1991-09-16

Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, this government said that the recession is over. I would like to know: over for whom? Not for constituents in Northumberland, not for farmers across this land, not for fishermen, not for industry, small businesses, not for consumers. Very importantly, not for Canada's voiceless one million children living in poverty.
Poverty denies children and their families access to basic rights, access to food, clothing and adequate shelter. Childhood poverty translates into poor physical health, emotional trauma, poor educational achievements, early school drop-outs, and ultimately unskilled, uneducated, costly social assistance statistics.
Children in Canada and around the world deserve that basic rights be met. On September 30 last year our Prime Minister was co-chairman of the United Nations Summit for Children in New York which called for ratification of
a UN convention on the rights of the child. To date, 86 countries have ratified. Canada has not.
Ratification of the convention is an essential first step in fulfilling-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, farmers will receive $1 billion less in income this year than they did last year. The solution of the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds is to tell farmers to dump a load of grain on the parking lots of European car dealerships and not to buy their products. The minister is apparently oblivious to the fact that farmers are not buying Mercedes-Benzes or BMWs these days.
Not only in western Canada but in Ontario as well thousands of producers are on the verge of losing a livelihood that took generations to build. Farm organizations from one end of the country to the other have been pointing out the need for a third line of defence payment. Why is the government ignoring its own program?
By the way, where are all the other programs that the PC government was going to introduce as part of the Growing Together paper it presented back in 1989?
Yes, the Europeans are causing problems for Canadian farmers, and yes, the Americans are causing problems for Canadian farmers.
If, however, the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds really wants to know the biggest problem Canadian farmers have today, he need only look in the mirror.


THE SENATE
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that all Canadians can agree on, it is the need for Senate reform. What we cannot agree on is how to do it.

September 16, 1991
The 1979 Pepin-Robarts commission recommended that the Senate be replaced by a Council of Confederation, made up of delegations appointed by provincial governments based on representation by population. But a great many Canadians want a Triple-E Senate, one that is elected, equal, and effective.
Australia has a Triple-E senate as part of its federal parliamentary system of government. In Australia it works, not always smoothly and efficiently, but decisions are made and actions are taken.
Critics say that the Australian senate interferes with the government's right to govern, that is the cabinet's absolute control of the legislative process. Frankly, that may not be such a bad idea.


NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE INTEGRATION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to draw the attention of the House to the National Strategy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities, which was adopted recently. As you know, the strategy was announced by the Prime Minister in Winnipeg on September 6.
Today, 3.3 million Canadians have a disability, and visible or not, the disability is very real for the person concerned.
These Canadians are not asking for special privileges. They are merely asking for equality.
Firmly resolved to respond to these legitimate concerns, the federal government has promised to spend $158 million to support this national strategy and its three objectives: equal access, economic integration and full participation.
The federal government wants to make it possible for persons with disabilities to take an active part in the economic and social life of this country.
Mr. Speaker, together we can build a Canada where all citizens will have-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


ANTI-DRUG ENFORCEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very upset and frustrated about the GST, income taxes, unemployment and drug use. In metro Toronto the issue of drug use is of concern to parents in almost every neighbourhood.
This problem must be tackled through the education of youth and through effective police enforcement programs. The federal government has been asked repeatedly by Toronto metro council and metro police commission that part of the money the metro police force uses in pursuing drug investigations, and a share of the value of property and proceeds confiscated by the RCMP, be returned to metro authorities to be spent on education, crime prevention, rehabilitation programs and anti-drug enforcement activities.
Once again we urge the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to support the fight against drugs on the streets and in the schools by acceding to these very reasonable requests.


THE DISABLED
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in June 1990 an all-party committee of this House under the capable chairmanship of the hon. member for Oxford tabled a report called A Consensus For Action. The report outlined barriers that prevent the full participation of Canadians with disabilities in the daily life of our country. I was frankly cynical as to whether anything substantive would come from the report and its recommendations.
Accordingly, I was delighted and would like to commend the Prime Minister and the government for their important announcement of the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the strategy includes a tangible commitment of $158 million.
Canadians with disabilities are not asking for special privileges. They merely ask for equitable treatment and the same opportunity and access to fulfil their lives and to make their contribution to Canada as are enjoyed by other Canadians.
September 16, 1991

This government's announcement and its strategy is one more important step in this direction.


FISHERIES
Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to publicly thank the Public Service Alliance of Canada and its members for agreeing to work behind their own picket lines in order to participate in the B.C. Salmon Hatchery Egg Take Program.
This action has saved a precious and valuable resource from certain extinction in areas around the 17 major hatcheries in British Columbia.
The Conservative government was prepared to see the west coast salmon resource go down the drain with everything else it has touched in this country. Thanks to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which put the interests of the public and future generations first, this valuable resource has been saved. Thanks to the Public Service Alliance of Canada and its members, this is one precious resource that will not be destroyed by the Mulroney government.


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry is once again suffering. This time it is not an act of God but the actions of the grain handlers and the longshoremen's union. The grain handlers have chosen to support the Public Service strike, thus disrupting the very industry that feeds them and their families.
This type of action cannot be condoned or tolerated. Agriculture is essential to the economic prosperity of this country and should be declared accordingly. Legislation must be put in place to secure the well-being of the agri-food industry.


EDUCATION
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, the thousands of college and university students returning to school this month have little to cheer about. Many failed to secure work this summer in Canada's depressed economy. Now the neediest of these students, those who have applied for
financial assistance through the Canada Student Loans Program, realize as they go to cash their cheques that they must pay up front 3 per cent of their assistance as an administration fee.
Shame on this federal government. Not only has it made post-secondary education more expensive and exclusive through its cuts to education transfers, but now it purports to tax one of the most important programs that help our youth pay these soaring costs.
To add yet another obstacle to accessible education, this government has chosen to close its campus employment centres, thus eliminating another important avenue for paying for an education, a job.
Mr. Speaker, when will this government stop starving and start investing in education in this country?


LEADER OF THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the strike by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois has remained silent. The reason is this: On May 24, 1991, in Le Soleil, Mr. Denis Gagne, a member of the teachers' union in Chicoutimi, reported the following: "In 1982-83, Lucien Bouchard represented the PQ government on the employer's side during negotiations with the public and semi-public sector".
According to Mr. Gagne, in addition to his income from his law firm in Chicoutimi, Mr. Bouchard was paid more than $250,000 by the Quebec government to introduce a 20 per cent cut in the salaries of teachers, nurses and all social sector employees in Quebec.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of striking public servants came to Parliament Hill today. When they left an hour later, the lawns of this public building were a sea of trash-placards deliberately shredded into small pieces and ground into the grass.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a big deal, but it is symbolic and it is very distressing. I do not know what goal the union bosses, egged on by the Leader of the NDP, were trying to accomplish through this eco-violence, but for those Canadians who travelled here to see their Parliament Buildings, this was a disgrace. Surely the strikers do not have an argument with the lawn of the House of Commons. If the union's friends in the NDP cannot teach them to respect Parliament, at least they can tell them it is wrong to wantonly harm the environment.



Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the first general strike in the Public Service in Canada's history is the result of the unfair and dictatorial tactics of this government.
By suspending collective bargaining and refusing to negotiate equitable wage conditions, the Conservative government has destroyed the co-operation that must exist between public service management and employees if essential services are to be provided to the Canadian public.

In the National Capital Region, the economic effects of this strike are being felt in the business community. Local television news broadcasts reported that my riding of Carleton-Gloucester was suffering severely from the negative effects of the loss of the revenue normally generated by public servants.
I call upon the government to act with fairness by respecting the fundamental right of its employees to a fair and just contract.



Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Alliance of Canada has taken extraordinary steps to promote its cause. In my riding, the union hierarchy has resorted to bringing in professional agitators and union extremists to take the place of local PSAC members who refuse to walk the line.
If they had a choice, they would prefer not to strike. This is not peculiar to my riding, it is happening across
the country. The use of professional agitators and extremists to enforce a picket only brings the reputation of the labour movement into disrepute.
I call upon the PSAC to refrain from this type of tactic.


PAY EQUITY
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, in 1977 the Liberals brought in pay equity legislation, but they never moved on it. In the 1984 throne speech, this government promised pay equity for its underpaid women workers. During the 1988 leaders' debate, the Prime Minister said: "We are agreeing on a policy for pay equity for women. We are budgeting for the funds required on an ongoing basis."
Now the government sings a different tune. The Tories are saying no deal to women working for $19,000 a year. They have tried twice to stop the Canadian Human Rights Commission from looking at pay equity in the Public Service. The Human Rights Commissioner has said that the government is not playing fair on pay equity. Shame on this government, Mr. Speaker. Where are those funds that were budgeted? Why have cabinet ministers and their friends received increases and not women workers at the lower end of the economic pay scale?


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York- Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all hon. members, I want to offer congratulations to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on his being honoured this morning for his work on behalf of Canadian veterans and their families.
The National Council of Veterans Associations this morning presented the minister with its prestigious medal of service. Also this morning, the national vicepresident of the Korean Veterans Association presented the Minister of Veterans Affairs with an honorary life membership. In presenting the medal of service Cliff Chadderton, the chairman of the National Council, said: "Geriy Merrithew is not only a good Minister of Veterans Affairs, he has shown himself as well to be a great Canadian and must be given credit for the current efforts being made by veterans' organizations to preserve our national unity".
September 16, 1991

Canada's programs for veterans are second to none. The same can be said for the minister who leads and directs those programs.


UKRAINIAN CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, September 7 marked an historic milestone in Canada's history. One hundred years ago, Wasyl Eleniak and Ivan Pylipiw entered Canada and were the first of the Ukrainian immigrants to settle in the prairies to link our country from sea to sea.
These pioneers struggled against disease, poverty, climate and social indignities. They fought hard, persevered and succeeded. In the years that followed their community has given Canada successful farmers, educators, entrepreneurs, mayors, MLAs, members of Parliament and the Senate, a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and a Governor General.
Such is the success of the Ukrainian community that immigrants and new citizens of today look at their story of struggle and success as a model to follow.
It has been said that Canada's true wealth stems from its citizens. Let it also be said that all Canadians are proud of the Ukrainian presence in its citizenry. Indeed the Ukrainian Canadian centennial is about all of us. I therefore urge Parliament and this government to continue to give attention to this year-long celebration, not only in the interest of cultural equality but also for the sake of national unity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are back in Parliament. We would like to have started in an easier fashion because this country needs some order, but unfortunately, there is a terrible strike that nobody wants, including the strikers.
A few minutes ago the Public Service Staff Relations Board-I talked with the president and it was confirmed to me-ruled that this government is not respecting the
Oral Questions
law of the land and is in breach of section 51 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing at this moment, follow the law of the land, go back to the negotiation table and try to find a solution to this unfair situation that exists today whereby the poorest in the Public Service are receiving a zero increase in their pay when people in the higher echelons are getting a big pay increase?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to rest once and for all the notion that higher civil servants are supposed to be getting treatment that others will not get. This is not the truth. This is not a fact.
The civil servant upper echelon managers will all go through the same system of zero, three and three, as you will be going through and as we will be going through.
As a matter of fact, we negotiated a settlement for our managers from June 1990 to June 1991. A commission set up by the Liberal Party recommended 6.2 per cent. I refused it for last year. I settled for 4.2, which is less than what PS AC got. As of June this year they were already at zero increase.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that we want to find a solution and that we want to start this session in an orderly fashion, since it will be a very important one for Canada. That being said, perhaps the government could start this session by respecting the laws of this country. A few minutes ago, a federal board, established by an Act of Parliament, said that this government had violated Section 51. Does the minister intend to observe the laws of this country and go back to the bargaining table to find a way to resolve this dispute?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Public Service Staff Relations Board answered two questions from the union. The first question was: Did the government-and I am quoting the union-bargain in bad faith? The Board did not agree. However, it did say that in its opinion, we probably should have made every reasonable effort to reach an agreement.

Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of the fact that we have been negotiating with the Public Service Alliance of Canada for seven months, and that, give or take a few hours, we have had 60 days of bargaining and 30 days of conciliation. I had a meeting with Mr. Bean Friday morning, and he said he would never accept the government's policy. We were prepared to negotiate all terms of the collective agreement, except for the budgetary policy related 0-3, and he refused.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this land understands that the intention of this government was to have a strike. It has been working all this time to make sure there is a strike which will serve its political purposes.
I want to ask the minister if he will do the right thing. The people of Canada are suffering today. They want an end to this strike. A very easy way to solve this problem is to appoint a mediator who will have the right to look at all the problems. The public servants will go back to work and we will have peace in this country. Then we will be able to deal with the other fantastic problems of this nation.


Gilles Loiselle: I see that the Leader of the Opposition has another miracle solution. I do not know if it is the same as the one he had yesterday which was rejected by the unions.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, at budget time we made many difficult decisions. One was related to the union. This is not union bashing because many unions have accepted the 0-3 and have signed agreements with us. We have negotiated in good faith. We have conciliation board reports recommending acceptance.
What we wanted to do at budget time and we are doing today is making sure that the debt does not go up and the deficit does not go up, but that interest rates go down and inflation goes down, and it is working, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this government has dealt in bad faith with seniors, with the unemployed, with students, with farmers and fishermen and now it is dealing in bad faith with its own employees.
Canadians understand what good faith means. When is this government going to recognize that it is in violation of the law of this Parliament? What is it going to do to put itself in conformity with the law as every other Canadian citizen has to do?


An hon. member:: Respect the law.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, of course we respect the law. I will look at the report which was handed to me just before Question Period.
I will say this. The best way to provide for a secure future for our public servants and for all Canadians is to be really helpful and not to go about making statements such as that we are determined to hit the unions or to hit the Public Service. This is not true at all. We are determined to help them by getting the finances of this country in order and out of the mess that existed when your party was in power and we are having some success. Would they prefer the Liberal way with interest rates of 22 per cent and with inflation at 14 per cent? I think they prefer our answer to those questions.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Canadians understand belt-tightening, they understand fairness and they also understand obeying the law, which 99 per cent of them do. The board has clearly found this government in violation of the law of Parliament. I ask again, what will the government do to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate fairly, in accordance with the law, and stop the turmoil it has caused in this country?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to tell the hon. member that I am ready to meet with Daryl Bean any time he wants-this afternoon, if he so chooses. But I want it to be very clear that we are not moving from the zero and three, but we are prepared to-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Loiselle: This is not something new. It was in the budget. If the Liberals are so worried about the legislated wage freeze, what did they say about the premier of New Brunswick-your province, Mr. Leader of the Opposition-when he legislated a freeze of 0 per cent?

We are going through a difficult period. We are making decisions, we are not passing them on to our children.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, because it seems clear from the minister's answers that he does not understand the difference between negotiating and dictating.
Independent conciliation boards have said that this government must bargain in good faith and has not been doing so. The Staff Relations Board again this afternoon made the same judgment and said the government was not complying with section 51 of the act. There is only one group in this dispute which is acting in good faith and that is the Public Service Alliance, which today said that to show good faith they would take down the pickets at airports and they would expedite border crossings.
Will the Prime Minister show good faith and instruct his government's negotiators to sit down now with public servants who do so much good work for this country, negotiate in good faith and negotiate on the terms of the contract on which they are entitled to negotiate.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, to negotiate in good faith one has to take account of the reality of life.
Would the Leader of the NDP propose that I use the Daryl Bean solution? When he was faced with similar problems a few months ago he said: "I understand that my staff members are a little bitter and frustrated, but these are tough times", and he proceeded to close 20 positions.
I prefer to keep our civil servants and to give them an offer which on the whole is reasonable.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, public servants know perfectly well what is happening. This year, for instance, a speech writer working for one of the government's ministers was paid nearly $24,000 for five weeks of work. Meanwhile, some 5,000 public service employees, most of them women, earn about $20,000 a year, for 52 weeks.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Everyone says that wage equity is a matter of simple justice.
Oral Questions
Why won't this government do the right thing now for women, for the most disadvantaged members of the Public Service?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party mentioned the problems experienced by public servants in this situation, and as someone who has been a public servant for much of his life, I must say I understand the problem.
However, I think they also realize what the situation is and that today, in all sectors, collective agreements are being renegotiated. What about Canadian Airlines and Air Canada? We are going through a difficult period, and these are the people who will have to pay, with their salaries.
I understand why public servants are upset. They deserve to get a lot more. But that being said, as far as equity is concerned, it is a very serious problem and we are constantly looking for ways to improve the situation in this country.
I think the Leader of the NDP could at least acknowledge the initiative taken by this government in 1990 to set aside $317 million to bring wages to equitable levels, and that same government is adding $87 million annually. I think that is quite something, considering the present financial situation. I agree there is room for improvement, and we are prepared to make those improvements.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like the people of Canada to understand that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which said that this government must institute pay equity, is being taken to court and challenged by this government about pay equity. The people of Canada and the women of Canada understand that.
We have a situation here where senior management, senior civil servants and indeed members of Parliament are receiving salary increases. We see the head of the Bank of Canada receiving a substantial increase. We have received a substantial increase this year.

Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party to put her question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I want to simply ask the Prime Minister a question.
On one hand, we do have those who are the most privileged in our society receiving salary increases. On the other hand, we have people who are working for the Public Service, such as single parents, women, still making $20,000 a year. This government says no to them. Is this right? Or is this wrong?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not right and it is certainly not true.
I will repeat again that the senior managers of the Canadian government, the ministers, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the members of Parliament will all receive when the time comes at the first of December, zero per cent for the following year. They will receive 3 per cent the year after and 3 per cent the year after that.
Members of Parliament will not get an increase before January 1, 1933.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Loiselle: With regard to the managers, the year starts in June. The Alliance got 4.8 per cent and the managers got 4.2 per cent for last year. Since June, they are at zero per cent increase.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Loiselle: I wish the leader would get her facts straight.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, if it is 1933, maybe the minister will make it retroactive.
I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries who has had in his hot little hands for two months now a report stating in graphic detail that the Newfoundland inshore fishery is in absolute total collapse.
For example, 8,200 fishermen and plant workers on the northeast coast alone, including some in his riding, will not qualify this year for UI although all of them qualified last year.
Is the minister now ready to act on the recommendations in that report and bring in an aid package for those fishermen and plant workers, or some sort of a catch failure program?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the fishery along the northeast coast of Newfoundland and along the coast of Labrador has been extremely poor this year due, one has to assume, to very late ice conditions, cold and sloppy water and to the fact that as a result of that the codfish and the capelin have not come in as they normally do.
There has been an absolute, total collapse in certain areas such as for example the fishery in Labrador. It would not be true to say that there has been an absolute total collapse of the inshore fishery in Newfoundland this year, but there is a serious situation with respect to the northeast coast.
It is likely that the amount of inshore cod caught along that coast this year might only be 50 per cent of what it was last year. We do have a serious situation. This has been under assessment now for some weeks. We are considering with the provincial government-


An hon. member:: Answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: If this is unimportant to the hon. gentleman opposite, I can sit down. We have been consult' with the Government of Newfoundland and wit. me industry there for some time. We will be bringing forward proposals when they are ready.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister it is due to ice and sloppy water, but I think he might agree it is due to some fairly sloppy government as well.
These fishermen and these plant workers, as he knows, have no fish, no money, and what is now painfully obvious is that they have nobody in the cabinet prepared to argue, to plead the urgency of their particular case.
Why is the minister dragging his feet on this? Why does he not take off that St. John's fish merchants hat and go to bat for those people who are really hurting out there and who, contrary to what he says, are caught in situation of total collapse in the fishery? He should check his figures because they are much more dramatic than he would admit in this House.
September 16, 1991


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it up to the viewing audience to judge the grossness of this rhetoric, but I would just point out that when the fishermen along this coast needed assistance from May and, in fact, well up in August with respect to the fact they could not fish because of ice, I arranged a nice compensation program that has put $18 million into their hands during that period.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who knows that farmers right across this country, grain and oilseeds, horticulture producers, are facing the worst financial crisis in a generation because the government has not provided emergency transitional funding for the losses in last year's crop.
I want to ask the minister when this government is going to act. When are they going to provide this assistance in view of the tremendous disaster facing Canadian producers this summer.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, assistance provided by the Government of Canada and the provincial governments last year was assistance to bring us forward to this time where the safety net programs, both GRIP and NISA, could be put in place.
I remind the hon. member that both GRIP and NISA were designed by farm groups, by provincial governments, and by the Government of Canada. It was at the request of the farmers and their organizations that there be a very specific support system in place. That is what we have at this time, and as we proceed with the interim payments on GRIP, and with the NISA payments that are going out at this time, the producers will receive the support that the hon. member is asking for. These programs were designed in co-operation with producers.
I understand this is a difficult time, but as the cash flow of some $2 billion from these safety net programs enters
Oral Questions
the farmers' hands, they will find that it has been this government and the provincial governments that have come to their support in this time of low prices.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that his own third line of defence emergency committee rejected that solution two weeks ago in Winnipeg. They told him and asked him to provide emergency assistance, third line of defence based on the losses that occurred in the past crop year.
I want' to ask the minister when he is going to recognize that they have made a mistake and that they have to bring forth emergency assistance for those losses as soon as possible.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should recognize is that the Farm Support and Adjustment Measures, FSAM, that were put in place this summer totalled over $650 million. Those support systems were put in place to bridge farmers into the safety nets for the 1991 crop. Farmers are now concluding this crop. They will then be able to apply under the GRIP and NISA programs.
I say to the hon. member with all sincerity that if he wishes to support the grains and oilseed sector, if he wishes to support the cattle industry and other important agriculture sectors, he will support this government in getting the grain moving, opening up the packing plants, allowing producers access to a market that is being denied because of the PSAC strike.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who surely knows that we can deliver all the $2 wheat we like and we will never get ourselves out of the hole that farmers are in as a result of last year's shortfall of income. It is that last year's shortfall of more than $1 billion that is not being addressed by this government. GRIP and NISA address this coming year. They cannot carry that deficit into a year with $2 wheat which has less purchasing power than was ever the case in the history of recorded wheat prices.
What happened to the third line of defence payment? What became of the third line of defence? It was promised throughout the negotiations all of last year and it has disappeared. What happened to it?

September 16, 1991
Oral Questions


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member or at least I really believe the hon. member is not saying that the some $650 million that was put forward on the third line of defence to bring the grains and oilseed producers over into the safety nets of GRIP and NISA is nothing.


An hon. member:: That is not enough.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: One member from the Liberal Party says that is not enough. I understand that it is difficult at this time, but I remind colleagues that the third line of defence committee met in September in Winnipeg, addressed this issue and recognized that the very system the hon. member is criticizing is a system that was identified by producers, the provincial government and the Government of Canada to assist grains and oilseeds producers through this very difficult time, until stabilization through GRIP and NISA can be achieved.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recognize that throughout the negotiations it was understood by all of the negotiating parties that third line of defence would apply for those periods of time when GRIP and NISA were not in effect, which is namely the crop year that has just finished.
When is the government going to make the third line of defence an effective program, rather than introducing red herrings such as was produced in April which reduced the premiums that were expenses farmers did not have before GRIP and NISA were introduced? When will it address the real problem of a shortfall of $1 billion?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as part of the assistance through this bridging process there was assistance provided by the Government of Canada on the premium of 25 per cent for the gross revenue insurance program.
If the hon. member is saying that the 25 per cent of that premium being paid by the people of Canada is not of any benefit, I think producers would object to that.
If the hon. member is saying that the total contribution that the federal government is making through NISA to producers who are claiming assistance under NISA at this time is not of benefit then I am sorry. There are over $650 million for last year being put at the disposal of
producers, plus this year there will be some $2 billion to producers for the 1991 crop.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member through you that he may object to the price of $2 for wheat. I object to it also, but I do ask him to take a look at producers who have grain on the ground, the bins that are overflowing, and ask him for his help along with his colleagues so that we can move grain and so that producers are able to take advantage.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture.
We have a crisis on Canadian farms. These are the people who produce food for Canadians. A standing committee of this House recognized that crisis in late August and unanimously passed a motion calling upon the government to provide, on an emergency basis now, aid to Canadian farmers in order to help them survive this year.
I remind the House that this was a unanimous decision and motion. What is going to be done? Nothing has been done yet.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague that although there may be differences as to the amount of dollars provided, I think all members of this House recognize the assistance that has been put in place at this difficult time.
Members on the government side and members in the opposition benches understand that it is a difficult time in the agriculture community, not just in the grains and oilseeds industry. Specifically, with the grains and oilseeds producers we have provided as a bridging mechanism some $650 million last year. That includes cash advances and NISA, which producers at this time may collect. There is even an opportunity for provinces to add additional funds to those NISA accounts and some provinces have taken advantage of that.
I refer the hon. member to the $2 billion. When NISA starts to flow between September and December, there will be some $337 million flow under NISA. In the first interim under GRIP there will be approximately $406 million. There will be another interim under GRIP of-
September 16, 1991

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry. I must ask the hon. minister to shorten his answers.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental question is to the same minister.
I want to remind the House that the crisis is now. The financial crisis is also causing a psychological and emotional problem in Canadian farm families in homes across this nation.
I would like to ask the minister what the government is doing to provide support and guidance to Canadian farm families while they are trying to exist on a day-to-day basis.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the assistance has been put forward not just by the Government of Canada, but in co-operation with our partners in the agricultural industry, the provinces and the producers themselves.
The hon. member must recognize that the programs that have been designed over the last six to eight months to assist producers have been designed with the co-operation of farmers, the other partners in the industry, the provincial governments, and any further discussion such as will take place by the third line of defence in October will involve consultation with those partners.
I ask the hon. member, if he is talking about psychological damage, to think of the grain producers in western Canada with grain on the ground, his inability to deliver the product that he has worked hard to grow because some hon. members believe that he should not have that ability and support a union in their demand for $2 billion tax dollars from the Government of Canada.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Need I remind him that Canadians are still waiting for his government's proposal to resolve the constitutional impasse. Yesterday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that there was still no consensus on this issue within Cabinet. My question for the Prime Minister is very simple: Is there a Cabinet crisis, yes or no? When will we have the government's proposal to break the constitutional deadlock?


An hon. member:: There is no crisis!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Unfortunately for my friend from Papineau-Saint-Michel, there is no crisis. On the contrary, everything is going well. In the near future, as agreed, we will table constitutional proposals, and I know, or at least I hope, that we will have the support of all Canadians in developing a new Canada.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister give this House the assurance that his government will come forward with a comprehensive proposal spelling out the government's position and making it very clear that he will not abdicate his responsibility by asking a parliamentary committee to make the suggestion on which his own cabinet is unable to agree?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing forward very soon, as the Prime Minister said, specific proposals from this government to a committee where we hope those proposals will be improved by the committee and by the people of Canada.
We at least learned a lesson from the experience of Meech Lake and that lesson was, among other things, that we cannot shut the people of Canada out of the writing of their own Constitution.
We do not intend to shut the people of Canada out of the writing of their own Constitution. We will give them firm proposals. We will ask for their considered judgment and their improvement, and we hope that then together we can go forward to achieve progress that will change the constitutional nature of this country.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who knows that over the summer the United States Coast Guard illegally boarded and seized seven Canadian fishing vessels inside Canada in Dixon Entrance.

Oral Questions
Would the minister explain to Canadians why the government has refused to lay charges against those members of the United States military who illegally seized Canadian vessels and forcibly removed Canadian citizens from Canada to the United States?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the incident. We are also well aware of the situation within that area.
This government, as previous governments, has never ever recognized that those disputed waters belong to the United States. Those are sovereign Canadian waters. We protested publicly and strongly and we beefed up our own surveillance on the other coast as well.


James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Prime Minister.
I think it would be helpful for the Prime Minister to explain the policy to Canadians behind granting immunity from prosecution to members of the United States military who have committed indictable criminal offences in Canada this summer, while Canadian citizens legally fishing inside Canada are kidnapped, jailed and forced to pay ransom by the United States and are formally offered no assistance by Ottawa.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this matter is still under discussion with U.S. authorities and Canada will continue to be consistent in its approach to those waters.
In the meantime, since it is under discussion, I think it is probably inappropriate to comment further because those discussions are strong ones.


Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The agriculture industiy is presently experiencing a desperate financial situation. The government has put in place excellent safety net programs which will help agriculture in the future. However, many farmers cannot wait for the proceeds of these programs. They need assistance now.
Will the minister advise this House of any further steps he will take to alleviate the present situation facing our farmers?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is aware of the assistance that has been provided. Members from the opposition say they doubt it. I happen to know that the hon. member is very involved in her community and very involved in the agricultural sector and that her question is a serious one.
As I have said to other colleagues who have asked the question, there is at this time and there was last year in the Farm Support and Adjustment Measures program some $650 million made available. That was to bridge farmers into the safety nets of both GRIP and NISA. That means that over the next 12-month period there will be approximately $2 billion paid out to producers in those support systems.
What I do say to the hon. member and other colleagues is that the third line of defence committee, which is made up of provincial and industry men and women and the Government of Canada, is continuing to address and monitor what we are observing taking place around the world. However, I do know that she would agree with me that one way to change the outlook is for producers to have the ability to move grain to the market, and I hope she will do that.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Around August 28 or 29, Canada Post lost 1,600 old age security pension cheques for seniors who live in Val-d'Or. On your initiative, you had duplicates of these cheques printed on August 30 and on Saturday morning, August 31, with the letter carriers and postal workers of Val-d'Or, we were able to distribute these cheques to the seniors.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: Are you prepared, on behalf of the seniors of Quebec and Canada, to confirm to us today that their September pension cheques will be delivered to their homes before September 30 by Canadian letter carriers and postal workers, and not by Canada Post managers with their temporary offices? We have had enough of making old people wait in front of these offices for hours!
September 16, 1991

Oral Questions


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, the recipients of old age security pensions did indeed receive their August cheque and I have no indication at this time to believe that it will be otherwise in September. Therefore I think that everything should go normally, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton-Peel on a supplemental.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, during the recent postal dispute everybody lost-businesses, pensioners, the post office and its employees.


Mr. Speaker:: For a supplemental it is appropriate to put the question.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way to manage postal relations. Will the minister responsible for Canada Post now adopt a recommendation made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs that "in the event of a disruption in postal services Canada Post's exclusive privilege to deliver letters should be suspended for the period of the disruption".
Does the minister not agree that by removing both Canada Post's monopoly and the union's ability to hold people-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member I think has put the question.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, along with the overwhelming majority of Canadians, I share the hon. member's disgust at these postal strikes which occur with such regularity and the damage it does to the economy.
I think the question of examining the monopoly is well worth looking into, and indeed we might consider doing it on a permanent basis so that Canadians cannot be held for ransom the way they have been.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have stated on several occasions that the recession in Canada was over. Obviously, the government is turning a blind eye to the deplorable economic situation in the Montreal area.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: How can the Prime Minister say that the recession is over when housing starts in the Montreal area dropped 40 per cent during the month of August alone?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, according to the economic indicators, the recession has ended and economic recovery should be on its way.
Mr. Speaker, with his experience, the hon. member should know that it may be a matter of weeks and months before the cumulative effect of economic recovery can make itself felt, but I am confident that this will happen. We are analysing the situation through the Quebec regional economic development board. We are receiving an increasing number of requests for assistance, which means that businesses in the Montreal area are ready to get off to a fresh start.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that businesses in Montreal are recovering. What about Air Canada which two weeks ago laid off 911 employees, including 458 in Montreal? Today, Nationair laid off 180 employees, including 90 in Montreal.
Is that economic recovery?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, most economic studies have given a very good assessment of the situation in the air transportation industry in Canada. The phenomenon is not peculiar to Montreal but to the air transportation industry in general, not just in Canada but throughout the world, and especially in the United States where a number of large companies have disappeared.

Tributes
I strongly advise the hon. member to read these studies, and I am sure he will then understand the situation, Mr. Speaker.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
When federal support to education drops from 7.3 per cent in 1986 to 6.4 per cent in 1991, when Canada Employment Centres on campus are closed in spite of youth unemployment of close to 20 per cent, when the government imposes a new tax on Canada's student loans, why does the government continue to talk about a learning culture? When will the government stop its assault on Canadian students?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my hon. colleague opposite by saying that first of all I have met with the student bodies. We have discussed what the government is doing at the moment, and I have indicated very clearly that the program he mentioned, the Student Loan Program, is a program that is some 27 years old.
In early summer I asked my officials to conduct a thorough review of the program, which is very near completed, and we will be making an announcement in this House in the very near future as to how the government intends to continue helping students in need attain their educational goals.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister.
Thousand of students across Canada are protesting against the new 3 per cent tax on university and college student loans. Is the government, is the minister prepared to withdraw this unfair tax which prevents students irom continuing their education? Why is he once again taxing people who already have trouble making ends meet, Mr. Speaker?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in English, this program was introduced in 1964. This 27 years old program has never been reviewed. It has flaws and improvements are in order. That is what we are doing. In the weeks to come,
months at the most, we will be introducing in this House as new program to help students in need complete their education.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Treasury Board said earlier today that he would meet with the president of the Public Service Alliance this afternoon, but the president must understand that the minister is not moving from zero and three.
The ruling of the Public Service Staff Relations Board in its order says: "The insistence on conditions precedent to negotiations-"


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think it is necessary that the hon. member read the order. I would ask her to put her question.


Joy Langan: Is the minister saying that he is going to ignore this ruling of the Public Service Staff Relations Board?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, of course not.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise hon. members that there are at this time some tributes to be paid.


TRIBUTES
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very distinguished Canadian.
When Roland Michener died, every Canadian had reason to grieve. All of Roily Michener's adult life was spent in the service of the country that he loved so much.
He brought to public life the powerful virtues of dedication, selflessness and generosity. He will be remembered above all for his serenity and perhaps as well for his smile. I have no doubt that Canadian history will smile back at the legacy of this remarkable man who occupied the highest office in our land and was never happier than when he could meet with ordinary Canadians in their own communities and share their pride in being citizens of what is quite a marvellous country.
September 16, 1991

Some would say, though, that he was probably happiest jogging daily at 90 years of age and urging, by his example, an entire and sometimes reluctant nation to follow his route to good health and longevity.

Next year, we will celebrate our country's 125th anniversary. Canada, a vast and great country which inspires respect and envy all over the world. On that occasion, we will recall its glorious history as we look to an even brighter future. As we remember with emotion those men and women who have devoted their lives to making Canada a better place, no doubt many of us will think of Roland Michener.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had the great privilege of knowing Mr. Michener when he was Governor General and I was serving in this House.
He was a great public servant. He had a great personality and a great variety of topics to discuss and he was always very relaxed.
Later, when I quit politics for a few years, I shared many days with him because we were working in the same law firm. As the Prime Minister said, he was very relaxed and very philosophical about things and always cared a lot about what was going on in this country.
If we were all to be like him, putting forward our best for the good of the nation, the country would be much better. He was a great example of public service and what it is all about to be comfortable anywhere in Canada.
When he was the Governor General-

-he went to Quebec, and everybody recognized him immediatly. Particularly in the latter part of his life, with his sportsmanship, his fine figure and especially his concern for young people, urging them to stay in shape, he showed us how one can be a great Canadian who gained a great deal from serving his country, be it as a member of this House, as Governor General of Canada or as ambassador abroad. I hope that such an example will be an inspiration for the coming generations of Canadians.
Tributes


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to express my personal regrets and the regrets of my party at the passing this summer of the former Governor General and former Speaker of this House, Roland Michener.

Mr. Michener led a life we can all be proud of. After serving in this House as a member, he went on to become the Speaker of the House of Commons, Canadian ambassador to India and Governor General of Canada. He served his country well. He did so with unequalled dedication and enthousiasm.

Roland Michener was, to most of us, much more than a Rhodes scholar and admired House of Commons Speaker. The core of his character represented so much to us about what is good about Canada. His tolerance and his understanding, his sense of fairness and in fact his sense of humour were something that immediately attracted all Canadians and we too became part of that mission that he had on behalf of Canada.
Finally, I would like to say that Roland Michener led a very colourful and productive life. I am sure all of us hope that the values that he stood for and the love that he had for his country will live on in all of us.
THE LATE SENATOR AZELLUS DENIS [Translation]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, when the time comes to pay a final tribute to a man who gave 56 years of his life to politics, I realize that few of my fellow citizens meet the definition of "political" as clearly as Azellus Denis did.
It can be said that by practising for more than half a century a profession that he loved, he acquired virtues like realism, prudence and a certain wisdom that arose from this long experience. For if the scholar studies books, as Balzac said, the politician studies people, their interests and the causes that give rise to their actions. Shrewd, sensible, at times crafty, Senator Denis, who had been a member of Parliament for 28 years, was a real politician. Political institutions-organization, government and public affairs-had long ceased to hold secrets for him.

