1992-02-10

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That this House urges the government to launch a royal commission into pricing practices in the pharmaceutical industry to determine the rate of mark-ups in price at each transaction, from manufacturer to wholesaler or distributor, from wholesaler or distributor to retailer, and from retailer to the public, in order to determine how such mark-ups affect the Canadian consumer.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to explain why I presented this motion.

This motion has a very clear purpose which I hope will meet and satisfy not only the curiosity but the political interest of my colleagues in this Chamber.
The background is the following. First, the pharmaceutical industry in Canada is a substantial business. Its activities amount to some $4.5 billion every year.
Second, for certain products called patent drugs, the industry enjoys a substantial monopoly situation which could be strengthened and amplified if the present negotiations at GATT are successful. On that subject my colleague for York West will be intervening later.
Third, the whole question of mark-ups in the price of pharmaceutical products affects the consumer.
Finally, mark-ups in this industry also affect the taxpayer and the public purse.
For all these reasons I would like to present the following case which is based on a meeting held last May by the Liberal task force on the industrialization and economic renewal in Ontario. It took place here on the Hill with representatives of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada.
On that occasion, we learned that according to the data at hand with the representatives of the association, the mark-ups are as follows: the one practised at the manufacturing level ranges between 15 and 60 per cent. As well there is apparently an inventory charge at the factory level of approximately 10 per cent. When the product leaves the factory gates and reaches the wholesaler, the mark-up at that point is anywhere between 7 and 10 per cent. When the product reaches the pharmacist, the mark-up is anywhere between 30 and 50 per cent, we were told, and to that, of course, is added the dispensing fee. The dispensing fee varies from province to province and ranges from $6 per dispensation to $11.
Why is this a public issue? It is a public issue in two respects. This is an industry that is federally regulated and, as you may recall, the last and rather intensive debate which took place in this House was on Bill C-22.
Second, the cost of prescription drugs is covered by provincial health care plans with public funds. The beneficiaries or the people who are covered by this provincial health care plan, will be mostly found among senior citizens and low income Canadians and Canadians who are under hospital care and who receive medical treatment and drugs while in hospital.
While it is not possible for me to indicate the precise amount of drug costs involved for these two major categories, I would be inclined to suggest that it is a fairly substantial sum.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of this brief overview you can see why the public purse is heavily affected by the mark-ups and by the cost of drugs.
Under the Ontario drug benefit plan, for instance, we learned that over the past decade the increase in expenditures has been 12 per cent for every year. That is

February 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
not a minor increase year by year in expenditures by the Ontario drug benefit plan.
The Manitoba minister of health and welfare, when he appeared in 1988 before the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce, said that the expenditures on drugs in Manitoba were increasing at that time at the rate of 15 per cent per year. It is worth while noting that by contrast, while the drug costs are increasing over 10 per cent per year according to the data made available by Ontario and Manitoba, in the case of Ontario the hospital expenditures as an over-all figure have risen only by 4.5 per cent per year. So you can see that the percentage increase year to year in the cost of drugs is three times as high as the percentage of increase in the over-all hospital expenditures.
The House may recall, and I made a brief reference to this fact, that we had quite an intensive discussion at the time of the amendments to the Patent Act and under Bill C-22. The present law makes a provision for a review board to monitor drug prices. At this point you may want to ask, Mr. Speaker, why should we have a royal commission as proposed in this motion? In answer to that question I have to draw your attention to the fact that the mandate of the review board is considerably limited. It is limited to reviewing the price at which the manufacturer sells to the wholesaler. The review board has no authority to review the final price or mark-ups between the factory gate and the store shelf, so that reviewing the annual price increases of patented drugs takes place at that very factory gate snap shut situation, not at the level of the wholesaler, not at the level of the pharmacist, at the retail level.
In addition, and this was also the object of interesting discussions in the Senate, the review board can only review but not roll back prices. In other words, the board cannot determine whether the consumer has been given a fair shake or fair treatment.
For all of these reasons, a royal commission on drug pricing in Canada becomes a necessary step. It becomes a must if we want to give Canadians the assurance that they are treated fairly in the process of acquiring drugs at the retail level.
Let me review again the mark-ups because it is important. At the manufacturers' level, the mark-up is between 15 per cent and 60 per cent. In addition to that, there is an inventory charge of some 10 per cent. Once the product leaves the factory gate, the wholesaler's mark-up is between 7 per cent and 10 per cent. Once it reaches the pharmacist, the mark-up is between 30 per cent and 50 per cent. In addition to that, the pharmacist, for the task which consists of counting a certain number of tablets, typing a label which indicates the name of the patient and the general name of the drug, but which does not, however, reveal the content of it and that is a very serious shortcoming, I submit to you, charges a fee that ranges between $6 and $11 per prescription.
So it becomes clear that we must look at this pattern of mark-ups. They have to be confirmed, have to be examined, have to be studied. That will be the purpose of the commission, to compare them, to look at the mandate given to the review board, which we will find does not protect the consumer. The consumer is helpless because the review board is not empowered to do anything about most of the steps from the factory gate to the consumer.
It is true that it can look at the prices at the factory gate, but even there, where it has jurisdiction to review, it has no jurisdiction to roll back. So, Mr. Speaker, to make this intervention as short as possible and allow as many colleagues as possible to intervene, I will conclude by saying that the motion before you, in essence, asks for fairness in the settling of drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to respond to the motion from the hon. member for Davenport.
It was recommended that the government establish a royal commission on the pricing practices of the pharmaceutical industry.
I know that the hon. member is motivated by a genuine concern for the impact the drug prices have on consumers, and I know that he is concerned about the ability of provincial governments to respond to increasing prices.
February 10, 1992

As much as we can acknowledge the undoubted good intentions of this motion, I am afraid that the motion for a royal commission is misplaced.
Any royal commission, as we know, imposes a large expense on the public treasury. Clearly there are important issues which must be examined by commissions of inquiry, but if we are going to burden the taxpayer with the expense, first we had better make sure that we genuinely do need a commission.
I am afraid that when one looks at the proposal and at the state of the pharmaceutical industry in general, I cannot see that we should inflict upon taxpayers the cost of this kind of study.
To begin with, several items the hon. member would like to examine fall under provincial jurisdiction. I am sure that it was not the intention of the hon. member for Davenport to intrude on provincial responsibilities for pharmaceutical price controls at the retail level, but that is the effect of his motion.
In fact, hon. members are well aware that the provinces have demonstrated a great concern for drug pricing. The challenges vary from province to province.
Each province is more capable of focusing on its own needs than a federal inquiry would be. In fact, some provinces have recognized their own responsibility to investigate these matters.
Both Ontario and British Columbia have already conducted their own commissions into the areas that fall under their jurisdiction. I am certain that no one in this House would endorse a commission that would only duplicate that work.
Any federal inquiry would inevitably get bogged down into the complexities of provincial systems over which this House has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
The issue of provincial responsibilities brings me to another reason why I believe this House should vote against this motion.
Hon. members from both sides are no doubt aware that the minister of health and welfare is committed to working with the provinces to ensure reasonably priced drugs for Canadians. In fact, the minister met with his provincial counterparts on January 27 to discuss this matter and other issues of mutual concern.
Private Members' Business
I am reassured by the commitment of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that prices will be kept reasonable for consumers, and I am encouraged by his efforts to work with the provinces on the issue.
At the federal level, we have the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Since the Patent Act was amended in 1987, the board, regardless of any limits on its mandate, has kept price increases for patented drugs below the increase in the Consumer Price Index. The board will be given enhanced powers to keep prices of patented drugs reasonable.
At the same time that this government is working with the provinces to ensure reasonable drug prices, it is working to encourage more research and development in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry.
There have already been some remarkable results. Glaxo Canada, one of the largest research-based pharmaceutical companies in Canada announced on January 16 that it was moving ahead with plans to build a $70 million manufacturing plant in Mississauga.
Glaxo estimates that it will invest $275 million over the next five years on research and development. In 1991, the company invested $25 million in research and development and has doubled its employment over the past five years to more than 1,000 employees across the country.
Four days after the Glaxo announcement, Astra Pharma Incorporated said it was considering building a new $150 million research facility in Mississauga, creating about 50 new research jobs.
Astra is already committed to an R and D investment in Canada of about $95 million over a five-year period. Further investment in facilities and equipment at the company's Mississauga location is likely to reach $97 million.
Both commitments are expected to result in about 160 new jobs. At the same time Astra announced that it has rolled back the 1992 prices on its prescription drugs to the 1991 level. The price reduction would amount to about 4 per cent or 5 per cent on the company's prescription drugs.
At a time when the world-wide pharmaceutical industry is evolving quickly Canada must strive to play an important role in the growth of this industry.

