1989-12-13

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, FEDNOR is a government program that is a success story. This regional economic development program was designed with input from northern Ontarians, designed for northern Ontarians, and is benefiting northern Ontarians.
In its first annual report for the year ending March, 1989, FEDNOR recorded $8.7 million of assistance which levered $24 million of investment in the north. Through the Rural Small Business Assistance Program and the COR Industrial Program, 463 jobs have been created.
Recently a new FEDNOR tourism assistance program has been announced that will assist tourism operators and help to increase tourism throughout northern Ontario.
I am proud, as a northern Ontarian, to have been a member of a government which first gave my home region of the country the recognition it deserves. Northern Ontario has greatly benefited from our government's policy approach and the fine work done by FEDNOR's board, made up of and located in northern Ontario, its offices, which are located throughout northern Ontario, and FEDNOR's funding, specifically targeted to northern Ontarians and their business interests.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the ever deepening crisis
which Canadian food processors are facing. Last week the Ontario food processors, at their annual convention, stated: "Ontario's $15 billion food industry just cannot compete with the United States under free trade".
This was backed up later in the week, unfortunately, when COBI Foods Incorporated announced the closure of its Whitby, Ontario, plant with the loss of 100 full-time jobs, 150 seasonal jobs and 8,500 acres of processed vegetables.
We need action to stop this disintegration and destruction of Canada's agriculture, not just the announcement of task forces to talk about the problems. Agriculture is running out of time. Canadian agriculture wants action, not more and more rhetoric.


EL SALVADOR
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, as many in the House will know, there is a delegation from the El Salvadoran government in Ottawa that will be meeting with the external affairs committee later this afternoon. Tomorrow this same delegation from the Arena government will be meeting with officials of External Affairs.
I would like to take this opportunity to urge those officials at External Affairs, and urge the government, that they instruct those officials to express to the Arena delegation, in the strongest possible terms, the outrage of Canadians at the murder of the six Jesuit priests which, in everyone's opinion, was perpetrated by people in uniform and, therefore, by the army; the disappearances, the human rights violations, the bombing and killing of trade unionists and all the other things that have come to be associated with this particular government.
I think it is incumbent upon the Canadian government, having made the decision to receive this delegation, to take every opportunity to impress upon it just how much offence Canadians take at recent events in that country.


GUN CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
December 13, 1989
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the brutal slaying of 14 young women in Montreal last week has horrified all Canadians. We all share the grief and sorrow of the families.
That tragic event has also focused public attention on the availability of guns in our society. For under $500, a 16 year old in Canada can buy an AK-47 assault rifle that has been converted from fully automatic to semi-automatic. For an extra $60 that 16 year old can also legally purchase a trigger activator which will allow the gun to fire three bullets with one pull of the trigger. However, if that same 16 year old has any knowledge of guns, that AK-47 can easily be reconverted back into an automatic. An automatic AK-47 can fire 30 bullets in less than three seconds.
Last March I proposed changes to the Criminal Code that would ban any gun that was originally made as an automatic. The Minister of Justice threw his support behind the proposal and I urge him to introduce those changes as quickly as possible.


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a tough week in Atlantic Canada. An empty feeling pervades all sensitive Nova Scotians over the announced closures at Canso and North Sydney. We on the South Shore know the pain of closures at Port Mouton, Lockeport, Shag Harbour, Port Lehebert and Port Medway.
We must cope with declining stocks and seek to reduce our economic dependence on the fishery. But, Mr. Speaker, must we put up with American fishermen thumbing their noses at our law enforcement efforts? Must the proud officers, men and women of our navy, suffer the indignity of being rammed on the high seas in Canadian waters by foreigners who are in the process of violating our laws, without fear of retaliation? Now we have George Bush's signature on the infamous Mitchell lobster bill establishing clearly, lest there be any doubt, that the Americans are prepared to act in good faith only so long as it serves their own interest. If the Mitchell bill
is allowed to stay in place it will suggest to Nova Scotian's that the FTA is not worth the paper it is printed on.
I believe that Canada will win the FTA panel and I urge the government to move quickly with the process in order to minimize the damage that is already being done to Canadian lobster prices in Europe as well as the United States.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILD CARE
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: On November 24, the Minister of National Health and Welfare confirmed that ultimate responsibility for child care rests with the parents. The minister is right. The Conservative government sent a clear message that it feels no obligation towards young Canadians or their families.

By not delivering a new child care initiative, by not addressing the needs of more than one million Canadian children who live in poverty and by not declaring a national emergency to deal with the shocking increase in child hunger, this government has introduced the Conservative social philosophy that the rich should prosper but the poor must pull themselves up by their own boot straps.
The recent last-minute bail-out of the successful Kids First hot line is an example of the ad hoc manner in which programs directed at the youth are funded.

The Conservatives have no overall plan and, as the minister confirmed himself, no short-term or even long-term vision to help the thousands of Canadian families who are unable to find reasonably priced day care for their children. The minister should agree that his inertia is depriving our children of a future to which they are now entitled.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
December 13, 1989


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, across the country we see horrifying examples of ignorance about violence against women.
A judge in Ottawa, in a wife battering case, said he was not going to worry about the woman being beaten. The same judge last year acquitted a man who threatened to rape three women because, according to the judge, these threats did not harm the women.
In British Columbia, a judge said a three-year-old girl was sexually aggressive, thus provoking her own abuse by an adult male.
In Manitoba a judge, said that it is sometimes okay for men to slap women around and he was told by a review that there was nothing improper in his remarks.
In Nova Scotia, a judge was removed from the bench for telling women to return to and to obey their abusive husbands. Also in Nova Scotia, a judge was given an absolute discharge for assaulting his own wife.
In Ottawa last spring, a man was given an intermittent 90-day jail term for beating his wife's head in with a baseball bat. She spent a month in a coma.
I call on this government to take concrete action to educate judges about violence against women.


SITUATION OF PEOPLE IN ISOLATED AND NORTHERN AREAS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the task force on tax benefits for isolated and northern areas did not respect the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement reached between the Governments of Canada and Quebec, the James Bay Energy Corporation, the James Bay Development Corporation, the Quebec Hydro-electric Commission and the James Bay Cree.
The villagers of Waswanipi and Mistassini were not consulted by the task force on chapters 14, 16, 18, 19, 25, 26 and 28 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Cree-Naskapi Agreement.
The final report of this task force makes no mention of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the inquiry into regional disparities conducted by Quebec in October 1989.
Mr. Speaker, the isolation of the Cree villages of Mistassini and Waswanipi is a reality in Quebec and in Canada.


JUSTICE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, anti-pornography legislation is necessary but can only address the most explicit and obvious types of anti-social material. Mainstream pornography is far more insidious and pervasive in its impact on societal attitudes. Media studies education identifies positive and negative human values underlying media presentations. It helps students to recognize and deal with negative stereotyping, subliminal messages that create rape myths and make violence and domination of women, children and occasionally men appear sexually attractive.
Under the existing copyright legislation and the proposed exemptions, creators are able to prevent teachers from discussing and critically evaluating their material in the classroom.
The moral rights of creators should not be placed above those of other members of society. Educators must be allowed to address negative values inflicted upon us by the media. The commercial value of copyrighted material should not given precedence over the nurturing of positive human values in our society.
The Minister of Communications must bring in exemptions to the copyright legislation that will allow media studies education to continue legally.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it was one ago and four months ago when Rita Siliwa, a Canadian citizens of 11 years of age, went to Iraq to visit her natural parents. Rita had been adopted by her uncle in Canada when she was 14 months old. She had since spent her life as a Canadian learning Canadian values and believing in Canadian principles and human rights and justice.

December 13, 1989
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, Rita is still being detained by the Iraqi government which refuses to issue her an exit visa. Article 13, Clause 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations, of which Iraq is a member, states: "everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and to return to his country".
Iraqi law recognizes neither Rita's citizenship nor the legality of her adoption. Therefore, it claims that it cannot allow her to return to her home.
I urge the Secretary of State to once again remind the Iraqi government of the gravity of this situation and to appeal to the Iraqi government to let Rita come home and continue to live her life as a Canadian.
As an adoptive parent myself, I call on the government of Iraq to respect the adoption laws of Canada.


STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if hon. members would indulge the Speaker's need to make a short statement.
I wish to inform the House that I have received several communications from all parties regarding testimony given before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General relating to police investigations of certain members. I have given this matter my entire attention this morning and it was the major item of discussion at the Board of Internal Economy meeting this noon.
I want to assure all hon. members that the Chair will review with great care the testimony of the witnesses before that committee as it relates to the authority of the Board of Internal Economy and the rights and immunities of members of this House.
On this very important matter I shall, of course, report back to the House as soon as possible and I shall seek whatever advice and counsel is necessary in the process.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Conservative government has allowed the Spanish and Portuguese fleets to pillage our own fish. What few
fish are left the government has allowed the French to steal. It has allowed the Europeans to set fish quotas which are absolutely absurd. It caved in to the Americans on the fish processing rules for our salmon and herring. It caved in to the Americans on our export tax for fish. It has mismanaged our cod, our herring, our pollack and our flounder stocks. It has mismanaged the snow crab industry until it is now in total collapse.
Now the Prime Minister's good friend, the President of the United States, has just signed into law a ban on millions of dollars of Canadian lobsters. It is a great trade deal that the Prime Minister of Canada signed. It has just done wonders for the Atlantic coast fishery, hasn't it, Mr. Speaker?
What is the Prime Minister going to do for the Atlantic coast about the disaster that he has created? Did he not promise, among other things, that the President of the United States would not sign that law?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition raises, on the one hand, the very serious question of the Atlantic fishery, which has been with us for some time. Then I think he destroys much of the value of the point that he tries to make by turning it into a partisan issue when, in fact, it is a very important national issue.
I refer my hon. friend, for example, to an analysis by Professor Anthony Davis in this morning's The Globe and Mail, who is a specialist in fisheries research at St. Francis Xavier University. Contrary to what the right hon. gentlemen has just said, the conclusion of the distinguished professor, the expert, seems to be that one of the root causes of the problem originated with the report culled together and presided over by Michael Kirby in 1983. He spells it out very clearly. So, I commend that-


Some hon. members:: Shame on you.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Who's Michael Kirby?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has the nerve to stand up here and blame this government for all of the sins of the world. Yet, when I point out an analysis that was done by a distinguished research professor in fisheries this morning who has a different opinion, all of a sudden they start to howl. I have acknowledged it is a veiy serious problem. I have

acknowledged that it is a very serious national problem and that the-


Ms. Clancy:: What are you going to do about it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to respond to a serious question. The Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Fisheries and I have pointed out the seriousness of the problem and the resolve of the Government of Canada to aid the Atlantic fishery.
Only a child would suggest that this problem of fish stocks disappearing was created in the last couple of years. Everyone knows, as the professor pointed out this morning, that this is a problem of long standing duration. It is a problem that commands the attention of the nation. We have taken some substantial actions and we propose to take more.
Let me summarize for my friend. When the farmers of western Canada were hurting, this government took action.


Some hon. members:: They still are.


Martin Brian Mulroney: When Atlantic fishermen are hurting, we will take action as well.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister called for a non-partisan perspective and then cited a report from a previous government.
In the last five years, the overfishing has been permitted to take place. In the last five years, there was a trade agreement signed which eliminated our fish processing rules and eliminated the export tax on fish. All these things were as a result of this particular government. And his friend, the President of the United States, signed a law yesterday banning Canadian lobsters from the American market. I suppose the Prime Minister feels that Kennebunkport lobsters are better than Canadian lobsters. That is what he really thinks.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in Bas Caraquet the fish packing plant is closed. In Shippagan the plant is in receivership. In Murray Harbour the plant is in receivership. In Tignish the plant is closed. Summer-side Sea Products is in receivership. Canso, North Sydney, Lockeport, Woods Harbour, Port Medway, Port Mouton are all closed. In Newfoundland the great
Oral Questions
Avalon peninsula, the northern peninsula, Labrador, the Straits of Belle Isle are all a disaster and this Prime Minister reacts the way he does in the House of Commons. He ought to be ashamed.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. What is the Prime Minister of our country going to do about the collapse of the Atlantic Canadian economy, the collapse of the Atlantic Canadian fishery? They were doing just fine before this government took office and the Prime Minister ought to recognize that.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, two matters have been raised. The province of New Brunswick is leading the country in terms of investment and the Premier of New Brunswick says that the economy of the province of New Brunswick is doing better than it has ever done before.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. members:: That's because it's a Liberal government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Premier of Prince Edward Island has produced a balanced budget, in large measure due to the assistance provided by the Government of Canada.
Since Newfoundland and Labrador has been admitted into Confederation there has never been such assistance, on a per capita basis, by the Government of Canada to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Unemployment in all but one of the four Atlantic provinces is down dramatically today from where the Liberals left it in 1984.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition, responsible for that chaos, suggesting that the fish stocks have gone away overnight because of this government is unworthy of the Leader of the Opposition. I have said that the kinds of broad, general, generous approaches that we brought in to help the western farmer will be in place to help the Atlantic

December 13, 1989
Oral Questions
fishermen. He should be applauding that kind of attitude of the Government of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ought to be sharing my anguish for the hundreds and thousands of Atlantic families who are facing poverty and joblessness and for the towns that have been wiped out. That is what he should be reacting to.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is so intent on being a bigshot on the world stage that he sold out Atlantic Canada.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame!


Mr.   Ttorner@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, this is a national disaster. Fishermen and workers in processing plants on the Atlantic coast are out of work. They don't want frivolous answers from the Canadian government that shift the blame to our friends, they want a constructive response, an answer to the question how the economy of the Atlantic provinces can be revived. That is what they expect from the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I have one more question. Aside from his partisan and frivolous remarks, what kind of concrete action will he take to try and revive the depressed economy of the Atlantic provinces? Let him do something so that people in the Atlantic region will not have the worst Christmas ever!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend talks about a crisis in Atlantic Canada. I have already indicated the seriousness of the matter and the intention of the government to deal with it.


Mr. Tobin:: It's too bad you don't have a conscience, you might do something about it.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members on both sides to put their questions or comments through the Chair, if they feel a very great necessity to get into the debate. In the meantime we probably could move on more effectively if all hon. members would listen to the question and listen to the response.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, to put it in perspective before the right hon. gentleman gets carried away with his own rhetoric, I ask the House to consider the numbers.
In September 1984 unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador was 23.5 per cent.


