1991-10-01

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to table two sets of petitions this morning.
The first petition is from residents from the Upsala area in northwestern Ontario who continue to object to the goods and services tax and call on the government to implement real tax fairness in this country.


Iain Francis Angus: The second petition, appropriately processed through the Clerk of Petitions, is signed by residents of Thunder Bay who are concerned about the fallout from events in what used to be the Soviet Union. Your petitioners call upon Parliament to ascertain the specific requirements for medical aid in Lithuania, allocate funds for the acquisition of required medical supplies, and expedite the shipment of these supplies to the Government of Lithuania.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present two petitions to the House. Both concern the government's back to work legislation. The petitions are signed by Canadians resident in the Northwest Territories, the Ottawa area, Moose Factory, Ontario, Baker Lake in the Northwest Territories and in Iqaluit.
These Canadians are appalled at the government's insensitivity to the needs of its public servants and they call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and to reaffirm our support as a Parliament for the collective bargaining process in Canada.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I too am honoured and privileged to stand in this House pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present to this House a petition certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. The constituents are from Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Burlington and Brantford. This is only one of many petitions that have come the government's way.
Your petitioners state that the Conservative government's high interest rate, high dollar policies and 33 new tax increases since September 1984 are the source of inflationary pressures. They go on to state many other examples and wrap up with a conclusion as follows: Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for Canadians workers.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I too stand pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present petitions in the House of Commons on behalf of people from Indian Head, Saskatchewan, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Quebec, St. Catharines, Deleage, Cap Rouge and many many towns and small villages in the province of Quebec.
These people are also very concerned about the number of taxes and the high interest rates that this government has imposed upon Canadians, taking away their purchasing power. They are concerned that this will only deepen the recession in this country. The petitioners are also very concerned about the wage limits that have been imposed upon public servants within Canada.
They call upon Parliament and pray that we will reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm our support for the free collective bargaining rights.

October 1, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to submit some petitions that were signed by residents from the province of Quebec. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and re-affirm support for free collective bargaining for Canadian workers.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the city of New Westminster, British Columbia.
These petitioners state that their post office in New Westminster on Columbia Street is a vital part of their community. They say that closing this post office and replacing it with a commercial service centre for services to businesses will only establish two classes of Canadians.
This arbitrary decision was made without any consultation with the residents in New Westminister who will be affected by this decision.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on Parliament to halt the plan to close the New Westminster post office and replace it with a commercial service centre.
The petition has been signed by hundreds of residents of the city of New Westminister.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the privilege of presenting petitions on behalf of people objecting to the fact that the government's high interest rate, high dollar policies and new taxes or tax increases-33 since September 1984-are the source of inflationary pressures and not wage demands by workers of Canada.
The petitioners are from Brampton, Ontario; Wood-bridge, Weston, Ontario; Etobicoke, Ontario; Toronto, Mississauga and Sydney Mines, Glace Bay and from Thompson, Winnipeg and numerous other smaller communities throughout Manitoba.
On the petitioners' behalf, I present this petition asking Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for Canadian workers.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present three petitions from Canadians in and around the metropolitan Toronto area.
These electors recite the decision of the government to impose wage controls on the federal civil service. There is significant damage perpetrated by the government's policy and the collective bargaining process for our Public Service.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for all Canadian workers.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to submit today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition which states that the Conservative government's high interest rate and high dollar policies and 33 new tax increases since September, 1984, are the source of inflationary pressures.
Of course, the petition says that wage control in the public sector has indeed a negative impact on all Canadian workers' wages, that no flexibility is possible when you restrict everybody's salaries without distinction, that the federal Conservative government is willing to deprive workers throughout Canada of their right to collective bargaining, to threaten them with lay-offs, especially because of contracting out, to interfere with the conciliation and arbitration process and to legislate employees back to work.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and to reaffirm its support for the free exercise by all Canadian workers of their right to collective bargaining.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order, and then we will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg-'Transcona.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Point of order Mr. Speaker. My question No. 17 on the Order Paper is still sitting there. It is dated May 13. That does not sound that old although I did ask for a 45 day reply. In fact it is the same question I put on on February 25 in the last session. It is still not answered. This is an outrageous delay.
I know why the government does not want to release the information. It will be humiliated and embarrassed by the result of the release. I submit that it is not proper for this government to sit twiddling its thumbs instead of providing answers to questions in this House which of course it is obliged to do. They are answerable to the people in this House. These questions are put by members of Parliament for good reason and we are entitled to replies.
I request Your Honour to impress upon the government the need for dealing with this in an expeditious way. My question is not the only one from May 13 but it dates from February 25 and this reply has been forthcoming for far too long.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I have two points of order, the first of which has to do with the fact that yesterday during Question Period a question was asked by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization.
I understand that this is the second time in recent weeks that a parliamentary secretary has asked a question.
I am sure you will know, Mr. Speaker, that the asking of questions by parliamentary secretaries is not established or accepted practice in the Canadian House of Commons. It may come to be at some point, but I am sure you are also aware that we are engaged in a process of reviewing the format and the nature of Question Period. A subcommittee of the Standing Committee on
Points of Order
House Management has been struck to do this and this work will be ongoing as part of the work of that committee and as part of the intention of the government to review the format and the nature of Question Period.
It seems to me that that work should not be preempted or anticipated or in any way affected by ad hoc changes to Question Period such as are constituted by this repetition of permitting a parliamentary secretary to ask a question in the House of Commons.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is an oversight, a second oversight. I hope that you will be able to tell us that this was so, that we will not have to worry about this again, and that the process of reviewing and reforming Question Period can carry on without the anxiety of thinking there is some kind of process happening extraneous to what the committee is doing.



SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker:: I want to respond immediately to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona. He raises a point and he is correct that twice within the last couple of weeks a parliamentary secretary has been recognized.
I want to say first of all to the hon. member and to the House that that was an inadvertence and an oversight on my part for which I apologize if it has caused any anxiety.
I want to make it very clear that the sixth edition of Beauchesne's, citation 413, deals with questions by parliamentary secretaries and I read the section:
Those such as Parliamentary Secretaries who are clothed with the
responsibility of answering for the Government ought not to use the
time of the Question Period for the privilege of asking questions of
the Government.
It cites Debates, November 5, 1974, pages 1059-64.
That practice has been adhered to and there may have been a slippage out of inadvertence, but that practice has been adhered to and I want to assure the House that I am not unilaterally changing the practice.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona on another point.



SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your response to my first point of order.

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
My next point of order has to do with the language being employed by Journals in the title of notices going out with respect to the special joint committee which is considering the government's constitutional proposals.
In the order setting up the committee, it is referred to as the special joint committee and then there is a rather lengthy description of what the committee will be considering. But in the Journals titling of the notices, we find this special joint committee referred to as the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada.
There has been no decision taken or no process followed by which to arrive at a description of this committee as the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada. The purpose of the committee is to consider whether or not these proposals will in fact lead to a renewed Canada and whether the judgment of Canadians will be similar to that of the government, that these proposals will lead to a renewed Canada. It may be unintentional, I am sure it is, but there is an element of presumption, almost of propaganda to put it pejoratively-but I don't mean it quite that way-in the title of the committee. I think this kind of liberty should not be taken by whoever has taken this liberty of describing the committee in this way, and I would hope that more technical and objective and non-loaded ways of titling committees could be formed. Again, this is a new practice, in my experience, that this way of describing committees might be employed.
I would ask you to look into it and perhaps to report back to the House as to what could be done to prevent this sort of thing in the future and to do something about the naming of this specific committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that I will look at the matter immediately. If it is appropriate to stay with the more technical name, that will be done; in the meantime, I will consider the situation. I think it should also be clear, of course, that the committee could, if it wished I suppose, and if that was done in the appropriate way within the committee, come up with a name which met the approval of the committee.
However, I accept what the hon. member has said, that that has not yet been done and I will look into it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: moved that Bill C-29, an Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
-He said: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of third reading of Bill C-29, an Act respecting compensation in the public sector, I would ask all members of the House to debate this bill as quickly as possible, so that it can be considered and passed by the Senate. Thus Canadians will again be able to receive essential services and everything will go back to normal.

Picketing by the Public Service Alliance has become more violent and aggressive each day. Services to Canadians are being increasingly disrupted and Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier of grain to the rest of the world is again being threatened. But Public Service Alliance picket captains and some members continue to disregard a ruling made on September 23 by the Public Service Staff Relations Board to, and I quote:
-stop from interfering with, impeding or preventing designated employees from reporting to work.
It appears that alliance leaders have very little respect or regard for the law. Having been told to stop illegal strike activity by this agent of Parliament, the alliance has chosen to ignore the ruling and to embark on still more illegal activities.
I wonder if alliance members are really proud that they have been able to shut down of the port of Vancouver. I wonder how many alliance members are proud that the union has been able to prevent nurses from entering the veterans' hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue to care for their patients, many of whom are seniors.
The union leadership does not seem to mind that the livelihood of many of our farm producers is being threatened by their strike activities. I would like to remind hon. members that the plight of these same farmers was described in desperate terms by opposition
October 1, 1991

members during Question Period in this very Chamber only yesterday.
If the welfare of Canadians and the faith of the economic recovery do not concern the PSAC leadership, they concern me greatly. Commuters and ordinary Canadians living in the national capital region had this brought home to them this morning.
PSAC picketing has become disruptive without regard to the law or the rights and livelihood of members of the public to get to and from work on public transit.

The union has increasingly resorted to insults and intimidation, even going so far as to call some of its own members good for nothing. Yesterday, Alliance strikers threw eggs and tomatoes at nursing staff of the Ste. Anne-de-Bellevue hospital, although, Mr. Speaker, these designated employees had to report to work because public safety requires it. They are not even in the same union.
Mr. Speaker, it is most regrettable that many Alliance members who have chosen to continue to work, as is their right, have been harassed and threatened by their own union which, lacking logical means of persuasion, has tried desperately in this way to rally their support for a futile strike.
Many employees, Mr. Speaker, understand the justification of the government's salary policy because they see it in the broader economic context and realize that it is useless to lose several weeks of pay. I am convinced that most Alliance members, who are law-abiding citizens, will want to put these points of view across to their union leaders.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is in the interest of all public servants, including members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, for members of all parties to recognize that this important bill must be passed as soon as possible, if we want to end the strike once and for all.

I would now like to summarize some of the principal elements of this bill and to briefly go over the rationale
Government Orders
as to why this government feels the wage restraint must play its part in securing and enduring economic recovery.
Anyone who has followed this issue over the last several weeks will attest that the government has taken the more difficult path to achieve wage restraint. Expediency has not driven this government. Why is that?
It is because, despite the commentary of some opposition members to the contrary, this government respects the collective bargaining process and respects as well the rights and views of union members.
It would have been so easy to have chosen the simple way and legislated the wage restraint program immediately after it was announced as previous federal and some provincial governments have done.
Needless to say, the government's legal advisers examined jurisprudence in this respect to determine whether the legislative method of securing wage restraint was a viable course to take and could be justified and defended as an approach given.
I am assured that it is and that it can be given the economic conditions that have given rise to the decision.
Before resorting to legislation, I was determined to appeal to the unions to think through and come to understand the government's reasoning in limiting wage increases. I wanted to communicate to them how wage restraint can eliminate the principal fuel of inflation and reduce the incentive for price increases. I wanted an opportunity to demonstrate to union leadership that they and their members were not being singled out for harsh treatment by the government. I told them, I know, that zero and 3 per cent would be hard to accept and was not a true reflection of what their members' contribution to Canada was worth.
Nevertheless, I wanted them to understand that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have paid a far higher price during the recent recession. They had lost their jobs or they had taken big pay cuts and given back benefits in an effort to keep their employer afloat and maintain jobs.
I wanted to persuade union leaders that every sector, every Canadian had a part to play in the economic recovery and every Canadian would benefit because of it.

October 1, 1991
Government Orders

Mr. Speaker, since it took power in September 1984, inheriting an enormous debt, the government has adopted more of a private-sector management style. Nevertheless, we note that although the government has greatly improved its efficiency, it is still running a deficit.
Had we granted a pay increase to our employees this year, we would have faced the following choice: either we would have had to eliminate jobs to pay for this increase, which would have reduced services to the public; or we would have had to borrow more, which would have added to the deficit.

This government chose the best interests of Canada over the immediate financial interests of its employees, but not without giving it a great deal of consideration. If this had been almost any other employer, you can bet that many employees now facing zero and three would have suffered the same fate as their counterparts in industry.
I must remind hon. members that over the entire course of the recent five-year downsizing program, our employees enjoyed a 99.5 per cent rate of job security within the Public Service. Public Service employees enjoy an invaluable job protection package and their total benefits package is comparable to that of good employers in the private sectors
While zero per cent this year and a 3 per cent raise next year may sound harsh to those who now have a job, our employees should remind themselves that there are approximately 40,000 candidates prequalified and interested in being hired for jobs in the federal Public Service. There were 236,000 applications for Pubic Service jobs last year alone, a number equal to the size of the entire Public Service itself.
Clearly, there are a great number of Canadians who would like to have a chance to have a Public Service job, even with no wage increase this year.
They should remind themselves, as well, that Pubic Service managers by losing their performance pay this year, will suffer an actual pay cut rather than just a freeze. This comes at a time when their ranks are already undergoing a 10 per cent cut over two years, proportionately a far more severe downsizing than employees in general went through over the past several years.

I must admit that many of our employees, in particular those who have the legal right to strike, do not earn big salaries. Many of them have significant family responsibilities and have already been sorely tested. Unfortunately, the strike will only cost them more, but I think that the time for reconciliation has come.
I therefore ordered my officials at the bargaining table to make every possible effort to reach a negotiated settlement with the Alliance, one that would strengthen or improve existing benefits while respecting the overall program of salary restrictions.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what we agreed on was in keeping with our ability to pay. Furthermore, we did all we could to follow up their other concerns: pay equity and issues related to job security. We offered a lumpsum payment to employees whose income was less than the average salary in Canada. We increased the number of day care centres in the work place by 50 per cent. We also improved other benefits.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, four other unions have already reached agreements with our negotiators and these agreements comply with the salary policy of 0 and 3 per cent, which clearly shows that a settlement was possible.
Mr. Speaker, in the end, we were unable to reach a negotiated settlement with the leaders of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They left the bargaining table and broke an agreement I had made with the President of the Alliance whereby members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada would remain at work while negotiations continued. The Alliance leaders rejected the improvements contained in the offer I just described and did not submit it to their members. Instead, they chose to send their members back out on the picket lines, which in many regions has disrupted the access to work of must public servants.
The disruptions caused by the picketing are again threatening the safety of all Canadians. The Alliance's activities are endangering the safety of our own employees on the picket lines-not only Alliance members but also members of other unions, managers, customers

and ordinary citizens who are trying to go to work or use government services to which they are entitled.

It is time these picket lines, disruptive and dangerous as they have become, were ended and our employees came back to work. It is time that Bill C-29 was passed so that the zero and three wage policy can be extended to all of the other groups that it encompasses: to the Prime Minister, the federal cabinet, and all members of this House, to the Senate and the employees of Parliament, to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, and to heads and employees of other government bodies that are non-commercial and not normally selffinancing.
Bill C-29 would extend 0 and 3 to a total of 378,000 federal public sector employees and officials and not only to the 156,000 PSAC members.
It is time that the benefits of Bill C-29 were brought home to all taxpayers and that any uncertainty be put to rest that the government might waiver from the economic recovery plan announced in the budget. That recovery plan is working. Make no mistake about it. That is why I commend this bill to all hon. members for passage.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the bill one last time and to highlight the fact that this bill does something very serious, not only for the specific employees that it affects but for all Canadians.
It removes a fundamental democratic right to collective bargaining. This is a right that Canada has accepted in international conventions that it has signed. It was implemented for workers across Canada in legislation. It was implemented under the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson for employees of the Public Service in 1967 and that has never been abrogated as it is being abrogated today.
It is not coincidental that objections to this bill have come from unions in other public sectors such as provincial and municipal, from the Federation of Teachers and numerous unions that represent teachers and from private sector unions.
People who have any knowledge about the history of labour relations know it is only the actions of workers that stopped 10-year old children from being sent down to the mines, that allowed people to work a reasonable number of hours a day and still have some time for a personal life and for family, that allowed workers to
Government Orders
attain decent, safe, healthy working conditions instead of being required to put their lives at risk just to have a job, and that allowed workers to use their labour in exchange for a decent living which at least allowed them to survive on the money they were earning with their labour.
Collective bargaining rights allow an ordinary worker, who is dependent on somebody else for the very food with which they feed their families and for the money to pay for shelter and buy clothes, some small measure of power to balance off the tremendous economic power that an employer has over the life of that worker and the lives of his or her family.
All Canadians need to be concerned when the government can cavalierly cancel any basic democratic right as it is doing with this bill for a period of two years.
The government did that the night it announced its budget on February 26. It said there will be no collective bargaining. It said this government was not interested even in bringing in a third party mediator, arbitrator or conciliator who might possibly bring some objective evaluation to whether the government is acting responsibly and fairly.
The government rejected, as of February 26, all possibility of a peaceful, reasonable settlement between it and its employees. I want to make clear that the employees have never said they were not willing to live with the economic policies of the government. They have just said that there are other things to be negotiated and they want to be able to sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate those other things.
The minister referred to a number of the effects of the strike. What the minister refuses to do is to take responsibility for that strike. There is not a Canadian who does not understand that this government is lower in the polls than any other government in the history of Canada has ever been. It is desperate to hang on to the shreds of popularity that remain to it and to do whatever it can to build those up. It really does not care who it hurts in the process.
Who it has hurt in the process is not only its own employees but small businesses that are dependent on the delivery of goods and services and people who travel whether on business or to visit family. It has hurt people, as the minister said, our veterans in hospital. It is jeopardizing a large portion of our grain harvest. It is jeopardizing our international trade. It is jeopardizing our reputation as a nation that works co-operatively among the different sectors in society and can be relied

Government Orders
on in international markets to deliver what it says it is going to deliver.
This has been the pattern of the government. It has very carefully selected vulnerable targets. It has used the elderly. It has used the unemployed. It has used seniors. It has used aboriginal Canadians. It has selected those people in society who have the least power to defend themselves and has systematically sought to turn the anger of the Canadian public away from the government, against its own fellow citizens.
A government that should be building a nation, that should be solving problems instead of creating them, that should be building co-operation and collaboration for the many challenges we face for the future instead has chosen to pit one Canadian against the other, to persuade Canadians that their prosperity depends on somebody else suffering. That is a cruel, destructive, vicious approach to trying to protect its own political popularity, and fortunately the polls are saying to everybody that it is not working.
I want to address some specific points the minister made. The minister talked about nurses being prevented from entering hospitals. I want to remind the minister of approximately a year and a half ago when again this government forced the lowest paid of its workers on to strike, the hospital services workers who serve those same veterans, who serve aboriginal communities and deliver health prevention programs. Those very same strikers, at their own expense, continued to provide essential services in those hospitals.
This gallery was full during that strike. While this government was forcing those people back to work because it had refused to negotiate a settlement with them, this gallery was full of nurses and dietitians from Ste. Anne de Bellevue, the same hospital the minister just mentioned. The nurses, the dietitians and the doctors who were filling these galleries in support of those workers know that without those people who are earning a miserly $17,000 a year, they cannot do their professional jobs of looking after the sick, the elderly, and those who have suffered and are disabled because they have fought for this country. Those same workers who earn only $17,000 a year, were never treated fairly by this government, but provided those services even while they were legally out on strike.
The government did exactly the same thing to the ships' crew workers. It failed to designate people who go out to sea at risk to their own lives to save others as essential workers, so we had a strike of the ships' crew workers in December 1989. Again the government did not heed the calls from this side of the House for four months to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a settlement, and the strike happened. It disrupted transportation in the Great Lakes-seaway system at a cost of a million dollars a day. This government ignored every warning that that was exactly what would happen in December if it did not reach a solution before then.
What did the ships' crews workers do? Did they do what the government had planned for them to do: withdraw essential services? No, they did not. At their own cost of half a million dollars and at inconvenience they left their own families. They stayed in hotels to be available should any emergency arise and were able on a couple of occasions during that strike to put out to sea to save lives. In a crisis which this government had created they set aside their own right to be on strike and at their own expense made sure they kept doing their jobs. This government should do the same.
The minister has referred to the disruption in the grain trade right now. This is a very serious situation, and we are well aware of this serious situation. Back in February when the government decided not to negotiate with its employees, one thing it knew with absolute surety was that the grain elevators would be full of wheat in September. Did this government designate those grain workers as essential when it had the opportunity to do so? No, it did not. Did this government deliberately want to create a crisis in the transport of grain in this country and our shipments to the Soviet Union, and create a crisis in the destruction of a crop for our western farmers? That is the only explanation I can think of as to why it did not designate grain workers as essential workers.
This government thrives on creating crises. It has created a crisis in our economy. We are seeing jobs leaving the most prosperous parts of our country. They are jobs that are going and not coming back. It is creating a crisis in employment. One and a half million people, on this very day, are unemployed in this country. The total throughout this year of how many people have been unemployed is going to be many, many million. How
October 1, 1991

many families does that touch, across the country, during the year with crisis?
It has created a crisis in the very continuance of this country. I almost hate to talk about it at this point because it is so fragile. A government that only knows how to create crises is not a government that can build a strong nation ready for the next century.
Because it has created this economic turmoil, it is trying to persuade people that they are lucky to have any job at any salary. That is back to the old days of the robber barons, when if you owned a business, and if you were bigger than the little business beside you, you just put them out of business. You put their employees out of work and you did not care about that.
That is the kind of country this government would like us to go back to where only those who are rich and powerful can hope for a decent life in this country. That is not the Canadian dream. That is not the country that the people who have sat in these seats for generations before us planned for our children and our grandchildren.
The government has created economic turmoil since co-operative relationships between business and labour, management and labour, at all levels are absolutely essential to progress and prosperity for any nation.
The minister has talked about violence. The minister has said: "We are not to blame. It is those poor people out there on the picket lines who earn $20,000 a year. They're to blame." We had the minister again yesterday in the House saying: "We are not guilty of bad faith bargaining," and trying to mislead Canadians about what the Public Service Staff Relations Board actually ruled.
I want to read this because honesty has become a real issue in this whole debate. I want to read what the Public Service Staff Relations Board said, having heard from government lawyers, having heard from union lawyers, having heard all the evidence. We will know who is responsible for what is going on right now. "This board, in general, shares the views expressed in the cases cited above: The obligation provided under the Public Service Staff Relations Act to bargain in good faith, and make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agree-
Govemment Orders
ment, is not substantially different for this employer than it is for any other employer in any jurisdiction in Canada. The insistence on conditions precedent to negotiating terms and conditions of employment at the bargaining table is incompatible with the requirement to make every reasonable effort to negotiate a collective agreement. Accordingly, the board finds that the employer has acted contrary to section 51 of the act and orders the employer to comply with section 51 of the act."
The minister tried to pretend in this House yesterday that being in violation of section 51 was not a condemnation of bad faith bargaining. Let me read into the record, and let me read for Canadians who would like to know whether they can ever believe the government, what section 51 states: "Where notice to bargain collectively has been given the bargaining agent and the officers designated to represent the employer shall, without delay, but in any case within 20 days after the notice is given, or within such further times as the parties may agree, meet and commence to bargain collectively in good faith and make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement." Section 51 is the section of which this government is in violation and has been in violation since last spring. That is the section that imposes a duty on both parties to bargain collectively in good faith. This government has violated that section no matter what the minister stands up and says in this House to try and pretend it has not.
The issue is not who has started the fight. I think the evidence is pretty clear that this government, since February 26, had no intention of reaching a conclusion or settlement with its employees. It was obviously prepared to jeopardize the economy of this country, the transportation system, services to Canadians, anything that Canadians are paying for, to impose its own particular agenda and to find whatever victim, whatever scapegoat, it could find to deflect attention from its many failings.
The issue now is how it can be solved. How can we return services to Canadians, how we can return the employees, who want to be back at work, to their jobs? We should not do it with this legislation. If we send people back to work under this legislation, we send people back in an atmosphere of bitterness and total loss of self respect. We send them back with even more worries about how they are going to pay the rent and how they are going to feed their children because this bill represents a loss of income to people, a serious loss of

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
income. People who are worried, people who lack self respect, people who lack confidence in their employer, people who feel bitterness toward their employer are not productive and efficient workers, no matter how hard they try.
This government has stored up problems for the Public Service of Canada for a long time to come. It is a terrible thing to do to Canadians who pay for services through their taxes and to people who, for a long time, have been proud of serving the people of Canada. These people are defending rights that are important, not only to them, but to all Canadians. A government that can remove rights from one group of Canadians can remove rights from many groups of Canadians.
We have seen it do that already with old age security. People who have saved and worked all their lives are now being told that what they saved and worked for, in true conservative principle, is going to be taken away from them.
The government has done it to the unemployed. There is an unemployment insurance scheme, but the government is going to make sure that a lot of people who most need it, in the areas that most need it, and I think particularly of Atlantic Canada, are not going to be able to qualify for unemployment insurance. They are going to have to pay into it, but they are never going to be able to benefit from it.
This issue has become an issue of honesty. We have seen how the minister, on the floor of this House, denied that the government was guilty of bad faith bargaining, despite a ruling by the Public Service Staff Relations Board whose purpose is to ensure that collective bargaining operates fairly for both sides. We have seen ads placed by this government saying that its budgetary guidelines apply to the Armed Forces and the RCMP. That is simply not true.
The budget of this government did not apply wage restraint to the Armed Forces, did not apply wage restraint to the RCMP. As of the date of publication of that ad, that was an untrue statement. That is an untrue statement today, that will be an untrue statement tomorrow, and it will be an untrue statement until this
Parliament passes this savage piece of legislation that the government has put before us.
It has become a question of honesty. Again, the government said that this applies to all members of Parliament. Well, it is really easy this year. When inflation is 6 per cent, we are going to get our nice healthy 3 per cent raise. Next year, when we go into a year where we are going to a get zero increase, we will still have that nice, healthy nearly 4 per cent raise that we got this year.
That is not fair. That is just not fair, and it is not honest to tell Canadians that we are taking the same punishment everybody else is.
That is nonsense. It has become a question of honesty. The ad placed by the government said that other agreements and other unions have accepted 0, 3. What the government forgot to say was that, for much better paid groups of employees, it has reached settlements that are very generous in fact.
It has done them in other ways other than by increasing wage rates. It has improved classifications. It has given people bonuses. It has given them extra premiums for various kinds of things, but it has meant that employees earning say $50,000, $70,000, such as engineers, translators, air traffic controllers, have got in fact substantial increases in income this year.
For this government to pretend that those people are getting nothing, and therefore the lowest paid should be getting nothing, is absolutely incredible.
It will not tell Canadians the truth. It will not even tell this House the truth about those other agreements, and about how much extra income those other people are earning because of special deals made by this government. To not even tell the truth about that at this point in time, when all we are doing is looking for a solution to it, is unconscionable.
It has also become a question of fairness. One message that has got through to the public is that we have a lot of people working for the Public Service who are not earning very much money.
What has also got through to the public is that, disproportionately, a lot of those people are women. Mr. Capello said that 35,000 people would be getting this bonus because they earn under $27,000, and that 25,000
October 1, 1991

of them are women. That is a record that this government should be ashamed of, the fact that the vast majority of its lowest paid employees are women.
We moved an amendment yesterday to ask the government to make sure that it implemented pay equity rather than treating it as something to be negotiated at the bargaining table. It is the law of Canada, after all and any other employer would have to live with it.
This government refused to consider that amendment. We did not say: "Add more money to employment equity." We just said: "Stop paying these phoney token payments to people, as if they do not deserve them as part of their salary, but make these payments part of the salary so that they fully qualify for other benefits such as pensions".
No wonder most of the elderly poor in this country are women, when they cannot even earn wages that reflect the value of the work they do. This government refuses to implement pay equity.
The Human Rights Commissioner has slammed this government for its refusal to implement pay equity. The minister can stand up all he wants, such as yesterday, and talk about how much money the government is putting into pay equity. He knows that that is one-third of what is needed to give groups of employees in the government, who are primarily women, equal pay for similar work being performed by groups, who are primarily men, and who are much higher paid.
He knows that that should be incorporated into salaries. That is the only thing that is true pay equity, and he has consistently refused to it. He has consistently insisted on fighting the Human Rights Commission when it tries to make a decision that will introduce pay equity into the Public Service.
I challenge the minister to explain why this government wants to talk about pay equity but not implement it.
Bonuses is another issue of fairness. The minister has been waffling all over the place on that in the last week. I want to point out to Canadians that whatever the minister has said in the media, whatever the minister has said in the House, again we have to look at the facts. The facts are that in the legislation before the House today,
Government Orders
this government intends to implement bonuses which are specifically exempted from any controls.
An amendment was introduced in the House yesterday to take out that exemption so that bonuses would be included in the freeze on increases. The government did not accept that amendment. This government, despite the minister saying in the House and in the media that there would be no bonuses, has insisted on bringing forward a law that exempts bonuses from any limits.
This government has brought forward a bill that allows it to exempt any employee or any group of employees from any of the provisions of this act, giving it full freedom to play favouritism as it has done up until now, with contracts to those who are doing well already and to bring down the hammer on those who are not.
The government published an ad that said it has offered pay equity. It has offered to incorporate pay equity into salaries. The government is very clever about not telling the truth. What it did not tell people is that it is only a small portion of what those groups of employees are due, and that it does not intend to do it tomorrow, but to do it some time in the future.
If the government is going to be spending my money and the money of the taxpayers of Canada to put out advertisements, those advertisements had better tell the truth, and this one did not.
I challenge the minister or one of the speakers from the government side to say how this government is going to implement, in legislation, the promises the minister has made in the media, that there will be no bonuses. Not that I agree with that. Not that I think it is fair. I do not think this whole piece of legislation is fair. I think everybody should be treated the same. I think that what applies to one should apply to all. The minister cannot simply stand up in this House and say he is going to do something and then go to the media and say he is going to do something and then refuse to put it in this piece of legislation before us.
The minister has talked about economic recovery. This kind of turmoil does more damage to economic recovery than any amount of fair negotiation might do. I want to touch on one more point.
In the last few years the government has insisted on firing people and contracting out a lot of work. The minister said that not many people have been touched by the downsizing lay-off program. He is wrong. He is totally ignoring the tens of thousands of people who have

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
been forced to take early retirement, forced to take reduced pensions because this government wanted to get rid of their jobs and give them to somebody else who could be brought in on a contract at a much higher price to reward friends.
The whole compensation package of the Public Service Alliance of Canada is less than the cost of contracting out by this government-$5 billion minimum in contracting out and that does not count all the little bits and pieces here and there throughout the departments. That is only the tip of the iceberg of contracting.
This government brings in somebody to work beside a government employee, but one is on a contract and one works for the government. Is the one on contract subject to this limit on compensation? No. If you are a friend of the government and you have a nice contract, you can get an increase and there is no limit on it. It is just the whim of how well they want to reward this person.
This government has tried to say it is being fair and that this applies to everybody. That is nonsense. This government specifically rejected an amendment last night that would have included independent contractors in the same compensation package that is being applied to all government employees.
When the price of contractors is $5 billion and the price of the whole Public Service Alliance is $4.7 billion, how can the government pretend its agenda is really fiscal restraint when it is refusing to apply the same limits to its independent contractors that it does to its own employees?
I think Canadians have learned in the last few weeks that the mistrust they have for this government has been demonstrated again in its dealings with this strike. The Public Service is not a group of lazy, over-paid people that the government has every right to want to be rid of and to punish. Public Service workers are just like the factory workers in Ontario who are losing their jobs, just like the farmers who are losing their farms, just like the small businesses that are suffering because of the policies of this government, just like the middle income families who are paying more than their fair share of taxes while those in the upper income brackets are paying less, just like the poor who are being told that the Government of Canada is no longer interested in paying
its share of the social safety net in this country, and just like every other segment of society, except the rich and powerful, who have somehow become victims of this government.
People have come to see over the past couple of weeks that this is just one more target for a government that cannot manage and cannot run the economy and we are all suffering from it.
This has been a difficult issue. It is one we should never have had to face and it is one from which we will be feeling the repercussions for many months and perhaps for years to come. You cannot run a country without a good Public Service. This government has systematically undermined the Public Service and made it more difficult for Canadians to get value for the money they pay in taxes. It is an approach that is not helping reduce the debt and the deficit, they keep going up, but it is hurting services to Canadians. Canadians are tired of paying more and getting less. They have been doing it for too long. They do not mind if it is going to solve problems, but it is not.
This bill should never have come before this House. It was unnecessary. The turmoil in the country for the last few weeks has been unnecessary, but it is the kind of thing that this government likes to do. It gets some kind of perverse pleasure out of pitting Canadians against Canadians and causing disruption to their basic services.
Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this bill, of course, later today. We urge the government to take one last chance to avoid this kind of divisiveness and reach a solution with its employees. That is still possible. It owes that to Canadians.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I want to start today by quoting some words that were written seven years ago: "Economic equality is the vehicle through which women will come to full partnership and participation with men in our society. Parliament has committed the federal jurisdiction to equal pay for work of equal value. My government agrees that this concept is one of the keys to the achievement of economic equality for women."
Mr. Speaker, those words were written in the Conservative government's throne speech, its promise to Canadians in 1984. It is 1991 and we see a government that is

legislating people back to work instead of negotiating pay equity.
Lower wages for women developed a long, long time ago. It is based on assumptions, assumptions that women have no dependents, are supported by someone else and are inferior to men.
We know this was never really the reality, let alone today. Yet these are the assumptions that this government is entrenching when it insists on paying women less for work that is just as skilled, for working conditions that are just as hard or just as difficult, for work that requires the same amount of responsibility as that work that is traditionally performed by men.
A study that rated thousands of Public Service jobs found that community health nurses, mostly women, were making far less than pesticide officers, mostly men. They found that chiefs of library services, mostly women, were making $6,000 less than other government managers. It found that processing clerks, again mostly women, were making thousands of dollars less than labourers.
Since 1978, it has been illegal in this country to pay unequal wages for work of equal value. There have been pay equity complaints filed against the federal government with the Canadian Human Rights Commission over the past 10 years. They began under the Liberal administration and they have continued under this Tory administration. It can take years before a complaint is heard.
The Human Rights Commission is not equipped to solve and enforce the vast number of pay equity complaints it receives. It now has some 68,000 pay equity complaints that have been lodged against this federal government, 68,000 to examine.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada is a union which represents many low-wage women, clerks, secretaries, in the Public Service.
In 1985, all 13 Public Service unions agreed to work with management to achieve pay equity. Some 4,300 employees filled out lengthy and detailed questionnaires, but in 1990 the alliance pulled out of the five-year joint union/management study of pay equity because the government refused to budge.
Government Orders
Federal clerks earn between $16,500 a year and $40,000 a year. The majority of them earn between $19,000 and $26,000 a year. These are the people we are talking about. The President of the Treasury Board has said that Public Service employees have to accept no wage increase, even after years of increases that have been lower than other workers in Canada and, in fact, lower than the rates of inflation in the country. He keeps saying we are living beyond our means. I wonder what means he is talking about. Clerks, who are also mostly women, earn $19,000 to $26,000 a year. A federal hospital worker, again a female dominated job ghetto, earns about $18,000 a year.
I wonder if the minister has ever tried to raise a family alone on a gross wage of $18,000 a year. The minister's salaries and benefits have gone up by $15,000 a year since last year. The money he is receiving has increased by almost the entire amount of the salary of some of these female employees whom he says will get no raise at all.
Is that fair? Is that just? Senior public servants, those making $80,000 or $100,000 or $120,000 a year got a 4.2 per cent increase. But a single parent earning $19,000 a year is to get zero per cent. When you factor in inflation, this person is earning less and less and less every year.
I read a media report recently about a Public Service clerk, a single parent, who has to go to the food bank by the end of each month to feed her family.
It seems to be the government and its friends who are living beyond our means, certainly not low wage Public Service sector employees.
Low wage Public Service employees do not have the means with which to live beyond their means, in fact. So why is the government not cutting the salaries of the people at the top, the fat cats, instead of eroding those of low and middle-income workers and their families.
This government's idea of pay equity is very bizarre. Women are being given one-quarter of what they are owed for work they have already performed and were underpaid for in relation to men. Now these women must pay higher taxes on this income than their male counterparts paid years previously. The annual salary equalization adjustments represent only one-third of what these women should receive.

Government Orders
The Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, the chief of equal pay, confirmed that this government's idea of pay equity contributions are half the rate that other major public employers in Canadian and American jurisdictions are granting.
Since 1990 this government has twice attempted to block in the federal courts the Canadian Human Rights Commission from investigating the pay equity situation. Twice it has tried to block it.
Commissioner Max Yalden said last month that the federal government is not playing fair with striking Public Service employees. He found it, and I quote, "very strange that the government is still trying to kill a human rights tribunal set up to resolve the pay equity issue", while at the same time he is telling striking employees that this issue should be dealt with by the tribunal and not at the bargaining table.
Just what is the government playing at and why is it playing with the lives, the health and the incomes of low wage earners and their families?
In early 1990 the Thsk Force on Barriers to Women in the Public Service, which was chaired by Senator Pat Carney, released a report. Among the documentation that it presented, it showed that 75 per cent of all women in the Public Service are concentrated in four fairly low paying job groups: secretarial, clerical, administrative and program management. It also found that women tend to be compressed at the lower echelon of even these classifications. In other words, they are not even the heads of their own job ghettos.
Job security is a big issue for women in the Public Service. Twenty per cent of all women Public Service employees are in term positions, 60 per cent of all the term positions are held by women. This makes them more vulnerable to lay-offs and less likely to receive benefits.
The data show that the federal government is an extremely poor employer of women. It has taken advantage of women employees over years and years and done very little to advance equality of any kind.
We have seen this government pull stunts like this before. It imposed back to work legislation on female
federal hospital workers in 1989 instead of negotiating pay equity with them. This was in spite of a 1987 Canadian Human Rights decision in favour of the female dominated hospital service workers.
I want to return to some other lovely words that were said by the Prime Minister during the 1988 election campaign, during the leaders' debate that was televised across the country and I quote: "We are agreeing on a policy of pay equity for women. We are budgeting for the funds required on an ongoing basis to make sure that they are available so that this money will be given to those women who have been deprived of the degree of equality that we seek. The money is being budgeted so that when the agreement is reached it will be there to close the gap. The commitment is there and the money is there. We are beginning at home. We are getting our own shop in order", he said, "I think that this would be, once it is done, an excellent model for the public sector. I think we have to do it properly ourselves and then see if and how we can work it out with the private sector".
Where is that money now, that money that was budgeted for, that money that was set aside? Where is that commitment now? How many more years will it take before the government gets its own shop in order?
We have seen governments that deal with this issue fairly. The Ontario New Democrat government extended pay equity to groups of women in female job ghettos who were excluded from the previous government's policy. One of the very first actions of the Ontario government was to drop the previous government's pay equity court case against nurses and guarantee pay equity for the nurses. It is meeting its pay equity adjustments for public sector workers. Ontario in fact has the most far-reaching pay equity system in North America.
It does not just cover the cost of the public sector, but the private sector under provincial jurisdiction as well.
This government cannot even handle its own public sector. It refuses to negotiate pay equity with its workers. This government should follow the example that has already been set out for it by the government in Ontario.
Pay equity is an issue that affects every woman in Canada. Every battle that is fought brings the reality of pay equity for work of equal value just a little closer for
October 1, 1991

all women in our society. Equal pay is the law, and it is a law that is being ignored by this government.
One document puts the situation very clearly, and I quote:
What would your reaction be if you were told that you had just lost thousands of dollars? Anger or shock, sadness that such a thing could happen.
Well, there are millions of women in Canada who are being robbed of thousands of dollars each and every year. It is a fact that women earn less than men for performing work of the same value. Often women earn much, much less; 10 per cent; 20 percent and sometimes even 40 per cent.
We have a law that forbids the employer from discriminating between men and women and paying wages for work of equal value. This government is ignoring that law.
There is a binding Public Service Staff Relations Board ruling that the government must negotiate with its workers, not force them to accept a zero per cent increase and no pay equity, without even talking. This government is breaking that as well.
I wonder how the government can expect and hope for Canadians to respect the laws that are passed here in this House of Commons when the government itself ignores them.
The government has shown over and over again that it has no respect for Canadians, especially low income women working for low wages, and that it has no respect for the democratic process.
A strong economy and a stable society cannot be built by undercutting more than 50 per cent of the population of Canada, by undercutting women. This is a terrible kind of role model for other Canadians.
Women and all workers are simply not going to take this any more. I often question the government on issues of concern to women. Many times, over and over again, the Prime Minister or other government ministers stand in this House and talk about equality and about how they have appointed a woman to this board or they have appointed two women to another government function or another government board. They speak with such bravado and such boasting tones about how they have appointed more women to positions in government.
It is not good enough for the Prime Minister and the members of cabinet to simply tell us that they have appointed another woman here or there, or that they support the issue of equality for women in our society.
Government Orders
This government has an opportunity right now to put its money where its mouth is, to show that it has a firm commitment to equality for women within its own Public Service. We have had enough talk about equality for women. It is not good enough anymore for the government to say equity, they must pay equity.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on the speech by the member of the New Democratic party. I may remind her that in 1967, it was a Liberal government that introduced collective bargaining in the Public Service and that the present Tory government is destroying our public service by using strategies like today's back-to-work legislation, contracting out and bonuses as incentives for senior, in fact, very senior public servants. I may remind the NDP hon. member that this government has ignored women as far as wages are concerned. Many women in my riding earn very low salaries as a result of this government's policies. These women, in many cases single parents, have to pay taxes, including federal and provincial income tax, municipal taxes and school taxes. Because of this government's economic restraint policy, there has been a flow of fiscal responsibility from the federal government to the provinces and subsequently to municipalities and school boards, which has engulfed low-income earners, most of whom are women responsible for raising a family. I say women, because all too often, women are at the bottom of the wage scale although they have the same responsibilities, the same duties and the same tasks as men.
This government has ruined the relationship between employees and employer, the employer being the present government. How will these employees feel, now that they are being forced back to work? It's almost like seeing a film on slavery. You see the employer taking employees by the scruff of their necks and saying: You are going to work today and tomorrow, otherwise you will be fined $500 per day. And on top of that, your salary increase will be zero per cent. Either you toe the line or you might lose your job. That is the kind of employer we have today.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time these employees have to cope with tax increases at all the levels I just mentioned. I think that with its economic restraint policy, this government is dividing the country into

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
different sectors and pitting those sectors against each other-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester. I would ask him to conclude his remarks or ask a question.


Eugène Bellemare: I would be happy to oblige, Mr. Speaker. If I could, before my time is up, I would like to get some clarification. During this period, are we not entitled to make some remarks or comments and to ask questions? Surely, during this five minute period, hon. members can choose between these three options, right?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am glad the hon. member asked this question. The philosophy behind the question and comment period is to give as many members as possible the opportunity to comment briefly or to ask a question of the previous speaker. This is not a period when you can rise and make a new speech. The objective of the Speaker is to recognize as many members as possible. Therefore, when an hon. member takes ten minutes to make a comment, it goes against this philosophy, as was stated by one of my predecessors in the Chair, Mrs. Jeanne Sauve.
So, I would ask the hon. member to cooperate and complete his comments or ask a question.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, surely you know I come from a riding where there are between 24,000 and 25,000 civil servants. So, of course, I stand up for them. Consequently, I would like to ask the hon. member from the NDP if she agrees with me that this government is wrecking labour relations between employees and employers?


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that labour relations between the government and its own employers have certainly hit a new low, but there have been times under previous Liberal administrations where the relationship has been very testy also, to say the least, and some of the legislation that previous Liberal governments brought to Public Service workers was not well received by the workers either. I think back to the six and five legislation not so many years ago.
It is true that the relationship has hit a new low and new depths with this Conservative government.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby and I paid particular attention to what she said regarding pay equity in the Public Service. Her remarks suggested that this government did not do anything about pay equity.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that this government's commitment to pay equity goes back to 1984 and that, after the election that year, when we came into office, a study was conducted within the Public Service in order to determine how many employees could be eligible for a pay equity program. That study indicated that 79,400 public servants could be subject to a pay equity program or policy.
I would also like to remind the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that, up until now, this government has paid $317 million to 79,400 Public Service employees to meet its commitments with respect to pay equity.
I would also like to point out to her, Mr. Speaker, that $81 million will be paid during the next fiscal year under the pay equity policy.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby if she knows of any businesses in the private sector or any provincial or municipal governments in Canada that have a pay equity policy as generous or should I say as fair as the one that applies to federal Public Service employees.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite certainly does not have to remind me of the commitments that were made by members of his government in 1984. In fact, they made up a great deal of the comments that I made today to remind them of the commitments that they made to Canadian women, the commitments that they made to Canadian women in the Public Service, and the commitments that they failed to uphold. He certainly does not need to remind me of that.

My question is: Where is the money that was promised? It is not being paid. Only one-third has been committed to pay equity of what is just and fair. His government continues to fight decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to fight them in the federal courts of this land, fight in opposition to pay equity trying to stop fair and just settlements on pay equity. That is the Conservative government record.
When he asked me if there had been a jurisdiction, yes, and I pointed it out in my remarks today. The government in Ontario has expanded the pay equity, has dropped the court actions that were started by the previous Liberal administration against public health nurses, and has set a great example for all of North America on the issue of pay equity.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, every time I have spoken in this House since 1988,1 did so eagerly, of course, and with the desire to contribute positively to the issue or bill being debated.
Is a parliamentarian's first responsibility not to give his opinion on the subject of the debate, Mr. Speaker? When he takes part in the debate, should he not seek to protect and defend the nation's higher interests, while respecting individual freedoms and society's welfare?
Mr. Speaker, I will try to reconcile these great objectives as I participate in the debate on Bill C-29 today. As the Treasury Board President said, this bill was not tabled with a glad heart and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be glad to vote for Bill C-29.
Bill C-29 temporarily suspends the legal right to strike for members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, extends the collective agreement for two years and sets salary conditions for the same period. Mr. Speaker, I must regretfully note that this bill, while pursuing objectives in the public interest, temporarily suspends the legal right to strike for employees who belong to the Alliance.
Moreover, the bill, by setting salary conditions for public servants for the next few years, suspends their
Government Orders
ability to negotiate pay increases. Mr. Speaker, that is why I had reservations about the bill when it was tabled.
That is also why I always hoped that the government would not have to bring in such a bill. I always believed it was possible for the Alliance to accept the salary conditions proposed in the Government of Canada's most recent budget. An agreement with the Alliance would have made it possible to continue discussions on all working conditions and clauses related to them in the collective agreement, except of course for the salary clauses.
It would have been far better for the two parties to agree and reach a negotiated settlement. Until last week, as I said before and say again, I had serious reservations about the negotiating process. I wondered whether both parties had exhausted every avenue of bargaining as should be done when a collective agreement is renewed. Mr. Speaker, I was under the wrong impression that additional efforts could have been made by both parties to reach a negotiated settlement.
When I became aware of the number of meetings, the number of days and hours Treasury Board negotiators had spent at the table, I realized that a big effort, and major attempt had been made to come to a negotiated settlement. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I had been particularly happy two weeks ago to see the progress that allowed public servants to go back to work and the negotiations to resume.
All last week, like many Canadians and like a very large majority of the people in my riding, I cherished the hope that those discussions would lead to a negotiated settlement that would be in keeping with the budget restrictions of the federal government and at the same time help improve the working conditions of the employees of the federal government and members of the Public Service.
Obviously, it is with great regret and surprise that I saw the union negotiators leave the table last Friday, following the tabling of specific proposals made by the Treasury Board representatives. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to list the offers made last Friday to the union representatives at the negotiating table.
First, the government, through its negotiators, was maintaining its position of zero per cent increase for this year and 3 per cent for the following year.