September 16, 1991
Tributes
I can even say that he was what is called a "political animal", that is, someone with all the talents and all the shrewdness required to work effectively as a zealous member of his party.
Allow me a few moments more for a career which will go down in the annals of the Commonwealth as-

-probably one of those who served the longest in the Commonwealth, 56 years: 28 as a member and 28 as a senator.

Under an often rough exterior, the man whom everyone affectionately called Azellus, sometimes with a hint of mockery, had a tender heart. Ele had a sense for friendship; he had the gift of keeping his friends. It is regrettable that he refused to write his memoirs, despite my many requests.
Fortunately, I remember very well our many meetings and discussions, from the first day I was his master of ceremonies in 1949.
Mr. Speaker, you can imagine what this politician, who knew the end of the Great Depression when he was first elected in 1935, who knew the Second World War, who knew conscription, who knew the glorious post-war years, who witnessed the establishment of NATO, would have had to say to us. He was always loyal to his party. He served Mackenzie King, of whom he spoke to us so often, and was elected with him in 1940 and 1945. In 1948 came the great and friendly Louis Saint-Laurent, reelected with him in 1949, 1953 and 1957. As he said, while his party was defeated, he was re-elected.
Then there was Lester B. Pearson, the fine and distinguished diplomat. He was re-elected with him in 1958, a very difficult year for us, and witnessed the end of the Diefenbaker regime in 1962 as well as the coming to power of Pearson in 1963. I am getting now to the most important part of his life. He, the man who understood the poor so well, was made Minister of Postal Services. No doubt the popularity he enjoyed at the time would have been of great help today. In 1964, he was appointed
to the Senate, where he sat ever since, and I had the privilege of taking over as member for his former riding.
Imagine how much I learned from him about the Duplessis era and the turbulent and exhilarating days of debate on the Quiet Revolution! He was a first class member of Parliament-and I am addressing those who are listening as well as those who should-great at representing his riding, always available to his people, to the little man and the less affluent members of society.
This is something we should reflect upon at this time, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that you did not have the opportunity of hearing him in caucus when he stood up for the needy in a style of his own, of course, and without all the usual media fanfare. He was a reserved, quiet and modest man of good advice on people and on things.
Someone wrote about on him, on the role he played in Rene Levesque's election in 1960.
Having been close to the action in those days, I can assure you that, had it not been for him and my late father, Rene Levesque would have never made it in 1960, and you can read about this in Rene Levesque's memoirs.
A man of wisdom with a colourful way of expressing himself, with his demise, another page of parliamentary history is turned. To his wife, my dear friend, Mrs. Eme Denis, I extend, on behalf of us all, my best wishes for a long life and the assurance that today we are with her in our prayers. Have no fear, honourable colleagues, Azellus was welcomed in Paradise by his many friends, always anxious to know what is going on down here, on this troubled earth and in this party he loved so dearly.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we were dismayed to hear that Senator Azellus Denis had passed away on Wednesday, September 4.
A great patriot and man of action, he served his province and his countiy well for over half a century in the humanitarian and social as well as the political sphere. He gave generously of his person and helped to make our society what it is today.
I therefore wish to join all our compatriots and the members of this House in offering his family and friends our sincere condolences.
September 16, 1991


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the hon. member for Saint-Denis and the Minister of National Defence in offering my sincere condolences to the family of Senator Denis.
I have had the privilege of sitting in this House for many years, and Senator Denis was in the Senate throughout that time. Like the hon. member for Saint-Denis, he was a true servant of the public. He was always available to his constituency. He was full of good advice for everyone, and my colleagues and I always enjoyed talking to Senator Denis because he would give us an entirely different perspective that was always very down to earth.
Often when you read editorials you tend to get carried away by new ideas, but the senator was fond of saving that what peaked today might be gone tomorrow. In fact, there was a lot of truth in what he said.
This gentleman, who spent 56 years in public life, was an example to us all and very hard worker. In conclusion,
I think all me'mbers would do well to remember, like the senator, that we are here because there are some people out there who put their trust in us.
I therefore wish to pay tribute to his memory and offer his family my sincere condolences.


THE LATE WILLIAM KEN ROBINSON
[Stage Direction]
I would like to speak about another person who passed away not long ago, who had been a member of Parliament, Mr. William Ken Robinson. He was in this House with us for many years and was another example of a person who decided to serve. All of his life he was involved in organizations that meant something to the grassroots, such as the Red Cross and organizations of this nature. Later, when he came to this Parliament, he was always trying to be a bridge between the different factions in this House. He was always involved in interparliamentary organizations, very often travelling abroad.
He was an anglophone who was extremely proud of the fact that he would participate in organizations of members of Parliament in the French language. For him it was a great contribution.
I had the privilege of working with him when he was my parliamentary secretary in 1980 when we were involved in the referendum and patriation of the Constitution. Whenever I felt the pressure, Ken was there
Tributes
giving me a good slap on the back and telling me to keep up the good work. He will be missed.
I see his wife and his two sons in the gallery. You have to be proud of your husband and your father. He was a great guy and we will miss him very much.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I too want to say how saddened we were when we learned last Wednesday of the passing of Senator Denis.
Senator Denis served in Parliament for more than half a century. He was elected before many of us were bom.
While I do not have knowledge of what happens inside the Liberal caucus, I do know from various comments that people have made over the years, that when discussions of a critical nature occurred, Senator Denis often stood back, but when he did speak, he spoke for the people. He spoke for the people of his constituency when he was a member of Parliament.
When we look at Senator Denis' record and acknowledge the fact that he was first elected in 1935, re-elected in 1940, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1962, 1963, you know that here was an individual who not only served his constituents well, but served his country well.
Mr. Speaker, our prayers and our sympathies go out to his fine wife.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (ShefFord):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add a few words, especially after what was said by our colleage from Saint-Denis. I know Senator Denis was his political mentor, and I also happen to know the Senator was an important factor in the political career of the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.
Personally, as someone who met Senator Denis, first as a ministerial assistant and later as a member of this House, I can testify to the fact that he was genuine. When we say French Canadian, with all that traditionally implies, Senator Denis was a real French Canadian. I heard him speak over the years, and what he said was always imbued with common sense. We have all had occasion to listen to his remarks, and today, with my colleagues, I wish to pay tribute to the senator and thank him for his words of wisdom and his advice were greatly appreciated.

September 16, 1991
Tributes
THE LATE WILLIAM KENNETH ROBINSON [English]


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it was with sadness that we learned about the passing of our former colleague, William Kenneth Robinson, former member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Ken Robinson suffered from a brain tumour and died at the Queensway General Hospital on July 25 when this House was not sitting.
As our leader has already said, he is survived by his wife Margery and his two sons, John and James, brothers Keith, Arthur, Norman and sisters Verna Tanner and Shirley Mathews.
Ken Robinson represented the Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding for 14 years, from 1968 to 1972 and again from 1974 to 1984. In 1984 his political career was cut short when, on the evening of his own nomination, he ended up in hospital.
Ken was a hard worker and liked the challenge. He talked to me a lot about his responsibilities as parliamentary secretary to four ministers, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, the Minister of State for Social Development, the Minister of National Revenue. He served conscientiously on two parliamentary standing committees, the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He was an active member on the international unions and associations, the Interparliamentary Union, known as IPU; the Canadian Native Parliamentary Union; the Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group; the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Ken received his law degree from Osgoode Hall and practised in his own law firm in Etobicoke as Queen's Counsel. I learned from his family today that Ken was a lifetime learner and just last year he received his doctorate in philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, if you check the Canadian Parliamentary Guide you will see that Mr. Robinson probably held the Guiness Book of World Records for belonging to various associations, societies and organizations. He served with the Royal Canadian Air Force and was a lieutenant-colonel in the reserves. He was honorary president of the St. John's Ambulance Association, a member of the Board of Governors of Queensway General Hospital Association. He was on the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council; president of the Canadian Tai Kwan Do Association; patron of the Canadian Field Hockey Association; chairman of the Gurkha Welfare Trust Canada.
Ken was also active in the Etobicoke-Queensway Lions Club, where memorial services will be held on October 11,1991 at 8 p.m. This memorial service is being organized by the residents of Etobicoke and West Toronto, again indicating their appreciation for what Ken did for his community and for the country.
Ken was a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 217; he was a member of the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society. He was also a member of the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, the Association of Corrections and Criminology, the Canadian Club, the UN Association in Canada, the Royal Commonwealth Society, the Canadian branch of Amnesty International, and that is just a bit of what is listed in the Canadian Parliamentary Guide.
Ken had a big heart. He was always ready to help others, whether it was helping others through his parliamentary role, his law profession, through the Liberal Party or through his day to day activities. Ken was a well-liked workaholic, putting in long hours and eight-day work weeks. It was not uncommon to see Ken in his office at 11 p.m. or midnight or even 1 o'clock in the morning. He will be missed by his family, colleagues in this House, his friends and, above all, his constituents. Ken represented his constituents for 14 years, the constituents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore.


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: I rise today on behalf of the members of this side to pay tribute to Colonel Ken Robinson. I might start by saying, sir, that the current member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mr. Patrick Boyer, wanted to be here specifically to do this himself but, like Wayne Gretzky, he has back problems this week and cannot be here. He sends his personal regrets and homage.
To know Ken was to know a very special guy. I had the privilege, sir, of knowing him in this House and outside this House. Not only did we spend four years here together in parliamentary service, but we served for many years on the councils both locally and nationally of the Royal Commonwealth Society, which is only one-as my colleague has indicated-of the dozens of important national institutions to which Ken gave unstintingly of his time and his energy.
September 16, 1991

To know Ken was to know one of the proudest Canadians one could ever meet. No Canadian, English or French speaking ever fought harder in the defence of his or her heritage. His record of public service and dedication will serve as a shining example to all of us.
On behalf of all the members on this side, sir, we extend our sincere condolences to his wife Margery, and his two sons, Jamie and John.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, I want to say how saddened we were when we heard the news on July 25 of the passing of Ken Robinson.
My colleagues in the House of Commons have commented on the wide range of ways in which Ken served his community and his country. In the Canadian Parliamentary Guide, Mr. Speaker, it goes on longer than almost any other parliamentarian, listing all of the ways Ken served his country.
I want to say, on a personal note, that I had the pleasure of serving in the House of Commons with Ken in the early 1980s and although we were from different political parties and I was a rookie member of Parliament, I remember many, many days spent discussing matters over cups of coffee as he informed me of the the ways that this House operated. I will be forever grateful for the generosity he showed me during those novice years as a parliamentarian.
Our hearts go out to an individual who served this country with distinction, who was an extremely hardworking parliamentarian on behalf of his party and the House of Commons and, in particular, on behalf of his constituents.
Our prayers and our thoughts today are with his wife Margery and his two sons Jamie and John.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute as well to Ken Robinson. He was elected in 1968, the same year that I was elected, along with 70 or 80 other new, fresh members at that time. I do not think there was anybody who brought a greater enthusiasm, interest or concern for their constituents to the House of Commons than Ken Robinson. He served in this place for some 14 years, up until 1980. He had a very distinguished career here in the House of Commons. He was a lawyer by profession. He served in the Royal
Tributes
Canadian Air Force. He was a member of an enviable list of community and city organizations from the constituency of Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
While here, as well, he served as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Minister of National Revenue.
The three points I would like to make is that Ken served his constituents very well, he was very concerned about his country and their well-being and that he was a good friend. He was a good friend to members long after he left the House of Commons. You would see him at caucus reunions and so on. He did not forget those people.
I know that many members of this House were shocked to learn this past weekend, who were not aware, that he had passed away in July of this past summer, after quite a lengthy illness.
I simply want to express to his wife Margery and to John and Jamie, our condolences especially from all members on this side of the House, but especially from those members of the class of 68 who were first elected to the House of Commons with him and enjoyed his friendship so much, his camaraderie and the good times we had together.


THE LATE GRACE MACINNIS
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege and honour today to speak on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada in honour of Mrs. Grace Maclnnis who passed away this summer at the age of 85 in Sechelt, British Columbia.
We understand that during her last years she suffered greatly from arthritis, but this physical affliction did not affect her in any way mentally. She was noted when she was a member of this House, as well as the provincial legislature, for her keen mind, the strong and well reasoned positions that she took on matters she felt were important to her.
As I mentioned, she served as an MLA in the provincial legislature from 1941 to 1945 for the riding of Vancouver-Burrard and served as the member of Parliament for Vancouver East from 1965 to 1972. This was a seat that her husband Angus had held previously from 1935 to 1957.

September 16, 1991
Tributes
I might add that my grandfather was a very strong advocate of the CCF party at that time and a good friend of the Maclnnises. Like Mr. Woodsworth, he would spend half his time preaching the gospel and half the time preaching the gospel of socialism.
Mrs. Maclnnis was elected as a member of Parliament from British Columbia. She was also the only woman member of Parliament when she was here in the House. She was involved in issues which were not popular at that time such as contraception and abortion. She took her stand and her position, for which I understand she was ridiculed roundly by her male colleagues. She also undertook a stand on the humane treatment for the Japanese internees during the war, again a position that was not popular.
As I said, she was a woman of keen intellect, great principles and determination. I am sure that she will be missed by all her friends and colleagues but she has left each one of us a pioneering legacy not only as Canadians but as parliamentarians. So we wish her survivors and her colleagues the best wishes that we possibly can at this sad time.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to pay tribute to Grace Maclnnis who died on July 17, 1991. Grace Maclnnis, the MP for Vancouver Kingsway from 1965 to 1972, was an outstanding Canadian. She was a charter member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation which was founded by her father, J. S. Woodsworth, in 1933.
As my colleague said, she represented Vancouver Burrard in Victoria from 1941 to 1945 and was the first woman from British Columbia to become a member of Parliament in 1965. She was married to Angus Maclnnis, who had earlier represented Vancouver East for 22 years, and she carried on his fight for redress for Japanese Canadians.
Grace Maclnnis represented all that is best in a politician and a member of Parliament. She had clear goals as a democratic socialist, a deep respect for people, and a dogged determination to fight for what she believed was right. She spoke eloquently about bread and butter issues that affected peoples' lives, encouraging people to organize and take collective action to solve problems and work for change.
She did not hesitate to speak her mind. She was bilingual and had a strong appreciation of Quebec's place in Canada.
I knew Grace personally best on the front lines of community action in the 1970s when she encouraged public housing tenants and mothers on welfare to organize and fight for their rights to child care, jobs, decent housing, and a say in decisions that affected their lives.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall how she brought their cause to Parliament and spoke up for them.
Women parliamentarians will appreciate that Grace Maclnnis had a lonely life as the only female member of Parliament in 1968. Despite the heckling from male colleagues who she once referred to as "MCPs", she continued to fight for birth control programs and the right to choice on abortion. She often said that all children should be wanted and loved and women should make their own decisions on medical matters. She advocated pay for parenting so women would not have to suffer the indignities of welfare and their essential work would be recognized.
After retirement, Grace continued her interest in people and Canada and in our party. Despite failing health, she was in demand as an inspirational speaker and she rarely refused an invitation. Painfully crippled with arthritis, she used to say: "I work fine from the neck up".
She continued to be an inspiration for aspiring politicians, including several of us in the House, and a role model for women across Canada. Above all, Grace Maclnnis cared for children and wanted a better world for future generations. She established the Lucie L. Woodsworth fund in memory of her mother to enrich the lives of disadvantaged children.
Grace Maclnnis will remain an inspiration to future generations for her pioneering efforts in the CCF-NDP, her integrity as a politician, her love of Canada, and her dedication to achieving a peaceful and caring world through social democracy.
On behalf of members of Parliament, I extend condolences to her family and friends in their loss. We also celebrate her rich life that has left a legacy for all of us.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
September 16, 1991


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to stand in this House today on behalf of the Liberal Party and pay tribute to the late Grace Maclnnis. She was a woman who bore a proud tradition and a proud heritage as the daughter of J. S. Woods-worth. She was also a woman who stood on her own and many times alone in this Chamber as a model for women and for politicians everywhere.
Earlier, in preparing this tribute, I spoke briefly with the hon. member for Windsor West who told me how well she handled a variety of critics positions while in this House and he particularly remembered her competence in being critic for consumer affairs when he was minister.
Mr. Speaker, it is something for women in this House to be able to look back 50 years, or 20 years, or even five years for models in all parties who have gone before those of us who work here today. Grace Maclnnis was a great role model for the women of Canada and, indeed, for all politicians, and she will stand as a shining beacon in Canadian history.


Mr. Brewin:: I am quite content to give way to my friend, formerly from Kingsway, who has seniority and also charm.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: I certainly have the seniority. I do not know about the charm.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as the former and last member for Vancouver Kingsway to add to the eloquent words that have been spoken in the House, especially by my colleague, the member for Vancouver East.
Grace Mclnnis affected all people. I heard about the role model for women in the House and I listened very intently to that. I just want to add a few words as to how she affected me.
She and her husband stood alone in Canada for the interests of the Japanese Canadians when they were interned during the war. Angus Mclnnis gave a speech in this House, I believe in 1944, where he was alone. Grace told me personally that when they stood up and spoke in Vancouver in those days, it was like going against a tidal wave of public opinion. It is usually easy to go with the flow, but it is pretty difficult and it takes a lot of courage when you have to buck public opinion and you have to do it on such a controversial issue. Grace had courage, determination, she had a lot of fight. We are going to miss her. Canada is going to miss her. This House will miss her. I miss her.
Privilege


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join with my colleagues in paying a word of tribute to Grace Mclnnis. She was a woman who made a profound contribution to Canada. She served in this House with my father, and I had an opportunity on many different occasions to personally see her in action.
Her father, J. S. Woodsworth, was perhaps one of the most influential leaders of his time in this country. Grace had an indomitable spirit. She passionately believed in democratic socialism, in social justice, in equality and freedom. She was a very, very important Canadian. She had courage, she had wisdom and she had grace. We will miss her. Her family will miss her.
If I could just conclude on a personal note. All of us have had our share of losses over the years and we know what her family and friends will be feeling. We share with them the grief they must feel and the celebration and joy in her life.