Ms. Phinney:: What is it today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Today it is down to 17.1 per cent, a drop of 6.4 per cent under this government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Catherine Clancy: Tell that to Canso.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The member for Halifax asks about Nova Scotia. It was 13.8 per cent under the Liberals. We have reduced it to 9.9 per cent, and it continues to drop.
In New Brunswick it was 16.3 per cent. It is now down to 12.8 per cent, and it continues to drop in New Brunswick.
In all of the provinces there has been substantial improvement. There is a new and important problem and that problem deals with the seriousness of the Atlantic fishery.
The Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and all members of the government are involved in putting together a strategy that will assist not only the fishermen and the fishing communities but all who depend upon the fishery for a livelihood. Apart from the original, interesting and I think effective programs that have already been announced by the various ministers, I have already indicated to my right hon. friend that the Government of Canada will act in respect of the Atlantic fishery with exactly the same kind of generosity and enthusiasm that we brought to resolving the problems of the prairie farmer a few years ago.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!
December 13, 1989


Martin Brian Mulroney: What we did then on behalf of the prairie fanner was criticized by members of the Liberal party. What we are doing and will do for the Atlantic fishermen will be criticized by them because they have not got a constructive bone in their bodies. They are nothing but negative destroyers of ideas and dreams.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
This government has known since July that there was a problem in the fishery. He has talked, he says, with President Bush on lobsters. He has talked to the European Community on groundfish, he says, and nothing has been done. Nothing. Instead of relating to the fishermen and the communities he has preferred to play up to the big companies.
This government should learn more about groundfish and lobster and identify less with sharks and bloodsuckers.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: They are all bigshots now with all the answers. Where are they?


Mr. Crosbie:: What about Micronav?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: One job and that's it.
The people in this country want support from their government. They are not getting it. When will this government help the fishermen and the fishing communities when this country and they need them most of all?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the government has been working on these problems and with some success since last July.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Marchi:: What is your definition of failure then?


John Carnell Crosbie: We can see the true interest in the problem by the fact that anyone who tries to answer a question is interrupted by guffaws and shouting from across the House.
With respect to Atlantic Canada, in the member's own constituency we saw to it that preference was given to Micronav, a company in the high-tech area of that city, to create employment in his area. The member knew who to contact then. He was not up playing in the House
Oral Questions
and making insulting statements when Micronav got the assistance it needed in his own district.
With respect to what we are doing, we announced on Monday what we are doing with respect to the immediate emergency. We are developing new programs, a community diversification fund. We are applying our program-the program for older workers-to those who are 55 and older who might not be able to get re-employment. We said that we are going to supplement that program for workers who are between the ages of 50 and 54 because these companies have not provided pension plans for their employees.
We are demonstrating concern. We are helping them. We are going to continue helping them. We are not just making cheap shots here in the House of Commons for supposed political advantage.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are an embarrassment to your province.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker-


John Carnell Crosbie: He knows all about poverty with his $1.9 million mortgage.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Cheap, cheap!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Coming from a Crosbie, that takes a lot of nerve.


John Carnell Crosbie: The cheapest little demagogue in the country!


Sergio Marchi: Jalk about your brother.


Some hon. members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if it would help if all members on both sides considered that this is an extremely important subject and that there are a lot of our fellow citizens in the Maritimes who are hoping that something constructive will come out of the exchange today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. He quotes Professor Davis. If he reads that article further he will see that Professor Davis recommends tying the quotas to the communities. Yet his own Minister of Fisheries said

December 13, 1989
Oral Questions
yesterday he would not specify certain quotas with certain communities.
In the 1970s when Petit de Grat was threatened with closure then Liberal governments federally and provincially said that if vessels at Petit de Grat were going to fish they had to stay at Petit de Grat or not fish.
Will the Prime Minister stipulate now that any fish company which closes a plant will be required to keep those boats at that plant or not fish, and if they do not fish they will have their quotas reduced correspondingly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to a meeting held in Port Hawkesbury, almost next to Canso, written by Professor Davis from St. Francis Xavier who describes a visit there by Senator Kirby in 1983 and laying out-


Mary Catherine Clancy: What are you on about? Pay attention.


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is 1990.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am answering the question. He lays out what he says the solutions are. Those solutions turned out to be the genesis of today's problems.
What I am saying to my hon. friend is apart from the programs that have been initiated and apart from the statement that I have made in respect of our attitude toward the Atlantic fishery, which will be comparable to that which we displayed in respect of the prairie farmer, I am delighted to have from him any suggestions. We will look very carefully at any suggestions that he and other members of this House make to put together a package of initiatives and changes that will benefit the Atlantic fishermen.
Our objective is to restore the Atlantic fishery to its previous health. To do this will require less partisanship and much more progressive attitudes from all members of the House of Commons. I do thank my hon. friend for what I think is a constructive suggestion.


AGRICULTURE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I think it will be small comfort to the people of Atlantic Canada, those fish plant workers who are going to be unemployed, that
the right hon. Prime Minister has said that he will tackle the problem in Atlantic Canada with the same enthusiasm that he has done so for western farmers. I point out that according to Statistics Canada, net farm incomes in 1990 will fall 87 per cent in Manitoba, 54 per cent in Alberta and 101 per cent in Saskatchewan. There will be a negative farm income in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. members:: Shame!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The Minister of Agriculture has released a green paper called Growing Together which has ironically been subtitled "starving together" by prairie farmers.
Can the minister justify to the farmers of Canada his agricultural policy which he knows is destroying the family farm and the rural communities in western Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I might remind the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party that if members of her party were so interested in the welfare of the farmers they would have facilitated and expedited the back to work legislation that would get grain moving. That would be the first thing they could do.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Rather than selling out to the labour union leaders' interests, they may want to start paying a little more attention to the welfare of the farmers.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. leader will know that the projections are very preliminary. We had similar projections with respect to the 1989 crop year that were forecast about this time a year ago. While there has been a slight drop from the record high incomes of 1988, 1989 came in just slightly below the 1988 figures, but significantly higher as compared to the original projections.
I might remind the hon. member that the crop is not in the ground yet and there are a lot of considerations to take into account.
December 13, 1989

Obviously we are concerned about this. I met with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool this morning and we had a good discussion on it.
As the Prime Minister said, to be quite frank about it, this government has provided $21.7 billion worth of federal assistance to the farmers of Canada in the last five years. We stood with the farmers then. We are standing with them now, and we will stand with them in the future.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this party makes no apology for standing up for fairness and pay equity for people making $18,000 a year in the federal hospitals.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Agriculture Canada estimates that one in ten Canadian farmers and one in three farmers on the prairies are in danger of going bankrupt. I think those figures speak for themselves.
This will devastate rural Canada. It will destroy the farms and it will destroy the rural communities.
Is the government going to sit back and wait until we see the collapse of the prairie economy, just as we are seeing with the Atlantic economy? Will this government put a moratorium now on farm debt or offer direct financial assistance to prairie farmers so they can keep going and put in their next crop this year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, obviously the leader of the New Democratic Party had her question written out and failed to. listen to the answer that I provided.
I might suggest to her that when it comes to moving grain, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot pretend to stand for the farmers and then defend the interests of the union leaders at the same time. She will learn that in a short time, I am sure.
The fact of the matter is that what has been discussed over the last two days was a very serious discussion about the future of agriculture. There were some very serious policy deliberations. There were 1,800 people from across Canada representing the total ambit of the agriculture industry. We sat down to try to project and propose new solutions and new policies for the future.
Of course the interim difficulty with respect to the collapse of grain prices and the corresponding reduction in farm incomes is a matter that is under serious consideration. I can assure the hon. member that this party has always concerned itself with the interests of the
Oral Questions
farmer. It is concerning itself with the interests of the farmer today.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this government seems to think that the laws of the market place should apply only to farmers, not to banks. High interest rates and a strong Canadian dollar have dramatically reduced farm income to levels below what they were in the 1930s. When will this government finally let interest rates and the Canadian dollar go down?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in 1988, farm income reached record levels in several parts of the country, both in Quebec and Saskatchewan. This was largely thanks to frequent intervention by the federal government, which has always helped Canadian farmers. The proof is that during the past two days we have had a very interesting national conference or congress on future challenges to agriculture at the international level. Considering the importance of this congress, I think the leadership of the New Democratic Party will have every reason to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, first for his generous treatment of farmers and also for what the future will bring. I remember, because I was here when the Conservative government intervened quite dramatically to help western farmers, that the New Democrats objected, as they do to measures that benefit farmers in Quebec.


FISHERIES
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, if there is one point that all fishermen and fish plant workers agree upon on the east coast of Canada it is that the codfish have got smaller in recent years and that this government should not be issuing licences to foreign countries or agreeing with foreign allocations to catch squid and capelin, which is the food stock of the codfish off the east coast of Canada.
I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries this. Why did this Minister of Fisheries, when he knew by a scientific report recently that the weight of a seven year old codfish in Newfoundland had gone down 50 per cent, or close to it, in the last 10 years, and in Nova Scotia more than 50 per cent, agree to these enormous foreign allocations for squid around threes and fours, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, for 1990 and an increase in

December 13, 1989
Oral Questions
the capelin allocations? Canadian fishermen want to know why.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. It is a fact that the size of Atlantic codfish has been declining at a particular age of their maturity for the past 10 years. Scientists are examining this question very carefully because it appears there are more older fish of too small a size. We do not know what the total reason is for this. We believe it is partly due to fishing practices, perhaps involving domestic fisheries, on younger fish earlier in the year and partly due to environmental factors.
There is no evidence to suggest that the surplus stocks of capelin and squid are a primary cause of this matter, although it is one of the factors that is being examined.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the depletion of the food supply is not responsible for the decrease in size of the codfish. Is the minister suggesting that codfish have been on a diet for the past 10 years, that they switched from squid to oat bran? Fish eat fish-that's brain food, something which is drastically needed by this government.
I want to ask the minister this. Why does this government agree to these enormous quotas for foreign countries on the east coast of Canada and an increase in the capelin quota when Canadian fishermen are under restrictions in the capelin fishery, restricted to their bay, restricted to their boats? Why restrict Canadian fishermen and open the door to foreigners? Or is the Department of External Affairs operating fisheries policy in this country?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were himself interested in consuming a little more capelin and squid we would perhaps not have to make this surplus stock available under international law to foreign fleets, which is our obligation under the law of the sea.
There is no scientific evidence to prove the fact that the hon. member has just alleged in this House, that there is a linkage between the quotas of capelin and squid and the growth factors of our northern cod stocks.
* *


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister knows that the figures released last Friday are the most devastating that have ever been put forward as to the net farm income for farmers in western Canada, especially Saskatchewan where farm incomes will be less than zero next year-the first time since 1933 and 1932.
Dairy farmers are threatened because the free trade deal did not protect their markets in Canada.
Pork producers are spending $2 for every hog marketed to buy access to the U.S. market.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, with all of these uncertainties in every sector of the Canadian agriculture industry-a drastic drop of 50 per cent from last year to this year in net farm income-why the government is cutting support programs by $2 billion in 1990.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally wrong. The income for 1989 has dropped by about 6 per cent from 1988, which was indeed a record year.
He talks about devastation. The devastation was in place when the Liberals were in office. In 1984, 550 bankruptcies occurred on the farm, plus all the foreclosures and the voluntary retirement of farmers. That has been reduced by more than 50 per cent.
While there are still problems, which we are addressing, I can assure the hon. member and the agriculture community, as we discussed throughout the course of the last two-day meeting, there certainly is an air of confidence about our ability to deal with the challenges of the future.
There is a clear indication that farmers know that this government has stood with them in the past. They know that we will stand with them again. That is the best confidence that they can have.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, a zero net income does not give any fanners, certainly the large group in Saskatchewan, any confidence at all.
The Prime Minister promised in December 1986 that he was going to stand with the farmers throughout the trade wars that are going on in farm commodities between the European Community and the United States. Still the United States is putting more and more money into the export enhancement program to steal away our markets, to drive down grain prices.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why he is breaking that promise that he made to Canadian farmers that he would stand with them.
A spokesman from the Minister of Agriculture's office said just two days ago that Ottawa will not repeat the special $1 billion subsidies of the past three years and the Western Grain Stabilization Fund will not pay out this year or next.
If the government and the Prime Minister are not going to break their promise, then come clean and tell the farmers right now that you are not going to cut that $2 billion of support which you have been promising all these years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend clearly has the wrong Prime Minister. It was the other fellow who said to the western farmers: "Why should I sell your wheat?" You have got the wrong guy.
It was the other fellow who let interest rates rise to 24 per cent and just about crippled every farmer in Canada.
It was this Prime Minister who stood by the western farmers and eastern farmers and will continue to do so in spite of the negative, pejorative attitudes and the carping and the criticism that comes from the Liberals, which is why they have been rejected time and time again and will continue to be rejected in the future.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry. Investment Canada has now approved the loss
Oral Questions
of yet another Canadian research and development company in approving both foreign bids for Connaught Biosciences. The minister will not stop it.
Will he, however, provide the specifics of the "extensive legal undertakings" agreed to by those two companies? In short, will he provide us the exact denomination of the 40 pieces of silver?


Mr. Beatty:: I can see why you lost the leadership.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be bought for any $7,000, I will tell you.
As required under the Investment Canada Act, Investment Canada evaluated the two applications that came in for the takeover bids of Connaught. As you will recall, the terms of the first bid by Merieux were deemed to not provide net benefit to Canada. They went back, reconsidered, improved the offer considerably in terms of its net benefit to Canada.
It is part of the press kit. Question Period does not permit me to go through all the details of the submissions and commitments made by both sides. It is part of the press kit.
Certainly, in my judgment and in the judgment of any fairminded person, both bids provide net benefit to Canada.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last night Fifth Estate exposed the immigrants' investment fund, which is a scam seen overseas, especially in Hong Kong and Thiwan, as a buy-a-passport scheme. Wealthy immigrants are buying their way into Canada, investing hundreds of thousands of dollars, often in questionable investment, while lower income people are denied equal access.
Will the minister immediately discontinue this program and stop peddling passports? When are we going to get some fairness in immigration policy in Canada?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first, just to put this in some perspective, in 1988 we had in Canada 249 investor

December 13, 1989
Oral Questions
immigrants out of a total of 161,000. This year, to the end of July, we had 269. This is a small part of our immigration program.
This is a program that was intended to attract sophisticated investors to Canada. There are other countries that are looking at this. The program has some growing pains. There are some problems in it. We have taken a number of steps to attempt to deal with those problems.


CANADIAN INDUSTRIES
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, this government allowed the sale of Connaught to foreigners. My question is for the Prime Minister.
Can he now assure us that no other leading-edge Canadian company will be sold to foreigners? What Canadian industries is he not prepared to sacrifice?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, since 1984 this government has been following an economic program calling for fiscal restraint, deregulation, privatization, and indicating to the world that we welcome investment. This economic policy has produced growth second only to Japan, only marginally so, has been applauded by the OECD as being exactly appropriate and the best kinds of policies that could be followed. Part of that context is our Investment Canada policy which says we approve investments in Canada which are of net benefit to Canada.
These investments for which a judgment was rendered this morning are of net benefit to Canada. That is why we did it and we will continue to do things that are of net benefit to Canada.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, with that answer, the Minister is telling our high-tech community and young Canadians, "Let them eat cake!"