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
The government, through its negotiators, offered a $500 lump sum payment for the 35,200 indeterminate employees with salaries under $27,000. It should be noted that a previous proposal calling for a lump sum payment for those earning up to $25,000 would have benefited only 14,000 civil servants. That is to say that there has been a major improvement at that level.
There was a proposal to guarantee employment to those whose jobs would cease as a result of contracting out or privatization, a unique advantage indeed granted to the public servants belonging to PSAC. Such an advantage is nowhere to be found in collective agreements signed in the private sector, Mr. Speaker. It is a definite advantage.
We are also proposing to guarantee reasonable job offers to all other employees affected by a work force adjustment. We proposed improvements to fringe benefits, including the dental plan, health care, disability insurance, annual leave, shift premiums, day care, meal allowances and much more, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada find hard to understand because such advantages are a rarity in the private sector.
Of course, our proposals include provisions for pay equity, as I told my hon. colleague from New-Westmin-ster-Burnaby earlier, amounting to $81 billion. Once these proposals were on the table, the president of PSAC left without even responding to these proposals. Instead, he chose to make his union's response known through the media and to order his members to resume their national strike.
Normally, in the bargaining process, when the employer tables a proposal affecting or improving previous proposals or working conditions, it is only natural, and the right thing to do for the union to consider these offers and to get back to the employer with comments whether all or part of proposals are rejected but, in any event, to pursue the bargaining process.
What is abnormal and regrettable in this case, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the PSAC negotiators left the bargaining table, did not submit the latest offers to their members and decided to go back on strike.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that this government continue to strive to reduce government spending and the national deficit, because Canadian men and women cannot bear any further tax increases. The wage policy
set out in the last budget is an integral part and an important aspect of the objectives identified by the Government of Canada.
The Alliance should have recognized how important it is for our country to attain these objectives. The Government had and still has no other choice but to ask all its partners to join in an effort to reduce the deficit and put the economy back on track. The PSAC obviously refuses to take part in that effort which has already been accepted by many groups of employees from other jurisdictions.
Instead the Alliance has chosen to attack the Government's objectives and of course to resume its strike. Even though it is a legal strike, Mr. Speaker, the Alliance has overstepped its authority in preventing essential services employees from going to work. In so doing, the Alliance has caused severe harm to large groups of citizens by depriving them of services neccesa-ry for their safety and their well-being. It has caused irretrievable damage to vital sectors of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, this strike is not driven by economics, it is political, and this is a direct quote from the President of the Alliance. Just remember what he said in front of the Parliament Buildings a few days ago, and also the speech where he said that this government had to be defeated.
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the Alliance was calling for a strike in the interest of its members. It is my opinion that leaders of the union should have listened to their members and should have directed their efforts toward bargaining, with a view to securing better working conditions while waiting until for the government's finances to improve and allow it to grant better pay conditions to its employees.
By so doing, the leaders of the Alliance would have contributed to the improvement of the financial situation of the country. They would have supported the economic recovery efforts by the government and the private sector and they would have, in my opinion, really promoted the long term interest of their members.
The government for its part is proposing a pay policy which will allow keeping the number of positions at its present level for Alliance members. I consider that a very reasonable policy which confirms the government's
October 1, 1991

intention to grant its employees the best working conditions possible under the current financial situation.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that Bill C-29 allows for negotiations between the government and the Alliance on a large number of non-monetary and monetary clauses included in the present contract.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that both parties will take this opportunity to resume talks as soon as possible. Once again, I regret that Bill C-29 removes, even temporarily, the right to strike, but the objectives of this bill are to ensure the continuation of services which the government has the duty to provide, to protect the economic recovery and to further the efforts undertaken by the government to reduce the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, the last point I would like to mention is the feeling that there are far too many union negotiators. Not only do we see the Alliance leaders, Mr. Bean and Mrs. Hurens, on television almost every day, but we also see some of our NDP colleagues literally holding hands with them. Is it not normal to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the PSAC works out its negotiation strategy in the offices of NDP members? Moreover, we all heard the member for Mission-Coquitlam say that on Friday Mr. Bean, while in her office, tried to contact the President of the Treasury Board. I would have thought that the President of the PSAC would have an office of his own and facilities provided for him by the Alliance to make his own calls and contacts. Why use the offices of NDP members? Listen, this proves that what we are having here is a political strike.
Mr. Speaker, I regret the inconveniences caused by bill C-29, and I still have the same reservations to make on the principle of such a bill. I believe that in the case of a labour conflict, the balance of power should lead to a negotiated settlement, but I am also convinced that the circumstances surrounding this conflict and the difficulties it is causing to the country truly justify the bill. I hope it will be adopted as fast as possible.


Eugène Bellemare: A very brief question, Mr. Speaker. While the hon. member for Manicouagan deplores the strike but is in favour of the back-to-work legislation, he seems to be suggesting at the beginning of his speech that he believes in salary negotiations. My question to him is this: Is it possible to
Government Orders
negotiate salaries when one of the parties, namely the employer, offers a 0 per cent increase or the door?


Charles A. Langlois: It is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that a government sets its objectives through the budgetary process.
It is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that a government makes decisions on the compensation of its emplooyees.
I remember well to have experimented the adverse effects of a legislation passed by a previous liberal government where we were directed not to exceed some increase percentages within collective agreements that I had negotiated myself for the employer and where the salary increases were cancelled by that legislation, while that legislation also applied to the then employees of the Public Service of Canada. That is when the Liberals were in power.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing unusual in the fact that a government sets its salary policies through the budgetary process in order to make all people concerned aware of its objectives.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to go back to what the hon. member for Ottawa West stated earlier when she said that a number of groups in the federal government are not covered by the salary policy. She mentioned among others the National Defence and the RCMP. I would like to tell her that under Appendix I of the bill both the National Defence and the Department of the Solicitor General are subject to this legislation.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that this be mentioned and I thank you.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the situation today is really a tragic one for the Public Service Alliance workers.
A group of women workers are at the Status of Women office here in Ottawa right now. They are asking for a meeting with this government on the issue of pay equity. They simply want to discuss the issue. They have asked that the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women meet with them and listen to their concerns. They have been refused that hearing.
I want to ask the government side whether or not they would agree that these women have a right to speak to their minister responsible for the status of women about

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
an issue that is of such critical concern, not simply to these women but to all the women of Canada. I ask the minister to make a commitment on behalf of the government to begin the process of talking about this issue.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my colleague for New Westminster-Burnaby is forgetting that the pay equity situation has been referred, at the request of the union, to the Human Rights Commission. The government has agreed to that and it is trying to address the situation in a fair and reasonable manner, fulfilling its commitment and at the same time complying with decisions that have been made. The government will keep on doing this.
I talked about the amount of money that has been put into pay equity just a few minutes ago and I can assure my colleague that this government is committed to pay equity and everything will be done to achieve that goal.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if that is true, can the member opposite please tell me why, in the offer that was made to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, there was a small token toward pay equity and even that small token was not incorporated in this bill? Can the member explain why his government refuses to incorporate pay equity into salary so that it is subject to all the other privileges of money that is earned as salary?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague from Ottawa West consider that $317 million is a token? Does she consider that $81 million budgeted for the coming year for pay equity is a small token? I would like to suggest to her that we are talking about enormous amounts of money and we are just trying to address that situation with the money and the finances available to the federal government.
If we manage to control the deficit, put the economy of the country back on track, this government is committed to do more. I can assure my hon. colleague that what she calls a token for a great majority of Canadian taxpayers is a great amount of money which people in my riding would look at with much envy. My hon. colleague talked about poor people on picket lines earning $20,000 a year. I can talk to her about poor people not on picket lines, minding their home with revenues of $5,000, $6,000, or
$7,000 a year. That is what I call a token, not $317 million and not $81 million.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, you sometimes must have patience in this House in awaiting your turn to speak. While the member for Manicouagan is here I would like to comment on the $317 million that he is talking about. It is a significant amount as is the $81 million a year that he is putting into pay equity.
He talks about it being a considerable amount of money. It is absolutely a considerable amount of money. Yet the government has just recently thrown away $267 million to the KAON project in B.C. It has sent the National Energy Board to Calgary when it could have been left here in Ottawa at no cost. It has sent the Farm Credit Corporation to Saskatchewan when it could have been left here in Ottawa at no cost. It has been the multi-million dollar government which Canada has never seen the likes of before.
Of course $81 million is a lot of money, but let us not throw these figures around unless we put them in perspective. From 1984 to 1988 this government made the largest amount of revenue over anticipated revenue that any government in this country has ever produced, and it has never put one cent of it against the debt. It has never put one cent of it toward pay equity. I am a little bit sick and tired of hearing how great this government is with regard to pay equity.
That was not intended to be part of my speech, but I had to throw it in because I really felt that the hon. member was over-stating his case.
Getting back to my speech, I am delighted to stand here and speak to Bill C-29, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, but this bill is just another example of the government's continuing oppressive autocratic style.
The government continues to flip-flop. First it would not negotiate, then it will negotiate, and now it will not negotiate any more. I do not think this government has a clue as to what it is doing.
For a fleeting moment about 10 days ago, I really thought the government had its act together when it announced it would suspend the legislation, which it is now going to implement, and return to the bargaining table. In fact I was so pleased with the minister's acceptance of going back to the bargaining table I even
October 1, 1991

sent him a note thanking him on behalf of the public servants of Canada for being a considerate, kind and warm-hearted minister.


An hon. member:: It was a sham.


Beryl Gaffney: It was a sham. It was a charade. It was the biggest charade. I hope he frames my note.
Two weeks ago during the first strike action I received a copy of a letter which was sent to the President of the Treasury Board by Glen Whalley, a Nepean constituent. He does not mind my giving his name. He sent a copy to me and I really felt that his comments were noteworthy because what he said in that letter I believe effectively described the feelings of the average public servant, not only that but the feelings of the average Canadian.
I am going to quote this letter:
I am a family man, with bills to pay, who takes pride in my job and I am a member of PSAC. You seem to have a misguided view of the labour force that is working for the Government of Canada. I can understand that, what with all the opinions and accusations flying around Parliament Hill, the bargaining tables and the media. So I would like to offer a point of view from one of the common folk.
Your government has been in power for seven years and yet you still try to blame your financial situation on previous governments. It was your government that perpetuated this recent economic disaster with your lack of foresight and sensitivity. It was your government that provided the catalyst for our dilemma by shoving, amongst other things, Free Trade and the GST down our throats.
The cost of our goods are not going down, the cost of living is still going up and we watch our industries moving south. We see our families, friends and neighbours being laid off or losing their businesses to bankruptcy.
Now you come to us and expect us to accept your offer. In fact, you almost act surprised that we do not want to seal our financial future for the next three years and put our faith in your unpredictable budgetary mismanagement. You also want us to blindly agree to this offer before knowing if you will negotiate in good faith on the remainder of our concerns. Let us face it, sir, your track record so far is not very favourable. I ask you as a businessman, would you accept these terms in your employment contract?
In turn, I have a proposition to offer you.
And this gentleman says to the minister:
If you can convince the working people in the private sector of Canada, who receive pay increases this year to donate their new income to help pay off the national debt, that is after paying for increases in utilities, food and clothing, after paying federal and provincial income taxes, federal GST and provincial sales taxes,
Government Orders
municipal and property taxes, gas taxes, car taxes, tire taxes, liquor taxes, cigarette taxes, restaurant food taxes and on and on.
If you convince those working Canadians of the private sector still bargaining for wage settlements to donate any future increases this year to help pay off the deficit.
And if you can convince your fellow MPs, Senators and any other senior management staff to give up the tax-free portion of their income and donate the applicable taxes that the rest of us are forced to pay;
If you can do this, then I will try to convince my co-workers that your zero, three and three offer is a good deal.
I will set aside further arguments concerning your party's disregard for past promises for such things as pay equity. Their deceptions about the effectiveness of contracting out. The blunders, the questionable antics and budget expenses of senior management and ministers that cost taxpayers millions of dollars every year. Sneaky manoeuvres, like rushing through pay increases for the elite few at the top just before introducing wage controls on lower level employees. The fact that you have no respect for the collective bargaining process, the conciliators you agreed to work with or your own rules of fair play in negotiations; and finally, your government's obnoxious attitude that it can do whatever it pleases because it has a majority in the House of Commons, even though it is now backed by less than 16 per cent of the population.
Please, people of Canada, don't be angry with us for trying to maintain our standard of living. We did not increase your taxes. We did not break political promises or create an economic environment where farmers and fishermen are unable to support their families and where single parent families are forced on to welfare to survive.
We did not introduce taxes to send truck drivers and small businesses into financial ruin. Most of all, we are not responsible for this government and its policies.
I had to read that letter almost in its entirety, because I do not think that I or anyone else in this House could have said it as well and as sensitively to get the point of the average Canadian and the average public servant across.
I received another phone call this morning from Mr. Barker. He goes on to say that the government is seriously damaging and destroying the Public Service in this country, an institution with a proud history of service and one that he is most proud to have worked with.
He spoke of the hypocrisy of the government involving Canada in larger and larger trading blocks and talking about making Canadians more competitive while at the same time it is treating its own employees in total contradiction to this, through demoralizing, contracting out, cutting back, wage freezes.

Government Orders
Many, many people when they call speak of their anger toward this government and about their despair that public servants have somehow inherited the dubious position of being the government's whipping boy.
I have heard them talk about the government's deception on the effectiveness of contracting out, of the past broken promises of pay equity. I have heard first hand the outrage and cynicism of the average public servant about the patronage which this government dishes out to its own Tory cronies.
The government is running roughshod over members of the Public Service of Canada by again bringing forth this back-to-work legislation just as sure as it has run roughshod over parliamentary tradition and guidelines by bringing back this legislation.
The fact is that although this act will eventually apply to MPs, senators, presidents of Crown corporations and senior managers, this will only occur next year when inflation is expected to be much lower.
Is it any wonder that Canadians are skeptical about politicians? I would like to ask when you were at the bargaining table if consideration was given for PSAC employees to receive the increase this year, the same as I have received my increase this year and the same as all the department heads, 5,000 of them, 5,000 cabinet appointees got bonuses in the past year, some of them as high as 25 per cent of their salaries.
Can you tell me that Ron Lawless, president of the Canadian National Railway and VIA Rail who was already making in the salary range of $365,000, should receive another $30,000 bonus this year? He has already got a $30,000 bonus. That is more than these public servants' total annual salary.
Before the government brought down its measures against the Public Service in its budget, the government revealed that it would not go the route of conciliation or arbitration. It has threatened from the beginning that it would introduce legislation to bypass any settlement that did not accept the wage freeze as a given. Its whole attempt at bargaining right from the outset has been a charade of the worst kind.
My colleague from Ottawa West mentioned this in her speech. The government is in clear contravention of section 51 of the Public Service Staff Relations Board Act. The government is breaking the law. The government is clearly breaking the law.
Has this government ever made any reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement? No. Has one word of the section of the Public Service Staff Relations Board Act been honoured by this government? No. This government has in no way acted in an honourable fashion with respect to its employees. There has been no collective bargaining, and let us make that clear.
It already has in hand no fewer than five conciliation board reports which have been unable to make any progress toward a solution. Three of these even highlighted the government's responsibility for the lack of collective bargaining.
Who is being hurt by the actions of this government? In the immediate it clearly is the little guy, the lowest paid members of the Public Service. Because the government has forced the public servants out on strike, it clearly then becomes the business community. It is the children. It is the Canadian public generally who is also being hurt, all because the government may not play by the rule book.
Does this government understand anything about the concept of worker productivity? Does it not think about how these people will function when they return to their desks after they have been told their work is worth zero per cent and after they have been bullied back to work?
It is very frustrating for me to stand here in the House to tiy to represent the public servants and try to get their point across. They do not have thousands of dollars to run these great big ads in the paper, the big ads that are not telling the truth.


An hon. member:: Your money and mine that they are using.


Beryl Gaffney: Your money and mine the government is using to put a point across but it does not tell in this document that it is breaking the law, does it? It does not say that it is in contravention of section 51 of the Public Service Act, does it?
I would hope that this government could get back to the bargaining table, but the only hope that we have is
October 1, 1991

with the appointment of a mediator. I felt last week and I mentioned this earlier, 10 days ago, that the minister was sensitive and that he did care. But I look at the president of the Public Service union and I look at the minister responsible for public servants-and I don't know if this is going to be unparliamentary; you might call me on this one-but I see two blockheads who simply cannot negotiate and cannot arrive at a solution. I think that we have to put a mediator in to negotiate this solution.
Pay equity is also not negotiable. It should not be on the table. It is the right of all that pay equity be in force and that should not even be part of the bargaining tool. It should be there and it should be part of what women should expect in the work force.
This government keeps using the excuse that it has been concerned about the economy and that is why it must do this. Had it truly been concerned as I mentioned earlier, the excess revenue that it received in that period between 1984 and 1988 could probably have wiped out the debt or certainly reduced it tremendously. You know the old saying "Nero fiddled while Rome burned"? Well, I see this government fiddling while the country is being decimated.
The minister said an interesting thing in his speech yesterday. He said he was not here to win a popularity contest. Well, he sure has not won a popularity contest, nor has the government. He has played his rules right there. He is not popular.
I was speaking earlier about the amount of money the government has spent on pay equity and the amount of money the government has spent on other programs. I have never heard figures on the amount of money the House would need to approve even 3 per cent for these public servants. I have never heard that amount of money so I don't know what it is. But you know, we throw away money. Maybe it is not thrown away, maybe it is good for business. A shipbuilding company in I think it was Valleyview, Quebec, was given several hundred million to bail it out, to keep it from going bankrupt. A couple of years ago we sent the Space Agency that was situated here in the nation's capital to St. Hubert, Quebec. It is now, I might add, in the riding of a member of the Bloc Quebecois. We give $267 million to a TRIUMF KAEON project at the University of British Columbia when most of the research scientists in this
Government Orders
country will tell you that it will be the most drastic drain on the federal treasury-


Mr. Duhamel:: Bad management, that is what she is talking about.


Beryl Gaffney: I am getting to bad management, that is exactly what I am getting to.


Ron J. Duhamel: Lack of vision.


Beryl Gaffney: I don't know how a government can ever hope to get any loyalty from the Public Service again when we throw money away as easily as we do but will not sit down and talk about what is the value of a good employee.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of speaking here in the House on this subject. I hope there is some rationale, that someone comes to their senses.
Mr. Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order 26(1):
That the House sit between the hours of 1 and 2 p.m. today for the
purpose of considering Bill C-29.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, on the motion put by the hon. member to sit between one and two o'clock today, we would agree to this on the understanding that there are no quorum calls and there are no games played.
If that is agreeable we have no objection to sitting between 1 and 2 p.m. today.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker I think the rules are fairly clear, that members have an opportunity pursuant to section 26.(1) to move the extension of hours between 1 and 2. My hon. colleague has made that particular motion. In terms of the questions raised by the hon. member opposite, the purposes of extending the hours is to give members on this side better opportunities to express themselves on a very important subject.
With regard to quorum calls, I can assure him that on behalf of our party it certainly would not be our intention to raise any of those. However if there are members on his side who may wish to pursue that, he might want to have a chat with them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Would those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than fifteen members having risen:

October 1, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion has been adopted and the House will continue to sit indefinitely.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Nepean and to the speeches by the hon. member for Ottawa West and the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester. Since the beginning of this debate Mr. Speaker, my impression has been that instead of a Canada Round or a Quebec Round, we have an Ottawa Round, because Liberal members have delegated their members from the Ottawa area where their public servants are-


An hon. member:: You have no respect for public servants!


Denis Pronovost: They say I don't respect public servants, Mr. Speaker. I listened very attentively to what the hon. member of Carleton-Gloucester had to say, and now I would also like to have a chance to express my point of view.
There are many public servants in my riding as well. However, my point is that members of this House do not represent public servants. They have a union to do that. Only a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Nepean said clearly that she felt she spoke for public servants in this House, although she represents all residents of Nepean, and above all, the national interest of this country. And Mr. Speaker, that national interest is now facing a very serious challenge.
I would like to ask her the following question: We have yet to hear a single NDP member condemn these acts of violence and intimidation against men and women who wanted to go to work and were on essential services. Not a single NDP member was willing to condemn this kind of violence.
Earlier, the hon. member for Ottawa West had an opportunity to condemn the violence against nurses at the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital, a veterans' hospital in Quebec, and she failed to condemn at least this instance of violence.
Yesterday, however, the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, a Liberal member, clearly said that he was against intimidation by strike captains, that he was against violence and against the fact that workers on
essential services were being prevented from going to work.
Is there some kind of double standard at work here among Liberal members? The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell condemned these acts in no uncertain terms, and he is to be commended for doing so, and the hon. members for Ottawa West and Nepean could at least have taken the opportunity they had, and they should do so immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Before resuming debate with the hon. member for Nepean, I simply want to explain that the motion we just adopted is for extending the sitting from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m, and not indefinitely, as I said earlier, which may have created some confusion. My apologies.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here and respond to the member across the floor. First of all I would like to say quite clearly and quite unequivocally that I represent national interests in this House of Commons. If I was a member from Atlantic Canada, do you think that I would not be on my feet talking about the fishing industry? They are representing their constituencies when they speak about the fishing industry and what you people have done to it.
I am in a riding which happens to be in the nation's capital.
Do you not think that because I have a high number of public servants that I will not represent these public servants in the House of Commons? Of course I will. That is my responsibility.


An hon. member:: I hope so.


Beryl Gaffney: At the same time, I will support my colleague from the western provinces when I see the wheat farmers. They have a product but there is no money for their wheat. Do you not think that when my colleague speaks in the House of Commons on the plight of these farmers that I will not support him? Of course I will.
He mentioned the violence, some minor skirmishes on the picket lines. I deplore these skirmishes. To the many strikers I have spoken to, I have said "Please, be peaceful. The public will recognize what you are trying to do and what you are trying to achieve but they will

understand it more if it is achieved through peaceful means".


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member from the government side of the bench has mentioned my name and I think he may have inadvertently left a totally wrong impression with the public that may be watching and with the House of Commons about people who have spoken on this debate.
I think if the hon. member looks back over the debate, over the petitions that have been presented, over the Standing Order statements in the House, over the questions and again specifically over the speakers who have spoken and will speak on this debate, he will find among those lists representatives from southern Ontario, northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, all provinces in Atlantic Canada and from western Canada as well. I think it is wrong of him to leave the impression that the 70 per cent of people-


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member for Saint-Maurice has suggested that he is faulting me for defending the Public Service employees. I think this is a wrongful accusation. I am supporting the Public Service throughout Canada, with a great number of them residing in my riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Another question or comment?


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Nepean, and Nepean is the twin riding for Carleton- Gloucester, for an excellent speech and an excellent presentation. My question is this: I feel embarrassed that I am taken as being part of the employer, the federal government, because I sit in Parliament, and this year I have received a 4.3 per cent increase in my salary while the employees, our employees, are getting or will be getting zero per cent. I would prefer that if the employees, the public servants are going to get zero per cent, then I too should get zero per cent.
Unfortunately, this government is imposing two standards on an uneven playing field. I would like the member's comments.


Beryl Gaffney: I did mention in my comments the fact that there was no doubt on the government side when it
Government Orders
passed legislation giving us an increase for the year 1991. I think it was less than 4 per cent but it does not make any difference how much we got. Now, all of a sudden it is saying that next year we will have a zero increase.
The question I was asking was: has the minister, when sitting down at the bargaining table, said: "Okay guys, will you take your 3 per cent this year and possibly consider a zero per cent next year?" Has that ever been discussed?
I think we are setting two standards here. There seems to be one set of standards for managers, for senators, for members of Parliament, and another set of standards for the members of PSAC. I think they should be looking at that very, very closely. I do not agree with it and I thank you very much for that wonderful question.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.
I guess the debate really started back in February when the government brought forward its budget document, and that set the policy of the Government of Canada. Somehow there is a perception that this is all a surprise and that this has only come to fruition in the last couple of weeks.
I would like, if I might, to point out some of the items that were in the budget of February, of this year. I will not read them word for word, but they can be found on page nine. That deals with the government management of a number of its affairs. The first item on that list of eight that are here relates to the fact that the ministerial pay of the Prime Minister and cabinet members will be frozen for one year. I realize that does not get a very high profile in the public debate, but that was the number one item that was mentioned.
The second item that was mentioned deals with the wage budgets of departments. In that particular clause it says that there will be no more money available, but if the Public Service wants to negotiate a salary increase that we would certainly consider up to about three per cent, but any increase would be tied directly to attrition within the Public Service. The jobs that would become vacant through attrition, or people retiring, would not be filled.

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
So there was an opportunity for salary increase if the Public Service would accept that we were going to continue to streamline some government operations.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we were unable to negotiate that in March, April, May and finally in June. As we are well into the new budget year, we cannot go back and say: "Well we will do that now," but that was part of the management offer that was in the budget.
The next item was, of course, that we would limit the raises in years .two and three to 3 per cent.
Beyond that, it talked about the rates of salary increases for the executive members because there is this concern that the management group is being treated differently. You will see that it says here that these various public servants, deputy ministers and heads of Crown corporations will be limited to a level no higher than the average of the negotiated settlements in the Public Service. There it is, very clear and in black and white, that if we can only negotiate, for example, zero per cent with the Public Service, then that is what everybody gets. It says that right here in the document, but somehow that does not seem to be part of the public discussions.
The next item talks about the salaries for members of Parliament. It very clearly says exactly the same thing, that we will get what the Public Service gets, or the lower of inflation minus 1 per cent or what the Public Service gets. So, based on the program now, the Public Service and MPs will both get zero per cent.
What is not given a lot of profile is that in the budget there is a commitment that we were going to reduce the senior managers in the Public Service by 10 per cent this year. We are proceeding with that. So when people talk about the fact that there is really no cutback for anybody, ask those 10 per cent of the senior managers who are losing their jobs whether there is a cutback there.
Finally, there is a restriction on capital spending and it will be frozen at last year's level.
That started the process of this debate. I can tell you that in my almost three years of being a member of Parliament, I have had the privilege of talking to many of the Public Service employees who serve my constituency and look after the needs of my constituents. I would not for a moment debate the fact that they are under a
tremendous strain and that in many cases they work hard with resources that are limited. In my constituency in Ontario, they are faced with a unique challenge. Here we have the federal government restricting what we are doing with salaries, yet we see the provincial government increasing its salary or wage bill by 14 per cent while we are holding it to zero per cent. The municipalities are increasing their wage bill. The school boards are increasing their wage bill. The regional government is increasing its wage bill. So here they are working in an environment in southern Ontario where all of the other public servants are getting increases and we are not.
That is an unfortunate circumstance and I understand the difficulty that causes them. There is not a simple answer to that situation. I am certainly aware of it, and I hold extreme sympathy, but I guess I can say the same thing, members of Parliament are not getting a salary increase, so I am tying myself to the same thing. I live in the same constituency that they do, so I am faced with that same thing. That is a sacrifice that is there and we just have to carry on with it. It seems that, somehow, that side of the discussion is not as public. I understand their needs, I understand their pressures, but it seems that from the other side there is a total ignoring of the circumstances that we at the federal level find ourselves in.
We end up coming to the circumstance we are now in. We are obviously at an impasse. The Public Service is out on strike for the second time. Why are they out for the second time?
This morning there was a group of public servants who appeared at my constituency office. They were veiy polite, very well-behaved. I certainly cannot be negative about the way they visited my office and the points they made. I talked to them on the phone for about 40 minutes.
I come back to some of the original comments I made, that they are under their particular pressures. Then they throw out such comments as: "Well, the government wastes so much money." I get that comment from a lot of my constituents who really cannot do anything about it. I said to these public servants: "If we we waste all this money, if there is waste in government, why are you not doing something about it." Their answer was: "Well, the boss will not listen to us."
October 1, 1991

I said to them: "Well, if the boss will not listen, I do not recall you calling me as a member of Parliament, pointing out areas where we waste money. I do not recall receiving a brown envelope in the mail telling me where money is wasted".
Coming back to our original proposal about the salary levels being tied to an over-all scale, if the public servants have these suggestions that we waste money and they help us solve those problems, it does make our lives easier in dealing with their particular salaries they would like us to cover.
I come back to the southern Ontario situation. I know the circumstances they find themselves in. It is interesting that a couple of people I spoke to this morning were very clear about their political support and that it certainly was not going to be coming my way the next time. I am not sure it came my way the last time, but that is neither here nor there. It is certainly not going to be coming my way next time. They will probably, at least in one case, be supporting the NDP.
I noticed a recent article in The Globe and Mail on September 26, where their hero, I presume, Mr. Rae, the premier of the province, said: "Everybody has to wake up and smell the coffee. We do not have a printing press in the basement. We would be kidding each other if we did not recognize the fact that we do not have tonnes of money coming in."
Their hero in Ontario, I guess, has woken up and has smelled the coffee. He went on talking about some of the programs, saying: "There are limits to what we can do right now in terms of general increases for the simple reason that the money is not there." He went on further in that article: "I know you are in a bind. What I am saying is, so am I."
If they think that it is just the federal government that has a problem, there is Mr. Rae very publicly indicating that he has a problem and somehow he is going to have to deal with it. It will remain to be seen as to how he is going to deal with it. I will leave that for Mr. Rae and his supporters to comment.
Here we were in the negotiation process. I heard the President of the Treasury Board very clearly indicate that when they went back to the table there was not going to be any more money. They were willing to look at some of the other things, but there would not be an across the board salary increase.
Government Orders
That is in Hansard, so anyone who has any question about that can certainly look that up.
In the negotiation that took place last week, there was in fact a change made. There was a change to the circumstances of individuals. They offered an increase, a lump sum bonus of $500, to about 35,000 employees.
The week before last when they were out on strike, a lot of constituents called my office and said: "Look, I have some concern for low income Canadians, the ones at the lower end of the pay scale in the Public Service, single mothers, single wage families." The government acknowledged that and said: "We understand there is a problem at the bottom end, here is $500 a head that we will put into that package." Mr. Bean, I guess, has decided that he did not want to offer that opportunity of acceptance to his membership. I did manage to speak to a number of public servants in my riding who said: "I wasn't offered the opportunity to accept that $500 proposal".
There was guaranteed employment security for the Public Service offered last weekend in the offer that the President of the Treasury Board made. There were also improved benefits in a number of areas related to the dental plan, health insurance, disability insurance, vacation leave, shift premiums, additional day care facilities and meal allowances.
All of those things were offered last week. Mr. Bean's response was: "We are going out on strike again." I am happy to say that the government has not backed down on these offers. I have some difficulty in that.
I relayed that to some of the people who called my office this morning. Their argument was that they should have these things. I said: "Well, if that is the case, how many of you work in the employment centres in my riding? If you work in the employment centres in my riding, why don't you canvass all those people who are on the other side of the counter and ask them if they would be willing to work at the same job they had last year for the same amount of money. How many of them would be willing to work with less benefits than they had last year?"
I suggested to all of them that they ought to talk to some of those constituents who are using their offices, to discover that things are not peaches and cream out there, that there are people who are having difficulties

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
and they would be happy to have the jobs they had last year, at the salary levels they had last year.
Of course, the response of the public servants who were in my office was: "That is not everybody. That is just a small group", that the rest of my constituency would be happy to give the public servants what they are asking for.
I put a challenge to them. I guess the challenge relates to a group of people who appeared before the finance committee last week, the Professional Institute of Public Servants. They represent about 20,000-odd members. Their association has about that number of members. They appeared before the finance committee and said that really all they were asking for was a 6 per cent increase, and surely the government could afford that.
I said: "All right, if we can afford that, that is what the public servants in my office said that they would like to have, that 6 per cent amounts to about $800 million, give or take a bit". That was the number supplied by the Public Service, when it appeared in front of the finance committee, and it is not that far off what I believe is probably the correct number.
We can use that number reasonably. I said: "If my constituents believe you ought to have that $800 million, I'll support that $800 million on one basis. You go out and get a petition signed by a large number of my constituents to give the $800 million increase and I will support that on the premise that included in the petition is a clear statement that the GST rate be increased from 7 per cent to 7.5 per cent, because it is about a half of one per cent on the GST, which will give us the $800 million. So if my constituents are willing to allow us to give you $800 million, we have to find that some place, so I suggest that we raise the GST rate a half of one per cent in order to find the $800 million. If my constituents are truly supportive of the Public Service, they would naturally sign the petition and allow that to happen".
I am not sure I am going to be taken up on that offer, and I know darn well why I am not going to be taken up on that offer. I am not going to be taken up because my constituents would not support an increase, whether it is the GST, personal income taxes, a reduction in some of
the tax credits or tax deductions. My constituents would not support that. I know that for a fact.
I come back to my other comment. They say that we keep wasting money, but when I asked them to give us some examples, they said: "That is not my job. I don't know where they waste it. You guys in Ottawa are supposed to come up with all these ideas".
I guess my comment on that area is that the money is not there. I think the public servants who were in my office recognize that. Certainly my constituents recognize that fairly clearly.
We still come back to a circumstance here where they are out on strike and we have to somehow bring them back to work. I find it unfortunate that we have to go this route. I find it unfortunate that we have to bring in back to work legislation that basically sends them back to work.
On the other hand, my constituents have every right to be served by government services that should be available to them. It is evident that Mr. Bean and some of the other executives of the union are more interested in making this a political strike than they are a strike of service.
There are a lot of ways that the public servants could have delivered the message to MPs. In fact some of them were doing it. Their standard line in some of the offices that serve my riding was: "If you do not like the answer that I have just given you over the last month, why don't you call your member of Parliament?"
My office gets lots of calls. I do not like all the calls, but I respect that that is a fair way of dealing with some of the labour problems. It applies pressure. The impact is not on my constituents. It is not on the person who wants to go to the employment office to find out about a job or to find out where their unemployment insurance cheque is. It did not impact on them. It impacted on me, and that is fine. I understand that is the bargaining process. That is the way it should be. Although I may not like it, I am quite prepared to accept that as one of the tools that is available to them.
Now I am told that when they return to work, as I was told this morning, they are certainly not going to be providing the service they provided in the past. I cannot force them to be efficient in the way they operate, but if they are going to take it out on my constituents, if they believe that they are really accomplishing something by

providing less service to my constituents who are coming to them for a particular need, I guess they really do not understand the process and what their job is. If they want to make an impact on me, so be it. If they want to make an impact on my constituents, it will not take long.
I have another problem with this legislation. I am going to vote for this legislation without any hesitation but there are some difficulties with it. We have amended the legislation. We have changed. We have said that, for example, presidents of Crown corporations will get zero per cent this year. Why is it that we excluded postal workers from zero per cent? I have some very great difficulty with that. In fact I thought an appropriate amendment to the legislation would be that if we are going to include various Crown corporation heads in this legislation we therefore should include those people who work for those Crown corporations.
I have some very great difficulty in seeing that Canada Post employees turned down a rather significant salary increase over their labour negotiations. They turned that down and went out on strike. I am sorry that it appears they are going to get at least what they have turned down. It is a pity that they were not included in the 0, 3, 3 business.
The other point that I think is appropriate comes back to the comment of some public servants who said to me that they were not going to perform. In the legislation there are restrictions that say if you do not come back to work you could be subject to $1,000 fine per day, that the union leadership could be fined $50,000 and the union could be fined $100,000.
Do you know what is missing in that? It is the will to work and the will to return to work. It seems to me that if there are some of the Public Service who want to defy this legislation and not return to work, there should have been a further amendment to this legislation that says if they refuse to return to work because of this labour dispute they should be fired.
I am sorry that is not in this legislation because I feel that way. They can take out how they like their various issues, but when it comes down to whether they are going to do the job or not and they refuse to do the job,
Government Orders
then they should be fired. I am sorry that that is not in this legislation, but that is how I feel.
When postal workers in my riding went on strike there was a bigger picket line across the road from the postal workers that said: "Fire the strikers, hire the unemployed".
I simply conclude that I am going to support this legislation because my constituents have every right to expect from government service the service they are paying for in their taxes. I believe this legislation will make it possible for them to receive the service they are entitled to.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on his statement concerning the freezing of wages.
He said that if the heads of our Crown corporations are going to suffer the zero per cent, the freezing of their wages, then those people who work for that Crown corporation should also have their wages frozen at zero per cent increase.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell the Canadian people why the federal government will not disclose the salaries of the chief executive officers of our Crown corporations.
For example, the head of CN, Mr. Lawless, makes about $360,000 a year; that is his salary. The poor fellow is being frozen at $360,000 a year, poor, poor man, frozen. What is his exact salary? It is secret. The Government of Canada will not release his exact salary. It says that it is a matter of privacy and that it would invade his privacy.
The head of Canada Post, to whom the hon. member just referred, makes about, I would say, anywhere from $260,000 a year to $280,000 a year. The poor fellow is being frozen at one-quarter of a million dollars a year. Does your heart not just go out to that poor fellow? What is he going to do? We should all be very concerned. His bonus is frozen as well, poor man.
There are two questions for the hon. member. For the 35 Crown corporations run by the Government of Canada, it refuses to disclose what the salaries are of the chief executive officers. Is it not a bit ridiculous for the hon. member to be saying that since the government has

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
frozen their wages at about one-quarter of a million dollars each, give or take $150,000, that can be compared to an ordinary worker who has his salary frozen at $25,000 or $22,000 a year?


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond. Certainly the salary ranges of all of these jobs are very public and are released, but I should add that not only were the salaries of those high paid workers frozen, their bonuses were cancelled. They were not frozen; they were cancelled for the year.
I understand the point the member is making. If you look at the legislation, in the legislation is very clearly the fact that if the Public Service, for example, in the budget had got a 3 per cent salary increase, a member of Parliament such as yourself would get 3 per cent as well.
Are you going back to Newfoundland and saying very publicly: "I want the Public Service to have 3 per cent so that I, as a member of Parliament making $85,000 a year, can get 3 per cent or about $2,400 more"? Are you going back to Newfoundland, to your constituency where I hazard to say the salary income average is not $85,000 and saying: "I do not agree with this; I think my salary ought to be frozen"? Are you saying that very publicly, or are you saying: "Just a minute, only that guy at CN who makes a big salary, and that salary is comparable to what is made in the private sector, should have his salary frozen"? Are you saying it should only be him or are you prepared to say, and I hope you are, "the $2,400 I would get if the Public Service got 3 per cent is not right and I should not get it either"?
I hazard that that is really not part of the discussion. We have taken a broad brush. Whether you are making $20,000, $40,000, $85,000 or $300,000, it does not matter who you are, you are all getting zero. That is the way it should be.


George Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is Newfoundland. That is how you pronounce it. Do you understand, Newfoundland?


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman from Ontario says that he would like to see in this legislation-and he is sorry that it is not in the legislation-a firing of public servants clause included. I find it ironic and my question on this particular item.
He refers to parliamentary salaries and he asked a question of my colleague from Newfoundland. I would ask him this question: Is it not true that this year members of Parliament are getting 3.7 per cent and of course 0 per cent next year? I turn the question over to him. Does he not think it would be a more even playing field or a fairer situation, if we impose 0 per cent this year on our employees, if we as members of Parliament get a 0 per cent increase also, as I think it should be?


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the people of Newfoundland if I did not pronounce it correctly. I guess I have not visited often enough to have the dialect correct.
Let me respond to the comment. The member asked should we members of Parliament be taking 0 per cent as we are asking the Public Service to take? Of course the member knows that in the 1990-91 budget, the period in which the salary increase he is talking about took place, members of Parliament took 3.78 per cent and the Public Service got 4.7 per cent. I believe that is the number. We took 1 per cent less than the Public Service last year. This year we are saying we will take 0, just as we are talking about them taking 0 in the 1991-92 budget. The alternative is that we take 0 which is I believe what the member suggested, go back to last year and roll that back.
As the member knows, we are paid on the basis of 1 per cent less than the rate of inflation. This year's inflation rate is running at about 6 per cent; 1 per cent off that is 5 per cent. You have a choice. You can have 3.78 per cent last year or you can have 5 per cent based on that formula for this year.
I guess my suggestion is that last year's budget was last year: 3.78 per cent is what we got, 1 per cent less than what the Public Service got. I am not afraid to stand up publicly and say that was a fair deal for everybody.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, government members who rise keep talking about fiscal restraint. I am wondering if the member could tell us why that fiscal restraint does not apply to independent contractors working for the government who may be performing the same work and who may already be getting paid more for it, as it applies to the people working for the Public Service.

Is he aware that contracts are costing more than the entire payroll of the Pubic Service Alliance? Why does he not think the same restraint should apply to independent contractors?


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what budget the member is looking at. The budget I looked at says that this year the total cost of government operations is being restricted to what it was last year.
Within that, if there are outside contractors who have contracts with the government and want to raise their prices, the contractors had to bid to get the job in the first place, which the Public Service does not have to do. Second, once they have the job and the budget says there is no more money, if they have doubled their price something else within the system of government is going to have to be given up to offset that increase in cost.
I can honestly say that in a public tendering process, at least in the part of Canada I live in, things are very competitive. I can assure him that there are no great increases in individual tenders and individual contracts. That is not to say that some are not going up. It is exactly as we said to the Public Service: if some things go up, other things go down. They wanted a 3 per cent salary increase as we offered in the budget, that meant 3 per cent less employees. The same goes for contracting out. If the contracting out price is doubled, then there are half the contracts to issue. It is as simple as that.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the member of Parliament for Willowdale and also as the Liberal industry critic.
There are tremendous problems being caused throughout all of Canada by this strike. We have seen how our wheat farmers are losing about $50 million a week during this strike. The ships are backing up at the ports. There are 42 ships waiting and another 10 coming into the west coast. They cannot deliver our wheat.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has talked to Canadians and to this government about the devastating impact on Canadian manufacturers, manufacturers who depend on imports from the United States but the bridges are being blocked, manufacturers who are dependent on air travel but cannot count on our airlines today.
Government Orders
The president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Tim Reid, said about this strike: "A pox on both your houses. The feedback we have got from our members suggests business people across this country are right out of patience with what is happening".
Mr. John Bulloch of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business states: "It is totally incomprehensible that the government would idly stand by and watch while small firms are being put at risk and in some cases thrown into bankruptcy by a breakdown of our system of government. Small businesses are already operating in poor economic conditions due to the ravages of recession, the burden of the GST, massive tax increases, high interest rates and high unemployment".
It is not just businesses and farmers and all people across Canada who are suffering as a result of this strike. It is the Public Service workers themselves. Most of the workers who are on strike earn between $25,000 and $30,00 a year and are getting only $25 a day in strike pay.
Yesterday I was on the picket line with employees in my riding. Some of them are public servants. Some of them said to me: "Mr. Peterson, this is the first time I have ever been part of a picket line. We cannot afford to be out here, but again we cannot afford not to stand up for our rights". Neither the workers nor Canadian business nor Canadians want this strike.
It is not just a matter of the short term economics. It is a matter of where we are going as a country over the longer term. I want to read into the record some of the statistics dealing with Canada's strike record. These come from the Year Book of Labour Statistics, 1989-90, prepared by the International Labour Organization in Geneva. It shows comparable statistics for various countries in the world. The latest figures are for 1989.
In 1989 Canada lost through strikes and lockouts
2,040,100	person days. Let us compare this with other nations. In Japan the figure was 174,000 person days lost and yet they have a labour force more than four times Canada's. In France the figure was not somewhere around 2 million. It was only 800,000 and they have twice our labour force. In Germany the figure was only 100,000 and they have more than twice our labour force. Switzerland lost 265 person days. They have one-quarter of our work force. The United Kingdom, the traditional bad boy of labour strife had yes, more than Canada did. It had 3.5

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
million person days lost, but they have more than twice the size of our labour force. In the United States, they had about eight times the number of person days lost through strikes and lockouts but they have over 10 times our labour force.
Other countries such as Austria had only 2,986 person days lost. They have a quarter of our work force. What an enviable record. The Netherlands had only 24,000. They have about half our labour force. Sweden had 409,000. They have one-third of our labour force.
Any way you cut it, Mr. Speaker, our record in Canada for labour management strife, for lockouts, for lost days is the worst in the world. We cannot afford this. It is cutting into our competitiveness, our productivity, our workers suffer from it, our businesses suffer from it and yes, Mr. Speaker, even the government's tax revenues suffer because of it.
What type of message does our strike record, along with this Public Service strike, send out to Canadian investors and to foreign investors. It sends out the message that you cannot count on Canada. They have not yet figured out the way to settle their disputes in an equitable and fair way. They are still bent on early 20th century and 19th century struggles, of confrontation rather than co-operation. We cannot count on Canada to provide the type of harmonious management/labour relationships that are critical to competitiveness in the 20th and 21st century.
I will just give one example. Last night I was in Willowdale. The chief executive officer of a major corporation had to be in Montreal this morning for an 11 a.m. appointment. He could not trust the airlines. He was driving from his house, leaving at 5.30 in the morning in order to ensure that he could keep that commitment.
The automobile is no substitute for secure air travel in Canada. Businesses need the assurance that they will be able to count on our transportation infrastructure.
With all of these problems that we face, why can I and my party not support this government's back to work legislation? First of all, this started out not as an attempt to deal in an equitable or fair way with our public
servants. It started out as part of the government's political agenda. They looked back to the Reaganesque approach in the United States when President Reagan became a hero among neo-conservative circles by stamping on the air traffic controllers and firing them. This government felt that we have tough times. It would not admit that they were government induced, but we all know we are facing very tough times. It was part of this government's political agenda to beat up on the public servants so they could appear tough and in the eyes of Canadians who are not public servants, gain that political credit that they thought would be theirs for dealing firmly with our public servants.
When it introduced this back to work legislation, it made the Public Service an offer it had to refuse: 0, 3 and 3. They had to refuse that. What did this government do? It brought in its back to work legislation. But we on this side of the House opposed it and Canadians everywhere did not rally to its support. The public will was not there because people across Canada realized that this government was not being fair. It was not being fair to the one group that it was trying to make the scapegoats for the failure of its economic policies.
There were alternatives. From day one, we said: "Do not deal with back to work legislation. Bring in a mediator who can deal in a fair and an objective way with the issues at stake". The government has refused that. It is still refusing it.
There was another solution it could have brought in. It could have levelled with Canadians. It could have said: "Canada, we are in a terrible economic crisis. We have lost 13 per cent of our manufacturing jobs in 2.5 years since January, 1989. Unemployment is going up, it is not going down, in spite of our consideration that the recession is over".
It could have said that we are facing extremely tough times because our ability to compete is falling. It could have said to all Canadians: "We must all cut back. We must all suffer, equitably and fairly. Every Canadian, from the Prime Minister, through the cabinet, through members of Parliament, through the public service and through the business sector and employees must suffer".
October 1, 1991

It did not do this. It chose instead to favour certain groups. For example, it had huge bonuses proposed for certain members of the Public Service and agencies such as CN Rail, Atomic Energy of Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing.
The member for Gander-Grand Falls brought to the attention of the House how they were going to get over $50,000 in bonuses this year. When the member for Gander-Grand Falls brought this to the attention of the House, the minister said that they had just cancelled them.
Where in this legislation is there any mention of the fact that these bonuses cannot be provided? It is not there. If the minister had been sincere in saying that he was going to cut back these bonuses because he was embarrassed, that he was even giving them to certain people in the Public Service and not to the PSAC members, then he would have cut back right in the legislation. They would have been subject to the same type of cutback.
Why, last year just before the budget was brought in which cut back certain public servants, did this government grant 4.2 per cent increases to 50 senior executives of Crown corporations and government agencies, including the governor of the Bank of Canada? Why did it do it then? Why is it not retroactively rolling back those increases?
The evidence is clear. This government thought that it could enhance its own neo-conservative political agenda by bashing our public servants.
Has it called on the private sector in order to become competitive to roll back its salary increases? Many people in the private sector are not getting salary increases, many people. Here is a report from the Toronto Board of Trade which showed that in 1991 the increase in the base salary of executives in the metropolitan Toronto area, which excluded variable or incentive compensation, on a weighted average right across the board, went up 7.7 per cent for 1991.
This government wanted to con all Canadians into bearing the burden of our present dire economic circumstances induced by this government's mismanagement of
Government Orders
our economy. It should have called on all people to bear that burden.
What type of management practice is this government calling upon to give credibility to its own policies? I can do no better than quote to you from an article by the journalist, Mr. Geoffrey Stevens, in The Toronto Star of September 15:
Picture the government as a private corporation. What would happen if the corporation handed out pay increases to its directors and senior managers-then, without negotiation, announced to its office and factory workers that they would get no raise this year and less than the inflation rate for the next two years? There'd be a strike and the public would say the employer had provoked it.
Mr. Speaker, he goes on:
-an employer who tries to appear tough by deliberately treating his own workers unfairly is an incompetent manager. He's also a malicious fool.
We are facing a new world economic order. Borders are opening up. Corporations can keep plants anywhere in this world they want in order to take advantage of competitive factors.
One of those major competitive factors is whether businesses can count on Public Service being on the job. It relates to our transportation infrastructure, communications infrastructure, air travel, shipping, whether people can get their cheques, whether people who have to deal with the Public Service can get those services on an ongoing basis.
That is one factor. It is critical to our competitiveness. Even more important over the long term in terms of where our economy is going is a new attitude which we have to bring to Canada. It is an attitude which is not novel. All you have to do is look elsewhere in the world.
It is the European and Japanese model of doing business as opposed to the American, U.K. and Mulro-ney approach to doing business. It is a role where governments, public servants, industry, financiers, educators and labour work in close harmony, partnership and co-operation to set economic goals and to achieve them. Even the minister for industry has recognized in his paper Prosperity for the Year 2000 that we are going to need this type of co-operation.
What does this government do? It deliberately sets out, as the biggest employer in this country and as the manager of its own public servants, to set an example that no private sector company could get away with.