Mr. Speaker:: I must bring to the House's attention that I have several applications on privilege. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


PRIVILEGE
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this earliest reasonable opportunity as the House reconvenes today to rise and speak to the question of privilege raised by the member for Surrey North at 1500 hours on June 19, shortly before the House adjourned that evening for the summer. Unlike the said hon. member who failed to give me notice when he spoke at that time, due notice of my intention to now rise and respond has been given not only to the Chair but also to him.
To rationalize his claim that his personal privileges as a member of this House were breached, the member for Surrey North made three serious allegations to which I will respond point by point in this Chamber as well. First, he claimed that I prematurely released parts of the June 1991 first report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs and the Status of Women, henceforth entitled Health Care System in Canada and its Funding: No Easy Solutions, prior to it being tabled in this House later that afternoon at about 1700 hours.

Privilege
I would like to inform the House that I did not release any copy, in full or in part, of the aforementioned final report; in fact, I first saw the final report after it was tabled. Neither did I release, in whole or in part, any of the draft reports despite requests by a reporter for a copy. I did, however, discuss the central thrust and message of the report with a reporter when interviewed by phone. I have since noted in the media clipping of June 19 that four of eight recommendations out of the 40 in the final report had nearly the same wording as when finally reported.
I must call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the central thrust of the information I shared with the media has been in the public domain for quite some time, either as recommendations of the many witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on health and welfare since the study was initiated in the previous Parliament or as two interim reports by the committee, the first tabled in this House on September 13, 1988 and the second on June 18, 1990 of the present Parliament. These interim reports summarize "recurring themes in the briefs and testimony of witnesses".
Nevertheless, I have since realized that I might have exceeded my enthusiasm and might have shared with the public far more of the central themes than I would wish before its tabling in this House. For this, Mr. Speaker, I apologize in case I hurt this institution of Parliament.
Second, the member for Surrey North also alleged that I misrepresented the contents of the report when I told the press: "all parties have given their support to the report".
Third, he alleged that I knew the New Democratic Party and he did not support the majority report and that I knew he "had voted against the report" and therefore I misrepresented his position. These are simply not true. Conceivably the member could even use for his defence Appendix F. I will therefore speak to it very briefly.
Appendix F, subtitled Minority Report and seen on page 113 of the whole report clearly states in the second sentence of the opening paragraph:
While I would concur with many recommendations in the report,
I do dissent with the report in the following areas.
And he indicated the two areas he purported gave dissenting opinions. While Appendix F suggests absence of concurrence, even this claim on his part disappears under careful scrutiny.
I wish I could examine more fully for the House today his dissenting opinions and recommendations against recommendation nos. 1, 3, 12,17, 28,30, 37 and 39, which I have called to the attention of the Speaker when I gave notice that I would not go through that in the interest of time.
I would, however, just like to cite two short examples. In the minority report-and I must say I did not see that prior to its tabling-he indicated in recommendation 2: "That the federal government reaffirm its commitment to the guarantees in the Canada Health Act to Canadians for a health care system that is universal, accessible, comprehensive, portable and delivered by public and private means and free of user fees or extra billing, et cetera".
Recommendation 1 of the whole report states that the federal government, in co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments, develop a clearly stated national policy on health care that is consistent with the existing Canada Health Act. Those principles are stated in the Canada Health Act.
A second example indicates: "The other major weakness of the report is that it does not put enough emphasis on the responsibility of the federal government for health promotion, protection, disease prevention and medical research".
Recommendation No. 3 of the total report states that the federal government emphasize illness prevention and health promotion, and devote greater resources to education, information, et cetera.
I wish I could discuss this at length. I can assure all my colleagues that a careful reading of the report, particularly the above-noted parts, will show mainly differences in wording but concurrence in essence and substance. Perhaps we could have persuaded him to change his mind and issue a minority report, but since I did not see his minority report I could not have known what he wrote, his claim in it and his position.

Finally, I would like to present a crucial piece of evidence, the Minutes and Proceedings of June 12, at which time the member for Surrey North and myself among other members were in attendance. Page 122 of the report indicates concurrence and: "It was agreed that the draft report as amended be concurred in". That is in the proceedings of our committee. Shall I say the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies?
In conclusion, I would just like to say that it is sad for a member or a colleague to use an unfounded allegation against another. It becomes even more sad when a colleague uses unfounded allegation to breach House convention.
Allow me to quote what he said:
This misrepresentation of my position caused me embarrassment
and forced me in order to set the record straight to breach House
conventions and release my minority report at noon.
That was five hours before the report was released and three hours before he raised his question of privilege. He had ample time to raise his question and not breach House conventions. Is he telling the House that two wrongs would make a right?
I trust I have proven to the appreciation of this House that the serious allegations that the member for Surrey North did level against this hon. member speaking were unfounded and, should he wish to pursue his grievance further as to facts, I invite him to bring his case before the standing committee where the matter emanated and where it can properly and more fully be debated.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to just make three or four very brief responses. First, the member was given notice on June 19. His office was given notice on June 19 that I was going to raise the matter.
Second, if he will read what I said in the House on June 19,1 at no time accused him of leaking the report. It says clearly that the report was released prematurely. It made no reference as to who released the report.
Third, if he discussed it with the press-and as he said he went too far-that is on his own conscience. That has nothing to do with what I raised in the House.
Fourth, what I said is that he indicated that there was unanimous agreement with the report when he knew full well that I had voted in committee against recommenda-
Privilege
tion 1, that I had voted in committee for not concurring in the report and that his implying to the media that I supported the government and the Liberals in their unanimous agreement on the report caused me embarrassment and forced me to clarify the situation.
I think the hon. member should simply acknowledge that he discussed too much with the press too soon and that he misrepresented my position on that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter was first raised by the hon. member for Surrey North on June 19, 1991. At that time, as it seemed to be a matter emanating from a committee, I did not act on the representations that were given to me. Subsequently the hon. member for Winnipeg North, as the hon. members have heard, has taken issue with some of the things that were said on June 19 by the hon. member for Surrey North.
I have listened to both hon. members who have aired their grievance, but I think the better course to follow is to view those statements by both members as certainly conscientious on each member's part although there may be a difference of opinion between them as to the effect of the various things that took place at that time.
I think that both members have had a chance to explain their position to the House and I think that we should move on.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity that I have had to raise this matter of privilege. It arises from a June 5, 1991 press release from the Canadian Gas Association which I have provided to you. This press release was widely distributed and contains false statements about a committee of this House of which I am a member.
My privilege is partly a question of fact and partly a question of law. It is extremely serious for two reasons. First, the unanimous Standing Committee on the Environment report Out of Balance deals with global warming, an issue the committee concluded is a severe threat to Canada and to the world. Second, the statement contained on page 2 of the Canadian Gas Association press release that the standing committee "has come to agree with Canadian Gas Association statistics" is absolutely false and the Canadian Gas Association has failed to withdraw it despite contact by myself.

September 16, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The committee dealt at length with the discrepancy between statistics and chose on page 56 of our report to print both the World Resources Institute figures and the Canadian Gas Association figures with a recommendation for an urgent investigation of Canadian Gas Association data through an independent survey.
This is an extremely serious issue because the Canadian Gas Association claimed to be less than 10 per cent of anthropogenic emissions in Canada, whereas the World Resources Institute, even though it has since reduced its estimate, is listed in our report as being 30 per cent of emissions, methane being a very serious contributor.
I believe this is a question of privilege, and I therefore move that this matter be placed before the appropriate committee, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Election, for consideration.
Although, the chair of the committee is not present today, in his letter to me there is one paragraph that sums up the difficulty that all members of the committee have encountered in this situation regarding methane release. I quote from the letter of July 17 to me from the member for Rosedale, our committee chair:
From that letter the CGA wrote a draft press release and sent me a copy. I was greatly disturbed by the wording of the release and immediately contacted the CGA to voice my disapproval. They agreed to accept suggestions for changes and incorporated them into yet another draft release.
Again I voiced my disapproval with the very negative tone of the press release and the strong language used to to describe the negligence of the committee. I was so disturbed that I informed the association that I would surely go public with our own version of how the WRI data was used and why. It was sure to be very different from the CGA report.
One final note from the paragraph on the second page:
I tried to make it clear to the CGA that the committee's report report was not misleading as their release indicated, and that we nor the CGA were aware until our report came out that WRI had published a retraction on its figures.
I close with that. I believe it is a serious matter, because the CGA press release was widely distributed and there surely is not a more important issue on earth, short of all-out nuclear war, that deserves accurate, forthright information than global warming.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Skeena for bringing the details of this issue to my attention prior to today. I think I should say to hon. members that I have read very carefully the letter the hon. member quoted from the hon. for Rosedale who is the chairperson of the committee in question.
Clearly the hon. member for Skeena and also the chairperson of the committee, the hon. member for Rosedale, are concerned about what happened. The House has heard the facts, but I think the appropriate thing to do at this time is to raise the matter at the very earliest convenience at the committee. After that is done, I may be able to deal with the matter further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34.1,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at the Seventh Interparliamentary Conference on Co-operation and Security in Europe in Vienna, Austria, July 1 to July 3, 1991.


PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION ACT
Gilles Loiselle: for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an Act respecting compensation of the public sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
September 16, 1991
[Stage Direction]


Routine Proceedings COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to amend the National Defence Act and the Young Offenders Act in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice in reading the Order Paper that what you have just tabled is listed as government bill No. 2.
Government bill No. 1 is an act to increase the judges' salaries. I wonder if the ministry is proceeding with that bill today, because it is listed on the order paper.
Would the judges get zero, three and three or would they get big, fat salary increases?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that is a matter the hon. member might want to take up with the minister or the judges.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of a number of constituents. It draws to the attention of the House that a British Columbia firm has announced its intention to dam the North Thompson River at Vavenby, British Columbia, in an effort to divert water into the San Diego, California zone.
The petitioners remind us of the Nawapa plan, which is the plan to divert Canadian waters into the U.S. and northern Mexico. They are calling upon Parliament to urge the government to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed and diverted into the United States and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter and again on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, they point out that the federal government has refused to extend to public sector workers their full rights of collective bargaining. They say that the federal government wants to contract out jobs done by the public sector workers in flagrant violation of the law and existing collective agreement with its workers.
The petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to protect the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers and reject the imposition of wage controls and the further contracting out of jobs in the public sector.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition calling on Parliament to abolish the goods and services tax, which has had a devastating impact on the tourist industry in Vancouver Island.
Entrepreneurs on Vancouver Island feel that this odious tax has had a devastating impact on the local economy and on the tourist business. They humbly pray that the government will remove the goods and services tax as soon as possible in view of the harm it has caused Canadians in this area.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in Comox and Courtenay, British Columbia who are petitioning that during World War II Canada's merchant seamen made a critically important contribution to the defence of Canada and to the victory of the allied forces, that merchant seamen faced grave risks in carrying out their duties and many lost their lives or were seriously injured, that the risks undertaken and the value of the effort made by merchant seamen were equal to those of other Canadian forces.

September 16, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request that the Government of Canada at long last designate Canada's merchant seamen as veterans of World War II and accord them benefits as veterans of the regular forces.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. They call upon Parliament to support the NDP plan to restore VIA Rail service cut on January 15, 1990, to maintain and where appropriate upgrade remote services on which many Canadians rely, to provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail and to make available to VIA the resources which it needs to become a modern passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the western world.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the Melford area in Saskatchewan who are petitioning the government to continue with the 70/30 cost sharing ratio between the provincial and federal governments for the payment of RCMP services so that our national police force remains visible across the country.
They object to the federal government reducing its contribution to the RCMP and those policing costs in their rural areas.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I have with me petitions from people all across Canada from every province calling on the federal government, this Parliament, to protect the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers and reject the imposition of wage controls and the further contracting out of jobs.
The federal government wants to contract out jobs, the jobs [DOT] done by public sector workers, in flagrant violation of the law and existing collective agreements with the workers.
This petition calls on the government to turn that around.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, duty and privilege to present this House a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It is signed by close to 100 Canadians living in my riding in the constituency of Hamilton West and Hamilton East, on Hamilton Mountain and the government held ridings of Lincoln and Hamilton-Wentworth.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free, collective bargaining for Canadian workers.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to present three petitions. The first one is with respect to the goods and services tax.
The Canadians who have signed this petition point to the 34 tax increases, the devastating effect of the goods and services tax on low and middle income Canadians as well as on seniors, students and small businesses. They ask for a repeal of this tax.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from Canadians who talk about the $485 million cut to education, of the goods and services tax on books and other learning materials, on the 3 per cent tax on loans to students which just makes a mockery of competitiveness, learning culture and all of those buzz words that we hear. They ask for a fair share for Canadian students.


Ron J. Duhamel: Finally, I have a petition from Canadians who are alarmed that this government is not obeying the law as it treats with the Public Service of Canada.
They point out that senators, members of Parliament, heads of Crown corporations and others have received substantial increases, and they are angry that the poorest of the poor should be held to zero.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present this petition on behalf of my constituents of Kenora-Rainy River, specifically the communities of Ignace, Sioux Lookout, Sioux Narrows, constituents from Atikokan-Thunder Bay and some from St. Catharines and Halifax. It goes on and on and on.
These people of the great country called Canada would like to petition us in this place to ask the government to consider the imposition of this particular piece of legislation that we will be hearing about very shortly which in essence is going to take away the bargaining rights of many Canadians.

The question that has to be asked here is this: Are collective rights, the rights of individuals in bargaining, only acceptable during good times, yet when there are tough times ahead we can take the rights away from individuals?
The Conservative federal government is prepared to take away the bargaining rights of workers across Canada, threaten them with job losses when contracting out, interfere with conciliation and arbitration-


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that it is not a place to make a speech. Petitions are being presented. I am sure the hon. member will want to close off.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, maybe I missed this place so much, I have become long winded.


An hon. member:: Could you say you missed it?


Robert Daniel Nault: Some of us would say we missed it and some of us would say we did not.
In closing, I would ask the government across the way and all Canadians and members of Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for collective bargaining for individuals in Canada.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition signed by Canadians from all over Quebec and Ontario.
The petitioners are calling on the government to reinstate a national education standard in consultation with provincial governments, educational professionals, industry and labour, parents, volunteer organizations and individual Canadians.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 200 signatories.
The petition is from the cities of Windsor, Toronto and area, Nepean, Hamilton, Cornwall and Barrie, just to name a few. These people are most concerned that the federal government is prepared to take away the collective bargaining rights of workers across Canada, threaten
Routine Proceedings
them with job losses and contracting out, interfere with conciliation and arbitration, and legislate employees back to work.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for Canadian workers.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present to this House hundreds of names from workers in London, Ontario calling on this government to get back to the negotiating table and to negotiate in good faith rather than try to undermine the collective bargaining rights and systems in this country that served it so well.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of constituents in the riding of Kingston and the Islands.

These petitioners call upon Parliament to repeal those provisions of Bill C-21, the pernicious legislation dealing with unemployment insurance, so that all parents, whether biological or adopted, may receive the same paid leave to spend time with their new children.


Ms. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 650 people in my constituency who know how dependent the communities of Annapolis and Digby counties are on CFB Cornwallis.
They also know that CFB Cornwallis provides high quality and cost effective English new recruit training for our Canadian Armed Forces. They also want this House to be aware that CFB Cornwallis has the facilities to expand and meet the needs of national defence.
The petitioners call upon this House to see that CFB Cornwallis is maintained as an English new recruit training base and expanded to meet the needs of a Canadian defence policy.

September 16, 1991


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 106 signatories from east metropolitan Toronto, Markham and Durham region.
The petitioners take note of the disproportionate impact of new tax increases and inflation on low wage earners and call upon the government to reject the imposition of a wage freeze on the public sector and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for all Canadian workers.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions on the order paper.


An hon. member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Before getting to Government Orders, I have several applications for emergency debates. I will deal with them in order.


An hon. member:: What about Questions on the Order Paper?


Mr. Speaker:: The response indicated that there were no Questions on the Order Paper today.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Dixon Entrance is now such that there is a real potential for a life threatening incident. Canadian fishing vessels are being boarded by armed U.S. military personnel inside Canada. The vessels are being seized, on-board cargo stolen, Canadian crews are being threatened, assaulted, kidnapped and jailed and ransom payments are being demanded without trial.
This is not a matter that can be dealt with during any of the regular proceedings, as we learned during Question Period today. It is a genuine emergency because a Canadian vessel could be seized at any moment and a growing number of Canadian skippers have expressed the view that their vessels will not be boarded inside Canada by any U.S. authorities. Firearms are present and visible now on Canadian vessels and as I can personally attest, they are visible, present and shown by the U.S military vessels marauding along the A-B line.
This situation in terms of the vessels that were seized and boarded during July and August has not been dealt with by any of the ministers or any of the departments in
Canada. There have been no charges proceeded with or laid against the U.S. authorities for coming inside Canada and committing violations both found within the Criminal Code and that are contrary to international law. Even the Lewis Reef, a Canadian enforcement vessel, that approached the U.S. Coast Guard Liberty when it had the Eliza Joye in custody was refused the right to board the vessel.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a matter of some importance. I also have to caution the hon. member that it is not appropriate to get into debate. I think I have the facts thoroughly and fully in front of me. It is a very serious matter. I think that all hon. members would consider that it is.
I do not think that it is appropriate at this time to proceed with an emergency debate, to adjourn the business of the House for an emergency debate today. Of course, we will follow with interest the situation.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise requesting an emergency debate as to the steel industry in this country.
The Canadian steel industry is under unprecedented crisis. Since 1987 imported Canadian steel has fallen to 3 per cent of the American steel market, an all-time low, while American imports into Canada have risen from 2.5 per cent to 17 per cent, an all-time high.
Observers attribute this change in the balance of trade to the relatively high Canadian dollar and the political lobbying of American steel producers. Canadian steel producers and their families are suffering. Unless immediate action is taken to reverse this trend, the situation will become totally untenable.
I suggest a debate is urgently required to convince the government to lower the dollar and provide protection against the flood of steel imports, which has risen above 25 per cent. Unless immediate appropriate actions are taken, there is the possibility that there will be no steel industry in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member of course has given the appropriate notice for the application. This is not the first time that the matter has been raised in the House. I would ask the hon. member to continue raising it and discussing the matter with others in the Chamber.
September 16, 1991

I do not think it would be appropriate to proceed to an emergency debate today.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, as my letter to you reported, European and U.S. actions have resulted in depressed world grain prices and the real incomes of Canadian grain and oilseed producers were at record lows this year. Net incomes were at a record low in the crop year just completed a month and a half ago.
Farmers were continually assured by the government that some defence against these international prices would come forth in a third line of defence. The net income shortfall of more than $1 billion has not been addressed by the government. The crop year ended one and a half months ago.
If Parliament cannot debate this, the government seems to have the intention of forgetting about it and letting those huge debts that farm families have piled up continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Facts are what I need to have in front of me, and I would ask hon. members to be careful not to stray into debate. There is a reason for that. Under the rules the applicant for an emergency debate can present the case, but other members are not allowed to be recognized to take issue with something that does stray into the question of debate.
The matter is, of course, one of importance and is well understood in this House to be so. However, I point out to the hon. member that there was extensive debate in Question Period today and there may well be in the ensuing number of days in the next week on the issue, which is as I say important, but it would not be appropriate in my view to proceed to an emergency debate tonight.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 to request that you give consideration to the following.
It has been almost 20 years since Canada ratified International Labour Organization Convention 87. This freedom of association convention of the UN agency establishes the rights of organized labour. In 1987 the ILO reviewed Canadian back-to-work statutes and ruled that public inconveniences resulting from strikes "cannot justify an abridgement of the fundamental rights
guaranteed by convention 87 unless they reach a point where they affect the life, personal safety or health of all or part of the population".
Nearly one-third of the Public Service Alliance of Canada's bargaining unit has been declared essential, Mr. Speaker, and are not on strike. It appears that Canada is close to breaching this important ILO convention by passing legislation to force those non-essential workers back to work. A debate on the international ramifications of this suggested government action is urgently required, Mr. Speaker, to inform the government of its international commitment and the concerns of this House for the continued respect for these intermittent national conventions.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for giving notice of the matter which she has raised. Again, it is an important matter, as are these matters usually when there is an application for an emergency debate. It may well be that there will be sufficient opportunity, perhaps today or in the coming days, to raise the matter in full debate in the House.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would seek the indulgence of the House to appeal for positive consideration under Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate.
This involves the fact that the Canadian pink salmon runs are in very large numbers moving through the fishing grounds into the spawning areas in record numbers, and that the processors in British Columbia have refused to buy Canadian fish. They have instead chosen to purchase Alaska surplus pink at very low costs and thereby have deprived the Canadian fishing industry from earning a living on the resource which they have spent so much money and time in developing.
The failure of the processors to buy Canadian resource while buying the American surplus stocks has resulted in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not providing an adequate opening on the pink salmon runs. This, of course, will harm-and it is happening right now, harming the people in the fishing industry, harming the communities-and could indeed within the next few days harm spawning channels where massive surpluses of pink salmon move on to those channels and disrupt the spawning process for the preceding fish that have gone on.