With the sale of Connaught, Mr. Speaker, Canadians know Canada is up for sale.
The Prime Minister knows that with the free trade deal almost every single one of our high-technology companies can now be bought up by the Americans. Is he prepared to tell us that his policy is truly that Canada's economic future can be built if our key industries are all controlled by foreigners?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of answering because the question was broader and refers to the policies of the ministry. So my hon. friend, the minister, will allow me to respond on behalf of the government.
The Premier of Ontario and the Ontario Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology were in Paris earlier this year. They were indicating then in public statements that they believed that the free trade deal would now open up new economic opportunities for Ontario and for Canada and that the province of Ontario was positioned to take advantage of the free trade agreement. I believe that to be true. I believe the Premier of Ontario was dead on.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: He thinks it's a disgrace.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says the Premier of Ontario thinks it is a disgrace. I want to tell the member that if the Premier of Ontario thought it was a disgrace, he did not say it in Paris. He thought it was a good deal for Ontario when he was in Paris.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: He does not.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with two opposing schools of political thought. One is based on the private sector, based on investment including foreign investments, and on the rules of the market-place with an important role for government. The other is protectionist, timid, timorous, which takes the country back to the 1930s and puts a Wall of China around Canada. That is the Liberal view of Canada. Our view is a confident, modem Canada building into the next century. That is what we are about.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Sell it off!


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise hon. members that that concludes question period. I am proceeding to tabling of documents.
December 13, 1989



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister, 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.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government responses to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



EMPLOYMENT EQUITY


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second annual report on employment equity.



WESTERN ARCTIC INUVIALUIT FINAL AGREEMENT


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1988-89 annual report on implementation of the Western Arctic Inuvia-luit Final Agreement.
Routine Proceedings EMPLOYMENT EQUITY


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I just tabled the second report provided under the Employment Equity Act.
It has been only three years since the legislation was passed, but already some progress has been made towards creating a labour force that is truly representative of the various segments of the Canadian mosaic. Federally regulated employers, with over 600,000 employees, have shown they are becoming increasingly aware of their responsibilities. They are seeking new ways to facilitate the integration of members of designated groups in their workforce.

This year, 375 federally regulated employers and Crown corporations with 100 or more employees submitted reports. Information was provided on salary ranges, occupational categories, hirings, promotions and terminations of employment. The comprehensive employer reports provided information on the status of the four designated groups: women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and visible minorities.

If we compare with last year's report, we see that progress has been made in all four groups.
Women's representation in the labour force has gone up from 40.9 per cent to 42.12 per cent; that of native people from 0.66 per cent to 0.73 per cent; that of persons with disabilities from 1.59 per cent to 1.79 per cent, and that of members of visible minorities from 4.99 per cent to 5.69 per cent.
In each designated group, there has been an increase in the number of persons hired for full-time employment. Furthermore, representation of these groups has increased in several occupational categories.

It is clear that the employers covered by the act have taken their task seriously. To achieve some change in only one year since the first report is a tribute to the efforts they have made.

December 13, 1989
Routine Proceedings

These changes are not, however, enough to guarantee equity in the workplace. Representation of the four groups designated under the act is still lower than their representation in the population as a whole. There also tend to be fewer members of these groups in key professional categories such as management, and their average salary is always lower than that of other employees. This fact, the reason why the Employment Equity Act was passed in the first place, is ample justification for the continued existence of this legislation and for increased efforts by all parties to improve the situation.
I think a lot remains to be done in the years to come. I will continue to examine what is done by employers to enhance employment of members in the four designated groups, and I will submit further progress reports and indicate where further improvements are necessary.
I may add that if the situation has not improved sufficiently by the time the legislation is reviewed in 1991, this government will consider introducing some amendments.
I know the situation is improving. Employees at Employment and Immigration Canada are working harder than ever before to help employers implement their employment equity programs.
Throughout Canada, regional consultants are monitoring the situation, and their services are available to all federally regulated employers. Communities and professional associations are urged to provide information and express their views.
Finally, to enhance the effectiveness of employer equity programs, instruments such as employment practice tests have been developed.

It is my sense that there is a realization among employers that employment equity is good business, yielding both economic and social benefits. Workplace shortages are a reality of the future. Members of designated groups will without a doubt be needed to fill those gaps and our competitive situation will be improved since we will be using all of our talents and skills. From a social standpoint, offering group members equality in employment leads to improved financial security
and, in the end, a fairer and more compassionate society in which to live.
Mr. Speaker, as employers become more experienced at implementing their equity programs, we will put greater emphasis on results. As was pointed out in the Abella report, employment equity will happen only if we work hard to make it happen. And that is what this government has done and will continue to do in the future.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the report on employment equity tabled by the minister in the House today confirms the criticism that we made of this legislation when it was presented to Parliament in 1985. According to the report tabled today there has been very little progress with respect to employment equity, and in some industries there has been no progress whatsoever.
This is a law which deals with affirmative action. It applies to four target groups: women, aboriginal people, disabled people and visible minorities. It follows on the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1976 passed by a Liberal Government and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms introduced and passed by the Liberals in 1982.
In 1983 the government of the day set up the Abella Commission to advise the government on how to proceed with employment equity. Abella's report, which was presented in 1984 to the new Conservative government, suggested a law that would have teeth in it. When this law was presented to the House in 1985 it said that firms under federal jurisdiction must proceed with employment equity. But it did not provide for a sanction and it did not provide for a penalty if those firms did not proceed with employment equity.
We said at the time that unless there was a sanction in the law that these companies would drag their feet and they would not implement employment equity. That is exactly what has been done.
Let me refer to the report the minister just tabled. Let us look at some of the firms that reported. The report ranks these employers in terms of three categories. Categoiy A is if they are close to what is supposed to be done; category B are those that do not meet the target
December 13, 1989

but are only slightly under it and category C refers to those employers that have no members employed in the designated groups, or very few.
Let us look at some of these firms. The National Bank of Canada ranks C with respect to aboriginal peoples, C with respect to disabled peoples, C with respect to visible minorities. The Royal Bank of Canada, C with respect to aboriginal peoples, C with respect to disabled people, C with respect to visible minorities. Air Canada ranks C with respect to disabled people and C with respect to visible minorities. Gray Coach Lines ranks C in all categories. That means it has none of the designated categories. It ranks C with respect to women, aboriginal people, disabled people and visible minorities. The same was true with Greyhound Lines. Interprovincial Pipe Line ranks C in all four categories. Loomis Armored Car Services ranks C in all four categories. Maritime Ontario Freight Lines ranks C in all categories. Northern Transportation, a Crown corporation, ranks C with respect to women, disabled people and visible minorities and only ranks B with respect to aboriginal peoples, even though it is a company which operates in the north. Reimer Express ranks C in all four categories. Time Air ranks C in three categories out of four. Voyageur ranks C in all categories.
I will bring this to a close but there are some very important companies here, Mr. Speaker. Bell Canada ranked C in three out of four categories. Two Canadian Crown corporations, Canada Post Corporation and the CBC, ranked C at the bottom of the list in all four categories with respect to women, aboriginal peoples, disabled peoples and visible minorities. It goes on and on. Canada Council ranked C in three out of four categories.
If the government were really serious about employment equity and affirmative action it would bring in amendments to this legislation immediately and we would co-operate in seeing these amendments passed. This law needs a sanction. These companies will continue to drag their feet with respect to employment equity unless there is a sanction in the law. It is no good simply to say: "You must do it in legislation," and then let it pass just as if nothing happened. Let us see some action. Let's have amendments to that law as soon as possible.
Routine Proceedings


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister tabling this second report. I am sorry to say that the improvement is really rather pathetic. Native peoples' representation has increased by only 0.06 per cent. It is only 0.73 per cent in all of the federally regulated industries.
Natives make up in our society 2.1 per cent of the Canadian population, and this meagre improvement is just not satisfactory. The improvement for visible minorities is 0.7 per cent. The percentage of visible minorities employed under the act is 5.69 per cent, and yet then-representation in the Canadian workforce where we know that they are represented already is 6.3 per cent.
With disabled persons, the improvement is only 0.12 per cent. The percentage of disabled persons employed under the act is 1.71 per cent, and in the percentage of the Canadian workforce disabled people total 5.4 per cent.
For women, the improvement is 2.2 per cent. The percentage of women employed under federally regulated industries is 42.12 per cent and the percentage of Canadian women employed in the Canadian workforce, in general, is 44 per cent. We know that the majority of these jobs are at the lower echelons of the federally regulated industries.
The enforcement mechanism in the legislation is very weak. It is so weak that it is criticized universally by a variety of organizations. It has been criticized by immigrant and visible minority women's organizations. Under the legislation it is up to individuals to lodge a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, or the overtaxed Human Rights Commission must conduct a review on its own after seeing the reports. We know that the Human Rights Commission does not have the resources to do this effectively. There should be mandatory work plans. There must be mandatory work plans. That has been brought up in this House before. The New Democratic Party brought it up in the committee and the government's response is always that we have to wait until the review of the Employment Equity Act in 1991.
The people of Canada are not satisfied with that answer. Women, native people, people with disabilities and visible minority Canadians are all tired of waiting. They have waited now for over a century. They are tired of waiting. They want action from this government. They want enforced timetables and a mandate for fairness for

December 13, 1989
Routine Proceedings
them. We need goals, we need timetables, and we need effective enforcement for this legislation. I urge this government to bring in those kinds of sanctions.
It is ironic that today this report is tabled. It is ironic because in this House we are debating back to work legislation. Part of that back to work legislation is dealing with women hospital workers who have already supposedly won pay equity. These women-the majority of these hospital workers are women-are demanding pay equity and they are not receiving it from this government.
I urge the government to deal fairly with all of these groups in society and to bring in effective measures for employment equity.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-sixth report of the striking committee.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day and I would ask that we dispense with the reading of that report by the Clerk at the table as the report concerns only membership changes to committees.



BILL C-28-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-28, an Act-

to amend the Income Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and a related Act, without amendment.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INCOME TAX ACT


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) moved: pursuant to Standing Order 83(4) that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Income Tkx Act, be read the first time and be printed.


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


Michael Holcombe Wilson: for leave to introduce Bill C-52, an Act to Amend the Income Tax Act and Related Acts, pursuant to Standing Order 83(4).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
=k *	*



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I move that the twenty-sixth report of the Striking Committee presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the following petitions containing the signatures of 7,000 senior citizens from across this country who call upon this government to withdraw its vicious proposal to claw back their pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. John N. T\imer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour of filing the following petitions containing the signatures of several thousand Canadians from Sarnia, London, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Mississauga, Keswick, Brampton, Toronto, Bramalea, Burlington, Hamilton, Vineland, St. Catharines, Brockville, Ottawa, Gloucester, Carp and Kanata, all in Ontario; Vancouver, Surrey, Parksville, Port Alber-ni, Smithers, Burnaby, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Richmond, Penticton and Princeton in British Columbia; Lunenburg, Bridgewater, Yarmouth, Charleston, Ma-hone Bay, Chester Basin, Springfield, Martin's Point and Liverpool in Nova Scotia; Saskatoon and Yorkton, Saskatchewan; Calgary, Alberta; Aylmer, Gatineau, Kirkland, Hull, Montreal, Westmount and Laval in Quebec.
These citizens humbly call upon the government to withdraw its proposal for a regressive, inflationary goods and services tax no matter what the rate.
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions with some 6,000 signatures from across Canada of those citizens who are petitioning the government to cancel and to abandon the measure that it is proposing to claw back old age security and family allowance benefits.
These petitioners call for this measure because they realize that the government's intention is to begin undermining the principle of universality, therefore, undermining any kind of reason, in terms of geographical location or other factors in ensuring fairness in the Old Age Security system and family allowance system in this country.
Routine Proceedings POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to introduce in the House a petition on behalf of students in higher education as well as concerned citizens who are calling upon their elected representatives to stop the erosion of quality and accessibility of our universities, colleges, and post-secondary educational institutions in Canada. In particular, they mention the over-crowded classrooms, obsolete laboratory equipment, poor library resources, high student-to-professor ratios, elimination of programs of studies, deteriorating buildings and physical plants that are now a fact of Canadian higher education.
Finally, they are calling on the government in the House of Commons to commit to arrange a federal-provincial conference of the highest political representatives to establish the obligations of the two levels of government in the financing of Canadian post-secondary education and to ensure an end to the shameful neglect of higher education in Canada.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present some 16 petitions containing more than 10,000 names from people in the following communities in Alberta: Spring Coulee, Magrath, Welling, Claresholm, Lethbridge, Raymond, Stirling, Cardston, Calgary, Waterton Park, Banff, Mountain View, Coal-dale, Milk River, Champion, Pincher Creek, Fort Macleod, Warner, Lomond, Foremost, Medicine Hat, Hill Spring, Coalhurst, Picture Butte, Nobleford, Turin, Stand Off, Diamond City, Taber, and Blairmore. Also, some people have signed from British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
These petitions were signed by many people, including Bob Grbavac, Paul Pharo, and Senator Joyce Fairburn. They petition this chamber to call upon Parliament to reject the government's proposed goods and services tax.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty as the member for my riding of York West, to present to the House and directly to the government five petitions from constituents in my riding who signed these petitions and have called repeatedly for this government to abandon its goods and services tax, whether it is at a 9 per cent level or a 7 per cent level. It

