1990-05-18

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are six report stage motions set down in the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected for debate. These motions were moved, debated, and, by unanimous consent, withdrawn in committee.

Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Agriculture is in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 4, also standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West was moved, debated and, by unanimous consent, withdrawn in committee.
The hon. member is moving the same motion at the report stage, but adds the following words: "by giving
effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way, but also requires special measures in the accommodation of their differences".

The Chair has examined the new words carefully and is of the opinion that they merely qualify what is stated in the earlier part of the motion and this does not constitute sufficient ground to allow the motion to be put to the House.

I wish to bring to the hon. members' attention the note on page 41 of the Standing Orders. It relates to Standing Orders 75 and 76, which deal with report stage, and read as follows:
The Speaker will not normally select for consideration by the House any motion previously ruled out of order in committee and will normally only select motions which were not or could not be presented in committee.
Members should be aware that this note was incorporated in the Standing Orders by order of the House. Consequently, it is with regret that I must inform the hon. member that her Motion No. 4 will not be selected.
Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. President of the Privy Council, seeks to correct a technical error in the English version of the legislative committee's report which was tabled in the House on Friday, May 11, 1990, and is in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.

To recapitulate, Motion Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were dealt with in committee and will not be selected. Motion Nos. 3, 5, and 6 are acceptable and each will be debated and voted on separately.

May 18, 1990
Government Orders

I will now put motion No. 3 to the House. [English]


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank you for your ruling and compliment you on your first day fully in charge of the Chair at the head of the House.
I would like to put forward an argument that Motion No. 4, dealing with employment equity, be allowed by the Speaker on the basis of the note contained in the Standing Order. I will quote from that:
A motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage.
I would like to put forward the argument very briefly on the significance of this motion. It relates to the functions of the Canadian Centre for Management Development, its programs, operations, staffing, and those who are included in its courses and in the composition of its board. In all those functions, the consideration of equality of opportunity and employment equity should be front and centre.
If given the opportunity, I would refer the House to the submission to the legislative committee of the Human Rights Commissioner. He is responsible for safeguarding human rights for all Canadians. I am quite prepared to quote from his statement to the committee which made it extremely clear that a comprehensive inclusion in this bill was necessary to safeguard the protection of human rights and equitable opportunities in the Public Service of Canada.
If there is further need, as the Standing Order says, to demonstrate the exceptional significance of this motion, it is certainly in the task force report on barriers to women in the Public Service that was tabled in the House very recently. It made clear that employment equity is an idea that the Public Service and the government subscribe to. Still, a great deal needs to be done to change our management practices, the culture, and values on which the Public Service operates at the most senior levels, if employment equity is to become a reality rather than an ideal.
I would make the argument that employment equity is a fundamental principle and that in the training and development of the skills of our managers, it must be a central consideration that is integrated throughout.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I too, would like to add my congratulations to those of the hon. member to you, on your first full day in the Chair. I know it will be a worthwhile experience for all concerned.
I would like to say on behalf of my colleague that we would support the submission of the hon. member that, if at all possible, this matter be reconsidered and Motion No. 4 be allowed. We believe it to be of significant importance that the House be given the opportunity to decide whether or not that organization which, after all, will be the organization that fosters the head of the Public Service-its brains and its direction-will reflect the society that that Public Service is intended to serve. We consider that to be a key principle and one eminently worthy of consideration by this House, regardless of whether or not it was dealt with in committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. for Ottawa West and the hon. member for Edmonton East.
After listening to arguments from the hon. member for Ottawa West and her colleague, I may say that this amendment can be considered of very exceptional significance and warrants further consideration at report stage. I will accept this motion.
We will start with Motion No. 3.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture) moved:: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-34 be amended in Clause 5 in the English version by
striking out line 16 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) cooperate with other persons and bodies engaged in man-".
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment as originally formulated in committee, mentioned co-operation with others. Our legislative advisers have indicated that the wording could be interpreted as limiting the scope of the co-operation rather than broadening it, which was the original intention of the amendment. They have suggested that "persons" and "bodies" would convey the
May 18, 1990

intention more adequately. I would ask the House to consider that, please.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-34 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 28 to
30 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Chair, there are
(a)	equal numbers of persons who are employed in the public service and persons who are not so employed;
(b)	of the governors employed in the public service, equal numbers of persons who are managers and persons who are not managers;
(c)	persons who reflect the diversity of Canadian society."
She said: Madam Speaker, let me thank you for allowing the motion on the basis of its exceptional significance.
I thank my colleagues on the committee who took the time to listen to a number of witnesses, many of whom were focusing particularly on this issue. They were invited to speak to the committee on the issue of employment equity and the important role the centre will play in the future management of the Public Service and in the advancement of some significant public policy objectives. Employment equity is one. Though only one, it certainly is one of them.
A few amendments were accepted by the committee. I am grateful for the patience and understanding of my colleagues who served on the committee, in adopting some of those amendments put forward, both by myself and my colleague the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
I want to make it quite clear that the wording in the motion, is taken exactly from the Employment Equity Act which applies to all employers federally regulated in Canada. It has applied now for a number of years so that private employers as well as Crown corporations and other federally regulated agencies must live by the
Government Orders
principles established in this motion. It is of such significance that it is placed at the very beginning of the Employment Equity Act before even the titles or the definition in the bill.
The motion ensures that in all of its operations, the Canadian Centre for Management Development conveys to all employees at all levels the fundamental principle that the Public Service of Canada recognizes people for their merit. This applies to selection for training, what the training incorporates, and staffing and is the message to be communicated by all levels of managers who have undergone training and skill development.
We appoint, hire and promote people based on what they can do, their talents and abilities, and nothing else. Superficial consideration such as gender, colour, disability, or whether one is or is not an aboriginal Canadian, will not be a factor in the management and the progress of people who work for the Public Service of Canada.
I cannot stress how important I feel the attitudes of managers are, and this is a centre we are setting up specifically to train managers. This centre will, in the words of the legislation brought forward by the government, foster the values and traditions of the Public Service.
What has become evident through a number of things that have become public, most strikingly and most particularly the report of the task force on barriers to women in the Public Service, is that people do suffer a disadvantage because of characteristics which have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do a job, that in fact women are not represented in the management category in proportion to their representation in the public service. They are drastically under-represented, as aboriginal Canadians are. People of colour do not have the same opportunities to be hired or promoted, and people with disabilities certainly do not.
That is not the vision we have of our nation, but the values that many of us carry with us are that only certain kinds of people are really capable and able to do certain things. It is going to take a long time to get rid of those attitudes and values. We have seen from the statistics on

May 18, 1990
Government Orders
employment, on hiring and firing, and on promotion that in reality we are a long way from achieving those values.
The centre has a budget this year of $11.5 million to develop our managers. That is three times what the budget for executive training was just a few years ago, in fact just a year ago. It is vital that if one is talking about values and traditions, respect for the individual, regardless of their superficial characteristics, be fundamental to that training. The Commissioner for Canadian Human Rights said when he appeared before the committee that this is integral to everything the centre does.
As the task force on barriers to women also said this is a management problem because there is a large pool of people from whom to choose for various positions for promotions to management. If one only looks at a portion of that pool, generally the non-female, non-native Canadian, non-coloured and non-disabled population, one is overlooking good talent. One is failing to promote and to use the best that our quarter of a million public service employees have to offer.
The committee, in its deliberations, heard from a number of organizations. We heard from three members of the task force on barriers to women in the Public Service, the Employment Equity Network, native Canadians, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and the Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I would like to refer to some comments of the commissioner of human rights before the committee, which he was kind enough to provide us in writing. He said if the Canadian Centre for Management Development is to be effective in promoting excellence in the Public Service, it must incorporate full recognition of all these changes-and we have been talking about human rights and the importance we give to human rights-into its operations, every bit as much as it tries to incorporate the latest management theory or economic model. Human rights principles must be an integral part of a manager's approach to problem solving, not an add-on to be trotted out for inspection on appropriate occasions.
He goes on to say that employment equity has been government policy for some years. Successive governments' commitments to the ideas of employment equity and multiculturalism has never wavered and now appears stronger than ever. At the same time, despite
commitment to these ideas, progress in their implementation has been discouraging.
Further, he says that the over-all result is not satisfactory. He goes on to quote figures as to why the performance in the Public Service is not satisfactory.
How can the Canadian Centre for Management Development play a part in dealing with this situation. Again, I am quoting from the commissioner of human rights. "I submit that employment equity can be incorporated into the operation of the centre in several ways: as one of the objects of the centre in the composition of the board, in the staffing of the centre itself, in the research program and course offering for the centre and, finally, in the rules which govern access to the training offered by the CCMD."
The motion before the House today is based exactly on that statement from the Canadian human rights commissioner. It incorporates the fundamental principles of employment equity as only one of the objects of the centre as it relates specifically to all the areas mentioned by the human rights commissioner in his statement to the committee and reaffirmed in our discussions with him. He goes on to say that the centre must therefore orient managers toward an appreciation of the importance of employment equity and must reinforce the idea of service to a diverse population. I would like to close by saying that about five years ago the Government of Canada decided that employment equity was a valid thing that should be imposed by legislation on private sector employers. I think this morning is the time to recognize that in the training of our managers, the Public Service of Canada is prepared to impose the same standards on itself.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member opposite for her concern about the principles inherent in the motion.
It is my understanding that in committee the motion was originally withdrawn in favour of other motions which were unanimously agreed to by committee members.
I have in my possession the minutes of the committee for May 3 where the whip of the Official Opposition said, "and I can vouch to you we will not reintroduce motions that have been withdrawn in this committee". So, alluding to the fact that we have another debate in the House, once the motion is withdrawn, it is withdrawn. I do not want to hold anybody to that statement although generally those kinds of things are held to in the House. I

think the debate may have been useful, the chance to express a point of view, but government members intend to vote nay on this motion because we think it has been handled in other ways and we think there was unanimous agreement in the committee to handle it in other ways. Therefore, I would encourage government members to vote no on this motion.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you on your earlier ruling. I think it was a most auspicious beginning to your first day in the chair and I commend you for it.
To respond briefly to what the government House Leader just said: I am sorry, I was not at that committee meeting. I did not read the transcript of the committee meeting. I had no knowledge of what proceeded in the committee. However, I am delighted that, regardless of the agency, this amendment is now before this House because I think it is an important and valuable one, one certainly worthy of the attention of this House. If its coming here distresses some members who feel that that is in some fashion improper, that is indeed regrettable. I think nonetheless that it is a good thing that this amendment be here because it addresses in some senses what will lie at the heart of this Canadian Centre for Management Development.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like just briefly to note the nature of the clause that the amendment seeks to amend. It reads:
Appointments under section 8 -
That is the section that allows the governor to appoint people to the board of the centre.
-shall be made so that, of the governors other than the Chair, there are equal numbers of persons who are employed in the Public Service and persons who are not so employed.
That is the sole restriction set out in clause 9, the clause of the bill that the amendment seeks to amend.
The amendment would have the effect of adding certain other criteria, those criteria being, and I am quoting from the amendment now, that there would be: "equal numbers of persons who are employed in the public sector and persons who are not so employed".
Government Orders
That remains. Then it goes on: "of the governors employed in the Public Service", in other words of that half employed in the Public Service, "equal numbers of persons who are managers and persons who are not managers", and third and finally, and in some senses most important, "persons who reflect the diversity of Canadian society".
As the subclause now stands, it would be in no wise inconsistent with the bill to have the board of governors composed entirely of management personnel, half of them drawn from the Public Service and half of them drawn from the private sector, perhaps at the suggestion of the Business Council on National Issues. In fact, it would be utterly consistent with the bill to have a board composed entirely of middle-aged, white, male managers from the Public Service and middle-aged, white, male managers from the private sector. That would in no way conflict with the bil, except when we read in clause 4 of the bill the objects and powers of the centre.
I would like to recall a couple of those objects to the attention of the House here. They are:
4(b) to help ensure that managers in the Public Service have the analytical, creative, advisory, administrative and other managerial skills and knowledge necessary to develop and implement policy, respond to change, including changes in the social, cultural, racial and linguistic character of Canadian society, and manage government programs, services and personnel efficiently, effectively and equitably;
Clause 4(d) reads:
(d)	to develop within the Public Service and to attract to the Public Service, through the Centre's programs and studies, persons who are of high calibre and who reflect the diversity of Canadian society,
These are tasks with which this Parliament proposes to charge this Canadian Centre for Management Development. Yet, in the board that this bill will establish to oversee the operations of the centre, there are no substantially similar criteria.
I am not saying, Madam Speaker, that the board will be unable to meet these objects if it is not required more adequately to reflect the diversity of Canadian society, indeed to reflect the diversity of those groups that require and rely upon an efficiently functioning Canadian Public Service, well and effectively managed by well-trained, well-developed managers who are familiar with the needs, the aspirations, the desires and the