Government Orders
We are not going to have harmony among the sectors, government, business, labour, or between the government as an employer and its own employees. We are not going to have that co-operative effort which is necessary to make us competitive on a global basis.
What if this legislation is allowed to pass this House, what if this government is allowed to persist in bashing its own employees in order to try to appeal over their heads to the other Canadians who are suffering? This is not the way it should be done. This is not the way to create a competitive environment in this world.
We have to end strikes, we have to get rid of them, but we cannot do it in the crass political way that this government is seeking to do it on the backs of Canada's public servants. Let us use this as a lesson. Let us get the mediator in there to settle the strike.
If that mediator was appointed today, those workers would be back on the job within hours. Then we could have a fair resolution to it. I would hope after that this government would resolve to never again try to make cheap politics out of its dedicated public servants.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his very fine words that are now on the record of this Chamber.
I am particularly impressed with his reference to the state of mind, the demoralization of our public servants today by the Government of Canada.
I was listening to the President of the Treasury Board in this Chamber last night say that regional rates of pay were a good thing. Those were his exact words. That is, paying people different wages for doing the same job depending on where they were working. He made reference to the fact that about 20,000 or 24,000 of our workers in Canada in the general trades and labour end of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the pipe fitters, the plumbers, carpenters and drivers of machinery, are on different wage rates in Canada.
Here in Ontario there is one wage rate if you are working in metropolitan Toronto, and there is another wage rate if you are outside of metropolitan Toronto. If you are doing the same job for the federal government, there is one wage rate if you are working in Vancouver and another wage rate if you are working outside of metropolitan Vancouver. If you are working in Vancouver as a plumber, you get more wages than if you are living outside of Vancouver and working for the federal government as a plumber. But you make less wages if you are working for the federal government in Vancouver as a pipe fitter than you do if you are living outside of Vancouver working as a pipe fitter. The same applies to Toronto.
In other words, for some occupations you receive higher wages if you live in a metropolitan area than if you live outside, and for other occupations you receive more wages if you live outside than if you live inside. This is completely, absolutely ridiculous and does not stand up to reason at all. The minister blamed it on a former government. I have researched this thoroughly and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the way this started back in the sixties was that it actually started with the union. It was the union that negotiated regional rates with the government of the day. It was, and I can prove it, the union and the government of the day.
What has happened since then? We have gone past the age of enlightenment. We are up to 1991. We have laws in this country on wage rates. This government certainly breaks the law. Yet the President of the Treasury Board stands up in the Chamber and says: "No, no, it is all right, it is great".
The hon. member a few moments ago-and perhaps he could comment further on it-referred to the total destruction of service to the people of Canada by the Government of Canada. In every area, from the mail service to when you walk into an office, there is the total destruction of service. We have public servants who are looking over their shoulder wondering when they are going to get laid off or when some manager way up somewhere is going to receive a bonus for getting rid of them.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The member for Gander-Grand Falls, as usual, has raised a couple of issues which are critical to our dealings with our own employees, our own public servants, and to the fabric of what Canada is about.
First of all, if an employee is always looking over his or her shoulder, worrying if the axe going to fall on their neck next, then it is inhuman to think that that person is going to be able to concentrate on the job and on service. It is just not human nature. They are more worried, and become more worried, about office politics, which is

very, seldom conducive to solid performance and competitiveness.
There is nothing wrong with giving some people some security so that they can throw themselves into their jobs, so they can feel confident about their own future, so that they can invest in their own upgrading, so that they can become part of something that is going to be there a year from now, so that they can contribute on a long term basis. It is this type of morale and spirit that we see in competitive companies around the world.
Take the Japanese, for example. They know that they have jobs for life and they are going to be trained and people are going to work with them to make them more competitive and make them the most competitive in the world. In those circumstances, they are prepared to give because they are part of something and they have security.
Rather than the fear approach in managing your own people, how about the carrot approach? How about the security approach, that we are all part of something and we can make it bigger? That is what is going to produce the high morale and the high efficiency, be it in the private sector or the public sector.
He raised another issue about differential rates of compensation for people inside and outside various geographic regions in this country. This is one of the great Canadian dilemmas. I don't have an answer to that. For example, we know that people living in the north of Canada have very much higher living costs. This is why a number of years ago we brought a northern benefits provision into our Income Tax Act, recognizing that these people living in a particular region had an unfair burden to bear in order to stay Canadian and live there, the cost of fuels and things like this. So we have, over the years, attempted to recognize that there are inequities in our country caused simply by geography, caused simply by the various costs of living.
I am not saying that we have found ways of dealing with those in an equitable and fair manner for all involved. But it is a struggle that we have to go through,
Government Orders
just as we recognize that in the regions in Canada, they may have fewer economic opportunities than in some of the central parts and we have to find ways to give those people security, dignity and meaningful lives.
In conclusion, I think that will be part of the ongoing struggle, through the millennia, of being Canadian. Because we are a sharing people and because we do believe that Canada united is stronger than Canada driven apart, we will make that commitment and that effort to ensure the equity.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls for that question on regional rates. I was most interested that it was a member from Toronto who, in the second part of his answer, gave sort of an answer but did not really come out, perhaps, as fervently for the principle as I was hoping, knowing his interesting background in national and provincial politics. I listened to his speech and have been sitting here all morning in hopes of perhaps contributing a few thoughts to this debate and add another dimension to it.
I was one of the members here when the Public Service Staff Relations Act-1966 was debated in this House of Commons and I am going to refer, if I can catch the Speaker's eye some time during the debate this afternoon, to a few remarks made about what might happen when we embarked on what, at that time, was a pretty brand new blazing precedent in terms of extending this right for public servants.
I have a question for the member who just spoke. I have listened here and have watched on television most of the debate as we have had this on-again, off-again problem, and it is an unfortunate problem. Frankly, as The Citizen said, and almost everyone else outside of Ottawa has said, both parties have tainted fingers on this.
My question is, and I have not heard very many members get into this, does the member sort of equivocate it on regional pay rates? I can understand that, although I am a little disappointed. I would like to ask him what his thought is about the right to strike in the Public Service, as compared to compulsory arbitration.

Government Orders


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I don't know what the solution is. I would have to be very honest with you. We cannot afford strikes. We cannot afford strikes in the public sector, we cannot afford strikes in the private sector.
As I put on the record, our record among all those countries I mentioned is abysmal. We are far out of step with international standards in terms of days lost because of strikes and walkouts. Surely we have got to find a way to do it. If the member thinks that by eliminating the right to strike may do it, I am not sure it will.
I think it has to start right at the top, with management. I think it is an attitude. I know when I was an employer in the private sector people could have struck, people could have walked out. If they don't like what you are doing, they just do not perform up to their potential as human beings.
Management has an obligation to provide the conditions under which people can fulfil all of their potential in their work environment. That is not happening, and we have got to find a way to get rid of strikes. To me, it is not a legislative concern as much as it is one of attitude and changing the whole ethos of both the public and private sector in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice.


Denis Pronovost: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a quick point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is very relevant to the present discussion. I am sorry to interrupt my good friend who made an interesting contribution to this debate in second reading. I am certainly looking forward to his contribution at third reading.
Is it correct that as far as I can tell, yesterday's Hansard is not on our desks now because of the strike, that the truck with Hansard is somehow impeded in a traffic jam or is being prevented from coming to the Hill?
With respect, Mr. Speaker, if you do not know the answer, could you kindly get the answer and find out what the devil is going on here?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I understand the question of the hon. member. I have in my hand the Hansard.

I have a copy here of yesterday's Hansard, but it is not bound. We intend to check whether all members will receive copies of Hansard in its usual form. I want to thank the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House to this matter.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, my hon. friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants can rise at any time on a point of order because he is a good friend, and I don't mind being interrupted, especially since I had not even started.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak today on third reading of the back-to-work legislation aimed at employees who are members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Although I have several reasons for wishing to speak to this bill, there is one important point I would like to make for the benefit of Canadians who are listening. After two and half years in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I realize that most of the time the House might as well be on another planet, a planet not familiar to Canadians who live on Main Street in Shawinigan, Vancouver, Smiths Falls in Ontario or Gander in Newfoundland.
This place operates on assumptions that have no application in the real world. Earlier, the hon. member for Willowdale made a veiy interesting speech. He mentioned the fact that we in Canada have the worst record for strikes in the Western world. This hardly enviable record is not necessarily the fault of the Government of Canada but of Canadian society as a whole. Consider that Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, the three provinces with the largest populations, have experienced a number of strikes with a very negative impact on the Canadian economy. These strikes were in the primary sector and, more specifically, in the pulp and paper, aluminum and forestry industries.
Our competitive position on international markets has been seriously undermined by these strikes which also occurred in the steel industry and other sectors. Mr. Speaker, I think that someday, we will have to consider doing what other countries have already done: draw up a
October 1, 1991

new social contract, signed by all three economic part-ners-govemments, unions and business.
Although his speech was most interesting, the hon. member for Willowdale finally put the blame on the Government of Canada. Of course, strikes were a serious matter and hurt the economy, but we should let the strike go on and not pass this legislation, not put an end to the strike immediately, because our competitive position- That was not the way to solve our problems.
The Liberal member talked about the concerns of the business community. The funny thing is, Mr. Speaker, the business community brought this subject up last week, when the Quebec division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association made suggestions to the government of Canada for improving exactly what my Liberal colleague from Willowdale just mentioned, i.e. our competitiveness on the international markets. Canadian manufacturers, responsible for creating jobs in Quebec and in Canada, made a number of recommendations to the government. There are three that I would like to quote if I may, Mr. Speaker.
First, that Canadian manufacturers should continue to invest in modem technologies to increase the productivity of the labour force. I am in agreement with that. Their second recommendation-and my hon. colleague from Willowdale should listen to this-was that all levels of government without any exception-federal, provincial, municipal, school boards, Hydro-Quebec, Hydro-Ontario, B.C. Hydro-would negotiate lower wage settlements to match the overall productivity growth in Canada."
This year, Mr. Speaker, our productivity growth was not great.
The other recommendation the Canadian Manufacturers' Association made was the following: that the governments should try to eliminate the budget deficit and cut back on other funding requirements so as to reduce borrowing by the public sector on financial markets. What does that mean in layman's terms, Mr. Speaker, for the ordinary people across this country who sometimes get the feeling they have landed on another planet? It means, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian savings and foreign capital in Canada are in fact used mainly to
Government Orders
service our national debt instead of financing capital projects needed at the industrial and economic level. This has to be pointed out.
So, manufacturers tell us, and I tend to agree with them, that we have to reduce the deficit and to limit the total payroll in the federal Civil Service, in order to set an example for provinces and businesses. You know what, Mr. Speaker, it works. In four Canadian provinces, our plan for 0, 3, and 3 per cent has been applied, and in a more drastic manner too. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Quebec, unions, even the most militant of them, like the CSN with comrade Gerald Larose, and the Quebec civil servants have agreed to 0 per cent for a six-month period? There was no strike. They did not organize a political strike just to please the New Democrats or the Liberals, who want to knock down the government at any cost. Just wait until the next election, then you can do whatever you want to, but for now, Canada has to work.
Even the unions in the province of Quebec said they did not really like 0 per cent, but still, they sat down with the government and signed an agreement, giving Quebec civil servants 0 per cent.
What happened elsewhere? In some provinces, agreements were signed, then tom by the government who came back offering 0 per cent. In many sectors, Mr. Speaker, that is how things are done. Why? It is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. This year, the budget of the Canadian government will reach $192 billion. I think that is more than enough to ask from Canadian taxpayers. That is enough. I do not think we should add one more cent to federal expenses. I believe Canadian citizens consider that with this amount we should be able to manage. The majority of Canadians think like that, except members of the Liberal Party of Canada and members of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
Some people here are going to say: "You are not serious." But I do have proof of what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. Members on this side of the House had the political will-and God knows how much of it was needed over the last two years-to say no, despite the fact that everybody is asking us for something. In our offices we receive dozens and dozens of organizations asking for grants for this, or financial help for that, but

Government Orders
once in a while we have to say no. And it's not easy as a member of Parliament to have to say no.
The Liberals when they were in government, at the time of Pierre Elliott Tbudeau, said yes to everybody. And the result is the huge deficit that we must bear today and for a long time to come; my children and my grandchildren will continue paying interest on that debt, Mr. Speaker, not to mention paying back the principal.
I was going to say that on this side of the House we decided to put a stop to spending. The time has come to stop throwing money out of the window, but it's not easy to close a wide open system, a system which was spending freely taxpayers' money, and make such a system conform to more reasonable standards. That's what we have been doing for the past seven years, not perfectly, but Liberals were spending 14 per cent more each year, while we were able to limit spending growth to
3.4	per cent per year. You have to say no to thousands and thousands of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, and that is not easy.
And we want to continue on that course. Canadians want us to put a stop to public spending, but here I have, Mr. Speaker, something called the Status of Bills and Motions. For those who don't know what it is, motions are proposals made by members from any party in the House requesting the House to make a decision on a given subject.
In this book, Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of motions. I was counting them. I think there are 500 or 600. Some are from members of this side of the House, but most come from the New Democratic Party. This is quite strange. I am counting them today, and when I have the final tally, Mr. Speaker, I will bring it to you. It will make good reading for you tonight. I believe that 200 or 300 motions have now been tabled by members of the NDP. About 200 of those motions request new expenses, the creation of new departments as well as new investigating committees, the giving of this for that, the giving of money to so and so, to a group, in short to just about everybody in Canada.
The New Democratic Party is of the opinion that 192 billion dollars a year is not enough. It has found a way to table 200 motions to tell Canadians: Ottawa does not spend enough; it should spend more. Those people have
never understood how the economy works and they want to please everybody. Yes, yes, yes. You want such and such a thing: fine, we will give it to you. We, the Government of Canada, are generous. We will empty the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers, but it is no big deal since we are in the opposition.
What is rather surprising, Mr. Speaker, is that the Liberals, who have been in power long enough, are doing the same thing. They are starting to tell us that right now they are concerned with the deficit. You have noticed that. It is the honourable member for Lasalle- Emard, who lost during the leadership convention of his party. I found that what he had to say was interesting. This is a guy who was saying: indeed, may be it is time to start cutting on the government expenditures. The Liberal grassroots rejected him and chose instead the member for Beausejour as the leader of the party, a person who knows how to spend, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday afternoon, during Oral Questions, the leader of the Opposition, the member for Beausejour, rose. You should have seen his face.
He was mad. He was tense and he was looking at the President of the Treasury Board and pointing his finger at him saying: is it not an awful thing that this government has tolerated 14 days of a strike that affected the Western grain producers and the transport of grains? As he was saying, and I quote: "We are presently losing 30 million dollars a week with this strike. Why, Mr. President of the Treasury Board, have you not included in the essential services the workers that look after the transport and the handling of grains?" Because, if you listen to him, 30 million dollars is a big loss for the economy. We on this side of the House agree that it is indeed a big loss and that is why we are tabling a special Act, because the interest of Canada comes before the right of anyone in this country to strike and that interest is in serious jeopardy.
But what is even worse, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that yesterday the leader of the Opposition had the audacity to criticize the President of the Treasury Board, to say that after two weeks of strike, the situation is now intolerable and that the Canadian economy in the West, as well as the farmers, will be ruined. It just so happens that in 1975 the leader of the Opposition was the President of the Treasury Board and do you know what happened that year Mr. Speaker? There was a strike in

the sector of handling and transport of grains in Western Canada. Look at what the leader of the Opposition did then. It just serves to show that the people across th floor say things but do the opposite. That is the recent history of Canada, the history of recent years. Do you know what he did Mr. Speaker? He tolerated the strike by western grain handlers, who are civil servants, not for a period of 14 days like us who have tabled a bill more than seven days ago, not for a week, two weeks or even three weeks, Mr. Speaker, but for 31 days!
And do you know what he did to solve the problem? He gave an additional one percent raise to the strikers, who were civil servants working in the grain sector, one percent more than what they were asking for. Do you know what these civil servants were asking then? Brace yourself. They wanted, over a period of two years, a 28.4 per cent raise Mr. Speaker. So the President of the Treasury Board said: Listen, you have been on strike for 31 days, you have lost money. It does not make sense; we will give you 29.4 per cent over a period of two years.
And do you know what the then President of the Treasury Board said at the time, that is on March 19 1975? He said, and I quote because I want it to be clear that those are not my words: "In my opinion it is a good agreement. The population will understand, I hope, that it is sometimes necessary to suffer because of a small strike that lasted 31 days." It is the leader of the Opposition who, yesterday, made a tantrum in the House to show that he, and he was talking loud, loved the Rockies and that he wanted to protect the farmers of Western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, how can we give the least bit of credibility to the people across the floor when they make such speeches? They do one thing one year and they preach exactly the opposite. They try to win on both sides.
Mr. Speaker, as is the case for the honourable member for Carleton-Gloucester, there are many civil servants in my riding. I have met them and they are not pleased with the government. They are not pleased and it is understandable. It is understandable that they are not happy given the kind of things they hear in this House and the fact that they do not get the full picture. That is the reason why an ad was published in the weekend newspapers to explain the government offers.
Government Orders
A lump sum of 500 dollars was offered to the lowest paid civil servants. Do you know what Darryl Bean said? He said: "It's a slap in the face". Mr. Speaker, some people in the riding of Saint-Maurice, who live in Saint-Mathieu du Parc, in Saint-Boniface and in Saint-Georges de Champlain, would be quite happy to get slapped in the face by the federal government with a 500 dollar cheque.
Do you see the problem, Mr. Speaker? I agree that the federal civil servants should be well treated, but I think that they should also be made aware of what the reality is. They are entitled to a free dental plan paid almost entirely by the Canadian government. They are entitled to retirement pensions that are fully indexed to the cost of living. I believe those are very important benefits in many other provincial economic sectors. I will end by talking about pay equity.
Pay equity refers, among other things, to the money that was given to women who were earning less than men last year. The NDP members tell us that we do not make any sense. Yet, to ensure fair treatment to the women that are in the public service, last year the federal government took money in the pockets of Canadian taxpayers-it took 317 million dollars-and redistributed that money to ensure pay equity for women. This year, we are adding another 81 million dollars. The people across the floor are still complaining. When are we going to stop, Mr. Speaker?
In my riding, there are people-Revenue Canada employees-who, last year, received 2,000 dollar cheques at Christmas. They got a 2,000 dollar cheque because of pay equity. Yet, those people are still not happy. The NDP members are telling us in their 200 motions:

The government should spend billions and billions and billions of dollars more money, more taxes for Canadians. The Liberals are saying the same thing.

I will conclude on that note. It is urgent, in the national interest, to stop making great patriotic speeches about the country and to act in the interest of Canada. We must pass this legislation. We must give leadership to Canadians and make sure that the Public Service of Canada is at the service of all Canadians.

Government Orders


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member spoke about the motions and the fact that there were a number of motions from the New Democratic Party. He said that these are the types of motions that would cost the taxpayers money. However he did not refer to some of the motions that I have put.
One of mine calls for a prohibition of promises during election campaigns. I wonder, if the government is so concerned about saving money, would it stop making promises just prior to Saskatchewan and B.C. elections? I wonder if the member from the province of Quebec who has been in the House for a while now can explain exactly how much his government spent trying to secure the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the promises made during an election campaign and the reality of a government are not always to our liking. The NDP cannot use that technique since Bob Rae has become the Premier of Ontario. The NDP can no longer tell us what to do.
You talk about the honourable member for Lac-Saint-Jean and that is another matter. The money that was spent in that riding has been increased. That could be re-evaluated.
This could lead to a lengthy debate and I am prepared to get to the bottom of this with my hon. colleague from Churchill. We should also refrain from constant suggestions that something always happens at election time, whether provincial or by-elections.
What is important today is that the Canadian economy as well as the economic recovery are threatened by the federal public service strike now entering its third week. Yesterday, activities in the port of Vancouver were at a standstill. In Dorval, nails were spread over the road causing hundreds of flats. Nurses at the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue hospital, a veterans hospital, were prevented- were assaulted. They had tomatoes and I do not know what else thrown at them. Essential services regulations were violated.
I can still hear the member for Shefford talking nonsense. Maybe he should tell us what he really thinks of all this. Last week, one Bloc Quebecois member was for it and another one was against. One day, the member for Shefford-as regards the member for Hull, it is quite another matter-is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. The next thing you know, he has made an about-turn because the wind has changed. He resigned from that party and turned sovereigntist after losing the leadership race. He actually joined the Bloc Quebecois while still a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. He then joined the Quebec Liberal Party. Tomorrow, he may join the Parti Quebecois. We have no lesson to learn from the worse political flopper in the history of the Canadian Parliament.
This government is responsible and dependable. It is not easy to act under the present circumstances but we wanted to set an example for all the people of Canada. We will continue to do so and to denounce acts of violence occurring on the picket lines. I am sure that what concerns the Canadian people is to have a government that actually takes on its responsibilities. The Canadian people know better than that. They have come to the conclusion that they will pass judgement on this government in due time, but, for the time being, they will let it govern. That is how things work. So, let it be no attempt to overthrow the government like the present one as the members of the NDP are attempting to do.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to this muddled speech, I thought it clearly reflected the state of panic of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. A few days before the Bloc Quebecois was established in Saint-Maurice, the hon. member panicked. He comes down hard on public servants but earlier criticized the hon. member for Beausejour for having said this or that a few years ago. At the same time he was proud of the number of public servants he had in his riding. In fact, he failed to give credit where credit is due, and although it is not my intention to defend the hon. member for Beausejour, I think the hon. member seems to have forgotten why there are so many public servants in his riding in the first place.
My point is that we have no trouble with our position. As individual members, we are free to express our views. We are not stuck with a party like his, where whenever his leader rises to support a measure, the hon. member

for Saint-Maurice, who has never shown any personal initiative, votes with his government and jumps when he is told to jump. That is what he has done so far.


Mr. Rocheleau:: They say jump, and he jumps.


Jean-C. Lapierre: We in the Bloc Quebecois can make up our own minds and make our own decisions.


Gilles Rocheleau: Enlightened decisions.


Jean-C. Lapierre: In this instance, I can inform the hon. member that we intend to vote against his bill because it ignores collective bargaining traditions in this country. It is pure provocation, no less. This government is so panicky that, now it is down to 12 per cent in the polls, it is prepared to attack its own public servants to give the impression it is doing its job. Unfortunately, provocation is no way to run a country. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice should be ashamed to be a party to this provocation, just to score a few political points that will have no impact at all.
Today is a sad day for the labour movement. It is a sad day for government responsibility, because this government wanted to use public servants to try and score political points. Unfortunately, Canadians have seen through this ploy, and that is why the government is still down there in the polls.


Denis Pronovost: As usual, the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois did not speak to the substance of the matter. They have a one-track mind. They get up in the morning and look at the polls. They do the same when they go to bed at night. They don't do anything else.
Mr. Speaker, we ignore the polls. We run the country. It isn't easy to get along with people like that, but we will manage. What I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that when I rise in this House it is, unlike the hon. member for Shefford, to defend the interests of Quebec and Canada. He can no longer say that. He is trying to defend the federal public servants. What is he doing in this debate? What is he doing in the House of Commons? We can ask ourselves this question. I do know however, Mr. Speaker, that in Quebec the government has imposed a zero per cent raise for 6 months to its public servants and unions accepted it! There was a social consensus. Why don't we have that here? Why are members of the Bloc Quebecois not supporting the government? It's quite
Government Orders
simple, Mr. Speaker, it's because these people want trouble for the country, they do everything they can to make things go wrong and this is why, we have to denounce members of the Bloc Quebecois who are totally incapable of assuming their responsibilities in this House. As far as politics are concerned we will meet again in two years, we will meet in Shefford, people in Grandby will have every opportunity to reward the hon. member for Shefford.
I will conclude Mr. Speaker, if you don't mind, by saying that our wage and non-monetary offers to public servants are among the best in this country. What more do they want? They have the best pension plans there are, they have the best dental plan there is. Compare that to what the provinces have, you can't fool people all the time. They know that public servants are not about to starve, that we are not about to flog them! There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we would like to give more to our civil servants, but there is a fiscal reality. We have $192 billion at our disposal and I don't think we can spend as much as members from the NDP or the Liberal Party of Canada are asking us to do.
It is about time we put an end to the profligacy and we ask opposition members to come back on earth and stop living with their heads in the clouds.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I asked one of the members who spoke previously if he knew how much the government had spent in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean just prior to the by-election which eventually elected the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
I think it is an interesting point because if that money had been offered to the Public Service workers who are on strike right now, there would not be a strike in Canada. All the speeches by government ministers and government members, talking about the need for restraint, ignore their own practices.
If there is a by-election it wants to win for one of the Prime Minister's former friends, then it has the money. If there is a provincial election in Saskatchewan, then it has the money. If there is an impending election in B.C., then it has the money. Prior to the 1988 election, which elected some of those members, the government had all the money it could find and tried to spend it.

If you want to talk about honesty, then give the complete picture. This government has had a terrible history. In 1985 it attacked the pensioners. It said that they were the cause of inflation, that they had to give up some of their pensions. Later it attacked those receiving the family allowance. Now it is attacking government workers.
Yet every time the Prime Minister has somebody he wants to help, some contract, then the money can be found.
We have seen so much government waste, but that is not what we are dealing with here. There are all sorts of topics and areas where there is government waste, but that is not what we are debating.
The entire cost of giving those people who are on strike a wage increase equal to the cost of inflation is about $300 million. This government makes promises of that amount without any tendering process, without any consultation, without any consideration or regional development, without any figuring out of how it affects other companies that are competing in that same field. That money is found and it is found for political reasons.
For members of the Conservative Party to get up now and say that we cannot afford to give our employees an increase equal to the cost of inflation is denying what they do on a daily basis. If the main goal of the government is to attack the deficit, then it should come forward with a package that takes away some of the arbitrary rights to mismanage our future. That is what is costing us money. To say that someone in the city of Brandon, where I was last week, earning $23,000 or $24,000, is causing the inflation in this country, that she is responsible for the debt and the deficit in this country is simply not true.
What these government members in their vehemence have ignored is that the person I am talking about in the city of Brandon was not a militant. She was not someone who said she had to stand up to this government, she was someone forced into that situation. This person listens to Conservative backbenchers and ministers get up in this House and attack her. That is what they do. They do it with vehemence. How can you expect those employees of the federal government to sit back and take it.
All of us reject the use of violence whether it is on the picket line or elsewhere. But one of the things I have noticed in this debate is that there is all sorts of concern about violence that occurs on the picket line-and I share that concern-but there is all sorts of concern about the number of days that are lost during strikes and lockouts. Let me make one point, Mr. Speaker. Those members are not concerned when five times as many people are off work because of sickness and death in the workplace every year as there is because of strikes and lockouts.
I recognize it is two o'clock and if I may, at three o'clock, finish my speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House of Commons today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Dorval Airport in my riding.

Who among us, in deed what Canadian has not heard of Dorval airport, a most important national and international centre?
This airport facility makes an invaluable contribution especially for the residents of Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis.

Mayor Yeomans of Dorval has indicated that the economic contribution of Dorval Airport to the region is second only to the economic impact of the arrival of Jacques Cartier. For 50 years Dorval Airport has provided the Montreal community with an efficient, convenient, and accessible transport centre for all air travellers.
Congratulations, Dorval, and here's to 50 more years of growth and achievement.


CHILDREN
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, no tragedy is more serious than the one that affects thousands of children every day throughout the world.
Each day, some 40,000 of them die of hunger and diseases related to adequate nutrition and a lack of hygiene. Thousands more are subjected to slavery, exploitation and prostitution at ridiculously low rates, to operate of markets and systems that can only be termed criminal.
It is a world crisis that is just as unacceptable and urgent as war and the devastation of our environment.
Last year, 71 international leaders met at the World Summit for Children. They made a commitment to cut infant mortality by one third to reduce malnutrition by 50 per cent and to provide access to drinking water for everybody by the year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, these goals are attainable, but the political will must be present. Our political leaders must take their commitments to heart. On this first anniversary of the World Summit for Children, I urge our government to keep to its promises!


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, October is breast cancer awareness month in the U.S., but not in Canada. One in 10 women in this country will face breast cancer in her lifetime. Breast cancer is a disease that maims and kills women in huge numbers. Some research has been done through breast screening programs and programs to teach women selfexamination, but it is a disease for which funding for preventive research is sadly limited.
Let me give you an example. For each person who dies of AIDS, $365,000 will have been spent on preventive research. For every woman who dies of breast cancer, only $882 will have been spent on preventive research.
This is not meant to suggest that research should not be done on AIDS, but to illustrate how inadequate the funding for breast cancer research really is. Every woman is at risk and Canadian women deserve better.
Declaring October breast cancer awareness month would be one small way for this government to recognize the seriousness of breast cancer and to renew its commitment to breast cancer research.


PENSIONS
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, 102,000 British pensioners living in Canada are being discriminated against by the British Parliament to the tune of some 104 million pounds.
Britain indexes pensions owed to its former residents and workers who live in the United States and 31 other countries, but not Canada. This is like a mother disinheriting her own children by giving away the family jewels to the neighbours. Surely Britain, which played such a significant role in Canada's history, should not deny its former residents benefits they have earned.
I urge the government to encourage the British Parliament to have pity on British pensioners living in Canada.


EDUCATION
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations' survey on human development ranks Canada as the second best country in the world in which to live.
I believe we can be number one. Increased prosperity for all our citizens will become a reality as Canada becomes more competitive. Tbgether we must foster a learning culture in Canada. We must encourage and invest in research and development, in science and technology. We must invest in our country and its resources. We must promote a more competitive domestic market by reducing and eliminating provincial trade barriers. We must expand our pursuit of every available trade opportunity.
We have been blessed in this country with many competitive advantages; strategic geography, rich natural

resources and natural trade markets. Let us build on these advantages and let us make Canada number one.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, the economy is taking a toll on our children. In the past year, there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of children in this region who are on general welfare. It is estimated that 7,708 children are receiving family benefits. This is an increase of close to 17 per cent over the same period last year.
These numbers do not include the children of the working poor who, while not receiving benefits, are struggling to make ends meet.
The same report indicates that the general welfare caseload rose more than 45 per cent over the pass 12 months. The government continues to ignore the suffering. It has yet to fulfil its commitment to alleviating child poverty by bringing into force the convention on the rights of the child.
The government was quick to place a cap on its Canada Assistance Plan contributions which pay for the above mentioned welfare programs.
I ask this government; when will it finally act to end the suffering of our children?


RECYCLING IN REPENTIGNY
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to inform you today of an environmental program that was launched in Repentigny, the largest municipality in my riding.
In announcing its selective garbage collection project, Repentigny set a precedent among Canadian municipalities. Mr. Speaker, under this program, a contribution of 25 cents per week per owner will create a capital fund whereby this city can initiate environmental projects- innovative and rewarding environmental protection initiatives.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to point out the work done by the mayor of Repentigny, Jacques Dupuis, the committee chairman, Florian Chartrand, and all those responsible for this program, namely the residents of Repentigny, who demonstrate in a concrete way their desire to preserve the environment. I call on all Canadian municipalities to follow the example of Repentigny, because, Mr. Speaker, the environment is everyone's business.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday over 4,000 farmers rallied in Rosetown, Saskatchewan to protest the lack of action by the government in the farm financial crisis.
Last year the government cut support programs for Canadian farmers by $1.3 billion when grain prices were falling to their lowest level in a generation. Last winter the government committed to providing over $1 billion in emergency transitional assistance to the new safety net system. However, none of this money has been paid yet.
The situation is desperate this fall because the government has not provided the cash it promised last winter and still only gives vague promises about help this winter. It is another smoke and mirrors show, just like the Minister of Agriculture's visit to the Rosetown rally yesterday. He slipped in the back door and sneaked out the side door. He did not speak to the farmers and practically no one even knew he was in the arena. Then he announced on television last night that there would be no new help for Canadian farmers, farmers losing their farms, homes and livelihood.
I call on the government to stop this smoke and mirrors show, to stop the stonewalling and to provide the emergency assistance it promised last winter.


GUN CONTROL
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my statement is about the House of Commons legislative committee on Bill C-17 concerning gun control. The Conservative Whip has appointed himself to this committee. That is very unusual! On top of that, he has used his power to appoint other members who, like
October 1, 1991

him, want to weaken the proposed legislation. He has hijacked the committee.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Whip has hijacked the gun committee. The minister is going to lose her bill on arms control at a time when a majority of Canadians want effective gun control. The minister and the Prime Minister had better wake up and crack the whip on the Whip.


PEOPLE OF HAITI
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, on February 7, 1991, the people of Haiti celebrated cheerfully as father Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected president with 70 per cent of popular votes. With him a duly elected government was finally in place, following a series of dictatorial regimes, which would lead Haiti toward democracy. Seven months have gone by, during which the people of Haiti have had a taste of freedom and social justice. Now, Mr. Speaker, soldiers have broken the constitutional order by instigating a coup to overthrow the first duly elected government of that country since 1804.
As a friend of the Haitian people, I object most strongly to this coup which is likely to throw the country in complete chaos. I congratulate my government for having vigorously condemned from the very beginning this putsch which will bring nothing but tears to this noble and courageous people.


INTERNATIONAL SENIORS DAY
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations General Assembly has designated October 1 as the International Seniors Day. It is an opportunity for the people of Canada and other nations all over the world to reflect on the actual and potential contributions of elders to their society. It also creates an awareness of an obvious demographic phenomenon, that is population ageing.
By appointing a Minister of State for Seniors in 1987 and implementing in 1988 a strategy for seniors, this government clearly showed its commitment to the needs and concerns of seniors in Canada.

I would wish, Mr. Speaker, that all my colleagues in the House would join me in wishing our senior citizens a very happy day.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Conference Board of Canada forecast unemployment across Canada will remain above 10 per cent for the rest of 1991 and for the next year as well. Jobs are going to be hard to find over the coming year says the board.
In my province of Prince Edward Island, where unemployment is closer to 16 per cent, for some people it is impossible to find a job. Their future is bleak. There are small businesses which cannot make their bank payments. There are farmers who face bankruptcy. In fact, Statistics Canada recently reported a 14 per cent increase in bankruptcies in Atlantic Canada in August. The reason is this government's economic policies. High interest rates, high taxes, a high dollar are combining to make 1991 one of the worst years on record for Islanders.
I call on the government to bring in some economic policies that will produce some much needed prosperity. Atlantic Canadians are waiting.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Jim KarpofF (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Vancouver School Board, the B.C. ombudsman has begun an investigation into whether the rights of children, particularly the right to an education, are being denied because they are hungry.
School boards in Vancouver, Victoria, Burnaby and Surrey are being forced to feed hungry children, without the promised assistance from the provincial government of British Columbia.
The request for an investigation cites several articles from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including Article 27.1 which states that it is the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

October 1, 1991
Oral Questions
The time has long since passed for the federal government to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and to take steps to ensure that no child in Canada is denied an education because of hunger.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to make a statement on Canadian unity today, but after what I said in the House last night about the Public Service strike, my riding office was besieged by more than 200 strikers who came to criticize my speech and demand the right to free bargaining and an independent mediator.
The government showed it was willing to reach an agreement last week when it improved its offer to the union. Unfortunately, the union left the bargaining table without bothering to respond. It preferred to respond by going back on strike, by preventing this country's essential services from functioning properly, by blockading bridges like they did this morning, and by preventing workers from going to work. The union is not getting the sympathy of Canadians.
What I have to say to all public servants in my riding in Laval-Est and across the country is this: Let's be realistic; the measures the government announced are not a personal attack on you as union members, because you deserve far better. The purpose of these measures is to ensure that all Canadians take part in a wage restraint program that will bring greater prosperity to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am against violence, and I will never give in to intimidation and blackmail.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
The. governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow, turned down the proposal of this government to permit
consultation and participation of the regions in setting monetary policies. It is almost unprecedented, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance: who speaks for the government? Who speaks for the constitutional proposition that the Minister of Finance is trying to sell to Canadians, that is turned down by the governor of the bank. Who is the boss?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: That conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely false. I invite the hon. member to read the speech made by the governor of the Bank of Canada and he will find that he has said precisely the opposite.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House think the Governor of the Bank of Canada would do well to forget about the Constitution and concentrate on monetary policy.
Today, the Canadian dollar reached its highest level in 13 years, at a time when all economists and all production sectors in Canada want a more competitive dollar to increase our exports and create jobs in this country. When will the Minister of Finance ask the Governor of the Bank of Canada to do what all provincial Premiers, economists, and members of this House want him to do, which is to lower the value of the dollar and lower interest rates so there will be jobs for Canadians today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, so as to make it absolutely clear let me quote from the governor's speech, which was delivered earlier today:
As the federal government's proposals make clear, there can only
be a single monetary policy for Canada based on the economic
picture over-all, that is to say, based on the sum of the regional
situations.
We agree with that. The governor of the Bank of Canada obviously agrees with that because it is the only sensible way to proceed.
In so far as his talk about interest rates is concerned, I remind the House that interest rates have come down by
5.5	percentage points. They are continuing to come down and as long as we can contain the pressures of inflation, we have an expectation that they will continue to come down. It is sustainable growth with price stability. That is
October 1, 1991

Oral Questions
our goal, that is our objective and it is quite clear that we are on track in terms of achieving both.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Rosetown, Saskatchewan, 3,000 fanners, victims of the high dollar policy of this government, were asking for help. The Minister of Agriculture said a flat no, no emergency assistance for them at all at this moment.
Since 1986, the time that the Minister of Finance was Minister of Agriculture, in Saskatchewan alone two families leave the farm for good every day of the week. I want to know from the minister what the government intends to do. These people want to stay on the farm. They want to be productive. They want to contribute to the wealth of the country, and the government does not want to help them this time, this year when they need money.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that I was in Rosetown yesterday, along with my colleagues from this side of the House and along with colleagues from the other side of the House.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would have been welcomed there. I think what my hon. colleague across the aisle should understand is that since 1984 this government has increased three times the assistance to grains and oilseeds by the administration that he was part of. He knows very well, as do members on the other side, that the problem today is the stupidity of a price war between the European community and the United States. This government has taken steps in the past to protect farmers, to maintain farmers' integrity, and we continue to do that.
There has been no Prime Minister in the country at any time who has paid more attention or contributed more to stability, and this government will continue to do it.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister who does not appear to appreciate the frustration felt by farmers. His
stonewalling on this issue of emergency assistance adds to that frustration.
The government's own committee on third line of defence feels frustrated and has urged the government to deal with the shortfall on the last crop year.
When will the government honour its commitment to farmers and provide the emergency assistance they so badly need?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows-and I must say he was missed at Rosetown-this government put forward some $400 million last year, in 1990. It put forward some $650 million additional in the FSAM program this year.
However, I draw to the hon. member's attention that he is talking about the shortfall in 1991. I think if he reads the conclusion put forward by Prairie Pools Incorporated, he will see that this crisis has been caused not by Canadian farmers but by the unfair trading actions of the United States and the European community. The real solution to the problem lies with a GATT agreement, which will restore some order to the international market. That is not going to happen in the short term. We know that, and that is why we have been supporting farmers since 1984 and will continue to do so.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, we missed the minister in Miami and in Brandon as well.
I have a question for the same minister. The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds has suggested that farmers dump their wheat at BMW dealerships in protest against what the Europeans are doing.
By the same token, why do they not do the same thing at Ford dealership or Cadillac dealership? The Americans are perhaps doing even worse to our farmers than what the Europeans have done.
Why is the minister not addressing this particular issue? The Americans are hurting our farmers.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, what I have said in response to farmers expressing frustration and wanting to do something with their wheat or their com, if they want to put something some place, to dump a load of wheat in front of a Mercedes dealer or a BMW dealer or whatever, the cars sitting in that lot come into Canada at a 9.2 per cent tariff and this week enter the European community,

October 1, 1991
Oral Questions
which is also a very high quality product, at tariffs of up to 200 per cent.
That is what we are trying to express. It is just what the Minister of Agriculture said. This is a very vicious trade war.
The Americans are behaving in a very unfriendly way to Canadian fanners and are causing problems as well.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Take them on, Charlie.


Charles James Mayer: We will take them on. We have said some things about the Americans that have been just as confrontational as we have been with the Europeans.


PAY EQUITY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Public Service strike is continuing. The anger and sense of despair at the lack of respect this government has shown its own workers are mounting.
During the 1984 election the Prime Minister made a personal commitment to the women of Canada on pay equity. He reiterated that commitment in 1988. Pay equity has been the law in Canada since 1977.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why he does not show the good faith of his government, keep his commitment to the women of Canada and enact the legislation now on pay equity.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the hon. member because indeed it is this government that has implemented pay equity, the largest pay equity settlement that has ever been made, $370 million.
If we take the example of a secretary, over the past few years as a result of that pay equity settlement she has received an additional $7,000. This year, in addition to her salary, she will receive another $1,289 and, if she still is earning less than $27,000, she will receive another $500.
This government is without comparison in terms of our commitment and our action on pay equity.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. It is clear that the government and the Prime Minister do not respect the commitment made to Canadian women, because the Human Rights Commission has said that the government's action on this problem are inadequate. Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister again: Why does the government not just implement the legislation now?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, let me again say to the hon. member that indeed this government has implemented pay equity legislation.
There are 73,400 government employees who are benefitting from that pay legislation, and $81 million will be paid out this year in pay equity payments, primarily to women in the Public Service.
We will continue to work on pay equity legislation, but to the average employee, the clerk or the secretary who has benefitted from pay equity, I think we have shown that commitment and we will continue to show that commitment.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
The pay equity settlement by the government has been inadequate. The conciliation board has said that. The Human Rights Commission has said that and I am sure the Minister responsible for the Status of Women is truly aware of that as well.
It could take up to a week, since the back-to-work legislation goes to the Senate, before this dispute will be settled. In the interest of the people of Canada, in the interest of showing respect for the workers of this government, I want to say to the Prime Minister that rather than bring in the riot troops, rather than bring in helicopters, rather than bring in newspaper ads, why does the Prime Minister not-


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I think I can explain very easily why we do not think mediation would lead us anywhere.
October 1, 1991

I said earlier that we had tried to make offers on Thursday. They had been rejected and in our view the union had acted in bad faith by going to television instead of answering our request.
The hon. member leads us to believe that members of the Public Service are frustrated and therefore react on the spot in a way which is worrying. I will tell her that there is much more to that.
I have in my hand a strategy document of PSAC, directed to the strike and picket captains, which states what happened today: "Delay buses as long as possible. Please note. This is an illegal activity and will provoke police activity. Try to get the drivers' co-operation", and it goes on and on.
She is worried about the lower paid people, the women. It continues: "Use same segregation techniques. Get the names of everybody". Furthermore it says: "non-designated alliance members will not-"


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of External Affairs. Canadians support the government's condemnation of the coup in Haiti, but we are concerned about the violence in the capital. More than 130 people have already died in that country. What measures will the government take to ensure the safety of the thousands of Canadians in that country? Will he ask the international community to intervene in order to restore democracy in Haiti?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Canadian people, the government and all the members of this House were shocked and disappointed for the Haitian people who are once again the victims of a coup. We reacted very firmly. Yesterday, my colleague, the Secretary of State, told our permanent representative at the OAS to consider with the permanent committee the
Oral Questions
possibility of OAS members taking action to help the people of Haiti. As well, a message was sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations, through our ambassador, asking him to see what measures could be taken by the UN to support the Haitian people.
As for me, this morning I announced, as a strong measure of protest, the cancellation of any bilateral aid plan being discussed with the government of Haiti. However, we are going to continue to support the Haitian people in their search for democracy, taking into account all the obstacles they must face in this regard.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we support the position taken by the government as regards to the coup.

I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his speech at Stanford he said that the time has come in which the advancement and promotion of human rights must overtake considerations of national sovereignty.
In that case, should Canada now be asking the Security Council of the United Nations or the governing council of the OAS for direct intervention into Haiti to protect human rights and to restore democracy?
We are not asking for just a cancellation today, but direct intervention on the principle that the Prime Minister announced on Sunday.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has just indicated, the illegal and undemocratic action taken in Haiti is one that the government, and I am sure Parliament of Canada, views not only with alarm but with horror. Once again the people of Haiti have been deprived of their fundamental human rights. The minister, in consequence, has announced our intention to sever all relations in terms of aid with Haiti.
Last night I received a call from President Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela with whom we were in touch in respect of arranging for the removal of President Aristide from Haiti. We also discussed the possibility of some of the matters raised by my hon. friend.
In this hemisphere where democracy has flourished in a remarkable way particularly over the last 10 or 15 years, it has become completely unacceptable that the island of

Oral Questions
Haiti remains an island of repression, violence and human degradation.
Canada, working through the OAS and the United Nations, has brought this to the attention of both last night and this morning. We will be asking all members of the House to support the government in an initiative to ensure the liberation of Haiti and the restoration of the duly elected, democratically elected president of the Republic of Haiti.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The minister was quick to do an about-face and promised that the government's well-placed friends who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would not receive an extravagant $80,000 bonus. Since the minister refused to include these bonuses in his wage-freeze bill yesterday, when will he present some document in which he keeps his promises not to give gifts to the government's highly paid friends?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I have quite clearly said several times in this House in recent days that the government had made a decision in the Budget that everyone would get no increase for a year: no increase in pay and no bonuses for all those who are entitled to them.
The problem of putting such things in legislation is that we have a whole series of bonuses provided for by law. For example, the bilingual bonus-we do not want to touch that. There are bonuses for officers on ships and shift premiums.
So we preferred to make a solemn commitment and will follow it up with an order in council: no salary increase for employees, managers, the Prime Minister, heads of corporations and others, and no performance bonus is to be given this year.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question on this matter of national interest is addressed to the Prime Minister.
Canadians are proud of our history of settling issues calmly and reasonably, not by confrontation, and today is the last chance for the government to show responsible leadership and settle its disputes with the Public Service the Canadian way.
Will the Prime Minister please explain why even now his government refuses to take the chance that a clear, impartial, mediator can bring a reasonable settlement to this dispute?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, if I did not have enough good reasons yesterday, I have very good reasons today.
A little while back I quoted from a document on PS AC's strategy. It said, for example, that non-desig-nated alliance members will not be allowed to cross until police intervene, and by trying to stop non-designated workers they have the opportunity to try to convince them of the wisdom of joining the union picket. What is the reason? To try to motivate politicians to move to mediation while they are still on strike. I will not give in to illegality.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PAY EQUITY
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to see a mediator brought forward before the government bends rules in contempt of law. Having said that, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of women.
Pay equity is an important issue, central to the Public Service Alliance dispute. Today there are 11 women in the office of the minister responsible for the status of women. These women are waiting for the minister because they want to have a discussion with her to explain why pay equity is so important to women in the public sector.
Will the minister meet with these women after Question Period and will she take their concerns to the cabinet?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I was really quite shocked this morning when I heard that my office at the status of women had been forcibly entered and my staff harassed. That is not the way to deal with these issues. When people are on
October 1, 1991

strike they are allowed to picket legally, but not take the actions taken by those women.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the position of the minister is that it is not her job to meet with delegations. It would seem to me that the minister's office is a public place and that these women have gone to seek a meeting.
Does the minister not believe it is her job to meet with women who bring her concerns as serious as pay equity and then in fact carry those concerns to her government?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I find this quite astonishing. I meet with delegations of women and women's groups across this country day after day. But I will not meet with women who enter my office forcibly, harass my staff and undermine what I think is the appropriate-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Canadian truckers cannot continue to live on empty promises, endless meetings and continued studies as they have for close to two years.
Now that the minister has broken yet another promise, namely to provide an assistance package for truckers by the end of September, when will the government finally provide the necessary federal assistance package for our Canadian industry? Or is the government merely involved in a fruitless public relations exercise again?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have made good on our commitment to the task force members. We have met with them on a number of occasions. They have developed with us an assistance package. We took these initiatives to a meeting a couple of weeks ago with the ministers of transportation from the provinces.
Oral Questions
Everyone understands that the major portion of the trucking problems do not rest with the Government of Canada, but rests in the provincial legislatures. The tax on fuel is enormous and the action will have to be taken in the legislatures of the provinces.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Since the federal government deregulated the industry on January 1,1988, thus giving free licence to the American trucks, over 1,400 Canadian trucking companies have gone bankrupt.
Rather than always casting the blame on the provinces and only looking at the price of fuel, which is only one factor, why will this government not modify and reform its own exclusive federal regulations which impact on trucking and therefore provide a national solution to what clearly is a national industry in need of support?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of transborder activity in the trucking industry is still in the hands of Canadian carriers. In fact, the Canadian transportation industry controls 60 per cent of transborder traffic. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should tell Canadians that introducing the GST has benefitted the trucking industry to the tune of $400 million per year and will continue to do so during the next ten years. I believe the measures we have taken have helped the trucking industry considerably, and we will continue to co-operate with this sector.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South- Weston.