September 16, 1991
Business of the House
There is an urgent requirement for a debate and some adjudication of this matter and little action to have it considered in any other forum. I would say that if this House were to consider it in a positive fashion that there are options with CIDA, with the food loans that have been proposed for the Soviet Union. These fisheries on Canadian fish could take place, the communities would be protected, the industry would be protected, and indeed an action of the House on this basis, if we moved immediately, would protect the resource for the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this matter. It is certainly a matter on which the Speaker personally has some intimate knowledge, and I recognize its importance. I think there will be ample opportunity to raise it in the next few days.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to request the consideration of the Speaker for the adjournment of the House for an emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 52.
There can be no issue of greater or more urgent importance to this House than the state of the Canadian economy and the health of that economy. For this economy to once more re-enter a situation in which recessionary conditions are taking place would be one of the worst economic crises that we could face.
Today Statistics Canada released the first important economic indicator for July which shows that manufacturing across the country has declined for the first time after four months of increase. Combined with the significant rise in bankruptcies in July and the increased rate of unemployment for July and August, Canadians have good reason to fear that we are re-entering the recession.
The fact that our dollar is being-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate on such an important matter to interrupt the hon. member, but I think the application is
straying well into debate and it may very well be a debate that the House would want to hear.
I recognize the seriousness with which the application is made, but I think under the circumstances there will be opportunity to raise the matters to which the hon. member refers, certainly in Question Period and possibly on designated days. At least for now I would ask the hon. member to seek other ways of raising the matter and debating it in the House.


Steven W. Langdon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Did I cut the member off? I did not mean to do that. I was just trying to indicate that perhaps his very cogent remarks were getting into very cogent debate. I thought he might use his own discretion, but I would be pleased to hear the hon. member.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just comment that if I were to be debating these facts, I would be doing so with considerable more force and passion than I am displaying in simply reciting these facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Sometimes just the recitation of facts carries with it its own passion.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 53(1) and I would like to move under those Standing Orders:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order and usual practices of the House;
that, the House sit without interruption till 10 p.m. every evening, beginning September 16, 1991, to September 18,1991, and that the proceedings on Private Members' Business and the Adjournment Debate be suspended for the duration of that period; and
that, Bill C-29 be called for debate at second reading, at the conclusion of this urgent matter and that all questions to dispose of the said bill at that stage be put without further debate or amendment no later than 10 p.m.; and that the bill be referred to a committee of the whole;
September 16, 1991

that on Tuesday, September 17,1991, at 10 a.m., immediately after Routine Proceedings the House shall begin its study at committee of the whole of the said bill and that all questions to dispose of the said bill at that stage and the report stage be put without further debate or amendment no later than 10 p.m.;
that on Wednesday, September 18, 1991, immediately following Routine Proceedings, the House shall begin consideration of Bill C-29 at third reading, and that all questions to dispose of the said bill at that stage be put without further debate or amendment no later than 10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Order states that in relation to any matter that the government considers to be of an urgent nature, a minister of the Crown may do as I have just done. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to remind the House that back to work legislation is by its nature urgent. Since 1966 it has occurred nine times. On every occasion but one, there has been agreement between opposite sides of the House to waive the usual time, the usual notices, the usual delays that are part of the legislation and to treat it with some dispatch.
In this particular instance we have reached an impasse. There are innocent third parties being hurt desperately. The grain farmers in the west, in particular, are being hurt. The Canadian Wheat Board estimates the loss to farmers at about $36 million a week and 25 per cent of the farmers are at risk of being driven off their farms this year.
We know that part of PSAC has been designated as essential service. In fact, what has happened is that the picket lines have not allowed the members designated as essential service to get to their jobs so they can perform the services. That has resulted in airlines being unable to fly. The airlines because of the drop in traffic may have to lay off some 2,500 people. Air Canada says they do not know at this time how much money they have lost because of the PSAC disruptions at Pearson Airport and other airports, but they know it is millions of dollars and more people will be laid off.
The urgency seems to me to be self-evident. The nature of the way the strike is being run with people being hurt, and the essential services personnel not being able to perform because people are precluded illegally by strikers from going to their place of work. We see line-ups at the borders; factories having to close because under the auto pact the integration of plants on
Business of the House
both sides of the border has meant that there is a very short delay between the time when parts stop arriving and the plant must shut down. Innocent third parties who are not a part of the union, who are taxpayers, are losing their jobs, losing money while this political battle is going on with Daryl Bean.
In view of that circumstance and in view of the fact, as I have pointed out, that since 1966 on nine occasions we have had back to work legislation and on every one of those occasions but one there has been a willingness shown by members of Parliament on both sides of the House to recognize the inevitability of that action. The legislation will pass. Delaying it only puts more financial burden on the population. It only causes more harm and more disruption.
We are not asking for something that is exceptional. It has occurred in the past on many, many occasions. I would ask that we have an opportunity to treat our employees better than PSAC has treated its own.


An hon. member:: Oh, nobody believes you.


Harvie Andre: In The Toronto Star of April 19-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. Perhaps, I can be of assistance to the House. I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops is rising on a point of order and I will hear him at the appropriate moment.
Just so that we know what we are doing here, the hon. minister has risen under Standing Order 53, and I am going to read it to the House.
53(1) In relation to any matter that the government considers to be of an urgent nature, a Minister of the Crown may, at any time when the Speaker is in the Chair, propose a motion to suspend any Standing or other Order of this House relating to the need for notice and to the hours and days of sitting.
(2) After the Minister has stated reasons for the urgency of such a motion, the Speaker shall propose the question to the House.
In my view, the hon. member has given his reasons for the urgency and the hon. minister has fulfilled the obligations under paragraph 2.
It is now my obligation to put the motion to the House and when done, I will, of course, hear a point of order. That has been the practice we have been following in these matters. I am going to hear the point of order before any further debate takes place.

Business of the House
Mr. Andre, seconded by Mr. Cadieux, pursuant to Standing Order 53(1), moves:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order and usual practices of the House; that, the House sit without interruption till 10 p.m. every evening, beginning September 16, 1991 to September 18,1991, and that the proceedings on Private Members' Business and the Adjournment Debate be suspended for the duration of that period; and
That, Bill C-29 be called for debate at second reading, at the conclusion of this urgent matter and that all questions to dispose of the said bill at that stage be put without further debate or amendment no later than 10 p.m.; and that the bill be referred to a committee of the whole;
That, on Tuesday September 17, 1991, at 10 a.m., immediately after Routine Proceedings the House shall begin its study at committee of the whole of the said bill and that all questions to dispose of the said bill at that stage and the report stage be put without further debate or amendment no later than 10 p.m.;
That, on Wednesday September 18, 1991, immediately following Routine Proceedings, the House shall begin consideration of Bill C-29 at third reading, and that all questions to dispose of the said bill at that stage be put without further debate or amendment no later than 10 p.m.
I will now hear the hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, of course I have no question with the appropriateness of proceeding under Standing Order 53 and welcome an opportunity to participate in the debate.
However, I am not a lawyer so I seek some guidance. The guidance that I am seeking has to do with the decision of the Public Service Staff Relations Board earlier this day. I want to take just a short moment to quote from the comment made by the board. It says: "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 agreement is not substantially different for this employer than it is for any other employer in any other 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." This is a critical comment. Accordingly, the Board declares that the employer has acted contrary to section 51 of the act and orders the employer to comply with section 51 of the act.
I simply seek guidance on this point. This decision by the board obviously indicates that the government's action contradicts the spirit of the law and maybe we would even say it contradicts the letter of the law. I really seek guidance.
Now that this decision has been made is it appropriate for us to continue on as though no decision has been taken by the board?


Mr. Speaker:: I am interested, of course, in what the hon. member for Kamloops has raised, but I would ask the House to bear with me for a moment so that I can explain the procedural position that we are in.
The hon. member for Kamloops is, in effect, asking the Chair to make a legal ruling and that of course the Chair is not empowered to do. The hon. member for Kamloops puts forward with some eloquence and precision arguments which could easily be used and probably will be used in debate which support the position taken by some members in the House that the legislation referred to by the minister and the notice ought not to be passed by the House, but that is essentially a question of debate.
I understand perfectly well why the hon. member has raised this. There would seem to be, at first blush perhaps, an inconsistency in the House proceeding given what the board has said.
It is not my place nor do I have the authority to make a ruling that would prohibit, or for any reason interrupt the normal proceedings of the House.
I thank the hon. member for presenting his case in a succinct way.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I follow you and I understand your position. But I think we have to realize that we have a board, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, a creation of this Parliament under the Public Service Staff Relations Act which has said today clearly that the government, through Treasury Board, broke the law.
That is what it said in its decision today. The point is that the discretion of allowing the debate on this whole question is yours, Mr. Speaker.
I want to quote Standing Order 53(3):
September 16, 1991

Proceedings on any such motion shall be subjected to the following
conditions:
(a) the Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour; -
Mr. Speaker, I put it to you that if we debate something of this nature where the Public Service Staff Relations Board has declared publicly that the government has broken the law, how can you allow such a debate?


Mr. Speaker:: The short answer to that is found again in what I explained to the House with respect to my powers and the limitations on them.
Paragraph (3), to which the member for Ottawa-Van-ier refers-I take the hon. member's comment seriously because he is a very experienced member-says: "Proceedings on any such motion shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) The Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour."
I take that to be a clear direction to the Speaker which is relating to time for debate and not the substance of it. There are, of course, other conditions that proceed. Debate.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Riis@: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I apologize to my hon. friend. Hopefully, I will not take much of his time.
Again I want to seek guidance on this issue because if we continue with this motion referring to Bill C-29, if this motion is adopted and if we proceed with the passage of Bill C-29, it contradicts an act that was passed by this House.
Mr. Speaker, you say that you are not in a position to pass legal judgment. We agree. Where do we seek guidance in terms of who responds to this apparent impasse and problem in terms of us going against an act that was once passed by this Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what the hon. member is saying and I will try to explain the matter further for all hon. members.
It may well be that there is an inconsistency, but it is not an inconsistency with which the Speaker has the power in my opinion to interfere. One of the arguments that may very well take place in the debate-I should not speculate-or maybe the very argument that the hon. member has put forward is that ultimately it is for the House to decide what it wishes to do with the bill.
Business of the House
It may later be for a court to decide that the House has done something that does not have the force and effect of law, but that is a matter for the court and not a matter for the Speaker.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in listening to your remarks with regard to the point of order raised by my colleague to the left, and my colleague from Ottawa- Vanier, there is a message that you are delivering to this House. I wish to follow that.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, you have now stated quite clearly why we as a national party should defeat and not support this motion which is being put forward by the government House leader at this time.
There are several points which must be taken into consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member except to say that I suppose there is a temptation sometimes to quote the Speaker as being in favour or in disfavour of some position taken in debate. I do want it clearly on the record that I was not trying to get into that debate at all but to stick very carefully to procedural matters.
I ask the hon. member to continue.


David Charles Dingwall: Quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, but you not I used the word "power", and the power of this Parliament can now be clearly demonstrated because of the order which has been issued by the staff relations board to defeat and not to accept this motion which is being put forward by the government House leader. That is the point, that this Parliament has that kind of power.
There are two other major issues which are pertinent to the discussion as raised by the government House leader. The first is that the bill itself, Bill C-29 I believe it is called, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another act in relation thereto, will breach a long-standing tradition in Canadian labour relations whereby the collective bargaining process is suspended for a minimum of a 24-month period.
That in itself would cause many individuals to give it the name of a Draconian law, but in actual fact it goes well beyond Draconian because it tramples the rights for which the labour community has fought for years and years and years. They have now said to Canadians from coast to coast that the collective bargaining process is no longer applicable, with all its various functions in terms of conciliation, in terms of mediation, and in terms of arbitration. That is the first point.

September 16, 1991
Business of the House
The second point that must be recognized is that we now have a law which will suspend the rights with regards to collective bargaining rights in this country. Now the government introduces a motion to give the boots to Parliament, that we suspend the normal proceedings here of Parliament to deal with a major subject matter facing the Canadian people. Two wrongs, Mr. Speaker, and now, as recently as today, we have heard about a quasi-judicial body. Let us use our heads; this is a board empowered by federal statute, debated and passed by this House and the Upper House. Appointments are made at will by the Prime Minister of Canada. Those individuals sit on that board in a quasi-judicial function and they have determined, not the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, not hon. members opposite, that the government, their veiy own government, is bargaining in bad faith and has broken the law.
In the eyes of most reasonable individuals, those are three substantive compelling reasons that we as members of the Official Opposition cannot support the government motion being put forward by the government House leader here today.
What is this, Mr. Speaker? This is a political battle. This is a politically motivated strike, conceived in PCO- and, for all of those that may be viewing television tonight, that is the Privy Council Office-orchestrated by the principal secretary Norman Spector and the Prime Minister's Office, to build up a straw man or a straw woman so that they can trample rights. They could not do it to the premiers because they are their political cousins in some jurisdictions.
They could not do it there, Mr. Speaker, so they have to find somebody they can fight, and at the end of the process hopefully they can win. Why, why would a government want to do this? I ask this Chamber: If you are at 12 per cent in the polls and are continuing to go down, if you are desperate to hang on to political power at any cost, who would be the best whipping boys and girls in this country to pick on?
It would be the secretary who is earning $26,000 a year. I do not see them picking on Bill Hopper? I do not see them doing anything with respect to the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


An hon. member:: He got 35 per cent.


David Charles Dingwall: But you know, Mr. Speaker, that is Tory justice, that is Tory fairness. This is the worst, despicable display of a political opportunist in terms of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, to pick in some instances on poorly paid public servants in this country. We find that despicable.


An hon. member:: Shame on the Prime Minister.


David Charles Dingwall: I see one of my colleagues from Nova Scotia trying to speak. I will be interested to hear what he has to say. In point of fact, if the government were really interested in resolving this strike, if it were really concerned about the farmers, if it were really concerned about the people who are going to our airports, if it were concerned about the men and women who work in the public service, why would it not opt for the most demonstrable act that Parliament could take and order the Prime Minister to put in place a mediator to discuss all of the issues, monetary and non-monetary? Would that not resolve it?
We know that government has difficult choices to make. We know that this strike is not popular in all parts of this country. We also know that the workers want to go back to work, that they want to have the collective bargaining process and all the rights appended thereto.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Is it fair for a government to bring in a bill which suspends collective bargaining rights in this country for 24 months? Is it fair for the government to introduce a motion to suspend the rights of parliamentarians to debate the subject matter of that particular bill? Is it right and fair for the government to continue to operate in the way it has to date, notwithstanding the fact that we have a quasi-judicial decision of a board whose members were appointed by the Right Hon. Prime Minister, approved by the cabinet and who have now deemed that this government is breaking the law, has bargained in bad faith and is continuing to do so.
September 16, 1991

Any decent, reasonable, respectable individual could not support-and we as a national party will not support it-the motion of the hon. member who happens to be the government House leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Scarborough West-ministerial responsibility; the hon. member for Surrey North-health care; the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville-Armenia; the hon. member for York West-trucking industry; the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings-Agriculture.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the very outset that this is a very dark moment in our country's history, a very black moment in our country's history, a very scary time, when we consider that we are now about to address the most oppressive, the most Draconian labour legislation ever introduced into a western democracy. ,
We are going to be asked to support legislation that is clearly against working people across this country, especially working women. When we consider that it eliminates collective bargaining for federal public servants and now is extended beyond federal public servants, we have to ask who is next.
We shudder because this disease is creeping out from this place.
I only look to the province of New Brunswick and Frank McKenna there. This program looks good compared to what they are doing. This is at least a zero, three and three. Theirs is a zero, zero and a zero.
We remember the six and five program coming back again. It is a ploy against working people. That is why we feel it is fair to ask who is next. That is why on behalf of the party that I represent, the New Democratic Party, I am proud to say that the minute we sniffed this legislation, the minute we had an inkling of what this government was going to do in terms of this dastardly act, we did not debate it, we did not discuss it, we did not share our thoughts. We said we oppose this legislation now, now, now and we are not going to change our minds.
Business of the House
Talk about Stalinistic tendencies, talk about a big brother approach to dealing with your own employees. These are the men and women across Canada who for six and a half years have been asked to explain Tory policies. Can you imagine the horror that these folks have had to endure: explain and support Tory policies from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island. That is a terrible task to ask of anyone. They did their jobs and they work hard at it. We know they work hard at it because the Manufacturers' Association of Canada is saying: "Get these people back to work. We have got to get these people back to work to make our country work".
What did the government do at a time when it is asking its employees to be more productive, to work together, to co-operate with the government, to put their shoulders to the wheel, to make our economy more productive? The Prime Minister looks at the employees and says: "I don't think you're worth a plugged nickel. I don't think you're worth a single cent for an increase". I know we give increases to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I know the head of CN gets increases. I know that we gave bonuses to our senior managers. I know that there were other increases throughout the system. For those tens of thousands of men and women who work for the government, if one thinks Brian Mulroney is a bad Prime Minister, imagine having him as a boss. Can you imagine having somebody who humiliates you publicly as an employer?
We are seeing something here today. The government is asking us to co-operate to get this Draconian legislation through quickly, to impose these shackles on our public employees as quickly as possible. We will not do that.
This is a very unique situation. On the one hand we have the government House leader standing in his place pleading with us in order to end this strike. May I suggest that the decent and honourable way to end this strike is for the Prime Minister to get in touch with the President of the Treasury Board and say: "Do the honourable thing and get back to the negotiating table and start dealing with your employees as you should be doing".
This is the largest strike of federal public employees that this country has ever seen. Never have public employees been so humiliated by a back to work piece of legislation.

