, I was going through one of my files and I was reminded of an old John Denver tune that I thought was rather appropriate. Even though I have never been on a coast guard ship and I have never met the men and women who have been on those ships or who have been to sea on rescue, it does not mean I cannot feel for them because I am from another region of this country.
I think John Denver says it best in his song It's About Time: "There is a man who is my brother, I just do not know his name, but I know his home and family, because I know we feel the same. And it hurts me when he is hungry and when his children cry for I too am a father; that little one is mine. It is about time we begin to turn the world around. It is about time we realized this is the family of man. It is about time, it is about changes".


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I know that we will all have an opportunity again next week to discuss this, because of the unprecedented decision taken by the opposition members to ensure that this bill not only will not receive the support of both the liberal party and the other opposition party in the House of Commons, but will not receive any assistance facilitating the bill. We will all have an opportunity again next week to deal with this matter.

December 8, 1989
Government Orders
I simply want to point out very briefly on behalf of opposition members that the long-standing tradition of this place when this kind of legislation is brought before Parliament is that very often, opposition parties vote against it. But very seldom, in fact I cannot think of a precedent, do opposition parties actually behave in a manner that forces the government into using closure on back to work legislation.
I hope Canadians will reflect on this and realize that this decision is a direct result of the contemplation, of the searching of one's conscience, individually and collectively, and of the conclusion that the government has not bargained fairly with public servants in critical sectors, both ships crews and hospital services workers who are, comparatively speaking, among the lowest paid, given the value of their work, employees in Canada. They have asked for nothing but a fair break.
In the case of ships' crews, they have responded in every instance they could with the emergency search and rescue services, and have conducted search and rescue. They have saved lives by laying down their pickets during the course of the strike.
In the case of hospital services workers, they have offered to provide emergency service and have been rebutted, refused, by the employer.
Canadians who are wondering what is going on this afternoon should realize that process is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history. It is a profound statement by members of Parliament who sit in opposition benches-and it is an extremely unusual statement-that there comes a time when the power of government, the big hammer of government, should not be wielded against ordinary citizens, against employees of the people of Canada, not employees of government, not employees of the party in power, but employees of the people of Canada.
There comes a time to stand up, notwithstanding the tremendous political power represented opposite by a majority government, notwithstanding the tremendous pressure coming from corporate Canada, for those who are least able to defend themselves, particularly when they have bargained in good faith and they have been faced with a government that has but one plan and that is to destroy fundamentally their right to collective bargaining.
It is for that reason that we in this party, the Liberal Party of Canada, refused unanimous consent to allow the
introduction of this bill, this draconian measure, by the minister responsible for the Treasury Board. We stood up, the Liberal Party of Canada, and we said no, there shall be no unanimous consent.
We say to the government that it is Friday and the weekend is upon us. We want a quick settlement to this strike. We do not want ships tied up in the St. Lawrence. We do not want patients at hospitals having anything less than the full services they should have. We do not want the potential of health and safety being put at risk. We do not want commerce to stop. We do not want trade to be affected.
We want Canada to function smoothly, but we are not willing to sell out the ordinary employees to the power of a government which wants to paint as villains those employees who are hard-working, selfless individuals asking for a fair shake. We are not willing to sell them out as villains to a government that behaves in a villainous manner.
We say to the government, if you want, as we want, a quick settlement, then go to the table with justice in your heart. Go to the table with a commitment to a fair deal, not necessarily a gracious deal but just a fair deal. If you want a quick settlement to the strike, resolve it at the bargaining table because that is where this issue belongs, not with back to work legislation.
We say to the government at the end of a day, a Friday, we will be back here again Monday. There will be no quick passage. We are going to fight for these employees. If you want a settlement that is right and just, sit man to man, woman to woman, across the table and settle it like human beings. Put away the hammer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Halifax. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
December 8, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Quebec-Est (Mr. Tremblay) on a point of order.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to chair the Legislative Committee on Bill C-49 and for that reason, I abstained from moving.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, you may find that the House would be favourably disposed to applying the same vote in reverse one more time, in order that we may be able to go home just a little bit earlier. This is the usual co-operation of the opposition, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Agreed.
Allmand
Benjamin
Black
Brew in
Catterall
Dionne
Fisher
Gardiner
Kaplan
Kristiansen
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
MacLellan
Manley
Milliken
Mitchell
Ouellet
Peterson
Robinson
Tobin
McDermid
McLean
Monteith
Oberle
Paproski
Pronovost
Reimer
Roy-Arcelin
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Van de Walle
Venne
Weiner

December 8, 1989
Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore we will apply the votes in reverse.
++NAYS
Members


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
It being 5.45 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 11,1989