DISASTERS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, over six years ago 280 Canadians were murdered in the Air-India disaster. It was the most hideous crime ever in Canadian history.
We on this side of the House have repeatedly called for a full public inquiry into this mass murder. I call on the Solicitor General again to order a full public royal commission of inquiry to investigate all aspects of that particular disaster, including the role of the Canadian

October 1, 1991
Oral Questions
Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, officials at Transport Canada and ministers of the cabinet?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the government has been making every effort to get to the bottom of this very serious tragedy and all members of the House know that it was a tragedy.
My hon. friend will know that as late as this summer the RCMP contracted with a deep-sea diving vessel in an effort to retrieve materials from the hull of the airplane in an effort to find sufficient evidence to bring people to court. That investigation is ongoing and I do not want to be in a position at any time to disrupt what we are all hopeful will be a successful investigation.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that Canadians are fast losing respect for the criminal justice system?
Reports indicate that on Friday the Security Intelligence Review Committee will announce an internal secret investigation into the Air-India disaster. Why has the minister agreed to an internal investigation by the Security Intelligence Review Committee rather than a full public inquiry so that Canadians can understand what happened exactly? What is he trying to cover up?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, any allegation of a cover up is utterly groundless. My hon. friend knows that the SIRC committee contains representatives of all three political parties, members of the Privy Council who are an overview committee of SIRC. They are bringing down a report this week and I am not in a position to comment on what may or may not be in it. I would just assure my hon. friend that we are taking, as a government, on behalf of the Canadian people, every possible step to bring those people to justice.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, since he holds the purse strings.
The minister will know from his colleagues who were present that the several thousand farmers who met in Rosetown, Saskatchewan yesterday did so to bring to the attention of the Canadian government and the Canadian people that they have a disastrous situation. Their
immediate problem is the shortfall of income in 1990-91. It does not help to have the Minister of Agriculture tell them why the shortfall is in place without providing them any relief. .
The Ontario government has just announced a $35.5 million assistance package. Will this government keep its promise for third line of defence funding over and above interim NISA and GRIP payments?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member from his constituency and from his activities representing that constituency understands full well that in the summer of 1990 the government put forward over $400 million to assist the grains and oilseeds industry. He knows that the government announced early this spring that the farm support and adjustment measures were almost $650 million.
He also knows, Mr. Speaker, that the third line of defence representing all segments of the industry, which met last month and is meeting again this month, have identified that the support given by this government was equal to the support they would have received had the GRIP and NISA programs been in place. That was a commitment of the government, that we help bridge them from 1990-91 to 1991-92.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Yesterday the farmers were asking for money above those commitments and they need it.
Statistics show that for farm families, off-farm income has been higher than income from the sale of products and from government assistance. Is it this government's policy to make sure that agriculture in the next few years becomes a part-time occupation which requires that kind of off-farm income to survive?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member gathered his information. I have heard that said before. It is not accurate. It is recognized that there is a difficulty in the agriculture sector, in the grains and oilseeds sector and that producers are seeking other ways of supporting themselves during this difficult time. But it is also-
If the member from the New Democratic Party wants to talk to his colleague he can do it after I have finished. What he can do is join with the government, and the producers in recognizing why this hurt is there; because of the stupidity of an international trade war led by the

October 1, 1991
European community. He can join with us to take action to stop that, join with the-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester.


FORESTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry.
A stable forestry industry and many jobs in Nova Scotia depend on a federal-provincial co-operation agreement which seems to continue to escape us. I wonder if the minister can tell Nova Scotians when the Nova Scotia industry can expect an agreement in place to provide that long-range stability.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Cumberland- Colchester for his valuable counsel and advice. I can tell him that the agreement which was negotiated in two phases is agreed to in principle. It is designed to produce the stability and the sustainability of forest products in the province.
I hope the agreement can be signed within the next couple of weeks or so.


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Another 220 jobs will be lost in the Yarmouth area when Rio Algom closes its tin mine. The president of Rio Algom Limited, stated in a letter to me on Friday, that: the closure was due to "the ongoing problems of the international tin market and a strong Canadian dollar".
When will the Minister of Finance abandon this government's high interest rate, high dollar policy to enable our primary industries to export their products and survive?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the high interest policy.
Oral Questions
I remind the hon. member that interest rates have come down by 5.5 percentage points and are continuing the trend downward. As long as we can contain inflationary pressures, I think there is a good chance that can occur. There are signs that the economy is recovering. We have had a good period of growth in the second quarter. It is somewhat stable and levelling off in the third and fourth quarters. We have laid the groundwork for what I believe will be a sustainable recovery with price stability. That is our goal and objective and I think we are well on the road to achieving that.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. What is the federal government doing to provide future employment for the 220 skilled workers who are about to be laid off, along with the 330 skilled workers already laid off by the closure of Dominion Textiles, and the fact that our forestry workers are not working, and our fishery is not working. All primary industries in the Yarmouth area are affected by the high Canadian dollar. When is the minister going to do something?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the value of the dollar is established in the marketplace. The hon. member knows that.
The government does not have a target for the value of the dollar, nor does the government have a range for the value of that dollar. Much of it is related to the extensive borrowings being made by the provinces. We should take pride in the fact that Canada is a very safe place in which to invest. Dollars, both from the Asian and the Euro markets are flowing into Canada in an unprecedented way. That is providing upward pressure on the dollar.
At the same time, there are signs that growth is going to be sustained, and as long as we can have sustainable growth with price stability we will have durable jobs.


ARMS CONTROL
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Oral Questions
Considering the substantial reduction in nuclear weapons and missiles announced unilaterally by the President of the United States on Friday, and we congratulate the President for this initiative, will the government now show similar leadership by announcing the cessation of cruise missile testing in Canada. Has the minister discussed this with her allies?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, both the Prime Minister and I have strongly supported President Bush's initiative publicly. I have not discussed cruise missile testing with my colleagues, but we have been discussing, in this government, and publicly, arms control all over the world. Indeed the Prime Minister was the first world leader last February to call for very strong measures concerning arms control, both in terms of nuclear proliferation and conventional weapons. We are pursuing this on a number of fronts and will continue to do so.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is not a satisfactory answer. Continued cruise missile testing is out of sync with the new realities in the world.
Considering the breakdown of central authority in the Soviet Union and the fact that their 18,000 nuclear weapons are based in four republics, what is the government doing with its allies to assure that these nuclear weapons do not fall into the wrong hands or are used irresponsibly? What steps are being taken to deal with this very important risk?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, Canada has taken a very active role, both with the Group of Seven countries and also through the CSCE, through direct discussions with the prime ministers and the heads of some republics, as well as at the centre. This is clearly a matter of grave concern and interest to the international community and to Canada specifically. We will continue to pursue this through every channel available.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, last February, Canadians applauded the inauguration of the democratic government of Jean-Ber-trand Aristide. After the violent coup in Haiti, can the
Minister for External Affairs give us the assurance that our government will not recognize a government that is responsible for this reign of terror in Haiti, that it will ignore that government at all international forums and will impose economic sanctions against the followers of Duvalier who shoot children and people in the streets?
Will she take a clearcut position against this dictatorship?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of the issues raised by the hon. member, I can inform him that we do indeed intend to take that kind of action.
We have no intention of recognizing a gang of hoodlums who have taken control of Haiti by removing a democratically elected president and government. We will do everything in our power to ensure that democracy is restored in Haiti and President Aristide is reinstated in his democratic functions in Port-au-Prince.


Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. First of all, I wish to congratulate the minister and his government for having stayed removals of rejected refugees to Haiti, all except one, for about two years. But I understand that very recently that practice was reconsidered and may be slated for discontinuation.
Therefore, in view of the recent coup in Haiti, I wish to ask the minister if he will assure this House that the government will not proceed with removals to Haiti until democracy has been restored there?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance to the House, that the government will not proceed with removal or deportation of anyone to Haiti under the present circumstances.


FISHERIES
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. During the past summer the sharing of the Atlantic salmon resource in New Brunswick and elsewhere has caused considerable tension and conflict among all of the users of it; anglers, commercial fishermen and native Indians, particularly in the context of the Sparrow decision from the Supreme Court last year.
October 1, 1991

Obviously conservation is the first concern. For example, there is a serious call for the elimination of gill netting as a practice under any circumstances.
My question for the minister is this. Your department has initiated a process of consultation and communication among all the user groups to establish a new vision for salmon in New Brunswick. How is that process going? Has a consultative conference been considered? If so, when will that conference be held?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, this summer there was considerable tension in the Atlantic salmon fishery in New Brunswick as a result of competition among user groups and as a result of the Sparrow decision concerning native food fishing activities. My officials, including the deputy minister, met with the involved parties and will continue to meet with them to resolve their grievances. I think they have all showed a great interest in pursuing a proper compromise that will look after the rights of all users.
The hon. member has been most helpful in all those discussions and his-


Mr. Speaker:: You will appreciate that it is time to move on. The hon. member for Don Valley North.


PENSIONS
Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
At the Progressive Conservative convention in August a resolution was endorsed by 77 per cent of delegates asking the government to attain indexed linked pensions for British pensioners living in Canada. What actions will the minister be taking to ensure that British pensioners living in Canada get justice?
Oral Questions
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member.
Since 1984 the Government of Canada has tried many times to persuade the United Kingdom government to index pensions for the over 100,000 U.K. pensioners living in Canada. So far the government of the U.K. has said that it is not possible for them to index those pensions.
I can assure the member that we will continue to make all possible efforts to persuade the government of the U.K. because I believe she is right and that the position should be recognized by the Government of the United Kingdom.


AGRICULTURAL ZONING
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Agriculture. In the constitutional offers tabled last Tbesday, the inclusion of the right to property in the Constitution generated a lot of questions in the Quebec fanning community, particularly as regards its implication for the agricultural zoning act. Can the minister tell us today if, before praising this offer, he had studies done on the implications of this right to property on agricultural zoning in Quebec and, if so, can he make them public?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, when the government tabled its offers that will be discussed in the coming months by the Castonguay Committee, the federal government never intended, and it still does not intend, to intervene in that sector or to abolish the marketing boards, as some people claimed last week. This was never our intention. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the marketing boards are governed by both federal and provincial legislation, and in the past few years, the provinces have exercised their jurisdiction and rightly so. Mr. Speaker, I must say that in this case, the federal government has absolutely no intention of intervening in marketing boards or agricultural zoning. Those who suggest such things are trying to scare people.

October 1, 1991
Tributes


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize that the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury is rising on a point of order. I will come to him in a few minutes but there are some matters which will have to take precedence over that.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Madhav Sinh Solanki, Minister of External Affairs of the Republic of India.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE LATE JEAN BEETZ
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my regret at the loss of one of Canada's most respected public figures, former Supreme Court of Canada Judge Jean Beetz, who died yesterday.
Born in Montreal in 1927, the Hon. Jean Beetz had a long and distinguished career in both the academic and legal worlds. He was for many years a Professor of Law at the University of Montreal where he became dean of the faculty. His expertise in constitutional law led to his appointment as Special Counsel to the Prime Minister for Constitutional Affairs, a position he held from 1968 to 1971. In this capacity he was a key player in the constitutional negotiations of those years.

His appointment as judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal was soon followed by his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1974. In the 14 years that followed, he wrote landmark judgments that reflected his profound knowledge and experience of civil and constitutional law.

He was known and admired not only for the acumen of his judgments, but for his courteous and gentlemanly bearing. Throughout his years on the court he remained accessible and ever-ready to share with his legal and judicial colleagues, young and old, his vast fund of learning. Those who knew him will readily acknowledge his many kindnesses.
His loss will be felt deeply, not only by the legal profession but, indeed, by all Canadians.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Minister of Justice in saying how sad we are to learn that Judge Jean Beetz has left us.
As the Minister was saying, Judge Beetz was a learned person, a university professor of the highest calibre, a superb dean who was able to attract very competent teachers at the Faculty of law of Montreal. When he was appointed at the Cour d'appel du Quebec and at the Supreme Court of Canada, he became a judge of very high integrity and veiy good judgment who always tried to understand not only the law but also the workings of the Canadian society.
As the Hon. Minister said, he was the perfect gentleman. All those who have had the pleasure to meet him know that Judge Jean Beetz was a model for all of us. He was a very courteous and polite man with whom one could discuss without having to raise his voice. He always demonstrated a solid judgment as well as a vast knowledge of the constitutional and judicial issues of the country.
This House extends its deepest sympathies to his family. The legal community, as well as the country as a whole, have lost a great servant.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I also want to pay tribute to this great judge.
Judge Beetz was a man of the future. He always treated the lawyers that pleaded before him with respect and dignity.

In many respects he was a man ahead of his time. He was very impartial and very fair. He treated the lawyers, as I said, and the people who appeared before him with great respect. He had much time for people.
We would like to extend our condolences to his family. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Judge Beetz was a great Quebecer and a great Canadian.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, all the members of the legal community as well as myself, when I was a law student, have had the opportunity to read the progressive judgments of Judge Beetz. We all know
October 1, 1991

about his profound interest for civil law, as well as his vast knowledge.
I believe that not only the legal community but also the province of Quebec and all of Canada must mourn his passing.


PRIVILEGE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights of all members of Parliament.
Today, October 1, 1991, marks the fifth anniversary of the election of the hon. member for Vancouver South as Speaker of this House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we cast our memories back to that day. We can recall indeed a very long day. While you were elected during the sitting of September 30, 1986, this election took 13 ballots.
Thirteen is not such an unlucky number after all. In fact you were proclaimed elected at 1.30 in the morning of October 1. That was indeed a remarkable occasion. It is the first time that this House ever elected its Speaker by secret ballot. What was more notable was the meaning of this election to you as an individual.
A little more than a year earlier you had suffered a cruel political setback. You had the courage and strength of character to look misfortune in the eye. As it happened, misfortune blinked.
In the judgment of your peers, you were found to be the one whose integrity and fortitude they considered so impeccable that they chose you as the impartial adjudicator of their proceedings and the prime protector of their rights.
Five years as Speaker is a very long time. Of the 32 Speakers since Confederation you are only the seventh to serve that long. By the end of this coming January you will be the fourth longest serving Speaker of this House.
Privilege
Mr. Speaker, there must have been times in the last five years that you wondered what you were doing in the Chair. It is a tribute, Sir, perhaps to your even-handedness, that from time to time some of the rest of us have wondered the same thing.
That of course, Mr. Speaker, is the whole point. It falls upon you to attempt to moderate a process that by its very nature must at times become extremely immoderate. You are not a judge or a magistrate; you are merely one of our peers. It is from that fact, however, that you derive your authority. You are the one in whom 294 of your colleagues have placed their trust. This is a trust that has to be renewed, not just at the beginning of a Parliament but each and every day.
Today is the 1,827th day on which that trust has been renewed and I hope there will be many more to come. The late Lester B. Pearson, in nominating a former Speaker, described his qualities in the words of Socrates, and I quote: "To hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide impartially".
For five years, Mr. Speaker, this House has benefitted from your meeting this criteria. We look forward to many more years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader will speak on behalf of the government. I just wanted to apologize to you for leaving the House momentarily. I thought the opposition House leader was rising in a tribute to me. Given my modesty, I wanted to be out of the House while he spoke.
As I turn the floor over to the distinguished government House leader for a more appropriate tribute, I just want to add that in the experience of people who have sat in this House much longer than me, the present Speaker of the House will rank with the greatest in the history of Canada. He is a man of uncommon distinction, a man who brings warmth, good nature, and a sense of fairness and decency to the Chair. As one of our peers, I can only say on behalf of I am sure all members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that we are deeply honoured to be in your company.

The House of Commons has been honoured by having you as Speaker and I know that I can say, on behalf of all Canadians, but particularly on behalf of all members of

Privilege
this House, that we have been honoured to serve under the Hon. John Fraser.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to associate myself, and my colleagues, with the remarks of the House leader of the Liberal Party, and of course the remarks of the Prime Minister.
I think people watching on television see the black robes and the dignified costume and assume it is a very easy position to occupy. It looks rather comfortable. One has to appreciate, as John Diefenbaker said, that this is the only insane asylum in the country in control of the inmates. Sort of being the head inmate, it is not always the easiest task.
Mr. Speaker, I think in a month's time you and I will have served the people of Canada as elected members of Parliament for 19 years. I saw a picture of our first class recently and I am not sure which of us has aged more. I wonder if our respective wives knew what they had coming.
In any case, I want again to congratulate you on these five years of outstanding service. The election of the Speaker, that was referred to, was a new outcome of parliamentary reforms introduced by the McGrath commission. It was a reform that I have not heard suggested by anybody that was anything else but outstandingly successful, and to that fact that we view that reform with such success is a tribute to yourself and we wish you many, many more years before we are having to face another election for Speaker in this House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my NDP colleagues, I would like to join with the others who have called attention to your anniversary and say that we all share the relief, which we are sure you must share, that the fate of Speakers in the past, the fate of beheading, which explains the traditional reluctance Speakers are supposed to show upon election to the Chair, has no.t befallen you.


An hon. member:: Not yet.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We hope that indeed this is a fate you may continue to escape until you leave the Chair.
We note also that your election to the speakership of the Commons was a great moment in the life of Parliament, because it was the first time that Parliament had elected its own Speaker, a departure from the tradition in which there was a pro forma arrangement by which the government's appointee became the Speaker of the House of Commons. This was as a result of the McGrath reforms and it was a moment that I hope will be seen as a watershed in which the House of Commons began to take more control over its own life, away from cabinet, away from the Prime Minister and away from all the other things that have eroded the power of this Chamber and its ability to be the real decison-making process in this country.
I might also add, Mr. Speaker, before all this flattery goes to your head, that one of the other gifts you have brought to the House is the infrequent but nevertheless regular Burns Night. As one of similar heritage, and we are not in that heritage given to flattery, all I can say is that you have not done so bad.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will be very short and brief. Since the dean of the House is not here and he likes to stand up and speak, and some of you young people have spoken in honour of the Chair and the present holder of the title, no one spoke on behalf of the 17 or 27 others. I know there were at least 17 who were running against you that night that ended at one o'clock five years ago.
I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, from this role of being the dean of the Independents around here, that thank God this one lost that battle, and I think all the others who lost are glad they lost the battle. The Chair went to you and you have distinguished it, in the words of all, that you neither have eyes nor ears to speak unless directed to the House of Commons by all sides and all members of the House of Commons. Keep it up and forget about the Scots.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: In all modesty, as much as I can muster, I want to thank all hon. members and the Prime Minister for their very kind comments and their very kind applause that met those comments.
October 1, 1991

The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond said something about I must look back with some concern over the last five years. I look back with concern over the last five days every day.
My old friend, who is also of the class of 1972, the hon. government House leader, mentioned something about being the head inmate. I only take comfort from the fact that all of the rest of you qualify as inmates.
There has been some talk by my hon. friend from Winnipeg Transcona about the fate of past Speakers and somebody-I do not always hear what is said down there but I heard somebody-vividly said: "Not yet". I take care.
The right hon. Prime Minister was very kind and worked up an excellent reason to come back into the House and be recognized.
I thank the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants for his moving tribute to others who, as he says, may or may not depending on the day have been fortunate not to join me in the chair.
I do come back, though, despite the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants who said to forget the Scots- it is a difficult thing for us Scots to do-to my friend from Winnipeg Transcona. I know what my former colleagues on the government side have said, that when Blaikie's up on Scots who are piping, the Speaker let's him go on all day. I know what the criticisms have been. He quoted Burns and perhaps I can remind us all that there is another quote from Burns that we should keep in mind when we are here:
Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see
us!
Thank you very much.
There are several points of order. I think the member for York-Simcoe was first on the list, the hon. member for Drummond, and then my friend, the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.


POINTS OF ORDER
John Cole: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today, in response to the Leader of the
Points of Order
New Democratic Party and to a couple of other questions, the President of the Treasury Board was quoting from a document. I think it would be proper procedure and certainly in the openness of this place and the spirit of this place for the President of the Treasury Board to table that document with the Clerk.


Gilles Loiselle: I am pleased to table the document, Mr. Speaker.


MOTION CONDEMNING THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT IN HAITI
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent to introduce the following motion which is seconded by the hon. members from Winnipeg-South-Centre and Burnaby-Kingsway, and which reads:
That this House condemn the overthrow of the government that has occured in Haiti and call for the immediate restoration of the legitimate government of Haiti as promptly as possible.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the government would be very pleased to associate itself with the motion of the hon. member.


Mr. Duceppe:: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must also give our consent to this motion. There is a large Haitian community in Montreal. Father Aristide lived there for a while and I think that today we must be solidly behind the Haitian people and demand the return of democracy.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be unusual but nonetheless the hon. member has moved a motion and asks for the consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, with respect and with some intimidation after the accolades that have been played to you just recently and are so well deserved, I rise to point out that the response by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to my question was not allowed in your wisdom to continue

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
and I did not get the response that he spoke, if he did in fact get to finish his answer.
On his way out of the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, he did tell me that the conference I had asked him about would indeed be proceeding with respect to Atlantic salmon and I am sure you would be very interested in that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I had a premonition that I was going to be rebuked by the time the hon. member got on his feet. I was wondering if the nice things that had been said would have limited him in his capacity to carry out his parliamentary functions but obviously they did not.
I have to do the best I can with time. The hon. member, I am sure, understands that. The hon. member has made his point and I am sure will have no difficulty in making the news public.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-29, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another act in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Churchill has 14 minutes left.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, when I started my speech prior to the noon hour I had talked about the fact that this government has spent millions upon millions of dollars trying to gain political favour with Canadians. This occurs usually just prior to an election, and I gave the example of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean in a by-election where I believe the federal government committed itself to approximately $100 million in that one by-election.
I would like to point out to the people who are listening that the amount that the Prime Minister and this cabinet found in order to try and win that one by-election would have given every person on strike on Canada today a 2 per cent increase in salary.
I also pointed out other examples of how prior to elections, whether it be in Saskatchewan or B.C., or during those elections as well, the federal government has found money. In the six months prior to the 1988 federal election, this government, which was so concerned about restraint that it wanted to cut back the old age pensions and was cutting back other programs that were necessary for post-secondary education and medicare, spent hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars which at that time it could afford.
I reject the argument that is made by this government that it is out here to fight the deficit. It has proven time after time after time that when it comes to its own political advantage it will spend the taxpayers' money. However when it comes to those receiving the old age pension, to those receiving family allowances, to those who need to have a post-secondary education, to those who need medical assistance, this government does not have the same considerations.
I was in my own riding last week in a native community called Lac Brochet, a community for which this federal government has responsibility. The school children in that community have been waiting 19 years to have a permanent school built. They do not even have trailers but have makeshift classrooms in a part of the country where the temperature goes to 40 and 50 degrees below zero. Kids are walking outside, going from one class to the next class. That same community was told that they would have to wait another six years before they got a permanent school-in total almost 26 years before a school will be built. The government does not have money for that, but it certainly has money for its political objectives.
Today when I look at this legislation and realize how little it would cost to give these workers a reasonable pay increase, I know that this government is playing politics with the government employees. It could have paid for that increase with the promises it made in the last federal election. As I pointed out earlier, what it spent to buy one by-election would have given each and every employee a 2 per cent increase. The way it has fought against pay equity, the way it has fought against any system of classification of its employees, the way it has refused to have a mediator come in to try and resolve this dispute, the way it has rejected conciliation boards that have called upon this government to negotiate pay equity, the way it rejected negotiating anything until the

Public Service Staff Relations Board's ruling, indicates a government that did not make any serious effort to try and negotiate this settlement.
This was a politically motivated strike and it was motivated by this government.
Earlier in Question Period today, the President of the Treasury Board said that he was not going to appoint a mediator because he was not going to react to the illegal activities of some members of the Public Service Alliance.
The Public Service was asking for a mediator before this strike started. The Public Service was asking for a mediator before the government was found in contempt of its own laws by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
The Public Service Alliance was asking for a mediator once the government was found guilty by its own quasi-judicial board. This is not a new request but the government has refused to respect the laws of this land and to negotiate fairly.
Others got up earlier and said: "There has got to be a better way of resolving disputes." There are other ways of resolving disputes but the government in its throne speech and the President of the Treasury Board in his speeches in the House in May and June indicated that they would not accept those other routes.
They said: "If there is an arbitration board that comes down and gives the workers too much, we are going to rule it back. If they negotiate a settlement which does not give the workers zero per cent, we are going to legislate that back".
They refused a mediator. They refused to listen to the conciliation board. They refused to use arbitration. They forced this strike on Canadians. It may have been done for political purposes, but it was a stupid move by this government. It was an uncaring move.
I have been on the picket lines talking to some of those people, and not just in the Ottawa region. Just last week I was in Brandon, Manitoba talking to fairly young people who had never been on strike before, people who do not earn a large salary. They have heard what government ministers and government members have said in this House of Commons. They know that they are being treated with not only words of contempt, but
Government Orders
contempt in the thoughts and minds of those government members.
They know that they are not given any self-respect. They know that this government has been vehement in its attack on the Public Service, individually and collectively.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot have the President of the Treasury Board and the government House leader attacking workers and expect them to sit and respect this government. You cannot have this government saying that the work that these people do is not necessary and expect those people to respect this government. You cannot have, as I heard today in Question Period when somebody was talking about the farmers-the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt was speaking- Conservative members saying: "Tell that to your friends at the alliance."
The point is that our member was talking about the fact that many, many farmers have had to seek jobs outside of farming in order to keep their farms going.
One of the people I ran into in Brandon was in exactly that situation. He said: "The farmers in my area understand why there is a strike. I need a pay increase to keep the farm going." This government has tried to pit farmers against workers just as it has tried to pit the unemployed against the employed. It has tried to pit one group of Canadians against another group of Canadians. It tried to get the pensioners upset with the postal workers in August.
It is ironic that in a time when this government is calling for a renewed federalism, a new Constitution, when people will work together, listen to each other and try to resolve the problems that this country faces, it has taken the exact opposite approach in this House and in this nation as a whole with regard to its own employees. Yesterday in debate I mentioned that this government has known since Friday that there was another offer coming from the Public Service Alliance. Various members of cabinet received calls. People in the Prime Minister's office received calls, and they were told this offer was there.
The government could have sat down and negotiated. It refused to do so. Instead, we have a Public Service strike in this country growing anger and we have to face the fact that when this legislation passes the House and Senate, as it will, that there is going to be a large number of very angry government workers, not because of the zero and three, although that is certainly upsetting to many of them. What they will be upset about is the

Government Orders
callous, uncaring way that this government continuously attacked them.
This government was not concerned about its employees. This government was not concerned about fairness. This government was not concerned about trying to resolve some of the issues. This government was concerned with its own political agenda and that is obvious to all Canadians.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, Surrey is one of the municipalities that is hard hit because of the government's refusal to negotiate. It has one of the largest tax centres outside of Ottawa, with 1,000 permanent employees and approximately another 1,200 temporary employees. It has a large UIC office. It has an immigration office and also contains the Douglas and Pacific border crossings, which employ hundreds of people, both as immigration officers and customs officers.
At the beginning of the strike I had the opportunity walk the picket lines with the strikers in all of those locations. The first thing that struck me was that the overwhelming majority of them were women. I talked to them about why they were there. They said, first of all, their rates of pay were relatively low. They made $20,000, $23,000 or $24,000. They pointed out that their combined family income would not allow them to buy a house in Surrey.
They pointed out that in the last two years in Surrey, rents have increased on an average of 50 per cent, partially because this government has reneged on its promise to develop social and co-op housing. The only housing left is rental and that is at a premium.
They pointed out that their UIC premiums have gone up 25 per cent. That is a straight tax increase, no matter how you cut it.
They pointed out that the GST had been brought in and that the inflation rate in Vancouver was 6 per cent, which means that without a wage increase they had 6 per cent less money in their pocket, if they were in a stable rental accommodation.
If they were not in a stable rental accommodation, but in one where rents had gone up because the Socred
government has removed all rent controls in that province, and rents had gone up 25 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent, they asked what they were going to do. "Where are we going to get the money to clothe our children, to ensure that our children have adequate food, to meet the necessities of life."
I am not talking about the big boys earning the $80,000. The dominant number of strikers were women.
I then talked to some of the merchants. I will just ask my friend to comment on the impact on this type of community where retail sales are sagging because a large segment of the community has been denied a cost of living increase. They have had to cut back on basic necessities and the retail industry is suffering.
I wonder if my friend would like to comment on those two things: the domination of the work force by women, and the impact of no increase on retail sales.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I think that is one of the things the government has ignored in this back to work legislation. We think of people with fixed incomes and we have a lot of pity for them in our society with high inflation.
One of the things this government has also ignored is that a lot of people, whether they are renters or farmers with increased costs because of interest rates, who not only have stable costs, are going to have increasing costs in the coming fiscal year. These will be costs that they really have no control over such as costs that have gone up as a result of the goods and services tax and mortgages or leases that will have increased payments over the next couple of years. For people who are earning incomes in the $20,000 or $30,000 range, those increasing costs will not be met with the zero per cent salary increase. Their costs will go up, in some cases tremendously as my colleague pointed out. Yet they have been told that they are going to go home with a pay slip which may have the same amount of money but which will probably have more deductions next year.
They are going to be taking home less money. The cost of living will have gone up. In addition to that, their fixed costs will have gone up.
October 1, 1991

We are asking those people to survive with less as they try to pay out more. There is no attempt by this government to ever take that into consideration. I find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that in this legislation they finally offer a number-I think it is 33,000 Public Service employees-a $500 lump sum payment.
If this government had been serious about negotiating, opening position could have been made last February. That could have been the position where the government was saying: "Here is our way of trying to help some of the people at the low end of the scale". No, it did not take that position, it did not take that position until there was a strike. It did not take that position until the Public Service Staff Relations Board ruled against it. Now it refuses to budge from that position.
It knows it can negotiate. It knows there are areas where the Public Service and the government could work out some of the problems that my colleague was talking about. However, This government refuses to sit down and try to resolve those problems.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Churchill for his insight into this debate. I would like to pose a question to him, revolving around morale in the Public Service.
I have in my constituency, as a matter of fact in the same building where my constituency office is, the Department of Citizenship. I have across the street a Canada Employment Commission. Not far from our riding we have immigration offices. In the riding we have National Health and Welfare offices. So I have many public servants affected by this strike.
These people are very conscientious. They know they are there to serve and when you serve the people, the public, you help people. You help people, you make them happy and you as a worker are also happy.
What I have noticed lately, Mr. Speaker, is that the morale of these workers has just hit rock bottom. It does not matter which department we call, these people are well-meaning but because this government has so mistreated its workers, the morale is at rock bottom.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Churchill whether he notices the same low morale in the constituency that he represents, in Churchill, or is this unique to our Toronto region?
Government Orders


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious to many people in this room and across Canada that morale will be a serious problem. It is not a new problem but I think it is going to be a vastly enhanced problem in the future.
I remember the reaction of government workers after the anti-inflation program in the 1970s, the six and five program in the 1980s and I listened to people out there last week in Brandon, Manitoba. It is obvious that you cannot keep treating people the way this government is and expect them to go back to work after and be happy.
This government has heard various government members ranting at them and just ranting and ranting and ranting at them. They are going to go in, making one-third the salary of some of these Conservative MPs who are ranting at them and be expected to do a job, knowing that the government has absolutely no appreciation whatsoever for them.
I hope that they in no way take it out on the public, but I can expect that this government is going to have a very difficult time in the future getting co-operation from its own employees because of the way it has treated those employees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Portneuf.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today concerning Bill C-29, which does not particularly please me, but which is unfortunately necessary. Why is it necessary? Because it seems to me that there are people in this country who take advantage of the powers that were given to them in good faith by the grassroots. I am referring to Mr. Bean, the president of the Public Service Alliance.
The union members have put their faith in him. Those are people with whom I work every day of the week, throughout the year, people with whom I was able to develop, over the last seven years, good working relations, as well as a better understanding of the stakeholders, through the different services that the population has set up for itself. Now, some leaders who want some form of political gain or who want to support certain political parties in Canada are using those services. I personally find this unfortunate and unacceptable.

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
Sometime ago I was reading an editorial in the newspaper and here is what it said about the perception of people. This editorial reflects exactly the thoughts or reactions that the people in my riding tell me every time I have the opportunity to meet them-and God knows that I see a lot of them these days. It says: "Day after day, the headlines refer to the lay-offs that the businesses in the private sector are compelled to make. In the meantime, the Federal civil servants go back on strike to protect their purchasing power, as though they lived in a glass buble. Job security has become an invaluable benefit in the last ten years, specially in the light of two recessions. Everywhere in the private sector workers deal with the stress associated with the risk of losing their jobs, temporarily or permanently, because they are aware of the problems faced by the companies for which they work. Several unions have had to show a good degree of lucidity and realism and have agreed to defend the solution based on salary freeze and work sharing in order to enable their members to maintain a decent revenue. As for the Public Service Alliance, it does not want to make any compromise."
The editorial adds that "All Canadians have suffered a loss of their purchasing power. The raising of the psychological and financial comfort of the 156,000 civil servants that are on strike would never be an objective for Canadians, quite the contrary. Wall to wall job security. Working conditions strictly monitored by governmental organizations that measure the inclination of chairs or the purety of the air in the buildings where these servants of the State work. Not to mention a pension plan that is better than what exists in the private sector. There are also benefits that, more often than not, make these Canadians, these civil servants, the spoiled children of the society in periods of recession." They say Minister Loiselle and the government should stand firm.
Why editorial writers are saying this? Simply because some union leaders probably failed to listen to the grass roots.
Another point: Mr. Bean refused a wage freeze. France Pilon, in Le Droit of April 25, 1991: "The downside of the convention came with the announcement of spending cuts totalling $1.8 million annually, which will force the union to freeze certain positions. Public servants will also have to pay 83 cents a month into the strike fund which is now at about $15 million. Union dues have been increased as well. Ms. Hurens was
not able to say exactly how much, although she said it was less than $4".
In April, Public Service union leaders had already decided there would be a strike. However, they had also decided they could not afford to increase the salaries of PSAC staff. They cut 20 positions so they could give a 3 per cent increase to the remaining staff. They said: It is too bad, but it was the best we could do.
Mr. Speaker, today and yesterday, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has held up debate and held up this legislation while trying to convince us and Canadians across the country that the government is coming down hard on its employees. Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that as far as the average citizen is concerned, I, as the member for Portneuf, am there to serve them. They pay me as they pay other public servants, whether they are federal, provincial or municipal. Why do they pay us? They pay us to provide the services they want, services they are paying for.
Today, Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford to increase the quality or number of those services. Why? Because plants are closing, including one in Matane; 1,000 direct and indirect jobs in the Matane area. There are 100,000 jobs in Montreal or Toronto. But not a word. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition doesn't mention this because it would jeopardize their strategy, which is to cover for Mr. Bean and urge him to keep his members on the ricket line while not giving them the whole story. Most government employees don't want a strike, and that is what causes all the violence.
Tensions are rising. All day yesterday and again today, they talked about the tension there would be in the workplace the day after the strike for which I was responsible. Mr. Speaker, neither you nor the President of the Treasury Board nor myself ordered government employees, the servants of the Canadian people, to take to the streets and take the people of this country hostage. We, here in this House, did not ask for that to happen. It was the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. He knew what he was going to do. He knew he would hijack our airports, harbours, railways, health services and even unemployment services- they must certainly need them at this point. We don't have many unemployed people in Canada these days: 1,200,000! How many tens of thousands of elderly people wait for their old age security pension cheque every month to be able to survive. He knew what he was doing. His purpose was not to defend his members' working
October 1, 1991

conditions, it was not to explain the basis of his demands to his members, no. It was to say, "I, Bean, will challenge the Canadian government's budget because the New Democratic Party does not agree with it and I advise the NDP." But he forgot that he was also taking some fellow workers hostage. Often when I hear Mr. Bean talk about solidarity and how important it is, can he explain to me how much he supports the unionized workers who are now laid off temporarily, waiting for parts to cross the border so that they can go back to work? Does he support them? Does Mr. Bean's behaviour show solidarity with the employees in my riding who have difficulty every day in trying to save their industries? Domtar, Donnacona.
On August 2-that is not a century ago, it is a little over a month back-we lost 135 jobs at the insulating board division of Domtar. Fifty more lay-offs were announced for the period up to January 1, in addition to the 53 that had already been announced and about thirty others were announced in early December last year for the pulp and paper mill next to Domtar.
I met representatives of the employees, I had discussions with employees at that plant, I spoke with the plant managers. They do not know whether the factory will still exist on January 1 or July 1 next year. Can you imagine the stress they are under? You think that their first thought on waking up in the morning is to worry about whether public servants will lose their job security, even though they know that public servants cannot lose their job security since the government cannot go bankrupt.
Public servants are the only ones in the country to have wall-to-wall security, because they work for an organization that cannot go broke. A provincial government cannot go broke. I have not yet seen any cities go broke. But all the rest who make the system work and who pay those salaries do not have that security. They could have a collective agreement a foot thick, but the day the factory is no longer competitive and the business can no longer sell its products, the boss is out of a job and so are the employees. Everyone is out in the street, at the unemployment office. Except that today, the office is closed.
Government Orders
But they paid for those services, Mr. Speaker. Those people paid for them! They agreed to give collective agreements and working conditions and salaries that are much better than those most people have. The proof, Mr. Speaker, is that an average Canadian earns $27,400 a year. An average civil servant in Canada earns $33,500. We said yes, but we provided for essential services. The idea of essential services makes me laugh. Why would a government set up services that were not essential to begin with? We must define what is really essential. Air traffic controllers are essential in a country. What constitutes essential services in air traffic navigation? Can you tell me? What is essential in meat quality control? If we only need ten inspectors to provide essential services, why have hundreds of them then? I would assume that, if there are hundreds of them, it is because they are all needed. I do not think that people are hired in the public service for the sake of it. They are hired because they are needed, to provide services which the people have to tighten their belts to get, if there are any belts left to tighten. I can tell you that where I come from, many people just lost their belts.
Yesterday's edition of Le Soleil reported 609,500 welfare recipients in Quebec. These people are no longer drawing UI benefits; they are down to the last resort. Are these the people to whom we will be asking for money to pay civil servants' wage increases? I am not quite sure they are the ones to ask.
In the same article, we could read that Ontario was headed toward having a million of these people down to the last resort: welfare. They are certainly not the ones we should be turning to for help. Can our 1,200,000 unemployed citizens on UI or waiting for the offices to reopen to be provided with the services they have been paying for all those years who can afford it?
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition did not raise that point. They talked about how badly treated government employees are, but failed to mention the people who are being highjacked today. And that is not right!
With regard to essential services, all government services are essential, at whatever level of government. In a municipality, when there is a fire department it is because it is essential. The police department exists because it is essential. At the provincial level, hospital

Government Orders
services are essential services. Otherwise, there would not be any.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the opposition does not talk about that. It unduly extends the debate not unlike what happened last December. Thanks to the opposition and its tactics to make the debate drag on, this House ended up considering the opportunity to become involved in the Gulf War while the war was on. Thanks to the loyalty of our friends opposite, we were wondering if Canada should do its duty.
Well, today, we have to pass a special bill, an emergency bill, to stop the violence, if I may call it that, spreading on the picket lines. We are in no hurry, of course not, there is no rush. In a little while, we will send it to the other place. I do not know how long it will take-it all depends on the quality of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition over there-but there is no hurry. Some essential services are not being provided right now, because people are prevented from going to work. There is no harm done. It always falls on the poor taxpayer, who pays his taxes in good faith, in order to be able to afford these services! Some members in this House seem to forget they are here to serve the public, they have a duty to people on welfare, to the unemployed waiting for then-cheques or waiting in line to fill in some forms so they can get their benefits, the only income they will receive to feed their families. However, they do not care about that, it is not important. What is important is to play petty politics here. On whose back? On the back of those who cannot defend themselves, those who cannot take anybody hostage.
Mr. Speaker, when there is a hostage-taking incident somewhere in Canada, we say that it is illegal. We call the RCMP and say: "Throw that person in jail immediately." However, when Mr. Bean says: "Thke the Canadian population hostage", that is okay. It is legal, and the ordinary citizen is supposed to take that without saying a word. That is not true. The government should not listen to those people. It should say: "No, let it go; there is no problem."
The Opposition says: "Appoint a mediator." But are thirty days of mediation not enough? Are sixty days of negotiations not enough? No! My colleague tells me that it is not enough. She wants the government to be irresponsible, just like the party she always- She is nodding. She is saying yes, you should be irresponsible. That is remarkable! Well I am sorry for her, but we are a responsible government. We make decisions in the interest of those people I was talking about earlier, those
who have almost nothing left, the unemployed, the people who are losing their jobs in the plants. That is what we do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member should conclude his remarks as soon as possible.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by saying that the loyal opposition of Her Majesty should have shown more solidarity with all Canadians and a greater concern for issues of national interest, so that Canada does not end up bankrupt.
Mr. Speaker, I hope they will express that kind of interest before six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear some of the remarks made by the Tory member opposite. The member speaks very conveniently of attempting to draw money out of the unemployed of Canada. "I cannot ask," he says "these people who do not have a job to boost the pay cheques of public civil servants."
It is a very noble argument in the eyes of those who do not completely understand the issue. I think that most Canadians can see through what is most obviously a very transparent argument being made by the member opposite.
I want to remind the member opposite and those Canadians who are sitting at home who know full well the full arguments around this issue that this party he represents, this current government of the day, had the opportunity, not having to draw money out of those who are unemployed, seven years ago to do something to ensure that we did not get into a made-in-Canada recession as we have found ourselves in.
Maybe the hon. member could pick up a copy of today's Quorum and take a look at an article by The Citizen. Here is a little line in it that says: "What about the burst of fiscal generosity which preceded the 1988 election?" Those who worried about what these promises would do to the deficit were told not to worry, these were not promises but spending commitments, the government said back in the 1988 election, already allowed for in the government's fiscal plan. As soon as the election was over the government told a whole other story; that times were tough, that programs such as a national child care program were no longer spending
October 1, 1991

commitments but were now impossible because of the shortage of cash.
When did the sun dawn on this government, that suddenly there was no money in the public purse, no money to be fair? There was no money to be fair to those individuals who are sitting trying to do an honest day's work as public civil servants in this country, who are paid less than $25,000, the poverty line. How many are making $18,000 and $19,000 a year? The government says: "Oh, we do not have any money."
I want to ask the hon. member opposite if he can really stand in his place today and not be as transparent on the argument to draw sympathy from the public and to say: "I cannot ask these unemployed people for money to pay the public civil servants". It is a transparent argument.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is asking me how come there is no more money in the public treasury? He conveniently forgets, Mr. Speaker, that when we took over in 1984, his party didn't leave much in the treasury. In fact, it was empty, Mr. Speaker, when we took over!
Since 1984, we have been trying to come out of this quagmire we have been in for 20 years. If you read what has been said, you will see that all the experts say that we are doing our job. There is a reality that you don't want to face, it is the fact that you left us with an impossible debt; secondly, we are just out of the worst economic crisis that this country has ever known and you are asking us, Sir, to go on spending.
What you are not telling us and what nobody dared say is where you are going to take the money to pay for all the goodies. You know perfectly well, because you are not anymore stupid than the average man, you are sensible people, you are too partisan but you are nevertheless sensible, and you know how to add. However, you do not dare tell us what we should do to give what they are asking us; you do not dare say that we should
Government Orders
increase the national debt by 3.5 billion over the next five years. You don't care.
We have already mortgaged, Mr. Speaker, not only our grandchildren, but our great grandchildren. Canadians in general are asking us to live within our means, but you stick to the rhetoric which has been yours for 20 years: "Spend, spend, doesn't matter, pay later". I am sorry, but we are at the point where we have to pay the bill. And everybody pays, not just a fraction of the population.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that what is bothering the hon. member is that he is part of the solution. His own salary is going to be frozen and he doesn't like it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I find the tone of the Conservative member almost offensive. He keeps talking about Liberal mismanagement and the deficit. Why does he not take responsibility for his own problems as a Conservative government? Why does he not listen to what the Auditor General said about the need to look into all the contracting out that this government is involved in? Why has this government refused to look into that very issue?
We know right now that this government is spending approximately $5 billion on contracting out. We know that the legislation before this House is one in which a civil servant, a federal government employee with a salary of $24,000 a year or $22,000 a year, will have his or her salary frozen. The legislation specifically excludes contractors from having their arrangements frozen.
We know that it is strictly up to the government to decide how much these people will be paid. It can double the contract and expect a 50 per cent increase in the work. It could triple the contract and expect no increase in work. These people are the political friends of the government and they should not be made to suffer-$5 billion, no controls.
The Auditor General said it should be investigated. If this member is concerned about the deficit, if this member is concerned about what is happening in this country, he should look in his own back yard. He should look at the friends of the Prime Minister. He should stop the attempt at buying friends, buying votes, and show

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
some concern for Canadians. You have absolutely no credibility when it comes to the deficit. You have no credibility when it comes to fairness. You have not cleaned up your own back yard. Do that first.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is upset, but if you allow me, I would like to put a few elements back into context. He probably lost his temper and made a few mistakes.
When he says that we are not doing anything for people earning $24,000,1 would like to remind him that the offer which has been refused by Mr. Bean contained a lump sum payment of $500 for some 35,000 civil servants earning less than $27,000 a year. That is the first thing. Guaranteed employment for civil servants laid off as a result of contracting out or privatization. Try to find that in the private sector! A guarantee of a reasonable job offer to all other employees affected by workforce adjustments, provided they are mobile and can be retrained. Commitment made for all dental expenses and increase of the ceiling for orthodontic services form $2 000 to $2 500. Increase of the contribution of the employer for disability insurance premiums from 75 to 85 per cent. Increase in the number of daycare facilities in the workplace.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the 10 to 15 daycare facilities will be opened in Donnacona, at home, they are probably for the civil servants, in Ottawa.
From the 1st of April 1992, six weeks of annual leave after 29 years of service. Increase of the shift premiums from $1 to $1,10 per hour, of weekend premiums from 75 cents to $1 per hour and of lunches premiums from $6 to $7, for overtime.
Mr. Speaker, when my friend from the NDP says that we are not making any offer, that we negotiate in bad faith, I am sorry, but after what I have just read I think he put both foot in it and it is not the first time.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to participate in this debate because there is a myth which the government is attempting to sell around the country. I want to play a small role in trying to dispel that myth. That myth is that
it is okay to single out, to target, the lowest paid of the public servants of Canada for special regressive treatment. It is okay to say that the lowest paid people who work for the Government of Canada can be frozen, can have their collective bargaining rights taken away, can be held up as an example of how to pick on the weakest among us in any organization. It is okay to do all of that because out in Canada there are a great many unemployed, because out in this great wonderful country called Canada there are people who are poor, and as long as there are people who are poor and people who are unemployed, it is therefore okay to treat your own employees in any way you want.
I come from Newfoundland and Labrador. That is my province. It has the highest unemployment in Canada. It has the highest poverty in Canada. There has never existed in Newfoundland and Labrador even the slightest degree of room for what I call the politics of envy, setting up a straw man or a straw woman, feeding the fuel of that negative emotion called envy and then seeking to destroy that straw man or straw woman.
That is what the national government has done. It is the politics of division. It is the kind of instinct that if we allow it to be appealed to, it will divide the nation. It is exactly the same kind of instinct that divides French and English, the west and the east, north and south, black and white, Protestant and Catholic and Jew and Gentile. It is the same kind of appeal. It is the politics of division.
I hope Canadians who are following this debate and following this issue understand what is happening. Especially if you are unemployed and following this debate, especially if you are poor and following this debate, and especially if your job is uncertain and you are following this debate, understand the negative appeal that the government is making to you. The government is saying: "If you are uncertain, if you are poor, if you are hungry, if you are worried, if you are unhappy, then you have a right to know that some are even more unhappy, more uncertain, more unsure than you are and those people we've selected for you are the civil servants of Canada, and not only the civil servants of Canada but the lowest paid civil servants of Canada".
I am here to tell the government that those kinds of politics, the politics of division, the politics of envy, are not selling in the country this time around.