May 18, 1990
Government Orders
capabilities of all the diverse elements of Canadian society.
It is possible that the board could still function comprising entirely white, male, middle-class managers in the Public Service and white, male, middle-class managers from the private sector. But it is my contention, and it is certainly the point of this amendment as I understand it, that the meeting of those objects will be rendered greatly the more likely if the board itself reflects to some substantial degree that diversity which the bill proposes to foster.
I must say, Madam Speaker, that I am rather distressed at the remarks of the previous speaker, the government member who appears to reject this commendable amendment solely because, in his opinion at least, it violates some previously struck procedural deal. I would counsel him and his colleagues on the government benches to set aside those questions, however reasonable they may be, however warranted his concern in that regard, and concentrate instead on the merit of the amendment itself, which I commend to the House.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would be kind enough to inform the House whether we are debating the amendment now.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Yes, we are.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I would like, in that case, to point out that there was an agreement in the committee. I was acting as chairman of that legislative committee and there was an agreement in the committee that the amendments that were withdrawn in committee would not be brought forward and debated in this House.
I think the member will acknowledge that fact. I also think that the opposition House leader would want to acknowledge it since it was his statement that we would not go through this procedure twice. It was agreed that if there was unanimous consent to withdraw, and the member proposing this amendment did give her consent to that withdrawal, that amendment would not be brought forward at the report stage in this House of Commons.
I call upon the House leader of the Official Opposition to stand up and confirm that in order that we can move along to new business, new debate, which was the understanding of not only the House leader but the
member who is proposing this amendment. It was pointed out at the committee that this would be a complete waste of time. It was agreed to by the Official Opposition and the government in committee that we would not do this.
I would hope that we could move along in a more orderly fashion in getting this bill out of the way. I bring you that information as chairman of that legislative committee in order that we can get on with more productive work in this House of Commons.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Negatived on division.


Mr. Gauthier:: On division.
Motion negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will proceed with Motion No. 5.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (for the President of the Privy Council) moved:: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-34 be amended in Clause 12 in the English version by
striking out line 13 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"duct and management of the affairs of the".


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, very briefly, this is strictly a technical point to bring back the wording as originally formulated. It was the intention of the committee to put forward an amendment to have the board of governors responsible for the conduct and management of the affairs of the centre and not the officers of the centre.
Members will note that the French version reads correctly. It was just a technical error that needed to be corrected.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
May 18, 1990


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-34 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 8 to
27 at page 6.
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment concerns clause 15 of Bill C-34 on the government's plan which, I may add, is supported by the opposition. We think it is an excellent idea, and we will certainly support the establishment of this centre.
My amendment is almost one of a technical nature. I will not take use the time of the House to give all the reasons why I think it is time we were consistent and logical when formulating policies on hiring public servants.
Madam Speaker, my amendment stems from the fact that I see a big difference between giving a contract to a person and hiring that person, according to the merit principle, as a public servant, in a federal institution like this one.
In my view, clause 15 creates three classes of public servants. There are those who will be hired under clause 15(1) of Bill C-34, which refers to public servants who are subject to the Public Service Employment Act. The second category is those who will be hired under clause 15(2) and 15(3) of Bill C-34, and who will enjoy the same benefits as federal public servants hired under clause 15(1), because they are subject to the same legislation, the same pension benefits, fringe benefits, insurance plans, and so forth.
Those who are hired under clause 15(2) will have a different status. They will not be subject to the same strict selection system as most public servants are. There will be no competition, no evaluation and no selection according to the merit principle. The decision will be up to the director of the Centre, and Madam Speaker, this bothers me. It means that people hired under clause 15(2) will have rights and privileges but not the responsibilities and not the usual screening that takes place when public servants are hired.
Government Orders
However, those hired under clause 16, which is not before the House but which nevertheless has a considerable impact on this legislation, and I am referring to those hired on contract, will not have the same benefits as public servants. A real contract does not include the same social or fringe benefits a public servant usually receives when he is hired under the Public Service Employment Act and subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
I asked our top public servant, Mr. Tellier, who is responsible for the Public Service in the Privy Council, to explain the difference and why, in Bill C-34, a distinction is made between a person hired without going through the usual procedure and what is provided under clause 15(2). Mr. Tellier's explanation was that apparently the policy would allow people to work at the Centre who were reluctant to enter the Public Service as such. That is the argument he made. In other words, a professor who does not wish to become a full-time member of the Public Service of Canada could have a contract with the Centre that would give him special status, as it were, because he is then entitled to the same benefits he would have as a public servant, but without being subject to the same hiring conditions. I find this double standard somewhat difficult to accept. If someone wants to enjoy the benefits of working for an organization, he should be willing to go through the usual screening process and meet the customary hiring conditions.
I have therefore suggested that this provision be deleted.

I move that the motion delete that double standard allowing certain people to work for the centre and be in receipt of the same conditions of employment as regular public servants. I do not think that it is proper.
I make a distinction, a fine one but an important one, between a contract for services and a contract of services. The operative words here are contract for services. That is a contract given to somebody for specific services in research, possibly, or in other fields. Somebody who has the expertise and knowledge can ask an employer for a sum of money to do work, that is, the services of that person are taken and, in exchange for sums of money, a report or a study is given.

May 18, 1990
Government Orders
The contract of services is altogether different. A contract of services is a contract for a specific person's abilities, knowledge, and expertise, and she or he has with the employer an employee-employer relationship. I have a long-standing concern that the Public Service of Canada has a contract of services with people for their knowledge, their expertise, and they are selected according to the best way that I know, that is, on the merit principle as to whether or not they can better accomplish the functions required of them.
The contract for services is a concept completely different from the contract of services. That is the gist of my amendment. I am trying to make it understood that if there are certain processes that have to be accepted before employment, then that goes for everybody. In my book you hire public servants on merit and you give contracts for services to people who can better do that but do not want to have an employee-employer relationship and therefore will give you the benefit of their knowledge.
That is essentially the gist of subclause 15(2). I am trying to make that understood. I am not trying to do anything other than make sure that the concept of contractual obligations works that way in the Public Service. It is fine to hire yourself out for work on an employee-employer relationship, but then you accept also that you have to go through a certain screening process including selections and competitions.
On the other hand, for a contract for services it is different. I think I have made my point, and I will rest my case on.that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Robert René de Cotret: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce Bill C-34, establishing this Canadian Centre for Management Development, at third reading stage.
The creation of the centre was announced by the Prime Minister on April 14, 1988 as an institution dedicated to excellence in teaching and research into public sector management. More specifically, the centre's mission is to strengthen the management capacity of the public sector, particularly the senior levels, with a view to improving the quality of government and to enhancing service to the people of Canada.
I consider this bill to be of great importance in today's context where a competent, highly motivated Public Service is essential to cope adequately with the growing complexity of a world-wide competitive economy and of a fast changing society in a time of limited resources. The creation of the centre is also an important part of the revitalization of the Public Service which the Prime Minister announced recently and which is being pursued in the Public Service 2000 project.
Let me briefly summarize the chronology of events that led us to the third reading of Bill C-34. Its predecessor, Bill C-148, was tabled in Parliament on August 15, 1988. It received unanimous approval in the House of Commons and was under review by the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance when it died on the Order Paper at dissolution of Parliament in the fall of 1988.
The bill now before us, Bill C-34, was introduced in the House of Commons on June 27, 1989. This bill incorporates revisions made as a result of questions raised during the Senate review on the independence and accountability of the centre and its principal. More specifically, the status of the centre has been changed from a department under the direction of a minister to a departmental corporation in which the board of governors composed of chief executive officers from the private sector, senior members of the academic community, and deputy heads of federal government departments has the responsibility for the management and conduct of the affairs of the centre. The bill also designates the principal as the chief executive officer of
May 18, 1990

the centre and makes him or her accountable to the board of governors.
Upon completion of the second reading of the bill on February 16 of this year, a legislative committee was established to examine Bill C-34. Between March 6 and March 10 the committee held 11 meetings and heard 12 witnesses or groups representing the viewpoints of employment equity target groups, academics, and officials of the Public Service. In the course of this review the witnesses all expressed strong support for the concept described in the bill and confirmed the need for an organization devoted to management development in the public sector.
Witnesses also formulated recommendations to incorporate into the bill measures to have the centre explicitly recognize the social, cultural, racial and linguistic diversity of the Canadian society in its structures and programs and to highlight the responsibility of the Public Service senior managers toward the creation and maintenance of co-operative and equitable relationships with their staff members.
As a result of the clause by clause review the following amendments were incorporated in this bill. In addition to the mission already outlined in the previous version of the bill, the objects of the act, clause 4, now reflect that the centre's activities aim at helping managers in the Public Service establish a co-operative relationship with staff members and ensure that managers develop the skills to respond to changes in the social, racial, cultural and linguistic character of Canadian society and manage personnel as well as programs and services efficiently, effectively and equitably, and that the centre will attract persons of high calibre and reflective of the diversity of the Canadian society.
In order to avoid duplication of efforts and resources, clause 5 dealing with the powers of the centre specifies that the centre will co-operate with other bodies and persons engaged in management and personnel development.
Under clause 12 the mandate of the board of governors will include its responsibility for the management and conduct of the affairs of the centre.
In the context of the centre's activities, a specific mention in clause 13 now indicates that the principal shall take into consideration the policies of the Govern-
Government Orders
ment of Canada as well as its management training needs and priorities.
A review and report clause has also been incorporated whereby every five years the board of governors shall cause a review and report to be prepared on the activities and organizations of the centre. That report will be tabled in Parliament within the first 30 days that the House is sitting.
Finally, the references to chairman and le president have been changed to chair and la presidence throughout the act, with the exception of the chairman of the Public Service Commission which will presumably by modified when the Public Service Employment Act is revised.
Madam Speaker, I firmly believe that as a result of these amendments Bill C-34 is an even better instrument to guide the Public Service in what constitutes one of its most challenging functions: the professional development of its management cadre.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, first of all, I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House and Chairman of Committees of the Whole. I must say that the government chose well; it chose someone good, someone distinguished, someone who makes everyone on both sides of the House feel at ease, who has the right approach and often helps members during the debates. Please accept my congratulations.

Bill C-34 is legislation to establish a Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.

This bill establishes the Canadian Centre for Management Development and amends some Acts accordingly. I must first remind the House that the originator of this idea is none other than the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier, who a few years ago thought it would be good to have a management development centre for public servants. I must congratulate the government for naming Mr. Manion the first principal of this institution. Mr. Manion has an incomparable reputation.

May 18, 1990

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill C-34, an act to establish a Canadian Centre for Management Development. Today, however, I would like to stress the importance of employment equity in the Public Service. Mr. Maxwell Yalden, chief Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, appeared before the committee on April 26 and said:
Service to the public through an impartial professional Public Service continues to be our goal. But in the changing Canadian context we need to make special efforts to achieve it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He can continue his remarks after Question Period.
It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Members' Statements, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I spoke few weeks ago to this issue, the subject of zebra mussels.
While I appreciate that the Ministry of Transport has issued new guidelines with respect to the dumping of ballast prior to ships entering the Great Lakes system, it is imperative that action be taken to control and destroy the infestation of the zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.
In 1990, it will cost Niagara regional taxpayers about $700,000 to control the zebra mussel infestation of intake pipes at the region's water treatment plants. Ontario Hydrdo expects to spend $10 million this year to protect intake pipes used for cooling at power stations. The damage that this pest can create in dollar terms is proportional to its ability to multiply. An adult female can produce more than 30,000 eggs annually. There is every likelihood that this pest will continue to spread into our inland waterways and lakes in a very short time.
Therefore, I call on the federal, provincial, and American authorities to take action very quickly on this problem.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address an issue faced in my district of Cardigan, and in Prince Edward Island in general.
Groundfish in Prince Edward Island belong to the same biomass as those fish in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. This means that P.E.I. is also experiencing a serious stock depletion.
I would also like to express the concern of the Island groundfish fishermen that the recently announced fisheries aid package was aimed at the needs of other provinces, with little mention of in-shore fishermen in these areas or in Prince Edward Island.
I urge the government, while undertaking its consultations with the regions to determine how this package is to be spent, that it also include the groundfish fishermen of Prince Edward Island.