Business of the House
I have before me a long list, going back to 1950. Other groups have been forced, through legislation, back to work, 24 as a matter of fact. There is one thing different between all of these and what this government is doing today. All of these had attempted collective bargaining. All of these groups had sat down in good faith and attempted to negotiate a settlement.
This government says: "We will not allow a collective agreement to be negotiated. We are going to impose a settlement". Elow Stalinistic can you be? You say to your employees: "This is the law. This is our position: zero, three and three. If you do not agree to it, we'll use our parliamentary muscle and force it upon you".
With all of these back to work legislations that we have dealt with over the years, never have they been so Draconian.
They have always been back to work legislation with a settlement based on negotiations that had taken place- they were required to back to work as a result-and then subject to an arbitrator's report. In other words, there was always something else attached to the legislation that would treat those involved with some dignity. Not this slap in the face to tens of thousands of public employees across the country.
There are all sorts of reasons why we oppose this particular motion. As we sit here at this moment, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, a quasi-judicial board, struck by.an act of Parliament has said on page 10: "The board declares that the employer, Brian Mulroney, has acted contrary to Section 51 of the act and orders the employer to comply with section 51 of the act".
In other words, the board says that the federal government is breaking its own law. The federal government is breaking a law of Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are we asking them to just ignore this? Of course not. What about the fact that section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires people to be treated equally under the law? This piece of legislation flies in the face of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It says: "We are going to treat our employees unlike anybody else treats their employees, anywhere in the country."
We say that we believe this flies in the face of our own Constitution. It flies in the face of an act of Parliament. It flies in the face of any decent employer's relationship with its employees.
I say, for a whole set of reasons, we will not support this motion. This is a silly motion. It is a desperate motion. I suppose we ought not to be surprised, when we consider that the government introducing this motion is a government that 88 per cent of the people of Canada have lost faith in. Eighty-eight per cent of the people of Canada are saying: "Call an election Prime Minister, because we want to kick you out. We want to change the government". No wonder it is attempting something so drastic.
In closing, I want to say to my hon. friend the government House leader, and when I say "the government" I do not mean him personally, that when the government acts as a bully and pushes people around, humiliates people, fights with people, ridicules people and then asks people to co-operate and be friends, it is a gesture in futility.
I think what we are seeing across the country is 88 per cent of the people rising up in a popular reaction against this government and saying: "We are sick and tired of being bullied by the Prime Minister, his cabinet and his caucus".
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State
(Finance)): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the motion before the House. I might say at the outset that any time I hear my colleague and friend from Kamloops speak, he always goes over the edge. He always overdoes it. I do not know how many times I have heard him say: "This is the worst that has ever been done anywhere in the world".
I want to speak about the effect of what is going on in the country as a result of the PSAC strike on the people of Canada.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Kempling:: Just listen and you might learn something. I had a call to tell me that the lift bridge at Plamilton was going to be blocked by PSAC strikers. They told me they were going to come from both directions and block the bridge, stop the engines of their automobiles and walk away, abandon their cars and leave them there. That was Thursday night before the Monday strike date. What was the purpose of this? The purpose was that there were two ships sitting out on the lake waiting to come into the harbour and there were 10 ships due in over the weekend.
September 16, 1991

If the half dozen people who work on the lift bridge could jam up the end of the lake, I do not know what they were going to accomplish or what it was going to do for the PSAC. All I know is that it is going to shut down a lot of industries in the city of Hamilton.
Thank God the police moved in and told them: "If you leave your cars on the bridge, we will tow them away. You will be charged with the towing charge. You will also be charged with obstructing a public thoroughfare and you will also have to pay the storage charges for your vehicle".
Of course, Friday morning the cars were on the bridge. There were the police and they moved them away. They had the tow trucks lined up and ready to go.
I ask myself whether it is right that a handful of people operating a lift bridge have the right to tie up a whole harbour to shut down a bunch of industries in Hamilton so that no shipments should be received or taken out. I say that that is wrong. I do not care what the issue is.
Then we had people in manufacturing industries who have adopted the just in time delivery concept. That is the current fad in the manufacturing industry. Could they get their supplies? No. Where are the supplies? They are in trucks trying to get across the border. If one watches the television news, one would see that General Motors was flying parts into Oshawa airport on DC-3s or World War II airplanes.
What about the perishable food that was coming through the border such as fruit and so forth? It was tied up in the border traffic. This is atrocious. It should not be allowed to happen under any circumstance as far as I am concerned.
We have grain farmers in western Canada. The Minister of Agriculture spoke today about the grain piling up in the fields and about full grain elevators. The farmers cannot get it out. This should be allowed to happen. I say it is wrong. We are doing the right thing in putting forth this motion in the legislation that we are going to bring forward to see that this stops.
I am going to naturally speak in the course of the debate that will ensue I am sure once the minister's bill
Business of the House
comes before the House. I want to reinforce what the minister said in the House today about this zero, three and three that I keep hearing from across the hall.
Zero, three and three is for everyone: the Prime Minister, cabinet, members of Parliament, members of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces. Zero, three and three affects everyone.
The big lie that is out there and that is trying to be pushed by some members and some members of PSAC is that we gave ourselves an increase and now we are going to take it out of their pockets to pay our increase. That is absolutely nonsense.
Everyone knows that the contracts within the Public Service come up at various times of the year. For instance, we know that our wage adjustment came up January 1, 1991. We know that some management contracts came up in June of 1991 and others came up at other times.
Zero, three and three applies to everyone in the government who is on government payroll whenever it comes up. Ours will come up within three months.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


William James Kempling: This is typically NDP. They want to shout you down. They want others to listen to their members, but when others are speaking, they want to bellow and holler. They do not want to know the truth.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this motion is a good motion. I hope the House supports it. We have to get the various departments of government operating again. We have to provide services to the public that it expects. We cannot tie this country up economically for Daryl Bean or any of the other people. We hear stories about how Daryl Bean in dealing with his own Public Service union treated his own people, what increase he gave them and how he dumped a percentage of his staff off when they disagreed with his position. It is all right for Daryl Bean to do that but if anybody else does it they are terrible people.
I hope that the House will get its head as it has in previous years and pass this motion and let us move on into the bill that is going to be coming up, let it get passed and over and on with other business of the House.

Business of the House


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words in the debate this afternoon.
First of all, let us not forget it was the government opposite that caused this strike. In its Budget, the government announced that public servants would get an increase of 3 per cent. All of a sudden it changed its mind. It backtracked and said that 3 per cent was too much, and 0 per cent would be better. That is Tory thinking for you. So 0 per cent was better. But before imposing 0 per cent, it first took good care of friends in high places. It made sure all the big cheeses in government got their share before wage restrictions were , imposed.

After the government provoked this situation it waited and waited, hoping of course that the public servants would go on strike and then that the strike would fall apart the next day.
Well, bad luck for the government. There happened to be good weather last week, apart from all other things, and the public servants came out in large numbers. They probably would have come out in large numbers nevertheless, but even larger numbers because good weather came about, much to the chagrin of the Conservatives across the way.
They allowed this to fester for a little while, thinking that it would go away, that the strikers would back down and that the government would look hard-nosed and tough, particularly in those parts of Canada where it is hoping to appear to be emulating the western Reform Party.
Of course that fell apart. First of all it did not work. Public servants did not back down. They continued with the strike.
It is obviously true that this strike is bad for a country. Everyone knows that. It is obviously true that it is equally bad for those who are on strike in terms of getting a paycheque this week it is. However, the government is of the opinion that legislating the workers back to work or threatening to do so with a zero per cent increase is the solution.
Now let us look at what the government has done. First of all, we are back today sitting in this House and the government pretends that it is going to use every tool at its disposition to ensure rapid passage.
A while ago I heard the hon. member for Burlington talk about the urgency of putting these people back to
work and how this government was really going to move ahead with this process. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what procedure it has used to get, according to the government, rapid passage of the bill. It used a motion under Standing Order 53(1)-this is the motion on which we are speaking-under which motion any 10 members can stop the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you that this is a charade. Even today that government across the way does not even want to legislate the workers back. I would disagree with them for wanting to do so, but it is not even true. They are using a rule which does not work.
There was another rule that it could have used had it been serious, but I will not tell it what it is though. Maybe it is so inept that it did not know the right rule to use, but there is a rule that would have been far more effective had it been smart enough to use it. Alternatively, maybe it was just devious and pretended it wanted to start this process today and it was doing it for the media. They are grandstanding, Mr. Speaker. That is what those Tories are doing. That is what they did all summer, and that is why they provoked that strike to try and get some favourable press.
I guess when you are at 12 per cent in the polls you are so desperate you can do anything. Imagine having a 12 per cent popularity rating. I am sure I could take a public opinion poll and find that more than 12 per cent of Canadians still believe that Elvis Presley is alive. But this is the kind of popularity the Prime Minister and his friends across the way have today. As I said previously, the government is not even sincere about what it wants to do, either that or it is so inept that it does not deserve to govern because it did not even invoke the rule that would make it work if that is what it wanted.
I am sure the Conservatives are busy researching their book to find the appropriate rule. Fat chance that I will tell them.
Let us get to what happened today. The Public Service Staff Relations Board said, in a decision earlier today, that the government had acted in bad faith. This is not just an opinion. Listen to what they have decreed. They decreed the following: "The board declares that the employer has acted contrary to section 51 of the act." In other words, it has breached a law of Parliament. It has not breached a guideline. This is not the conflict of interest guidelines that cabinet ministers breach regularly around this House and that we have all heard so much about. That is another matter we can discuss another time. It has breached a law of Parliament.
September 16, 1991

What is the solution for this breach of a law of Parliament on the part of these people across the way? Well, their solution is to introduce a motion to pass a bill, the effect of which will be not to remove that section of that act, just to ignore it and to supersede it with something else.

One wonders, Mr. Speaker, what will happen once the government's proposed legislation is passed. What will happen for instance, if public servants take the board's decision and go before the courts and ask for the new legislation as passed by Parliament to be repealed, because it violates existing legislation?

I see the government Elouse leader is with us. I am sure he has been researching why it is that he made a mistake and used the wrong rule in order to get this motion passed, or is it that he really did not want that motion passed at all, that he said: "Let us use the wrong rule and let us see what it does." Well, of course, with the right rule, according to the government, or the rule that would have worked more effectively, it could have probably got its motion passed. After all, much to my chagrin and yours, Mr. Speaker, being the objective person that you are, the government is Conservative and, of course, it still has a small majority in the Elouse of Commons, so eventually it can- get this legislation through.
It is my hope that before this process is over that the government will at least consider doing the following: that it will include in its legislation measures to give some fairness, be it the final offer selection process, a binding arbitration process, or a mediator who will have the opportunity to deal with everything, including salary. There should be something in the bill to give it fairness. There are workers out there, and they were out there earlier today, and they want to go back to work. They cannot afford to be out there now.

Like you and me, these people have financial obligations and they have certain obligations to their families.
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, these people deserve to be treated fairly by the government opposite.

At the very least, Mr. Speaker, I think the government should be sincere and forthright and tell us exactly the purpose of the motion that we are debating right now. It is certainly not the passage of it because it is not going to pass. The government knows it because it only requires 10 MPs to defeat it and there are a lot more than 10 of us on this side of the House.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, just beginning where the last member left off. It does seem odd that we are debating a motion which the government knows full well has no chance of passing in this House. At the same time the government claims that it is facing an urgent situation.
I think what is urgent, if anything is urgent at this time, Mr. Speaker, is that the government take cognizance of the fact that a body set up and constituted by this Parliament has ruled against the government, has ruled that the government was not bargaining in good faith, was not in compliance with section 51 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. What is urgent, Mr. Speaker, is that the government which is given the responsibility of upholding the law of this land is, instead, coming to Parliament at this very moment with a false sense of urgency about ending the strike, when it could end the strike within minutes if it simply decided to comply with the ruling of its own quasi-judicial body, that it go back to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith.
I say to the hon. member for Burlington, who used the phrase "this should not be allowed to happen", I agree, this should not have been allowed to happen. This did not have to happen. This happened because the government allowed it to happen, because the government refused to bargain in good faith, because the government did not do those things that would have permitted a negotiated settlement. Instead, the government has sought to divide Canadians, to turn them against each other.

September 16, 1991
Business of the House
We saw in the Canada Post strike where the government and Canada Post deliberately withheld cheques, deliberately put Canadians in the position where they might develop animosity toward the postal workers. We have a government which is committed here to turning Canadians against each other.
The member for Burlington asked how can a handful of people hold up ships in the harbour-or whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian people are asking how much longer will this handful of people called the Conservative caucus run this country, when they are only supported by a handful of Canadians. People are tired of being handled by this handful of disreputable people called the government. What we see out there today, Mr. Speaker, on the lawn of Parliament is not a handful of people; we see tens of thousands of workers representing tens and hundreds of thousands of honest Canadians who are saying "enough is enough is enough of this group over here".
So let us stop with the phony motions that we know are going to be defeated. Let us stop with trying to override the rulings of well constituted bodies like the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Let us have some real justice, some real respect for law, and let us have the government drop all this nonsense and go back to the bargaining table as it has been instructed to do.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in this debate and more specifically to the motion tabled by the government. I am against the motion because I feel that what we have here is an illegitimate government that is taking away one of the legitimate rights of its employees: the right to strike. I think we should consider why our public servants are on strike. It is the government's fault.
Mr. Speaker, only last February, in the Budget it brought down, the government unveiled its plans for the next three years: 0 per cent, 3 per cent and 3 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I represent more than 26,000 public servants in the Outaouais region. These employees need the money they earn. They never wanted this strike. These employees want to work, but they do not want to work at any price.
Mr. Speaker, I deplore the present attitude of this
government which not only hurts the Public Service but also hurts the private sector because in this area, the private sector is affected by the fact that the Public Service is on strike.
I don't think anyone agrees with strikes, but in this particular case, I think the government has taken undue advantage of the Public Service. Let's go back to January 1, 1991, when members had their 4.2 per cent increase, when senior management had its increases, when the President of the Bank of Canada, for instance, had his increase, and when all the upper echelons of the Public Service had received their increases. The government has used only the Public Service, secretaries, low-level employees, employees who absolutely must work, Mr. Speaker, as a tool to increase its popularity, to try to improve its standing in the polls by telling the people, "We'll get out the big stick and beat up on our public servants and show them who's boss."
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful and ignoble for the government to act that way. Mr. Speaker, they were getting ready today to table a bill for judges, who are people doing serious, honourable, important work, but are not the lowest paid individuals in society-


Jean-C. Lapierre: 


Gilles Rocheleau: They earn $140,000 a year. So the government decided to postpone this bill for a few days perhaps, whereas this morning, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie and I went to support the public servants against this shameful action of the government-shameful!
Mr. Speaker, I have never been known as a union man or a left-winger. I have rather always been known as someone to the right, but when I see the government act in such a way, we must keep fairness in mind. They must act fairly, Mr. Speaker.
If the government gave the Public Service the right to strike in 1967, well, it should tolerate the right to strike in the Public Service! You cannot just take away the right to strike after one week, when that right was acquired legitimately, Mr. Speaker. If, instead of extending our sittings here, they had extended the negotiations with our employees, we would probably have gotten some results.
[DOT] * *
September 16, 1991

Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, this morning, I listened to Daryl Bean, the President of the Public Service Alliance, who said that he wanted mediation as the postal workers had a few weeks ago. Why the double standard, Mr. Speaker? It is shameful and unacceptable.
Earlier, I heard the hon. member for Burlington tell us that such strikes in essential public services should never happen. We all know that, but, Mr. Speaker, it is the government's fault that we are in the situation we find ourselves today and which has been dragging on-


Jean-C. Lapierre: It is provocation!