October 1, 1991

They are simply not washing. People understand as never before, having been faced with this government since 1984, the concept of fairness and balance in the public affairs of this country.
They expect the government to be fair and to be balanced in its approach to public policy. They expect the government to set an example of fiscal restraint and of being frugal, but most important of being fair. Is there any fairness? Is there one iota of fairness in saying that it is okay to give not a salary, not an increase, but a bonus of $70,000 or $80,000 for the highest paid public servants?
Many Canadians would love to have a salary of $70,000 to $80,000. Many Canadians would love to have an increase, public servants this year for example, of $700. This government gave a bonus that is over and above the $200,000 to $300,000 salary, a bonus of $70,000, $75,000 and $80,000 to the highest paid public servants in the land. It has given zero per cent to the lowest paid public servants in the land.
Whether your circumstance is that you just got a raise in the private sector or you just got laid off in the private sector, it is not hard to understand the concept of fairness as it ought to be when you look at how this government operates from day to day and when you look at the circumstances as they really are: zero per cent for a secretary and a $70,000 bonus for the hand-picked heads of corporations selected by this government.
That is not rhetoric. That is not opinion. That is not comment. That is fact. That is fact, and the same people who stand behind the administration that made that decision stand today and say: "We cannot afford to be fair. We cannot afford to be just. We cannot afford to be decent with public servants because we are really worried. We are bleeding for the unemployed."
There has been an indecent level of unemployment in Newfoundland since this government came to power and it is difficult to believe that only now is it bleeding for the unemployed of Newfoundland.
There has been an indecent level of poverty since this government came to power and suddenly this government wants to be on the side of those who live in poverty,
Government Orders
taking on those nasty, terrible civil servants making $18,000 a year.
This bill defies credibility. It is not possible to believe the government is sincere or genuine when it presents this bill.
This is one of those debates in which if a member of the opposition believed merely in political convenience, we would buy the argument that the government puts forward, that the strike is inconvenient and therefore we must slam the public back to work. That would be the easy thing to do, to say: "Yes, somebody in my constituency has been inconvenienced by those civil servants and we are going to slam them back to work."
That would be the selfish thing to do. That would be the quick, easy, convenient and cowardly thing to do. When I stopped my car on the side of the road coming back here on Monday at an airport road in Deer Lake, Newfoundland and talked to half a dozen people with picket signs in their hands, most of them making less than the minimum income of this country, I did not see a bunch of greedy, selfish civil servants. I saw people who could not really afford to be on the picket line.
They were people who could not afford to be on the picket line, whose children had just gone back to school.
They just got them ready for school. They are looking at Christmas and they want to have a few gifts under the tree. They really cannot afford to be there and they do not want to be there. They absolutely despise the fact that they are out there. Mr. Speaker, their principles are not for sale. They are prepared to pay the penalty in lost salary of being on the picket line because they want to make a point. They want the government to know that as it hauls on its jackboots and walks over them that they are not dead, that they are alive.
These public servants want to stand for their rights, Mr. Speaker, in a way they have never done before.
When the government can roll over its own, when the government can walk over the lowest paid of the public servants of Canada and not a sound is heard as it rolls over them, it sets an example for all members of our society to be rolled over by big and powerful organizations and institutions.
Members of Parliament are here not because it is the political thing to do, not because it is the easy thing to do to stand up to Bill C-29 and not because it is convenient,

Government Orders
but because it is right to oppose this bill which has wiped out the right of collective bargaining in Canada.
We acknowledge that Canadians have been inconvenienced. Of course they have. I have been inconvenienced. I do not like it and Canadians do not like it. The issue is not whether or not the Public Service strike is inconvenient for the country. Of course it is. The issue is why do we have a Public Service strike? Is it because it is unreasonable for people to seek more than zero per cent salary increases? Or is it because a government that has languished at 12 per cent to 15 per cent in the polls for the last six months finally needs somebody it can stand up and knock down.
I suggest the truth is obvious. This is a government desperate to pick a battle and win a battle, any battle with anybody. It has picked upon public servants. This is a government desperate to ride on the backs of the lowest paid public servants in this country, trying to climb back up the slippery slope of popularity.
I tell you, this government insults not so much the intelligence but the integrity of Canadians if it believes that an appeal to mob rule, an appeal to pack mentality, an appeal as I said earlier to the politics of envy, is going to result in some collective mad rush by the public at large to beat up on the public servants of this country. It will not result in that kind of mob rule.
If this government truly wants an end to the labour disruption in this country, if it truly wants to see the Public Service functioning in an efficient manner, if it is truly interested in the whole notion of pay equity, given the women in our society, equal pay for work of equal value, if this government is interested in justice at all it will back away from this disastrous course.
If the only rationale that those who would promote and who have manipulated this strike can come up with in the smoke-filled dark and dank rooms of the Tory party is the belief that somehow you are going to lift yourself out of your political misery by ganging up on civil servants, the government must know by now that that strategy has failed. That strategy has failed. The public is not buying this obvious and bare-faced and bold and brazen attempt to manipulate public opinion.
How can Canadians believe, as they desperately want to believe, as they desperately need to believe, that their government is dealing with them in a forthright fashion on something that is as fundamental as the Constitution? How can Canadians believe that all matters they need to know have been exposed, that there is no shady backroom dealing in something as fundamental as the Constitution, when the government is so obviously prepared to manipulate, to deal in the back room, to be unfair and to be unjust on something as fundamental as how you treat your own employees?
That is the issue the government ought to cotton on to. This government is in power at a time when Canada is experiencing perhaps its last opportunity to pull the nation back together. This government that is responsible and directly responsible for the current mess we are in now has responsibility to try and bridge the gap and the differences in this country, to get people pulling in one direction and to find a constitutional reconciliation.
How can the minister in charge of the Constitution, Mr. Clark, how can the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, how can his lieutenants, Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Crosbie, be believed in their respective regions and in their respective responsibilities when they say: "Our only interest is Canada. We are being forthright with you. We are being honest with you. All we want is a fair and balanced deal. Trust our intentions, believe in our integrity, follow our course and come build a better Canada with us".
How can we believe that soaring rhetoric when right here in this Parliament today this same government deals with its own employees in the most deceitful and manipulative way possible. That is the issue for this government. This is not a question of batting heads with the union and winning. It is not a question of showing who is the most stubborn and it is not a question of manipulating the weakest among the federal government organization. It is a question of fairness.
Mr. Speaker, I tell you this argument that we are going to take money out of the pockets of the civil servants to feed the hungry in Newfoundland is not washing.
October 1, 1991

Let me tell you about Newfoundland. Let me tell you about the politics of envy. In 1984, when Ethiopia was suffering the worst famine it has seen to this point, when millions were starving and going to tents, Newfoundland had the highest unemployment rate in Canada, it had the highest poverty rate in Canada and on a per capita basis, it gave more than any other province of Canada to the people of Ethiopia. That is the reality of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When they were called upon to give they gave on a per capita basis in greater measure than any other people of the country. The poorest of the country responded.
So this politics of envy that is being thrown out now as a rationale for beating up on civil servants does not find a receptive audience in Newfoundland and Labrador. I suspect it does not find a receptive audience among the newly unemployed of southern Ontario, one-quarter of a million people driven out of their jobs by this government. The politics of envy does not find a receptive audience among our native people whose treatment has been shameful in the history of this country. The politics of envy does not find a receptive, resonating core among the urban poor. It does not find a receptive audience among our farmers who are today trying to sell wheat at the lowest price since the 1930s.
The politics of envy and division in Canada do not work any more. People in this country instinctively understand that if the country is to survive, we must be fair to each other. We must care about each other. We must pull together. You cannot accomplish those goals when you accept the temptation to begin to pull apart and to beggar your neighbour and to envy your neighbour and to allow anyone to manipulate you into setting up scapegoats.
There are two political forces at work in Canada today whose success depends upon Canada's failure. The Reform Party believes in a Canada without Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois believes in a Quebec without Canada. This government has borrowed a page from both those parties when they practise the sickening politics of division and envy.
We in the Liberal Party stand opposed to Bill C-29. We do not oppose it because it is the obvious political thing to do. There are not enough civil servants in this member's riding to elect or defeat him, or that member's riding, or that member's riding. There are proportionate-
Govemment Orders
ly only a handful of civil servants in my riding and there are a hell of a lot of unemployed.
The easy thing would be to join the gang-up on those civil servants. The cowardly thing would be to say "yes, we are standing with the unemployed and the poor against those civil servants". But the right thing to do if we are going to begin to heal the wounds that have tom this country asunder, wounds inflicted by that government, is to stand against this bill. We must stand against this brand of politics and say "no" to Bill C-29, stand up for our neighbours, in this case those civil servants who have been manipulated by this government to a picket line.


Some hon. members:: Hear,, hear.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to get involved and ask a few questions to my honourable colleague, who started by saying: There is a myth. However, Mr. Speaker, who creates that myth? Is it us, on this side of the House, who are trying to tell the exact truth? What saddens me the most is that he says that the Conservative Party does that on the back of the poor workers in order to get votes and higher ratings in the surveys.
If that is getting higher ratings in the surveys, it is not climbing fast. This morning, 200 public servants from Laval who earn a very good salary came to my office and told me that they would not vote for me anymore, because they did not get a raise. Is that getting votes or being honest? The Liberals have it easy. They say: You have been in office for seven years, what are you doing? Yes, but the damage was so great that it will take twenty years to clear the mess, and the poor public servants and ourselves will suffer because of that.
Behind my honourable colleague, there is the other member who says: The debt was at $180 billion. Now, it is at $400 billion. It is true. It is climbing to $410 billion, perhaps $420 billion.

He stops there. He gets a heart attack because he does not want to say why. I will tell you why. Interest rates. When you have debts you have to pay your interest as everyone does.

Government Orders
But one thing you never say, that is why there is a myth.
I want to ask my hon. colleague. Today I went to the minister and asked a few personal questions on behalf of my constituents. Why, if your job is so bad, do you not resign? Ele did not resign and I hope he will never resign because in my area we all love him. I never had so many calls about a minister and the NDP asks me if he will resign. He will not resign because in my area people love him and say "get these people back to work because I have to go to work and I want to work."
I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague for whom I have a lot of respect. Can he explain this job that is so bad? If we treat these people so bad why do 234,000 people, Canadians, want to get a job, 50,000 of whom are qualified to get that job. They are waiting to get a job.
I am sorry I should not call that a job. At that price I should call it a position.
People love this place. People love to work here. Can he explain to me why if it is so bad, these people-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Vincent Della Noce: Why don't you listen once in a while. You may learn something. You didn't know that.
Why do the people want to have such a job, such a position if it is so bad.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member got to his feet and asked a question. I have just spent 20 minutes talking about that insidious poison, and obviously my words fell on deaf ears, that insidious bit of killing poison the government is squirting into the veins of the nation, called envy. That is the game here. That is the whole game. You are at 15 per cent in the polls. That means that less than two people in 10 think anything of you. You cannot get them to admire you for your virtues so you appeal to pride and prejudice. You set up the politics of envy.
I spent 15 or 20 minutes talking about that poison called envy. "If I cannot get you to like me and respect me, can I get you to rally to me, as together we shall beat up on someone else". What does the member say? What is his question? His question is: "The 234,000 people in Ontario who lost their jobs in the last 16 months,
because of the policies of the member and his government, would they not like to have these jobs?"
The answer to the question is obvious. Those people would like to have jobs. Absolutely. If the member cared about getting them jobs, the member and his party would abandon their disastrous trade policies, free trade with the United States and now free trade with Mexico. That is what led to 234,000 jobs being lost in Ontario in the last year.
This government caused 1.5 million people to be unemployed today, 1.5 million whom we know about and probably another 500,000, 600,000 or 700,000 who have given up trying because it knows that those poor, wretched, displaced unemployed souls are out there. It knows they are there. It put them there. In desperation it does not announce a job-creation policy. It does not announce an industrial policy. It does not set up some signs of hope for this economy. What does it do? It says to the unemployed worker: "We are going to put you back to work. We have a plan to put you back to work". What does it do? It sets up the civil servants as scapegoats.
That is not only so transparent as to be childish, what is worse, it is personally cowardly. It is the mark of a coward and I am ashamed to witness it.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I hear the government saying that it cannot afford it. I would like the member to comment on just one thing, the government's handling of high interest rates and what he thinks would happen if it had reduced interest rates by just 1 per cent in this country, one additional per cent. How much would it save on the national debt?
My calculations are that out of a $400 billion debt, if interest rates dropped 1 per cent, the saving would be $4 billion. Do you think that would give the civil servants a reasonable wage increase and leave some money over to help the unemployed in Newfoundland?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member. What the unemployed people of Canada want is not their neighbour dragged down to share their misery in unemployment or some comfort in knowing that somebody else was slain by this government or somebody else was unemployed. What the unemployed people of Canada want is a government that, if it cannot come to grips with the reality of unemployment, at least shows some empathy, at least can bleed a little, can indicate that
October 1, 1991

there is some hope and is, at least, prepared to spend its energy creating jobs, not creating confrontation.
The government does not understand that people who are down and out do not spend their days wanting to make everybody else be down and out. What they want is a response. They want some indication that the government is listening. They want some hope.
The fishery in my province failed and failed disastrously this year. I and every other MP from Newfoundland for the last two weeks have almost daily been asking for assistance. I want assistance. I want help for fishing families that are down to their last dollars. It will not help fishing families down to their last dollars if in the process we kneecap the lowest paid civil servants.
I have not heard one fisherman, as desperate as his plight is, say anything to me but "can you help?" Not one fisherman has ever said "it will make me feel better if you kneecap some single mother making $18,000 a year". Fishermen do not believe in the politics of envy; they do not believe in division; they do not believe in dragging down their neighbour. They want a degree of fairness and a degree of justice and that is all they want.
It is an insult to those fishermen who are hurting right now, it is an insult to those farmers who are hurting right now, it is an insult to the 234,000 people this government drove out of work, to say that all of those people collectively do not just want help but they want vengeance, they want revenge, they want blood, they want to beat up on the civil servants. That is the message of this government: not one glimmer of hope, not one glimmer of compassion, not one glimmer of conviction, only the politics of envy and division.
Canada deserves and needs more than that right now. [Translation]


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, it is the second time I have the privilege of speaking in this House on a matter that deeply concerns me.
Government Orders
I must admit that in the beginning, I was not much in favour of rushing people back to work. I have never seen the use of forcing people to work because I know, having been in business for twenty years, that you cannot do it. I gave a few examples of what I mean yesterday and I will try not to repeat myself, but when I hear the arguments of opposition members, I see how easy it is for a myth to exist, Mr. Speaker.
I am talking about the Official Opposition, but there is also the other one, the Socialists, the New Kids on the Bloc, the Barbecues, you name it! It is a real fairy tale! When I see Daiyl Bean-

-Uncle Bean we should call him. He had the opportunity and the privilege to get this House all together to start to negotiate. I have here a little paper that is very interesting for Mr. Bean from The Ottawa Sun: "Pork and Beans." It is Friday's editorial reaction entitled "Fatting the calf" which got the PSAC president Daryl Bean suddenly believing that the time was opportune to move public sentiment into his union's comer. We hope not. They got in. From our comer there was absolutely no reason for Bean to walk away from the negotiation table, and certainly no reason for him to then ran to the media and blame the Treasury Board for breaking off the process, like the NDP just did. "It is the minister's fault. We were negotiating, we were good boys". It quit the table.
Today there were 200 people in my office, and do you know what they said? "We want to negotiate in dignity. We want to negotiate in dignity." Who quit the table? I do not know if they are informed of what the hell is going on here. I am not sure they know what is going on here. That is what they said and it is signed: "You are going to lose the vote; we won't vote for you."

"In the end, we want to be treated with dignity. We want the right to free negotiation and the nomination of an independent mediator". It is signed-because they will remember at the next election, since this is not the way we will win votes! It is signed-in any case, there is a copy-Yves Perras, 734 Monette Street, Sainte-Therese! It is not even in my riding. He certainly will not vote for me any more. He will vote NDP. Let him vote

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
NDP, the miracle party! But these are the same guys who told me: Della Noce, you are a good guy, you are honest and that is why we love you.
But when it does not suit them, they do their usual pussyfooting, one step to the right, one step to the left, one step forward and another backward. No! I was honest before, and I will try to stay honest right now and after.
These are the same people who are telling us: [English]
"We need an honest man in politics. We want good people in politics, but when you're honest, we will not vote for you". I am going to stay honest. I am going to stay fair and clean.


An hon. member:: You will not be elected then.


Vincent Della Noce: I was so happy last week when we had this agreement and I said: "Fine, we don't have to vote and it is okay for the boys". Then what was the offer? The Ottawa Sun, "Pork and beans" says: "He was offered a job security guarantee for every member of his rank and file and what could be more important than job security in this economic climate?" What is better than job security? He was offered a $500 signing bonus for every PSAC employer earning less than $27,000. That is not a big salary, but I know a lot of people in my area who would not mind working for $27,000. That represents 35,200 people when not long ago he was calling the same people scabs because so many of them believed he could not rustle them up a dime.
That was one ball game. This is another. We hear the critics from the other side of the House, the Liberals and the NDPers. They were together, almost kissing and hugging together. It is very dangerous for the people of Canada when they get together because it is not the same party at all. One is socialist and the other one is capitalist and they like to spend money. They did spend a lot and they like taxes. We hope there will be no more tax increases, but that is the way it goes.
The NDPers want the government to haul in a mediator to solve this puzzle. A mediator is not needed here. What is needed is for Bean to get back to the negotiation table he left so quickly. Otherwise, it is an affront to his cause. That is what it is. He wants to do
something against the government because the NDP does not want to see us here.
We are doing a good job. We are doing the good job that we should do for the finances of this country. What did Mr. Bean do, big administrator? Mr. Bean did worse than what we are doing. In administration Mr. Bean is not so bad. He not a bad man. He is a good money player. He knows how to count. A lot of people here do not know how to save money.
He did his budget. He has 165 employees. What he did for his union people, his staff, is gave them a 3 per cent increase. Good guy. To give the 3 per cent increase, he cut 20 jobs and he cut his budget for $1.8 million.

I will read it to you, Mr. Speaker. It was in the April 19 edition of the Toronto Star: "The delegates at the PSAC meeting held in spring 1991 voted in favor of the abolition of 20 jobs."

The union voted to remove 20 jobs. It is unbelievable. They did it.

"Daryl Bean, the president of the union stated that employees have reason to be frustrated. But we are in a difficult situation." The Toronto Star, April 19, 1991. Daryl, poor old Daryl. We are in a difficult situation.

He is right. He did the right thing, but he is a union man. He cuts 20 jobs. We should have cut 6,000 jobs. Why did we not do it, 6,000 jobs to get 3 per cent? We did not cut the 6,000 jobs because 1 per cent equals 2,000 jobs. Anybody can count that. We did not do it, but he did it. We are the bad boys and he is the good boy. Is that true? Where is the mjhh? I will tell you where the myth is. The NDP is giving false information.

Lies, lies. They are defending the workers.

Where are they? There is not even one in this House here today, not one. There is not one. They defend the union people, the ones who do not cut the salaries, the

ones who do not freeze the salaries. They are the members of the NDP. What a farce. What a joke.
The people in my area believe them. Because I am honest they do not believe me. They want an honest politician. I am going to try to stay honest, because I tell them exactly how it is: you are lucky to have a job, you will go through this hard time, and maybe next year you will get three and the year later you will get more.
The NDP does not defend the poor workers who are losing money. The NDP defends the unions, because they finance almost totally that party. The NDP members do not have businessmen with them. They do not have people who have problems in these days. They do not have these businessmen who create jobs in their party, who have merchandise blocked at the port of Montreal which they need to sell and deliver to customers. They are not here, these guys. They are not with them; they are with me.
They call me and say: "Sir, we have to do something. Tell the minister to move", I will not tell you what because it is unparliamentary what they said to me just a few minutes ago. They have merchandise there which has to be sold, and these are the perfect boys.
I do not know. I do not know where we are going. That is the story. I hope everybody understands that, including the people watching us.

Mr. Speaker, I will now speak for the second time on the subject which is most important to me. This morning, 200 workers who have the right to be on strike and whom I respect invaded my constituency office, where I have two employees working for me, in order to scare them a bit. These employees do not belong to the union, they work for me and do not have the right to speak in my name. These employees are just doing their best. We serve the public. But those people tried to intimidate my employees in my office-it is not their office, but mine. When I have to go to their office, I have to make an appointment, and they are only public servants. How can those 200 people have the right to burst into my constituency office and ask to see me when they know I am here?
But, Mr. Speaker, I will tell these people, like I told them yesterday in my speech, that they are useful, that we need them, and that we worked with them. There are some among those who are hard workers and who give a 110 per cent of their time and of their energy to the
Government Orders
government and to Canadians. But there is one thing that I will never tolerate and I say it to all those who are listening, that is intimidation, blackmail and lies. When I worked as a volunteer-and I did that for 20 years-in my riding, and when I coached baseball teams with young kids, I used to say to children and their parents: There are two things: lies and blackmail. Keep those to yourself, because at the rate that we are getting paid, we cannot afford that. It costs too much. With baseball, people accepted that; they understood that. It was volunteer work. "If you don't let my son play, I won't do this, I won't buy gas from you." I heard that line for 20 years. "My son is good." In that mother's opinion he was good, but in my opinion he wasn't. However, we tried to let everyone play.
"I used to tell the lady: "Of course our children are always nicer and better than the others; our children are much nicer and more intelligent, but there are also other ones that are nice and intelligent". That is what parents could not accept. So they would use blackmail on me. When they did that, the little guy would not play ball anymore. I would tell the lady or the gentleman to take their son and let him play in their backyard. It is the same thing in politics. If you don't do this for me, I won't vote for you anymore. Isn't this tiring in the end? Then they say: We want a member of Parliament that is honest, clean-cut, white, pure. Do you realize that we are a reflection of the population? Do you know that we are a reflection of those same people that come and tell us their story? However, we cannot say that. Those things are not in the newspapers. If it is a member of Parliament, it will be in the newspapers; if it is an ordinary citizen, we will not talk about it because it is not interesting. It is not good gossip material! But those are the people who create problems, like Mr. Kealy.
The papers failed to talk about his past, his background. It is not the purest. It is not white as snow. We all do our best. Every one wants to help every one else. But we can go nowhere with blackmail like: "Unless you give me this, I will not do that for you." I can give everything and the moon to my people. I could give them everything they ask for, but they would be the first ones to come and see me to say: "Give us a break. We are overtaxed!" Right they are, but good grief, I have known that for four years now. All I am doing is to avoid taxing them even more. We could give them a golden Christmas tree, but, for the time being they will have to make do with a natural green one. We do not have golden ones yet. I would love to put one in each of their houses. In

October 1, 1991
Private Members' Business
any case, ray constituents, the majority of them, understand that we cannot afford such a luxury.
Mr. Bean does not tell the truth when he says that he has a hard time preventing violence. He was the first one in the gang to try and knock down the front door below the Peace Tower. I saw him on TV. And there was another guy banging on the door. I do not know if he is Bean's right-hand man, with the strange haircut-you saw him on TV-or if he is a federal government employee. In any case, they were all there after the door like a bunch of squirrels after peanut butter. That makes no sense. They profess non-violence, but they are the first ones to bang on the door. That is really a shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


William Warren Allmand: That, in the opinion of this House the Constitution Act, 1982 should be amended in order to recognize explicitly the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-government, thereby making them partners in Confederation and that this House further urges the governments of Canada, the Provinces and the Territories to acknowledge that self-government requires a viable economic base and calls upon these governments to constitutionally commit themselves to negotiate with the aboriginal peoples an equitable sharing of lands and resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion asks the House to entrench in the Constitution the right of aboriginal people to self-government. I would reword that. It asks that we recognize the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government in the Constitution. That is the first thing that it asks.
The second thing it asks is that this House further urges the governments of Canada, the provinces and territories to acknowledge that self-government requires a viable economic base. It goes on to talk about land claims and the need for settling land claims in order to complement aboriginal self-government.
When this motion was scheduled for debate I did not know what sort of constitutional proposals the government would release earlier last week, but now I am quite gratified to tell you, and you probably know it, Mr. Speaker, that the government in its constitutional proposal has accepted the principle that the right of aboriginal peoples to self-government be recognized in the Constitution. There were several provisions in the constitutional proposals of the government that deal with this matter.
The government has said that the proposals as written in its document is not written in stone, that they are subject to consultation and revision, but in any case it has accepted the principle.
Because the government has accepted the principle of the proposal I have in my private member's motion, because this party has agreed for some time to the entrenchment recognizing aboriginal self-government, and so does the New Democratic Party, I was hopeful that before this hour ends the House might agree to this motion since all parties agree to the principles lying behind it and that by doing so this House would give some impetus to the constitutional proposals already put forward by the government.
I think it would be laudatory and helpful if the House of Commons of Canada said as a body that it agreed to the recognition and entrenchment in the Constitution of the right of aboriginal people to self-government. All parties have now said that in principle.
I am hopeful, before this debate ends and when government members rise, that they will leave a few minutes at the end so we could simply accept the motion perhaps unanimously. I do not know if anybody now disagrees with this principle.
I should remind the House that similar principles were accepted and tried in the early 1980s when the government of the day, a Liberal government, agreed to call



October 1, 1991

three federal-provincial conferences to entrench the recognition of aboriginal self-government. Unfortunately the federal government was not able to obtain the agreement of enough provinces to get that matter entrenched in the Constitution. Two of those conferences took place when Mr. Trudeau's government was in power and one of them took place when Mr. Mulroney's government was in power. They all failed to get the seven out of ten provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, so the matter failed.
Now, once again, the Government of Canada has included this in its constitutional proposals, but I would hope that it would have a much greater chance of succeeding this time because a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the early 1980s. It has been about 10 years since those original proposals were made and discussed at a federal-provincial conference. We have had some very sad incidents arising from the fact that we did not recognize the rights of our aboriginal people the way they should have been recognized.
I refer to the incidents which took place at Oka last summer and at Kahnawake on the south shore of Montreal, and there are many other incidents that could be referred to.
I think that the mood today is that there is a greater recognition of the rights of aboriginal peoples. I am hopeful that the proposal that I put forward today and which is included in different words in the government's constitutional proposals will be agreed to and entrenched in the Constitution.
As far as I am concerned all of this started with me personally when I was a member of the special committee on Indian self-government which sat and worked in this country at the very beginning of the 1980s. That committee broke a lot of new ground. It was the first parliamentary committee which included as ad hoc members representatives of the national aboriginal organizations. The Assembly of First Nations appointed a member, Roberta Jamieson, who now holds a high position in the Government of Ontario. There were also representatives from the Native Council of Canada, from the Metis National Council, and from the Native Women's Association of Canada.
Private Members' Business
These aboriginal representatives appointed by their own organizations sat with our committee, had all the rights and privileges as members of the committee, except that they had no technical voting rights.
They questioned witnesses as members of the committee did. They participated in the discussions leading to the adoption of the report. Mr. Speaker, when the time came to vote on the recommendations of that report dealing with aboriginal self-government, we decided not to adhere to strict technical votes, but to adopt recommendations by consensus which included the consensus developed with the help of those representatives from the aboriginal associations.
That committee, of which I was a member, made very strong recommendations for the recognition of the right to aboriginal self-government in the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I and others have been promoting this concept for years with, of course, the backing up of the aboriginal associations themselves, which have been first and foremost in this struggle.
Every time the matter is raised, there are members of Parliament or senators-not all-and members of the public and the press, who ask: Well, what does aboriginal self-government mean? Does it mean we are going to have 15 or 20 or 30 separate independent countries within Canada? Are they all going to have the same powers, or different powers?" And so on, and so on.
They have either voted against it or opposed the idea because they said it was not clear enough. Well, let me point this out. Although various aboriginal associations in Canada point out that they have had the right to aboriginal self-government for thousands of years, they want to exercise that right within Canada, within Confederation. I have been at many meetings where their representatives have argued that while some provinces and some groups in Canada are undertaking movements to get out of Canada, they want to be fully included but represented as groups. They want to be part of Confederation, but equally and able to maintain their inherent and historic rights.
We are not talking about, at least for most of the aboriginal groups that I have talked to, of people or associations or First Nations that want to separate totally from Canada and live independently. They want to exercise certain basic powers, often with respect to social

October 1, 1991
Private Members' Business
polity, economic development, justice, education, health care and other matters that directly touch their people and with which they have been dealing for generations.
In contrast to the concept of the policy of aboriginal self-government, we have the Indian Act, a vestige, I must say, of 19th century imperialism and paternalism. Here we have a very old Act which was passed and which was administered by governments of all stripes at the federal level, and not the NDP, because they have not formed a government, but Conservative and Liberal governments, which in fact was an act which allowed the non-Indian population of Canada, the white population, to run affairs for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for this interruption, but I ask the co-operation of other members because the Chair cannot hear and understand the speech being delivered.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for that intervention. I would hope that the members of the House would give more attention to this important subject which, as I say, is not only discussed very widely with our aboriginal people, but it is also now one of the key proposals of the government's constitutional package.
I was saying that the Indian Act was an act which set up an administration basically of non-Indian people, the so-called white population of Canada, to run the affairs of the Indian people, a clear case of imperialism, of colonialism, of paternalism. It has carried on until 1991.
Now, it is true that for about the last 20 or 30 years there has been a certain devolution. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, of which I was a former minister, has handed over some of those powers, not legally or constitutionally, but administratively, to the bands. So there are many bands that now run their own programs of education, health and social services and so on. They in fact run those matters but their right to do so is not recognized in the Constitution, nor has the Indian Act been basically changed which takes that right away from the federal government to do so.
I think the first thing we have to recognize is that in 1991, as we near the end of the 20th century, the Indian Act is an anomaly. It is totally out of place in a modem world that one group of people should be running the
lives of other people. I can account for you the silliest and craziest examples where officials in Ottawa had to approve the widening of a road by two feet on a reserve in Saskatchewan. I mean, how ridiculous. Although passed by a certain band council in Saskatchewan, they had to come all the way to Ottawa for approval. It sat on somebody's desk for months and months before it could be done. One could tell of many, many other silly examples.
In any case, we have to get rid of the Indian Act. We have to continue for the time being transferring programs to the bands as they see fit to take them on, or to tribal councils. In many cases the bands have joined together and formed tribal councils which allow them greater scope because they are bigger, have more resources, more people. They have regional high schools and so on, with respect to these tribal councils.
I also want to mention that certain Indian nations, such as the Sechelt in British Columbia, have already had a special act passed which recognizes their right to self government. I think we should also recognize that now in the Northwest Territories, in the territorial government, the majority of people in the Northwest Territories who are aboriginal people are in control of that government, and that is a good thing as well.
Again, I want to point out that the aboriginal nations of Canada existed in this territory which is now called Canada for thousands of years. I don't know the exact period of time but anthropologists and others say it was for thousands of years. They did that as many nations. There were Cree nations, Mohawk nations, MicMac nations, Montagnais and Blackfoot and so on and so on.
They had their own languages and their own cultures, their own traditions. They had their own laws, their own systems of government, their own economies. When the Europeans came in the 16th and 17th centuries and made contact with these aboriginal nations, in some cases they signed treaties, treaties to govern the relationships between the aboriginal people and themselves. In other cases they didn't sign treaties but they simply pushed them off the land. These people who acted as their friends in many cases, when the Europeans came, were sort of pushed aside after the Europeans, both the English and the French, found their way over here. One could say the same about the Spanish in South America. They simply set them aside and treated them as second-

class citizens or not as citizens at all, or not even as human beings in many cases.
The point of the matter is that these aboriginal nations never gave up their right to self government. They never recognized in any treaty that I know of that they were ceding to the British and the French colonial powers the right to govern them, nor did they transfer in most cases their lands. That is the basis of the land claim settlements. In certain treaties there was a recognition of settlement of lands, but in many there was not, and in many parts of Canada there are no treaties whatsoever which deal with these matters.
So, the aboriginal people have retained their right to self government that they always had as nations on this continent. They retain the moral right to those lands that they occupied and now they are saying to us "We want you to recognize those rights in the Constitution". I am in this proposal today saying that we should recognize those rights in the Constitution. I understand that the government is saying the same thing in the constitutional proposals that it put forward a week ago. That is the basis of my argument with respect to the first part of my resolution.
The second part says, as I stated at the beginning of my remarks, that if you are to have self-government you must also have a viable economic basis and consequently, we should commit ourselves in this Parliament to negotiate with aboriginal peoples an equitable sharing of lands and resources, based on the lands and resources that they used and occupied before the Europeans came three or four centuries ago.
Once again, I do not want to take up too much time. As I say, I first put this motion to previous Parliaments years ago, and I have been putting this on the Order Paper year after year. That is why I am gratified to see the movement in the country and the movement among political parties. There seems to be great agreement on these principles today. I would hope that this year will not pass without the entrenchment of aboriginal selfgovernment or the recognition of aboriginal self-government in the Constitution of Canada. I would hope that
Private Members' Business
we would give impetus to that movement for entrenchment by agreeing to this resolution in this House today.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on this very important matter as Parliamentary Secretary to the Right Hon. Joe Clark, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
The question of aboriginal rights, in particular, a right to self-government and how it should be recognized in the Constitution, is not a new one. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. There have been quite divergent and varied interpretations of the nature and scope of these rights.
This government is serious about constitutional change for aboriginal peoples, including the entrenchment of a justiciable right to self-government. The Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, assisted by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is devoting much of his time to this important matter.
This summer, at a meeting in Morley, Alberta, Mr. Clark reached agreement with the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations on what has come to be known as the parallel process for aboriginal constitutional consultations and negotiations. Since then, the minister has met with the leaders of the Native Council of Canada, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Metis National Council who have established similar consultative structures to seek the views of their respective constituencies.
Section 37 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provided for a constitutional conference of first ministers, to which aboriginal representatives would be invited, to identify and define aboriginal rights to be included in the Constitution of Canada.
Two conferences were subsequently held, one in 1983 and another in 1984. By the time of the 1984 conference, the entrenchment of an aboriginal right to self-government had emerged as the primary objective of the aboriginal participants.

October 1, 1991
Private Members' Business
For aboriginal peoples, a right to self-government would reflect what is in their view the historical reality, and it would provide a secure foundation upon which a better future could be built-a future that they themselves and their children would shape.
On June 21, 1984, the section 37 process was formally extended through proclamation of the first "made in Canada" amendments under the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. Among other things, these amendments provided for two more first ministers' conferences on aboriginal affairs-one before April 17, 1985, and another before April 17, 1987.

The Prime Minister opened the 1985 First Minister's Conference with the following remarks: "As a Canadian and as Prime Minister, I fully recognize and agree with the emphasis that the aboriginal people place on having their special rights inserted into the highest law of the land and protected from arbitrary legislative action."
Constitutional protection is an over-riding objective because it is the constitutional manifestation of a relationship and unbreakable social contract between aboriginal people and their governments. An unprecedented level of consensus was reached at the 1985 conference.
At one point, agreement appeared to be veiy close on a federal draft proposal modified by Saskatchewan which became known as the "contingent right approach".
Seven provinces appeared to be ready to support this proposal if the aboriginal association at the table agreed. The Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Committee on National Issues however felt that they could not support the Saskatchewan proposal.
After that conference, the federal government worked hard to re-establish a positive climate for the discussion and negotiations. It stated that despite the failure to achieve consensus on the self-government amendment, it would proceed with negotiations on practical self-government initiatives within the existing constitutional framework.
It was hoped that the practical examples of self-government developed through these negotiations would help to build consensus in the constitutional forum.
Some provinces had been hesitant to agree to the entrenchment of a right to self-government without first
knowing more about what it would involve. Considerable discussion took place between the 1985 First Ministers' Conference and the 1987 conference.
Five multilateral meetings were held at the ministerial level. Seven were held at the official's level and bilateral discussions continued throughout this period.

The draft amendment that the federal government put forward at the 1987 First Ministers' Conference was a progressive proposal. It would have provided explicit recognition of a free-standing right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. The jurisdiction, legislative powers, proprietary rights, and other powers, rights and privileges of bodies or institutions exercising the right to self-government were to be defined through agreements.
This proposal would also have entrenched a commitment by the Government of Canada and provincial governments to negotiate agreements relating to selfgovernment. Such negotiations could relate to any matter respecting self-government, including, where appropriate, jurisdiction, powers, land, resources, funding and preservation and enhancement of native languages and cultures.
The 1987 federal proposal would have provided for the self-government rights set out in agreements to be deemed treaty rights for the purpose of section 35 of the Constitution, where legislatures approved. In other words, these rights would have received constitutional protection.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this proposal, or any other on the table at that time, did not secure sufficient support among provinces and aboriginal leaders to proceed with a constitutional amendment. With that conference, the formal, multilateral aboriginal constitutional negotiations provided for in section 37 of the Constitution ended.
After the 1987 conference, the federal government maintained its interest in aboriginal self-government. It continued to pursue self-government negotiations within current constitutional arrangements. Ministers also met many times with aboriginal leaders to discuss what prospects there might be for further aboriginal constitutional discussions in the future.
October 1, 1991

The companion constitutional resolution to the Meech Lake Accord would have reinstated an entrenched process of first ministers' conferences on matters of interest to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Had the Meech Lake Accord been ratified by all provinces, the first such conference would have taken place this year.
The government acknowledged that there was an unfinished agenda with respect to aboriginal constitutional reform. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are in a period wherein we face serious challenges as a nation.
We are being called to work toward a Canada that better reflects who we are as a nation, and what we aspire to be. Consideration of Canada's future must include a review of the fundamental place and role of aboriginal peoples. As the Prime Minister stated in his address to the First Nations Congress on April 23, 1991 in Victoria, the views of aboriginal leaders, communities and individuals from across Canada will be fully considered as the government proceeds towards building a stronger Canada. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is the wish of the majority of Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, that this issue be resolved now.
Mr. Speaker, the proposals tabled in this House by the Prime Minister on September 24 demonstrate the commitment of this government to follow through on the extensive work which has recently been done.
The first step, of course, is to assure aboriginal peoples of participation in the current round of constitutional discussions.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace for introducing this motion at a veiy appropriate time.
I regret that the member who just spoke did not indicate that the government would be supporting this motion. I think it would have been helpful because it is basically support for a principle that is already included in the government's constitutional proposals. I believe it would have been helpful for the government and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs to go out
Private Members' Business
to the people of Canada with the endorsement of Parliament against this resolution, to support the constitutional proposals that have been made so that he would have Parliament's sanction for his negotiations with aboriginal people and with provinces and other interests in this country who would like to see some improvement in the relationship between Canada and its aboriginal people.
I would like to congratulate the member who presented the resolution. The key word in the resolution is the recognition of aboriginal rights to self-government. In the view of many constitutional experts aboriginal people have an inherent right, not a right to be granted by this Parliament or by this government, not a right to be delegated by this Parliament or this government to aboriginal people, but they have an inherent right. It is a right that inheres in the fact that they are the aboriginal nations who preceded European contact on this continent.
By the time Europeans arrived here they had already established organized governments based on family, tribal and clan structures. They had the power to make and enforce laws against their own people and to test those laws by whatever methods of adjudicating they had.
In the same way, like any other sovereign nation, they had the right to organize economies and to trade and become involved in trade beyond their own nations. They had the right to prosecute wars and to treat for peace. They did those things in very much the same way that other sovereign nations engage in making peace through the treaty-making system.
Of course, the treaty-making system is a system that is followed to obtain agreements between two sovereign nations. You do not sign a treaty with a group that is internal to this country. You sign a treaty with a nation that has recognized sovereign status.
It is interesting that when the first Europeans came into contact with aboriginal nations in North America, they generally approached them by signing treaties of peace which regularized the form of contact and relationship between the two nations involved.

October 1, 1991
Private Members' Business
Unfortunately, as time passed on the North American continent and as the European settlers and settlers from outside North American began to overrun the continent in terms of population, the treaties were forgotten. The aboriginal people were shifted toward the margins of society and became like any other colonized people around the world. They lost their right to be recognized as sovereign countries or, I should say, their right was ignored by the European groups that overran their societies. Those aboriginal people never ever gave up their sense of having that sovereign right and of being independent nations, having the right to enter into treaties with the European societies that overran and established their own governments in the continent of North America.
In fact, after those treaties began to be ignored by the Canadian government, we passed a racially specific Indian Act in order to designate who Indians were and who had a right to be Indians. This gave the federal government the virtual power of life or death over aboriginal people. We entered into a very shameful era of history in terms of the relationship between our nation and aboriginal nations on this continent.
I do not have to go through the recitation of events that happened in terms of the Canadian government's intent to destroy aboriginal culture either through physical extermination or through the cultural extermination of those people. The residential school system is one way where children were taken away from their parents and moved to residential schools where their parents could no longer have an influence on them. Those residential schools attempted, by a process of physical abuse and humiliation, to try to drive the culture out of those children so that they would no longer be Indian children.
When that aboriginal residential school system broke down back in the 1960s, the provincial governments, which had the right to exert child welfare legislation under the Indian Act on Indian reserves, then began to seize aboriginal children from their parents. They felt that only white middle-class parents had the proper standards and the proper norms to bring up aboriginal children in our society.
As a result of those two systems, tremendous damage was done to Indian children. Tremendous damage was done to Indian families. Tremendous damage was done to the self-esteem of aboriginal people and as a result,
many of their communities have suffered virtual collapse.
Today another situation is occurring. As my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace indicated, aboriginal people are now beginning to take over control of their own education systems. As a result, those systems are now succeeding. Aboriginal people have now begun to take over their own child welfare systems and as a result those systems are now succeeding.
Aboriginal people have begun to take over control of their own communities and have begun to enforce the law in their own communities and to establish standards of social behaviour in their own communities. As a result, they are beginning to beat the problem of substance abuse, violence and those kinds of things that have affected many aboriginal communities over the years as a result of the impact of our residential school system and the imposition of our child welfare system on aboriginal communities.
So we have two things working here. We have noted that aboriginal people have been extremely successful governing themselves. They can be successful in education, successful in child welfare, successful in running their own communities, successful in economic development, successful in post-secondaiy education when we do not try to look over their shoulder and tell them how to do it and try to set our model for how they should govern themselves.
But I think the issue here, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of the right to self-government. This is a right that we have to recognize. It is not a right that we can delegate. It is not a right that we can give to people. It is a right that they have had on this continent since time immemorial and was never taken away from them by conquest or by any legal transaction.
I support this motion. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward and I hope that the government will acknowledge that it goes along with the proposals that it has made in the constitutional proposals that came down last week. I hope that this Parliament can unanimously support this resolution so that the government will have our sanction to go out and negotiate with aboriginal people and with the other players in the constitutional debate. We can then achieve something that all Canadians can be proud of in terms of the way that we relate to aboriginal people on this continent.
October 1, 1991

Private Members' Business
In winding up I just want to quote the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs: "The failure to recognize the rights of aboriginal people to self-government weakens our whole country. Recognizing that right will make our country stronger". Let us get together in this Parliament to support the statement made by the minister responsible for the Constitution, make our country stronger, and improve our reputation around the world by supporting this motion.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to report on this government's record on aboriginal economic development is really quite timely given the recent constitutional proposals which focus largely on developing a new partnership for prosperity.
Canada has much to gain from improved aboriginal economic activity, not just in better aboriginal social conditions, but in realizing our national goal of partnership for prosperity.
A fully participating aboriginal labour force would produce a dramatic and positive effect on Canada's fiscal position as well as bringing about employment and wage parity between aboriginal and other Canadian workers, a goal which I am sure everyone in this House would support.
Economic self-reliance is an integral part of the foundation for aboriginal self-government. Economic self-reliance and self-government are two sides of the same coin. One cannot work without the other. That is why this government has strengthened the many programs and strategies to help develop strong and diversified economies in aboriginal communities and marketable skills among our aboriginal workers.
We have done this in partnership with aboriginal people by ensuring that they have the tools and decisionmaking powers over federal economic programs to manage and develop their own economies in accordance with the wishes of their communities.
First and foremost among our success stories is the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, CAEDS. This innovative program was launched just over two years ago and in this short time significant gains have been made: one, with aboriginal businesses and community leaders, a strong aboriginal controlled development capacity has been put in place through community based aboriginal capital corporations; two, more than 780 new aboriginal businesses have been launched, including gas stations, grocery stores, motels, wild rice processing plants, shopping plazas, and an airline; three, 24,000 aboriginal people have participated in federally funded skills training programs; four, significant agreements have been reached with provinces on forestry resource access and with the private sector on employment and contracting through CAEDS assisted resource access negotiations.
My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will shortly be tabling a full report to this House on these achievements which are being led by three departments, Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Industry, Science and Technology, Canada; and the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission.
Indian Affairs has the lead in the community economic development and access to the resource component of CAEDS. In addition as part of its statutory responsibilities the department has prepared an inventory of available mineral resources on reserve lands to assist Indian bands in determining the feasibility of further exploration.
Similarly, Indian Oil and Gas Canada was created to optimize the royalty benefits from oil and gas resources on reserves.
It is continuing to work and to improve the services it provides to the Indian bands to help improve the reserves of oil and gas.
Through the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, that department plays the lead in the business development role by providing contributions to businesses for start-up and expansion, and by ensuring $160 million capital base is available to aboriginal capital corporations to provide a source of debt equity to aboriginal businesses.
These native-run loan companies already provide credit and related services to nearly 50 per cent of aboriginal communities. In 1990-91 Employment and Immigration spent more than $139 million as part of its Pathways to Success program to provide training and services to approximately 24,000 aboriginal clients, half of whom have turned that training into jobs.