December 13, 1989
Routine Proceedings
is bad for average Canadians in my riding, it is bad for average small business enterprises in my riding, and it is bad for Canada.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to Parliament, on behalf of the people of the Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold riding and the surrounding area in the Niagara Peninsula, a petition signed by some 8,000 people. This is a petition which was started by Mrs. Idris O'Neill, and it is the remainder of the 12,000-plus names that she has collected.
The signators oppose the goods and services tax completely. Notwithstanding the fact that this government has seen fit to back off from its 9 per cent position to its 7 per cent position, this is still going to impose an extremely difficult hardship on the old people in our communities, our students and also average Canadians in the middle-income group. We would hope that the government would listen to reason and indeed withdraw any proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, as I did yesterday, I would like today to rise under Standing Order 36, especially in light of the presence today in this building of the One Voice Committee, to present the signatures of another 419 Albertans, bringing the total now to well over 11,000, Albertans who petition Parliament to withdraw the budget proposal to claw back payments from the social programs, Old Age Security and family allowances.
Yesterday, the signatures came from Albertans mostly from Edmonton, but today they come from Edmonton, St. Albert and Sherwood Park too. But as well, there are signatures of people from Jarvie, Fawcett, Flatbush, Barrhead, Gunn, Dapp, Rochester, and lots of them from Westlock.
They also come from Busby, Vimy, Clyde, Warrens-ville, Pickardville, Calahoo, Slave Lake, Mayerthorpe, Legal, Newbrook, Thorhild, Edson, Swan Hills, Bloomsbury, known for its wools, McLennan, Bon Accord, Faust and Sturgeon.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table a petition
signed by members of the Kingston community which urges the government to acknowledge officially the injustices suffered by Canadians of Ukrainian origin during World War I.
Between 1914 and 1920 over 5,000 Canadians from Ukraine were interned in prison camps across Canada. Their property and valuables were taken from them. They were denied the right to vote and their lives were altered forever.
In tabling this petition, I am not asking the government to apologize for those decisions taken over 70 years ago. I am asking, rather, that the terrible injustice committed and the hardship and pain which these people were forced to endure at the hands of their own government should be acknowledged and should never be forgotten.
This is the first of many petitions that will be filed in Parliament on this subject.
I say in presenting this petition that I am particularly honoured to do this because one of the principal internment camps was at Fort Henry in the riding of Kingston and the Islands. I am honoured to present this petition on behalf of the people who suffered so much at the hands of their government so long ago.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and the responsibility to table a petition signed by over 1,200 residents of the Nickel Belt area.
They are from such places as Azilda, Val Caron, Hanmer, Garson, Chelmsford, Verner, Copper Cliff, Timmins, Worthington, London, St. Charles, White Fish, Kenora, Keewatin, Wanapetei, Sudbury, Coniston, Lively, Onaping Falls, Falconbridge, Val Therese, Sturgeon Falls, North Bay, Naughton, Hagar, Dowling, Alban, Sault Ste. Marie and Sundridge. Most of those communities are within the riding of Nickel Belt.
The people who have signed these petitions are pointing out, first, that the proposed goods and services tax of the Minister of Finance is an unfair form of taxation because it does not respect the ability of consumers to pay.
Second, they point out that the government has not addressed itself to looking at the tax system, to ensuring that it is progressive and fair in that many wealthy individuals and corporations pay little or no tax at all
December 13, 1989

while forcing lower and middle income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
Furthermore, they call upon Parliament to reject the current proposed goods and services tax. They also call on Parliament to reform the tax system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first was gathered from about a dozen communities in my riding and calls upon the government to abandon its plans to cut service under VIA Rail and to make VIA Rail a modem and effective transportation company.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the second petition was presented to me by a resident of my constituency who gathered the names in Calgary.
It calls upon the RCMP to continue with its traditional form of dress.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 with a petition signed by some 71 residents of the city of Revelstoke in the constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The petitioners are alarmed and enraged at the proposal of the government to tax back old age security and family allowance benefits in part or in their entirety, depending upon the recipient's income.
They believe that the government's proposed clawback measure will undermine the principle of universality of Canada's social programs and will, as a result, create a potential threat to the income of future pensioners, particularly because the lack of indexing in that proposal will in fact be a threat to average income Canadians in a very few short years.
Finally, the 71 petitioners call upon Parliament to abandon the proposed measure.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on
Routine Proceedings
behalf of residents of Saskatoon and residents in many parts of rural Saskatchewan complaining about the government's decision to remove oats from the Wheat Board.
They are calling upon the government to sustain and to ensure that marketing boards are improved rather than weakened, to not remove oats from the Wheat Board but to add barley and to ensure that in future consultation is carried out with organizations with regard to decisions affecting their activities.


Mr. David  Bjomson@Selkirk: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions on behalf of the member for Lisgar-Marquette, signed by 76 petitioners who call upon Parliament to enact legislation which protects human life from conception to natural death.


Mr. David  Bjomson@Selkirk: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a certified petition on behalf of the member for Lisgar-Marquette, signed by 36 petitioners who call upon Parliament to consider instruction in skating as an educational service and therefore exempt skating education expenses from the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present two petitions.
The first is from 50 people in my riding as a part of
50,000	people from across the country reacting to Bill 178, the sign law, a law which has created a great deal of rancour and acrimony not only in Quebec but across the country. This is unfortunate legislation.
Nevertheless they urge the government to react to the concerns of these petitioners.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many thousands of people from my riding of Sault Ste. Marie.
It concerns the Sault Ste. Marie lock that has been closed for some two years now. As someone indicated to me, it would be like tearing the very face off the city if this lock is not reconstructed. I encourage the government to react to the demands and request of the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie. We will be meeting with the minister

December 13, 1989
Routine Proceedings
tomorrow, and I hope that he will listen to us intently at that time.
It is ironic that the government has produced a brand new book praising the technology and transition-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member shares with us his great enthusiasm for his own riding and places in it, but perhaps he is trespassing a little beyond the normal confines of the rules.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility to present many petitions today, under Standing Order 36, containing 5,190 signatures from residents of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the RCMP by retaining the uniformity of dress code with all the recognizable colour and trappings that have had such great historical value to the country.
The pride and esprit de corps should not be jeopardized by any concessions to religious or ethnic minorities which result in changes to this truly great police force, its proud traditions and uniform.
This brings the total to over 125,000 names that I have presented in the House to preserve this national symbol.


Guy St-Julien: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I present a petition rejecting the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas. Signatories representing Abitibi's isolated community of Lebel-sur-Quevillon are concerned about the recommendations of the report which will signal the dismissal of a number of workers in these isolated areas. They believe the Government of Canada simply refuses to come to grips with the fact that their daily existence is different, for life in the north is difficult, isolated and costly.
Mr. Speaker, according to the 1989 disparity index of Quebec's isolated communities, Lebel-sur-Quevillon ranks 70th and Fermont 81st.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 148 and 165.

RRIF/RRSP


Mr. Whittaker: For the most recent year for which statistics are available to the government (a) what was the total annual cost of tax assistance for (i) RRIFs (ii) RRSPs (b) Has the government estimated the annual cost of eliminating the termination of RRIFs upon the RRIF beneficiary's reaching the age of 90 and allowing RRIFs to be held until the death of the beneficiary and, if so, what is it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There are no statistics which directly show the cost of tax assistance associated with saving through registered pension plans (RPPs), registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs), or registered retirement income funds (RRIFs). Since the nature of the tax assistance is a tax deferral, between the time a pension or RRSP contribution is made and the associated retirement benefits are received, rather than a forgiveness of tax, tax assistance costs cannot simply be determined from the level of contributions made in a year. The most recent estimates of the cost of tax assistance for retirement saving were prepared for the Department of Finance publication, Account of the Cost of Selective Tax Measures, which was issued in August, 1985. That report contained a section which described alternative methods for estimating the revenue costs associated with tax deferral provisions. It also provided an estimate of $4.9 billion per year for the federal tax cost of the tax deferrals associated with RPPs and RRSPs (including RRIFs). No attempt was made to separate the RPP, RRSP and RRIF costs-an exercise which would be difficult since funds can be transferred back and forth
December 13, 1989

between these types of plan. For 1989, the total federal cost of tax assistance is projected to be in the range from $5 billion to $6 billion.
There are no statistics available on the amount of RRSP funds that has been transferred to RRIFs. Qualitative information from financial institutions suggests that the usage of RRIFs was relatively rare until 1986 when the rules governing RRIF withdrawals were simplified. Their use has apparently grown strongly since that time.
The Department of Finance has not yet made any estimate of the annual cost of allowing withdrawals from RRIFs to be extended over a period beyond the year when the annuitant attains age 90. However, in response to requests to the Minister of Finance for such a policy change, the Department has begun to consider the implications of different options for extending the allowable RRIF payout period.


Mr. Kaplan: To the knowledge of the government, were legal fees paid to any law
firms in connection with a loan made by the Federal Business
Development Bank to Pluri-Canaux Ltee or to the University of
Sherbrooke in 1987 for a home-study course to be produced by the
former and, if so (a) to which firms (b) in each case, in what amount?


Hon. Thomas Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Insofar as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned, the response is NIL.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I gave the parliamentary secretary notice that I wanted an answer to Question No. 169.
I realize that it involves a search in a number of departments and government agencies with regard to contracts which have been let to legal firms of senators and former senators.
I was wondering, recognizing the parliamentary secretary may not be able to answer the question on behalf of all departments and agencies, if he could give us an interim answer from those departments and agencies that have given him or the government the information so far.
Routine Proceedings


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. member that first of all the 45 days requested on his question have not yet expired.
We are doing the best we can to answer his question. I should mention my information is that it requires gathering data from some 225 people, which of course is going to be complicated, costly and difficult, but we will do our best to accommodate the hon. member.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he would be kind enough to check why the government has not answered Question No. 162 of October 30, 1989.1 believe Your Honour will find that this is the forty-fifth day today. It involves an issue concerning the travels of the Prime Minister and a few limousines to Costa Rica.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to advise the hon. member that I do not have the information on that specific question. However, since this is the forty-fifth day, I can assure him I will do my best to track down that information.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I wish call to your attention an emerging crisis which will have dire consequences for thousands of families in Atlantic Canada's fishing communities as a result of recent and anticipated fish plant closings in the Atlantic fishery.
[Stage Direction]
December 13, 1989
Speaker's Ruling
On Monday, National Sea Products Limited announced layoffs totalling 1,562 jobs or 27 per cent of its workforce. In addition to its Lockeport operation which was closed earlier this year, National Sea will be closing permanently its Canso operation, its St. John's operation, and will be making significant reduction in its North Sydney operation.
Fisheries Products International in Newfoundland, we expect, is soon to announce massive layoffs in Newfoundland. Many smaller plants in Atlantic Canada have also closed. Yesterday, by signing a bill which restricts the import of Atlantic lobsters to the United States, the president has placed the income of thousands of lobster fishermen in jeopardy.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will soon announce the 1990 groundfish management plan, setting fish quotas for next year. Scientists are predicting a dramatic decline in the amount of fish stocks, and the government's management policies are currently in disarray. The government's response to the crisis has not been spelled out.
There is a sense of foreboding and crisis in families in all Atlantic Canadian fishing communities. It is shaping up to be a very bleak Christmas this year and for Christmases to come.
In light of these circumstances, I urgently request that Your Honour grant permission for a special emergency debate in the House to deal with this pressing and urgent matter facing the future of Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso has raised a matter in which he is petitioning the Chair to set aside the ordinary business of the day and proceed to an emergency debate on an issue which is a very serious one.
I think all hon. members can understand perfectly why the hon. member, coming from that part of the country, is raising this matter.
A great deal of anxiety has already been indicated in this chamber by other hon. members on both sides of the House. There was very extensive debate today on the matter. That debate may very well continue in Question Period and other places. I will be watching with very great care the questions and the responses of the government.
Under the circumstances I am not going to order a debate today. The hon. member may have good reason to apply at another time. I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. As I have said, he is open to raise the matter again at another time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are seven motions in amendment in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn a 11 motions in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West set down on the notice paper at report stage of Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services.
They are all in order but not all will be selected for debate as there is some duplication of content.
Motion Nos. 1, 4, 8, 13 and 16 in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West are in order and will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motion Nos. 4, 8, 13 and 16.
Motion Nos. 2 and 3 are virtually identical and the Chair will select for debate only Motion No. 2. It will be voted on separately.
Motion Nos. 5 and 7 and Motion No. 6 are in effect identical motions. I will select for debate Motion Nos. 5 and 7 and a vote on Motion No. 5 will be applied to Motion No. 7. Motion No. 6 will thus not be selected.
Motion Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 all deal with the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. However, Motion No. 10 is a duplicate of Motion No. 9 and therefore it will not be selected for debate. Thus, Motion Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 14 will be grouped together for debate, but they will be voted on as follows:
A vote on Motion No. 9 will be applied to Motion Nos. 11 and 12.

Motion No. 14 will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 15 which deals with dates and time limits will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion Nos. 17 and 18 dealing with enforcement will be grouped together for debate. However, there will be a separate vote on these motions.
The House will now proceed with Motion Nos. 1, 4, 8, 13, and 16.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 8 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"tions Act, except that "Chair" wherever it is used in this Act shall mean the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 8
(a)	by striking out line 7 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"of this Act, the Chair shall"
(b)	by striking out line 16 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Ottawa, as the chair of the first board"
(c)	by striking out line 19 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"chair of the second board therein"
(d)	by striking out line 30 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Chair shall appoint the nominee as a"
(e)	by striking out lines 36 and 37 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Chair shall appoint as a member of that board a person the Chair deems fit for"
(f)	by striking out lines 41 to 43 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the Chair, the Chair shall appoint as a member of that board a person the Chair deems fit for that purpose."
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 10
(a)	by striking out line 3 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"10.(1) The Chair shall refer to the"
(b)	by striking out line 14 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"Chair on September 22, 1989 and that"
Government Orders
(c)	by striking out line 18 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) such other matters as the Chair"
(d)	by striking out line 23 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The Chair shall refer to the second"
(e)	by striking out line 34 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"Relations Act by the Chair on Sep-"
(f)	by striking out line 38 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) such other matters as the Chair".
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 11
(a)	by striking out line 1 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"Chair, after consultation with the par-"
(b)	by striking out line 19 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) report to the Chair on the resolu-".
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 33 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Chair pursuant to subsection 11(1),".
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on this group of amendments. I am sure the House will understand if I wish to put them in the context of the bill before us.
I find it regrettable that relationships between the government and 3,600 of its most vulnerable and valuable employees has reached the stage that the government must bring before the House legislation to force people back to work, because it is incapable of negotiating a fair and reasonable contract.

Mr. Speaker, as members of the opposition, we recognize the serious effects of this strike. We understand the great impact of the slowdown in shipping on the St. Lawrence Seaway. We understand that essential services have become uncertain on our three oceans and we can appreciate the difficulties facing veterans in Canadian institutions.

It is unforgivable, knowing that these would be the inevitable results of its intransigence, that the government wasted over four months of valuable time when it could have been negotiating a fair and peaceful settle-

Government Orders
ment for these workers. It spent that time trying to bypass the legal rights of workers instead of settling a contract.
Let there be no mistake. It is the government's inability to manage, its failure to meet its responsibilities as an employer, and its failure to anticipate and plan for possible disruptions in service which have led to this sorry state and this undemocratic bill before us today.
The aim of the Official Opposition has not been to obstruct the passage of this bill unduly, but unlike other times when back to work legislation was before this House we have certainly chosen not to expedite it. Indeed, since last week we have made every effort to moderate this unacceptable bill, to improve it, to have the government send a clear message to these valued workers that as undesirable, unacceptable and undemocratic as this bill is, at last it is prepared to come to a just and reasonable settlement.
Knowing as we do that the government has the voting power to make the passage of this bill at 6 p.m tomorrow night inevitable, we have been trying to put in place the best possible framework, or let us say the least damaging framework, that would at least give the workers a half decent chance of getting a fair settlement.
The government has used every tool at its disposal, including closure and time allocation, to limit debate on this bill. It has failed to anticipate problems. It has failed to solve problems. Now it is trying to force people back to work because of its own mistakes and incompetence.