February 10,1992
Private Members' Business
As we can see, new research means high-paying skilled jobs for the medical and scientific communities. New research means a more competitive Canadian pharmaceutical industry. New research means new products that will add to the comfort and health of Canadians.
Canadians want and deserve more research and development leading to better medicines and treatment.
We want to send a signal that Canada welcomes the investment that means jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. We want our intellectual property protection to be an incentive for investment.
I would like to remind the House that investment by the brand name pharmaceutical industry has increased substantially since patent protection was improved in 1987.
At that time the industry made a commitment to increase research and development expenditures to 8 per cent of sales by the end of 1991. Has the innovative pharmaceutical sector lived up to that commitment? Not only have they lived up to the commitment, they have surpassed it.
By the end of 1990, a year earlier than their commitment called for, the research and development to sales ratio of patent holders had risen to 8.8 per cent.
That is a substantial increase from the 4.9 per cent research and development to sales ratio which the industry exhibited before the act was amended. Total research and development has increased from $165.7 million in 1988 to $281.3 million in 1990.
We have come a long way in encouraging research and development investment in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry, but we can do more.
That is why the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs recently endorsed multilateral trade proposals to strengthen patent protection for pharmaceuticals.
These proposals are contained in the draft text of the GATT agreement. They would allow pharmaceutical patent owners to enjoy the full term of protection now provided to patent owners in all other sectors of our economy.
Increased patent protection in Canada will bring increased medical research and development to Canada. This means new jobs and a more prosperous competitive Canadian pharmaceutical industry.
At the same time the generic industry must continue to play an important role in providing medicines to Canadians. The government is sensitive to the needs of the generic industry in adapting to the new pharmaceutical policy.
I remind the House that under the current system a drug typically enters the market 10 years after its patent is filed and the generic copy can enter seven years later.
The current GATT text that we have endorsed would add another three years to this period. In other words the generic products would come on the market after 20 years rather than after 17.
Generic drug manufacturers in Canada use competitive manufacturing technology to produce a broad line of drug products. This segment of the industry is expected to grow at a reasonable rate, in part because of a number of successful drugs that are coming to the end of their market exclusivity in Canada.
The generic drug manufacturers will be able to continue to produce drugs under their existing compulsory licences. Under the proposed changes to the patent protection announced in January they will still be able to market drugs once patents have expired.
In summary, first, the government has stated that if changes are made to the Patent Act it will grant new and enhanced powers to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
Second, the government is consulting with the provinces to ensure drug costs are kept reasonable.
Third, the brand name pharmaceutical companies have stated that they would increase their level of R and D in Canada and their performance bears it out.
What would the effect of a royal commission be on this progress? We have all been in political life long enough to know the effect that commissions of inquiry have on work in progress. It is either slowed or stopped. The temptation is to place things on hold until the results of a commission are known.
Those are the reasons that I would urge the House not to support the well-intentioned motion before us.

February 10, 1992


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset that I compliment my colleague, the member of Parliament for Davenport for putting forth this motion.
In terms of the drug pricing practices and policies, it is not only substantively well placed, but the timing could not have been better.
That is why I fully support the intent of the motion before the House of Commons for debate.
I say the timing could not be better because on January 14 the Minister for International Trade on behalf of the Canadian government basically agreed to a proposal put forth at the GATT negotiations in Geneva to grant and give brand name pharmaceutical companies essentially a 20-year monopoly on new drugs.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the existing legislation in Canada allows for a seven to ten-year protection for brand name drugs and allows at the same time a generic industry that has grown, flourished and matured and has become an integral part of the Canadian health care system to become a reality.
I think the move by the Minister for International Trade will seriously injure, if not completely undermine, that Canadian generic industry which essentially is a made-in-Canada for Canadians system that I think Canadians at large are indeed proud of.
We have to face the reality that we have to strike a balance between the large foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies and those generic companies in Canada when in fact 92 per cent of the pharmaceutical activity in this country is foreign owned. We have to take stock when we throw statistics out that indeed there are some 3,000 jobs involved in the generic industry, largely in Ontario but certainly also in western Canada and other places across the country. We simply cannot throw that to the wind.
When we talk about the generic industry, clearly Toronto, my home city, is a very leading part of that equation where we have the two largest generic industries in Canada, namely Novo Pharm and Apotex.
When we talk about the effect of that January 14 decision, it is clearly twofold. On the one hand, it has a very serious economic impact on the 3,000 jobs that I have just talked about in terms of stopping any further
Private Members' Business
research, all in Canada I might add, by our generic industry. It will stop any contemplated expansions. For instance, Apotex and Novo Pharm are in the mood to expand. Apotex was to have a $50 million research project going on in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which is now seriously in jeopardy. Clearly there is an economic impact in terms of jobs. Lord knows that we need each and every one of those 3,000 jobs, particularly as Canada and Canadians are gripped in one of the worst recessions that this country has ever faced.
The second impact of that impending decision is the whole question of the cost of drugs to Canadians. The government simply has to face, rather than ignore, that the generic industry and generic drugs have permitted a competitive and stabilizing force regarding the price of drugs.
The speaker who preceded me talked about the need for having a competitive pharmaceutical industry. It is quite ironic that a government member should be saying that the effect of the January 14 decision would not be to encourage greater competition, but would place on firmer ground the whole question of giving these multinationals a very large monopoly.
The fact that drug pricing has been moderated by the generic industry is an integral part of our health care system, whether the government likes it or whether it does not. We have to be cognizant that those prices will rise under a state of monopoly. It is natural. Governments and hospitals are now faced with spiralling health care costs. In my province the hospital association is requesting of the Government of Ontario some $600 million only to cover the debts incurred over the last number of years. St. Michael's Hospital, a leading hospital in Toronto, has to close departments because of financial constraints. This is not the time to be giving foreign multinational corporations a monopoly. I am not talking about stopping them at the border. Not at all. I think we should welcome that investment.
I am saying that there has to be a balance between those foreign multinational corporations which wish to invest and hopefully create some economic prosperity in this country. We also have to balance that with the generic drug industries that have helped keep prices down rather than increasing through the roof.

February 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
In addition to hospitals and governments, the individuals, our citizens, our consumers are also facing a very tough economic time. They are trying to hold on to their jobs or they are trying to get a job. It has really come down to two basic interests to Canadians, having a job and a livelihood and also trying to have protection for their health and an accessible, affordable system with which to do it.
At this time individuals cannot bear increased prices for their medicines. Are those who do not have a job and who become sick and those on fixed incomes and pensioners who have been granted a 75 cent a month increase on their pensions going to accept a 20 year monopoly on brand name drugs? Is this government not sensitive to the fact that in the last two to three years any new drug introduced on to the market has been incredibly expensive? On average 100 tablets costs between $100 and $200. Are we not to say that there is room for moderate influence? Are we not also prepared to say that a brand name pharmaceutical company should enjoy some protection on their research and development for discovering that drug? On average, that pharmaceutical company gets its money back after only two to three years. Therefore, a 10-year protection would seem to be plenty of time to get back those research moneys and also make a profit. But why 20 years?
In fact, if you think about the life of a drug, it is not going to be more than 20 years. Because of technology and research, after a drug has been on the market for 20 years there will be new discoveries. The generic industry coming in after 20 years is probably not going to be very lucrative or encouraging. After a 20-year life of that drug, rather than the generics replacing it there will be a new and improved brand name drug. Therefore, there really will be a monopoly on those drugs and through monopolies there will be an uncontrollable price on these drugs. The government has not spoken to how it will ensure fairness in that system.
Last, how were Canadians consulted? Did Canadians give the green light to the Minister for International Trade on January 14 to move on what has been an integral part of our health care system? In fact, I have a copy of a letter to the president of Apotex, Barry Sherman, dated Friday, January 10, from the government saying that it wished to consult. After one working day, on Tuesday, January 14, the Minister for International Trade chipped in and gave in on the generic drug licensing system in this country.
I say that is not consultation. Canadians have not been consulted. I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, through this motion presented by the member for Davenport, that our health care system in this country helps to define what this country is all about, gives expression to the term "Canadianism" and Canadians will not let go of that very lightly. Therefore, the pricing of drugs in this country is a going concern and deserves the support of this House to put in practice the essence of the motion before us.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on November 22, the hon. member for Davenport raised the matter of drug prices in the House. He presented a motion, urging the government to launch a royal commission of inquiry into pricing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Although I agree that the price of drugs in Canada deserves our special attention, with due respect for the hon. member, I wonder whether the current situation in the pharmaceutical industry is such that we need a royal commission of inquiry.
The Canadian government is not in the habit of starting this kind of process without good reason. In fact, a thorough analysis was carried out by the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry just seven years ago, in February 1985. Furthermore, since 1987, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, a regulatory agency with quasi-judicial powers, has a mandate to ensure that the prices of patented drugs are kept at reasonable levels.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether before putting his motion before the House, the hon. member took the time to read the board's latest annual report. According to the report for the year ended December 31, 1990, and I quote:
The prices of patented drugs generally complied with the board's
guidelines, which take into account the Consumer Price Index.
As far as I know, the situation has not changed drastically since then. I may remind hon. members that between December 1987 and December 1990, the average annual increase in the price of patented drugs was
3.1	per cent, while the average annual inflation rate was 4.7 per cent.
February 10, 1992

A preliminary review of 152 new drugs examined by the board in 1990 showed that for 100 of the drugs, companies had followed the guidelines on introductory prices for new patented drugs which came into effect in January 1990. The prices of 16 of the 52 remaining products were approved later on, either because the price had gone down or the change in price level was sufficiently below the cumulative change in the Consumer Price Index for the 1990 price to comply with the guidelines.
Review, verification of data and discussions with patentees are progressing for the remainder, according to the board's annual report. The current situation in the pharmaceutical industry has improved since the act to amend the Patent Act came into force in 1987.
At the time, there were some very gloomy predictions about the repercussions of this bill on the price of drug products. However, as reflected in the report of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the pessimists were wrong. The pharmaceutical industry kept its word, as predicted by the Hon. Harvie Andre, then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
On December 16, 1986, Mr. Andre told the legislative committee on Bill C-22, and I quote:
That improved patent protection would lead to an increase in
research and development in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry.
Spending on research and development throughout the industry rose from $165.7 million in 1988 to $281.3 million in 1990. In other words, the ratio of research and development to sales revenue increased from 6.1 per cent in 1988 to 8.8 per cent in 1990.
All this goes to prove that the amendments to the Patent Act passed in 1987 have benefited Canada and, as a result, all Canadians. Research and development in the industry has expanded faster than was expected. At the same time, consumers have been protected against unreasonable increases in the price of patented drugs.
On the eve of further changes arising from multilateral trade proposals made at the GATT talks, changes that will strengthen patent protection for pharmaceutical products, the Canadian government has promised to ensure that the prices of patented drugs will remain reasonable for Canadian consumers. It is important for
Private Members' Business
Canada's competitiveness and prosperity that our country should adopt a position that is in harmony with the multilateral proposals.
The new protection measures contained in the GATT agreement are one of the ways in which Canada can reinforce its position in the international market. We must remember that this is a market that puts a premium on research and innovation. While Canada must protect consumers, it must also transform its economy, which is now based mainly on the extraction and export of natural resources.
Canada must get in tune with a world economy based on value-added products. The pharmaceutical industry is very promising in this regard. It is therefore important for Canada to implement a legislative framework that favours basic research so as to provide for the creation and manufacture in Canada of innovative value-added products and also products that can be exported.
The present situation must be improved. Prosperity is not assured. We have seen countries lose their prosperity in a short time and that must not happen in Canada, Mr. Speaker. We have everything it takes to meet the productivity challenge. What is important now is that we be aware of the main problems, that we have the will to act and especially that we be prepared to implement a legislative framework for economic prosperity in Canada.
I think that the pharmaceutical industry is a good example of the kind of turnaround that must be achieved in all Canadian industries to ensure prosperity and maintain Canada's competitiveness in the world economy. Since changes were made to the Patent Act in 1987, the pharmaceutical industry's current expenditures on basic research have increased significantly. They rose from $53.5 million in 1989 to $70.1 million in 1990, an increase of 30.9 per cent.
The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board reported that in 1990, 47.5 per cent of current spending on research and development was in Quebec. In addition to investments, many jobs have been created since 1987, including 195 in research and development. It must be pointed out here that increasing basic research in Canada means definite benefits for Canada's health system and well-paying employment for science graduates from