TOURISM
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, this has been National Tourism Awareness Week. There is no more important industry to my riding of Niagara Falls than tourism. It puts millions of dollars into the economy of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. That is why, this week, I was pleased to have the Minister of State for Tourism in my riding.
Among other things, he met with the members of the Niagara Falls Visitor and Convention Bureau. He discussed the topic of the GST and indicated his intention to make rebates for foreign tourists as simple and expeditious as possible. Tour operators will be able to apply for rebates on behalf of their non-resident clients, and I was especially pleased to have the minister announce that instant cash rebates will now be available through duty free shops.
These are steps in the right direction. Tourism will continue to grow in 1991 and beyond. This was confirmed by the Research Institute of the Conference Board of
May 18, 1990

Canada. There will be 71,000 jobs created in 1991. By 1992-93, growth will be faster than forecast without the GST.
Let me repeat for members of the Opposition who are trying to talk the tourist industry into a recession, we are talking about growth next year and beyond-not recession-growth.


MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: rise in the House today to commemorate Missing Children's Day, to be observed on Friday, May 25. It is a problem of family violence which is misunderstood and does not receive the attention it deserves. The Missing Children's Network is the best-known organization in Quebec that is working hard to reunite families with their children.


ANTISEMITISM
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, vandals have again desecrated Jewish graves in Canada, this time in Sainte-Foy. About twenty tombstones in the small cemetery were smeared with swastikas. As the president of this Jewish community said, "It is not only an act against Jews, it is an act against all humanity". That is true.
We who joined the Canadian army to fight the Nazis in the Second World War know that the terror against the Jews began before the war. Then it was the communists,
socialists, trade unionists, Christians and finally all those whom Hitler did not like.
Whether it occurs in Germany, the Soviet Union or Canada, an attack against the Jews is an attack against us all. Canadians must show their indignation-not only those directly concerned, but all Canadians. They must say that they will not tolerate such acts, in Sainte-Foy, Montreal, Toronto or anywhere else. It must not happen again, for the good of Jews and of humanity.
He *	*


ARTISTS' STATUS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, the arts community gave an enthusiastic reception to the announcement by the Minister of Communications, the hon. member for Frontenac, that a bill recognizing the special status of the artist will be tabled next fall.
The President of the Union des artists, Mr. Serge Turgeon, called the federal decision an historic one.
The legislation will recognize the right of artists to associate and to negotiate minimum working conditions. The federal government will also amend the Income Tax Act to allow for the particular working conditions of artists.
Madam Speaker, many thanks to our Minister of Communications who kept his promise and, by improving the situation of a large number of artists in Canada, is helping to promote the arts in this country.
He *	*


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has made a commitment to freeze Canada's carbon dioxide emissions at 1988 levels by the year 2000.
This is an important first step on the road to combating global climate change. There is fear that this announcement may compromise the independence of the public consultations on The Green Plan but hopefully participants will reinforce the minister's decision and suggest how to go further.
Unfortunately, the minister of energy, a key figure in the Canadian response to global climate change, has repeatedly stated that in his view even freezing carbon dioxide emissions is moving too far too fast.

May 18, 1990
Does the minister of energy now agree with the statement by the Minister of the Environment? The environment minister is, so far, alone in his conviction and his announcement does not mean much until cabinet supports him. Time is of the essence.


ANTISEMITISM
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to express before the House the indignation felt by all of us today after the desecration of the Jewish community's cemetery yesterday in Sainte-Foy, near Quebec City.
I am sure I express the general feeling in this country, Madam Speaker, when most strenuously I condemn these outrageous and inhuman acts. Those responsible have violated values that are fundamental to this country, and I am referring to respect for human rights and tolerance.
The fact that these racist acts were committed in Quebec certainly does not mean, Madam Speaker, that the Jewish community is not held in high esteem.
This is, without a doubt, an isolated incident that all Quebecers and Canadians unanimously condemn.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I propose that all members of this House express their solidarity with the people affected by this incident as well as their sympathy with the entire Jewish community in Quebec and Canada.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, a report released yesterday by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women stated that too much money is spent on expensive technological fixes for infertility, while not enough is spent on basic reproductive health promotion.
Instead of tackling the problems that cause infertility, such as sexually-transmitted diseases, the federal government has poured funds into research on new reproductive technologies. In 1988, $3.5 million went into such research, while a mere $400,000 was spent on public
health and research activities related to reproductive disorders.
The success rate of procedures such as in vitro fertilization is very low. Moreover, such procedures carry an unacceptably high emotional and physical risk to women who undergo them. The desperation these women feel is understandable. The government's failure to address the causes of infertility is not.
The report released yesterday points out that there are relatively inexpensive and simple methods to help prevent infertility. Surely, it is in the best interests of women for the government to promote prevention rather than to submit them to experimental procedures of dubious value.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, a serious drop in real estate sales has traditionally been the most reliable and the most consistent indication that this country is moving into a recession. The continuing high interest rate policy, coupled with the effects that the proposed goods and services tax is going to have on the economy, is starting to be felt in the real estate industry in our various communities.
When is the government going to realize its high interest rates and high tax policies are not working, and announce a new approach to our economy with which ordinary Canadians can live?


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Madam Speaker, let us hope that the Minister of the Environment is not being too optimistic by promising, as he did in Norway this week, to freeze carbon dioxide emissions at present levels to the end of the decade. Canadians eagerly await the details of how this commitment would be kept.
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will not be easy. Canadians are growing more conscious of their energy consumption and of alternate forms of energy.
Earlier this week, Alberta took a large step in that direction when Energy Minister Rick Orman announced the creation of the Alberta Office of Renewable Energy Technology. This new office will play a key role in promoting province-wide support for renewable energy
May 18, 1990

technologies that can protect the environment, create new industries and lead to further diversification of Alberta's economy.
Albertans applauded this move which will provide an important focus for encouraging the development and use of renewable energy sources that are safe, economic and environmentally acceptable.


REPUBLIC OF ZAIRE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, recently in my constituency constituency office, I met representatives of the Zairian community in Canada and more specifically representatives of the Union for Democracy and Social Progress.
All these people told me that the most serious opponents of President Mobutu were all systematically arrested, jailed or persecuted. They think that the most basic human rights in that country are being continually violated.
Ebua Marcel Lihau, president of the UDSP (Union for Democracy and Social Progress), who met with Canadian officials yesterday, told us that he cannot go back to Zaire unless minimum conditions for his security are assured.
I therefore call on the Canadian government to ask the Zairian authorities, especially President Mobutu, to respect their citizens' rights to freedom, since Zaire will host the next Francophone Summit.
I think that Canada should not attend this summit without assurances from the President of Zaire that he will respect the rights of Zairian citizens.


ANTI-SEMITISM
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I too want to join others and speak out against the desecration of the Jewish cemetery yesterday at St. Foy.
It is difficult for decent Canadians anywhere to understand vandalism of any kind. When it is desecration of a cemetery it is particularly revolting, and when that desecration is pointed at any particular ethnic community it strikes fear in the hearts of all Canadians.
The Jewish community has been singled out. We have to understand and believe it is not just a cemetery that has been desecrated. It is also pointed at the living community. The Jewish people have suffered enough humiliation, fear, persecution and death in their lifetime.
It is time for us to build bridges of kindness and understanding. It is time for us to realize that when this is directed at the Jewish community, it is also directed at other minority groups.
I call upon all Canadians to build bridges of understanding and caring for all people and, in this case, particularly for the Jewish community.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, the Conservative government has sunk to a new low in its disregard for the Canadian democratic process. Once again the Tories are enforcing legislation which has not passed into law.
Yesterday, before the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment, and Immigration, the Minister of Employment admitted that Revenue Canada has urged employers to deduct the higher premium rate contained in Bill C-21. The higher premiums are voluntary, but the minister admitted that many workers and employers are not aware of this fact. Further, she cautioned the government would go after any premiums that are still owing since the higher rate would be retroactive to January 1, 1990.
It is interesting to note that, while the collection of premiums is retroactive, benefits such as parental leave are not. New parents who have paid these higher premiums will not be entitled to 10 weeks of parental leave if their child arrives prior to the passage of the legislation.
Canadians are tired of paying for a government which enforces legislation not passed and governs to suit its own warped agenda at the expense of the fundamental principles of democracy.

May 18, 1990
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, after the report of the special committee on the companion resolution was made public, the media showed a favourable reaction by provincial premiers to the idea that a First Minister's Conference on the constitution would be useful at this time.
In view of this reaction, will the Prime Minister call a First Ministers' Conference on the constitution and, if so, will he tell us what its date will be?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with the premiers, yesterday and last evening, about this possibility. All of them are interested in the prospect of a First Ministers' Conference. Some are concerned about the timing, and some have concerns about some of the substance of the report. I have decided, as I have indicated, to send Senator Murray urgently to visit with all the premiers. He should be through those visits within a matter of days. As soon as that is done, I will be in touch with the premiers in respect of a first ministers' meeting.
I have always said that I would be happy to hold it if I were of the view that there was a prospect of resolving a very serious constitutional impasse. I will wait for Senator Murray's report within the next few days and make that decision.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, at least when it comes to the reports of the media, both in the press and on television, no premier has said that he is unfavourable to the idea of an early constitutional conference.
Do I take it from what the Prime Minister has said that in spite of this reaction, the public reaction at least by the provincial premiers, it is possible that the Prime Minister will not call a First Ministers' Conference before June 23? If so, does he think this is a constructive approach to this matter, in view of the fact that the special committee of the House on the companion resolution found unanimously that the date of June 23 is an important date and as the committee put it, a political reality?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think that all members of the House would want to congratulate members of that committee from all political parties for the very constructive work they did in bringing forward a report of this nature in quite record time. I join in congratulating all members of the committee who took part.
The committee did not recommend that a first minister's conference be held at any given time. The reason for that presumably was, given their knowledge of the country, that they thought this was a value judgment that should be made by the Prime Minister at an appropriate time, given certain circumstances, which is precisely what I propose to do.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, others who have read this report have taken a somewhat different interpretation of the conclusions of the committee. Surely, the point of the report was that the ideas in it should, could, and must be addressed by first ministers. Surely, that is the point of the report.

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister why he no longer thinks that calling a First Ministers' Conference as soon as possible would be the best way to get out of the constitutional impasse? Why is the Prime Minister wasting precious time when the future of our country is at stake?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, sometimes I find the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition a little confusing.
Hurriedly calling a conference of First Ministers at this time, which would hardly produce a satisfactory solution, might be the worst thing a prime minister of Canada could do.
That is why I intend to make a very careful assessment of the statements of the Premiers and the results of Senator Murray's interventions. If the Premiers are called to discuss this all- important national question, at this crucial moment in our history, the conference must succeed. That is what I want. I want a conference
May 18, 1990

that will succeed. I don't want to call a First Ministers Conference for the pleasure of their company, although I am always glad to meet them.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Conference Board of Canada announced that the government's high interest rate policy and the inflationary impact of the goods and services tax have, and I quote, "created a major risk of recession".
Since a large portion of the inflationary increases are a direct result of government tax increases, when is the government going to stop punishing Canadian consumers, businesses, and workers for its own economic mismanagement?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I suppose that the doom and gloom that we get from the honourable gentleman is nothing new.


Mr. Milliken:: Not much doom and gloom there. Simple facts.