Mr. Speaker, we know that these employees are being forced to return to work in a poisoned atmosphere, rightly convinced that the government does not understand their work and does not value them, convinced that the government absolutely refuses to propose anything but a mean-spirited, intransigent settlement.

I urge the President of Treasury Board to accept these motions, including the ones that have been moved by myself and others on the Order Paper, to send to the
workers a clear signal that he personally will take responsibility for seeing a just settlement to this strike.

I ask the President of the Treasury Board to make his negotiators understand that he wants to reach an agreement in keeping with the demonstrated value of the work done by these employees.

I speak specifically to the content of these motions that have been just moved and to put them in the context of the others on the Order Paper that will be moved. I think it is important to note that nurses from Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital in Montreal have come here by the dozens today to support the hospital services workers; not their union but workers they work with every day who they know deliver essential and valuable services.
They have seen these people out on the picket lines in the freezing cold over the last two weeks and they know how much suffering this strike is causing. They know that these people have been waiting for pay equity for two years.
The first group of motions I moved may seem to be technical and may seem to be window-dressing to some members of this House. They change the word "chairman" in this bill to the word "chair" because women are tired of having every position of power and authority in this country and in our laws expressed in male terms.
Those kinds of attitudes creep into this bill that support income inequity for women which is at the heart of one issue of the strike of these hospital services workers. This government has refused to implement the fair pay that the human rights tribunal has determined that these people are entitled to. Even in the last week the President of the Treasury Board has failed to ensure that the matter of pay equity is referred to the conciliation boards being established with this piece of legislation before us today.
The matter of pay equity will be before the House shortly under several motions to be moved by my colleague and one I believe to be moved by myself. The government has known for two years that the issue of pay equity is fundamental to these hospital service workers being able to accept an agreement.
December 13, 1989

All they are asking for is what the Human Rights Commission of Canada has said they are entitled to-a fair wage for the work they do and equal wages with other people doing comparable work. They will not settle for less despite this legislation and, if the government is serious about what it says about pay equity, then let it accept some of the motions that will follow mine. Let it accept the spirit of the first amendments. Let it very clearly say that pay equity is referred to the conciliation boards established in this legislation.
The whole process that has led us to this despicable point has been controlled by Treasury Board, has been manipulated by Treasury Board, has been thwarted by Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board even tried to imply in the House that the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada supports this back to work legislation. That is not true.
The nurses from St. Anne de Bellevue hospital are here today. They have travelled all the way from Montreal. They are sitting in the gallery to let this House know that they as professional workers in the Public Service of Canada do not support back to work legislation. They do support fair treatment for the hospital services workers who they work with every day. They support a reasonable and fair settlement to this contract, not a forced resumption of work.
They know that when they go back into those hospitals with workers who have been forced back there with no hope of a fair contract, the situation will not allow for a pleasant working environment.
I ask the opposition, I ask the government and I ask particularly the President of the Treasury Board to recognize the importance of this issue and the importance of parity for the ships' crews workers as essential fundamental pre-conditions to be able to resolve these contracts that have been now outstanding for two years. I ask them to recognize that the kinds of wages these people earn are not fair and not just. The daily cost of them not being at work is more than it would take to settle this contract for a whole year.
The process has not been fair, and this piece of legislation today continues the unfairness and the manipulativeness of that process. It sets up two conciliation boards which are supposed to impose a settlement of something that the government has been unable and unwilling to negotiate for over two years.
Government Orders
The normal process in conciliation boards, the normal process in decent, fair, humane labour relations is that each side names its members to a conciliation board and those members get to name an acceptable chair. It means that the process is not weighted in favour of the employer or the employees and that the fairness of the arguments that come before the board will determine what the settlement is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.


Marlene Catterall: Just one more sentence to finish off?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes.


Marlene Catterall: Therefore, I urge the government to look carefully at these amendments, to not act vindictively, to attempt to improve this legislation, to attempt to improve the atmosphere in which these people will be forced back to work and, above all, to sit down and negotiate fairly. I will have an opportunity to speak further tomorrow and I will do so.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday when the government introduced its last heavy hand into this House, that is, closure on this portion of the debate on Bill C-49, the justice minister said that there had been agreement between the government and the Official Opposition on certain matters which would have led to a speedy conclusion to the passage of Bill C-49 but that it was the members of the New Democratic Party who held it up because, he said, we had to appeal to a higher authority.
In his sneering fashion, he was referring to us having been in consultation with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. There is a very good reason to do that because it is the Public Service Alliance of Canada which represents the people who have been so demeaned by this government and by governments prior to this one as well, ever since they became eligible to be unionized and to go on strike.
Since 1967, this is the first time that these people have been able to go on strike. Certainly it is not any wonder to anyone who has been following the process why they have gone on strike. They are the most underpaid people in the civil service, and yet, one has to wonder why, if these people are as essential as the government has said

December 13, 1989
Government Orders
they are-and if I have time in this particular part of the debate, I will get to that.
If they are as essential as the government says they are, why on earth are they so poorly paid? In our society, it is rather common, when people are deemed essential, when society cannot get along without their services, that they be paid commensurate to their value to society.
Successive governments have used the heavy hand of designating these people as being essential in order to prevent them from being able to go on strike and to make sure that their wages were kept down.
In spite of the fact that the justice minister was referring so sneeringly to us being in consultation with a higher authority, we were in consultation with a higher authority and that higher authority was something about which the justice minister may know something. I know doggone well nobody else on the government side knows anything about it. The only reason that he knows anything about it is because he is justice minister.
What we are referring to is justice, justice for these people who, for so long, have been kept under the thumb of tyrannical governments and have been prevented in a heavy-handed way from being able to receive the kinds of pay which their obvious value to society would dictate that they ought to be able to receive.
Justice is what we are talking about. The very day that this government introduced closure on Bill C-49 was the day when three people, one from each party in this House, stood up and praised the forty-first anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The very day that closure, one of the most heavy-handed things that a government can use in any situation was introduced, was the very day that we were celebrating the forty-first anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights which includes the ability to go on strike, if it comes to that, if you are desperate enough.
I was an hourly paid employee before I was elected to Parliament. I have been on strike, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you that going on strike is not the first thing you do. Going on strike is the last thing you want to do and it is an act of desperation. This has been true throughout the course of human history, whether strikes have been legal or not, with all due respect to the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia who said there has to be a better way, that we have to look at the laws and
maybe this will encourage us to do so. If he looked at labour relations history in any part of the western world over the last short period of time, he would find out that prohibiting strikes is not one way of solving the problem.
What we are talking about is a matter of justice. Can you imagine, in addition to these people never having been able to go on strike, that in 1981 it was brought to the attention of the government that these people in the HS group were being unfairly paid in relation to the GS group. Most of the people in the hospital services group are women. Most of the people in the general services group are men. The Canadian Human Rights Commission found that this group, mainly composed of women, were being underpaid and the government had a responsibility to pay them commensurate with those who worked in the general services group.
That was in 1981. It was 1987 before these people received any kind of financial recognition of what the Human Rights Commission had determined several years before. It amazes me that any group of people in a situation like this would have to go to the Human Rights Commission at all in relation to a government which is supposed to be elected to look after people's human rights and interests. These people had to force the government, albeit initially not the government we have here, but one populated by people down the hall on this side.
However, this government is certainly culpable. In 1987 when it decided to pay and it bemoaned the fact that it cost $28 million to finally divvy up-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member the motion which refers to taking out the word "chairman" and putting in the word "chair". I do not wish to bring up relevancy this afternoon but I just cannot understand why the hon. member is not speaking to the motions. I would just like to bring that to his attention. I know he is a new member but I would still like to bring that to his attention.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I recognize the relevance of your suggestion, but I think you will find it much more convenient if members can cover a lot of topics in one or two speeches instead of being forced to rise on six different occasions throughout

December 13, 1989

the day. You may find it is to everybody's advantage if you are lenient in your ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member knows that the Chair is always lenient in its ruling, and we like to help out members in this chamber. However, I would like to bring it to the attention of the hon. member, as well as any other hon. member who is going to be speaking on these particular motions.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I intend to address the motions momentarily. In spite of the situation we have before us where equalization, human rights, fairness and justice prevail, where we have tried in most of society to remove the discriminatory stigmas on these kinds of words, the word "chairman" is still used. Of course it should be "chair", "chairperson", whatever. "Chairman" is offensive and certainly ought to be removed, but this is just an example of the government ignoring the very essence of the subject which we are discussing. I do thank the Speaker for having brought that to my attention.
In 1987, when the government did bring in the equalization payments, supposedly to ameliorate the problem of having discriminated against this group of people, there were no payments subsequent to July 26,1987 until November of this year. There is an amazing sidelight to this. For the purposes of calculating income for pensions, the equalization payments which the government has reluctantly, I would suggest, come up with, do not count toward the pensions of these people.
This group, primarily composed of women, is perhaps even intentionally deprived of their full pension benefits because of the intransigence of this government in paying them what they ought to be worth. The main issue in this whole problem as far as the HS group is concerned is that the government will not only not pay up, but it will not include it in wages. That is the issue.
When I talked the other day about justice, that is precisely what I was referring to. It is a matter of justice that these people receive equal pay. I would suggest that somehow or other, the government either ought to be forced or ought to voluntarily include those equalization
Government Orders
payments back to the time when the original matter was brought up.
I see my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I am sure I will have opportunities to speak later on, but I do thank you for bringing to my attention the topic of the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Halifax West and then the hon. member for Churchill.


Mr. Crosby:: May I defer to the hon. member for Churchill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Churchill has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. I realize that he would like to speak after me to try to cover up for the government's inactions.
Mr. Speaker, I heard your ruling with regard to speaking to the motion, but rather than rising a number of times this afternoon, I would like to speak on our position with regard to the bill and the amendments that have been forward by the member for Saskatoon-Dun-durn on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus.
Much has been made of the fact that on Monday night, the New Democratic Party would not agree to have this legislation passed that evening. The reason we did not do so is that we could not accept the fact that workers would not be able to negotiate or have a conciliation board, in this case, rule on job classifications.
We believe that all workers, whether they are under the auspices of the Public Service Staff Relations Act or the Canada Labour Code, should have the same rights to negotiate something that is as basic and as important as job classifications. We believe that that was doubly important in this particular case because we were talking about a mechanism to ensure that pay equity could actually come into force under the collective agreement.
We have made it very clear that we accept the fact that there must be a resolution of the regional disparity between the workers on the east coast and the west coast. We had made it very clear that we were concerned about the potential for loss of life, but we were not going to compromise our principles when it came to the very important issue of pay equity and the ability of workers, through their collective bargaining process, even when the collective bargaining process breaks down, as it has in

December 13, 1989
Government Orders
this case, to have the right to have an impartial third party ensure that job classifications were looked at and that pay equity would be treated fairly.
I was particularly upset when some Liberal members, especially some from Atlantic Canada, went to the media and attacked us for our position. This can be seen in the Atlantic newspapers and particularly those of Nova Scotia.
I think it is important, if the Liberal Party members want to say that they oppose the legislation, they should say the same thing in Atlantic Canada as they are saying in Ottawa and on the west coast of Canada. It is not acceptable to have some Liberals say one thing and other Liberals say something else.
If you believe that pay equity is important, and that workers have a right to negotiate job classification, then that should be the position you put in the House of Commons and it should be the position that your members put in other parts of the country as well.
We will support the Liberal amendments and we obviously will be supporting the amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party caucus. We will be consistent in what we say and what we do.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that on December 6, 1989, when Bill C-49 was presented to the House, the President of the Treasury Board made it very clear in this House that he was prepared on behalf of the government and on behalf of the Treasury Board to continue negotiations with the representative of the two labour groups involved in the bill at all times, through day and night, whenever the Public Service Alliance was willing to meet to negotiate.
This negotiation could be taking place right now. There are no barriers to negotiations. If the union representatives have anything to present, any offers to make, they can put those offers on the table and they will be considered. Negotiations have never been terminated as far as the President of the Treasury Board is concerned. I want hon. member to keep that in mind so that we do not poison the atmosphere, do not prevent
settlements from being reached by rhetoric in the House of Commons.
Even at this moment, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Veterans Affairs are meeting with the leadership the hospital workers group to discuss matters of common interest. The atmosphere of good feeling, if it is retained, will eventually lead to settlement. I want everybody to understand that.
It is not my intention in rising in the House to speak to Bill C-49 to do anything that would poison the atmosphere and prevent a settlement from being reached because we all realize that that is the resolution to any dispute but particularly to a labour-management dispute.
No one takes any solace in Bill C-49 or in any kind of back to work legislation. Back to work legislation is only introduced when the system has failed, when the parties who are responsible for negotiating a settlement of a labour-management dispute have failed to come to an agreement. They have not been able to bring together the demands of the workforce and the needs of the government to produce a settlement.
In those circumstances, Parliament must act in the public interest. It then becomes the duty of the Parliament of Canada to act in the interests of all Canadians. The labour-management dispute has to be put aside. We recognize the value of the collective bargaining system. We recognize the value of settlement of disputes. But those values have to be put aside in the common interests of all Canadians.
What is that common interest? There are ships in distress on the high seas. There are ships locked up in the St. Lawrence Seaway system at great cost and expense, not to ship owners, as has been said, but to the people of Canada, the people who will be paying for the goods carried on those vessels, the farmers whose grain must get to market, or else. They will suffer at home.
I do not have to tell that to hon. members. They should know about the emergencies, the difficulties, the distress that a strike will cause in both the hospital sector and in the transportation sector. It is because of those interests that we are here today legislating back to work legislation, not because of any malice or animosity to the workers involved. It is fully recognized that their contri-
December 13, 1989