Gilles Rocheleau: It is government provocation. I see those lackeys opposite, those Tories who are just waiting for constitutional proposals. You are in one hell of a mess, but still you fail to realize that you are no longer relevant but you are taking away legitimate rights!
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of unemployment, why are there so many unemployed in Canada today? Because of this government, the very same government we owe this inflation to, Mr. Speaker. This zero percent salary increase is not a simple freeze. In fact, it amounts to a salary reduction because, with the GST, this government has created inflation and forced consumers to pay higher prices.
That is totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that there will be yet more defections in the government ranks. I cannot understand why there have not been any more. How can one submit to and blindly serve a prime minister who has lost his marbles, become lackeys of a government without direction, a government that failed miserably in just about everything it has undertaken in the past seven years?
Today, Mr. Speaker, it is cracking the whip to force our civil servants-and not the best paid at that, but the poorest of them-to go back to work and so that they can bow to its every whim.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add just one thing concerning the people of the Ottawa area, from both sides of the river. We represent in this place over
100,000	public service employees who have the right to work every day, but this government has no right abusing them and one of those days it will have to pay dearly for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 10 members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 53(4), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


DESIGNATION OF SITTING DAYS
Harvie Andre: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order and usual practices of the House, the Government House Leader may, before the normal hour of daily adjournment on Friday, September 20, 1991, at any time during daily proceedings, on a point of order, designate Saturday or Sunday, or both days as sitting days;
That, on Saturdays and Sundays, the daily program be identical to Friday as specified in Standing Order 30, except that the proceedings on Private Members' Business, Statements by Members and Question Period shall be suspended;
That the Legislative Committee dealing with a bill standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board entitled "An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto", shall report back or be deemed to have reported back the said Bill no later than two sitting days after the referral at second reading of the said Bill:
That the provisions of Standing Orders 76(1) and 76(2) be suspended and that consideration at report stage of a Bill standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board entitled "An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto", be undertaken the sitting day following the tabling of the Legislative Committee's report on the said Bill;
Tha t, if no later than7p.m.,the sitting day prior to the consideration at report stage of a Bill standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board entitled "An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto' ', written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert

September 16, 1991
Government Orders
or restore any clause in the said Bill, it be printed on a Notice Paper; and
That, immediately after the adoption at third reading of a Bill standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board entitled 'An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto", this Order shall be rescinded.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think the purpose of this motion is self-evident. It is to allow this House to sit daily, including on weekends, for the necessary time to get this important legislation passed.
May I say just parenthetically that I was reminded by a letter from a former colleague who wrote to me the other day and said: "How come we still have this archaic process of first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading which was designed 125 years ago when we did not have these modern communications? It was designed in a day when it was-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister is letting us know what he received in a letter and he might let us know what he mailed back too. The hon. minister.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there has been some comment by a number of people in the last few months, most particularly I suppose by the Spicer commission, about the decorum in this place; the barracking, the shouting down, the not allowing members to speak, the rather childish behaviour that we see. I am quite prepared, as I have earlier this afternoon, to sit silently to listen to the opposite side.
I would hope that out of respect for those who look to this institution for leadership and guidance that we in fact would have the same courtesy and that those who feel compelled to speak would simply submit their names to their House leaders and they will have an opportunity to do so. In the meantime common decency would dictate that the polite thing to do is to allow a member to speak.
As I was indicating, this former colleague who wrote and talked about these practices said that he was particularly struck watching the other jurisdictions who seem to have had more modem procedures. However, that is a subject for another day.
In the 1991 budget the government laid out its plan for economic recovery, a recovery that not only puts the recession behind us, but which also leads us towards
continuing growth and prosperity. The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development projects that Canada will lead the G-7 nations next year as a result of the budget process we have in place.
We did not deny in the budget however that it would be necessarily easy, particularly in view of the opposition we faced from those in our society who do not agree with our approach because ours is not an approach for more government intervention. It is an approach which calls for less interference by government, recognizing that if growth is to be strong and ongoing, the economy must be free from undue restrictions and we are being attacked on that position.
Our approach calls for less government spending, not more. We are also being attacked and challenged at every turn by those who do not agree with this approach. Indeed, daily in Question Period, including today, we have had calls from the opposition to spend more money on this and that, worthy causes to be sure. Unless one is willing to stand up and say: "I want more money spent on this and I am willing to see taxes increased or the deficit increased or the government cut back on some other area to fund this program", they are not acting responsibly. You cannot keep demanding more and more without admitting that what you are asking for is more money from the taxpayers.
The taxpayers have said: "We have had enough. We have had enough paying to government for them to distribute. We want that money left in our own pockets". They are saying: "We think the deficit is too high. We are leaving a terrible legacy and we want you to bring the deficit and debt down". They are saying that every time we cut some government service to keep to this fiscal plan: "We don't like what you have cut".
That is the difficulty, but it is a difficulty that has to be faced by responsible people and we are doing that.
Our approach is based on less government spending, lower deficits and as a result, lower interest rates and we are seeing the success of that interest rates keep coming down. Our plan for economic recovery will bring about even lower interest rates through the following actions: clearly achievable inflation targets of 3 per cent by the end of 1992, 2 per cent by the end of 1995. Lower inflation and lower expectations will lead to lower interest rates. The plan calls for us to put government finances firmly on the course to a balanced budget. We cannot keep borrowing from the future generations to finance our spending today.
September 16, 1991

By reducing the deficit and the debt we will remove one of the more serious pressures on inflation. We are extending the expenditure control plan. We have released our discussion paper on spending caps legislation and we will move, as soon as we can, to pass the legislation which will create the debt servicing and reduction fund.
The third key element of the plan is the restraint of government spending. We state in the budget that operating budgets will be frozen at current levels and the wages and salaries of cabinet ministers, MPs, all Order in Council appointments and all federal public servants will be tightly restrained-zero, three and three.
There has been a lot of misinformation about the senior public servants. I would remind members of the House what in fact occurs in terms of senior public servants. Under a structure put in place by the previous government, there is an outside committee that looks at the salaries of senior civil servants, that looks at comparable rates in the private sector and makes a recommendation to the government. They recommended for the period of time June 1, 1990 to June 1, 1991 that the increase be 6.2 per cent, I believe. We said no because we had introduced the budget with the 0 per cent and for that period it would be 4.2 per cent, but as of June 1 it would be 0 per cent for senior managers, no increase that people are talking about-0 per cent.
During that period of time from September 1, 1990 to September 1, 1991 PSAC got 4.8 per cent. They start at different periods. It is wrong to suggest they got an increase, it was for a period of time that ended last June. They were due for another increase June 1 and that increase is 0 per cent. They will be due for a 3 per cent increase next year on June 1 under this plan and public servants would be due for an increase of 3 per cent next September 1 and members of Parliament will be due for a 3 per cent increase January, 1993. So we are all getting 0 per cent.
This false information of suggesting that somehow some other group has been looked after is simply that, it is absolutely false.
Now anyone who makes the claim that we propose this wage package to public servants in order to pick a fight or to cause a strike forgets about the budget. Presumably they also question the motives of other sectors and
Government Orders
governments in society who are also asking for restraint from their employees.
I remind the House that the Government of New Brunswick negotiated an agreement and two months later rolled it back and froze the salaries. The Government of Nova Scotia did the same thing. The Government of Quebec, the Government of Newfoundland, the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Saskatchewan put in restraints. In my city, as a result of restraint in the oil and gas industry over the last two years, 14,000 employees in the oil and gas industry have been laid off. They do not have job security, they are laid off because of the state of the economy.
Who in this House is going to say we want higher oil and gas prices so that those individuals will not be laid off? Who in this House is going to say we want higher taxes so that we can pay the public servants higher rates? Who is going to have the integrity to be honest that the money comes from the taxpayers' pockets and you are going to have to raise the taxes if you are going to give away more of that taxpayer's money to whomever? When you have the integrity to do that you deserve to be listened to, but until then, screaming and yelling and putting out false information does not impress those who have the responsibility to look after things.
The hypocrisy of some is beyond belief. April 19 in The Toronto Star, Leslie Papp reporting from Vancouver stated: "Delegates at the Public Service Alliance of Canada convention voted to slash the union's budget by $1.8 million each year over the next three years, leaving 14 staff positions vacant and another six to be cut by attrition." They cut out staff of PSAC's own employees. Worse, after voting, delegates walked past upset employees asking them where they were working next week. Is that your pink slip? "The comments left two of the union workers in tears", staff members said. Then they all got together and said: "Accusing Ottawa of committing economic crimes". "This government will not listen to reason", is being said.
Then he said he understood why the staff was bitter. It has got to be frustrated, but we are in a tight situation. He is not in a different situation than us. He had an option. He could have raised the fees. He could have raised the union dues to pay these employees and not lay off 20 people. He could have borrowed the money to

Government Orders
keep these employees on staff so they would not be laid off. He said he could not do that.
He says that we must dip into the taxpayers' pockets to take more taxes to give to the employees and that we must borrow more for this next generation to do that. He would not do it for his employees.
Talk about a hypocrite. He says that we are trying to pick the strike.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks if they do insist on heckling to comments that are not likely to cause disorder in the House and I am sure I do not have to say that again.
The hon. minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on September 13 in The Ottawa Sun Ron Corbett reports that he was called by a person who was on strike at home, not on the picket line, who said he felt he should be at work but was afraid to cross the picket line.
He is a former union representative, he was president of the local.
In May he quit his union post.
"The more I saw, the more convinced I became that this wasn't a union for the workers, it was a union for the people at the top".
My caller says his dissatisfaction with PSAC started last year, when the support staff at PSAC headquarters went on strike-and Daryl Bean played hardball.
The PSAC workers were looking for 5 per cent wage increases-
Remember, this is at a time when members of PSAC itself got 4.8 per cent.
Bean, who handled the negotiations personally, offered only 3 per cent. It's the same amount, we all know, that the federal government once offered Bean.
At one point during the conflict Bean went so far as to lock his workers out of PSAC headquarters, and that riled my caller to no end.
"I don't think any union man should lock out his workers -the whole affair struck me as utter hypocrisy, a case of 'do as I say, not as I do.'" -
-Bean told him later that the workers should be happy with 3 per cent because their benefits were better than those of workers in the private sector, and any way, the union was short of money.
Well, well, well. When the President of the Treasury Board says we have pretty good benefits for our employees but we are short of money, we are outrageous,
we are terrible, we have no concern. When Daryl Bean does it, oh, well, that is all right.
Then members opposite stand up and say that we tried to trigger a strike.
Here is what the caller said to Ron Corbett:
I'm convinced that Bean wanted a strike. It was important to him
that he turn PSAC into a powerful, militant union.
He goes on to say that the strike was never about wages or a new collective agreement. It was about power.
CUPW is another labour situation that has not been resolved. They offered and imposed on their employees 2 per cent over 18 months, half of what they went on strike for at the post office.
Shirley Carr says we are in a street fight. "Security, we demand security. We demand that you stop contracting out. We demand that you stop privatizing and deregulating. We demand security for these employees".
The CLC negotiated job security out of the contract it had with its own employees six years ago. Work for the CLC six years ago and you had job security. Work for the CLC today, you do not. It was negotiated out by the same Shirley Carr who says that we are treating our employees unfairly.
It is ironic in many ways that we have these statements by Bean and Parrot and Carr and Bob White. It is frustrating. For contrary to their own actions the unions are asking us to do things they have chosen not to do for their own workers.
They want us to raise taxes or borrow the money in order to meet their demands. Our choice has been to restrict spending, the same choice unions are making. We think it is a responsible choice in the best interests of all Canadians.
I am tired of the accusations about members of Parliament. Since 1984, the inflation rate has been 29.6. Members of Parliament salaries have gone up 17.6. We did get the travel allowance. Not mentioned in any of these discussions is that for the last several years in a row, each year according to formula, the travel expenses of public servants have been raised. The per diem expenses when they are on the road have been raised. Their fringe benefits have been raised all along the line. People insist on talking about our fringe benefits, but not those fringe benefits. Let us look at the whole package.
September 16, 1991

The President of the Treasury Board has said he is willing to talk about more in terms of security, fringe benefits and adjustments if there are people who are on a scale that makes it difficult for them to live. The union has said, "no". Daryl Bean has said: "No. We will not discuss anything until you get off your 0-3-3. Only when you get off that".
In other words, he is saying: "Only until you express your willingness to tax more or to borrow more to pay for my members, even though I am not willing to do that for my own employees".
Five Public Service unions have already settled for 0-3-3. You do not read about that. They have settled. They have agreed. They have said: "Yes, we recognize that we are in a tough position". They have said: "Look, at a time when airline employees are being laid off and oil and gas employees are being laid off; at a time when 25 per cent of the farming community is in tough shape; at a time when we are just coming out of the recession and it finally looks like our children might not have an impossible debt burden to deal with, we do not think it is unreasonable for us to join everybody else in the country in saying zero for a year. We do not think that is an unreasonable sacrifice". Five unions did that.
There is no question that the leadership of the labour movement is against us. I have seen Shirley Carr and Daryl Bean on television saying that this is not a political strike. That is what it is. It is not the welfare of the employees that they are looking after. It is a political strike. We have the CLC, CUPW, Canadian Auto Workers, Judy Rebick of the NAC and others joining together in a political fight. They are using the cause of the workers to pursue a political objective. Their concern about the workers is two faced by virtue of how they treat their own workers. This is a political fight. That is fine. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this country, to the future generations of this country, to ensure that in the pursuit of political objectives this country is not hamstrung and crippled so that we have no opportunity to meet the challenges that are demanded of us in the years to come.
The reality is that the budget brought in earlier this year is the right budget. The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Mon-
Govemment Orders
etary Fund, international groups have applauded Canada for its path. Ironically, we are suffering for it.
My friend over there mentioned the Canadian dollar. It is an irony that we are perceived by the rest of the world as doing so well that the movement into Canadian dollars is causing us problems. The dollar is too high. Foreigners like our currency because they perceive that the government is doing well. That is one of the ironies. It is something we have to deal with.
It is regrettable that this motion is necessary. As I have said, out of the nine times in the past when back to work legislation has been introduced, on all but one occasion there was recognition by the opposition that it simply made sense that we get together and agree to have appropriate and reasonable debate. Nobody wants to cut off debate. After debate you decide. That is what we are looking for. Reasonable debate and decision.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it requires the co-operation of the House to do that. We cannot delay any longer, so I am putting forward this motion which will put some limitations on the stages, but would require us to sit over the weekend so that we can get it done.
Just to ensure that the motion itself has an opportunity to pass, I would like to give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on Government Order No. 4 in the name of the government House leader, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the government House leader and his references, I would remind members of this House of the words and the way in which he presented his arguments when he made reference to the president of PSAC, made reference to the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and made reference to the president of the Canadian Auto Workers union and their representatives. I asked myself the question: I wonder why Canada has such great difficulty competing in the international community when our own government cannot pull it together, labour, business and government. That, obviously, is the answer as demonstrated by the remarks and the veracity of the remarks of the government House leader. I think it is utterly

September 16, 1991
Government Orders
shameful as to what he has said here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite makes many references to certain items which he believes to be important. The hon. member has served in this House for a considerable length of time. I would ask him to reflect upon what was said on page 8 of a decision which was rendered today by the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Again, I repeat, it is a statute of this House, duly passed by this House, and consists of members appointed by the Prime Minister and approved by the cabinet.
Here is what this decision reads in part:
Labour relations boards in various jurisdictions have held that to
insist on preconditions before bargaining for a collective agreement is
contrary to the requirement to bargain in good faith.
For example, and they cite a particular case, Rolf, Clarke Stone Packaging, 1980, The Ontario Labour Relations Board. They go on in this particular case to say that the narrow issue here is whether the respondent's conduct complied with the Board's order to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement. It goes on to say other things.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that the board, a government duly appointed board has now made the decision, a quasi-judicial board, saying that the Government of Canada has bargained in bad faith.
Is there any wonder that we as a country trying to compete with other countries have such difficulty when our own government bargains in such bad faith with labour, with a major component of an economic unit such as labour? It is very obvious to me and my party, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened here has been a game, and I might add with some regret, a great deal of regret in point of fact, being played by the government in order to uplift, if you will, its political standings by playing on the mood of the Canadian public, who are somewhat agitated by the drawbacks that this strike is having across the country.
If the government was so concerned, if it were really concerned about resolving this dispute, why can it not appoint a mediator? That is part of the collective bargaining process. But it is swinging this way, it is swinging that way. The Conservatives want to have this
matter before Parliament. They are trying to drag it out. They are trying to incite-and I use that language respectfully, Mr. Speaker-through acts of provocation, union representatives and individuals across this country to have violent confrontations in order to substantiate and legitimize what we now know is an act to suspend collective bargaining, what we now know is an act by Parliament to put the boots to Parliament, what we now know is a breach of the cornerstone of free collective bargaining in this country called bargaining in bad faith. We know all of those things. They are trying to create the emergency, and they are doing a pretty good job. But does it not play right into the hands of a government which is desperate to hold on to political power at any cost? It is not I, Mr. Speaker, who has used the word "power"; it has been the word used by the government House leader opposite, who said in the Chamber today that this is a game about power.
Raw political power we are seeing here, Mr. Speaker, and I am confident that in the end, in the final analysis, Canadians will come to recognize that the actions of the Prime Minister, of the front line ministers, the McDou-galls and the Clarks and the Mazankowskis and the Wilsons, and the respective constituencies that they represent-


An hon. member:: They don't represent them.


David Charles Dingwall: Ah, that is the key phrase. That is the key phrase. They represent one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is their political friends and their political cronies. We find it despicable, Mr. Speaker, that we have had to come in this countiy to this kind of confrontation.
The question I ask members of this House: Have we seen it elsewhere? It is Brian Mulroney's way, the Prime Minister's way, or no way. Did we see it before, Mr. Speaker? And we are going to see it again, as evidenced here with this particular piece of legislation. I say this to the viewing public tonight: Note the procedural gymnastics of the government opposite in order to draw to the attention of the Canadian people a sense of urgency, hoping that there will be conflict on the picket lines, hoping that there will be confrontation between innocent individuals to render their decisions, their Draconian decisions, as being legitimate.
September 16, 1991

Mr. Speaker, one wrong does not make it right; two wrongs do not make it right; and three wrongs certainly makes it very wrong for this Parliament and for this government to proceed the way in which it is proceeding here today.
In closing, in the few minutes that I have before it reaches the hour of six, there are other things that have to be stated and put on the record, which my leader will do tomorrow, because I presume we will be proceeding directly to second reading. But there are issues of great importance. The government House leader has talked about the issue of contracting out, or has refused to talk about contracting out. Bill C-26, which was passed by this House, provides for layoffs in the event that work loads are contracted out. Well, last year five billion dollars-five billion dollars-was spent through contracting out.
Now, I ask this House, do they think it is a political slush fund? Are there any Tories who have benefited from the contracting out?


An hon. member:: You had better believe it.


David Charles Dingwall: Have the young workers across this country who are within the Public Service and elsewhere really benefited from this?


Some hon. members:: No, no.