Gilles Loiselle: I suppose he will probably be disappointed to discover today that the inflation rate, the CPI, has gone down from 5.4 per cent to 5 per cent.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Gilles Loiselle: If the hon. member looks at the Canadian performance on trade, he will also understand that there are some good sides to our economy. We recognize that the economy is slowing down. It is doing so particularly in the manufacturing sector and less so in the service sector. But there are still veiy high inflationary pressures which indicate that we must continue on our course and make sure we defeat inflation.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. Our interest rates are going up at the same time as our inflation is coming down. Look at the United States.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: That's what is supposed to happen. First inflation comes down, and then interest rates come down.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Let us look at the facts. Inflation in the United States is 4.7 per cent, which is about the same level as in Canada. The interest rates in the United States are 40 per cent lower than ours.
Whose interest rate policies are misguided or misdirected? The Americans' or ours?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman would like to win on both sides.
High interest rates cause money to be more expensive. Therefore, people buy less, the pressures come down, and inflation comes down. This is a first indication that our policy is giving results. These signs have to be there for a period of time before we can see interest rates come down and stay down.
Surely, we would not want high interest rates to remain with us forever or reach the levels they reached when the Liberal party was in power. We want them to come down and stay down. We are working with the monetary policy and with the fiscal policy in a responsible manner to make sure that this country heads for another five years of good economic progress.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the beginning of the debate on the Meech Lake Accord, there has been a problem of communication with the general public. However, when the government wants, it is quite capable of putting together an information campaign, as it did for free trade and as it is now doing for the GST.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what he intends to do to ensure that this time the public will be informed of what the companion resolution contains and will also be kept abreast of developments in the negotiations on Meech Lake and the resolution?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as for-


Some hon. members:: Madam!

May 18, 1990
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Excuse me, Madam. Congratulations on your election as Deputy Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The House has such a high opinion of you, Madam, that you were elected while you were away, and I congratulate you.
To Madam the Leader of the New Democratic Party, I just say that the Committee made a quite laudable effort by visiting almost all regions of the country, including the Yukon and the Territories, to solicit Canadians' opinions. With the publicity surrounding the information sessions of the Charest Committee, it is harder and harder to imagine Canadians who are not aware of what Parliament or the First Ministers are trying to do. You just have to turn on the television; that is all they talk about, day and night. So I think that everyone is making a reasonable effort to inform all Canadians, but we can always do more. And if the New Democrats' Leader has specific ideas about it, I would pleased to hear them.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
Clearly, my question to the Prime Minister was simply that Canadians need to know what is happening in the constitutional process. Certainly, the polls have indicated that people are not aware of what Meech Lake was all about. We cannot allow that to happen again.
I am simply suggesting to the Prime Minister that he, as leader of the country, has a responsibility to ensure that the public has the information to make its own decisions and conclusions.
On another matter, I want to ask the Prime Minister this. I am assuming that at some point there will be a First Ministers' meeting. I hope that there will be, if we are to have this issue really move along.
Will the Prime Minister ensure that the committee's recommendations on aboriginal rights, which have been of such grave concern and which were highlighted in the report, will in fact be reflected in a companion resolution?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I cannot predict what the results of these various consultations with the First Ministers will be.
As I understand the committee's report, it contains a number of important elements. It appears to me that should the First Ministers decide to get together it will be the equivalent of a legislative menu whereby they will decide among themselves how to propose to deal with these legitimate concerns.
First, the report recommends that the conditions of the Meech Lake Accord be accepted as they are, with the companion resolution. The companion resolution appears to contain some issues of clarification, as well as some issues of substance. I think that this is what the committee sought to have us discuss when the First Ministers get together.
With respect to the very important question of aboriginal rights raised by my hon. friend, I had the privilege under the previous constitutional provisions to chair two meetings of First Ministers in respect of seeking a constitutional amendment for justice for native peoples.
It is my view that had the province of Quebec been a signatory to the Constitution, and had the province of Quebec therefore been present at those constitutional negotiations, then given its very favourable disposition to aboriginal issues we would have achieved a constitutional settlement for aboriginal peoples. We came very close to doing that. Had Quebec been there we would have achieved it.
That is why it is so indispensable not only for Quebec and the rest of the nation but for our first peoples to have this matter resolved. Only with all the provinces around the table can the native peoples achieve the justice that they so richly deserve.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I realize that the Prime Minister cannot speak for the premiers of the provinces. I am not asking him to do that.
I remind the Prime Minister that he has a special responsibility for aboriginal people. He also has a special responsibility for the northern territories, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
May 18, 1990

I am asking about the Prime Minister's commitment to aboriginal issues, to ensure that they are addressed in a companion resolution that may come out of a First Ministers' meeting.
I am asking for the Prime Minister's commitment that the recommendation on new provincehood for the Yukon and the Territories, in other words the pre-1982 arrangement, will be part of the companion resolution.
Will the Prime Minister invite the leaders of the government of the Northwest Territories and the premier of the Yukon to this First Ministers' Conference?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, may I say with respect that it is precisely this kind of attitude, these kinds of questions, that have given rise to some of the difficulties that the Meech Lake Accord and the process have sustained over the past number of years. We have to presume some good faith on behalf of the other.
The hon. member asks about my attitude and the attitude of my government in respect to aboriginal questions.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Your commitment, not your attitude.


Martin Brian Mulroney: She asks for a commitment. Had she been in the House in 1984 and 1985 I think the member would have been pleased with the manner in which the federal government chaired that aboriginal conference with a view to seeking justice for aboriginal peoples.
If she needs a more recent indication of my commitment and the commitment of my government to that kind of justice, she has only to look at the land claim settlements that we have made in the Northwest Territories, which are the most important and the most generous in the history of Canada in favour of our aboriginal peoples.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Oral Questions
Catherine Graham, editor of the Carleton University report entitled How Ottawa Spends, writes that despite the Prime Minister's commitments to the contrary, universal child benefits have effectively disappeared without public debate and that the economically disadvantaged in the country are in tough times. She states that it is a case of the have-nots continuing to do without for the sake of the haves.
Will the Prime Minister come clean with this House and admit that the Tory answer to fiscal responsibility is to target existing social programs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I have not had a chance to read the report to which my hon. friend refers. If she is characterizing it fairly, then it is pretty silly stuff.
The fact of the matter is that since this government was sworn in in 1984, 757,000 Canadians have been removed from the poverty rolls. That includes 229,000 women and 259,000 children.
Apart from that, the best, most important social policy statement in many cases is a job. This government has proceeded with the creation of 1.6 million new jobs in five and a half years, 85 per cent of them full-time and 60 per cent of them going to women.


Albina Guarnieri: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister does himself a disservice with that answer.
Perhaps I should remind the Prime Minister that according to Statistics Canada there are over 3.3 million Canadians living below the poverty line.
In these days of high interest rates and a declining economy, how can the Prime Minister justify his policies of ending universality of social programs and introducing unemployment insurance legislation that hits directly at the disadvantaged? What is he going to say to these 3.3 million Canadians?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Let them eat cake.


Mr. Dick:: That's the Liberal way.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, after striking out, the impoverished member from Willowdale returns for a discussion on poverty.

May 18, 1990
Oral Questions
I agree with my hon. friend, obviously, that any degree of poverty in an industrialized country is too much.
The object of the exercise of all government policy should be to remove people from the situation of poverty and to give them the opportunity to work their way into greater prosperity, which is why changes are proposed for $800 million more for training under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If my hon. friend wanted to be helpful, she could prevail upon her Liberal friends in the Senate to pass that piece of legislation as quickly as possible. That would help people get out of poverty.
I indicated that while not perfect, under this government 757,000 fewer people are in poverty than in 1984.1 did not out of politeness point out that under her government 734,000 people between 1980 and 1984 fell into poverty.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance.
In its insatiable appetite for imposing yet new taxes, it is now reported that this government wants to impose, of all things, tolls on highways to squeeze out another $13 billion from Canadian taxpayers.
Can the minister stand in his place here and now, put and end to this and tell us that there will not be such a thing as highway tolls in Canada?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the majority of the responsibility for highway financing rests in the hands of the provincial governments.
The hon. member should also be fully aware that just last week the federal government removed the last federal toll on the Champlain Bridge in Montreal.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Anyone who is suggesting that the federal government would either have the ability or the desire to impose tolls is not recognizing reality.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I do not think the minister should be saying that about the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of transport.
[!Translation\
My supplementary is for the minister who answers on behalf of the Minister of Transport or the President of the Treasury Board.
Last December, in announcing these cuts, the President of the Treasury Board said that the government would disclose in the future other ways of collecting revenues and charging fees.
Will the Minister tell us now if what we are seeing today is just another way of digging into the pockets of Canadian taxpayers?


Robert René de Cotret: No, Madam Speaker. I must say to my hon. colleague that, as the Minister of National Defence mentioned, we recently decided to remove the tollbooth on the Champlain Bridge.
I did not read the article that my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is referring to-I will do it later-but I can tell him we have no such plan.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, 90 per cent of American toxic waste is imported to Canada. CBC television has informed us that the Prime Minister's ambassador to the United States has actively lobbied against an American control bill on toxic waste, essentially to loosen the standards so that we in Canada can get as much toxic waste from the United States as possible.
When we are fighting acid rain emissions coming into Canada, and we have fought somewhat successfully, how can the Prime Minister's government reject the charge that it is not the utmost in hypocrisy to be asking at the same time for as much toxic waste from the United States as we can get?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, there has been over time a flow of waste materials, including toxic waste, both ways across the Canada-U.S. border.
May 18, 1990

New regulations have virtually eliminated such movement of waste. In fact my hon. friend would know, particularly in the province of Quebec, that new regulations were put in place back in 1989, if I recall correctly.
The new standards which were imposed then to deal with the cleaning up of hazardous waste sites had a commitment of $100 million of federal money. There were three components, one being the cleaning up of orphan sites which were to be cleaned up in a co-operative effort between the provinces and the federal government.
To get to the hon. member's question, the flow of hazardous materials across the border has been virtually stopped.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I am talking about 150,000 tonnes of toxic waste that come in to Canada annually. We are not talking about a small amount of toxic waste. We are talking about 90 per cent of toxic waste produced by the Americans.
How can we say that we wish to protect the Canadian public when at the same time the ambassador, on the Prime Minister's orders, is lobbying to weaken U.S. legislation so that we can get as much toxic waste here as possible?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, of course I question the numbers that have been cited by my hon. friend.
The arrangements that have been entered into with our friends in the United States state that there should be no movement of toxic waste across our borders.
It does not help the situation for my friend to cite numbers that he simply cannot substantiate.


Mr. Fulton:: What's the real number, Frank?


Frank Oberle: It is perhaps true that over time we will have to rely on materials from the United States for recycling in our pulp mills since with the new regulations concerning recycled paper being legislated on the print industry in the United States, it will be very difficult for our industry to gain access to enough waste materials to meet those new guidelines. Thus there will always be a flow of waste materials. But toxic materials are no longer allowed into our country.
Oral Questions THE SENATE


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance.
My constituents, and I think they are fairly representative of all Canadians, are fairly frustrated and angered that every bill that is passed by this democratically elected House that goes to the Senate is held up and delayed.
Will the Minister of State for Finance tell me, and by so doing inform all members of this House, what will be the consequences of the Senate's attempts to amend rather than pass the income tax changes arising from the April 1989 budget, which are contained in Bill C-28?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very good question. It is a very, very important question.
The government's position with respect to money bills was made very clear when we discussed Bill C-21, which concerns UI reform. I believe that everyone will agree that the government was elected to manage the fiscal affairs of the country, among other things.
By blocking, as it is doing, numerous bills and government legislation the Senate is threatening to rip a huge hole in our fiscal framework.
In the case of Bill C-28 for example, the deficit will be $200 million higher in 1989-90 than it would have been if the bill had been passed expeditiously.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. minister has answered the question.
The hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre.



Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Because of the fire in Samt-Amable, the whole area's underground water system could be contaminated. Will the minister of the Environment ensure that everything possible is done to prevent the toxic oil from the burning tires from contaminating the underground water in the area, taking

May 18, 1990
Oral Questions
into account the fact that the present methods used to soak up the oil are clearly insufficient?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House):: Madam Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague from Gatineau-La Lievre to know that I have been on the site since the outset of this unfortunate incident until 6:30 this morning. The federal government has cooperated fully with the Quebec government. Officials from Environment Canada were on site on Wednesday, as well as officials from Health and Welfare Canada, Agriculture Canada and the Department of National Defence. We have answered favourably to all of the requests made by the Quebec government.
Mr. Paradis tells us is keeping us informed regarding the pumping of the oil, and the hon. member will know that we are dealing with a provincial jurisdiction here. The Quebec government is therefore trying its best to contain the oil within the limits of the area where the tires are. But, if it were to ask us for further help, we would be there on behalf of the federal government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Joseph Assad: Surely the minister will agree that the government's tire recycling research assistance program falls short of the mark. We now have proof. Will the minister set up a real program to boost research into and development of new used tire recycling technologies?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity offered by the hon. member to thank the volunteer firemen who have now been working non-stop for three days at Saint-Am-able.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I also noticed a rare occurrence-several firewomen battling the blaze.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Danis: In answer to my colleague's question, Environment Canada officials will meet with their provincial counterparts to draft a policy. Even though the matter falls within provincial purview, I suggest that in
the interest of Canadians everybody should get involved, and the Minister of the Environment is doing his best to solve the problem. He has done an excellent job until now and I am sure he will maintain his performance.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
The Minister of the Environment has now made a commitment that Canada will stabilize its carbon dioxide emissions at 1988 levels by the year 2000. The Minister of Energy, however, has said that it is premature to set these levels.
Which minister speaks for the government?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, as we know, the Minister of the Environment attended a very important international conference in Bergen, Norway. He made some very important contributions to that conference in statements and commitments on behalf of Canada which establish targets with regard to the control and elimination of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
It is the Minister of the Environment who spoke for the government at the conference. These are federal commitments.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister since I did not get an answer to my first question.
Will the Prime Minister please tell Canadians his government's position? Is it to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1988 levels by the year 2000, as stated by the Minister of the Environment, or is it to go slow, as stated by the Minister of Energy?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, certainly the initial steps will require the industry and others that emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to develop new systems, techniques and processes in manufacturing and other areas to arrest the growth and expansion of the emission of such gases, and then to operate and work collectively with the rest of the world to establish targets for the elimination of harmful gases.
May 18, 1990

That will include the planting of trees, the reforestation of vast areas around the planet, which are necessary to absorb harmful greenhouse gases. That cannot happen in two weeks or a month. There needs to be long-term plans and strategies of the kind that were discussed in Bergen, Norway.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yet another Windsor company, Stanley Home Automation, has decided to shift its manufacturing operations to the United States. The president has announced that free trade is a factor because tariffs are being cut to zero in this product category.
This means another 68 jobs to be added to the jobs lost in Kelsey Hayes, SKD, Sheller-Globe, Bondy Cartage and Wayne Bus. Plant after plant has seen shifts to the United States.
Is the Prime Minister now prepared to suspend the operation of the free trade deal to safeguard manufacturing jobs in this country in an industry which has seen
48,000	jobs disappear in the last month?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned some closures. Of course the government is concerned about any closures, whether they involve 68 employees or whatever.
I have to remind the hon. member that an aerospace company moved from Detroit to Windsor in the last two months, creating over 100 jobs.
Last week, I enjoyed being at the opening of a joint GM-Suzuki operation where 3,000 new jobs have been created.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Since it is so close to the hon. member's riding, I would like to mention that Freightliner opened in St. Thomas with 1,200 jobs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: When we ask about the free trade agreement, we have to ask of course what the effect is on
Oral Questions
our trade surplus. I saw in The Toronto Star this morning that the jump in the trade surplus shows that the economy is very, very perky.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, let us look at the whole picture for a change. Unlike what the minister has done, I have given a complete picture of what is taking place in my community-
Let us look at the most recent statistics released this week concerning the labour force. Just last month there was a decrease of 45,000 manufacturing jobs throughout this country.
Is his government aiming to destroy the manufacturing heart of our economy? Does it not recognize that the manufacturing base of any economy is crucial to build exports for the future? Does it not recognize that the high tech future for this country depends on that manufacturing base?
Is this government not going to do something to get back those manufacturing jobs?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member has put his question. The hon. minister.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member speaks about the manufacturing base of the Canadian economy. The biggest impediment to the manufacturing base of the Canadian economy is the manufacturers' sales tax.
What we are doing is removing that tremendously unfair burden that for over 66 years the Canadian manufacturing sector has had to participate in. We are removing the manufacturers' sales tax, which is especially good news for Windsor and for Canada.
I know the hon. member is an economist. He and I have talked about the big picture, as he puts it. He will be interested to know that a mutual friend of ours, Richard Caves, a professor of economics at Harvard, said the following: "My findings suggest that the Canadian manufacturers should respond well to increased competition under the free trade agreement". He predicts a very good future for that sector.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
House of Commons UNEMPLOYMENT

May 18, 1990


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
Early this month Croydon Furniture Systems announced the closure of its plant in Smiths Falls, Ontario, leaving 130 people out of work as of June 29. The rise in the value of the Canadian dollar and the removal of tariffs as a result of the free trade deal have eliminated the company's traditional profit margins, and this in a riding represented in this Parliament by the Minister of Supply and Services who supported these very policies.
Does the minister not think it is time to scrap the high interest rate policy and the free trade agreement and help those Canadians who are losing their jobs?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member speaks out of a framework of thinking which is right out of the 1950s and 1960s. He should realize that tariffs set at a high level can produce huge profits for companies when they are sheltered behind those huge tariff walls, but that in the long run those companies will disappear.
What we must do is put in place a framework through lower tariffs which will make a more competitive manufacturing sector. Removing the manufacturers' sales tax will also help.
That is the answer for the future of Canada, not hiding behind a big wall of protection.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A very short supplemental.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, it may be that that kind of answer is good for some parts of Canada, but for the area of Smiths Falls and Lanark County it must be a bit of a disaster.
The president of the company said, and I quote him: "A substantial capital investment is needed to make our plants competitive in the new environment. Given the way the economic future looks in Canada, we cannot afford to make that kind of commitment".
Does the minister not realize that it is his government's disastrous policies that have created the economic mess described by this president and that have resulted in these people and hundreds of others in eastern Ontario losing their jobs?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I was in Smiths Falls just two days ago and I spoke to a number of industrial representatives. They are very bullish on the Smiths Falls economy. I do not know why the hon. member is so obsessed with one particular example.
The more general point he raises is more fundamental, and that is that the shape of the Canadian economy has been hobbled and circumscribed by a manufacturers' sales tax. By removing that we are going to unleash in the first year alone of the GST a $9 billion strong economy. That will be good for Smiths Falls and for Canada.


SPEAKER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Now that Question Period is over, I would like to ask the House to bear with me while I make the following comments.
During the past two days, representatives of all parties have been addressing words of praise and congratulations to your humble servant. I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and everyone of my colleagues and also to express the disappointment and embarrassment I felt on Tuesday afternoon, when I realized it would be physically impossible for me to be present in the House when the Prime Minister was to move for concurrence in the motion conferring on me the honour of becoming the Deputy Speaker of this House and urging me to meet the challenges of my new responsibilities.

May I assure each and every member of the House of my complete co-operation. With the Speaker's support and with the knowledge and experience so kindly shared by the Clerk and our table officers and with your help and understanding, I hope to walk successfully in the footsteps of my friend and predecessor and fully deserve the respect and friendship that you are demonstrating today.
May 18, 1990


Some hon. members:: Bravo, bravo.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received notice of two questions of privilege. I will recognize them in the order in which I have received them. First of all the hon. member for Calgary West.


PRIVILEGE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would like first of all to make available to the Chair a press release issued by the member for Beaver River on May 17, yesterday afternoon after a discussion in this Chamber and a previous press release which was not available yesterday, dated April 5, 1990, from the same member. I would like to make those available to the Chair.
On April 5 in this Chamber, which is something I did not realize yesterday, the member for Beaver River spoke. Her comments on page 11564 of Hansard-


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am listening to a question of privilege now. I will recognize the hon. member for Kamloops as soon as I have heard the hon. member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In those April 5 comments the member for Beaver River stated:
We know that other members are being bribed to vote for the
GST or risk losing precious lifetime pensions.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the Criminal Code of Canada. Under Corruption and Disobedience in that code, Section 119.(1) says:
Every one who
(a)	being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly
(i)	accepts or obtains,
(ii)	agrees to accept, or
(iii)	attempts to obtain,
any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or
(b)	gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person,
Privilege
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, I have been made aware of the press release issued by the hon. member for Beaver River yesterday, and I am quite aware of why the hon. member for Calgary West is now rising in the House.
I would think at this point that it would be wise for the House to adjourn this debate and wait until the hon. member for Beaver River is present so that she can respond, as she did yesterday, to the hon. member.
I think it would be unfair and unwise to pursue the debate at this point, but of course the hon. member will have the possibility of raising it again when his colleague is present.
Is there anything else from the hon. member for Calgary West?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Madam Speaker. In sending the letter to the Chair this morning, I did phone also the member's office and indicated to that member's office that I would be quite happy to wait until the member was back.
I also communicated to officials at the table that I would have no difficulty in waiting. I thought that when you called the question of privilege you had decided you wanted me to proceed. I would be quite happy to wait until the member returns. I would think the member will probably be here next week.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received another notice from an hon. member who wishes to raise a question of privilege. I will now recognize the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin).


CHANGE OF PARTY AFFILIATION BY MEMBER FOR MEG ANTI C - COMPTON - STANSTEAD
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, I wish to join all members in congratulating you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of this House.
I also wish to inform you of my intention to sit from now on as an independent member.
Despite present and past problems, the Prime Minister and the government have made some outstanding achievements. These are memories I will cherish. In fact, it was the Prime Minister who gave me a chance to serve

May 18, 1990
Privilege
Quebec and Canada, and I am thankful for that opportunity.
I deeply regret leaving the Quebec caucus at this time, a caucus profoundly divided and disturbed by the constitutional question. In 1984 and 1988, I was elected under the flag of the Progressive Conservative Party. I regret that I must leave, especially in these difficult times. It is not because of the problems that the polls are now starting to recognize. I do not have that kind of temperament. I also believe in the party system. I believe it is much easier to serve as a member of a political party than as an independent member. The problem is realizing when all this becomes irreconcilable. At what point is it no longer possible to keep working within a political party?
If the dissent of a member, and mine in particular, on a matter as fundamental as the constitutional question cannot be freely expressed within a party and outside, that is a situation I can no longer accept. I cannot accept being asked to remain silent on an issue that is so fundamentally important to Quebec and Canada. I have expressed my dissent in the past. In some instances, my dissent started in isolation and later managed to rally almost everyone shortly before the election, as evidenced by grass-roots financing. I could go on as usual. But not on this issue.
The constitutional question is far too important. The Meech Lake Accord was an extraordinary attempt at national reconciliation. It is not just a legal formality. It is a symbol for Quebecers who expected Canada, the other provinces, to say an unconditional yes to Quebec.
As the Prime Minister said in Sept-iles in 1984, "With honour, dignity and enthusiasm". Today and for the past few weeks I have seen in my government and the Prime Minister quite a sharp turn in position as compared to the nationalistic stand the Prime Minister had taken in a speech he delivered in Sept-iles shortly before the 1984 election. Quebec has been negotiating the constitutional issue for over 25 years. Today, the Meech Lake accord is dead, if not technically, at least in the hearts of most Quebecers. Moroever, the Progressive Conservative Party is no longer offering Quebecers the guarantee they need to achieve their fundamental goals. The Meech Lake Accord may not be dead here in this House for those who are willing to accept it at any cost, but Quebec
men and women deserve and demand more. Above all, they insist on a straightforward position.
The role of a Quebec member here in Ottawa is being challenged. Personally I am first and foremost a Quebecer and I am here to serve my fellow Quebecers. That is what I have learned. That is what I have been taught over the past six years. Today, I am told differently. I just do not think that I could speak from both sides of my mouth at the same time. As a great many Quebecers, I now believe basically, in my heart of hearts, as well as with my guts and brain, that the future of Quebec and Canada lies in the sovereignty of Quebec and a new association with its Canadian partners or the partners of other Canadian regions.
Since 1984, I have looked after a number of major issues, public financing has been one of them, since 1986. There were elements of ethics and democracy involved, as well as the openness of party and a government. I had wished that tool we could provide this decentralization and framework necessary for participation, especially this call and these overtures to our young people both in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Unfortunately, I must recognize that it did not work out, just as in the case of my concern for a deficit reduction and a balanced budget.
Yesterday I completed my basic assignment on the Special Committee on the Parliament of Canada Act. I am proud of this job which lasted for over six months and was not easy and I hope my colleagues will be able to complete it.
As to my future, Madam Speaker, I must say that my political career will be determined by my constituents. For a long time I have been telling them that I take orders from no one, except from them. They insist that I must follow the dictates of my conscience, that I must tell them the truth and act on their behalf. It is therefore with honour, dignity and enthusiasm, the very words the Prime Minister used in 1984, that I am asking to be given a new seat from which I will be able to stand up exclusively for Quebecers and a sovereignty association deal for Quebec.
Madam Speaker, long live Quebec and its people!