Private Members' Business
This year target spending has increased to $200 million. With federal assistance, there are currently more than 92,000 aboriginal people with post-secondary education qualifications and more are coming onstream all the time.
All of these endeavours are providing aboriginal individuals and communities with the means to become economically self-reliant. This is being done by aboriginal people taking control of their own economic development at the grass roots level.
This bottom-up approach through CAEDS empowers aboriginal communities to build the expertise, the organization and manpower needed to solve their own problems. The federal government is also embarking on an aboriginal work force participation initiative to open up more labour market opportunities to what is rapidly becoming a highly skilled, well educated aboriginal work force.
Under this initiative, federal departments will improve the retention and the promotion of native people within the federal Public Service. It will also strengthen entiy level programs for aboriginal post-secondary graduates, improve contacts with aboriginal organizations to identify prospective job applicants, and use summer training courses and work experience more extensively with aboriginal students to introduce them into the Public Service.
It has to be clear to my hon. colleague that not only are we delivering on the promises we made one year ago with this program when the Prime Minister did unveil the native agenda, but with our new Partnership for Prosperity initiative, the government is also continuing to take action and will produce even better results to improve the socioeconomic conditions of native people.
Our Partnership for Prosperity urges all levels of government and the private sector to do their part to ensure greater economic harmony with our aboriginal people, and we all can share in that.
We are enjoying co-operation from the government of the Northwest Territories. Last summer my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, signed a $38.5 million economic development co-operation agreement with the territorial Minister of Economic Development and Tourism.
The accord provides funding for initiatives in the areas of cultural industries, community-sponsored development, minerals, agriculture, wildlife harvesting and fisheries. I know this initiative will work toward achieving a self-supporting, economically stable environment for our northern colleagues.
The key to success of all these ventures is that they are based on the advice given by aboriginal people. We consult with the aboriginal people and we will listen. We agree with them on how we can work together and follow their lead.
More skilled and more educated workers are coming onstream. Hundreds of new businesses and hundreds of new business ventures have been launched.
Aboriginal administrators are assuming greater control over their social and economic development in their communities. Here is the proof that partnerships result in real progress. This breakthrough has come about because our government is determined to develop a program. We want to take our policies and through devolution recognize that community leaders who are well versed in the needs and goals of their own members can best design and best deliver programs for their own people in their own communities.
At last count more than 72 per cent of all DIAND program dollars was being administered by Indians and Inuits through various funding arrangements. These agreements give communities the flexibility they need to apply those funds as they see fit to the priorities that they determine and their membership determines.
In the near future, Indian nations will have greater legal authority to assume authority over even more than their own affairs. Working groups of chiefs are currently developing proposals for legislative alternatives to the Indian Act which will deal with the areas of Indian moneys and taxation among other things.
The new powers accorded under this legislation will allow bands to determine their own economic destiny, and so they should.
Bill C-115 was the first Indian-led change to the Indian Act. It clearly established the authority of band councils to tax all interests in reserve lands. The new powers provided under this legislation allow bands to
October 1, 1991

establish a tax base and generate revenues which can be used in pursuit of their own community development.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is working with Indian taxation advisory boards. He is working to effect the results so that growing numbers of bands, such as the Westbank, Kamloops and the Musqueam Indian bands of British Columbia, will all have formal powers.
I must say that my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace has put forth a fine motion and it is veiy timely. I think much more needs to be done. We look forward to the discussions on the proposals over the next few months. The aboriginal people can certainly count on our support.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for introducing this motion tonight. It is of utmost importance because aboriginals were the first citizens, or should I say the first inhabitants, of this country. They have been here for thousands and thousands of years. They have never been recognized as such. They also have never been recognized as a founding nation. Instead they were enticed into signing treaties which created ghettos, which we prefer to call reserves.
Aboriginals never gave up their rights to self-govem. This is why the principle today has reached its maturity, but it could not be accomplished unless economic aid comes with it. One must remember that in isolated communities in particular unemployment hovers around 90 per cent. Chances for investment are not really good as most of those First Nations communities are remote and isolated. Training programs could be of some help if some permanent jobs would follow afterward.
It is a great time also because of the prejudice and the racism that exist in our justice system for First Nations communities to administer their own. One thinks readily about the Navajo nation in southwestern United States which does have its own justice system and which works extremely well according to its own values.
Tbrning to the area of health, it is a shame that upon visiting reserve after reserve the sewer and water systems are so deficient that one would think one was in a
Private Members' Business
Third World country. It is a bloody shame that Canadians do not put up the necessary funds, that this government would not put up the necessary funds to modernize the sewer and water systems in first community nations.
As paradoxical as it may sound, teachers' residences and hospital are connected to the sewer systems but not the residences of the natives. It is not unusual to see on a reserve two or three miles of sewer and water lines all around the village, but no one is connected to it except hospitals and teachers' residences.
In the area of education, the number of dropouts is unacceptable as education is the base for future self-government. The future chiefs need to be educated. They need to be educated in their own culture in their own communities, because the culture shock they face when they are studying in "white high schools" is incredible. This is why the number of dropouts is increasing dramatically, which leads to other social programs of course.
The Indian Act needs a motor job, a total overhaul: that is motor and chassis and everything. It is high time that modem rules and regulations and laws apply to the first inhabitants of our country. This includes the Prime Minister's new proposal where he suggests that Indian self-government should come within 10 years. That is far too much time. All those years of begging and pleading with successive governments for improvements are finished. It is quite understandable that aboriginal peoples all across Canada are crying for help, and it is totally justified if you see some of those reserves.
Therefore, by accepting this motion, the Government of Canada would send out a signal that the first nations are accepted as a full-fledged partner of this Confederation.


John Cole: Madam Speaker, I would just like to add a few comments to what has already been said here today, but particularly to commend the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for bringing this motion forward. I think it is a very sensitive and very critical issue at the present time. I think it is something that we as citizens of Canada have recognized. We respect the member's particular views as he has outlined them in this particular motion.

October 1, 1991
Private Members' Business
I think it is also recognizable that the government in its proposal has brought these same things forward, and I think that is very important. It is this government that has been dedicated and made a strong effort to resolve as many of these problems as can be resolved in as quick a time as possible. I do not think there is any denying that aboriginal peoples need to have their rights and their reality reflected in the Constitution of this country. No other group of Canadians has had to fight to defend rights that are as intrinsic as their heritage.
One of the most basic principles of democracy, the right and responsibility to control one's affairs, has eluded native people. It is wrong. It is unjust and frankly we must change it.
Common sense dictates that aboriginal people know best how to help themselves. That is the direction we are going to have to go in the future. The powerlessness they feel now leads to their helplessness, and that is not constructive for anyone.
There have been a number of initiatives brought forward by this government. I think it is very important that they have been outlined by different speakers here today. Because I do not have much time left, I would just like to comment on a couple of these things.
In consideration of consultations with regard to the constitutional proposal presently before the Canadian public, it ensures that aboriginal people will participate in the current constitutional deliberations. In fact, as an example, the band administrator in my riding from the Chippewas of Georgina, Mr. William McCue is sitting on my local constituency group studying the constitutional proposals. He is sitting there as a Canadian, as a person who wants to build a better place and a better country. I am very proud of that fact, and I know Bill is very proud of being involved in that process. That is why we want to continue with that kind of co-operative type of development.
There are many examples that the federal government has taken. The approach is very different and we recognize that, but the very real needs of aboriginal people in every comer of this country must be addressed on an individual basis. Each claim settlement is unique.
Each must reflect the needs and the aspirations of the unique community that it serves.
It cannot just try to use a blanket statement. That has been tried too often in the past and is not going to work in the future. This government is committed to negotiating settlements that will ensure that land and resources are managed in an orderly manner with the support of all Canada in a way that strengthens the entire nation.
This is what we can and must do. It is essential to complete the circle of Confederation so that all Canadians, whether they be native or non-native, can call this Canadian House their home.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that private members' hour has come to an end, but I think you will find a disposition to deal with two other items that are on the Order Paper under the rubric of Private Members' Business. First, Bill S-3, standing in the name of the hon. member for York Centre, could be dropped to the bottom of the list of precedents by unanimous consent. I would suggest that it remain there until the hon. member is here to proceed with the bill, in which case it will be proceeded with through all stages on the day without taking up an entire private members' hour.
I believe you will also find is unanimous consent in the House now for the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt to proceed with Bill S-4 through all stages.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think we should first finish Private Members' Business and the motion of Mr. Allmand, and I will then get back to the point of order.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
I will now recognize the hon. member for Laval-Est, on a point of order.


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, perhaps the clerks have already brought this to your attention, but I was finishing my speech and I had four minutes left. I would appreciate having those four minutes to finish my speech. I was told I could do so at 6 p.m., and the clerks

confirmed this. I don't know whether you were told about this, but I still have four minutes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will certainly have an opportunity to finish his speech. According to the Chair, he still has five minutes, plus a ten-minute period for questions and comments following his speech. The House is now being asked for unanimous consent to expedite a private bill received from the Senate, which means that all stages of the bill could be passed in a few minutes, provided there is unanimous consent. After that, the hon. member will be able to continue his speech.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, first, I do not know what the devil the bill is. I am prepared to go along with it, as long as it is not going to take time away from the normal debate that would have taken place if this had not come in between. That is what I do not know.
I have been round here long enough not to assume a thing. You may say it is two or three minutes and it may be three or four minutes and all of a sudden it gets to be fifteen or twenty minutes. Already I have taken over half a minute. Therefore I am going to sit down.
On that basis I will agree to give consent. I was not proper this afternoon on a point of order when I said: "Forget the Scots". I meant to say: remember the Scots who are independent, remember the Irish who are independent, but make sure you remember the Independents.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It has been asked that Bill S-3 be dropped to the bottom of the list and be presented when the hon. member for York Centre who is not here today returns. We can deal with it after that.
Bill S-4 is standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. This is the one for which I was asking if there was unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's suggestion and to refer the bill to Committee of the Whole?
Private Members' Business


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


UNIVERSITY OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE ACT
Stanley J. Hovdebo: that Bill S-4, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the University of Emmanuel College, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Hovdebo thereupon moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is kind of a phoenix bill. It was passed by the Senate in the last session as Bill S-20 but died on the Order Paper in this House. It was passed again by the Senate and has been brought forward at this time. It is a very technical bill, very much of a housekeeping bill.
Emmanuel College was established in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan back in 1879 and chartered by the Parliament of Canada, 1883. The charter has been updated a couple of times since. The senate of the University of Emannuel College wants a further update of it and that is what this bill is about.
It is very interesting that the original charter of Emmanuel College was the University of Saskatchewan, but in 1909 when the University of Saskatchewan was established by the province it forfeited that name and became Emmanuel College. It is the college established by the Anglican Church of Rupertsland.
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
October 1, 1991

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-29, an Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-29. The hon. member for Laval-Est.


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, this will be the conclusion of the speech I started earlier today.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that, as I said earlier on in my speech, Mr. Bean was a very good administrator. He did what he had to do. As reported in the Toronto Star, he did something he had to do, but it wasn't easy. It meant cutting 20 positions, cutting $1.8 million in his budget, and so forth. All this is good management, but he was unable to save those 20 jobs.
In fact, there is a problem with union democracy, if one can use that term. People come and tell me they want to negotiate. That is all they want. They say they want to negotiate, but they don't know Mr. Bean walked away from the bargaining table. Union members don't seem to be aware of this. We have a problem here. They want to bargain, and they wonder why we aren't bargaining. They say it's all the government's fault. As I said earlier, it is always the government's fault, whatever happens.
If the Olympic stadium in Montreal is falling to pieces, it's Brian Mulroney's fault. That is the easy way out. I say Mr. Bean is not keeping his members informed. I say that Mr. Bean may be a good administrator, but he is not the right person to keep his people informed. People simply don't know what is going on. Maybe Mr. Bean wants us to do in the public service what he did when he cut positions at union headquarters. For all I know, that
may be what he wants. If it is, well, 6,000 jobs will be lost, something we as a government cannot tolerate.
Our listeners must realize that Mr. Bean left the bargaining table without responding to our offer. He decided to give his union's response through the media, by going on strike. His members are not getting the whole story. I would like to say to our listeners that the wage freeze also applies to members of Parliament, ministers, the Prime Minister, Deputy Ministers, and senior management in the Public Service. I am sure a lot of people will be glad when they realize the salaries of politicians have been frozen as well.
Madam Speaker, in concluding, it is really too bad when 200 people barge into my office uninvited and take over my office and my staff. I have two employees who do more than is humanly possible. So these people, whose manners leave something to be desired, think they have every right to take over my office. They are on strike, so they can do anything they like. Well, I repeat, I will never give in to intimidation. I will never give in to blackmail or lies, because these are the people who asked me to be strong and honest and work very hard for their sake.
It is not always easy to say yes, and I think that the greatest gift I can give my people is honesty. And I am Sony to see, Madam Speaker, that those of my constituents who think that we are to blame were not informed of the facts by Mr. Bean. I think I have drawn an accurate picture and one as complete as possible. I hope that the people will believe that what I said is the truth and that they will shake that bloody myth of strikes being caused by our giving $80,000 in bonuses. We hear it every day. It is a myth that is being created. That is not the problem. They had bonuses before and there will always be bonuses. Bonuses are not a bad thing, but we have to freeze them. And they will be frozen because there are people earning $300,000 or $400,000- How much does the chairman of Petro-Canada make again? Five or six hundred thousand a year? Yet, he gets an $800 bonus every time he chairs the board. What do you expect! I agree with my colleague that it is too much, but in the private sector, the president of Imperial Oil earns that much and that is the way things go, that's competition. Maybe he too is getting too much!
So, here is what I tell my colleagues, my people and my constituents: we must look at both sides and avoid making the same mistake as the president of the union, Mr. Bean, i.e. cutting jobs to give a 3 per cent raise instead of zero per cent. We must be honest. These
October 1, 1991

things must be said. There is nothing better than dialogue with both sides telling the truth. I was almost intimidated into telling lies today. But I will never give in to blackmail. I will never accept to change my tune just to win a vote.
I would have preferred to do without emergency legislation. I was proud, last week that we had come to an agreement. I even put out a release. It will be remembered. Verba volant, scripta manent, as the proverb goes. Unfortunately, he quickly left the table. We cannot be blamed for that! I told our guys, our employees: "You deserve better, you are working people and you do an excellent job in members' offices. We need you. But the truth of the matter is that we are all in the same boat. There is a zero per cent increase across the board." Our financial needs are increasing. I gave the example of my son at University and others as well.
In closing, Madam Speaker, it is a fact that, whether you are a member of Parliament or a civil servant, if our salaries are frozen, our financial burden gets heavier. Children's education, transportation, fuel, everything costs more. But it might all be for the best, and I tell my people: "Bear with us. You will see that we are doing this not for the short term but for the long term."


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Laval East.
Maybe the constituents of Laval East do not have the full story. I want to tell the member for Laval East that Canadians are not stupid, that Canadians are well informed. They know that this government, with its high interest rates, high dollar policies and 33 new tax increases since September 1984, is the source of inflationary pressures. They know that taking purchasing power away from consumers will only deepen and prolong the recession. They know that the Tory government intends to impose a freeze on federal Public Service wage increases for 1991-92 and an annual 3 per cent limit on federal Public Service wage increases over the next two years. They know the Tory government is encouraging provincial and municipal governments to
Government Orders
impose similar wage controls. They know that wage controls in the public sector inevitably limit wage settlements for all Canadian workers. They know that there is no flexibility when a limit on wage increases is imposed on everyone, whether a clerk, a deputy minister or a president of a Crown corporation.
They know in Laval East and everywhere else in this country that the Conservative federal government is prepared to take away the collective bargaining rights of workers across this country, threaten them with job losses and contracting out, interfere with conciliation and arbitration, and legislate employees back to work. They know this government is being unfair.
I want to ask the member for Laval East: Does he think Canadians know these facts?


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, I do not know how to explain to this member more than the others. If they were informed, how come I asked my people to send to me in writing what they would like to have from us?
They said: "We would like to negotiate as normal human beings". I said: "Good, see Mr. Bean but you have a problem. Mr. Bean did not inform you that he quit the table". I do not think they were informed of everything.
When they got the information, because of the fact that they listened a lot to the opposition, they do not get it exactly or the phrase is cut before the end. That is what embarrasses me. I try to be honest and tell them the truth. I have nothing to lose by telling the truth. This is what I want to tell my hon. friend. We did not take away anything. The provinces got the freeze by legislation. He would not negotiate. We are not so bad. We negotiate.
Look what happened in New Brunswick. They promised an increase and after the election they pushed the legislation through and that was it. That is nice.
Canadians are not dumb, but they are not well informed. It depends on who gives them the information. As far as I am concerned on this side, I will give them the right time and I will not change my mind just to win a vote.

Government Orders
This is what is in my mind and heart. I hope people will understand that on election day. If they do not, they will regret that.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to ask a question of the member for Laval East with regard to his speech.
He seems to have identified Mr. Daryl Bean as being the problem. I want to tell the member for Laval East, as a member of Parliament from British Columbia, that British Columbians know how trade unions operate and how certification of a trade union is developed and carried through.
I want to say to the Conservative members from British Columbia that my constituents from my riding and from British Columbia will recognize that there is a very important point being left out by this government.
First of all, they are a recognized, certified union, that has the right to bargain free and collectively with this government. This government has authorized that. They have a legal strike situation on their hands and they are negotiating a package. However, when negotiations break down, people in my part of the country know that mediation is made available. The situation is taken out of the hands of the two combatants, the government and PSAC, and an independent mediator sits and tries to hear both sides.
This government denies that. It denies that mediation approach that takes it out of the hands of the adversaries, hears both sides of the problem and tries to deal with it. No, the government has decided not to allow that to happen. In other words, it is dictatorial.
For the first time in the history of the House of Commons back to work legislation is going to be invoked on workers without an independent mediation officer hearing what the two sides of these issues are.
I want to ask the member for Laval East if he thinks that is going to enhance labour relations between public servants and the Government of Canada. Mediation is a very important aspect of negotiations. This may be the first time in history that we will ever see government bring in back to work legislation without even an arbitrator at the end to look at it and bring in binding arbitration.
As a trade unionist I saw that process take place when the Liberals were in power. At least that process was followed. This is the first time in history that we have ever seen dictatorial policies of a government. When negotiations break down on either side, if either one is to blame, there is an independent mediator that should be looking at the issue.
I ask the member why we are not following that procedure before we bring about dictatorial policies of the government.


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, I would like to answer immediately, no.
I will not enforce a relation with my people because of something other than the reality, that we do not want to negotiate.
I will ask the member. He can always answer me later. Why did Mr. Bean quit the table? Why did he not take the opportunity, which I thought was gold, last week? Why did Mr. Bean cut 20 people in his staff and give 3 per cent? Why did he not keep the 20 people and keep the zero?


An hon. member:: Maybe he is a good administrator.


Vincent Della Noce: Maybe he is a very good administrator. I agree with the member, but he is a very bad communicator. Why does he not say the truth to the people? Why is he not respecting the deal that he signed in the minister's office. The minister is my neighbour next door to me. I saw him going down and saying: "Uncle Minister, we have to do something". We gave him the deal. He spoiled the deal. He ran from the table, not us.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I have listened and I saw him upstairs on television. One of the reasons I came down to the House is because the member for Laval East was his usual very interesting and dynamic personality on TV and I wanted to see him in the flesh.
I would like the hon. member to answer the earlier question without getting back to the table. You know you have got two combatants. My friend has had experience, as he said earlier, the 10 and 20 years he has been in business. That is the whole reason we have conciliation, mediation, procedures, laws, et cetera, admitting that both sides are wrong and/or right and that all the things that were done should have been undone and all the things undone should have been done. The public is fed
October 1, 1991

up to the teeth. No doubt by leaving the table and going back to the picket lines and all the troubles there have not helped the unions or the Public Service or anybody.
I would not like the hon. member for Laval East to get into all the pluses and minuses of who is right and who is wrong. However, what is wrong with the mediation procedures that are there and all the laws of Canada, both provincial and federal?


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member. He knows what I feel and he knows that I always try to stand up for my people. He made a deal with someone and he cannot even respect his own deal, a golden deal which he signed and was happy with. He even called the minister uncle, uncle Tom or uncle Gilles given the opportunity. He did not respect it. Now they want to negotiate it. What do they want next?
It scares me to deal with people who have no respect and do not tell the truth to their members. That is the bad feeling I had today when I saw 200 people breaking into my office. I feel sorry for these people because I like these people. They have nice jobs and they are doing a good job.
Even if the people think that all public servants are lazy, we have the cream of the crop in Laval. We have the best people. Some of them give me 110 per cent of what they can do. When some quit we see the difference immediately. Some quit and we see a difference; we cannot get our dossier through. We give our word when we make a deal and they do not respect it. They want a mediator or an outside man. We know what we have in our pocket. We do not need an outside man to tell us what to do. We have nothing left. It is empty. There is no more, finished, that is all.
Now the outside man will tell us: "Be a nice guy". We have been nice guys. We tried to give all the other things. We went in the back pocket, in the little pocket, in the inside pocket and came up with $500 for the people who make less than $27,000. It is not a big salary and $500 is a slap in the face, but I know in my area without a job they would take two slaps in the face for $500 each. They would take it on both chins.
This is not the deal that we are going to put on the table for our people for them to tell us that they need a
Government Orders
negotiator. Then what will they need? He does not want violence or intimidation. Block the bridge, do not let people into work. I have people in my area who want to work. Do you know what they said: "If you go to work, my friend, we will remember your name. We will write it on the wall".
Is that what we want? I do not like violence. I like negotiation. I like the guy who respects his name on the piece of paper. Somebody says: "It is all Mr. Bean's fault". He signed the paper. He was here knocking on the door at eleven o'clock in the morning instead of being at the table to negotiate. Now he wants a mediator. What is he going to ask for next?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the period for questions and comments has now expired.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for St. Boniface. [English]


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand in this House today and address the bill before us, Bill C-29.
My colleague from Laval East has just spoken with a great deal of passion and he has accentuated the element of truth in this debate. I just want to remind him of the truth.

Truth is open to interpretation.

I have every intention to be as truthful as I can be. I ask Canadians who are watching us to decide which of the two sets of truths they feel is the more reliable one. I say this positively, certainly not with any kind of malice in my heart.
There is a pattern here that I think has to be noticed. This government has had a lot of difficulty in managing a number of programs in Canada since it came to power in 1984. It has botched up a lot of things. I do not say that unkindly. Governments do that.

Government Orders
If one looks for example at the F-18 contract which was awarded to a province other than Manitoba, one has to ask what kind of truth there was there. Did truth prevail?
When you look at the closing of the bases and you look at whether those bases were situated in constituencies that had certain members as opposed to others, you have to wonder what kinds of truth prevailed.
When you look at the privatization of Air Canada, you have to ask whether those 3,000 people who are without jobs are better off. Look at VIA Rail; roughly another
3,000	gone. They have no work. What about CN? About 25 per cent less employment since this government has come into power. Ask the workers what they think about that. Look at the CBC cuts. I guess that was really positive as well, was it? Ask Canadians what they think about those CBC cuts.

Ask the people in my community, ask francophones outside Quebec what they think about it. Come and talk to them, and you will see the kind of reception you will get!

There are a couple of questions here that I think are extremely important, one of which is the whole notion of legality of a strike. This is a legal strike. There are a lot of people out there who are trying to suggest that it is other than legal. This is a legal strike, but it raises certain important questions. Should the Public Service be allowed to strike? Perhaps that is the question that we ought to be debating. Under what circumstances should it be allowed to strike, or should it not be allowed to strike?
It raises another important question. My hon. colleague referred to it before. What are the appropriate strike activities when a union is in a strike position?

I do not condone acts of violence, and I believe I am not alone. I don't like the kind of intimidation that is going on when some workers are told: If you go to work, we will tell everyone. I hate this attitude, and I will do everything I can to stop it. That is a promise. People have called to tell me how upset they were because of the kind
of behaviour I just mentioned, and I think this is really too bad.

All of this raises perhaps the ultimate question. Government is using its power to override a law which contains a fundamental right. The question has to be: Who's next? There is danger obviously if you represent a cause that is not particularly popular politically. We all know that the Public Service, because it is not well known, because people do not understand it and because there are all kinds of myths that exist that are untruths, is a target that is not always a popular one.
The government can do as it pleases more or less, and it has taken advantage of the situation. As parliamentarians we have to ask the basic fundamental question: If it does it to this union, if it does it to collective bargaining, will it do it to someone else, to some other group on some other law next, some right that you and I and other Canadians have? That frightens me.

Frankly, I wonder whether other groups and individuals and, in fact, rights we all have as Canadians might be affected the same way.

Let us talk about this notion of fat cats. There is no doubt about it that there are some excellent salaries out there within the Public Service.

You really have to take a long, hard look at this question. Look at the facts! There are a lot of people who are not that well paid. Suppose we look at the various pay categories.

It is rather interesting to note that there are roughly 250 people who earn between $20,000 and $24,999. There are another almost 65,000 people who earn between $25,000 and $29,999. According to my figures, and I believe that they are the most up to date figures available, almost 18,000 earn between $30,000 and $34,999.
Already I have mentioned roughly very close to one-half of the people who are within the Public Service. It is very close to one-half of those people.
October 1, 1991

Think of this. You are living perhaps in Ottawa or in another major city, and let us remember that in Ottawa and Hull we have the majority of public servants. How would you as a father or a mother with a family be able to make a living if you are earning between $20,000 and $25,000 or between $25,000 and $30,000 in this area? You might have a better chance at it if you were between $30,000 and $35,000, but you would not be labelled a fat cat.
The other question that we have to ask is: Why this strike at this time? My hon. colleague was up on his feet with a great deal of passion and emotion. I believe that he said what he truly felt in his heart. He said: "Our pockets are empty".
I will address that very shortly. Why in the world did the government appoint a mediator in the postal strike when it had that option available here? Why le double standard? Why treat one group one way and another group another way?
I believe that this government wants this strike, that it believes that the public is on its side. What options did it have?

They had several. I asked the Library of Parliament to prepare a study so I could look at the options that were available to the government.

We talked of mediation. There is no need to define it. I think most people know what it is all about. We talked of conciliation, a very similar process in which there is a third party brought in. We can talk of fact finding: someone comes in, finds out the facts and lays them out.
We can talk about interest arbitration, another method of getting third party input but where the conclusions or the recommendations are binding. We can talk about final offer selection and mediation arbitration.
This study also indicates what kind of success this has had in the past. The government had several options available to it. It chose mediation for the postal strike, but it did not choose it in this particular case. Why, why, why?
Let me share with you what a prominent journalist, Jeffrey Simpson, said in The Globe and Mail on Septem-
Govemment Orders
ber 17: "Offering public servants a contract with no wage increase in the first year was deliberately provocative and of small consequence in the battle against the deficit".
I do not think he favours one party over the other. He is one of those individuals who tries to be honest and call the shots as he sees them. This is what he says: "Offering public servants a contract with no wage increase in the first year was deliberately provocative and of small consequence in the battle against the deficit".
It was not a Liberal or a member of the New Democratic Party who said that or a member of another party.
It was an independent journalist who said it. There have been a number of provocations. Here is another one. My colleague talks about the bonuses. You know, it is not the notion of the money involved in the bonuses that prevents people from sitting down at the negotiating table. It is the symbol of the bonuses that prevents the dialogue.
When you have 5,000 or more cabinet appointees who got bonuses in the past year that exceed the salaries of a number of civil servants, some of whom are single parents with families, then of course you get people angry. This is the point that bothers me, that people have not understood that this is provocation. This gets people angry. It gets them darned mad, and I have other words that I could use. I have other words that I could use.
Also, the increases to members of Parliament and others, senior bureaucrats, that were given prior to them. I understand what happened. I understand, in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent the day before the salary freeze was imposed. I understand. But if we had set the example, if they had set the example, do you think we would be having this kind of acrimony, this kind of difficulty right now in sitting down and trying to negotiate? I think not.
Let us not forget that an independent agency, which works for government, the Public Service Staff Relations Board said that the Treasury Board had engaged in bad faith bargaining. I did not say that. The New Democratic Party did not say that. Another political party did not say that. It was the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Treasury Board has engaged in bad faith bargaining.

Government Orders
The other thing that has never been said in this Chamber, or I have not heard it today, is that certain employees were granted a back room salary increase. They were moved up one increment in their pay scales. That is provocation. I cite ships' officers and air traffic controllers. I have no difficulty believing that they should have received increases. I believe they probably merited everything they received. But the fact that they did is an act of provocation. It sours the relationship. It prevents us from sitting down and trying to find a solution.
Several people have mentioned that we have no money.

I know that the deficit is exceeding $30 billion and that the debt is exceeding $400 billion, that is, double the one for the 1984-85 fiscal year. I know all that, but why does the government find money for other programs? I will give you some examples. I am delighted to see that it just made some announcements, because it finally transferred some corporations to Western Canada. It is time that we thought about responding to the needs of the West. We have found money to do it, and that is good. But you know, when we were talking, for example, of the 3 per cent raise for the Public Service Alliance members, $144 million, that is a lot of money! It is probably more than what my colleagues have in their bank account today, a lot more!
Also, we must not forget that the government recently made some extraordinary expenses.

For example, the bailout of the frigates. Maybe that was a good decision, but it was $260-some million. The Gulf War was another $600 million. The GST, $358.4 million to implement the program. Over 4,000 people were hired. Office space this year is at an increase of $100 million, j)lus another $38.9 million for GST offices. There is over $1 billion there, ladies and gentlemen, in case you are wondering. I could mention another $1 billion if I had the time.
The government talks about people who are breaking the law, and with justification. I indicated before that I do not agree in any way, shape or form, with violence,
with the disruption that is being carried on by the union and union members. I am trying to understand it and I have given some reasons as to why I think it is happening. It is unfortunate and I hope that we can come to grips with that as soon as this whole dispute is in fact resolved, as I hope it will be very shortly.
What about pay equity? That is the law. Yet the government is ignoring the law. I know it will say: "but you brought it in and what did you do?" Well, do two wrongs make one right? Of course not.
Why would you be denying those who should be getting this kind of financial response, most of whom are women. In our society today why would you be doing that? Why would you be denying them their just due according to law?
Let me talk about contracting out. I have a veiy interesting figure to share with this House. When this particular party formed the government in 1984, we were talking about $1.7 billion in contracting out. Where are we now? In excess of $5 billion. Big, big increase. Now why?
I do not want to be unkind, but I do wish that I could determine with precision tonight in this House where that $3.3 billion increase is going. It would be an interesting discovery and I am afraid that it would cause severe fallout.
Let us look at the employees. When the government came to power in 1984-85 in that year there were 257,013 employees; in 1990-91 there are 221,859 employees, a drop of roughly 35,000, give or take a few.
Look at that drop in employees. Look at the increase in contracting out and tell me, tell Canadians, where is the saving? Have you really saved any money for Canadian taxpayers? If so, I would like you to point it out for me.
There was a very powerful statement in an editorial in The Ottawa Citizen dated September 17, 1991, one that I would really like members of government to explain to Canadians. It said: "All the government needed to do at any time to break the costly demoralizing impasse was to offer a token raise, two, two, and two per cent.
I understand, just in case my colleague gets over-excited that two-plus-two-plus-two compounded is more

than zero-plus-three-plus-three compounded. I want to get that clear. But it is minimal over all and it could have been offset by reductions in staff if there was actually a finite limit to the funds as they claim. So why not two-plus-two-plus-two, rather than approach it from a zero per cent increase which is deliberately provocative by itself? It would not have been more expensive over time. My colleagues know that. They have never explained that away satisfactorily, and I am sorry they have not because Canadians will know that it could have been done that way.
They will know that they are being deliberately belligerent because they believe they have a cause where their sag in popularity can in fact be raised.

Looking at this situation, one wonders what is happening now. Those who have listened and read know that it is a political issue. They understand this government is not very popular. They understand this government will try to increase its popularity, which is entirely normal when you have the favour of barely 10 per cent of the Canadian people according to the opinion pools. Also, they realize there has been some dishonesty-I don't say that to be nasty-on both sides, some exaggeration. It's a little like when you apply for a job, you put forward your best assets, sometimes a little embellished, a little exaggerated. But both sides have surely exaggerated their positions.
Canadian want workers to go back to work. And workers wants to go back to work. What they want is that the government show that it is willing to negotiate and that a wage increase could very well be possible, even though minimal or barely exceeding zero, for they want to go back to the table without having an iron collar imposed on them before getting there.
If I ask you to come to the table and tell you "This is what we will do within these parameters", this is not negotiating, this is imposing one's will, which is easy when you hold all the power. You don't need much courage. When you are big and powerful and able to crush the other party, this does not require any creativity, any power, any leadership. What requires leadership however is to bring people together, talk with them and
Government Orders
try to come to solutions that are both fair and sensible, solutions that respect them.

The workers want to get back to work. The government should appoint a mediator like it did in the postal strike. It should stop playing games. It should be getting the country back to work and it should do it now.


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I will not be able to answer all these questions, I will leave some for other members, but when my colleague mentioned wages, he forgot to work out the average. It is easy to say some employees are not earning a lot, some are, and then there are those who earn even more.
I want to put it on record and I hope the hon. member can provide us with some answers, because I have a couple of questions for him. An average yearly salary of $33,500 is well over the national average. But that is not all. Civil servants are also entitled to a fully indexed pension, that is interesting, as well as the best job security in Canada and a dental plan totally subsidized by the employer. Do you know how much that costs? I have children who often visit the dentist, Madam Speaker, and I can tell you it costs a bundle, as you well know, since you have had to deal with many dentists. You know how much it costs when you step into a dentist office. That is part of their wages and it is worth a lot.
They have a whole range of job-related benefits, such as a subsidized health plan, a subsidized disability plan, fully-paid sick leaves, fully-paid annual leaves, family responsibility leaves, including maternity leaves. That, of course, has to be added up to their wages.
Our colleague also mentioned-

People are allowed to strike, yes he is right. People who want to work are allowed to work, too, and that works both ways. But they did not, they were not allowed. They came to my office and said: "Sir, I want to work". They had to provide these essential services in the hospitals, for example, in Montreal. Yes, they are allowed to strike. Some are allowed to work.

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
Then he spoke about the contract, dropping out, why we didn't give two, two, two. Yes, we saved 6,000 jobs with zero, three and three.

The most important thing that I want to say to my colleague-besides, I explained it in my speech and I would not want to start it over, but I invite him to read it-is that if it is the way that the government has chosen to make itself popular, I find that he gets the opposite result.
Then, my question is this: when you analyze a salary, why dont you analyze also the benefits that my people in Laval would really like to have, the fringe benefits, as they are called. Why did we put a cap of 0-3-3 to save
6,000	which Mr. Bean did not?


Ron J. Duhamel: I said right from the beginning that I deplored violence, that one of the questions we ought to be discussing is when you are in a strike position, what are the activities that are appropriate, and which ones are inappropriate? There are inappropriate activities taking place right now. When you shout out people's names, when you say that you will remember them, when you telephone them, when you harass them, that is wrong, wrong, wrong. I will do everything in my power, with the assistance of my colleagues, to stop that kind of nonsense.
But we also ought to be discussing the whole question as to whether or not there should be additional excluded categories as well.
The question ought to be whether the Public Service should strike or not. If it is going to be able to strike, then let us respect that. We have not respected it, we have made it look as if it was illegal and what have you.
The other question my colleague addressed is the whole question of salary; average salary and benefits. It is an excellent question and I appreciate it. However, he failed to tell us, although he knows, how much more it is than the national average. He knows that by taking the average salary, he can add in all of the part-time jobs, you know, the little service jobs, and make that average salary look a lot bigger. I will let him live with his
conscience. Perhaps he can see his priest over the weekend.
Let us talk about benefits. I cannot believe how a colleague would want to try to come to grips with the problems of fellow Canadians by trying to push them down, by saying, for example, "they have dental care". Good. All Canadians should have dental care. They have pensions. Good, all Canadians should have good pensions. They have indexed pensions. Well, let me tell you, I pay a share of my pension. Do you not? Before I came here I paid a share, and if it needs to be more so that it can be indexed, then ask me for more.
But let us not trample on everyone. Let us not push everyone down. Let us try to bring them up. Let us try to define what it is that every Canadian ought to have. Surely the way to go is not to trample upon them, to push them down. The way to go is to look at those who do not have enough; enough salary, enough pension, enough medical care, enough dental care, and to make sure they have it.
Madam Speaker, this is my final point and it will be brief. My colleague should know how much he is saving on dental care because as I understand it, we get a pretty good deal as members. He could have mentioned that figure too.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I have a comment I would like to make which will lead to a question of the hon. member. The comment is with respect to the agenda that this government has in introducing this legislation.
I would like to suggest that while the government keeps talking about the need to fight inflation and the deficit through this bill and through the real reduction of wages for its public servants, the reality is that it is doing something quite different. The reality is that the government is seeking, through this legislation, to destroy the rights of collective bargaining of its own public servants and seeks to destroy the union.
The government is not trying to save money. Quite the opposite, it is trying to score a political point. First, let me say on inflation that since 1985, only in one year has the Public Service received anything more than the rate of inflation.
Second, in terms of saving money, the only cost of a 3 per cent increase in one year would be .2 of 1 per cent of the total budget of this government. The government's figures are wrong. Its agenda is hidden and it is now coming clear.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct, there is an agenda here. I indicated that earlier on. I think they are trying to score political points and there is a propaganda war going on. There is no doubt about that.
My colleague failed to mention, for example, that if you look at the recent increases, as my colleague just did, in the private sector and the Public Service during the last few years, the public sector has not had nearly as much as the private sector. The Public Service Alliance of Canada has not. I think we have to recognize that.
The other point I wanted to make is that it is difficult working with figures, my colleague said-you know, he is seething, but I have no problems. He says now they are getting 100 per cent dental care and we are only getting 80 per cent. They would love our pension plan rather than their own, would they not? So if you are going to make some comparisons be fair.
There is a big power play going on. It is government versus the union and the government is trying to take advantage of that. You know it as well as I do. I am disappointed you would not acknowledge it.
I will move a motion at the most appropriate moment which states that the hon. member prefers their working conditions and should get them for himself. I think that would be a noble gesture on my part, in view of the fact that he believes they are better treated than we are.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that the first five hours of debate on third reading of this bill have now expired. We will now go to 10 minute speeches without questions or comment.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill and to speak out against it as forcefully and as strongly as I can.
My opposition to the bill springs in part from my experience over about 15 years as a labour lawyer in the province of British Columbia and the perception and perspective that has given me and also as the member of Parliament for Victoria, a community that has expressed its views very forcefully in this dispute and is very strongly in favour of the alliance and its position and of the public servants in that community.
Government Orders
Bill C-29 is at one instance a fairly innocent piece of legislation in the way it reads, until one reads very carefully into the heart of the legislation. The heart of the legislation is found in three sections.
I ask those who are watching to consider what they would do if this applied to their particular collective agreement.
Section 5 simply provides that every compensation plan for employees to whom this act applies shall be extended for a period of 24 months, beginning on the day immediately following the day on which the compensation plan would, but for this section, expire.
It should be understood that this act applies not only to members of the alliance who are now on strike, but to members and officers of the Canadian forces; members and officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the staff of this House of Commons who are without a union and have no voice speaking for them; members of the staff of the ministers of the Crown and members of the Senate and the House of Commons, agencies, boards and hundreds and hundreds and thousands of other employees in this country, many of whom have had no voice and are not party to this particular dispute.
Section 9 then goes on to provide for zero per cent in the first 12 months and a 3 per cent increase in the second 12 months of any compensation plan covered by the act.
Finally, in section 14, the act sets out penalties, up to $500 a day. The penalties not only apply to the unions or the representatives of the unions, but to employees who are required by the act not to do anything in contravention of the act. Included in that, they are not allowed to strike.
The right to collective bargaining is a right which has developed for over 80 years and to which this country has been a proud signator through the international labour conventions. The essence of the right to collective bargaining, which evidently the government members failed to grasp or understand, is that people in a free society have the right to consent to their working conditions and the right to gather together collectively to seek bargaining and working conditions that are suitable to them.
That right of collective bargaining has, over the years, been enshrined in legislation. It has been hard-fought

October l, 1991
Government Orders
for over the decades. In the 1960s and 1970s it finally came to public servants across this country.
It has been awfully difficult for some people to understand how public servants, police officers and others can have the right of collective bargaining, including the ultimate right to withdraw one's labour if one is not satisfied with the terms and conditions. But a very fine balance developed in the legislation.
Certain employees were excluded from the right to strike, but those whose work was deemed not absolutely essential or critical in the public interest on a day to day basis were given the right which all other Canadians have, the right to band together collectively, to seek certification, to bargain collectively with its employers and only to work after they have reached agreement and working conditions to which they consent.
This Parliament gave that right to its public employees. It called on the Government of Canada over successive years to comply with that law. Over the years, from time to time back to work legislation has been deemed necessary, but this bill, Bill C-29, is a particularly Draconian historic form of back to work legislation.
Most back to work legislation will either provide for a cooling off period while mediation goes to work or will impose arbitration so that the parties go back to work and independent third parties, having heard from both sides, reach a judgment as to what are fair working conditions.
This legislation does no such thing. This legislation rejects the findings of conciliation boards and independent parties who have looked at the situation. Instead, it seeks to impose the government's view as to what are the appropriate working conditions for its employees.
The government, by this legislation, is using and confusing its role as employer and its role as the introducer of legislation into this Parliament. It is taking a power which no other employer in this country has and it is coming to this Parliament and asking it to impose the government's view as to what are the appropriate working conditions for employees of the public sector.
No other legislation coming before this Parliament has ever done such a thing. The Conservative Party, which used to think of itself as a voice for rights of Canadians,
is seeking to impose this legislation and to strip away the rights of its own public servants.
Shame on this government. We say this legislation is in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I defy the government to introduce into this House any legal opinion that suggests that this legislation does not conflict with the charter of rights.
The charter of rights gives to Canadians equality of treatment under the law. Other Canadians have the right of free collective bargaining and, if pushed to the wall, the right to strike. How come the government comes in here and takes that right away?
If it says that in the public interest this dispute must end, then it is obliged first to demonstrate overwhelmingly that the public interest calls for this strike to end and second, and even more important because a wide number of Canadians would probably agree that, at a certain point a strike in the public sector must come to an end.
If it does so, it must only do so after it has bargained in good faith for a significant period of time, it has used all the machinery available to it such as conciliation, mediation and finally, it introduces the most minimalist example of back to work legislation, that is, either a cooling off period or the imposition of arbitration.
There is simply no excuse for legislation which rips away the rights of Canadians in the fashion that this bill does.
This bill is simply bad managerial policy. It is sending thousands of Canadians back to work bitter at the government, bitter at its employers, bitter at its fellow employees across the line. Even internal disputes within the union will arise because of the difficulties that this legislation has imposed on the Public Service Alliance of Canada which fought a tremendous fight and initially won a great victory over this government. This legislation is going to leave a long-standing and bitter legacy. It is legislation which this government and this country will regret for many years.
Let me conclude by saying that out of all bad things some good may come and out of this Draconian legislation is the coming of age of the public servants of this country. I have spoken to them in Ottawa; I have spoken to them in Victoria. The message is coming loud and clear. Finally the public servants of this country have realized that they too have a stake in the kind of

government we have. They too have a stake in ensuring that they elect to Parliament people who will fight for their rights and not impose this kind of legislation upon them.
They are speaking for thousands of Canadians who now have a new vision of the kind of Canada we want, a Canada of equity, a Canada of justice, a Canada of rights. I call on this House to defeat this legislation and to launch a new day of labour relations for the public sector in this country.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, being in the ten-minute rule it makes one rather focused. It is rather interesting that I follow the hon. member for Victoria who spoke very eloquently and in a professorial style with respect to the rights of the public in collective bargaining.
If I had had an opportunity to present a question to him before launching into my debate, I would have asked if he felt there was any difference between the rights of collective bargaining and the right to strike in the Public Service as against the right in the private sector. I think I know what his answer may have been.
In the few minutes I have on this very important issue I would like to go back, and I think it might bemuse the member for Victoria, and refer to the bill giving the Public Service the right to strike. In that debate on the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act of 1957, pages 13184 and following, I then, was a young pup member, against the august invincible Grit government of the day with Mr. Benson as President of the Treasury Board. I am not sure if the hon. member's father, as member for Victoria, was in the House then but he and I did serve in this House at the same time.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at the time, the elegant statesman who is at the table, Mr. Knowles, participated very much in this debate.
At that time-unbeknownst to me that some 24 years later I would be able to read Hansard-and in a more naive approach than now I pointed out the concerns I had about extending the right to strike to members of the Public Service.
This has been a very difficult debate. No one has been, I think, happy about the situation. Certainly the public is
Government Orders
not happy about the situation. As far as I am concerned as I read the public, there is a plague on both of our houses, the House of Commons and all those involved in it, and also the house of Public Service, the PSAC, with their machinations as they try to get response to their legitimate demands. Or perhaps they have accepted some bait put out there by the government creating this confrontational situation which frankly has not helped anybody.
When this House came back after the summer recess, this bill was introduced. I must say that at that time, long before the Public Service Staff Relations Board, chaired by the former House leader of the NDP, the hon. Mr. Ian Deans, said that the Government of Canada had negotiated in bad faith-which I thought poetic justice-I also thought the Government of Canada had negotiated in bad faith. If the bill had proceeded and come to a vote at that time I must say I was prepared. Although I don't think it would have represented the collective view of my constituency which wanted the strike over, does not have a great body of public servants, and it would be very easy to side myself with the majority of good hard-working people who are my constituents, I think I would have surprised them if I had voted against the government bill and, in effect, for the PSAC. However, I honestly did not believe there had been proper bargaining procedures and that they had been bargaining in good faith. Goodness gracious, Madam Speaker, if, with all the hue and cry, we can appoint a mediator under conciliation procedures and the labour laws of Canada for the postal union and the postal problems, regardless of the physical package that the government is understandably trying to negotiate, we could have at least gone through the motions, to say the least, and might even have gone through more than the motions, to have a mediator.
I was in my window looking out at the 20,000 public servants on that lawn Monday morning and Monday noon. I must say that having seen a few sporadic displays the week before when I was here doing business, I was a little impressed and not swayed by the numbers, knowing that three-quarters of the people out there had never been politicized, radicalized. I knew that we had all had a good summer to get rested and regenerated, to come back for the fall Parliament when national building and the nation's soul searching was going to be the priority.