February 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
our Canadian universities, not to mention the marketing of innovative new products internationally.
A country like ours, where a quarter of production and a third of employment depends on exports, must follow the main trends of the world economy. I am thinking in particular of the very rapid evolution of technology. Companies that can take advantage of it can increase their productivity. They can also make better products more quickly and at lower cost.
In this regard also, the Canadian pharmaceutical industry is a leader and Canada must therefore encourage its development at the same time as it protects consumers. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the mechanisms now in place in our Canadian system allow for consumer protection and will also enable our federal and provincial governments to benefit from the availability of drugs at very competitive prices.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate to launch an inquiry at this time.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to respond to the motion of my colleague, Motion No. 617, which urges the House to launch a royal commission into pricing practices of the pharmaceutical industry.
This is a very important issue and it does respond to the government's recent announcement of extending patent protection to the large brand name drug manufacturers in this country.
This will be to the detriment of the business of the generic drug industry which is represented in Ontario by two firms, Apotex and Novopharm.
I speak to this issue from an aspect of morality. Governments are very much influenced by the strength of various lobbies that address them, but too seldom do we address the morality issues. By extending patent protection to companies and by not following the advice of the motion put forward by my colleague we are not looking at the more important issue of accessibility of the public to much needed drug therapy.
By extending protection we are making drug therapy more expensive. We have seen that in the reduction of the number of drugs that are on the list of the province
of Ontario, for example. Because of the high costs of pharmaceuticals the government has had to strike off the list certain very beneficial drugs. This is not a benefit to us as a country. It relates very directly to our health care system as a whole.
The emphasis today is often on the distribution and the provision of aggressive high-tech but very expensive medical technology to people at the expense of preventive medicine which would benefit our whole country in reduced health care costs. It would certainly benefit far more individuals than our present system.
Obviously, from the many reports we have heard, our present system is under great stress and could falter because of the very high cost types of procedures we are having to support at the moment without reflection. My colleague's motion proposes that we set up a royal commission to review this. I do not accept the government's proposition that this motion is intruding into the provincial realm. It is a federal issue as well. We have the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board which is a federal board, but we are saying that we need to take a special look at this very important issue and set up a royal commission which I endorse whole-heartedly.
I also come to this issue from a different perspective, that is the perspective of the international community, Third World countries in particular. I was involved in trying to bring health care to Third World countries. I can tell the House that it was the generic firms of this country which provided the very necessary assistance, not the brand name pharmaceutical companies. Companies like Apotex and Novopharm assisted by providing thousands and thousands of doses of free medication, the most broadly used and very good quality medication, to people of our world, not just our country, who were most in need of therapeutic pharmaceuticals.
It distresses me that as we increase patent legislation and extend the patents to brand name companies, companies such as Apotex and Novopharm are forced to reduce expansion of their industry. This has a ripple effect of being very damaging, destructive and punitive to not only the many Canadians who need low price drugs but to the millions and millions of people who live in the Third World and can benefit from the generic drugs.
February 10, 1992

We have to review, revise and relook at our whole health system. One component of it that is very important is the pharmaceutical sector of therapy. We must decide how we can best serve in justice and equality the needs of all Canadians rather than put an emphasis on the very exclusive small sector of high-technology at the expense of pharmaceutical needs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Quebec, for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-26, the Public Service reform act.
Doing research for this second reading speech gave me the opportunity to examine in some detail the recent history of the Canadian federal Public Service and to make up my own mind about how efficiently the Public Service is delivering programs and services, and what areas need to be improved.
I must say the more I learned, the more I found that I was like the majority of Canadians, and I dare say some members of this House: when it comes to real knowledge about the Government of Canada we are somewhat lacking in facts and possessed of unfortunate negative
Government Orders
stereotypes about the men and women who work here. We do not know enough about our own public servants is what I am saying. You know what I mean when you even think this way yourself. There are three persistent misconceptions about public servants held by many Canadians.
Contrary to popular myth, public servants or civil servants are not all overpaid and underworked. They do not have life-long jobs, nor do they all work in an unstressed environment out of touch with reality. Contrary to popular myth, most of them do not just push paper all day. They care about the citizens they serve. And, again contrary to popular myth, Public Service waste and mismanagement is not largely responsible for the huge federal debt. While cutting red tape and making the Public Service more business-like is very important, it will not solve most of the country's budgetary problems.
In 1992 anyone who believes these myths is just plain wrong.
The federal Public Service is a vital national institution in the process of renewing itself from within and becoming more business-like in almost every respect. What is more, every Canadian has a stake in the success or the failure of this effort. Survey results compiled last year by a research team from Carleton University, the University of Ottawa and the University of Western Ontario found that federal public servants are hard working, stressed out and want substantial changes in how they perform their jobs. After years of budget cuts, downsizing, stalled careers, workload increases and non-inflationary pay increases culminating in a salary freeze this year, federal employees, clients and knowledgeable outsiders are calling for major changes in how the Public Service operates.
The changes are under way. The initiative to reform the Public Service was begun some two years ago under the banner Public Service 2000. Public Service 2000 has proved to be very well named. The name denotes a vision of the future while the fact that it was announced in 1990 and not in 1999 is an acknowledgement that many of the changes needed, including changes in attitudes, will take some time.
The Public Service has a long and splendid history. While 1992 marks the 125th anniversary of Canada as a nation, I would remind hon. members that 1992 also

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
marks the 125th anniversary of the federal Public Service as an ongoing institution. While there is no perfect way to go about reforming such a huge, complex or historic institution, I think remarkable progress has been made to date, progress that is largely unknown to members of this House and I daresay to most taxpayers who may be beginning to notice an improvement in service from employees.
Shortly after Public Service 2000 was announced, 10 task forces set off to look closely at specific areas that they felt to be in need of reform. The task forces undertook a great deal of consultation, especially in the area of service to the public, which I am sure all hon. members would agree must be the raison d'etre of the Public Service.
The task force reports were all made public. The reports contained some 300 recommendations. The reports and the feedback they generated, plus advice from academics and clients, resulted in a white paper which was tabled in this House more than a year ago by the hon. President of the Treasury Board. The white paper outlined many areas of needed change.
As a result of the white paper, where legislative changes were not required, many administrative reforms have already been put in place or are in the works.
Central agencies are taking the lead in slashing red tape and time consuming reporting requirements. They are moving away from a prescriptive controlled oriented approach to one more focused on results that are achieved by providing guidance and advice to departments and instituting clear accountability mechanisms.
The Public Service is now clearly more important to the federal government than the preservation of the systems and structures. Departments, in turn, are also eliminating their own internal administrative constraints where they have served to reduce efficiency unnecessarily-
Over and above the Public Service 2000, six straight years of frozen operating budgets for almost all departments, coupled with five straight years of downsizing, have forced departments to cut administrative overhead and channel resources elsewhere in order to maintain their programs in the face of ever growing demands.
Frontline employees are now being empowered to make decisions about service delivery. At the more senior levels, layers of management have been trimmed back to only three below the deputy minister, speeding up decision making and empowering the rest of the employees. This restructuring and empowering is especially important for regions as employees no longer have to check it out with Ottawa every time. They can use their own common sense and good judgment to help Canadians faster. They can spend more time listening to clients, understanding their needs and providing the services they are responsible for instead of filling out forms and adhering to restrictive procedures. In other words, employees are now spending less time serving systems and more time serving citizens, and this benefits every Canadian taxpayer.
On another very important front, the government remains committed to finding the most effective ways of delivering its programs. Recently the government regained through negotiations with all of its unions the right of management to decide how best to deliver programs to Canadians. The full range of program delivery options is again available, including delivery of programs by the government itself or by some other method, including privatization, contracting out work, devolving some functions to other levels of government, or performing them through special operating agencies.
Operating budgets are already being introduced in some departments so that management can decide on its own what are the most efficient mixes of resources, be they human or financial, to deliver the programs that Parliament has agreed should be delivered. Most of the costs of providing programs and services are being recovered under a user fee policy that identifies the program beneficiaries who may not be paying an appropriate share of the costs. Examples include services in areas of transportation, passports and various forms of federal licensing.
Departments are reorganizing to reduce administrative costs. They are automating and finding innovative new ways to respond to the needs of Canadians. Improved management of Canada's cash inflows and outflows has saved taxpayers billions of dollars over the last six years, while assets are managed more efficiently.
February 10, 1992