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: I believe, Madam Speaker, that sometimes in our political life we can not let moves like this one be made without a single comment being made, a nice one that is. I mean that the
May 18, 1990

hon. gentleman making such a decision at this time came as quite a surprise. It is not for us to discuss the merit of such a decision. I nevertheless want to let him know that, as a Quebecer, I am sorry. I think that, under the circumstances, there was still room for negotiation. The hon. gentleman has engaged upon that road today. I would have preferred that he wait. In any case, as a parliamentarian and a personal friend, I had to take the first opportunity to tell him that, while respecting his decision, I regret it.
I hope time will tell that he was wrong to make such a decision, but we shall see. I believe it was appropriate for a parliamentarian to make a friendly gesture for a friend who has made a very difficult decision. It is clear for a parliamentarian as fond of the Parliament as I am that it must have been very difficult indeed.
I will now, without further comment, analyze his statement word for word. All the same, I wanted him to know that I truly regret his decision.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for having given us notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege.
As is the procedure, the Chair will see to finding him another seat in this House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[!Translation\

Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-second report of the Striking Committee.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today tabling four petitions from Chibougamau, in the riding of Roberval,
Routine Proceedings
further to the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Madam Speaker, the signers of three petitions of these petitions reject the conclusions of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas and ask that Chibougamau be recognized as an isolated area under the present tax benefits plan.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 and certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. The petitioners come from Kamloops, Chase and Logan Lake, British Columbia, and are concerned that the government's goods and services tax is going to cause them considerable financial pain. They point out that a tax on home heating fuels, transportation, on virtually everything, is going to increase the amount of money that they pay in taxation and reduce their purchasing power. They are asking the Government of Canada to rethink proceeding with this tax.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston, Gananoque, Harrowsmith, Sydenham, Battersea, Napanee, Verona and Joyceville, Ontario among others. These persons have signed this petition to indicate their opposition to the changes the government has announced in its budget, whereby it reduces services for housekeeping purposes for veterans and increases the cost of long-term care for Canada's veterans.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject those measures contained in the government's unfair and nasty budget.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I suggest that all remaining questions stand.

May 18, 1990
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I understand that one of my colleagues was to present the legislative committee report on Bill C-69, but was inadvertently absent from the Chamber at the moment that item was called.
If there is unanimous consent, it might serve the House best to revert to that item to allow the presentation of the committee report.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to Reports from Committees?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



COMMITTEE REPORTS


Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to
amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When we proceeded to Statements by members, the hon. member for Carle-ton-Gloucester had the floor.


Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is too bad that my speech was interrupted by Question Period. But I suppose that we must follow the procedure and that it probably was much more interesting to listen to Question Period.
Therefore I continue the debate on Bill C-34, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development. The Liberal Party approves of this bill, which, as I said, concerns the Canadian Centre for Management Development that was the idea, really, of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. It is a centre to develop management skills and abilities, for better management in the Public Service, an institution that would develop management techniques in Public Service managers. Of course the Liberal Party agrees with establishing such a centre. As I just said, I congratulate Mr. Manion, the first principal of this institution.
I was just referring to Maxwell Yalden, the Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, who appeared before the Legislative Committee on Bill C-34.

One need only consult the government's latest report on its own employment equity situation for the four designated groups-women, aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities, and persons with disabilities. This report indicates that while the government's policy looks good on paper, and while some positive efforts are being made, the overall result is not satisfactory.
The Canadian Centre for Management Development should and must orient managers toward an appreciation of the importance of employment equity and train them in its daily application as part of their job. To ensure employment equity is totally respected by the Canadian Centre for Management Development so that it can effectively represent the federal Public Service and the diversity of the Canadian population who should receive the services it needs.
I believe the Liberal amendment presented in committee was absolutely necessary. This specification should have been the object of the centre. I am disappointed that the government turned down that most important amendment. Unless human rights and employment equity commitments are specifically included in this bill, I doubt they will be an integrated part of the over-all commitment of the centre.
I hope the government will respect the centre's objectives found in clause 4, especially 4(a), (b) and (d).
[Translation}
I would like to outline, Madam Speaker, the Centre's objects and powers as defined in the bill.
4. The objects of the Centre are
(a)	to encourage pride and excellence in the management of the Public Service and to foster among Public Service managers a sense of the purposes, values and traditions of the Public Service;
(b)	to help ensure that managers in the Public Service have the analytical, creative, advisory, administrative and other managerial skills and knowledge necessary to develop and implement policy, respond to change, including changes in the social, cultural, racial and linguistic character of Canadian society, and manage government programs, services and personnel efficiently, effectively and equitably,
(d) to develop within the Public service and to attract to the Public Service, through the Centre's programs and studies, persons who are of high calibre and who reflect the diversity of Canadian society, and to support their growth and development as public sector managers committed to the service of Canada;
Government Orders

I can assure the government that the opposition feels it is its responsibility that the Canadian Centre for Management Development clearly respect its objectives. It is only in attracting qualified people to the Public Service and making the Public Service a highly respected place of work that the public and the Public Service will fully benefit from top quality service.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development.
This centre has four specific objectives: developing the knowledge and skills of managers, developing the service ethic, originate research into practical solutions to the problems faced by public administrators, and advancing the commitment to public sector management excellence. These are worth-while objectives and, as such, we in the New Democratic Party are proud to support this bill.
At the outset I would like to say that this centre is an idea whose time has come and that, in the proper context, it can help those who run the Public Service deal with the fast pace of change in today's world. It will help them cope with fast-breaking issues and new technologies. It will serve to keep the Public Service on the cutting edge of change rather than following in its wake trying to catch up.
The Canadian Centre for Management Development is a response to a world-wide change in management practices. Today's managers must be able to question the status quo. Where once unthinking obedience to hierarchy was required of managers, today they must be able to think, to analyse and to conceptualize. Today's managers must focus on people rather than bureaucracy. These are changes that I applaud.
I worry that this centre is also a response to other less beneficial changes in our country; namely, the effects of six years of the Tory agenda.
Mr. Jack Manion, the principal of the centre, has often linked the centre to the government's right-wing agenda for the Public Service. In his words, that agenda is to "decentralize, deregulate, deburden and debureaucra-tize". This means that the centre will be geared to

May 18, 1990
Government Orders
getting its managers to squeeze out more performance with fewer people and less money.
On a similar note, the centre is frequently connected with Public Service 2000, a shadowy effort also intended to strengthen the hand of upper management under the mantra of letting managers manage, even at the expense of collective bargaining rights.
Given the centre's $11.5 million budget, money obviously is not a problem for upper management. One-third of the permanent staff earn of average of $86,000 a year and the centre is not required to recover costs through tuition fees. That this occurs at a time of fiscal restraint illustrates one of the key problems with the Public Service. Top-level managers invariably choose to make cuts at the bottom of the totem-pole, leaving the fat at the top intact. The totem-pole is tottering. It is top-heavy with managers who have been securing their own jobs while cutting those underneath them. Those managers have been increasing their own salaries while letting salaries in general fall behind the cost of living. If the government is committed to reducing bureaucracy, it should start at the top and work down, rather than cutting the services that directly affect the lives of Canadians everywhere.
I share the concern that this centre is to some extent a reflection of that philosophy, and that it will further isolate mandarins in an ivory tower of their own, safe from the storm clouds emerging as a result of the cutbacks they are being trained to administer. Unless those workers on the front lines have a say in how the Public Service is managed, then no amount of academia will serve. It is the customs officials, the NRC scientists and CEIC receptionists who know what Canadians want and expect from the Public Service, and their voices should echo through the halls of power.
I would caution the government that our support for C-34 is not an endorsement of privatization, contracting out, and downsizing-activities that have cut close to 10,000 jobs from the Public Service in the last five years. No amount of managerial training can heal the wounds this has caused. There is widespread demoralization throughout the Public Service caused by stalled careers and staffs cut to the bone. Pretending that poor performance is a management problem rather than a budget
problem is a little like not giving a sea captain a rudder, but all the training needed to go down with the ship.
The real problem is not management, but the ability of the government to hack and slash without regard to the effects on the Public Service to carry out the important roles expected of it, including the protection of health and safety of the average person. The Treasury Board, the Privy Council, and the Public Service Commission control 10 per cent of national expenditures and a workforce of a quarter of a million. Yet, no committee of the House routinely studies the cumulative social costs of all of this budget cutting.
I worry that this centre will accelerate this tendency to see costs-benefits analysis in purely economic rather than social terms. Mr. Manion, for example, has been actively soliciting the influence of corporations, putting the CEOs and chairmen of major corporations on the centre's board of governors. Will the up-and-coming managers of tomorrow be required to think of government as just another bottom-line business, rather than as the defender of those who have fallen through the cracks of our profit-oriented society? This is especially critical in that Mr. Manion envisions his centre as an influential voice in the shaping of over-all government policy and procedures.
When reports such as Beneath the Veneer reveal the extent of the obstacles faced by women in the Public Service, it is important that such an influential centre be more than just a training school for Ottawa's mandarins. We cannot allow the centre to become another old boys' network, perpetuating the same elites from the same families, from the same parts of the country. Those same people all too often end up at the top. Room must be made for those who have traditionally been frozen out of the power structure: visible minorities, women, aboriginal people, and the disabled.
Mr. Manion has said that "to give priority to access over good management could be detrimental to the fundamental objective of the centre, which is to produce quality management". I find statements such as that worrying, especially since the bill also aims to "foster among Public Service managers a sense of the purpose, values and traditions of the Public Service". We in the House are aware, I am sure, that these purposes, values and traditions are largely white and male, set in a context dominated by white men. I am sure that Mr. Manion would agree that talent knows no racial or gender
May 18, 1990

boundaries and we can have fair participation of all minority groups without jeopardizing quality.
When only 12 per cent of senior management is female, 0.8 per cent aboriginal, 1.5 per cent disabled and 1.8 per cent members of visible minorities, one can only wonder how many talented people are out there whose skills could be helping to build this country, but whose talents are instead untapped because of the blindness of our prejudices.
We hope that the centre will serve to change the attitudes of the influential decision-makers it trains. This can be done by exposing what is essentially a homogeneous population to people of differing races and cultures. It will be only by working alongside the disabled, women, aboriginals, and visible minorities, that we can overcome our biases toward them. I hope the centre will make good on its promises to include target groups on its board, in its classrooms, and teaching at its podiums.
We in the NDP are happy to see that the centre has taken steps to provide this kind of access and, that it is willing to be a vehicle through which we can sensitize managers to the country's tremendous racial and cultural diversity, as well as to the sorts of unconscious prejudices we all have. Unless the people at the top understand the needs of those who have been kept at the bottom, we can never have a society in which anyone with talent and skill can make her or his mark in the world.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate today on third reading of Bill 0-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier who first raised this idea in 1974. I am sure he will share our pleasure that the government has reintroduced this bill. It is a tribute to my colleague and members on this side of the House that the government has adopted this Liberal initiative. I would like to congratulate the government on introducing this bill.
This bill is before us again because there is a very real need for a centre for management development in the country. The world today is an increasingly competitive
Government Orders
place. Success, in a lot of ways, depends upon the ability of a nation to manage its internal and external activities and resources with efficiency and creativity.
The centre, of course, will provide that ideal forum for fostering awareness and advocating excellence within the Public Service. It can also set an example for its counterpart in the private sector to follow.
Canada's Public Service is currently facing many challenges with difficulties in areas such as downsizing. We have close to about 13,000 employees and their families who have been affected since 1985. Any hiring done today is for term positions with less security and fewer benefits for the employee.
Another problem is the issue of aging. The average age of public servants is increasing, with the majority in the 30 to 54 years age bracket.
Yet another problem is plateauing. There are fewer opportunities for career advancement due to cut-backs and the large number of public servants with seniority.
But more than anything else, there is a major problem within the Public Service with respect to equal opportunity. My colleague from Ottawa West has put forward some resolutions to the House on the question of equal opportunity. I was informed that these recommendations were not adopted. It is quite unfortunate they were not.
Women are still mainly at a disadvantage, especially when we talk about administrative support positions. Women make up 83 per cent of the employees at this level, but they also hold 60 per cent of the term positions within the Public Service. Women are under-represented in every other occupation within the Public Service.
Perhaps most seriously, while women represent more than 42 per cent of the Public Service workforce, they represent only 12.3 per cent at the management level.
While visible minority groups also make up almost 5 per cent of the Canadian labour force, they represent only 1.7 per cent of the Public Service.
Workers who are disabled make up 6 per cent of the national labour force, but represent only 1.9 of the Public Service.