David Charles Dingwall: I suggest to this House and to the viewing public here tonight, Mr. Speaker, that the five billion dollars which has been spent on contracting out is another form of the Brian Mulroney patronage that we have seen in this country and are sick and tired of in this country.
The government House leader makes no reference whatsoever in terms of what the conciliation boards have said, and I will close with this quote, Mr. Speaker. Here is what they said on all monetary issues and rates of pay. Here is what the conciliation board reported-duly appointed by the government as well as appointed by the union representatives-and I quote:
All of the above issues are directly monetary matters. Obviously,
the key to their solution is an agreement on basic wage increases.
However, while the union positions on wages are flexible, the
employer's position is presented as being totally inflexible.
Adjournment Debate
What nonsense this government is trying to put forward today in the House of Commons.
I argue through you, Mr. Speaker, that we will not be a part of a government which is selecting individuals who are members of unions and are suffering because of the incompetence of the government opposite.
I wish to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, An Act to implement conventions between Canada and Finland, Canada and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Canada and the United Mexican States for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax and the prevention of fiscal evasion and a convention between Canada and the United Mexican States for the exchange of information with respect to taxes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, on June 11 of this year I put a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister in connection with ministerial responsibility. This question arose around the drama of the Al-Mashat affair, as it has now come to be called. We did not have an opportunity in the close confines of Question Period to address some of the points that I mentioned in the question.
I do not wish to talk about the Al-Mashat affair specifically. What I want to concentrate on is the issue of ministerial responsibility. What I would like to do is try if at all possible to put my point succinctly and if possible to get a straight answer from the government.

September 16, 1991
Adjournment Debate
In my question I referred to a little booklet of some six pages, which is entitled Notes on the Responsibilities of Public Servants in Relation to Parliamentary Committees. It is put out by the Privy Council Office. It was put out in this case in December 1990.
For those who are not familiar with the Privy Council Office, of course it is the highest office for public servants in this land and provides guidance to those public servants on how they should behave.
In my question I quoted a couple of paragraphs of this little booklet. In responding, the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, proceeded to lecture me on the McGrath committee of 1985 and what occurred in the McGrath committee. Of course, that is totally irrelevant because that took place many years before the publication of this document. This document is recent. It is less than one year old and it was given the blessing of the Privy Council Office. It says very clearly the following, and I quote from page one:
Ours is a system of "responsible" government because the Government must retain the confidence of the House of Commons and because Ministers are responsible to the House for everything that is done under their authority. They are answerable to Parliament and its committees. It is Ministers who decide policy and Ministers who must defend it before the House and ultimately before the people of Canada.
That is on page one of this very short booklet. On the last page of this very short booklet, page six, there is a recap. Remember that this is a booklet that public servants are expect to read and are expected to follow in their conduct when they appear before committees.
It is reiterated in the final paragraph and I quote:
It is Ministers, and not officials, who exercise the constitutional authority of the Crown; and it is Ministers, and not their officials, who are responsible to Parliament. Officials are accountable to Ministers.
I asked a very simple question in connection with those two paragraphs. I thought it was clear, non-partisan and simple. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this is the policy of his government? Surely a yes or no answer would have sufficed.
A document produced by the highest civil servant to be followed by the rest of the civil servants, I ask very simply: Is this the policy of this government. I am asking again. Could I please have a yes or no?


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member had to say.
I was a member of the McGrath commission as was his colleague, the member for Papineau. One of the clear statements made by that commission was that while ministers of the Crown are responsible, they cannot be exclusively responsible because every department in government is so large that you cannot expect the minister to know everything that is going on in the department.
I want to respond more specifically to what the member has to say to put to rest any concerns he might have concerning the state of health of parliamentary democracy as it exists in Canada today.
In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers who are in turn answerable to Parliament. The exercise of these powers for which ministers are constitutionally responsible to Parliament provides the foundation of responsible government.
This system of government enables Parliament to focus responsibility for the conduct of government on those of its members who hold ministerial office and who ultimately must personally answer to Parliament and hence to the electorate for their actions and the actions of their subordinates.
Ministers are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities of the Public Service whose duty it is to give loyal, professional and non-partisan support to the government of the day.
Public servants are responsible to ministers. They have no constitutional responsibility to Parliament, nor do they share in that of ministers. They do, however, support ministers in their relationship with Parliament and to this extent they may be said to assist in the answerability of ministers to Parliament.
Ministers fulfil their responsibilities and are called to account by the House of Commons for the exercise of their statutory authority in accordance with practice and convention. This accountability is and has been well noted by eminent authorities and those who have political responsibility.
September 16, 1991

The way in which ministers exercise their responsibility for the actions of their officials will depend upon the circumstances and whether an official has acted, for example-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry but the time is over.


HEALTH CARE
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I rise to elaborate on a question I posed in June.
Canada is facing a crisis in health care and it is based on two things. The cutbacks by the federal government and transfer payments that the government was anticipating.
Those cutbacks by the turn of the century will amount to $2.4 billion or about $10 billion a year. This year alone the cutbacks are crippling the provinces' ability to deliver health care. All one has to look at is cutbacks to health care, particularly in the weaker provinces of Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces. Newfoundland had to lay off 10 per cent of its nurses.
In my home province of British Columbia, the cutbacks amounted to a loss of income of $500 million this year. In the province of Ontario, it was $2.5 billion this year in money that it had been promised to provide health care to Canadians.
What does this mean in my community, Surrey, which is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada? It means that we have 1.1 acute care beds per 1,000 population instead of the 3.3 that is necessary. Forty per cent of the population must leave its own community to receive basic health care.
The federal government's response is that we should be putting more money into preventive health care. Surrey, because of the cutbacks, is not able to provide the preventive health care that is necessary.
We are 35 full time public health nurses short in the municipality of Surrey. We are 27 health inspectors short. These are the people who provide preventative services that save money down the road. One of the things that is threatening our health care is the cutback in the transfer of funds. The other is the erosion of national standards.
This government has waffled when it comes to upholding national standards. Right now we have three things
Adjournment Debate
happening that are threatening national standards with the introduction of user fees in Canada.
We have the Tory convention clearly saying and going on record that it wants to introduce user fees.
The province of Quebec has introduced user fees in some emergency hospitals. This government has not taken any action in relation to that and shows no indication that it is going to take any action and uphold the Canada Health Act.
In my province we have the premier, Rita Johnston, that great Socred. In B.C. we know what Socreds are. They are just a combination of Liberals and Tories who get together to form power. The premier has come out supporting the introduction of user fees.
What we have in Canada is a threat to our national medicare program. I would like the government to clarify what its commitment to national medicare is, that is a partnership between itself and the provinces with joint and equal financing and with the federal government setting standards it will uphold.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is unequivocally committed to supporting our national system of medicare and the five principles of accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration will be protected.
The government this year provided over $16 billion in transfer payments under the EPF, Established Programs Financing. This is double the amount the federal government transferred to the provinces just ten years ago.
Maintaining the national standards of underlying medicare is not just about money. Canadians realize that both federal and provincial governments cannot endlessly allocate substantial new financial resources to meet the increasing costs of health care. Most provincial and territorial task forces and commissions have acknowledged that more money is not the answer to the problem in health care.
The federal government has to ensure that health care costs remain affordable. To do this, it must join all the stakeholders in the field of health, be it the government, health care professionals or consumers of the health care services. Everyone has to participate in seeking and implementing solutions to the challenges that are facing us.

September 16, 1991
Adjournment Debate
The federal government has already laid the ground work for ongoing dialogue and possible approaches to improve the health care system.
One example is the positive and very beneficial meeting between the federal and provincial health care ministers last June and also their agreement to a follow-up meeting this week.
Another example is the creation, in conjunction with our provinces, of the Canadian Co-ordinating Office on Health Technology Assessment.
The federal government welcomes all contributions of the stakeholders to this debate on how we can improve a good health care system. We can improve it, we can alter it, we can streamline it, but we will preserve it.


ARMENIA
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch - Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 18,1 will be leaving Canada to journey to Soviet Armenia. I will be Canada's official observer at the referendum for independence which is to be held on Saturday, September 21.
An aide from our embassy in Moscow and Vazken Tertian are accompanying me. Mr. Tertian is a Canadian Armenian leader who lives in Thornhill.
This will be an historic trip for both of us, but it will be an emotional visit for Mr. Terzian. Born in Lebanon, this is the first time Mr. Terzian will visit Armenia where his parents were born.
His parents had to flee Armenia during the 1915 massacre. His father to be was three years old and his mother to be was four years old at the time. Thousands of children had to flee. His parents walked almost 1,000 miles in search of freedom. This cruel and arduous ordeal took six months. His mother's aunt was the only adult to help them. His family eventually settled in Lebanon.
In 1920, Armenia was taken under communist rule as a result of the revolution. This communist yoke was to last 70 years. Finally, with the growth of Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost, the flames of freedom burned.
In December 1989 the oppressive communist regime was buried with a democratically elected Parliament in Armenia.
The next milestone in Armenia's fight for democracy and freedom was in August of 1990 when the newly elected Parliament put forth a road to independence.
This road to independence included the plan for a democratically conducted referendum on independence. This referendum will, as I said earlier, be held on Saturday, September 21.
Both Vazken Terzian and I are thrilled and honoured to have the opportunity to be in Yerevam, the capital of Armenia, to witness this historic referendum with our own eyes.
While we fully expect overwhelming support for the referendum, it is important that the referendum be conducted with absolute integrity and fairness.
We will be monitoring the process by investigating the preparation of voter lists, finding out how ballots are distributed and other details such as the identification necessary for voting.
We want to ensure that results are tabulated correctly and fairly. These are just a few of the many steps that we will be monitoring.
I am proud to say that this will be my second trip to Soviet Armenia. My last visit was in March 1989. It was a sad journey. I led a group of Canadian Armenians to examine the tragic devastation caused by the December 1988 earthquake. My good friend Apkar Mirakian, from Scarborough, was one of the Canadian Armenian leaders on the trip.
It was physically and emotionally exhausting to visit the ravaged sites and to witness and learn about the incredible death and destruction that occurred.
On our trip, Mr. Mirakian and I had the thrill of attending a special service on Easter Sunday at the Atchmiazin Cathedral.
I have tremendous respect for the resilience displayed by Armenians over the past decades. They survived the genocide of 1914-15. They survived 70 years of communism.
September 16, 1991

There are still problems to be settled in Azerbaijan where human rights violations continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but are you making a statement? I do not understand your speech. Have you a question for the government?


Bill Attewell: I do but I wanted to outline the importance of the trip and this independent movement. I do want to ask, in terms of the human rights violations in Azerbaijan, can the parliamentary secretary tell me if that is being dealt with expeditiously?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the member from Markham for the opportunity to represent Canada during the vote that will be taken in Armenia during this week, actually on September 18. It is a delight for all of us who have enjoyed democracy for so many decades and centuries to see these people, who have suffered the scourge of totalitarianism and communism for so many years, experiencing now the light of freedom in their lives.
Along with that, I might add, how energized we are to see what is happening in the Baltic states and the independence that those people in the Baltics are enjoying now after having been denied the democracy that is so rightfully theirs for these 50 years.
I am pleased to say that the government has chosen to send the member from Markham to Armenia to make sure that the human rights violations are, if possible, non-existent, that a vote is honest and accurate. The minister just very recently met with members of the community in Toronto, just 10 days ago, to assure them that Canada is on their side. Wherever there is an opportunity for people to experience the flourishing of democracy and free speech, free thought and free action, we want to be with those people.
I therefore wish the member Godspeed and hope that what he experiences there is unimpeded democracy during the vote that will be held just a few days hence.
Adjournment Debate TRUCKING INDUSTRY


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the minutes available to me to review in this Chamber a question I had the opportunity to pose to the government, namely to the Minister of Transport, on May 14, 1991.
If we cast our collective minds back to that period, we will remember that instead of the Public Service union protesting outside Parliament's door today, it was truckers from across the country, particularly from the province of Ontario.
Truckers came to Ottawa because they are literally being run off the road by American competition. We, on this side, are not saying that a Canadian trucker and a Canadian industry cannot have the technology and the will and the determination and the work ethic to compete with their American counterparts. But what we are saying is that because of the size and the differential in the size between the American and the Canadian trucking industry, the fuel costs, the depreciation costs, the tax structure costs, it is simply an unlevel playing field.
To simply sit back, as this government is doing, and say to the Canadian truckers and the industry that they should not worry but should go out there and compete in the name of free enterprise, is irresponsible.
It is also irresponsible to promise something and do absolutely nothing. The predecessor to the current Minister of Transport last summer in Windsor, when they had a blockade, said that he was going to take the issue to cabinet and that he was going to make the financial changes required for the trucking industry to compete. He then said he was going to study all the factors and unleash a series of seven task forces to study the industry inside out and report back with the intention of ushering in some action and some much reform and change.
Where is the change? Where are the modifications? On April 22, 1991, I wrote the minister to say that we were getting another series of blockades because another year had passed by and nothing had changed. On April 24 we appealed once again to the minister who basically did not lend us or the trucking industry his ear nor that of his government.

September 16, 1991
Adjournment Debate
What happened was that on May 13, like the workers outside our doorstep today, enough was enough. They basically rallied in frustration, losing their pay per day, and they stayed here several days and many of them could not afford it. But they basically appealed to Parliament to listen to their concerns. We presented on a parliamentary day that we initiated an entire parliamentary debate focused on the trucking industry. We were not strident, we were not negative. We offered a nine-point program which we felt with all sincerity was legitimately addressing the concerns presented to us. That was on May 17, and the minister promised to look at it, to release the reports and take action on the recommendation of the reports. It is now September 16 and nothing has happened. The minister has said nothing and done nothing. What I am advocating and what we are hoping for, Mr. Speaker, with the fresh start that presents itself to the Chamber and to the government particularly, as fall is a symbolic start of any school or of any chamber, we are looking for a symbolic and a very practical change of heart as it relates to the trucking industry. I hope my hon. friends on the other side will begin that process today with an answer and with a promise to make things better.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has raised this issue today so that we can get a few facts on the table.
The Minister of Transport has had several productive meetings with the task force on trucking issues. This task force was established last year to give the industry a forum for discussion of industry problems and for consultation with the government. Members of the task force represent shippers, carriers, unions and owner-operators. Last July the minister advised the task force that the government is prepared to consider the need for some form of transitional assistance to the industry and asked for their input.
The Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Transport met again last week with the task force. At that meeting the task force gave the ministers their recommendations for transitional assistance. As the minister explained at that meeting, the next step will be for him to take these recommendations both to his provincial and federal colleagues. It is the minister's intention to meet with his provincial colleagues in
Winnipeg later this week. Provincial participation is clearly a key element.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member has, that studies on the trans-border trucking competitiveness that were commissioned by the task force did not substantiate the claims from the opposite side of the House about the tax burden for our truckers. Indeed, the studies proved that because of the introduction of the GST, the tax burden of Canadian truckers is about the same as that of American truckers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the goods and services tax, the federal tax on diesel fuel has actually been reduced by three cents a litre.
I am very aware, as is this government, that the trucking industry has been hard hit by the recession. Thankfully though we have begun to hear from sources both inside and outside the industry that the outlook for the future is improving as the recession ends.
The Minister of Transport is committed to fostering a Canadian trucking industry that meets the needs of the Canadian economy and a strong economy will benefit all participants in the trucking industry itself.


AGRICULTURE
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, on May 31 of this year I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture regarding the situation faced by the fresh apple industry in Canada.
The Canada Farm Products Marketing Council has recommended to the minister the establishment of a national marketing agency for fresh apples. This was after the council held hearings in the fall of 1990 across the country, especially in the five major apple growing provinces.
I was pleased that in his answer on May 31 that the minister indicated he would do what the growers asked him to do. And I am here again tonight to stress that I hope the minister follows up on that.
The apple industry, the fresh apple industry in particular, but all of the industry-but we are talking about the fresh apple industry here this evening-is an important industry. There are 8,000 apple farmers in Canada, producing 500,000 tonnes of apples per year and employing 15,000 Canadians.
September 16, 1991

The problems facing fresh apple producers in Canada is one of both price and world overproduction. During their extensive hearings, it was demonstrated time after time that the major predicament facing Canadian growers is one of price. In 1989 the average producer received
9.5	cents for apples that cost him over 14 cents a pound to produce, a tough way of doing business.
The Farm Products Council has accepted the recommendations of the producers. I would like to just very quickly go over those, Mr. Speaker. They are a very excellent group. They address the concerns that Canadians have about marketing agencies and speak very well to them.
First, this system would ensure reasonable returns to efficient producers. There will be a high level-one-third of apple imports into Canada. Quota will have no value. There will be no shortage of apples due to supply management. There will be incentives for growers to produce high quality apples of the varieties wanted by Canadian consumers.
The agency will be oriented toward promoting the demand for apples and is in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of GATT and the free trade agreement.
My question to the government is this. When is the government going to begin to put into motion the recommendations of the Farm Product Marketing Council and the vast majority of Canadian apple growers, and take immediate steps to launch a national marketing agency for fresh apples for the benefit of all Canadians?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, at the request of apple growers, the National Farm Products Marketing Council began an inquiry into the merits of establishing a national apple marketing agency. The report of the council was released on May 8, 1991. Although the report recommends the eventual establishment of a national apple agency with all of the powers under section 22 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, there are a number of steps which remain to be taken before an agency can be proclaimed.
These steps include the development of a more detailed marketing plan and the need to take into account the principles of second generation supply
Adjournment Debate
management, as well as Canada's international trade obligations.
The development and implementation of an effective national apple agency will require the close co-operation and participation of provincial governments as well. To ensure that the views of the provinces are taken into account early in the process, the minister initiated discussions with them and has asked for input from the apple producing provinces on the report of the council. This includes New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
The Minister of Agriculture has also requested input from the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the implications for Canada's trade obligations and the processing sector, as well as the impact on consumers.
Only after consultations with provincial governments and cabinet colleagues, will the government be in a position to provide further direction to the National Farm Products Marketing Council and the apple growers on the next steps in the process.
I think the member would agree that those processes have to be followed.
In the meantime, we would encourage apple growers to continue their efforts toward developing an improved apple marketing system. It was recognized by growers during the inquiry that there are a number of issues which must be addressed by apple growers to improve their marketing system. These include information systems, apple pricing, promotion and trade data. Agriculture Canada has provided $50,000 in financial support to the apple committee of the Canadian Horticulture Council and to assist in analyzing the problems with the present marketing structures and to assess options and make recommendations for incorporation into the development of a long-term marketing strategy for Canadian apples.
This information will be of great benefit to the industry in planning for the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

The House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 17,1991