In this regard this House last year passed legislative changes to the Financial Administration Act and the federal Real Property Act. What most taxpayers do not realize is that if Canadians did not have to pay interest on the national debt, the federal government would actually be running a $12.6 billion surplus in the last fiscal year, that is 1990-91, rather than a deficit. This represents a $28.5 billion turnaround since 1984-85. It is so important that people realize that we have made substantial progress in reducing the cost of government.
I do not think anyone can doubt that this sort of performance improvement represents a spectacular achievement in business terms. Yet it is almost completely unknown and unheralded. By and large taxpayers and clients of the federal programs do not know this. I think members of this House, myself included, must accept some responsibility for this situation.
The passage of Bill C-26 now before us would permit the performance and improvement process to continue. It would add new dimensions to the reform process and invigorate it, complementing other ongoing planned performance improvement. It would reaffirm the merit principle of Public Service staffing and respond to employee concerns about their careers, as well as manage concerns about lack of flexibility to serve the public better through deployment of staff.
To address the issue of career movement which has affected employee morale and hence service at the counter, narrow job classifications would be combined and simplified to provide for broader job groupings allowing easier mobility for professional development purposes.
With more career movement, employees would be able to acquire new skills and work experience through increased lateral movement where promotions are not possible. Yet they would still have access to a system of redress to ensure that delegated authorities are not abused.
Provisions for demotion and release would be consolidated and transferred to the Financial Administration Act. Service to the public would be further improved with proposed changes to make it easier to hire casual staff for short periods, unexpected workloads and seasonal work.
Government Orders
Most hon. members would agree that changes must be made in the area of Public Service labour relations. With the passage of Bill C-26, relations between the employer and its unions would be improved through the introduction of more flexibility and the elimination of confining bureaucratic rules and procedures.
I want to stress that there has been a lot of consultation with government unions in this area. Bill C-26 proposes measures to address difficulties that result from trying to conduct employer-union relations in the 1990s under 25-year old legislation. Bill C-26 would open up new options for both parties and speed up the process of dispute resolution.
All members are aware that Canada is an increasingly diverse society. Canada needs a Public Service that better reflects the society it serves, one where all Canadians, including those who are members of ethnic and visible minorities and other employment equity groups, have equal access to employment and career opportunities.
With the passage of Bill C-26, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission, two key central agencies, would be able to work more closely to ensure that special programs are established to ease the recruitment and advancement of members of employment equity groups. These reforms would improve the chances of these Canadians finding satisfying careers and help make the department and agencies of government more reflective of the public being served.
Bill C-26 would help enshrine values in the Public Service that are Canada's values, including those of fairness and of equity of opportunity. The federal Public Service is a vital national institution that warrants refurbishing and revitalizing to better serve Canadians.
The former Auditor General, Kenneth Dye, stood firmly behind Public Service 2000, as does the current Auditor General, Denis Desautels. Auditor General Dye said in his 1990 report that "fundamental change is needed in the way we manage people. Since my last report", Mr. Dye said, "the public accounts committee has devoted six hearings to the subject of management of people in the Public Service. At those hearings it became evident that notwithstanding some concerns about the process of Public Service 2000, there was a strong consensus shared by committee and witnesses that the

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
legislative and administrative reforms are urgently needed".
The treasury board president said, when he introduced this bill, that "Canadians expect a Public Service that is effective and up to date, one staffed and led by Canada's ablest men and women, which is to say a Public Service that, though 125 years old this year, is thoroughly modem in its approach to serving Canadians".
Businesses everywhere today are competing fiercely and are restructuring. In turn, public services around the world are changing and modernizing their operations and attitudes to better serve their clients in the private sector. This is where the bulk of the jobs are created and the private sector is demanding closer collaboration and co-operation from governments. They are also demanding that governments reduce the cost of providing their services. Canadian businesses deserve to be supported by a lean and efficient federal Public Service, one that is more client centred and service oriented, one that listens to and collaborates more with the job creators of industry, the way they do in Japan, Germany and other industrialized nations.
Therefore, Bill C-26 can help assure that the reform process, Public Service 2000 already under way, continues in the future. I hope that all members of this House will support the passage of this bill.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, as Canada moves toward its 125th birthday and as we move with the rest of the world toward the third millennium, we are looking carefully at all our national institutions and how they can better serve Canadians in the years to come.
It is appropriate that the Public Service of Canada, one of the institutions that has allowed this Parliament for one and a quarter centuries to carry out the will of Parliament and to carry out services that are essential to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, that that institution also be re-examined.
The purpose of PS 2000 should be, and the purpose of our review of this bill should be, to ensure that the Public Service of Canada is ready to move into the next century and is ready to adapt to change both at home and around the world in providing both policy advice to government, the enforcement of government laws and regulations and direct services to Canadians.
The Liberal Party believes Canadians deserve quality services accessible to all Canadians and delivered by a competent, efficient, professional and non-partisan Public Service, a Public Service that treats all employees with respect and fairness, and is responsive to the needs of all Canadians without favouritism and without fear. The Liberal Party believes that the development of this nation has been a partnership, a partnership between the public and private sector, including non-governmental organizations, business, labour, people at all levels of society, and that that kind of partnership is going to become even more important as we move into a rapidly changing future.
We also believe that the public and private partnership has been well served by a Public Service working in partnership with government to provide policy advice to government, to provide services to Canadians. Nothing that has been decided in this Chamber since Confederation makes one bit of difference without a good competent Public Service out there carrying out the will of Parliament and bringing back to us the concerns of Canadians and an analysis of change that is needed.
The Liberal Party agrees that revitalization of the Public Service to meet the changing circumstances of the future is absolutely essential. We agree that there is a need to adapt to changes which will become increasingly frequent, increasingly unpredictable and increasingly severe, leading us in new directions that we cannot even predict today.
What we need in our Public Service, as we need throughout society, is creative, innovative people, adaptable to the changing needs of their clients and the nation. We need the ability to attract and retain competent, dedicated employees, as the hon. member opposite has said. The best this country has to offer should be in the Public Service at the service of their fellow citizens.
We need to have the kind of Public Service where those people will feel challenged, satisfied, and as they have for 125 years, feel not only that they have a job, but that they are making a contribution to their country.
We believe as Liberals that change can best be managed in the climate of respect, trust, co-operation and consultation with employees and with clients of the Government of Canada. We also believe that accountability to Parliament and to the public for the management of their human and financial resources is an
February 10,1992

essential ingredient of good government and good Public Service.
As Liberals we also recognize that the Public Service has been essential to the building of a nation. This is a country that was created, not out of natural ties of economy or geography or long history, but of people from different backgrounds living in different regions with different natural surroundings and resources to depend on, deciding and developing the political will to create a country.
That needs the leadership of Parliament, but it also needs a dedicated Public Service prepared to buy into that dream and in their daily working lives to make that dream happen.
Public policy led us, long in advance of need, to build a railway across this country. It led us to establish a postal service to the remote regions of Canada over time. It led us to establish a national broadcasting corporation so that every Canadian, no matter how far from the centres of political and economic power could feel part of this country. It led us to establish a national airlines so that all parts of Canada could benefit equally from progress in technology and transportation. In time it led us into space so that Canada could continue to be a part of telecommunications technology that would be important to us for our future as well. It was the Public Service of Canada that took essential services to the frontiers, truly made it possible for every Canadian to share in what we had decided as a country were certain rights of citizenship, to service, to communication, to travel, to belonging to Canada.
Not only were these essential communication and transportation links a matter of public policy, they were a matter of public policy implemented by a Public Service. What we see is the importance of retaining the Public Service as a strong federal institution, capable of fulfilling that role into the future. Yes, changing, yes, developing, but not being so weakened that the will of this Parliament cannot be carried out.
The whole public role in the development of this country has been part of respecting differences, equalizing disparity of opportunity across Canada, accommodating differences whether they are of geography, of opportunity, wherever people are in Canada. This Ixisto-
Govemment Orders
ry we share has made this country the envy of the world and we see a lot now of the forces of divisiveness trying to rip that apart. So as we talk about the Public Service today, it is more than a question of how does a bureaucracy function; it is a question of how does a country function. How do we tie this nation together? How do we continue to have a strong public role in the building of Canada in the future?
We have to deal with change and it is more important than ever that we know who we are and where we are going. That is something not defined only in the marketplace; that is something defined in the minds and hearts of people and reflected in this Chamber and then taken back out to the nation through those we appoint and direct to deliver the services of government to Canadians. It is also a circle of communication and allowing that Public Service to feed back to us as parliamentarians the new and emerging needs of Canadians and how we can meet them better.
We do not want to go into the future with this new global competitiveness homogenizing Canada out of existence. Retaining our identity and retaining our independence and retaining our ability to be a different voice in the world, for diversity, for mutual respect, for human rights, retaining that leadership role for Canada depends on retaining the ability of government to make public policy that is distinctively Canadian and have it carried out by a Public Service that is distinctively Canadian.
As I look at this bill, I can only conclude the ways of the Tory government are the ways of the past, not the ways of the future. The government has shown in numerous ways that it cannot manage change and it is demonstrating it again today. We have only to look at things like the free trade agreement that have inhibited the ability of Canadians to manage things our own way, to make our own decisions, to look after the best interests of Canadians first.
We have only to look back through the years from 1984 when we had a strong, vibrant economy that put us in a position to be able to get people prepared for change, to pay down our deficit, to pay down our debt, to work on new training programs, to work on adjustment to change. Instead, we have a debt that has continued to rise, a deficit that has continued to rise, high interest rates, higher taxes, a high dollar, all of which have impeded