May 18, 1990
Government Orders
I was informed that, to date, attempts to achieve employment equity have not been veiy successful. Aboriginal peoples, disabled persons, members of visible minority groups, and women are still under-represented in the Public Service.
It is little wonder that morale is a serious problem in the Public Service sector. Employees must cope with the real possibility that their jobs may not exist tomorrow, and that, even if they hang on to their job, there is very little opportunity for advancement.
These concerns can and, indeed, must be addressed by the new Canadian Centre for Management Development. The centre will provide the ideal forum for fostering awareness and advocating change within the Public Service.
When serious issues such as employment equity and efficiency need to be addressed, there is no better place to start than at the top. Obviously, a management development centre will provide a forum in which values and priorities such as equity and excellence can be promoted.
When Max Yalden, the Chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, addressed the legislative committee studying this bill, he said, and I quote:
If the Canadian Centre for Management Development is to be effective in promoting excellence in the Public Service-human rights principles must be an integral part of a manager's approach to problem solving, not an add-on to be trotted out for inspection on appropriate occasions.
I could not agree more.
This centre must help put into action the values and priorities which the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act are built on, but which to date have failed to be put into practice.
There is another serious issue that the Centre for Management Development must address. In this time of fiscal restraint and increasing competition, the Public Service, like those in the private sector, must focus on maximum productivity and effective use of resources, both human and financial.
Government initiatives such as downsizing, combined with very real changes in the national and international arena, have resulted in a greater need than ever before for organizational and operational excellence within our Public Service.
Managers must address the serious dilemmas facing their employees. Better communication and understanding between all levels within the Public Service will enable the various departments to function more smoothly and, obviously, more effectively.
The days are long gone when this country could afford to waste human resources. Canada is well known for its natural resources, but let me suggest that it is our people which are the most valuable of all our assets.
Yet, lack of motivation and low morale can affect the efficiency and quality of work of those employed in the Public Service. The problems of restraint, and the bleak prospects for advancement could be steering good people away from the Public Service.
The Centre for Management Development is the place to start if we are going to address this very real and serious problem. The public policy demands of the future will require intelligent and creative solutions. It is up to us today to ensure that we have prepared our public service for the challenges ahead.
It is my hope that the problems currently facing the Public Service and the increasingly urgent need for efficient and productive management skills will be addressed by the creation of this Canadian Centre for Management Development.
I am certain we will all agree that Canada has an excellent Public Service, perhaps one of the finest in the world, made up of employees committed to maintaining a high level of competency and excellence in the service area. However, we cannot take our public servants for granted.
The steps we take today will determine the quality and nature of our Public Service of tomorrow. The establishment of the centre will ensure that Canada heads into the 21st century with a highly skilled and adaptable Public Service at the helm.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak on this bill, and once again I would like to thank my colleagues from Ottawa-Vanier and Ottawa West for helping to make this discussion a productive one.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
May 18, 1990

Before putting the question to the House I would like to make the following comment. There was a typographical error in the ruling I made earlier today on Bill C-54. The remarks made about Motion No. 4 should have been made in connection with Motion No. 2. Motion No. 2, if the House agrees, will be deemed to have been debated and negatived on division, and not Motion No. 4.
From the debate it was obvious that the hon. member for Ottawa West was addressing Motion No. 2 and not Motion No. 4. It was simply a typographical error. If the House agrees we will make the changes accordingly.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-34 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately
after line 5 at page 3 the following:
"(h) To foster, through its staffing, programs and research, access to its programs and through the composition of the Board, the achievement of equality in the federal workplace and in the management of the public service so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."
Motion negatived on division.


Robert René de Cotret: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
^ ^ ^
[Translation\

Hon. Gerry Weiner (for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill C-57, an Act to provide for the protection of integrated circuit topographies and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof,
Government Orders
as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak at third reading of Bill C-57.
As hon. members know, this bill gives a unique type of intellectual property protection for designers of microchip topographies. It is a reflection of the new and modern society that we live in where these microchips play an ever-increasing role in all the manufacturing equipment and tools that we use daily.
Madam Speaker, you will know that the bill was introduced on December 18, 1989. It was debated at second reading and referred to a legislative committee on March 9. The legislative committee was struck on March 14, witnesses were heard and the committee reported back to this House, with amendments, on April 11, 1990. Those amendments reflect the evidence that the committee heard, and the good work performed by the members of that committee.
There was broad public support from the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada, the Information Technology Association of Canada as well as the Canadian Bar Association. In this country, we have some 25 Canadian firms that design these types of microchips.
I would like to extend thanks on behalf of the committee to the officials; Mr. David Watters as Director General, Johanne Daniel, the Policy Analyst and Allan Troicuk, the Senior Legal Analyst. These officials were vital to us, because most of the members do not appreciate yet the significance of this new technology. Indeed, we hardly know the vocabulary. They were most helpful to us.
I would also like to extend thanks to the legislative chairman, the distinguished member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold, and members of the committee, such as the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester who

May 18, 1990
Government Orders
had some valuable input. He caused an analysis of the bill to be made.
In short, this is good public policy for the country for the future. Parliament has acted well in a matter of four or five months. I think it speaks well for the future and how this Parliament should act on bills that are good public policy.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that people in my municipality have done some research on how to pronounce the word "Gloucester"-I am not commenting on the way you said it, but it is often mispronounced, even by English-speaking people. It is not "Glou-ces-ter" nor "Glovester" but "Gloss-ter". We should perhaps practice with the words "Worcestershire Sauce". It would give us an idea of the right way to pronounce the English word "Gloucester" in both in English and French.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, I fully appreciate the hon. member's comment. I will indeed indulge in some practice, but then perhaps we might try to convince our English-speaking colleagues to find a new way of pronouncing "Saint-Hyacinthe". That is not an easy one either, I can assure you!


Eugène Bellemare: Your kindness is unsurpassed, Madam Speaker!

The Liberal party is pleased to support Bill C-57. The hon. member for Lethbridge made a wonderful presentation today and did an excellent job at the legislative committee level. I commend him. I found him to be very attentive and co-operative most of the time.
I have to admit that he is a good listener. Whether he reacts positively to everyone's request is another subject.

As far as integrated circuits go, for some time now we have been noticing that if we examine the innards of our refrigerators, our washing machines, our dishwashers, our cars and every electronic device we find, that they all have integrated circuits. We are now into the 90s and we are bound to see ever more industrial and electronic circuitry development. Most of these products come
from the United States. In Canada we have about 25 firms which specialize in this field. I believe that close to $1 billion is spent on such circuits. Canadian and foreign companies involved in the design and production of integrated circuits need some kind of protection. It would be a shame if our country failed to protect designers and inventors in these various fields.
This is such a new field of endeavour that it may have been neglected over the past five years. I was told that the government has spent at least that much time getting ready to introduce this legislation. Well, now we have it, and the Liberals agree that we need this kind of measure. I sat on the legislative committee and I am aware that it raises a few problems, in the sense that we need a statute which will command respect on the part of the Americans if only because they happen to be our major trade partners. I know that five or six years ago the United States did legislate to protect the designers and owners of integrated circuits.
We all know that Europe 92 will soon be reality and that Europeans are involved in integrated circuitry development. This is true as well of such Far East countries as Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. All nations should get together on some kind of international agreement. As I understand it, the legislative committee studied a proposition for an international agreement according to which, countries would respect each others legislation concerning integrated circuits. That is necessary. Unfortunately, there is a disagreement between the Americans and the proponents of an international legislation or agreement.
Our measure seems based on the American law. I can live with that since the Americans are our main trading partners. But, while listening to the speeches in legislative committee, I could not help but ask myself questions about the American law since we often confuse the American and Canadian ways of doing things because we watch so much American television.

This is not Canadian law. Many times Canadians watching TV take for granted that this is the way law in North America is established. We know well that our laws are different in Canada. Originally they came from Great Britain.
May 18, 1990



And we also have the Napoleonic Code.

There are laws that are pertinent to the country; they are federal laws. There are laws that are pertinent to the provinces, and each province has a set of laws. We see this in property legislation, for example. If you want to purchase some land or a house, the laws that are applicable are those of the provinces.
That interests me a great deal. I did appreciate the discussions and dialogue that we had. Five or six members from the integrated circuit community explained to us what a topography of a circuit was. They gave a very interesting explanation of integrated circuit topography. They drew a cross-section of a cityscape where you could see many buildings of different sizes and different heights. If you slice it in two, as a jolly giant would, you get an idea what it would look like from the other extremity, the viewpoint of a small bug. You could see what a chip looks like from a side view.
That was really interesting and we all learned a great deal. We even all learned to pronounce the words correctly. It was quite an enjoyable and educational activity.
As a former high school teacher and school administrator, and being on this legislative committee for the very first time as a new member of Parliament, I became more and more curious about science and technology. I asked that certain witnesses appear before us. I appreciated the committee accepting a witness from the National Research Council of Canada.
We did have a presentation from the in-house lawyer-scientist from the National Research Council. At the very least, he was most provocative. He certainly made the member for Lethbridge listen veiy attentively on quite a few occasions, as he did all of us.
He was obviously challenged because he was not flowing in the same vein as the government side. He did not have the chance to prepare at length. The NRC did not have a chance to verify thoroughly his presentation, so his presentation was really one of an in-house
Government Orders
lawyer-scientist house who made a personal presentation with the authority of the NRC authorities. However, they did not have time, or did not want to take the time, to verify his presentation.
I find it deplorable that the president of the NRC wrote a letter to the committee chairman stating that this gentleman was not representing the NRC's official position. He was a witness called by Parliament to give his impressions. He was not someone we picked off the street. He was someone accorded permission to come and speak to us.
On the final day of the hearings I presented a request to have another witness come in. I had my assistant call every faculty of law in Canada to find out who would be willing to give an opinion on this presentation by the person from the NRC. We found two such persons. One was David Vaver, Professor of Law from the most reputable institution, Osgoode Law School. This is his particular domain.
He wrote to me at great length. I did present the letter to the committee chairman and I gave copies to all the members of the committee. I was astounded that my request to hear this gentleman, who is a national expert in constitutional law and in this field that we are discussing today, was turned down.
This is no reflection on the member for Lethbridge who was present at all times and made terrific contributions. The staff from the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry made a beautiful presentation. They were very erudite and explained at length everything that they were doing. I commend them for their work. I commend them for their presentation. I commend them for the proposed law. However, I was dismayed that when I proposed that this final witness come in, all of a sudden a whole group of Conservative members came in and sat down, some of whom could not even pronounce half of the words in the text, and decided that no more witnesses would appear. I was quite displeased with this.
Therefore, knowing that I have all the time I need to make a response to the member for Lethbridge, I would like to have inserted in the record that there was a report presented to the legislative committee on this bill by Mr. Alan T. Blackwell, the intellectual property advisor of the National Research Council of Canada. He is both a lawyer and a scientist.