Government Orders
I was looking out there at these 20,000 servants of yours and mine and the millions across the country. I just could not believe that a government trying to start out with peace and good will to all, as we go through the difficult constitutional process, had either engineered or had stumbled into this situation. I am not casting blame, because as far as I am concerned, there is blame on both their houses. I thought and said to my staff: "Look, the Prime Minister has the pizzazz and the chutzpah and the street smarts, let alone his history of labour negotiation and working with tougher people than Mr. Bean on the longshore front of Montreal and other interesting places, to come out from the House of Commons and go before that crowd. And, if he had been yelled down and not given a voice and an ear, then that would have redounded to his credit". I said to my staff: "This could be the beginning of the turnaround for the low standing in the polls because there obviously has been a lot of politics in this whole business that is facing us this Monday". And I really thought that that might happen.
If it had happened and the Prime Minister of the land had come out, he perhaps did not even have to admit that he had made a mistake. He could have shown a little humility and said: "Perhaps we have made a mistake. Let's go back to the table. I am going to instruct the President of the Treasury Board to come and meet you and let us see if there is anything we can do that will fit within the physical framework. If we have to raise two and two and two then perhaps a hundred or a thousand jobs go out the window". But at least get back in there and go through the motions in a meaningful substantive way.
That did not happen, Madam Speaker. Yet we had the truce. If I had been a Tory backbencher trying to defend the government of the day on Monday and Tuesday, and then knowing that the House leader of the NDP was out being the honest broker to get the parties back to the table after I and others on the government side hypothetically had been defending the government, and knowing that he was the one to get them back to the table, that would have made me a little upset, to say the least. I would have known full well, going back to the table with the conditions they went back to the table on, that most likely there would not have been much of a
settlement and we would be faced with another situation, which we are faced with today.
That was the beginning of the week then, Madam Speaker, and my sympathies certainly were with the poor bargaining process, to say the least, in a most conservative way, of what had gone on up to that date. I knew full well that there was blame on both sides. When the bargaining procedures, no matter how sincere or whatever finally dissolved last week, the strike was resumed. There was violence. Television coverage showed public servants grappling with their own and/or the public. I must say I believe with difficulty that it is time this strike with all the problems it has caused and which are going to linger with us is over. I agree with my hon. friend from Victoria that there has not been a bill as Draconian as this Bill C-29 to put people back to work without even a hint of mediation or arbitration. In view of what is happening to the public sector, and I agree that it is getting or is out of control, that this Parliament has to act for all the injured parties, all the third parties.
You are telling me already, Madam Speaker, that my time is up and I have not even got to quote you my pearls of wisdom from 1967 when the first bill to give the strike was debated in this House, when then I said the public servants at the time knew what their perks were, they knew they did not have the right to strike. I say, with all the other rhetoric that has been said in this difficult debate, that we had better start to go back to basics to see that if in the Public Service, let alone the postal service-that is another whole issue, and they cannot have the right to strike if they have got the monopoly on the mail service-but on the right generally for the Public Service, I think we have got to go back to that basic.
In conclusion, and the sadness, Madam Speaker, is just to read a short four sentences from Lament for a Nation written by George Grant, an interesting Canadian philosopher who believed in Canada. Way back in the fifties, 1957 in particular, he felt that the last nationalist on the scene was a fellow called John Diefenbaker. He wrote this Lament for a Nation because everything else was going down the drain and perhaps the state of Canada might be preserved because of the election that man. He said many things, but the interesting thing he said about the Public Service in 1957 was this quote which is very
October 1, 1991

germane to the debate in Canada going on today and one of the problems we have here. He said this on page 18 of Lament for a Nation:
Diefenbaker's relations with the civil service invite the writing of a picaresque novel. By including these strained relations under his failures, I do not imply that the fault lay all on his side. Too many civil servants had too closely identified themselves with Liberal men and Liberal measures before 1957, and some of these did not show the proper loyalty to the elected government after 1957.
And then he goes on and says this:
Nevertheless, that Diefenbaker failed to win the respect of the civil service was a disaster. No modem state can be run without great authority in the hands of its non-elected officials. In such an uncertain nation as Canada, the civil service is perhaps the essential instrument by which nationhood is preserved. The power of Ottawa has to be skilfully used by politicians to balance the enormous anti-national forces concentrated in the economic capitals of Toronto and Montreal. If Diefenbaker was to foster nationalism, he needed to win the respect of the civil service.
Madam Speaker, he goes on to say that he did not. I am just so sad that since the present government came to power in 1984, when I shared many of its thoughts and tried to develop some of their polices, that when the history is written along with many other things, it will be that we as a government perhaps did not come to grips with our public service then, let alone what has happened today.
Therefore, this is a very sad day to have this bill before us. It is a sad day that we are going to have to most likely pass it and force back to work those who work for ourselves.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, there certainly can be no question at all that you are perhaps one of the most fair chairpeople that we have had, along with the others that we have in these Chambers, given the leniency that you showed the previous speaker, perhaps no doubt given his tenure in the House of Commons, perhaps given his eloquence. I am not sure what the reason is. Nevertheless, I support what you have done. There was perhaps ample reason.
I would first like to say that this is not an issue about the quality of the work that is performed by Canada's civil service. I, as a 12-year member of Canada's civil service, would like to give a little bit of history so that I am sure I can convince you, the public and members of the House of Commons that I know of what I speak.
Government Orders
The quality of the kind of service that Canada gets from its civil servants is beyond question. Certainly, one can expect that given the numbers of people we are talking about, as in the case of perhaps a large family, large numbers of anything, there is not perfection out there. Nevertheless, I think that Canada's civil servants are a dedicated group of people and believe in Canada. I applaud them for that.
As one who worked for the federal government for some 12 years, I did run into certain circumstances that caused me some puzzlement. I distinctly recall early in my tenure with the federal government wanting to finish a job. It needed about 15 to 30 minutes. However the building I was working in was closed at five o'clock with a lock and key. It had panic hardware on it so that I could leave when my boss told me to leave. I was to get out of the building at five o'clock because the government was not going to give you any time off in lieu of work performed.
I was not looking for any time off. I simply wanted to do the job and, if that was considered to be a contribution to Canada, so be it. I think there are a lot of people out there who feel the same way.
My point is that I do not believe that in this particular case, the president of the union really is in touch with the membership.
In another example, I was transferred into British Columbia and my job was to provide for pipeline profiles for an extremely arid part of Canada. Nevertheless, I found it desirable to get back to good old Saskatchewan as soon as I could. As a result I worked without interruption until 10 or 10.30 every night, not seeking any other form of remuneration, but again making a contribution to my country and to my job. I just considered it part and parcel of having a job, of having employment.
Again, no one asked for my opinion. No one from any union asked me my opinion nor did they direct me, thank goodness, because I was probably outside their reach. Nor did they direct that I could not put in those extra hours.
There are many public servants who give that kind of dedication to the job. I have spoken to PSAC members in Regina, my home community, in the midst of this labour turmoil and I know whereof I speak. I do not believe I should relay the essence of our conversations specifically, but generally they conveyed to me that money was not the issue in this particular case. Knowing full well that 0,

Government Orders
3, and 3 had been proposed to them at budget time which apparently caused the strike, these people in my community, at least those I spoke to and who were sent to me as representatives of the union, indicated that money was not the object.
Now Mr. Bean is saying that he cannot accept this 0, 3 and 3 directive. Members of the opposition are calling this Draconian legislation.
I do not get any pleasure, nor do I suspect any member of the government gets any pleasure in having to legislate people back to work and to circumvent the free collective bargaining process. There are times, however, when members who are providing a service to the public and are paid by the public require that the service be so provided.
I have had members from my constituency say to me: "Perhaps you should determine what services are essential and legislate accordingly. Get those non-essential services done by others".
They are certainly saying to me that perhaps there should be some cut in the number of federal public servants. I am not espousing that. I am simply saying that is what some people are telling me.
I hope that in order to maintain a good relationship with PSAC members or with the federal public servants it will not come to that. It does not have to come to that.
I hope that the day will come when someone, who has the power and ability to review what has happened behind the scenes, will reveal that there are things that occur in those circumstances that are not reflected in media reporting, that do not appear as knowledge to the membership, and that the public does not have a right to know.
I know that things have gone on and I know statements have been made. When those statements are taken in context with what is happening, you have stand back and scratch your head and say: "My good gosh, is this the same issue we are talking about?"
This has become a political issue in one form. I would suggest that perhaps politics come as a result of the organizational struggles contained within PSAC themselves, not contained withir this particular political party.
I can point to back to work legislation as being non-political. I distinctly recall that in April 1982 an NDP provincial government from the province of Saskatchewan legislated I believe it was nurses back to work. I am sure they took no delight in that.
I distinctly recall Liberal colleagues opposite being associated with an infamous program called six and five, where they too took the necessary steps to legislate people back to work. We find ourselves in the same ship today, so to speak in the same position. It is not one that we envy.
We look for labour compassion from the party that apparently speaks for labour and is supposed to be compassionate. We all know full well what recently occurred in the province of Ontario, when Premier Rae told the union in charge of the Toronto transit drivers that unless a vote was held on the matters placed before their union they too would be legislated back to work.
No one needs to confuse the public by saying that this is a Conservative sponsored piece of Draconian legislation. It is a matter of fact that exists with all governments, with all political parties that are the government of the day.
It is great to be in opposition because it is easy to throw darts. You are not in a position where you have to make some decisions. I look across the floor with some degree of envy from time to time but not very often. Is it not terrible that we seem to get sounds emanating from behind the curtains. I would think the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would sit in his seat and rebut some of the things I am saying, as little as it may contribute to the debate. Nevertheless I do like to hear his brilliant Scots voice.
He pleasures me with his company and I certainly do welcome him here this evening. There have been questions. A question was raised earlier about why a mediator was not appointed. Usually a mediator is appointed when there seems to be some conflict in terms of whether or not there is any money left on the table.
In this particular case, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC, has turned its back on negotiation when there are still offers on the table. It is a little premature to appoint a mediator. Further to that, given that there are offers on the table, to have Mr. Bean turn his back
October 1, 1991

on those offers I think is to serve his own political purpose and not to serve the purpose of those PSAC members that I spoke to in my constituency.
There have been other accusations that the government has not negotiated in good faith. The accusation has been made that the government has negotiated in bad faith. I found that decision by this body to be somewhat puzzling in that come budget time there was an indication of the very unfortunate direction the government had to proceed with respect to the zero, three and three.
It would be great to be part of a spending government. We are in the position that we are today because of the actions of a spending government, and now the reins must be pulled in. Yes, everyone must pay and everyone does pay.
In answer to the accusation about the government negotiating in bad faith, I do not believe we have ever negotiated in bad faith. I would like to remind you what the Work Relations Board has stated in the third element of section 51, which talks about reasonable efforts to negotiate, even though we had spent more than 90 days negotiating at that time. I would like to draw your attention as well, Madam Speaker, to the most recent judgment of the Works Relations Board that states that designated essential employees were prevented from reporting to work by union members present on the picket lines. This went against the work relations law.
The ball is in PSAC's court. I ask you who indeed is negotiating in bad faith? Last Friday the president of PSAC himself admitted that Treasury Board dealt with both monetary and non-monetaiy issues. This time around we did deal with these items. When we hear the president of PSAC himself saying that we did deal with all the issues, I really wonder how anyone can accuse us of bargaining in bad faith.
There was some comment made with respect to why the need for ads in the newspapers. I see I have one minute left and I will be done then as well.
Again, we have ample coverage of all those negative kinds of things that are associated with labour unrest. We felt that it was absolutely necessary to advise the public of the other side of the story, of some of the problems currently placed in the government's hands and what the Government of Canada was proposing to resolve. The
Government Orders
people of Canada have a right to know what is happening. They have a right to know of the latest government proposals and have a right to know that this strike could have been avoided if Daiyl Bean had not left the bargaining table.
Certainly one has to ask a very pertinent question and that is: Why indeed did he leave the bargaining table when there were matters on the table yet to be negotiated?
I regret very much this decision that we have to take. Canadians are demanding that we take this decision. PSAC members are demanding that we take this decision. All Canadians are demanding that we take this decision.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, we are in a rather unique situation as members of the House of Commons. All too often this government has tried to find scapegoats for its own incompetence and its own inability to manage. It has been unable to manage its budgets, to manage the tax dollars that come in, to manage the very public servants who work so hard to keep the business of this nation going. You listen to the debate that is taking place and the attempt by members opposite to tiy to cleanse their hands of the dirt that they have on them by forcing federal public servants not just out on strike but to take less than what members of Parliament have had to take, forcing them to take less than some of the senior-


An hon. member:: Don't be so stupid.


Ronald MacDonald: The hon. member opposite is yelling: "Don't be so stupid". I would like to tell the hon. member that the people who work in my constituency, and there is probably 3,000 or 4,000 of them that are in the federal Public Service, are not stupid people. They are not individuals who want to be out on strike. They are individuals who chose the life of service to the country through the federal Public Service.
The members opposite over like to heckle, particularly that member, and squirrel little things across the aisle. The federal public servants who work in the riding of Dartmouth or the riding of Halifax are people who have devoted most of their working lives to serving the public in this country.
As a Liberal member of Parliament I will stand in this Chamber and, if you do not like it, that is your problem. I will stand in this Chamber whenever I get a chance to

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
defend their rights as Canadians, as people who are employed by the government of this country.
It is pretty obvious that some of the members opposite who are sitting here tonight know that their goose is going to be cooked. This strike will be legislated to an end some time this evening because of this Draconian legislation. They know full well what will happen. If they do not, I will tell you what I hope will happen. I hope that the next time you need that little favour for one of your constituents and you call up the lady or you call up the gentleman at unemployment insurance that perhaps puts a little extra bit-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Ronald MacDonald: What are you talking about blackmail? Who is being blackmailed? I just hope the employees will think twice when they call up and expect that extra little bit of service which perhaps they got that went a little bit beyond the call of duty. That happens to every member of Parliament when somebody stays past 4.30 who works in the Canada Pension Office trying to solve a case or makes the extra three phone calls to try to deliver service to the people. Perhaps the next time they call some of those public servants who have devoted most of their life to serving the public of this country and serving members of Parliament, maybe just may be they are going to think twice before they put out that extra ounce of effort because they know damn well that this government does not appreciate any effort that they put forward for them or for the people of this country.
The government would have you believe that public servants are these high paid, brazen individuals who just want to dig deeper into the federal pocket and cause the deficit to explode.
I have been on my feet in this House and in this Chamber many times. We have seen strike breaking legislation before. We saw this group opposite try to portray the public servants who were ships crews two years ago in the same way. They said: "We cannot give them a fair settlement. We cannot eliminated regional rates of pay because we just do not have the money and perhaps they are overpaid anyway". Those individuals were people who worked on Coast Guard vessels for $19,000 to $21,000 a year. They would go away for 30 days at a time. This government did the same thing when it
legislated them back to work after this government refused to bargain in good faith.
But you know, I think the Canadian public is finally catching up to them.
We look at the Post Office and the members opposite like to paint every individual working at Canada Post as an individual who just wants to go in and batter the public purse. I know better. I know that the people who work at Canada Post by and large are individuals who seek to give good service. All they want back is a decent day's pay. We have seen this government opposite force them out on strike. In my own riding of Dartmouth, when the conciliator was sitting down at the table with them, what did they do? Just to show their good faith they went, in my riding of Dartmouth and reallocated and re-drew all of the postal walks which would have eliminated a number of jobs. That is what you call good faith bargaining when you deal with the Tory government opposite here.
We now have another situation down in my area where we have individuals at the government dockyards. They had to do this before, two and half years ago, during the election campaign. They were all designated as essential public servants. They are essential because they are the individuals who refitted the Canadian naval vessels that went across to the Persian Gulf and they did it in record time. They were not looking for bonuses because they are true public servants and they understand what it means to be a public servant.
If this bill goes through, it is going to give them a gigantic slap on the side of the head. When the Prime Minister spoke in this House during the Persian Gulf debate, he commended those men and women at the Canadian naval dockyards in Halifax and Dartmouth for doing a superb job and going beyond the call of duty as public servants. These individuals are going to be thanked by being zapped, frozen right on the spot, a zero per cent increase. Those individuals working down there just want an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. That is all they ask. This government is intent on negotiating in bad faith.
The government would have you believe that just because it is the government today whatever it says has to be right. We had an independent body, the PSSRB,
October 1, 1991

which came in and accused the government of bargaining in bad faith. The government will dismiss that.
These are the individuals who make the laws in this country, and yet a body that was created by a piece of legislation which is supposed to be impartial and ensure that collective bargaining does take place came out and accused the government of bargaining in bad faith. The government said: "Well, that is too bad".
In this case the government is acting as judge, jury and executioner with the Canadian Public Service. When the clock ticks down later tonight it will succeed in doing something that no other government has ever done. It will affect a group of people, hundreds of thousands of individuals who have worked very hard including mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, people who supervise Guides in the evening, people with the Kiwanis, the Kinsmen, people who keep our communities going. They do not have horns. They are like you and they are like me and all they want is a decent day's pay.
This government, by this piece of Draconian legislation, is going to legislate them back to work, force a settlement on them without any mediation. There is no provision for a mediator. Do you know why? If a mediator is brought in, he is going to come back and do the same thing the PSSRB did. He is going to say that the government has bargained in bad faith and these individuals should have an increase greater than zero for the fruits of their labours.
There are two other issues in here. I spoke a few weeks ago about regional rates of pay. I am still waiting to hear something sensible from my colleagues opposite who tried to respond to it. Even they know that discriminatory practice, regional rates of pay, has to go.
Every time a contract has been up for negotiation and has gone to binding arbitration in the last year and half, do you know what happened? In every single case the regional rate of pay was collapsed immediately because it was discriminatory.
The Tories opposite do not know right from wrong or day from night. What they are trying to do here is completely subvert the collective bargaining process which also includes, when you are deadlocked in stalemate, binding arbitration. Put a mediator in there. Get something done. This government knows full well if it does it that the "gig will be up agin 'em".
Government Orders
Recent history has shown clearly that the track this government is on is one that is not supported by anybody in this country, most particularly those who are concerned about fairness and equity.
Speaking of equity, the government and the Parliamentary Secretary who was heckling me a little earlier like to talk about the major strides made by this government in trying to attain pay equity.
There was an article in The Financial Post by Jill Vardy just a few days ago. I believe it was on September 4. It is pretty startling. This is the Parliament of Canada that legislates, governs and codifies rules of behaviour for the nation. It says it wants pay equity and yet there are over
66,000	individuals, women in the Public Service, who have had to fight this government in court to get it to adhere to a Human Rights Commission ruling.
We have a situation in which the public morale in our Public Service is at an all-time low. Tonight when this government forces through by closure one of the most regressive pieces of legislation we have ever seen, the public will be the worse for it. Those public servants we were so proud of in our country have been so demoralized and so turned off they are leaving in record numbers. They no longer feel that Public Service is being recognized by this government.
I have not had very much time to speak. I would like to have a lot more time to speak on this but, in conclusion, the people who live in the Dartmouth area and the people who live in the Halifax area do not want to strike. They do not want to see their public servants out and the public servants do not want to be out.
This is a bad piece of legislation. This is the execution of collective bargaining in Canada and it is being done by those people who are supposed to be protecting those rights, Tories.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Public Service and the problems caused by the government's budgetary decisions.

I guess I am entering this debate on a little different plane than my seat mate from Dartmouth. I am angry about it as well, but I think my principal emotion in this

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
situation is sadness. My community of Ottawa is tom by this strike and there are people in my community who are hurting badly because of it. Some of them are members of the Public Service who are on strike and who have been on the picket lines. Some of them are members of management, designated employees. Some of them are innocent bystanders like the 3,300 people who live on Uplands Base in my riding and who have had their lives entirely disrupted during the strike.
Last Sunday in church, of all places, a man came and spoke to me. He said that he had worked for the federal Public Service for 40 years and he never dreamed in all his life that he would be on strike. He was on the picket line before and he was on the picket line again this week, not with reluctance in the sense that nobody wants to be on strike, but with a convinced belief in the rightness of the cause.
I met a man out on Parliament Hill during one of the demonstrations who told me a similar story. He had worked for the Public Service for 30 years, had never been on strike, never thought that he would be on strike, and there he was carrying a picket sign and shouting for his rights. I thought about my parents who both were federal public servants for most of their working lives. Neither of them is still alive, but I wonder what would have happened had they been in the Public Service today confronting the issue of whether they should go out on picket lines and stand out and demand their rights.
I hear the voices of objection that are coming from across the country on this issue, people criticizing the government, people criticizing the union, people criticizing what is happening on the picket lines. I worry because it strikes me that so many things in this country are just not going right at the moment. It seems like the wagon is going down the hill and the wheels are falling off and perhaps there is no one driving.
We have so many problems and at the same time we cannot even find a little bit of peace in our federal government sector. I guess I find myself wondering what really the issue is here. When you listen to the argument it sometimes is a little hard to believe that there actually
is one issue because the two sides seem so entirely polarized on it.
Is the issue the management of the government's financial resources as it seems to be claiming, or is the issue the settlement of a labour relations issue itself, in this case of government employees?
That raises a whole range of issues that deal with Public Service workers. In this case the starting point surely has got to be that we have a regime of law in Canada dealing in the federal public sector with employer-employee relations. It creates a right to bargain collectively. If bargaining does not succeed, it creates a right to strike. That surely is the starting point. I suspect that the government does not disagree with that.
Once you begin at that point, you then surely have to answer the question: Given that Public Service workers have the right to bargain and the right to strike, what happens when the employer, the government, says: "We will bargain with you but before we start you had better know that the wage increase you are going to get in year one is zero,and in the second year it is 3 per cent"?
I suppose in some minds that sounds like the beginning position in a bargaining relationship. The employer goes in and says "zero" and the employees come in and they say "six". The employer says "No way, 2" and the employees say "That is still unreasonable, 4". Maybe at the end of the day, after weeks of negotiation, there is a settlement at 3.
That is not what was ever contemplated in this case. In this case bargaining meant zero, not two, three four or one but zero.
If you had relative fairness in the positions of the parties then you could say: "Let them say zero because the employees have a right to strike and they can take that action and they can bring the employer to its knees". What happens in this case is the government says: "Not only is it going to be zero but your right to strike, we do not care about that. It is terminated".
At this point we have to ask ourselves: Is there some really compelling reason for doing this? In one motion the government, by saying zero, has really picked the only possible number that would ensure public sympathy for public servant workers. The government picked zero. Obviously it is unfair, especially in a year when inflation is running at close to 6 per cent.
Let us look at the issue of the financial implications, the macro-economic implications. Have Public Service workers been experiencing increases in their income that have contributed to inflation? Perhaps that would be an
October 1, 1991

argument. I think the answer to that is clearly no. According to Labour Canada, federal government workers' wage settlements were 5.3 per cent in 1990 compared to 5.9 per cent in the private sector and 5.6 per cent in other public sectors. The answer to that one is no. This is not a case where there have been high salary increases in previous years. It is time to tighten the screws and get things adjusted correctly.
Are they paid a lot more than comparable workers in the private sector? I suggest the evidence is no, they are not. There have been numerous articles published. Some of the conciliation board reports that led to this particular strike demonstrated that according to the Public Service Staff Relations Board federal Public Service workers have been trailing behind private sector workers in most of the types of employment that are at issue here.
What about expenditures? Is it because of the deficit- and I only have two minutes left which surprises me- that this restraint has had to be introduced? I find that hard to believe. Just look at the record of the government in the last few weeks.
On the day the B.C. election was called it managed to find $236 million to finance the TRIUMF KEAON facility in Vancouver. We know from all of the advice given to the government, and that all experts recommended, that if that facility were funded it must not be funded out of existing science and technology funds. Presuming that that advice was accepted, it must have managed to find $236 million in loose cash lying around that could be pumped into Vancouver on the day of the election.
The National Energy Board moved to Calgary. I see the member from Calgary sitting opposite. There was money for that, lots of money for that.
There was money to set up the space agency-$250 million-in St. Hubert, Quebec when existing facilities in the national capital region were proven to be adequate. There is money for things that look like they may buy political advantage, but there is no money to ensure that the government's own employees have adequate
Government Orders
wages and are treated fairly on an issue of fair bargaining in the public sector.
I think no other conclusion can be drawn except that in this case the government has moved in order to try to create a strawman it can beat up over an issue which will try to generate some sympathy for an unpopular government at a time when nothing else seems to be working.
I realize my time has expired, but I say that if this is the case, and I am drawn to this conclusion very reluctantly because it is a strong statement, then that surely makes this government unworthy of continuing to hold office in Canada.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with this opportunity to take part in this debate-for a number of reasons. First of all, because of the way some members opposite tend to justify their objections to the government's decision, probably because they would rather forget the past mistakes that caused the government's present economic, financial and budgetary problems.
I realize they are trying to shift the burden of guilt, as it were. I also understand the objections of the hon. member for Ottawa South who just mentioned the fact that the government couldn't find money for its employees but was able to find $200 million for the Space Agency in Saint-Hubert. I understand these objections, Mr. Speaker, because the member who just spoke merely wants to justify the needs and expectations of his own public servants, and there are many of those in his riding.
However, I deplore the fact that the objections raised by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are based on selfserving arguments.
Mr. Speaker, the government I have the good fortune to represent takes a far more comprehensive view, since its objectives include an ongoing concern for protecting the well-being of all Canadians, including public servants, as citizens of this country. That is the difference between the objections voiced by the opposition and the responsible position taken by this government.
Mr. Speaker, I remember, I think it was last October, I was in my riding and I mentioned Canada's budgetary and financial problems, the serious problem of our annual deficit, and especially that sword of Damocles

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
that continues to hover over our heads, and I am referring to the national debt. At a press conference, I told my constituents about the need for restraint throughout the public sector, and of course the need for cutting operating expenditures. At the time I mentioned another concern, something I would like to see happen, and it did, and that was to freeze Public Service salaries for at least one year and restrict increases. Today, the time has come to make a decision I agree is a serious one, a decision justified by the extent of the cumulative deficit of the past 25 years and also by our national debt, also accumulated during that same period.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that the people of Richmond- Wolfe, in Rock Forest, Richmond, Brampton, Windsor, Asbestos and Valcourt, all agree with this legislation.
As a matter of fact, they were quick to react to the stand I took for a wage freeze. I want to stress the fact that this freeze is only for this year and applies not only to civil servants but to members of Parliament, to ministers, to executive assistants and to the Prime Minister, of course, along with the entire public service.
It is a matter of making every Canadian do its share. This bill has a dual purpose. It of course applies to our civil servants under the present circumstances, given they are on strike. Its first purpose is to put an end to the strike, i.e. to legislate them back to work. We cannot do without the quality services, the essential services they provide to the public. There is general consensus on that point.
The members opposite claim that the idea is to get back at them and treat them unfairly. That is not true at all. I can attest personally to the good, competent service most of our civil servants provide in the region. I happen to know that from working with them on a regular basis, like all my colleagues from across the country. The idea, therefore, is to make them go back immediately.
The second purpose of the bill is to freeze the salaries of civil servants, parliamentarians, executive assistants and the entire public service of Canada, including Crown
corporations, for one year and to limit wage increases to 3 per cent for each of the next two years.
Is that what the opposition calls scoring political points? I cannot imagine how we could achieve that with such a decision. The proof is that a lot of people among our civil servants are of course disappointed; they feel victimized-and I understand that very well-but, like a good father or a good mother, it seems to me that there comes a time when one must take its responsibilities. Children always want more and it is understandable. The candy is so sweet; the ice cream cone is even better; to go on vacation or to get one more holiday is always fun. But parents must intervene to put an end to these repeated requests.
So this government takes on the responsibility of imposing a salary scale and working conditions that have not been accepted by the other side. That is what we call assuming one's responsibilities. Is that a way of trying to obtain a political gain? Oh no, quite the contrary! Indeed, such a decision could trigger animosity towards the government.
But, Mr. Speaker, I dare say that, in my opinion, the civil servants who feel victimized now will, in a few months, recognize the correctness of that decision. In fact, it seems to me that our civil servants accept the governmental management; they are our front line agents, our first assistants and colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I urge them to reconsider their attitude. At the same time, I recognize and we recognize, of course, their feeling of being victimized.
I ask them to understand that this is how we must assume its responsibilities, and I am tempted to say, Mr. Speaker, that the action they took may have been taken at their expense since, in my opinion, Mr. Bean has not been able to recognize the profound motives of that decision.
Regarding cuts, Mr. Speaker, I could mention several provinces and unions that have experienced the same fate. May I tell you that Nova Scotia has frozen the salary of its civil servants at 0 per cent for two years; Saskatchewan has done the same with 2 per cent and minus 2 in 1992; in Manitoba, it is 0 per cent and minus 2; in Quebec, 0 per cent and up to minus 3 in 1992; and in New Brunswick, it is 0 per cent in 1991. Even provinces presumably faced with administrative problems have freezed wages. Take, for example, Newfoundland, where

nurses, 3,400 of them, got zero per cent. Also in Newfoundland, non-medical staff, 4,800 employees, got zero per cent. These provinces are faced with the same problems as New-Brunswick and the province of Quebec, and they made that decision.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that our highly competent civil servants also share this vision of responsibility and decisions to be made. I would invite them to reconsider their action, Mr. Speaker, and to accept in good faith this responsible decision.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill which would legislate the Public Service workers and the Public Service Alliance back to work with a 5 per cent cut in their buying power as compared with the past year.
I am not going to tiy to summarize in 10 minutes all the arguments that my colleagues have put forward very well, especially the member for Victoria, about the illegality of the government's action.
I simply want to deal with the myth, the tale we are told, the government's claim that this is all done because of the deficit and the debt. That is hogwash. It blames the civil servants' wages as a cause of deficit. Yet the civil service wages are less than what the government has chosen to spend on 13,000 jobs that were contracted out to its friends. It paid more for 13,000 jobs to its friends outside the civil service than it has to 146,000 civil servants.
It also blames social programs. The former Minister of Finance has been preaching that month after month, year after year, that it is the social programs that have broken the bank and put us in this deficit.
Again, that is absolutely false. The report from Statistics Canada has shown that 94 per cent of the debt has arisen not from the social programs, but from the tax breaks to the rich that began in 1975 under a previous administration, and it continues with the extortionate interest rates about 5 per cent above inflation instead of the normal 1 per cent or 2 per cent above inflation.
As to the tax rates, for example, the government increased unemployment insurance premiums by $180 a year for each Canadian worker, but widened the $2.8
Government Orders
billion capital gains exemption which goes mostly to real estate operators, not to poor farmers trying to hang on to a home.
The government cut $340 million in social assistance funding to Canada's poorest but kept the $1 billion subsidy to rich businessmen who invite other rich businessmen to their Christmas parties, their birthday parties, or to watch a ball game.
The government slashed spending on the environment by $600 million, but it extended the interest deductibility provision which allows multinationals to use Canada as a tax haven.
It reduced support for social housing by $32 million, but it kept the $1 billion dividend tax credit for the rich.
It cut $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy but kept the $1 billion manufacturing and processing tax credit.
Those were the causes of the debt and the ballooning deficit, the tax breaks for the rich and the interest gouging in favour of the rich. It was those people who had not paid their taxes, many of them, who were able to invest that money in the government bonds.
There were others but those were obviously some of the chief ones.
Even the government does not believe the story about the deficit. If it did, why would it increase CSIS, the secret police, by $24 million or more? Was it necessary to have that so that they could spy on labour unions and disrupt them?
Why $800 million for the Gulf War? So that the oil companies could get a share of the oil loot?
Why the tens of millions of dollars sending the army against Oka? Was it to intimidate all of Canada's native peoples and other Canadians?
When it wanted to spend the money, it did. For that matter, what about the many, many millions-it is estimated at $100 million-and the hon. member across the way refused to answer a question about it from the hon. member for Churchill, just to win one by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean? Was that necessary in order to re-establish control over the people of Quebec?

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
The government's story makes no sense at all. Why attack public servants and the postal workers? Why the FTA, the free trade agreement, that caused 200,000 to
300,000	jobs to be lost in Canada's manufacturing industry, and to give away control of our oil industry.
Why the North American free trade agreement being pushed? Was that to cause more job loss and more loss of control over our natural resources? Why the high interest rate, which hurt Canada's exports to the United States? Was that the under the table deal that we are told it was, as part of the price of the free trade agreement, so that we could not put our goods into the American market when the tariffs went down?
Why the high dollar? Again, to protect the United States from Canadian exports? On top of that now, it starts an attack on the Public Service unions, provoking them and forcing them out to strike.
This is part of a campaign, and we can see it in the Prime Minister's rhetoric and in the other cabinet ministers' rhetoric because they want all large, private corporations to do the same, to destroy their unions and to lead Canadian private corporations in a general union-busting campaign, much more powerful than what the Liberals did in 1982 with their six and five legislation when they encouraged tycoons making half a million dollars to show that they were only taking six and five themselves, more than the average worker gets for his whole wage.
These are all parts of a power grab by the transnational corporations. In Canada they are represented by the Business Council on National Issues, which is a lobby that has the ear of the Prime Minister and it is worth probably about a trillion dollars, give or take a hundred million or so.
The plan is to suppress workers by dividing them. That is why the Public Service workers, who have a large number of women, are being humiliated both by the wage freeze against the price rise and by the manner of doing it. Women, the majority in this country, are beginning to organize in all kinds of ways. Therefore, from the government's point of view, they must be put down, as the government is also trying to put down the native people by cutting their funding for communications, cutting their schooling, cutting their housing.
The government had to divide the working people of Canada, setting some against others, immigrants against Canadians, refugees against others, Latin American racial minorities against others. It wants to divide Canadian workers so that it is easier to force wages down in the interests of the transnational corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask this government and the caucus that is their automatic vote to change their minds. Their intention is very clear: They are serving the interests of the transnational corporations solely, and they are willing to wreck Canada by persecuting the working class.
Therefore, I ask those who are listening to this broadcast to consider what it is that the government is really trying to do behind the smokescreen of this deficit, which this government largely created. It is trying to bring about an undeclared war against the Canadian people on behalf of the richest people in North America. I ask all who are listening to give careful thought to that, Mr. Speaker.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and with great pride that I stand in this Chamber tonight to speak on behalf of the public servants of this country, but most particularly to speak on behalf of the public servants in my riding of Halifax.
I knew, obviously, that I had the third-largest contingent of public servants in this country, Halifax ranking third after Ottawa and Montreal. What I did not know until the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier told me was that in actual fact more public servants live in the riding of Halifax than in any of the other ridings in the country where public servants live.
I do not think the hon. member for South Shore really means that. But we will let it go for the moment.
The public servants in Halifax fall into several groups. One of those groups is the ships' crews, the crews that go out in the North Atlantic when other vessels are in trouble- "They that go down to the sea in ships", as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has said-and rescue ships, boats, fishing vessels and so on, in the teeth of the great North Atlantic storms. These ships' crews, when they were striking over the question of regional rates of pay two years ago, downed pickets whenever a

distress call came in, went to their ships, sailed out of Halifax harbour and affected the rescue of many lives.
These workers, Mr. Speaker, are paid less, as we all know, than those ships' crews in other regions of the country. These workers, through a process that the federal government initiated when it ordered them back to work two years ago, through a mediator, had a process whereby these regional rates of pay were going to be eliminated.
The promises of this government for those workers, and I might add for other public servants in Halifax- hospital workers, also suffering under regional pay disparities- the promises of this government are writ on water, they mean nothing. These workers, among the lowest paid, who risked their lives and continue to risk their lives and dropped their pickets while they were on a legal strike to affect these rescues, instead of getting regional rates of pay alleviated as the report of the mediator, the binding report that the mediator promised and that the government agreed to, has been thrown out, are limited to 0, 3 and 3.


Mr. McCreath:: The same as everybody else.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Oh, the same as everybody else, the hon. member for the South Shore says. He ought to check on some of the bonuses for some of the government's friends in the higher echelon positions. That is what the hon. member for the South Shore should do.


Peter L. McCreath: You are a wealth of misinformation.


Mary Catherine Clancy: But the hon. member for South Shore, who certainly can make a lot of noise, should remember that the public servants in Halifax made their presence felt on November 21, 1988-


Peter L. McCreath: Stop interfering with the democratic rights of others and go to work.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Well, no, I think they were voting on November 21, 1988, as I recall. On November 21, 1988 they made their presence felt. They will make their presence felt again because they know now, as they suspected in November 1988, that trusting this government would be a waste of their time.
I have spoken many times in this House on the regional rates of pay and the absolute endemic unfairness of it. The hon. member from the South Shore knows it is unfair and knows that his constituents are
Government Orders
among the prime beneficiaries of those underpaid ships' crews that sail out of Halifax harbour.
I have spoken on those many times, as I have spoken about hospital workers who were discriminated against.
I want to get a little specific on numbers. In the Public Service of Canada, 66,000 employees earned $29,000 or less. The poverty line in 1991, for a family of three, was $25,600 and for a family of four was $28,800. Two-thirds of those earning under $30,000 in the Public Service of Canada are-guess what? Women. Is anyone surprised? No, no one is surprised. What is this government doing about pay equity?


An hon. member:: Nothing.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Nothing. Not one thing. In reports of conciliators over the years, with relationship to the pay equity question, the following has been said and I quote:
"Apparently the government has a separate funding for pay equity adjustments and they will not come out of departmental budgets. There is room for the government to bargain pay equity adjustments in this round of collective bargaining outside the context of wage restraints".
What is this government doing about pay equity? Well let me tell you.


An hon. member:: It is bargaining.


Mary Catherine Clancy: No, no. It is doing a little bit. One of the things that this government is doing about pay equity is fighting the right of the Human Rights Commission to deal with this issue and refusing to negotiate pay equity at the bargaining table. It refused.


An hon. member:: Who said that?


An hon. member:: I think it was Max Yalden.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Max Yalden has condemned the government's actions on pay equity. The commissioner for human rights has condemned the federal Government of Canada on its actions on pay equity. What a record. What a wonderful way to be. What a great thing to be able to take to the people of the country.
The government has failed to implement pay equity for female dominated groups in the Public Service. That is the truth, that is the issue and it deserves to be condemned. Instead of real pay equity, where classifications are changed to reflect new salary levels, the government gives equalization payments. Equalization payments can be removed at any time and certainly will

Government Orders
be removed if any of these groups ceases to be female dominated.
The government is playing around. We already know what the member for Calgary whatever thinks about equalization payments or any kind of gender equity for women. Heaven forfend.


An hon. member:: What does she think?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Oh, I could tell you, but we would have to get into the question of violence against women and it is violent enough.
What else does the government do to its Public Service? We know about contracting out. We hear about downsizing. How has this downsizing been achieved? By contacting out or hiring consultants. The cost of contracting out has climbed from $1.7 billion annually to $5 billion annually, an amount greater than the entire federal Public Service payroll. The contracting out to their patronage friends is greater than the entire payroll for the Public Service of Canada.


Peter L. McCreath: Prove it.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Prove it, says the hon. member for South Shore. The proof will be in the pudding and the pudding will be eaten in the next election. The public servants of Canada will not, like Oliver Twist, be prepared to go back to the table where they ask for more and be told by this Dickensian government that there is no more.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the Chamber listening very carefully to some of my colleagues on the other side. I want to begin by asking members to let us move into the 1990s and into the 21st century. Members keep forecasting, predicting; you want more of the same and the same does not work. You had better face facts and call a spade a spade. No more taxes, cuts in programs and services, we are living beyond our means and Canada started that way back when you were in power in 1969 with a surplus of $450 million.


An hon. member:: The Liberals want more taxes.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: You took that $450 million surplus and you turned it into a $38.5 billion debt, by increasing program spending and increasing salaries to the tune of
13.5	per cent and 14 per cent. I tell you that we have to pay the bills. The party is over and no longer can we-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: We have to pay the bills and everybody is going to participate.
On February 26, 1991, the Minister of Finance tabled his budget in this Chamber and all government employees, all MPs, cabinet ministers, RCMP officers, are treated exactly the same. Everybody will get zero, three and three over the next three years. You are. I am. Even the hon. House leader sitting up there is. He had his salary frozen as well.
Nobody likes strikes and we are not advocating a strike. There are many people within the Public Service who do not want to go on strike. There are single parents. There are families who need their salaries to feed their children, pay their mortgage, and keep a roof over their heads. But they did not have an opportunity to cast a ballot. No. It happened to be their leader, the union head, Mr. Bean who said: "Thou shalt go on strike". End of report.
Bargaining and negotiations have been taking place and the public servant has job security-do you have job security, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker has job security. They have pension plans, dental plans and benefits that the free enterprise system does not have. People in my riding of Calgary South are not only losing their jobs, they are taking a decrease. People down on the south shore in Nova Scotia are losing their jobs and taking decreases. They are willing to do time sharing in order to hang on to their jobs. This is not just one sector we are zeroing in on, everybody has to help.
It has been mentioned here, and I know Mr. Speaker knows this, that six provinces have frozen the salaries of their public service: Nova Scotia is at zero for two years; Manitoba is at zero for 1990-1991; the province of Quebec has frozen its public service wages; Newfoundland; and New Brunswick has even rolled back a piece of legislation they had passed.
I sat here and listened to my colleague from Ottawa South across the way talk about money going into other
October 1, 1991

enterprises. I will tell you that by moving the National Energy Board to Calgary we are going to save millions of dollars. No longer will the oil companies have to fly back and forth, hire their lawyers, to be at the hearings here in Ottawa. They are going to hold the hearings right where the energy industry is located.
Everyone is going to participate. Everybody is going to help us to cut the budget.
I just want to make a remark about pay equity. It seems to me it was 10 years ago when the government of the day-who was in power 10 years ago?


An hon. member:: The Liberals were.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: -when the government of the day had charges laid against it with regard to pay equity and it was taken to court. Ten years ago. You people never moved. And what government moved?


An hon. member:: Wasn't that the Trudeau government?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That was the Trudeau government, the Trudeau government on the pay equity, and it has been 10 years in the courts. You know, Mr. Speaker, we awarded $317 million in 1989, $76 million in 1990 and $81 million this year for pay equity. Pay equity applies not only to women, but to visible minorities, aboriginal people and disabled people. You never ever, ever came out to attack that issue.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I listened to you. Now you, unfortunately, are not moving into the 21st century. One of our gentleman friends from the NDP party was talking about free trade. I will tell you, 75 per cent of our trade is done with our colleagues south of the border.


Some hon. members:: Eighty per cent.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: All right, 80 per cent. How about 85 per cent? Now that we are going, how about 90 per cent? We need the secure market. We have to move into the global markets. We have to increase our efficiency, increase our productivity and our quality too and we have got to market smarter.
Think of the jobs that would have been lost without free trade. You should come on out and see where the petrochemical business has moved up. There are certain industries that have benefited. As we move through the 10 year period-well, Mr. Speaker, you were here during
Government Orders
that debate in December 1988. You remember all the people, the pot calling the kettle black.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The Speaker likes spirited debates, but I ask for the co-operation of the two sides of the House. I recognize again the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I will only be one minute. We will not raise taxes. We will not increase the deficit. If hon. members will tell us where to cut we will all participate and we will all work on this together.
It has been a great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to be here in the House and I thank you very much.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, "we will not raise taxes"? Is that beyond the 33 times you have already raised taxes since elected in 1984? Incredible! So it has come down to this, Mr. Speaker.
Constituents in my riding of Hamilton West give me the privilege to stand in the House, rise in debate on Bill C-29, along with my colleagues, in opposition to the government's bill which not only legislates federal civil servants back to work, but imposes on them a wage freeze; 0 per cent.
Like everything else this government does, the legislation before us is the handiwork of the Prime Minister and the Tory cabinet, devised through the use of smoke and mirrors. Make no mistake about it, the government is ramming this bill through the House in the hopes that it will serve them well in the polls. Yes, well in the polls because it has become a political matter.
Is it discouraging potential converts to the Reform Party, is that what it might be about? Disgruntled Tories in all the Tory ranks across this country, it could be a little bit about that. But what is the goal of this bill, Mr. Speaker? It is to convince these groups, like the Reformers, like their Tory backbenchers, like all the Tories across this country, that the government mean business. Cut the pay cheques of federal civil servants all in the name of fiscal restraint.
The smoke and mirror illustration shows that the government is not saving money by freezing these wages and are not convincing Canadians that it is doing the right thing. The government claims to be eliminating full time public sector jobs, but let us remember, they are pushing people out through the front door and all the while contracting people through the back door, hoping Canadians will not catch them in this little charade of theirs. Not only is contracting out costing the govern-

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
ment more, but the wage freeze included in the bill does not apply to higher level public servants.
Remember the story last week, Mr. Speaker? Over
5.000	cabinet appointees received bonuses last year, some as high as 25 per cent of their salaries. One Crown corporate executive is said to have received $87,000 in his Christmas stocking, that is on top of his annual salary of $365,000. The government expects Canadians to buy this so-called wage restraint charade.
Contracting out is exempt from any budgetary restraints. How can the government say that it is saving money when its policies are clearly ruinous to the morale of the public sector, are misleading to the public, and will result in an increase in expenditures just because the government wants to take on the Public Service for the benefit of political gamesmanship? That is all it is.
I listened to the President of the Treasury Board speak in this House. He made an ironic comment. Members on this side of the House have rightly pointed out that this government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadian by contracting out public servants through the back door, capping the wages of those permanent employees and eroding any kind of job security. The President of the Treasury Board replied: "If things are as bad as the opposition claims, why then last year did over
230.000	Canadians try to gain employment in this maligned Public Service?"
The answer is painfully obvious, except to the minister and his Tory colleagues. Some 250,000 Canadians sought employment with the government because they are just a part of the 1.5 million unemployed in this country,
300.000	of whom, by the way, lost their jobs since the free trade deal was signed.
Another aspect of this debate degradates the equality afforded to women in the Public Service. The government has put pay equity on the table as a political tradeoff. It is a cold-hearted move that shows this debate is about far more than back to work legislation and the capping of wages. This government says that it is committed to paying women an equal amount for equal work done on the job but at the same time is prepared to treat the advancement of women in the Public Service as
nothing more than a bargaining chip. What this government is trading off, trading away, are its principles.
Let us also remember that the wage freezes are being rigidly applied to the lowest paid employees, thereby ensuring that higher salaried employees will receive lump sum payments, bonuses, reclassifications into higher wage brackets.
The fact is the majority of the lower paid employees are women. It has been said, and it should be repeated before we have to vote on this bill in about an hour and a half time, that two-thirds of those federal employees earning under $30,000 a year are women. That is almost 70 per cent.
One group in the lower classification of the Public Service is almost made up entirely of women, 99 per cent, whose average wage is, get this, $19,396. In 1990, just last year, the poverty line in this country for a family of three was $25,600.
What is the single mom working for the federal government to do when her employer freezes her wage at an already less than equitable level and has two children to provide for? Forget day care, this government has already reneged on that promise. It is turning its back and walking away from pay equity and the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, Max Yalden, who also condemned this government's action on pay equity.
Let us return to the smoke and mirrors image and this analogy. As I previously mentioned the government is trying to persuade Canadians that these wage restraint measures are for the good of the country. What it is really doing is victimizing public servants and using them as scapegoats hoping to curry favour with a public which has lost confidence in it.
It has already victimized Canadians with over 33 tax increases since it came to office and has let the national debt explode to $420 billion, so there is the smoke and mirrors. The government and the member for South Shore try to blame the past governments for the present state of the deficit which they could have controlled over the past seven years in office. Cutting back on public sector wages should send a signal to the Canadian public
October 1, 1991

that the government is serious about controlling the debt, right?
The other page stolen from the Reform Party by this desperate government is a new fund that will bring the deficit down by almost half by the time of the next election when it rolls around. If this government were serious about the deficit, it would ask the former minister of financial disaster where his projections went wrong.
They went wrong time after time, projection after projection. In the six years since the government began to downsize, eradicate the Public Service, 13,000 positions have been cut and 24,000 people have been affected by downsizing. In the same six years, there are
70,000	fewer in the federal Public Service.
Much of the downsizing that has taken place has been achieved by contracting out or hiring consultants. At the bare minimum contracting out has climbed from $1.7 billion annually to $5 billion every year.


An hon. member:: Tory waste.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: This is an increase of over $3 billion a year.