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
Canada adapting to the changing environment in the world.
We see instead of helping people adapt to change a government that is abandoning those most in need as economic change and upheaval takes place. We see it, for instance, in the cap on CAP transfers to provinces, so that those who are hurting most because of the economic mismanagement of the country are not able to access training, are not able to access what they need to help them through a difficult time.
We see what I believe is an old Tory philosophy at work, that those with money and power somehow know better what is good for us and if we only leave everything in their hands they will look after the rest of us. That does not seem to work out. In fact it seems to work out just the opposite.
It has been said that government is there to moderate the voracious appetites and directions of the private market. Again, we are talking about public policy and the delivery of public services.
The government has shown clearly that it cannot even manage its own employees. We have had the first ever full-scale walkout of public service employees in the history of Canada. We have had downsizing, contracting out, privatization, at which even the Auditor General and the public accounts committee have thrown up their hands in horror because of the complete lack of accountability as to the cost effectiveness of those measures.
In addition to its problems managing, this government seems to have trouble keeping trust with Canadians. We see a pretence at restraint so we cannot give people earning $18,000 a year an increase, but we can give increases to people earning high salaries, up to a quarter or one-third of a million dollars. Just this summer we saw judges earning up to $175,000 getting full cost of a spokesperson for the Treasury Board saying: "Oh, well, the wage restraint on members of Parliament was just a smoke screen to give credibility to our wage freeze".
Either we are in a period of restraint and everybody is in restraint, or we are simply seeing an attempt to take those at the lowest end of the scale and push them down
even lower. That is certainly the impression Canadians got of this government this summer.
We have seen the betrayal of the trust of Canadians with the GST. At a time when inflation was a problem this government chose to bring in an inflationary new tax that is hardest on those who can least afford it. We have seen the betrayal of the trust of seniors concerning their pensions. We have seen the betrayal of the trust of farmers who have been told for months: "Don't worry about it. We are looking after it. We will protect supply management". Now we know that is not what was going on behind closed doors. We have seen the betrayal of the needy in tough economic times.
This government promised consultation with its employees on reform. The President of the Treasury Board said that no legislation would come through except that on which there was agreement by all parties. Yet we have a bill here that is roundly condemned by representatives of the employees and an insistence by the government on blindly pushing ahead with its own agenda regardless of who gets hurt, regardless of all the good advice it has had that this is not the way to go.
We heard the member speak about service to the public as the purpose of PS 2000. Can we trust that when the very last report of PS 2000 that was written was a service to the public report? It should have been the first report. It should have been the foundation of all the recommendations that have come before it.
We have seen the government ignoring court decisions that say you cannot simply let managers move people around. That is an abandonment of the whole merit principle. The court said that less than two weeks ago. Yet we have the government bringing in a bill that does exactly that and expands the ability of managers to do exactly that.
We have seen the government attempting to thwart moves toward equity for women in the Public Service by fighting in court the right of those employees to have their cases heard by the Human Rights Commission.
The purpose of this government since 1984-and it is a purpose that has been perpetuated by this bill-has been the dismantling and the weakening of a Public Service
February 10, 1992

that has been important to our history and has linked Canadians from coast to coast, just as VIA Rail, air service, our national airlines and postal services have been ripped out of small town Canada. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is no longer able to serve and reflect the two official language groups as it once did, to reflect the regions to each other and to themselves. Just as these services that have linked us as Canadians are disappearing under this government, so too is our Public Service.
I want to speak about three particular things that are affected by this bill. Since 1919 it has been the proud claim of Canadians that we have a Public Service where you get a job because you are the best qualified person for that job. This is the merit principle.
The Civil Service Commission was established in 1919 specifically to get rid of rampant patronage and favouritism in the Public Service at both the political and the administrative levels. We have been through periods in our history when if the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell were elected in the next election he could walk into any government office in his riding and say: "You're fired. I am bringing in my guys who are loyal to me to deliver services to the public". We got rid of that kind of Public Service decades ago.
Yet here we have again an abandonment of the merit principle, a bill that now says being the best qualified does not count any more. Your boss, your foreman, your manager, your deputy minister will be able to decide on his or her own if you are good enough to get moved around where the opportunities are to advance and to improve your skills. No review and no recourse, totally arbitrary decisions by individuals within the Public Service, and no protection.
I recommend to members that before they deal with this bill they read the decision of the Federal Court of Canada just two weeks ago that said: "This kind of activity is contrary to the merit principle". Yet we have a government that says: "Yes, we want to introduce provisions and we want to expand provisions that are contrary to the merit principle". It acted illegally and beyond its powers two years ago when it said: "Move people around wherever you want to". Now it wants to change the law so that it can do just that at will.
It is not much wonder people in the Public Service are concerned about harassment and intimidation when whether your manager likes you or does not like you
Government Orders
becomes the criteria by which you will either get opportunities or not get opportunities. No wonder women, visible minorities and persons with disabilities feel that the old image of who can do the job best is going to prevail even more than it has in the past.
To get rid of the merit principle is a step back in time. It is a step back to when the Public Service was the place to reward your friends and punish your enemies. We only have to look around the world to know that developing countries, those countries where human rights and political rights are most at risk, are those countries where the military is more important than the Public Service. One sign of a developing country that is beginning to make progress is an efficient, impartial public service, and yet this government wants to destroy that in Canada.
Liberals believe in equal opportunities for everybody in employment and progress within the Public Service. We believe that there should be a very strong provision in this bill that requires the government to implement employment equity. This is the largest employer in the country. It should also be the leading employer when it comes to giving every person, regardless of gender, regardless of colour, regardless of what disabilities they may have, equal opportunity to use the abilities they do have in the service of their fellow citizens.
Yet we have a provision in this bill that is so wishy-washy the government should be embarrassed to call it an employment equity clause. It says that if Treasury Board feels like it, it may tell the Public Service Commission that the Public Service Commission may implement employment equity programs.
I think the government should start listening to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce when it says that if the private sector is to be subject to employment equity legislation, the least the government can do is make itself subject to employment equity legislation. This bill is the place to do it.
We have had documentation for decades of the ways in which certain groups are not deemed to be competent. Beneath the Veneer, the report of task force on Barriers to Women in the Public Service, demonstrated again, if we needed to have it demonstrated, that what prevented women from advancing in the Public Service of Canada, the reason they were nearly half the Public Service but

February 10,1992
Government Orders
less than 15 per cent of management, for instance, was attitudes, attitudes that I do not blame anybody for. They are so ingrained in us that we have certain images of who is competent and who can succeed.
We have to discard those attitudes. In a society that is diverse, if we want a Public Service that reflects that diversity, we have to discard those attitudes. We are not going to discard those attitudes if, as this bill does, we reinforce the right to make arbitrary choices on the part of managers and of deputy ministers. That would be a move back in time, and that is not what this country needs.
I want to speak briefly about the process of PS 2000. When the current Public Service Employment Act and the current Public Service Staff Relations Act were brought in 25 years ago, it was the result of a long process of consultation. It was not done in isolation. It was done publicly. It was done inviting submissions not only from top managers but from employees, from labour unions, from academics, from the public who were the clients of the Public Service.
Yet here we are all these years later saying that managers can do this. They do not have to negotiate and collaborate with their employees. They do not have to bring their clients into this process to determine how to improve the Public Service. Again the government is showing it cannot consult with its own employees. How can we take seriously the recommendation of its task force report on service to the public to consult with the public on services to it?
This is a one-sided bill by the government for the government, not for the public, not for its employees, and not for the future of Canada. It is another step back to the past that reinforces hierarchy and that reinforces top down paternalism. We believe there are ways of giving managers more freedom without trampling on the rights of other people.
The theme song of PS 2000 has been: Let the Managers Manage. That theme song comes from the 1962 Glassco commission. It is 30 years later; we are now in 1992. We are ready for the future, not the past.
We hear a lot about managing change, but leadership is not dictatorship. Leadership is not trampling on other people's rights to free up the arbitrary discretion of some people. We know that morale in the Public Service is at
an all-time low. People have seen their work being contracted out, privatized, downsized, and yet the public accounts committee has taken the government to task for not being able to account for whether that is improving the situation, improving cost effectiveness or not.
We have had the Auditor General chastising the government because it does not know what it is doing with its money. It cannot begin to say what it is spending on contracting, and what privatization has produced in benefits, if anything. It cannot possibly go out to the public and say that this is all saving money. It simply does not know. That is irresponsible.
Yet it has gone out to the public and said that cutting the Public Service, keeping it at zero increase and trampling it into the ground is the way to cut the deficit. It has not told the public that less than 12 per cent of federal spending applies to the Public Service. It has tried to divert the attention from the other 88 per cent of its spending to the quarter million people who simply want to do a good job for their fellow citizens.
There are a number of provisions in this bill to which other colleagues of mine will speak. The government is abandoning the merit principle by allowing managers to move people around at will with no recourse. It is changing the classifications so that employment equity and pay equity become even more difficult to achieve. This new deployment then becomes a means of promoting and demoting without review or any consideration of merit principle. It is getting rid of competitions and saying that any qualified person will do. It does not have to be the best qualified any more. Pick up the phone, call your nephew and tell him you have a job which he is qualified for. Tell him to come on in and get on the payroll. There will be the free ability to contract out, when the government cannot even now account for its contracting out and when the courts have said it is not legal for the government to contract out and lay off employees. To go ahead with this piece of legislation is simply not right.
There are some good things in the bill, and of course we will be looking to improve it. The public accounts committee, after weeks of very careful hearings and excellent research, made a recommendation to the House of Commons and to the government that this
February 10, 1992

legislation should not be considered in isolation, that is only 10 per cent of the PS 2000 process and before legislation comes in, the whole process of PS 2000 should be referred to a special committee of the House. It should all be reviewed. The comments of all affected stakeholders, a phrase the government is fond of using, should be invited. Parliament itself should carry out the third party, impartial monitoring and recommendations, as opposed to managers simply proposing what is suitable to them.
Bill C-26 may pass but reform in the Public Service will fail. The private sector is finding out we cannot have reform or change without everyone being on side and on board. Yet the government has deliberately excluded the employees and the public from this process.
We believe the public accounts committee was right when it said that legislation should not be adopted before a special committee of Parliament had an opportunity to hold full consultations. We do not believe the valuable work of PS 2000 should be wasted. It is one step, and it is the first step in a bigger process. The managers and the government are not the only ones whose views need to be considered.
I wish to move a motion that would in fact implement the recommendations of the public accounts committee. We considered suggesting referring this bill to the consumer and corporate affairs and government operations committee, but we recognized that committee is overloaded. This job needs to be done quickly and efficiently by a group of parliamentarians who are focusing on this, and not on credit card rates and all the other things consumer and corporate affairs and government operations committee deals with.
We once again want to urge the government to consider establishing a special committee. For that reason we believe this bill should not be debated at second reading now but should be sent to a committee for pre-study. We have made that clear to the government, and so I move the following motion: [DOT]
That this motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and by substituting the following therefor:
Government Orders
Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be not now read a second time but be read a second time this day six months hence.
Hopefully that will give the House leaders time to consult on the establishment of a special committee so that we can have a report on the legislation back before this House very expeditiously that will truly prepare the Public Service for the next century and give us a reform package that is worthy of the aspirations of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Ottawa West, seconded by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, moved the previous motion. I therefore declare the motion in order.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to rise and speak on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada.
It is very evident this government is changing the laws of Canada so it is no longer subject to any impartial review. Over the last many decades we have developed a system of using the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the Public Service Commission to make sure the government does not arbitrarily change the rules of the game to suit itself.
Just recently the Federal Court has ruled that the actions of the federal government in relation to its employees and its transfer policies go against the legislation that is in place.
This legislation is not good, management driven, but management driven in such a way that managers are no longer subject to any impartial review. In other words, transfers, deployments and appointments can take place, but the affected employees are not really in a position to seek an independent decision as to whether or not the government has made its decision, or senior management has made its decision, on the basis of good judgment.