May 18, 1990
Government Orders
I would like to submit to the House the letter in response-and I believe it would be called an opinion- from Professor David Vaver of the University of York, Osgoode Hall Law School.
The ministry did deal with the opinion from Professor David Vaver and made a response that was sent through the mail to different members. Of course, in my mind, it was oriented to the government's view. My experience in municipal politics is that whenever you bring in experts, whether engineers or contractors, or experts in public accounts, accounting or law, if you bring in two of them to make a presentation, you will have contradicting views. If you bring in five of them, you could possibly have five contradicting views. The trick is to choose the one that is going to be closest to your philosophy or to the response you would like to hear.
Perhaps that is the reason why the courts are overly busy. That is perhaps the reason we see so many wealthy lawyers today and law firms with as many as 400 or 500 members. That is in Canada. I understand that in the United States there are firms with thousands of members.
I can well understand and I can appreciate the work of judges, especially since I spent the whole evening and all night, with just a couple of hours of sleep, comparing the text of the NRC lawyer with the text of the opinion of the professor from Osgoode Law School and the response from the Ministry of Justice to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I will attempt to give an of overview of what they said because I really think this should be on the books.
The creators should be protected. They need to be protected, and this party is going to support this law. These people are going to be protected for 10 years. Also, this law is going to be on the books for at least five years. At the end of five years the minister will be able to call for a review, which could take another year. That is six years. It could well be another 10 years before we see any revision of this law. I find that extremely unfortunate. I find it unfortunate that after dragging its feet for five years now, all of a sudden the government wants to pass this law within hours.
I am also aware that the American government has been supporting the Canadian creators, inventors and owners of these integrated circuits for six-month periods. It has been repeating that for two or three years. Our six-month period is coming up, possibly at the end of the year, and that could have been renewed again. So the urgency of it makes me wonder why we are so much in a hurry.
I would like to quote from the reports I have read and the material I have gathered together. I would like to quote Alan T. Blackwell, the gentleman from the NRC. He begins by raising a constitutional question. He says:
Bill C-57 attempts to deal partly with the problem of ownership in s.7, but it exceeds Parliament's constitutional power. s.7(l) says:
"A topography, whether registered or unregistered, is
transferable, either as to the whole interest therein or to any
undivided portion thereof."
The first problem is logical: s.7 says that the topography is transferable, but what is important is that certain rights concerning a topography be transferable. The topography is just a design, and is obviously transferable.
The second problem is conceptual: s.7 assumes the very doubtful underlying idea that some kind of ownership of the design exists in the first place. Saying something is transferable does not say what it is, and does not necessarily prove that it exists.
The third problem is constitutional: even if there is some kind of ownership of a design, it is probably not within the power of the federal government to legislate with respect to that ownership. The federal government cannot create common law, nor new species of property. The federal government does not have power over property and civil rights in the provinces. It has power in the area of patents and copyright, but that is because those areas are enumerated in s.91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Topographies are not part of the law of patents. They could be part of the law of copyright, but that is explicitly excluded by this Bill.
s.7 might be constitutionally acceptable if it said that the rights granted by the Act are transferable. That is different from saying that topographies, including unregistered ones, are transferable.
s.7 might also be constitutionally justified if the topographies affected were involved in interprovincial commerce. However, as written, s.7 would apply with equal force to commerce entirely within a province. It also applies to topographies not seeking the benefit of the Bill, and to topographies not in in any way involving the federal Crown. One could argue that in the normal course of events topographies move interprovincially, but basing legislation on such a shaky argument is unwise, especially when workable alternatives exist.
Professor Vaver from Osgoode Hall states:
May 18, 1990

Government Orders
Mr. Blackwell raises the fundamental question of Parliament's competence to enact Bill C-57. In his view, Bill C-57 cannot rest on Parliament's power over "patents of invention and discovery", and reliance on Parliament's power to regulate trade and commerce would be unduly constrictive.
He is referring there to pages 8 and 9 of Mr. Blackwell's brief. Professor Vaver goes on to state:
I agree with Mr. Blackwell that Parliament cannot say who owns the actual chip that includes a topography, any more than it can say that 1 don't own the book I buy from a bookstore. This is a question of provincial law. But, if Parliament can create a copyright in a topography, it can create in respect of topography rights that can exist with or without registration. It has done precisely that in the Copyright Act, including in 1988 for computer programs.
Although Mr. Blackwell draws some inapposite conclusions from cl. 33(1), I agree with him that the drafting of the subsection can be improved. I think the major difficulty stems from the fact that the definitions of "design" differ under the Copyright Act and under Bill C-57.
I do not like Mr. Blackwell's suggestion (Brief, p.9) to change clause 33(1) to read: "Copyright shall not subsist in any topography." That indeed would undermine the copyright foundation for Bill C-57! I prefer his wording at the bottom of the page, with the underlined addition:
"This Act does not apply to topographies capable of being registered under the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, and shall be deemed never to have applied to topographies that, had the Integrated Circuit Topography Act been in force when the topography was created, would have then been capable of being so registered."
This is a little wordy, I admit. It has the advantage of using language already in the Copyright Act (as Mr. Blackwell points out). Moreover, that language has already been definitively interpreted: Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Doral Boats Ltd. (1986) 9 C.I.P.R. 311 (Fed. C.A.), followed in Interlego A.G. v. Tyco Industries Inc. (1988)-My underlined addition resolves, as Mr. Blackwell's language does not, the status of pre-Bill C-57 topographies: they never gained protection under the Copyright Act.
Mr. Vaver continues:
Mr. Blackwell says a design is "nothing more than information" (Brief, p 3). This is strictly true. It flows from the definition of topography in cl. 2(1): "design, however expressed". This suggests that a design need not be expressed in some fixed form but can be conveyed orally, although I don't think the Bill would be interpreted to mean that "expressed" includes merely "expressed in the creator's mind". A court would probably interpret "however expressed" as meaning "however expressed in some material form". Perhaps the definition could be usefully amended by including these clarifying words.
Mr. Vaver's fourth point is:
Mr. Blackwell finds the issue of ownership of a topography confusing-So do I (although his reading is largely coloured by his, I believe wrong, views on the constitutional issue, which lead to his view that Bill C-57 does not create a "copyright" in topography but instead depends on the civil law relating to ownership of ideas). For example, rights are granted only in respect of a registered topography and yet the Bill grants "the creator" the right to register; but nowhere is the "creator" made the "owner" of the design. (Brief, p.7)
The important point is that whoever authors the design should be able to convey the right to register it, by assignment, licence or contract. This requires careful drafting because, under comparable provisions in the Industrial Design Act, only the author of a design or someone (such as an employer) for whom the author has made the design for good consideration can register an industrial design. A design right, or a right to register a design, cannot be assigned. Only the design, once registered, can be assigned or licensed: Melnor Mfg. Ltd. Limited v Lido Industrial Products Ltd. (1970)-This situation must be avoided in Bill C-57, and clarifying the concept of ownership will help.
My diagnosis of the problem and its solution, however, differs from Mr. Blackwell's. In my view, the difficulty arises because the Bill defines "creator" in a quite inapposite manner. It confuses the person who actually makes the design with the person who owns (or should own) it. The two concepts are fundamentally separate and it is their intermingling that is the source of the whole later confusion.
I notice that the drafters of the detailed comments to Bill C-57, "Summary and Highlights" dated February 8, 1990, seem to be similarly confused on p. 18 of that document when they claim to have borrowed "the legal fiction of deemed creatorship-from the Copyright Act". The Copyright Act has no such deemed fiction at all. By s. 14(1) of that Act, the "author" is the "first owner of copyright", and by s. 14(3), a person with whom an "author" is employed is "the first owner of the copyright". In all Canadian intellectual property legislation hitherto, a clear distinction is made between the individual who does the intellectual work and the person, which may be his/her corporate employer or (in the Industrial Design Act) a commissioning entity who owns the right in the copyright, patent or industrial design. The Patent Act does not deem the employer of an inventor itself to be an inventor; nor does the Industrial Design Act deem the employer of the designer to be an author.
I think the other intellectual property statutes manifest a correct policy on this point and that Bill C-57 does not. They give the "flesh-and-blood" maker of an intellectual product at least the psychological satisfaction of being recognized as an inventor or author. In this, they also accord with customaiy usage and social convention. Legal ownership in the patent, design, or copyright may be in the employer; but as for recognition as the intellectual maker, to mangle an old song, "they can't take that away from me". I think it is an abuse of language to say that, if the National Research Council contracts with someone to make a topography (as Mr. Blackwell envisages on pp. 1-2 of his brief)

May 18, 1990
Government Orders
the Council should be called the topography "creator", even though it just specified the end product in terms of result but left it to the contractor how to create that result.
The Copyright Act provides an appropriate model. The drafters of Bill C-57 claim to have, but have not, followed it. Had they followed the model, then:
-the author of a topography would be the person who created it;
-he or she would be the "creator" and first owner;
-if the author was employed or commissioned, the commissioner or employer would be first owner;
-the owner of the topography would be entitled to assign his, her or its rights in the design and a simple assignment could, by the Bill, be deemed to entitle the assignee to register the topography.
The difficulty Mr. Blackwell sees about the entitlement of a Canadian importer to register a newly created Korean topography- would then be cured by adding "or owner" to cl. 4(l)(c) after the opening words "the creator".
Something like the foregoing seems to be the U.S. model, and I cannot see why Canada would want to depart from it, in a way that is moreover contrary to Canada's own intellectual property traditions. Semiconductor companies may object to their not being called "creators", but I think that, in the context of intellectual property statutes, this is a usurpation of status. The onus should be on them to show why the fundamental basis of intellectual property law should be perverted in this way, and why the model provided by the U.S. - the "creator" of this sort of protection and the country whose nationals are likely to resort most to Bill C-57 -should not be followed here. I see no difficulty that would be caused in the application to register, and I note that the Registrar is not entitled to question the information contained in an application anyway. (Bill, cl. 18(2)).
I therefore agree with the spirit of Mr. Blackwell's proposals on pages 11-13 of his brief, but not with their wordings insofar as they merely change the concept of a "creator" into a "registered creator". This is replacing one confusion with a new one.
Obviously the topic is a difficult one, and the legal aspects or the legal approach is difficult at best. It is extremely difficult to go through papers worded in legalese and to sit as a lay judge and decide who is right, who is wrong, and what exactly legislators should be doing for the Canadian companies.

We must protect Canadians. And as I was saying earlier, we have provincial laws and Canadian laws. Should our Canadian law be a mirror of what others countries do? Perhaps, if that does not contravene our laws and if that does not disturb us in our interpretations.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the principle of this legislation. And today, with our vote, we will support the legislation as proposed. However, Madam Speaker, I wanted to insist on the rapidity with which the government seemed to push this legislation through the legislative committee without really listening to the Canadian experts on this matter.
I hope it is a good legislation. I hope that tomorrow, or five years down the road, we will not regret it. I hope that Canadian companies and creators, as well as owners of integrated circuits, will not have horror stories to tell and will not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in court to defend their position on the interpretation of this legislation.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on Bill C-57.
First, I would like to commend the committee for its work, as it was properly described by my friend from Carleton-Gloucester. It is difficult when we are challenging witnesses and trying to arrive at a perfect answer. It is not always easy but I think in this case Bill C-57 has come out of the committee with unanimous support. Protection is long overdue for Canadian manufacturers and Canadian technology and Bill C-57 endeavours to do that. Rather than prolong the passing of this bill with a lengthy debate I would terminate at this point by simply saying that the NDP unanimously supports this bill for passage at this time.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Debate? Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
May 18, 1990

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Government Orders
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the House is aware that there is no Private Members' Hour slated for today. It being 1.30 in the afternoon I think we might collectively call it three o'clock and members could get on with their weekend.


An hon. member:: It is three o'clock in Newfoundland.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it three o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock p.m. the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, next, at 11 a.m., according to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 22, 1990