bution is of value to the country but there are other interests that have to be recognized.
Let me deal very quickly with the amendment that we now have before us. That is the amendment which changes the word "chairman" to the word "chair". We have recognized in the Elouse of Commons for years now that this sexist language must be removed from the statutes of Canada. That is an ongoing process. The word at present used in the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which has been on the books of Canada for some years, is "chairman". Bill C-49 merely picks up the wording of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and uses that terminology.
If the hon. member wants to effectively change this sexist designation, she could introduce in the House of Commons a private member's bill changing the terminology of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I am sure if she did that, it would meet with the approval of all members of the House. At the moment, we are simply using the terminology that is already there.
While the change would readily meet the support of members in terms of the principle involved, in terms of the merits of the particular application it is not a useful exercise. Bill C-49 before us is a transitory bill. It will be expended, hopefully, in a matter of days and, certainly, in a matter of 90 days. So it will produce nothing for the future. The change in the Public Service Staff Relations Act will go on for decades to come. So my suggestion to the member is that she withdraw her amendment and seek a change in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Let me address very briefly, because I know we are limited to 10 minutes on these speeches, the two issues that have been brought to the floor by members opposite. One is pay equity for the hospital workers. As I said, the President of the Treasury Board is even now prepared to meet with representatives of the hospital workers.
I want the House and all Canadians to know, because it has now become public, that an offer was made to conciliate, under a binding conciliation board, the matter of pay equity in relation to the hospital workers. Everyone knows that there is litigation outstanding under the Canadian Human Rights Act and that there is a decision of a human rights tribunal relating to pay equity. That is an ongoing process. That is a process outside the form of
Government Orders
this bill. Even with that process being external to this bill, there is the resolve on the part of the Treasury Board to have that matter settled as well as all other matters, because it is obviously in the interests of the government, the Treasury Board, the Department of Veterans Affairs and, most especially, the workers to have all matters resolved.
The problem is how do you resolve these matters. How do you bring the parties together? It is very difficult for all of us who realize that we have reached the point that it has to be by legislation passed by this House. That legislation is pursuant to our public duty in the House of Commons and in the Parliament of Canada to protect the public. We do not want to do that at the expense of workers and that is why there is provision for a conciliation board on which the workers will be represented. The union will be there to ensure that their interests are protected. That is quite a normal process in labour-management relations.
Let me speak for one moment about the ships crews because that is very personal to me. I live on the east coast of Canada and I am well aware of the work of the Coast Guard, fisheries patrol vessels and the auxiliary vessels of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works. I know the difficulties of engagement in that kind of occupation, but the ships crews know this very day that part of this process would have yielded to them what we have sought for decades. That is pay equality between east coast workers and west coast workers. It is a personal loss to me that the opportunity to bring about that pay equality, which could have been achieved Monday night by negotiation, was lost.
I can only hope that it will still come to those valued workers that they will receive pay equality through the process as established by this bill. It was in the hands of members of Parliament to deliver that goal which we have been trying to achieve for decades. It is unfortunate that that goal was lost. It was also the failure of the bargaining parties, but we had our opportunity. We had our chance and we did not take it.
Let me end by saying that we have a bill before the House of Commons, Bill C-49. It is not the kind of legislation in which members take any special heart. We recognize that it results from the failure of the system and the persons involved, the parties administering the

December 13, 1989
Government Orders
system, but at some point in time, it becomes the duty of parliamentarians to respect that broader public interest.
We have to put aside errors in judgment or otherwise of the past. We cannot assess fault. We have to deal with the realities of the situation. We cannot have our ships on the high seas unprotected. We cannot have ships tied up. We cannot have veterans, deserving of care, not receiving that care.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, legislation which forces two groups in the Public Service to go back to work.
First, I would like to comment on what the hon. member who spoke earlier said about language. I am sure he is more knowledgeable than I am about the English language, but I think the hon. member should understand why people want to make Canada's statutes gender-neutral. If we have a group of people, in this case Canadian women, who feel unfairly treated because of language, I think we have a moral obligation to take the time to make these changes. The hon. member talked about making changes, in French or English, to make all Canadians feel at home in this country. The hon. member who spoke earlier said in this respect that it was a lot of trouble and that it would be a full-time job to make all these changes. A change for the better is never too much trouble. These are things that have to be done.
We are equal in this country. We are all equal. Men are not more important than women, and vice versa, and if we are in a situation where we use language that will offend one group, we must change the words we use.
To get back to Bill C-49, the back to work legislation-the previous speaker is from Halifax on the east coast. I fail to understand why he refuses to stick up for his own people. It seems seamen in eastern Canada are paid less than those on the Pacific coast. It is like saying that lumberjacks from one community are to be paid less than lumberjacks from another community. I don't understand that. Do they do the same work? Do they work for the same employer? Is the Atlantic Ocean easier to sail than the Pacific? Maybe someone could explain why one is more difficult than the other. If there
is no difference, if the same kind of work is involved, why don't these people get the same salary? I don't blame seamen on the east coast for wanting to be paid the same as seamen on the west coast. I am told that on the west coast, seamen are prepared to accept a lower wage increase to compensate for what the seamen on the east coast will get. I think that shows the seamen with the Coast Guard in British Columbia have heart.
The words "emergency" and "safety" were mentioned, and the fact that a few days ago, the Coast Guard was needed in an emergency. Coast Guard employees were at their place of work, with their picket signs. It didn't take 35 minutes or an hour or two hours to find them. They were right there, in front of their place of work. It seems they were at sea 20 minutes. They did their job. That is really fantastic. We have a group that is walking the picket line, that is on strike, but when lives must be saved, whether they are Canadian or foreign lives, they are concerned, they take their work seriously and get on the job when people's safety is at stake.
When we talk about the people who work in our hospital services, I think they are right to ask for fair wages. I think it is horrifying and even immoral to see a woman working in one hospital and a man who does the same work in another building, two miles away or three or four kilometres away, and earns up to 40 per cent more. This is really beyond me. Are people paid on the basis of gender or are they paid for what they do?
I fail to understand the hon. member for Halifax West who is so concerned about gender in the legislation where it concerns the Public Service. He even goes so far as to tolerate the fact that women are paid less than men and that if women work in a field where they readily encounter the kind of attitude I just heard described-I don't think that's fair. I think it is heartless and shows a lack of responsibility.
It seems that the men and women employed in hospital services are at the bottom of the wage scale in this country. Well, when we are sick-maybe government members should be sick enough to go to a hospital where they could put their stupid arguments to the people who look after them and care for them. I wonder how they would feel then!

I wouldn't wish ill health on anyone, but perhaps a short experience of this kind would make them understand. If they had relatives, cousins, a sister or their mother, especially their mother who did this kind of work and they knew that one of their friends was earning 40 per cent more than their mother who works very hard, that should bring them to their senses.
Mr. Speaker, we live in Canada, we work in Canada, we were brought up in Canada, we want to raise our families in Canada and we also want to develop a sense of justice and improve our quality of life, and this is not done by downgrading either men, if one is a woman, or women, if one is a man, and especially not by downgrading people who are not as rich and not as powerful as we are. We must be fair, and as I said earlier, we must have heart.
I repeat that as a man, I would like to remind my fellow members, and especially those who do not speak my language, that they should improve their own language, if necessary, by removing all sexist terms, and learn to treat everyone with a sense of fairness and equity.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motions Nos. 4, 8, 13 and 16.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 are virtually identical and the Chair has selected for debate only Motion No. 2. It will be voted on separately.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 37 to
39 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"employer and the bargaining agent and shall be binding on the employer, the bargaining agent and the employees in that bargaining unit, on all matters relating to the employment of employees."
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is eveiy likelihood that, just as surely as in the previous motion dealing with the Chair of the committee being referred to as Chairman in the text, this omission was something which could have been avoided. The omission of reference to the bargaining unit in this motion was probably due to either the government's lack of caring or understanding, or perhaps it is just simply an expression of the government's right-wing distaste for bargaining units.
The continuation of this whole concept certainly can be illustrated by the way in which the government has treated the members of the bargaining unit of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
I mentioned previously that all through the history these two groups, the hospital services group and the ships' crews, have been precluded from going on strike. Successive governments have to do this consciously. Within a certain period of time after they receive notice from the bargaining unit, they have to let the bargaining unit know who within a particular group they wish to designate as essential. In the history of both of these groups the designation has been total. It almost begs the question, because they even do it in excess of total, if you can believe that. There have been times when the governments have actually designated as many as 110 per cent of the people involved as being essential.


Rodney Edward Murphy: They're going to hire them and then force them back to work.


Ron Fisher: That is right. So we have this concept of designation in addition to the obvious inequities which the hospital services group have suffered through the unwillingness of the government to come to terms with

December 13, 1989
Government Orders
the human rights decision and pay the hospital services group equitably.
In this case both the ships' crews group and the hospital services group are being adversely affected by the intransigence of the government. Intransigence hardly covers it. It is Draconian. Draconian in this context is not my word, it happens to be the description of a process which was used by the government back in 1986 when previous negotiations with the ships' crews led to an impasse and conciliation was followed through as is normal under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the law governing negotiations with the government's employees.
The conciliation board reported that yes indeed these people had been underpaid. Its recommendation was that they be paid in a certain fashion and that fashion exceeded the general settlement which had been reached with the rest of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
The government said no. The government refused to accept the conciliation board's report that these people, having been paid in an unfair way by the government, ought to be paid more. Again, out of desperation, just as surely as the situation we have before us now is a desperate one, the ships' crews went on what is commonly referred to as a wildcat strike. If you have been designated as being unable to go on strike and you do, certainly there is no question about it, everyone involved would admit that the law has been broken.
The government of course, in its usual benign fashion, summarily went to the courts and got an injunction. I would like to read something that the judge said in his decision on granting that injunction. Judge F. C. Mul-doon said:
Doubtless, these incidents do evince frustration in regard to the plight in which the defendants find themselves vis-a-vis statutory provisions which, without undue exaggeration, can be termed draconian.
When I used the word "Draconian", it is not a word which I alone have used in relation to what is happening. When a judge imposing an injunction against people refers to what is happening to them as being Draconian, it gives you an idea of the mentality of the government opposite. Obviously the mentality of the government has
not changed, its outlook has not changed, its feelings toward its own employees have not changed in the intervening years.
There are many more things that could be referred to in relation to this and I would certainly like to refer to one or two others.
One of the parliamentary secretaries alluded to danger which was being faced by sailors on the high seas as a result of ships' crews who man our coast guard vessels being on strike. In every instance when these people have been called upon to respond to a situation of distress on the high seas, these crews have dropped their picket signs and gone on to those ships. Not only that, their union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, in a case or two where these ships were in foreign lands, actually paid for these people to go to some place where they could be manning ships. The Public Service Alliance of Canada is paying for the hotel bills of these people standing by, it is paying for the meals of these people standing by, and when the need arises these people spring into action. The government has admitted that in every instance the response has been as good as ever and in some cases better than average, more expedient than is usually the case.
I think that speaks very highly of these people. Perhaps as the debate goes on I will be able to refer to how expediently the hospital services people tried to respond. The hospital services people tried to respond in a very similar manner to that of the ships' crews. The government accepted the offer of the ships' crews but turned down the hospital services group much, I would suggest, to its chagrin. Had the government behaved more kindly toward these people in the first place it would not have found itself in the nearly the trouble it is in and we would not be here debating this issue today.
I think I will probably have an opportunity to address this question a little later this afternoon.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the fact that this motion even has to be debated today is a sign of the arrogance that the government has demonstrated throughout the last two years on negotiations with these workers. It has demonstrated that it is quite prepared to put an end to collective bargaining in the Public Service. It has abused over the last few years the designation process, disobeying the laws and then trying to go back through the
December 13, 1989

courts to get approval for its disobedience of the laws of Parliament.
The government knows perfectly well that this is a legitimate, acceptable amendment. It probably does nothing more than correct an oversight in the drafting of the legislation by asking that the law before us today that is part of the collective bargaining process simply recognize the bargaining agent as the other part of the contract between the employer and its employee.
In fact there is court precedent for this. The Supreme Court of Canada in two cases stated that a collective agreement replaces the terms of a master-servant contract for individual employees. The law relating to individual employment contracts is irrelevant when the employer-employee relationship is covered by a collective agreement in which case the agreement is between the bargaining agent and the employer.
All this motion is trying to do is correct a sloppily written piece of legislation to recognize the legal fact that a collective agreement is between a bargaining agent and the employer and not between the individual employees and the employer.
There has been a very recent decision on that when again this government tried to introduce a system of bonuses into the Public Service feeling that it could totally bypass the legitimate representative of the employees it was dealing with and deal with those employees one-on-one. The Federal Court of Appeal told the government that it could not do that, that it has an agreement between a bargaining agent and the employer, in this case the Government of Canada, and that its obligation is to change that agreement with the bargaining agent.
This government must be really paranoid or really arrogant if it is afraid to accept this amendment. That this should even have to be debated is a waste of the time of the House. It is an amendment that simply recognizes what the legal facts are in any collective bargaining situation.
I cannot disagree with the Public Service Alliance of Canada that represents the workers who are hit by this legislation when it says that the text of the clause, as it is now written, appears to be directly aimed at excluding the bargaining agent- as a party to the agreement being
Government Orders
put in place by the legislation, despite court rulings that say you cannot do that.
Instead of the government recognizing the havoc it has caused in hospitals across the country, in shipping lanes across the country and on the high seas, and trying at least to get through a half decent piece of legislation, it just sits there and ignores its legal obligations.
We are going to be voting on a lot of motions before this day is over and I have to express my personal absolute abhorrence for the government that refuses to even accept what the minister himself said was government policy and the policy of this place, that being that we no longer use sexist language in legislation. How dare they and how dare the Minister of State for the Status of Women sit there and say that she will pass another piece of sexist language based legislation in this House.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I do not see
any point in prolonging the debate on this amendment. It was dealt with at the legislative committee. Members opposite had the opportunity to question counsel learned in the law on the complaint about clause 6. The answer was given that the amendment now being proposed was redundant, involving a kind of legalese that has no real effect.
Notwithstanding that, I suppose that under other circumstances the government might be willing to accept an amendment, but at this point in time, bear in mind that the bill is transitory, it will only last for a limited period. It will not have any long-term effect beyond the resolution of this labour management dispute. There did not appear to be any point in responding to the proposal to amend in a positive way.
It is as simple as that. If anybody wants to look at the records of the legislative committee, they will find a complete answer to the matter given by the counsel. I have seen no legal-based opinion to indicate that the amendment was necessary and there seemed to be no real purpose served by responding to it.
At the same time, no one wishes to poison the possibility of settlement and better negotiations. It would only be in that spirit that the amendment would be accepted. With no commitment on the part of members of this House to agree upon other amendments which would advance the cause of the hospital workers and advance the cause of the ships' crews in matters of pay

Government Orders
equity and pay equality, there is no real purpose served by superficial amendments that just cater to the purists or people who have very defined legal views of the language used in the statute.
While I am on my feet I would like to again address the whole point behind this legislation. The situation in Canada is that we have no clear definition of essential services. I think everyone would be better off if all workers engaged in essential services knew that the work and activity in which they were involved was subject to special legislation that precluded the possibility of a work stoppage.
I hope that some day the Parliament of Canada will establish essential service legislation so that those engaged in that activity will recognize from day one that when they engage in that activity, they will not be allowed to stop that work contrary to the interests of the whole nation. Until we get this legislation we are going to have to deal with these matters on an ad hoc basis as they arise. We will have to assess in each case whether the legislated rights of workers will govern in a particular circumstance or whether the broader public interest will govern.
Again, let me remind all members of the House that the difficulty is in our failure to define essential services and our failure to deal with those services on a clear statutory base. We are left with dealing with situations as they arise. I think everyone in this House will agree that that is an unfortunate situation but until we can come to some consensus on appropriate limitations to the right to stop work, even where it is at the expense of the public, we are faced with these situations and we have to deal with them as our best judgment allows.