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
We are all concerned with some of the bureaucracy that exists in this country. We are all concerned with making a lot of issues, including employment and promotion, a lot simpler. We are all concerned with making sure that the government gets the best bang for the buck. Those are common concerns. But that is not what this legislation is doing. Government spokespersons who get up and say they are making it simpler and allowing managers to manage are not looking at the clauses in this legislation.
As I said earlier, there would almost be unanimous agreement in this House that there are ways for the government to manage better. There are ways of allowing managers to make decisions, but it is completely unnecessary to go to the limits that are in this legislation.
This legislation is basically gutting the Public Service Commission of Canada. It is ignoring the Public Service Employment Act. It is gutting the role of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. These three important groups have tried to make sure that we have a Public Service based on merit and not favouritism or political appointment.
I find it ironic that the federal government is spending $5 billion a year on contracting out, without investigating whether it is cost effective or not. This government is doing this and says that contracting out will not be subject to any review. If you lose your job as a result of contracting out, that is too bad. It is too bad.
We now have a minister in the House which is a welcome change. We should get legislation that is fair to all people. If there is a problem with a process that is too cumbersome then change that process but do not take away all rights of the employees. Do not say you cannot apply for a lateral promotion. It was very evident from a court case which the federal government just lost that a lateral appointment or transfer can be a promotion for some people because you gain experience. You gain a variety of training that you would not gain if you remained in the same job.
That is exactly what the Federal Court ruled when it said this government was in violation of its own laws. The government is saying that if you are transferred from one position to another it is really none of your business. That is not true. The government is saying it does not
matter if you have a lateral transfer because you are doing the same job or getting the same salary and it does not affect your future. That is also not true. The Federal Court of Appeal has said it is obvious that if a person wants to apply for a job in a different area within the same category, he will be gaining valuable experience and knowledge that will make it easier to move up the corporate ladder within the department.
I believe that the way this legislation has been proposed by this government means we will not have high morale in the Public Service. We will not have an impartial Public Service. We will have decisions made by deputy department heads which have absolutely nothing to do with an impartial system. The whole basis of this legislation is that it will be up to the department heads to create a new structure. It will be up to the department heads to decide who does what, what classification they are in, and who will be eligible to apply for a job. If you do not like the fact that you are not eligible for a job or that you are put in a new classification, to whom do you appeal? You appeal to the very person who made that decision. What kind of justice is that?
I do not believe that even this Conservative government would introduce this type of legislation for the people who work under the Canada Labour Code. It will do it for the very people who work for the Government of Canada. In other words, when you work for the Government of Canada and the people of Canada, you do not have the same rights you would have if you were working in private industry.
What irony that is. Do you know who the decision makers will be in this process? They will be the senior people at the very top, people whose decisions will not be subject to any real review. Not only that, the people who wall make the general guidelines and rules will be the employees at the management level of Treasury Board.
Treasury Board not only is going to be making decisions that affect classification, affect your right to seek a transfer, affect deployment within the Public Service, they are also going to be determining classification. They are going to make all these decisions. They are going to determine who can bargain with whom, what collective agreements will be in place.
February 10, 1992

To make sure that Treasury Board is not going to find itself in a situation where their decisions are subject to review or where their workers might say things are unfair, the federal government under this legislation is saying that anybody who works for Treasury Board does not really have any rights whatsoever. They are going to be exempt. In other words, they are not protected by collective bargaining. They are not protected by the rights that most Canadians would have.
It is a very strange situation that Treasury Board which is responsible for many things including negotiating with employees is basically saying: "We do not want to negotiate with our employees. We do not want them to have any rights whatsoever". One has to wonder what is the purpose of this legislation?
Is it really to improve management? Is it really to allow management to make the appropriate decisions, or is it a gutting of all the rights that employees have and that the public has under the present system? That is really the question.
Unfortunately, I think too many people have been caught up by government's spin doctors and those people behind PS 2000. They are saying: "Oh, yes, we have to make these decisions because we have to improve management. We have to allow managers to make decisions".
What they have not done is they have not looked at the legislation that is before us. They have not seen the arbitrary nature of this legislation.
They have not seen how this legislation is going to gut employment equity. They have not seen how this legislation is taking away the right of due process. They have not seen that the standards, rules and impartial systems we have devised over the decades are all going to be thrown out.
They have not seen how this system is going to increase the ability for favouritism, increase the ability for nepotism and increase the ability for this government to use the Public Service for political patronage.
It does nothing to make sure that if the government decides to contract out-and it is doing so at the rate of $5 billion a year already-that this will be subject to any
Government Orders
sort of impartial review or any sort of cost-effectiveness study whatsoever.
We know that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Commons said in 1990 that there should be cost-effectiveness studies based on any move by the government to contract out.
That was said by an all-party committee. It was said by a committee with a Conservative majority. But that is not what this government is going to do. It wants to ignore all that.
This was a committee with members from all parties and as I said, with a Conservative majority saying that if decisions are made to contract out that there should be a study. There should be some understanding as to whether or not that is cost-effective. That was a very reasonable recommendation.
But that is not in this legislation. This legislation increases the ability of the federal government to contract out without worrying about the effects on employees, without any concerns whatsoever as to whether or not this decision will be cost effective.
In addition, and I think we have seen it before, the ability to contract out without any review only increases the amount of political patronage that will exist.
We have lobbyists, some who are registered and some who are not registered, lining up around this building applying for contracts, working for their friends. We do not know how much that is costing the taxpayers of Canada, but we do know that it could be a tremendous amount.
We know of Conservatives who get appointed when there are Conservatives in power. We know of Liberals who are appointed when there are Liberals in power. That happens already and it happens too much. There is an old joke, the only people who get rich in Canada are the consultants and the lawyers.
This type of legislation only ensures that those people will become richer and richer, and the taxpayers will become poorer and poorer. What we are doing is institutionalizing a system where, department by department, decisions will not be made on the basis of merit and where contracting out will not be done on the basis of what is cost effective.

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
What will be done is that when these decisions are made, the public will not know what the decisions are and the people who are affected will lose any real right to appeal to some form of impartial arbitrator.
We know that the federal government has lost any number of cases on employment equity. It has lost cases with regard to the arbitrary transfer system.
Why has the government lost these cases before the Federal Court? The reason is that the federal government was not following any form of reasonable practice. They were making arbitrary decisions that the Federal Court of this land said were unacceptable.
Not one, not two, but number after number after number of cases have come down saying the federal government does not obey its own laws, that it is arbitrary. It does not follow the very nature of the law; that it is unjust by its application of that law.
So what is the government's remedy? To become fair? To become less arbitrary? To follow due process? No. What it is doing with Bill C-26 is saying: "We are not going to worry about fairness any more. We are not going to worry about due process any more. We are not going to worry about being cost effective any more. We will just change the law and say that we do not do that any more. We have the complete right to do what we want and it does not matter what the courts said in the past because we have just changed the law. We are no longer in a situation where we are going to be bound by impartial Public Service commissions, no longer in a situation where we are going to be bound by Federal Court of Appeal decisions. We have just made this legislation with its 60-odd pages, in such a way that we no longer have to worry about court decisions. We no longer have to worry about rulings from the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We no longer have to worry about the Public Service Commission of Canada because we have changed the legislation in such a way that we are secure from those decisions.".
That is not allowing managers to decide, that is not allowing governments to govern. What we are doing instead is we are taking away all the protections that have existed. We are taking away the rights of people to appeal unjust decisions. That is not reform; that is tyranny.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that one of the key recommendations contained in Public Service 2000, the renewal of the Public Service of Canada, was to provide more flexibility for the deployment of employees to meet both operational and career development needs.
By deployment we mean the transfer of any employee from one position to another where there is no promotion occurring and where the tenure or employment status of the employee does not change.
It is important to consider the subject of deployment in the context that was described in the Public Service 2000 white paper. As you will recall, the central theme of Public Service 2000 is improved service to Canada and Canadians. It has recognized that the key to improved service is public servants themselves.
Public Service managers need to be able to manage their staffs in such a way as to provide a continuing and increasingly high quality of service to the public. They need to be able to move their employees quickly to where they are needed and to be able to develop their employees to meet new and changing priorities.
Employees need to be given the opportunity to achieve their career aspirations and to use their skills, their ideas, and their enthusiasm in the public interest. Indeed, as most organizations both public and private are discovering, there is a need to develop a continuous learning culture, to ensure that organizations and employees adapt to a rapidly changing world.
With the deployment provisions in Bill C-26 the government has found a way to balance the interests of Public Service managers to get the work done quickly and well and the interests of employees to be treated fairly and to have opportunities to learn and to develop satisfying careers.
Let me take a few moments to describe the deployment provisions that are being introduced and to tell you why we believe these changes will be effective.
Under the current Public Service Employment Act all appointments to and within the Public Service are subject to the merit principle. What this has meant in practice is that before a manager could transfer or deploy an employee, even for temporary periods, the manager would have to compare employees by competi-
February 10, 1992