An hon. member:: They put the money into the hands of the fat cat Tories.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: That is what this government has been spending on, contracting jobs to do the jobs formerly done by competent civil servants, by a full time staff. For the record the $5 billion amount the government spends on contracting out is greater than the total amount spent on the payroll for the federal Public Service.
I see I have a minute left and so I will close by saying that is the smoke and mirrors. The government would like big business and disgruntled Tories to believe that it is serious about cutting back the public sector but has spent at the same time huge sums of taxpayers' money on this public relations political exercise which has hurt the morale of the world's greatest public service and has done a disservice to the entire country through this transparency, this falsehood, this charade.
Who do I speak for? I speak for the thousands of public civil servants who work in the riding of Hamilton West, right downtown. I also speak for all those Cana-
Govemment Orders
dians who have seen through this outrageous, unfair Draconian bill, Bill C-29.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I must say I really feel it is unfortunate that this debate is taking place. I am not sure whose interest is served by the fact that this debate is taking place.
The government brought down last March what can only be described as a very responsible budget, responding to the economic realities and the fiscal realities of this country. That included recognition of the fact that many people across this country had to participate in dealing with what this government had the courage to take on, and that is to say, the deficit and the national debt. It goes without saying that the government's own employees, including those of us in this Chamber, had to participate in that exercise.
That is unfortunate. Everyone would like a pay raise. I would like a pay raise. I could use a pay raise. I am sure everyone in the Public Service would like a pay raise. Quite frankly, I have to say in all honesty, despite the disparaging remarks that one hears from time to time, I have rarely met public servants who I do not feel give the public value for the service. They are dedicated people who want to serve Canada, just as I am sure all members of this Chamber wish to serve Canada.
The reality is that governments must act responsibly and so we had a budget that set down a wage guideline for everyone in the Public Service, everyone in the employ of the Government of Canada, including the members of Parliament in this room, the Prime Minister, and the members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, along with the members of the five bargaining units that have already settled within the zero and three.
What did we have the night of that budget? We had Mr. Daryl Bean on television saying: "There is going to be a strike". Everyone knows that the Public Service Alliance of Canada has an impeccable reputation for responsibility, a reputation that has been earned over many years of responsible actions, of negotiating in the appropriate way. I guess Mr. Daryl Bean felt that he was not high enough in the pecking order of the trade union movement or the NDP, whichever is which, I am not sure. He had to show that he was as tough as Shirley Carr and Bob White and Richard Cashin and all the

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
other union leaders in Canada and so he announced then that there was going to be a political strike and he was going to close down the Public Service of Canada.
The Government of Canada, for its part, acted in a responsible manner; it went to the bargaining table prepared, as as it remained throughout prepared, given that the zero, three and three was going to be there, to bargain other aspects like job security which when I worked for a union we felt was very important to our members. Mr. Bean does not seem to appreciate the fact that job security has been offered and put on the table by this government, and other benefits like that. He had to have his political strike. I do not know who told him he had to have that strike or whether he made that decision all by himself. Only he could give the answer to that. The months passed, the weeks passed and we got our strike. Mr. Bean got his strike.
Now how did he get his strike? It is interesting. He got his strike, from what I can see, in large measure through intimidation. It is amazing the stories that are coming out of the people who did not want to go on strike but wanted to go to work. They understood the economic reality that the government faces. They were prepared, as good citizens of this country, to take their lumps along with the rest of us and accept what was available and also many of them recognized that in these times of difficulty they were very fortunate to have jobs at their salary levels and their levels of job security.
I have got 120 fish plants in my constituency and I will tell you that there are not many people in those fish plants who make the kind of money that the people my hon. friends opposite say are so hard done by make. A lot of my fish plant workers would love to have a job at which they could make $25,000 a year, because you cannot make that kind of money working in a fish plant.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The politics of envy.


Peter L. McCreath: They would love to know they had the long term security that you can have within the Public Service.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Pitting Canadians against Canadians.


Peter L. McCreath: It is perhaps not coincidental that in the town of Bridgewater, which is the largest town in my constituency, we have 25 people in the PSAC bargaining unit and when the strike began do you know how many of
those 25 went on strike? Twenty-two. PSAC had to bus people in from Halifax in order to man the picket lines because people on the South Shore of Nova Scotia know that when times are tough if you have got a secure job, with a dental plan and with job security and pension benefits, you could have it a heck of lot worse than you have it.


Marlene Catterall: If you don't fire them first.


Peter L. McCreath: They made it perfectly clear there was going to be a strike and those who did not go on strike were given the torches of hell. They were physically harassed, they were intimidated. People stayed home because they were afraid to go out of their houses. They were told that if they went to work their name would go on a list and I saw some of the lists posted up. Their democratic right to do what they wanted meant nothing in this union evidently. Their democratic rights meant nothing. Their names were put up and they were all going to be thrown out. I will be interested to see if Mr. Daryl Bean follows through on his promise to throw everybody out of his union who went to work during the strike, because he will be throwing about 60,000 of those people out of his union. I will be interested to see if he delivers on that.
It was interesting, the strike began and we were told this strike was going to go on. We were told that if back to work legislation came in it was going to be ignored. What happens nine days later? Mr. Bean comes in, with his friends I might say from the NDP, saying to the government: "I have got to get out of this situation." He went back to the table. The government made itself perfectly clear; it remained adamant that zero, three and three would be on the table and nothing else, but that it was prepared to negotiate other things.
What has Mr. Bean done? Mr. Bean, a few days later, said "we are going out again". He left the bargaining table. Now he turns around and says the government left the table. There was an unequivocal deal; he broke the deal. He left the bargaining table. What did he leave on the table? He left an average salary of $33,500 a year for public servants in his union, not a bad deal if you are a fish plant worker in Port Mouton, a pension fully indexed to the cost of living, one of the best employment security protection plans in Canada, a dental care plan funded entirely by the employer, and a full range of other
October 1, 1991

employment benefits. Mr. Bean said "No, I am leaving the table and I am leaving that there.".
There was a lot of talk when the strike was on that something needed to be done for the people who were at the lower end of the wage scale of the Public Service and the government was not doing anything. What did the government do? The government responded, the government listened, the government went to the table and offered $500 a person.


An hon. member:: An outrage.


Peter L. McCreath: I understand the minister is going to make an amendment to this bill to see that they get that. Then what did we hear? For a week all we heard was about the single mothers. It is as if the whole Public Service were single mothers making less than $20,000 a year. The government responded to that. Then we heard: "Oh, that is no good, because there are not very many of them". Which way is it?
I said earlier that it is a political strike. It has obviously been a political strike from the perspective of my hon. friends opposite. We knew where the NDP were going to stand. Everybody knows, solidarity forever, the CLC, the CAW, the NDP. You get one and you get them all. Except then they realized they had a few farmers in their caucus. They had people who had responsibilities to the farmers in western Canada who are possibly having their worst year in history. What were these people doing? They were keeping a strike going that was taking money out of the pockets of the farmers of western Canada. This government is responding.
If you do not watch it, you are going to see the kind of support for farmers coming down from this government that this government under the leadership of this Prime Minister has always provided.
The NDP came in and said: "Please, we have to get out of this situation. We will give you whatever you want". So the hon. House Leader said: "Okay, you said you were going to debate this forever, you give us a House Order that says if they go out again, we will put the bill through the Commons in two days". Boy, the hon. member for Kamloops could not be quicker in saying yes and getting himself out of that little mess.
Government Orders
Then we had my hon. friends from the Liberal party, led by "me too Jean". We did not know what their position was when there was talk of back to work legislation. So we had to wait until the NDP said what they were going to do. Then we heard what the NDP were going to do-oppose the government. God forbid that the Liberal party would find themselves left out in the dark with only the NDP. So, "me too Jean" said: "We are against it too". They came up with a great idea. Their great idea was to get a mediator. That is what we heard form over there. "Let us get a mediator". It does not matter that the leader of the union said: "We have to have a strike". It does not matter that the leader of the union walked away from the table when there were valuable offers on the table for the benefits of his members. No, no, we have to do that.
My time is just about up, but I want to say one thing. The people of Canada do not support this strike. Most people in Canada recognize that public servants are people who serve Canada and deserve the opportunity to go back to work like the rest of us. Most of the people of Canada overwhelmingly, I should suspect, support the action of this government in regrettably having to put through this legislation.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, after the noise we heard from the other side, I am going to try to be a bit more low key.


An hon. member:: I am sure you will make a lot more sense too.


Robert Evans Skelly: The last words I heard from that member opposite was that the people of Canada do not support this strike. I think it was the only true thing he said. I should not say that. It is probably unparliamentary. But the only thing that rung true with me is that the people of Canada do not support this strike.
In fact, I do not think they support any strike. People of Canada, the same as people on this side of the House, would like to see some way of ending this strike, but in a way that respects the process of collective bargaining and the process of mediation, the process Canadians have come to associate with a democratic system in terms of the regime of labour relations. Yet, this government absolutely refuses to submit this issue to mediation because it knows it is not going to move on that one line that was printed in its budget: zero, three, three. And it will not move. As a result, there is no sensible negotiation going on. There is absolutely no sensible negoti-

Government Orders
ation that goes on at the table as long as the government has imposed that precondition on bargaining.
I have been listening to this debate for quite a while. Actually, the debate does not go back to the time that the budget was printed. I believe the government had in mind when it put that section in the budget in the first place that it was going to precipitate a Public Service strike. In fact, I would not put it past it that it had this legislation written at the time the budget came down.
This debate does not go back to the failure of the negotiations with the Public Service, it goes back much further. In fact, it goes all the way back in this Parliament to 1984 when the Prime Minister said he was going to come to Ottawa and issue pink slips and running shoes to the Public Service of Canada.
That represents an attitude on the part of that Prime Minister and an attitude on the part of the Conservative political party in this House about public servants and about public employment. This is the group that always separates the workers in Canada as to whether they work for the public sector or the private sector. They consider public sector workers as some kind of a lower form of life or a lesser form of citizen because those people have dedicated their lives to public service through employment by the government.
In some way, this party feels that that makes them a second-class standard of citizen, and that bothers me. It brings to my mind the recollection of something that happened in British Columbia back in 1983, and that was the so-called restraint program that was brought in by the William Bennett government. Everybody knows Bill Bennett, the premier before Bill Vander Zalm.
Some people might know that his chief strategist of the time was a man called Dr. Norman Spector. One of the things that Bill Bennett has bequeathed to the people of Canada, through the Prime Minister's office, is Dr. Norman Spector and the way he manages politics within a province, in the case of British Columbia, or within the country in the case of Canada.
Back during what was called the restraints era in British Columbia, the government used the excuse of a world-wide recession, declining revenues, problems with
profits in the industrial sector, problems of profits in the private sector, to take the meat axe to government programs.
He especially targeted certain programs that Conservatives do not like. For example, he targeted the Human Rights program in British Columbia and he cut the teeth out of that program. He targeted protection for tenants in British Columbia and he cut the teeth out of that program. He targeted welfare services, and in particular services to families, and he cut the resources out of that program.
He took a look at the fact that the government of the day employed family service workers and he fired those family service workers. He said the reason for this is the restraint program. The cupboard is bare, he said, to use the exact same words that were used by the President of the Treasury Board. The cupboard was bare.
He used that program to take a direct attack on employment in the Public Service in British Columbia, and that during that restraint period was when the government of British Columbia began to contract out employment in that province, began to cut the wages of civil servants in that province. It is interesting, to my memory, when I read the line in the budget that says: zero, three and three. When they get that 3 per cent, for every 3 per cent they get they are going to fire civil servants in order to keep the wage package at the same price. It is exactly the same policy that was brought forward in the government of British Columbia when Bill Bennett was premier and Dr. Norman Spector was his chief strategist. That is where we got the program. That is where this kind of restraint policy has come from. This government has been Bennetized, it has been Social Creditized and that is where the problem has come from. It is exactly the same kind of right-wing Conservative ideology that has prevailed in the province of British Columbia under Social Credit, and now this government is being Social Creditized and that is why we have this attack on the Public Service.
It is strange that the technique, Mr. Speaker, that was used by the government in British Columbia was to divide the sectors of British Columbia society and the various social economic classes in British Columbia against each other.
October 1, 1991

When I hear these members saying: "Why should the Public Service have average wages of $33,000 a year when people in my riding and people across Canada have an average of $27,000 a year", my answer to that is: "Why are these people not bringing up the level of wages in Canada so that people who are working for a living and working hard, whether they are in the public sector or in the private sector, are not being forced to live below the poverty line, have sufficient wages to make ends meet and to bring up their kids and to send them through school". Why is this government not acting to do that? This government and its members are saying: "We have got thousands of people, we have got
1.5	million people out of work in this country. They would gladly have those jobs that the Public Service Alliance are striking from and staying away from". What is this government doing to make sure that it does not have 1.5 million people out of work? Why is it not developing policies to get those people back to work instead of, as the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte said, developing the politics of envy so that people in this country are envying each other's jobs?
We could raise the minimum wage in this country. We could improve the rights to organize and bargain collectively in the private sector so that we would have an increase in wages in those sectors and there would not be the dramatic kind of differences we have in terms of income in this country.
Mr. Speaker, you have given me the signal that I only have a few minutes left. It seems to me that this government is talking about the cupboard being bare. Whenever labour comes to the cupboard, the cupboard is bare. Whenever families come to the cupboard seeking help for child care and for family services, the cupboard is bare. Whenever pensions come to this government seeking an improvement in their pensions so that they could make ends meet, the cupboard is bare. And yet when an election is called in British Columbia and the Social Credit Party needed something to bail them out to improve their chances, suddenly $236 million appears to buy a KAON project in British Columbia.
The same thing happens when the rich are seeking tax concessions and since 1984 the rich have seen their tax burden reduced by 6 per cent in this country. Whenever
Government Orders
the rich and the powerful and the wealthy corporations come to this government, the cupboard is never bare. This government is always prepared to serve the people that it feels it represents and the people that it feels it should serve.
This is an ideological bill. This is a political battle. It is the Conservatives trying to destroy the wages and benefits of the Public Service in this country and trying to lower their wages under a general policy of lowering the wages and working conditions and standard of living of all of the people in this country other than the people that they have elected themselves to serve and that is the rich, the wealthy, the powerful and the large corporations who have been released of all of their burdens and obligations in terms of supporting this country.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to join the debate earlier in the day when the day when the member for Laval East was speaking because he was making some very good points on the hypocrisy involved in the union leadership here. He made reference to how they handled their own employees, when they faced the situation of having to deal with their own employees with regard to their own contracts, those people who work for the union leaderships themselves.
The member pointed out that in a time of restraint they too had to recognize that times were tough. What did they do, rather than have a fair system that is fair to everyone concerned, as this legislation is and as our budget was which announced the zero, three, three, not only for the Public Service, but for members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and straight across the board, everybody gets zero, three and three? Well, that was not quite the way they handled it in the unions with their own employees. In fact, there were some layoffs and reductions of salaries.
I was looking, as the member for Laval East spoke, at a column in The Sun newspaper by Ron Corbett. The business editor called it the union game. On some other union negotiations he is quoted as saying: "The feelgood phrases about workers' rights and job security seem like hollow come-ons when you look at the contracts unions give to their workers. As for the union leaders themselves, they seem a little more than tin pot ego maniacs; people driven by the hunt and the thrill of

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
victory rather than altruistic concerns for Canadian workers."
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, these union leaders always portray themselves as the altruistic ones. The morally superior ones, which would also make them hypocrites, I guess.
To these union leaders it is a game, a game played by schoolyard bullies who got addicted a long time ago to power and fame, bullies who threaten and intimidate union members and the public to incite violence and to counsel their members to provoke the police and to take part in illegal activities. I think members saw today a memo that was circulating around the Hill to strike and picket captains, Tuesday, October 1, 1991, indicating the targets for today's violence and illegal tactics. The strategy, as outlined in this memo to strike and picket captains, was to delay buses as long as possible. They would be buses used not only by union members trying to go to work but buses used by people going to work in all fields.
Again they were not just union members, but anyone who takes the morning bus: teachers, kids going to school, hospital workers and clerks. These were the people being inconvenienced by this union activity.
The memo goes on and I will quote the strategy: "Please note this is an illegal activity and will provoke police activity". These are union orders. Go out and break the law. This is a position, no doubt supported by the NDP, to go out and break the law. This is the counsel we are getting from the union leadership. These tactics will not gain the respect of Canadians nor will they affect the resolve of this government.
I cannot believe that decent, hard working public servants want to break the law, certainly not to justify the egos of game playing union leaders. I believe our public servants understand the need for restraint. They are prepared to accept the government's offer and they want to work.
The Globe and Mail quotes Jim Chorostecki, the senior Public Service union representative in Toronto:
There is a real strike fatigue setting in. People want it to be over
with and resolved and quite frankly, our members want it to be
resolved too.
That was certainly the impression I got this week in my own constituency when I spoke to union members. A young man came to my office and told me that he and his wife had just purchased their first home. They have an 18-month old baby. He is a fellow who wants to get back to work. He feels intimidated by union pressure in his
own riding. He told me that he had not had an opportunity to vote for this union leadership. He did not have an opportunity to vote for a strike.


An hon. member:: Where was he? Asleep?


Lee Richardson: I will not answer the member over there. Surely members of the Public Service ought to have a vote on this action right now.
Let us have them take a secret ballot vote. Let us have an unpressured, unintimidated vote without the pressure of union leadership, a secret ballot.
I would suggest that if a vote was held today among rank and file, a broad section of Public Service would want to get back to work. Responsible leaders would vote and members of the Public Service would vote to go back to work.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, last night, when I made a very brief speech on this bill, I indicated to the House that in my opinion the government was doing things badly with regard to public servants.

Today, I want to elaborate on a couple of the points I started on last night. My main criticism of the government's handling of this affair was that members of the Public Service Alliance were offered a zero per cent increase at the bargaining table earlier this year after having been told they could get up to 3 per cent in the course of negotiations and after a pay increase had been given to senior public servants earlier this year of 4.2 per cent. I think I am correct in that figure.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier indicates that is correct. He is very knowledgeable in this field and I am sure his figures are better than mine.
The government was saying that a raise would do for the well-to-do, but a zero per cent increase was quite satisfactory for the lowest paid in the Public Service. That was the effect of the wage offer that was made earlier this year.
That offer was made at a time when inflation was running at 6 per cent in Canada. This was not a case of a year when zero per cent might not matter. Why was inflation at 6 per cent? It was because of the GST. The GST did more to drive up the rate of inflation in this country than anything else the government could have done. It imposed the tax on January 1 of this year, contrary to all the advice it got from the opposition in this House, contrary to the expressed wishes of millions
October 1, 1991

of Canadians who signed petitions and sent them to this House objecting to the tax. It was contrary to the wishes of millions of Canadians expressed in polls which the government itself conducted I submit and which were conducted by various other agencies and submitted to the government for its approval. That tax was almost unanimously condemned by Canadians. It led to an increase in the inflation rate.
The government said to its lowest paid public servants in the face of that: "You get zero while inflation goes to six". Members can correct me on this, but I believe the Minister of Finance announced that his inflation target for next year was something like 3 or 2 per cent. In fact, I think it was to be 2.5 per cent by the end of this year if I am not mistaken.
If we achieve that target and these people get 3 per cent next year, they will hardly improve their lot in the face of inflationary pressure. Yet this year they get zero and inflation is six. That is like a 6 per cent cut in your wages, if I am not mistaken. You might as well take home less and they will take home less.
I think that is something that Canadians forget. Zero per cent increase for these public servants will mean a substantial reduction in take-home pay. Why? Because of the hidden taxes that this government has imposed on those people. It has increased by one-third the contributions to unemployment insurance in the last budget. It also took off the indexation of personal exemptions in the income tax which will result in a sneaky, hidden tax applied to all these people who get a zero per cent increase.
Other Canadians are not getting a zero per cent increase. Very few are. This government is gouging its lowest paid workers in an unfair way and it knows it.


An hon. member:: What about the ones who lost their jobs?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What about the ones who lost their jobs, says the hon. member. His government fired them;
15,000	of them. He should be ashamed of that record. If I were in government and I had laid off 15,000 workers, I would be ashamed and disgraced. It has not brought the deficit down one bit by doing it. It is still over $30 billion. The hon. member should be ashamed of his govem-
Govemmetit Orders
ment's record. He should be repenting in sackcloth and ashes instead of sitting there heckling a sensible speech.


An hon. member:: You don't believe it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I do believe it. I would be ashamed of such a record and so should the hon. member.
How can the government claim that this is fair? In 1983-84, there were 258,000 person years in the Public Service of Canada. In 1990-91, that was down to 221,000, a reduction of 37,000 person years. Hon. members have the gall to applaud this kind of figure but they know that most of these jobs have been just contracted out to other agencies. We know who is pocketing the difference. The fat cat Tories who are contracting for all these jobs through the Department of Supply and Services.
They have set up their employment agencies. They send their persons into work for $5 an hour for the government and pocket the difference because it has not reduced the cost of administering the Government of Canada and the government has never produced a tittle of evidence to show that it has saved money in that respect.
Yet the government says the civil service, having taken all these cuts, must still pay more. It has got to pay by taking zero per cent increase during this financial year and as I say, at the worst possible time and only for the lowest paid. The others take theirs next year when the inflation rate, if the minister is correct-and he usually is not-but if he is right this time the inflation rate will be 3 per cent. They will get 3 per cent which will keep them very comfortable, thank you very much.
We have got the other sad part of this whole equation. For 25 years in this country, the government has enjoyed good labour relations with its public service. Sure, there have been disagreements, sure there has been back to work legislation before. There has never ever been back to work legislation where the workers were sent back with zip. That is what they are being asked to do by this bill.
Always the legislation has provided that an independent arbitrator, mediator, conciliator or whatever, would be appointed to decide what is fair between the government and the public servants. This time this government says: "We know what is fair. Zero is fair for you. That is what you're getting and that is what we are putting in this

Government Orders
bill". That is not fair. It is quite inequitable. It is quite unjust.
We in this party oppose this treatment. We oppose it not because we think that the strike is good or because we think that Canadians enjoy having a strike on then-hands. We oppose it because we say this is unfair. It is the wrong way to treat your employees. We believe that an employer, whether it be a government or not, has an obligation to act with some degree of fairness. This government is not showing fairness.
We have never had this kind of legislation in Canada before. As soon as we get rid of this government, we will never have it again. I want to say that I agree with the comments that have been made by hon. members opposite in one respect, and that is that this strike is a major inconvenience for Canadians, both for Canadians who are on strike and those who suffer as a result of the withdrawal of services. I recognize it. I think every member of this House would recognize it. All of us through our offices and staffs deal with public servants across the country from time to time. They provide us with advice, information and assistance in dealing with constituents' complaints.
I am very much aware of the fact that the public servants in my riding are out on strike. I miss having them at their jobs. I am sorry they are out on strike and I have told them so. But I do not blame them when I see the shabby way they have been treated by the Government of Canada.
As an employer, I think this government has an obligation to do something to be fair to its employees and this government has abdicated that responsibility wholesale.
I want to talk about another aspect of this, because many years ago there was another bill before this House. I would like to read a quotation.
Madam Speaker, perhaps you could identify the speaker of these words:
There was a time when public servants and members of the government viewed themselves as trustees of our money and acted accordingly. The example was set by government in that it had an obligation and responsibility to be frugal and efficient in the spending of our money. Frills were to be avoided in the way that they would be avoided by any trustee if he is to have the respect of
the individual whose funds he administers. That, however, seems to have gone by the board. Frills and wasteful spending are the norms for this government, and represent one of the root causes of inflation.


An hon. member:: Who said that?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Who said that, the hon. member asks. Has he any idea who said it. I will give him a hint. The date was December 1, 1975. Any clues as to who might have said it?
Perhaps hon. members do not recognize the words of the government House leader today. Yes, the hon. member as he then was, for Calgary Centre. Maybe he still is. It may be Calgary something else now. But in any event, he said these words. Yet he is the one who is part of a government that spent $24,000 to study the shrubs at Sussex Drive. This is the way trustees look after their accounts and their money? I do not think so.
Yet he stands up in this House, along with his cabinet colleagues and says the public servants of Canada do not deserve an increase. After all the years of effort they have put in for the Government of Canada, they get zero in a year when the inflation rate is 6 per cent because of the activities of this government.
Madam Speaker, I will have no trouble voting against this bill.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I think I could start by simply saying "here we go again". The Canadian people who are watching this debate must be wondering if we are in the same House. Obviously the message on that side is the same, consistently wrong, trying to hide the reality of the real problem. The problem is simply this. The Canadian government is exercising restraints in all quarters. We expect the Public Service Alliance to do the same thing.
To put the focus of the debate into context, we have to take a look at what the public servants of Canada get today in comparison to the private sector and whether they are or are not better off than those of us who work in the private sector.
This is what they have now. They have an average salary of $33,500 a year, well above the national average. Back in my riding people will work for less than half of that and be happy to get it. In an area where unemploy-
October 1, 1991

ment is 15 and 20 per cent, no one argues with $33,500 a year.
We all know that not every public servant makes that, but that is the average. They have a fully indexed pension, a pension that is indexed to the cost of living. Again, in the private sector, not too many Canadians enjoy that. It is a degree of security that most any Canadian would love to have. They have one of the best employment security protection plans in Canada. Again, not too many public servants have to worry about losing their job. They do not have to worry, as they do in the private sector, about a plant closure or whether the plant has to compete with someone else next door. They do not have to compete. They just do their job. They do not have to worry about a layoff in the normal day to day actions of the government.
They have a full range of employment benefits, including a subsidized health plan, a subsidized disability insurance plan, a fully paid sick leave, generous vacation benefits, family related benefits including subsidized maternity leave.
To me, that is pretty good, Madam Speaker. Let us take a look at what we are offering them. We are offering them a wage consistent with the government's budgetary guidelines, which apply to the Public Service employees, ministers, members of Parliament and senators, as well as their staffs, the Canadian forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Those two receive zero per cent in the first year and they have accepted 3 per cent in the second year.
In my riding, in my constituency office, I was confronted by PSAC demonstrators. It is interesting to note that my small town is a town of less than 5,000 people and that is where I have my constituency office. The rank and file PSAC members in that town did not want to go on strike. So what did they do? They bused them in from a larger centre, from one of the cities of New Brunswick, to demonstrate.
I did not know them and they did not know me, but they wanted to confront me, so I went out to speak to them. I simply told them, and they did run the story in our local newspaper, that most people in our community have absolutely no sympathy for them. The truth is, the people who are doing all of the demonstrating, hollering and screaming are not from my community because most
Government Orders
public servants in my constituency want to go to work. They want Daryl Bean to settle.
I have received letters from many of them in my riding who want a settlement. They will accept the zero, three and three because they understand the realities of Canada, the realities of a downturn in the marketplace internationally in the last year. They understand what a recession is. They do not want to be off the job, they want to go to work. But Daryl Bean does not want them to go to work.
Think of some of the absurdities of some of the things that Mr. Bean is preaching and advocating. He is famous for mentioning, or suggesting, that this is not a strike with the Canadian people. He suggests that no, the fight is not with the Canadian people, it is with the government. He would not suggest for a moment that we are going to inconvenience the Canadian people.
Listen to this, and I quote from the Globe and Mail September 17, Mr. Bean: "We are in a fight with the Canadian government but we are not in a fighting position with the Canadian people." But they go on in this same article to point out and point out very clearly that western grain shipments have been stopped. They are stopped, Madam Speaker, to the tune of about $36 million a week. In fact, this week's estimate is $50 million a week.
Can the grain farmers of Canada withstand that kind of torture? I suggest they cannot. With grain prices depressed around the world and the huge treasuries of European countries and the United States treasury subsidizing grain and hurting our Canadian farmers, can they afford to have their grain sitting idly on the rail tracks in western Canada or any part of Canada? They cannot.
Who is he hurting? He is hurting Canadians. Mr. Bean is hurting Canadians and they are doing the same thing with the trucking industry. His intent, Madam Speaker, is to bring the entire economy to a crashing halt because he has no regard for what makes Canada work. He does not want Canada to work. He has not taken the example that he should take from other provinces. We are not the only government in Canada that has to deal with the realities of paying the bills. Four provinces have implemented a zero per cent pay raise for the first 12 months. Included, of course, is my own province of New Brunswick. But it also includes the province of Newfoundland,

October 1, 1991
Government Orders
the province of Nova Scotia and the province of Manitoba.
Of course, Mr. Bean fails to acknowledge that four non-PSAC unions have negotiated settlements with the Government of Canada under the guidelines that I mentioned earlier on.
So Mr. Bean is the man who has perpetrated this. He is the man who has almost demanded that his membership go on strike. I cannot, for a minute, believe that The Ottawa Sun is on the side of the government, but I will read this one because I think it has been very, very fair in this, Madam Speaker. It states: "From our comer there was absolutely no reason for Mr. Bean to walk away from the negotiation table, and certainly no reason for him then to run to the media and blame Treasury Board for breaking off the process."
They have demanded that this thing go public and they have taken it public, but I do not think the Canadian public are in a position to give them much sympathy because they understand the restraint that we are facing, all Canadians from coast to coast, whether you are speaking in Newfoundland or British Columbia. All governments are operating under extreme fiscal restraint, extreme fiscal pressure and Mr. Bean has no regard for that at all. He simply wants to take them through this whole ugly process.
One of the journalist writing in The Ottawa Sun mentioned: "This is not a pretty sight when normally civilized civil servants begin acting like postal workers". They go on to say: "But this is what happens when a supposedly intelligent union like the Public Service Alliance of Canada allows its leadership to inbreed its principles with rogues". It goes on to say: "When PSAC President Daryl Bean said he was not above civil disobedience he was stealing a page straight from the strike training manual of Jean-Claude Parrot, the man who turned the Canadian Union of Postal Workers into a pack of Pavlovian wolves".
That pretty well sums it up, Madam Speaker. That is his intent, to stir them up, agitate them, but with no regard at all for the Canadian public.
The government recognizes the importance of the Public Service and has high regard for its Public Service employees. It is very, very sad when an individual like Mr. Bean can bring about a strike like this that could very well cripple the Canadian economy just at a time
when we are on the road to recovery and we cannot afford a strike of this nature.


Réginald Bélair: Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of concern that I rise tonight in this House to speak on Bill C-29.
This is a bill that will see some 160,000 members, including the lowest paid of Public Service employees such as clerks, ships' crews, employment centre workers, hospital service workers, who will be legislated back to work with no possibility of conciliation, mediation or arbitration as we are getting very, very close to ten o'clock.
This bill will create a precedent about the rights of working people in this country, including the government's employees, to free collective bargaining.
The government's absolute refusal since February to negotiate until the union would accept a wage control package even before negotiations even began could only result in the situation that is before us today.
My leader put it so well in the House when he said: "This government does not want to solve the problem. It tries on confrontation all the time. It is not the problem of looking at the deficit figure that is the preoccupation of this government today, it does not look at the figure for the deficit at all, it looks at the Gallup poll deficit where they are dead last".
I honestly believe that this government took another chance and rolled the dice. It probably thought the dice were loaded in their favour. Lo and behold, once again the government was wrong.
The government was certain that the people of Canada would support it in giving it to the Public Service. Unfortunately for the government, the Canadian public became quickly aware of what it was doing to the Public Service. It was stifling those who worked to offer federal government services to the same Canadian public.
Canadians are now realizing that the government was and is attacking the lower level classifications in the Public Service. The day before the former Minister of Finance tabled his budget on February 26, the Tory government gave an increase of 4.5 per cent to the
October 1, 1991

highest paid government workers. Two days after that they had a new policy. They decided on zero for the people at the lower end of the scale. This was a deliberate provocation and now, in an attempt to extinguish the incident, the President of the Treasury Board states: "For managers we have frozen the budget for salaries and bonuses. They are frozen at the same level as last year". This is false.
History will not remember this government as a caring one. The Canadian people are in need now. The government's intention to reduce the deficit at all costs has created an inflation rate of 6 per cent. Of the 6 per cent inflation rate, half of it was created by the government's policy of higher taxes including the GST.
The conciliation board reports have concluded that: "Major stumbling blocks to negotiations is the employer's position on wages for the next three years".
Before bargaining even began the government said it would legislate strikers back to work and impose the zero, three and three solution. The Liberal Party supports collective bargaining including the right to strike. The Leader of the Official Opposition even wrote to the Prime Minister urging the government to return to the bargaining table to reach a fair and equitable settlement and avoid disruption of services to Canadians.
All the government needs to do is appoint a mediator, get back to the bargaining table and show that it is looking for a solution instead of fostering confrontation.
The government has deliberately played politics with the fundamental infrastructure that keeps the economy of Canada running. It has deliberately provoked a strike that has disrupted transportation, the movement of goods and services, the movement of Canadians, and our social programs.
Clearly the government knew when it introduced the budget in February that it had no intention of negotiating. It could have anticipated today's situation, yet it chose to use the power it has to designate the people working in crucial areas of government operations as essential workers.
Government Orders
This is just another indication of the government's intention to create conflict and destruction of services to try and recoup some of its rapidly disappearing support by legislating them back to work.
As my leader said, this legislation is not necessary. There is no need for it. If the President of the Treasury Board and the government had really wanted a settlement, they would have acted in good faith and negotiated.
There is Tory bonus money available for the bureaucratic elite-lots for the fat cats but no funds available for the work horses.
I want to wrap up by saying that our party will vote against this bill. There would be no strike today if it were not for the misjudgement of this government. The hardship that this strike has caused in this country could have been averted if only the government had named a mediator at the right time.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this legislation not only because it is important as a current issue but also because the wider issue of labour relations in general is now and will in the future become one of the most important and crucial factors in determining Canada's place among her competitors in an increasingly global economic community.
With respect to this specific issue, I would first like to outline the government's program of fiscal restraint and then I would like to discuss some of the aspects of the current strike. I would like to discuss the legislation and the need for it, and then I would like to wrap up with some observations.
The government and country are faced with a physical situation that must be addressed. Wage restraint is one of a series of measures that the government has taken to contain both the deficit and inflationary pressures. The offer that was presented before the union was not inconsistent with other offers to other Public Service unions across the country. Provincial governments in Nova Scotia, for example, offered their civil servants a zero per cent freeze for two years and we did not see a reaction from the Nova Scotia civil servants to the result of having a strike.
In Saskatchewan as well, there has been a restraint program put on. In Manitoba, there is a two-year wage freeze and in Quebec, Newfoundland and New Bruns-

Government Orders
wick, a wage freeze as well. In spite of the offers of all those provincial governments, the civil servants in those provinces did not feel it was necessary to engage in a confrontation with their governments, perhaps because they realized that wage restraint was not unreasonable.
I recognize the necessity for civil servants to ensure that they do not regress in terms of their purchasing power. But it is important to recognize as well, not only in the public sector but also in the private sector, that when wages rise faster than productivity the result is inflation. If you have a 3 per cent increase in your wages and you have a resulting pressure on inflation that results in a 9 per cent inflation rate, the over-all purchasing power is not generally improved.
In addition to provincial wage offers at zero per cent, we see other examples of wage restraint. The Sydney Steel Corporation, for example, in Nova Scotia offered a zero per cent wage freeze and the labour group there accepted it. Generally speaking, there have been accusations about union bashing and there have been accusations that the government has targeted the worker specifically. But if you look at other government initiatives, with regard to fiscal restraint, you wouldn't really call it union bashing. When you look at the 10 per cent cut in government management positions, including middle management and upper management, and when you look at the spending cap imposed on transfer payments you wouldn't really consider that to be union bashing.
Madam Speaker, governments are not the only ones considering their capacity to pay. Certain employers had to reduce their wage bills in light of their financial resources, as was mentioned earlier. Daryl Bean, among others, had to lay off 15 workers not so long ago. These same workers certainly would have been satisfied with a zero, three and three policy.
It is becoming increasingly more apparent that this strike is not a strike for the workers. It is a strike for the union leaders. This strike is not a strike to gain more benefits and to help out the workers. This strike is a strike to gain more power for Daryl Bean.
As a matter of fact, in a recent communication with the Ottawa Sun newspaper, a former union leader -as a matter of fact, he was president of a local with the PSAC
union-is quoted as saying "The more I saw, the more convinced I became this wasn't a union for the workers, it was a union for the people at the top."
Madam Speaker, if you look at the results of the union strike vote, you will see that only 24 per cent of the eligible voters voted to support the strike. Only 40 per cent of all eligible members actually voted in the strike vote. Of that 40 per cent, only 60 per cent of the 40 per cent voted in favour of the strike. You do not have to be a mathematician to figure out that less than one-quarter of union members voted to support this strike.
As I mentioned, this is not a strike for the workers. This is a strike to gain more power for the union leaders. We have seen examples of workers being intimidated to follow the union line, union tactics that condone beating people up who want to work. There are even reports of unions bringing in professional agitators and thugs.
This strike is out of control. In Ottawa, there was a report of a mentally disabled contract worker who was roughed up while trying to go to work. She suffered extreme distress, as did her senior mother who was escorting her. As well, a medical doctor was pushed from his bicycle while trying to make it to a hospital to perform surgery. The doctor received a mild concussion. Nurses at veterans hospitals are being prevented from caring for Canada's war veterans. There are reports of handfuls of nails being thrown on airport roads, bridges being blocked, traffic being disrupted.
What is most interesting is the inconsistency that we see in Daryl Bean in that while he insists that his union leaders adhere to the union line, adhere to the union constitution and follow the union rules of going out on strike, even though they may not agree with the strike, he feels that on the other hand, it may be appropriate to disagree with Canadian law. So if the Parliament of Canada passes a law he says union members are justified in continuing the strike and breaking the law. He says it is okay within his own organization. He says union members have to follow the union line and they have to follow the constitution of the union. Well, it cannot be both ways.
This Daryl Bean strike is out of control and Daryl Bean is out of control.
October 1, 1991

This legislation is necessary. Grain shipments have been blocked. Millions of dollars of grain sales are being lost. Farmers are being hurt. This is not a strike for the workers, it is a strike for the union leaders.
Farm groups are asking for back to work legislation. Border traffic is being disrupted. Vital supplies to businesses are being held up. Business leaders are asking for back to work legislation. Public Service employees are going without pay. Essential service workers are being abused and injured. Nurses are being prevented from caring for Canada's war veterans by Daryl Bean's strikers.
I just want to conclude by saying that the restraint offer by the government is not inconsistent with other government offers. Other government unions did not decide that the strike was in the best interests of their province. The strike is out of control and the legislation is necessary.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that in the last two days I have listened to more blessed codswallop in this place than I thought it would be possible for any one collection of human beings to produce.
Let us take a couple of the highlights in turn. First of all, this concept that Daryl Bean is somehow the demon that is compelling all of these hapless, innocent, sheeplike public servants to suddenly become ravening wolves, clawing at the throats of the Canadian people, is ludicrous, is madness. No one person has the power to effect that kind of response in any large group of people.
All that Daryl Bean is doing is voicing effectively, and I might say with a great deal of restraint, the seething anger of his membership. It is that seething anger that has been produced by this government that is being manifested on picket lines across this country. Nobody likes that. Not even the people engaging in it like it. But to lay the blame for it on Daryl Bean is to completely, wilfully misrepresent the facts of the matter.
The demon in this conflict is not Daryl Bean. The demon in this conflict is the set of policies of a government determined to press down on the people of this country, the ordinary working people in jobs across this country, private sector and public sector, so that their
Government Orders
rich friends, their corporate buddies can reap even more of the produce of this country.
The reason the government gives us for the necessity of this bill is basically threefold. Everyone else in the country is getting kicked in the teeth, so why not public servants? Why should they be different? It makes a virtue of the fact that its economic policies are destroying communities across the country and says: " Because that is happening we have got to do it to the Public Service too". That is nuts.
Second, "We have to fight inflation or recession". It changes from speaker to speaker. The fact of the matter is that the public sector wage bill comprises about 3.5 per cent of the total expenditures of this government. To say that somehow by reigning in that 3.5 per cent we are going to bring inflation screeching to a halt in this country, or somehow yank the country out of recession, is madness. It is economic voodoo.
Third, "We have to send a signal that we know how to restrain ourselves and therefore everybody else will too". I have got bad news for the signal is not getting through.
A recent copy of The Financial Post carries a story headlined "Recession doesn't hurt bosses' pay". I have a whole table here of the pay rates of top executives in the Toronto area which shows, for example, in 1991 your average president, CEO or general manager is going to get a raise of 10.2 per cent. Your top finance and administration executive is going to get a raise of 8.3 per cent. This is on top of similar raises in the previous two years.
The signal it says it is sending is not getting through. The signal it is really sending is coming through loud and clear. That signal is: "Hey, you big shots, you top rollers, you just keep rolling high because we are in your comer". The proof of that is its utter refusal to change any of the odious personal and corporate tax provisions that might do something to return a bit of equity to the taxation system, to the rates of pay for top executives and thus to the rates of pay of its own people.
For example, the manufacturing and processing tax credit is $1 billion a year, gone like that. One billion dollars, bye, bye. We could pay for a 3 per cent raise for all Treasury Board employed public sector workers this

Government Orders
year with $135 million. In the manufacturing and processing tax credit alone we piss away a billion bucks.
On the lifetime capital gains exemption this year we are going to lose $1.7 billion, more than 20 times what it would take to grant that 3 per cent raise. For every dollar spent auditing corporate tax returns Revenue Canada recovers $17. For an investment of $9 million in audits we could recoup that $9 million we spend and pay for an entire 3 per cent raise. If we wanted to drop $35 million on extra corporate tax audits, we could give every public servant in this country a 5 per cent raise and still have some money left over.
The fact of the matter is that like most of the other economic policies of this government, this bill incorporates a gross inequity and an absolute attack on the people of this country that can least afford it in the interest of the people who least need it.
The proof of that is in the text of the bill itself, and I quote: "This act does not apply to persons engaged as independent contractors", the bill which now already exceeds at $5 billion the total wage bill for Treasury Board employees of $4.8 billion. We are exempting them. We are saying: "Keep rolling high. Keep charging us whatever you want. The sky is the limit. We have the money".
"The Treasury Board may change any terms and conditions of a compensation plan". That is what you get paid in an ordinary person's language. "That is extended under this bill if those terms and conditions are in the opinion of Treasury Board in respect of a conversion or reclassification that is required to implement a new or revised classification standard". In other words, all Treasury Board has to do is wave its magic classification wand and whoever it waves it over is exempted from the provisions of the bill and can get any increase Treasury Board thinks is mighty fine for them.
The nonsense, the prattle or the gibberish we have been treated to at the hands of this government and its backbenches for the last two days is just that. It has nothing to do with the real purpose of the bill. The real purpose of the bill is borne out in the experience of the Canadian people which for the overwhelming majority is
tough times and for the privileged few is good times that continue to roll. It is grossly unfair and it ought to be defeated.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity in the time available to talk about, if I can, how this strike is affecting a group of people in the country who are under some pretty severe economic conditions themselves, namely the farmers of Canada.
What I want to talk about specifically, if I can, is the Canadian Grain Commission. The Canadian Grain Commission is an institution in this country that is almost 80 years old. It is responsible for the weighing, grading, and setting dockage, which is foreign material in grain, of the grain we consume domestically and of the grain that we trade.
The grain that we trade is very important because when you look at wheat, for instance, 80 per cent of the wheat that we produce is exported. We are very dependent upon exports as far as wheat is concerned. With other grains it is similar. Half the barley we produce is exported. Something like three-quarters of the canola is exported. That market then is very important to us.
The Canadian Grain Commission plays a considerable complementary role in seeing that we export. It has developed a reputation over its life-and as I said it is almost 80 years old-of being one of the best if not the best institution of its kind in the world. When Canada goes to sell we can compete on price. We can compete on reliability of being able to deliver, and I want to say something about that before I conclude.
We can also compete on the quality and the type of product that we sell. There we shine. We do very well. The Canadian Grain Commission, and not a lot of people realize this, is basically funded by producers. It has something like 850 employees. Its head office is in Winnipeg but it operates literally from coast to coast in Sorel, Baie Comeau, Port Cartier, Montreal, Quebec. It also operates out of Thunder Bay and on the west coast and in Churchill.

In short it is in every place that grain goes into or out of a terminal. It operated across the prairies and in certain parts of Ontario. It is right through the country.
It basically is paid for by producers. On a five-year running average over 90 per cent of its operating costs are paid for by producers. It is not the typical public servant in the sense that most public servants have their wages paid by the general taxpayer. In this case the Canadian Grain Commission does a specific job for a specific group of people, namely farmers, and its operating costs, its wages are almost entirely paid for by producers.
There have been suggestions in here that we have rich friends and those who can the least afford it are being attacked. In this case I want to point out what the Public Service Alliance has done for farmers.
I could make the case that the price is as low as it has ever been. Farmers are currently being paid prices that they received for a product 20 years ago. To put it into perspective, all of us would find considerable difficulty running our businesses or running our households with today's expenses on an income that we had 20 years ago. Bear in mind that most of the income that grain producers receive in this country comes from exports.
What we have is a situation in which the people who work for the Canadian Grain Commission really work for farmers. We have a case in which farmers are being very much set upon by some international circumstances beyond their control, and heaped on that is a situation in which the Public Service Alliance has taken its people off the grading and weighing function. This means that we have effectively shut down our exports. We have something like 40 boats either due or waiting for loading in Vancouver. It does not make any sense if what you are concerned about is the Public Service Alliance. As the NDP points out, we should be worried about the people who can least afford it, if in fact the Public Service Alliance does not care themselves about people who are suffering severe economic problems. We talk about people who are earning $20,000 and $25,000. Nobody likes to see people in that circumstance if they need more to live on, but let me tell you what the average income of a grain farmer this year is, by statistics, $6,500.
Government Orders
If in fact the Public Service Alliance had chosen to keep about 200 people working, in my view, they could have kept a lot respect among farmers and they would have had a lot more clout with the general public if they had chosen not to take advantage of the situation that farmers find themselves in. That I find very, very regrettable.
Nobody likes strikes. We all lose in strikes. It is basically a lose, lose situation and nobody wins, but surely to goodness there should have been a way in which the point could have been made without taking advantage of people who are already in an extremely difficult circumstance. I find this rather sad especially when you think that over 90 per cent of the wages of a grain inspector comes from the very farmers that he is there to serve.
One of the reasons that we can continue to sell in international markets and do as well as we do is because of the quality of product that we produce. We have also been very competitive price wise, but there is another reason that we have been able to sell and that is our reputation as a reliable supplier. When we say we are going to deliver and when we schedule boats coming into a harbour to pick up grain the grain is there. This does nothing to help us with our reputation as a reliable supplier to the world of a high quality product.
When you have got 40 boats, either due or waiting at Vancouver, and you have got Thunder Bay shut down and you have got Prince Rupert shut down and you have got Montreal shut down, I fail to see how that helps anybody. It damages farmers. It hurts them at a time when they need every bit of possible sale that they can find, when we have a handful of people who can do this.
If the opposition and the NDP have some clout with the PSAC, it seems to me they could have made a lot of mileage if they could have talked to the Public Service Alliance and got about 200 people, I am told, to stay at work. You would have had grain flowing through ports. It would have made jobs for other people. Admittedly, even at very low prices, $2 a bushel is not a lot of money for a bushel of grain, but at least the grain would have kept moving.
What I simply wanted to point out is that when the opposition gets up and talks about the fat cats and the fact that we are damaging people who can least afford to be damaged, that the Public Service Alliance is doing

Government Orders
precisely that. By stopping fanners and keeping people from going to work whose salary is largely paid for by fanners, what useful purpose does that serve?
I am told that in Winnipeg today it was not the people who work for the Canadian Grain Commission that were in front of the building picketing, it was largely people from other federal government operations in Winnipeg. A lot of people there prevented some of the grain commission people from going to work. I find this very unfortunate.
What I am suggesting is that if we want to practice what we preach and to help people keep selling into a market when they are suffering some pretty severe economic problems, I would suggest that no matter how much anyone who works for the Public Service is paid, it would have been much better for everybody to see that these people kept going to work and to take the Public Service Alliance people who are striking, as far as the grain commission, away from the picket lines and let the grain keep moving.
I simply want to point that out again to the opposition that there are ways to make your point as far as the strike is concerned without damaging people that are already being severely damaged by circumstances beyond their control.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate. I want to say to the former speaker who just finished speaking that the minister should have mediated. If the government was so proud of the things that it has to offer the public servants, go to mediation and let an independent, impartial person listen to those kinds of disputes, not pit farmers against workers and workers against farmers and pensioners against pensioners. It tried to take away the farmers' help that is required. It divides and conquers and brings about that kind of confrontation. It is a matter of trust and no one trusts this government to bring about the kind of policies that are required.
It had to bring about this legislation and say that it wants to do away with the deficit because of it and the very people it is are going to use to try to implement those policies are the very workers that it wants to be able to bring about those changes. It is going to deny them the right to be able to deal with its problems.
Tomorrow, in front of these buildings we are going to see a demonstration. They are already starting to put up the barricades in front of this building and the government says Daryl Bean is to blame.
There were 20,000 protesters out here two weeks ago. Our House leader brought about some kind of conciliatory report to bring you two together, and the government failed. It failed the workers.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 10 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, September 17, 1991, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Bill C-29 at third reading stage.
The question is on the motion by Mr. Loiselle. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 10.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow, at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 2,1991