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


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister referred to proceedings at the committee and I think inadvertently he has misinformed the House as to the discussion that took place at the committee. I have the minutes with me.
Just so the House will know the content of the discussion, in fact the motion was not accepted or rejected, but there was an agreement that the wording
would be looked at to accomplish the objective. It is that wording that is now before the House. There was no advice or recommendation from the officials there that this was not necessary and I would be happy to provide the member with the actual discussion if he wishes to review it. I think it is important that this House not be misinformed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a disagreement between two members. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Ron Fisher: moved:
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 15 to
20 at page 4.
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately
after line 38 at page 4 the following:
"(4) The members of the Conciliation Board shall, within five days of their appointment, attempt to agree on a nominee for chairman of the Conciliation Board.
(5) On receipt of a nomination within the period referred to in subsection (4), the Chairman shall appoint the nominee as the chairman of the Conciliation Board for which the person was nominated.
December 13, 1989

(6) If the members of the Conciliation Board fail to agree on a nominee for chairman of the Conciliation Board, the Chairman shall appoint as the chairman of that Board a person the Chairman deems fit for the purpose."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is merely a continuation of the theme of heavy-handedness of this government which extends back to when it tried to prevent the hospital services people from receiving the just equalization payment vis-a-vis the group services people.
Something that keeps coming up throughout this discussion is how much the government cares about people. Government members refer constantly to how important it is that ships' crews go back to work so that the people at sea are well protected, in spite of all the evidence that they have been. They refer to the veterans and how important it is that they receive the care and attention to which, without doubt, they certainly are entitled.
I would suggest that that is something the government should have thought about when it was negotiating. It is something it should have thought about when it went back and tried to overturn a decision of a court to have these people designated as essential in the first place. The government probably spent as much money trying to have these people designated, after it made a mistake and it became impossible, as it would have if it had just agreed to the settlement which both these groups have proposed in negotiations.
This government cares not a whit for people. This is the same government that is bringing in the general sales tax which is going to hurt us all, including many of the nurses from one of the hospitals which is being so adversely affected because of this government's action, and the veterans who live there. I am glad to see the friends, neighbours and fellow workers of the people who are on strike supporting them.
This is the same government which brought in changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which is going to devastate all parts of Canada. This is the same government which brought in the free trade deal. The government says that the strike is affecting farmers adversely. This is the government that is threatening the marketing boards of the agricultural communities in this country. This is the government that has accelerated the abandonment of rail lines. This is the government that has
Government Orders
taken oats out of the Wheat Board, which is severely affecting the farmers of Canada.
I think it is atrocious that this government would take particularly vulnerable people, the veterans and the most poorly paid members of the Public Service, and then try to turn the farmers against them by saying that unless this strike is settled, there will be severe adverse conditions affecting farmers. I am sure that most of the farmers in this country do not feel any better about those hospital service workers being as badly paid as they are; that they are not receiving the kind of pay that they ought to be; that they are not going to get the pensions to which they otherwise would have been entitled.
I would suggest that on the basis of what has happened in particular to western Canadian agriculture in the last few years, they can sympathize with a group of people who have been out without a contract for two years. But what that really mean is that those people have been without a raise in pay for three years. That comes awfully close to the same kind of conditions in which the western Canadian farmer finds himself.
On that basis I am sure they can sympathize. To have circumvented the usual process of putting a chairperson in place by the parties involved rather than having one proposed to them is just a continuation of the same Draconian theme.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, this motion refers to Clause 8 of the bill. This clause perhaps more than any other exemplifies the reason that these two groups have been without a contract for over two years. It exemplifies quite clearly the approach that this government has brought to negotiations, the attempt to use its power, every ounce of delaying tactic, and every ounce of devious and cruel means it possibly can not to reach a settlement with these most vulnerable workers of the Canadian government.
These people earn $16,000, $17,000, $18,000, $19,000 a year. The value of their work as we have seen in the last couple of weeks is millions of dollars a day.
I have been speaking with the professional people who work in the hospital in Montreal. I have been hearing about what it is costing us in that hospital to keep services delivered to our veterans; how we are importing nurses from the west coast, putting them up in hotels;

Government Orders
how we are bribing the professional workers to keep on working-these people who support the hospital service workers, who support their work, who provide meals, cleaning, personal care, love and attention to the veterans in that hospital-and how it is costing us millions of dollars a day to keep these people away from work. They are providing special meals and are being provided extra pay. They are using the word of these professional workers who say: "Yes, conditions in the hospital are deteriorating". Then they are taking those words and twisting them, something which seems to be a speciality of the government with seniors as well, and saying: "That is why we need back to work legislation". That is not what those professionals are saying. They resent then-words being used in that way.
I said that this demonstrates the arrogance and the willingness of this government to use its power instead of using good management and good labour negotiation techniques to reach a mutually amicable settlement to send people back to work with some sense of dignity, some pride in the work they do and some sense that their government appreciates the work they do. What this clause does is stack the negotiations, stack the conciliation process against them.
I want to remind the House that the conciliation process will be binding. These people will have to accept whatever comes out of that. That is what this government is imposing on them. It is stacking the deck against them by not following the normal procedure whereby each party to a negotiation names its representative and then those people agree on a mutually acceptable chair. It is instead appointing two out of three members of the conciliation board. What possible chance does the other side have when the government, with all its power, is saying: "We have got the majority on the board before it ever starts"? They are particularly concerned because the government has chosen in the conciliation of the hospital service workers' contract to bring in a new chair. This is not the person who throughout October listened to the arguments of both parties and was acceptable to both parties, who knows the issues, the situation, the status of the negotiations and might be able to proceed reasonably quickly to reach a settlement. They have
chosen to bring in a new person, unfamiliar with the situation, somebody who has not been previously agreed to by both parties to the negotiations.
Is it any wonder that the hospital service workers think the government is deliberately bringing in a chair of this board who is favourable to the government's position, or likely to be?
The government could quite easily accept this amendment and put in place a fair process. It might give some remote hope to these people who are being forced back to work because the government has failed and neglected to fulfil its duty as an employer to reach an agreement with them and that they could go back with some optimism that this might be settled fairly. With the government stacking the deck against them this way they are going to go back to work bitter, defeated, and convinced that this government has no concept of the value of their work. Their patients do, and I think that is what has sustained them throughout.
The veterans in those hospitals and the Armed Forces personnel who they look after support these people. The volunteers in the hospital issued a press release just yesterday in support of the work they do and urging the government to be fair with them. The Human Rights Commission supports them. The Human Rights Commission has said: "Yes, since 1981 these people have been working for far less than they are worth and because of the inaction of this government they are still working for far less than they are worth."
Don't give me words about pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value, respecting the work of women as well as we respect the work of men, respecting the work of people at all levels. You have the chance to put in place a reasonably fair process, even in the context of this legislation. If the government members stand up and vote against this motion, don't ever say nice words in this House again because nobody will believe you.
I urge the government members to acknowledge that this is a fair amendment, that it gives the conciliation boards a reasonable chance of succeeding in the difficult work before them, and that it gives the workers a chance to go back in the two weeks before Christmas in a
December 13, 1989

reasonably good frame of mind and not to simply be stubborn and arrogant in refusing this motion.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to say that one is pleased to rise to address a bill such as the back to work bill now before us, but I am pleased the motion that stands in the name of my colleague, the member for Saskatoon-Dundum, at least attempts to introduce a little bit of civilized procedure into what is an objectionable piece of legislation.
To comment briefly on the proposal before us itself, the present bill as it now stands would directly name and appoint the chairs of both conciliation boards. It is not just our opinion, but I believe it would be accepted as a fact that in the history of back to work legislation this kind of process is highly unusual and that the normal process would simply outline, within the bill, the process for such appointments after some discussion, or at least take into consideration the rightful opinions of the parties to the bargaining dispute. What this motion would do is delete that whole section and attempt to introduce a procedure whereby the parties themselves would have some opportunity to make the mechanisms involved in conciliation and the methods involved in choosing chairs for the conciliation boards more acceptable.
The failure of the government to take what has been the normal process into account is just one more example in a long history of bungling, ineptitude and lack of consideration shown by this government throughout this entire dispute.
The dispute itself deals with two categories, both ships' crews and hospital services. The employees are represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Both of these groups have been without any economic increase since December, 1986. Their various contracts expired on December 21 and December 31, 1987. In a two-year period the government has bungled so much, so often and in so many ways that it must almost set new precedents in the history of bungled collective bargaining on the part of the federal government.
There are two issues that underline so much of this whole dispute. One is regional parity between the group on both the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast and on the Lakes, which is involved in Coast Guard services. For hospital employees it is largely a matter of pay equity and equal work of equal value, largely for women workers and those in other lower paid categories who are attempting to get what they are really entitled to by the
Government Orders
Charter of Rights of this country. The government has stalled, and stalled, and stalled, and stalled for so long that the workers have been left with no other opportunity but to withdraw their labour, a right which is as old as Magna Carta, even though it has not always been practised.
"No man shall be forced to build bridges" was written into the Magna Carta hundreds and hundreds of years ago. This government still does not recognize that right. That is a long time to go back, and a long time to learn a lesson. We are dealing not only with ineptitude, incompetence and what appears to be the worst of bad faith bargaining on the part of this government, but also a failure to recognize basic human rights in accordance with the right to strike.
In my own industry, which was the lumber industry in the province of British Columbia, in which I worked for years before coming to this place for the first time in 1980, we had a strike in 1967 dealing with exactly the issue of regional parity. There it was a matter of parity between the interior of British Columbia and the coastal areas of British Columbia. That strike makes this one so far look like a picnic. It went on seven and a half months and shut down virtually every lumber producing community throughout the southern interior of British Columbia. Feelings were strong. It was 22 years ago that we resolved that issue.
In 1989, is it too much to expect the Government of Canada to recognize that people who operate on the ships doing what they regard as essential services, lifesaving services, have not earned that same kind of right 22 years later? That is hard to comprehend.
These two groups of employees are among the lowest paid in the public service, averaging some $18,000 to $23,000 per year. That puts them significantly behind their counterparts in the outside sector-anywhere from 14 to 28 per cent, depending on the group and area of employment. Any single parent or one-income family in that kind of group would be at or below poverty levels. That is obviously unacceptable and an unacceptable manner for us and for this government in particular to treat the employees who work so hard to save lives, whether in hospitals or at sea. Both these groups provide services of enormous social and economic importance to the nation. The government has recognized that simply by declaring them absolutely essential, although it did not do it at the proper time in order to keep designated employees on the job. That was some of its bungling. But it has accepted how valuable these employees are to the nation at large by saying that we cannot afford to do

Government Orders
without them and that is why it is choosing to force them back to work in an arbitraiy manner.
During Question Period this morning I was absolutely astounded by the scandalous attitude portrayed by ministers of the government when they were being asked questions about the lack of government action to assist farmers in this country and the way they answered. It has to enrage people from one end of the country to the other when they suggested, "You cannot be interested in helping farmers or else you would force these other people back to work in order to get the grain moving". That is absolutely unacceptable. That is playing one group off against the other in an attempt to cover up your own failure to deal with either problem.
I do not know how we can appeal to the conscience of a government that engages in that kind of thuggery. But I would hope at least it would recognize that it is its responsibility to carry through this legislation in at least the most acceptable manner possible. One of the ways it could do that would be to accept this motion. That would at least give the employees within these two sectors the feeling that they were being listened to and that the kind of processes we have used before would be used to set out procedures to choose the chairs of the conciliation boards that are going to be dealing with their very legitimate grievances so that they will be appointed in a fair and impartial manner. That is all we are asking for by this motion. It will make a bad action somewhat more palatable.
I hope the government has enough common sense in spite of all its bungling prior to this time to accept this motion with the grace with which it is presented.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr.Speaker, the letters and calls of support received in various members' offices, both government and opposition alike, lead me to conclude that the overwhelming majority of Canadians support these public servants in their efforts to attain pay equity. So what do we have? Once again we have this government surrounded by its friends in big business taking on the rest of Canada. The honest worker, the labourer, finds him and herself in a fight with government and big business. To add insult to injury the government wants to limit the debate on this question.
The government is in fact saying: "We will force these people back to work regardless of what anyone wants and we will do it without having to listen to your objections one instant longer than we have to."
At stake here are several important principles. The principle I would like to talk about first is the principle of pay equity.
We heard today the sorry state of pay equity in this country and the number of companies under the supposedly active legislation which do not even have the fortitude or the ability to stand up in Canada today and say: "Yes, we are implementing true pay equity."
We have a Royal Commission report that every member of parliament should read. I refer of course to the Abella report on employment equity. In that report Judge Abella called for employment equity legislation with teeth. That is not what we received. It is certainly not what the members of the Public Service who are on strike today are going to receive when this legislation is rammed through the House of Commons.
The question of the women seeking pay equity-pay equity that the Human Rights Commission has already stated they deserve-is something that has become nothing more than a national disgrace. Women in this country still make 67 cents for every dollar men make. That, Mr. Speaker, is when you add into the equation professional women, women running their own businesses and, yes, women who are members of Parliament and cabinet ministers.
When you take out of the equation women, in whatever small numbers, who are in the higher salary levels, women in this country make 50 cents for every dollar men make.
In this country today, a woman with a university education or a professional degree, such as a registered nurse, can expect to make the same as a man who dropped out of high school in grade 10. Where is the fairness, where is the equity in this situation for the women of Canada?