tion or otherwise, and choose the best qualified among them.
The manager's decision was then subject to challenge from those who were not successful or felt that they should have the opportunity to be considered.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that virtually every step in the staffing process is legislated or regulated and this has resulted in a staffing system often driven by the need to pass potential scrutiny. The result is a staffing system that is slow, cumbersome and complex.
This complex system has hindered the efforts of managers to improve efficiency, to move employees quickly to where they are needed, to fulfil developmental needs and to deal with situations that require compassion such as an employee who must move to be near medical facilities.
When persons are recruited to or promoted within the Public Service they must prove themselves in ways determined by the Public Service Commission to be not only qualified but indeed the best qualified persons for the job.
The Public Service Commission will continue to be responsible for recruitment and promotion on the basis of merit.
Once employees have proven themselves capable of performing duties at a given level of responsibility it should not be necessary to do a complete reassessment of their capabilities and more particularly, to compare them to all other potential candidates.
I do want to emphasize that although it will not be required in law to select the best qualified employee for a deployment, it will be necessary to ensure that employees being deployed are indeed qualified and in particular that they meet the standards for such matters as security, medical requirements, and language.
Treasury Board policy will reinforce this point.
You will also recall, Mr. Speaker, that one of the underlying principles of Public Service 2000 was the need to trust and empower managers and to allow them to use their judgment in the interests of service to the public.
Government Orders
Our managers are competent, trained and committed. They are indeed capable of making decisions about their employees and how their employees can be best managed and they need the freedom to do so. Furthermore, they need the freedom to discuss and to decide with their employees the best way of meeting their employees' career aspirations and developmental needs.
The deployment provisions recognize this. Deployment will be the exclusive authority of department deputy heads subject to direction from the Treasury Board.
The Treasury Board does not intend to tie the hands of deputy heads but rather intends to ensure that there is some consistency of approach throughout the Public Service and that Public Service wide interests are taken into account.
In developing the deployment proposals, the government was cognizant of the concerns being expressed particularly from some of the Public Service unions. Two very important protections for employees have been included in these proposals.
First, deployments must be made with the consent of the employee concerned, except in those relatively rare cases in which a willingness to be deployed is a condition of employment. A good example of this would be the foreign service, in which the nature of the work requires employees to move to different locations periodically. In such cases, employees will know before they accept a particular job that this condition applies and that they can accept or reject the job with full knowledge of this.
The second protection is the recourse process that has been designed for deployment. Employees being deployed, or those in the work unit to which their deployment is occurring, will have the opportunity to challenge the deployment on the grounds that it was not authorized by or made in accordance with the statute or that it constituted an abuse of authority.
An employee will first make a complaint to the deputy head who will investigate and take such action as is appropriate. If the employee is still unhappy with the proposed resolution, he or she may go to the Public Service Commission, which will appoint an investigator to look into the situation and recommend a course of action to the deputy head.

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
If the investigator is not satisfied with the response of the deputy head, the investigator shall report the matter to the Public Service Commission, which will have the authority to order corrective action.
There is one final point I would like to make. The proposals in Bill C-26 will not require managers to consider for deployment persons whose names appear on priority lists before proceeding with the deployment of another employee.
This is a change from the current situation in which priority persons would be considered before others. I know that some members will be concerned about this, and I want to explain the rationale behind this decision.
Over the years departments have done a very good job of reintegrating employees who face lay-offs or otherwise have priority for a reappointment. Deputy heads have displayed a very strong commitment to their employees to the point of often creating their own internal no lay-off policies.
Furthermore, departments must abide with the provisions of the work force adjustment policy, which was recently agreed to with the Public Service unions. Given this, it was felt that it was not necessary to constrain further the flexibility that managers are being given with new deployment provisions. However, I do want to assure members that the Treasury Board is prepared to impose the consideration of priority persons on its own initiative or at the request of a deputy head if future circumstances warrant it.
In closing, I would reiterate that the proposed process allows for the simplification of employee movement but not at the expense of employee input and recourse. It provides a mechanism for managers and employees to create a continuous learning environment.
It provides deputy heads with the legislative framework to meet the particular needs of their organizations, provide service to the public and develop employees.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this portion of the debate on Bill C-26.
As I open my remarks I want to focus on what I believe to be some of the important Liberal Party perspectives on this very important Public Service reorganization bill.
I think it is fair to say that while we may have some agreement around the House on some of the principles, there are elements of this bill with which our party has significant difficulty.
I would like to go over some of the principles with which I am hopeful all members in the House will be in general agreement. As we approach this bill and what will undoubtedly be a material and substantial reorganization of the way the government deals with its Public Service and the way it provides services to Canadians, the first principle is that we believe Canadians deserve accessible and quality services delivered efficiently by a professional, non-partisan Public Service that treats all employees with respect and fairness, and one that is responsive to the needs of Canadians who pay the bills.
I am sure there will not be many in the House who would disagree with that.
The second principle I would like to put on the record is one in which my party and I believe. It is that we support the revitalization of the Public Service to better allow the Public Service to adapt to rapid change and to create an environment in which the employees of the Public Service can be creative, innovative and adaptable to the changing needs of their clients-all Canadians and the country-and to attract and retain competent, dedicated employees.
Last, the Liberal Party and I are committed to the principle of accountability to Parliament and to the public for the use of both human and financial resources.
There are other principles and subdivisions which we could debate further today, but I want to leave the list at that and affirm my support for those principles.
Over the last little while, since I have become a member of this House, I have had an opportunity to see the workings of some public services of some other countries and some other jurisdictions such as provinces, constituencies, states, et cetera. At almost every juncture, I come away impressed with the level of service, the efficacy and the professionalism of the Canadian Public Service. That did not happen by luck. It happened, I suppose, by design and by the good efforts of those who are in Public Service and by members of government
February 10, 1992

who assisted in the development of the Public Service over the last number of decades.
There was a significant departure made in the year 1919, when the country committed itself to a professional, non-partisan Public Service. Since then, right up to the present, we have been building. It is not like we have not had our difficulties between then and now. There has been an increase in the organization of the Public Service through collective agreements, and the work of government has become more intrusive and more complex. Consequently the Public Service has become more sophisticated and more dedicated to those services, or those intrusions from the perspectives of some people.
In any event, the work of government has become more complex and is more demanding of the Public Service. Therefore, the Public Service must keep pace. It is likely that some of the structures within our Public Service, as they have evolved over these decades, are not suited to the demands of modem government.
Being impressed with the current state of affairs within the Canadian Public Service is not enough, because we know, the Public Service knows and government knows that there are some improvements and changes needed.
Bill C-26 contains many different legislative proposals with respect to the Public Service.
I am concerned with the apparent provisions that would devolve or permit the devolution of certain types of authority out of the rules and structures as exist now in the Pubic Service, a devolution of those authorities and decision making into the hands of managers and into the hands of individuals as opposed to the structured institution.
Over time this institution of the Public Service has not done too badly. The structures that are there serve Canadians reasonably well. Certainly they do not serve perfectly at this point, but they have served the country well.
What I am concerned about now is that as we devolve these authorities from rules, regulations and structures to the hands of managers, will the overriding principle of advancement based on merit continue along and be as important to the Public Service as it has been in the past? I think it is fair to say that the merit principle is
Government Orders
important to Canadians. I think Canadians would want to know that Public Service advancement and hiring were done on the basis of merit.
There is a concern among people in the Public Service and among people who work with the Public Service that this authority, devolved into the hand of a particular person, may be efficient at some point and may be very effective but over all if we look behind the principle, if we look behind what is happening here, there is a diminishing, an abandoning of the singular importance of the merit principle in hiring and advancement.
I am concerned about that. Everyone in the Public Service starts off as a basic human being. We are all prone-at the top of the list are politicians-to forming opinions and judgments and doing things based on what we individually feel is best. If we walk away from the merit principle as the chief criterion for advancement in hiring, will we then have to confront at the manager level, not at the structural level up top, potential problems based on a bunch of isms such as nepotism, racism, sexism, and all of these ways of looking at life that human beings adopt? If we are going to abandon the merit principle, will that open the door to decisions made less professionally and by individuals who believe they are right, but whose decisions of hiring and advancement are based on isms which we do not want to make a part of our Public Service hiring and promotion criteria?
I leave that on a cautionary note. I want to state very firmly that I would not support an abandonment of the merit principle as the basis on which hiring and promotions are made in the Public Service.
I want to move to a related area: the business of promotion, demotion and hiring. In the current Public Service Employment Act, sections 21 and 31 provide for a system of appeal by public servants. There is a right to appeal when there is a decision made to terminate you as a result of incompetence or incapacity or when a decision is made to give an appointment to someone without a competition. I know that the matter has come before the House before, and I refer to the ninth report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. It basically stated that the policy and procedures of these grievance appeals, these very important mechanisms whereby the Public Service can appeal these extremely important decisions critical to individual careers, were not fair. That is actually a fairly stinging