December 13, 1989

The women of Canada look to their government to protect them from the greed rampant among many of the people who employ them. When the government of Canada is that employer and it pays no heed to the calls for common justice and common fairness, then we are in a situation on the edge of 1990 that is absolutely unacceptable for anyone who believes in truth and in justice.
Everyone recognizes that this strike is affecting profits, that this strike is affecting the movement of ships in the Seaway, that this strike is affecting hospital care across this country. No one is in favour of the problems that this strike creates. Yet this strike is there because of a fundamental lack of justice in government policy.
The issue is whether or not the right to strike, the democratic right to dissent against unfair and unequal treatment, transcends the right to profit monetarily. The answer is and must be yes, individual dignity and individual search for justice and fairness has to be of a higher priority for the government of all of the people than the question of profit.
It would be pleasant, indeed it would be surprising, if even once this government tried to help the underdog and tried not to step on the average Canadian. But sadly, this has not been and apparently will not be the case. In all its pomposity, the government places the interests of big business ahead of anything else, ahead of human rights.
We have seen the government open up contacts, for example, with China, just one short month after Parliament unanimously condemned the Chinese government for human rights abuses. I guess an expectation on the part of Canadian workers, women and men, of justice in light of that kind of a development is a vain one. Just one short month after hundreds of innocent students protesting in a democratic fashion were massacred in China, this government cosied up with big business and the almighty dollar and wheeled and dealed with the butchers of Tiananmen Square.
There is another equally important principle which this government needs to address and that is the democratic right of association. Time after time, this government and the Prime Minister have challenged the authenticity of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "It
Government Orders
is not worth the paper it is written on", the Prime Minister said, "because of the notwithstanding clause".
Well, if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is worthless, it is only so because this government puts the sale of Canada and the sale of Canadians ahead of all other interests, ahead of all the traditions that we have held so dear, ahead of all those institutions in this country that have made us uniquely Canadian and a wonderful, individual society on the North American continent.
The democratic right of association, which includes the right to strike, is a principle, a legal, moral and ethical principle. But to this government, it is nothing more than an idea which is second to money, money and more money, and sadly, most particularly, American money.
In 1986, the government of Saskatchewan came under attack from various human rights organizations because it invoked the notwithstanding clause for legislation it passed on January 31 that ended rotating strikes by
12,000	public employees and imposed a legislative contract agreement. Saskatchewan invoked the notwithstanding clause before a challenge could be issued because the government was aware that its legislation was inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to Chief Justice Dickson, the guarantee of freedom of association, Section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, includes the freedom to bargain collectively and to strike. Such legislation as that which is before us now interferes with the employees' freedom to engage in strike activity that would be lawful in the absence of Bill C-49.
I believe that the profits lost by the continuance of the strike would not merit exclusion under Section 1 of the Charter. The legislation is wrong. The government is wrong. The people are being put down and exploited because there is not a sense on the government side of the House of what is right and what is fair.
I see that the minister responsible for the status of women is in the House. Most particularly it is a tragedy that the rights of women to pay equity are being ignored and even vilified in this legislation. When the time comes I assure you the women of Canada will not continue to be silent. They will stand up for their rights. They will

December 13, 1989
Government Orders
exercise their rights at the ballot box, as well as elsewhere.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like very briefly to direct some remarks toward the proposed amendment.
Let me begin by saying, as I have tried to tell the House before, there comes a time in labour-management disputes when the matters at issue go beyond immediate concerns of that labour dispute and affect the broad public interest. That has been recognized in this House of Commons and in this Parliament of Canada time and time again. It has not been with any relish. Nobody enjoys back to work legislation. At some time Parliament has to accept its responsibility to the general public and introduce legislation.
May I indicate to the House some remarks made by a former Liberal cabinet minister who this very day sits in the House of Commons representing Papineau-Saint-Michel. He said it very well back on October 17, 1978 when he said in this House of Commons:
Unfortunately, however, there are times and situations when the spirit of compromise and the demonstration of good faith so necessary on the part of all concerned are found wanting. In such circumstances the federal government, as custodian of the economy and protector of the public interest, must assume its responsibility.
That is the very case in which back to work legislation is introduced into the House of Commons-not to anybody's particular desire but as a way to protect the public interest and terminate a labour-management dispute and bring about a settlement.
The question that is posed by the amendment may be: "How do you bring about a settlement?" Obviously, you want to do it in the fairest and most expeditious way possible. The choice of the way in which you do it differs from case to case and from time to time and as the circumstances change. In the particular case, as was explained at the legislative committee, it was thought expeditious to name the chairpersons of the two conciliation boards who would deal with the separate disputes between, on the one hand, the hospital services group, and on the other hand the ships' crews group. That was the purpose of naming the chairpersons of those two
conciliation boards, as explained by the minister and by his officials.
If it would serve the purposes of settlement to change that, I am sure there would be a disposition to make that change. But that disposition has to be evidenced, not by members opposite. They represent their constituencies. This is a bargaining situation. We have the Public Service Alliance on the one hand, the Treasury Board on the other. Who speaks for the Public Service Alliance? Not the member from Halifax, not the member from Ottawa West, not the member from Saskatoon-Dundum. If the officials of the Public Service Alliance of Canada want specific changes made, they can speak in the negotiation that the President of the Treasury Board offered them in this House. Stay at the table and those changes can be negotiated, but not in debate in the House of Commons.
Surely the member from Ottawa West knows that that is not the way you resolve a labour-management dispute. You cannot resolve it on the floor of the House of Commons. It has to be resolved by the parties.
If the members want to serve a useful purpose in the resolution of this labour-management dispute, they should go back to the people they represent and urge them to sit at the table with the appropriate officials of the Public Service Alliance and of the Treasury Board and resolve these matters.
We are here to reflect the will of the parties once that will, that consensus, that agreement is achieved. I do not think, certainly speaking for the President of the Treasury Board, that his concerns are any more than I have stated. If there is a will on behalf of the bargaining parties to come to some agreement, the net agreement can be reflected in the legislation. But if there is no agreement, no meeting of the minds, there is no change that can be made that will advance the resolution of that dispute.
All members have to join in to ensure that this labour-management dispute is resolved as quickly as possible in the public interest, knowing full well that it takes away from the normal collective bargaining process. But we are here because the normal collective bargaining process has failed, just as the former Liberal minister said. There comes a time when it becomes our
December 13, 1989

responsibility as legislators on behalf of all of the people of Canada to resolve the dispute.
Let me talk for a moment about letters and cards. We are getting letters and communications. I received a very sad communication from a lady who wanted to remain anonymous. She said in a conversation with my constituency office that her husband was a member of the ships' crews sailing out of Halifax. She said that there were a lot of men who wanted to be legislated back to work. There was no food on the table. I do not know how many people are represented by this lady. But if there is one woman out there who has no food on the table, then I want to pay attention to her concern. At this stage of the labour dispute it is up to us to exercise our responsibility and get people back to work.
I do not want to exacerbate the problem of safety, but when someone from Saskatoon tells me that there is no problem on the east coast in seas two storeys high, I cannot let that pass; I have to address that subject.


Ron Fisher: Your own minister said that the response has been terrific.


Howard Edward Crosby: We have this very day a barge carrying 150 tonnes of light diesel fuel that has broken away from its tow in high waves off the coast of Nova Scotia. We could sit here and do nothing. We could say: "So what? They should not have gone out if they did not have access to safety services". That is not the way I view it and that is not the way the government views it.


Mary Catherine Clancy: You had two years.


Howard Edward Crosby: There is no point in looking back over the last two years. What mistakes were made are history. We have to deal with realities of this very day, December 13. We dealt with them on December 6. We brought legislation into the House to get workers back to work, to perform the services that people demand from the Government of Canada. We said the negotiations would continue, and they have. They could be going on right at this very moment. The dispute could be resolved. We could know even before voting time that the dispute is resolved, and I hope it is.
However, in the meantime we are exercising the responsibility that we have to exercise as parliamentarians. We know there are difficulties out there, but the
Government Orders
resolution will not be aided by amendments in this House of Commons. It will only be aided by the parties getting together and resolving the dispute.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 5, which will also dispose of Motion No. 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing order 76(8), the record division stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to Motions Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 14.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 17 at page 5 the following:
"(b) all matters relating to the Human Rights Tribunal order concerning equal pay for work of equal value for this group rendered on July 15, 1987;".


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 17 at page 5 the following:
"(b) all wage matters relating to equal pay for work of equal value;".
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 42 at page 5 the following:

Government Orders
"(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the rights of the employees under the Canadian Human Rights Act."


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately
after line 8 at page 6 the following:
"including implementation of the Human Rights tribunal order referred to in paragraph 10(l)(b)."
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is one item that I would like to touch upon just before I get into the essence of this motion. I would certainly like to set the record straight. If the member who just spoke was referring to me as being the person from Saskatoon who has no interest in what goes on on the east coast, I would like to assure him that indeed I do. Having lived on the west coast for a considerable period of time, I am familiar with the oceans and seafaring. I can assure the hon. member it is the government itself that has said the response of those people has been exemplary. The parliamentary secretary is playing with words and using the situation to try to alienate people, and he is not being successful.
The motion we have before us at the moment goes to the very heart of what this dispute is about, particularly for the hospital services people. We know from the debate which has gone on this afternoon that the Canadian Human Rights Commission made a decision long ago that the hospital services people should be paid at the same rate as the general services people. The decision was made on the basis that the HS group was primarily women and that there was a discriminatory action being taken by the government in not paying them equally.
This motion would put into place the provisions whereby this inequity can be addressed in this round of negotiations so that we do not have to wait for some long drawn out process. It escapes me entirely why the government is so insistent on drawing it out, other than the fact that it is reluctant to expend this money, I suppose. Maybe that is it.
The Conservatives have not said it yet. This is about the only piece of legislation in the last year where they have not made reference to the deficit. Perhaps they expect to recover from the deficit at the expense of these people. Considering what they have done to them already, I suggest that maybe that is the case.
That is the heart of the matter. It is a mystery to me why the Canadian government at any stage, whether the Liberals before this government or this government since it has come into office, would drag a situation out so long. Why would they not include those equalization payments as part of wages so that they can be included in these people's pensions? Why they will not do it within this legislation and get on with it is a mystery to me.
There are a couple of other things that ought to be referred to but which time is not going to permit us to debate at any great length, and that is a motion which refers to the length of the contract. It is doubtful whether we will get a chance to debate it this afternoon. It is important that when the legislation is passed-and I know the government is going to vote against it, but I would hope that the conciliator would take note of it-to make sure that the lengths of the contract do not extend beyond the present length of the contract of the Public Service Alliance of Canada general agreement.
In addition, there is reference in the legislation to liability in cases of non-compliance. We are suggesting that if government members are going to include reference to the union in that clause, they ought to be making reference to the employer which of course is themselves. The government ought to be making reference to agents of the employer. I do recognize that in its most definitive sense what we are really referring to is the Queen. It is rather doubtful whether or not if the government were to be non-compliant we would be wanting to incarcerate the Queen. Certainly not.
There ought to be references to the employer. Having referred to those two issues in addition to the very essential one of affirmative action, the government ought to stop dithering around, get down to work, and negotiate with these employees in good faith. It has been demonstrated since 1981 that it has not been doing this. Certainly it has been demonstrated in the last two years that it has not been doing it. It is a little late, but I would suggest that the government ought to be doing that and doing it now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Halifax West on a point of order.
December 13, 1989


Howard Edward Crosby: The amendment was proposed by my hon. friend who has just spoken, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be appropriate for the government to respond to that specific amendment in the interests of the debate, but I will be governed by your wishes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That really is the way it should be done. There are still a few minutes left, and I am sure the hon. member for Halifax West will split the time with the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, we have a group of motions before us, some of which were moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn and some of which were moved by myself. I presume I can speak to my own motion before its is responded to rather than after.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Ottawa West has the floor. The hon. member for Halifax West.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the ground rules straight. I thought we would divide the time equally. Of course, if the members are not interested in what the government has to say about pay equity, it once again demonstrates that they are not interested in the realities of this dispute: pay equity, equality of pay; they are just posturing in an attempt to appeal to somebody outside this chamber.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am going to have to speak extremely quickly. This group of motions before us is at the heart of both these strikes. It has to do with pay equity.
The government should have dealt fairly with the issue of pay equity with basic human decency, with the basic right of people to be paid a fair wage for the work they do equal to anybody else doing work of equal value. It has had over two years to do that. This strike of the hospital service workers would not be happening, and there is a very good chance that the strike of the ships' crew workers would never have happened.
This government is paralysed with fear to have a conciliation board deal with the issue of pay equity. I have a letter from the minister responsible for the Treasury Board which states that the adjustment of wages to meet equal pay for work of equal value can only happen in negotiations. It cannot happen through the
Government Orders
Human Rights Commission, and the minister responsible for the status of women knows it.
This week we commemorated the passing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are trampling on human rights with this legislation. We are trampling on human rights with the way these workers have been treated for the last two years. The minister responsible for the status of women sits there as if this is a matter of no concern to her.
We have talked about violence against women for a week. We have been shocked by the implications of what we have seen happen in Montreal. We have seen a consciousness raising among both women and men like I have never seen happen before in a short period of time. Violence against women takes many forms. One of the most pernicious, damaging and dangerous violences against women and as a result against their children and their families is economic violence. We know that women are underpaid for the work they do and now this government wants to perpetuate that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to Order made Tuesday, December 12, 1989, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

December 13, 1989
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 15.


Ron Fisher: moved:
Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 14
to 16 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall not be earlier than December 21,1990 or later than June 21, 1991, in the case of the agreements referred to in paragraph 10(l)(a) or not earlier than December 30,1990 or later than June 30, 1991 in".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 17.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 9 to 20 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"14. (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual who contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for each day or part thereof during which the offence continues, to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000.
(2) Where an individual contravenes any provision of this Act while acting in the capacity of an officer or representative of the employer or the bargaining agent, the individual is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for each day or part thereof during which the offence continues, to a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $50,000."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 (8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 18.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-49 be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 21 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Where the employer or the bargaining agent contra-".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
December 13, 1989


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is agreement on Motion No. 1. It will be adopted and there will be no recorded division on Motion No. 1.
Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 1, 4, 8, 13 and 16 carried.
Motions Nos. 1, 4, 8, 13 and 16 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 2.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The hon. member for Churchill on a point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is agreement among the parties to count that vote against all the other deferred votes from this afternoon on the assumption on the final vote on report stage would be reversed.


Miss Grey:: In the interest of saving time I would like it recorded that on Motion Nos. 5 and 7 which are grouped together and Motion No. 17, I would like my vote registered in the affirmative and then to concur at the report stage with Bill C-49, voting yes with the government.


Mrs. Gaffney:: Mr. Speaker, had I been here for the last vote, I would have voted with the yeas, and any other votes I will vote in that manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 5.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 7 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 11 and 12 lost.
++NAYS
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bernier
Bird
Members
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjomson
The next question is on Motion No. 14.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 15.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 17.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 18.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Mr.   de Cotret@: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.23 p.m. this House stands adjourned until The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.

Thursday, December 14, 1989