February 10,1992
Government Orders
indictment of the process. If the procedure is not fair then it should not be there. It should be changed.
This issue has been before Parliament for many years and the changes have not been made. That is why I am raising it now in this debate because presumably these procedures will be contained in regulations under the new bill, and the issue will be discussed in the bill. Provisions enabling the regulations will have to be a part of the bill. I want to make very sure this House knows that this particular committee of the House has reported without an appropriate response. The committee representing all three parties of this House was unanimous in its report.
The government and the Public Service have not responded favourably. They basically responded with a big zero. That means they are not listening, or they are listening and they are stubborn, or they are listening and they do not care. Whatever it is, it means that government is not working.
I would like to review the three problem areas that I believe should be addressed in this particular bill. The first is the issue of disclosure of relevant information to an appellant before the appeal takes place. The Public Service Commission replied to us in this House that it believed its policy and procedures were just fine. Yet this Parliament, through its committee, has evidence that sometimes the relevant information is disclosed to the appellant and sometimes it is not.
I am trying to paraphrase: "Really it did not create much unfairness. I think everything works just fine, thank you very much". But that is a sham. If there is not disclosure before a hearing, how can the appellant hope to deal with the information that is being put before the hearing? I submit that the appellant cannot.
This principle of fair disclosure exists across the whole breadth and scope of legal and judicial procedures in this country. I cannot imagine that it does not exist in every single court in every single corner of this country. Yet in our very own Public Service procedures for appeal it does not exist. The Public Service and the evidence we
have acknowledge that sometimes the information is given and sometimes it is not. That is not good enough.
I should point out that the submission by the Public Service Commission that the policy was there and should suffice is really not a very satisfactory response. A policy position that might be printed on a piece of paper or in a memo is not enforceable by an individual appellant. It is not something that the appellant can argue in this procedure. If the fair procedure was in a regulation, it would be something the Public Service must comply with and part of the law of the land. I would argue that anything less than a fair procedure that is installed, printed and published in a regulation is not useful to Canadians in the Public Service.
The second area has to do with the disclosure of Public Service Commission opinions that are relevant to the decision being made about the public servant whose case is being appealed. The Public Service takes the view that its opinions are not to be provided to the appellant, unless the Public Service decides the opinion is useful, but again that is the Public Service. We are talking here about department heads, the higher echelons of management, making decisions and taking positions that have been made known to everyone who was part of the decision-making process in the Public Service but not to the appellant. That is unfair. I do not have to spend much time on that one. I tried to think of a scenario that might be useful here today to explain how unfair that is, but I think the description I have given should suffice.
The third area is the way the Public Service Commission provides its notices of hearing. Again, in every administrative body across this country there are rules of fair procedure regarding the issuance of notices. If you are going to bring someone into a decision-making tribunal then you must give fair notice. It cannot be given one or two days before, but with sufficient time to enable the person to deal with the issues that will be dealt with at the hearing.
I want to close with some thoughts. I have six or seven recommendations to make to the government. First, I believe the government should provide for full and mandatory disclosure to any unsuccessful candidate or the candidate's representative upon request when there is a decision against an appellant.
February 10, 1992

Second, full and mandatory disclosure should be made to an employee of the grounds on which a recommendation was made that he or she be released.
Third, I would suggest that the regulations provide that a department wanting to withhold or limit access to information must have the matter determined by the appeal board at a pre-hearing conference.
Last, the notice period for appeal hearings should be extended to two weeks from the present three-day minimum requirement.
I leave these with the House and point out that these recommendations have been put to the House by government members, opposition members and members of the New Democratic Party. The House should not disregard them, or take them lightly.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to participate in this debate because I think there is a growing sense across Canada at every level that for a number of reasons governments cannot continue to deal with their employees in a manner such as outlined in this bill.
One of the cautions I would put in beginning my remarks is that a government that sincerely believes all it has to do is pass a law has some lessons to be learned.
In this day and age it is not the way of the real world. It might have been if all other things were equal: if people were paid large amounts of money, if there were a great many perks attached to it, if it was considered to be a great honour. It may be that this kind of unilateral move on the part of a government in legislative form would be, if not understood, then accepted by those in the employ of the government.
I do not believe that is the case any more. I believe a number of people who work for the Government of Canada are unhappy. For those of us who think we should not expect employees to be happy all of the time, there is more of a lesson to be learned. Morale is at an all-time low. Some would simply say the employees of the Government of Canada should not expect to be happy all the time.
That is not the point of the argument. The point is not if they are happy but if they are effective and feel they are an important part of the process.
Government Orders
Nothing could be more demeaning than to have your traditional rights legislated away. That is precisely what is envisaged by this bill. It is an attitude we saw last year around this time when the government began to sense it would not be easy to negotiate a settlement with its employees. It began very early in those negotiations with the attitude that you either settle it or it would legislate you back to work.
Then it seemed to proceed to various little techniques to ensure that would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ministers made statements here and there indicating that negotiations were not going very well. They indicated there was a threat involved and that somehow, if the employees would not negotiate exactly the way they wanted them to, they would legislate them back to work.
Of course, as events transpired, that is exactly what happened. When I visited picket lines during that strike there was a great deal of bewilderment and anger. Betrayal is a better word. People who worked for the Government of Canada felt they had a bond. They believed that somehow they were playing an important role in the day-by-day proceedings of this government of ours and would not be treated in this way by their employer. When they were they felt immense anger and frustration.
Many of them were not industrial trade unionists by nature. They belonged to a union, but not in the sense of the steel workers or auto workers where everybody goes to work in one plant for a regular shift. They begin to bond and get some sense of what a union is about. So their attitudes, the way they go about setting up for a strike has a certain ritual to it. People know what it is all about. They do not have to be told what a picket line is and how you go about having a legal picket.
The people I visited had not done this very often. They were not quite sure what it was all about. They had somehow felt all of that would not be necessary. It turned out in the end that it was. It turns out that process continues. That is precisely what this bill does. It assumes that this government can in fact pass a law and that everybody will just follow along lock-step.
The flaw in the argument is simply this. If the government chooses, as it does in this type of legislation, not to offer a reasonable amount of respect or a reasonable process to the people in its employ, it should not expect to get any respect back. It means that you can never accomplish the goals of the bill to get more

February 10,1992
Government Orders
productivity and more initiatives put together. That is a tough argument. I believe it is a true one.
There is a reason why executives of major corporations are doing things now they never did before. They are walking around the shop floor and talking to people. They are gathering their workers in groups to discuss how things happen in the work place. It is not because they want to do that. That is the new initiative in industry where people are beginning to understand some simple truths. It is important that you listen to people in the work place.
It is important to understand that someone who works on a shop floor may have a better understanding of what the functions are in that particular work place than the chief executive officer who has never been there.
Many of the things which the document PS 2000 talks about are notions of a modern industrial way to organize a work place.
In part, the perversion I see in this bill is that it does something by legislative means which will practically forbid any of those good initiatives from coming about because it is not the kind of thing that can be legislated. It particularly is not the kind of thing that can be legislated on the heels of having ripped away from these people their right to negotiate for themselves.
Let me offer a couple of comparisons I think are useful. No level of government is escaping the hard fact that revenues are not the same now as they were even two or three years ago. All governments are beginning now to look at how they spend their money in particular, as that relates to their employees and how the employees are organized.
Some of them at the municipal level are doing the traditional things which would be done when a government is strapped for funds. They call in their chief executive officers and say: "Write a report which tells us how many people at the lower end we have to lay off this year.".
I am pleased to report there are some municipalities that are not doing that. They understand it is unlikely that the manager of a department is ever going to write a report saying: "I am redundant. The rest of the people who work in here are useful. They provide a useful
service, but to be truthful, I cannot figure out what I do in this department".
In fact what you see most often is that most people who manage the department eventually would like to see that department getting larger and larger and larger. Then they too will be able to call somebody in to write the report.
Some municipalities are actually sitting down with all of their employees and they are taking a look at their whole organization, but it really is very simple.
The trick is that no one person can do this. A consultant cannot be called in to write the report. The department heads cannot be called in to do this. If this is to be successful, it has to be a collective effort. It has to be an effort that has all of the employees in the work place participating in a meaningful way and arriving at these decisions.
I noticed at the city of Ottawa where they are going through their budgetary procedures, it started at the top to announce there were some early retirement programs that would be utilized right off the bat. That is unusual because the first instinct usually is to lay off somebody who sweeps the streets or shovels the snow, or somebody who works in the stenographic pool.
At the province of Ontario-which is struggling as everybody else is in the middle of this recession or depression or whatever it is that we are in-there are attempts being made now to look at how all of the systems are organized to provide services.
The lesson that has been learned there simply is that it is understood if this is not put together by everyone as an equal participant, it cannot work.
If the solution to reducing costs and expenditures- and that is the stated goal of almost everybody in politics these days-if that is the intention, if that is what is trying to be done, that function can only really be accomplished when everyone is a participant in it and at every level of government.
It used to be called fat; it used to be called waste. We can now say that there is a lot of counter-productivity in what governments do, in how they go about things. Well that is true, but if we want to remove that, we will not do so unilaterally.
February 10, 1992

That is what is wrong with this bill. This is a unilateral attempt on the part of the federal government of Canada to simply do it by writing a law and the law provides immense opportunities here for management to exercise discretion, to move people around, to change the way of doing things. The problem is that it will not work. If that were the problem, this would have been tried a long time ago.
The problem is: How do you get your productivity up? How do you get all of the people who work for you to participate? How do you get to use all of the energy and the ideas of all the people who form a part of this larger group who are employed by the country of Canada?
That is a great challenge and it is not an easy one. I for one would not want to pretend that this is a simple exercise. This is a long and difficult process at the best of times. It starts in the wrong way though.
Those who would defend this bill would say: "We have been discussing this for quite some time". But that is really not the point.
It is going to take lots of discussion, without question, but at critical times you are tested and the test is simply this. Do you listen to those people with whom you have been discussing these matters? Do you incorporate them into the decision-making process, or at the end of it, when you get a little cranky, do you simply sit down and write a law? That is where this process has broken down.
The Government of Canada, getting near the end of a process of consultation and discussion with its employees faltered. It made a critical error, and the error is simply the results that are written into Bill C-26.
It establishes by law that the federal Government of Canada-and for the most part it will be its managers who do it-will now have a legal and unilateral right to do certain things that it could not have done before.
It does not get that right out of a consensus from all of its employees or set of negotiations with its employees. It gets that right out of a law.
In my view, that law is fatally flawed. It will not work. It will give the government a legal right to do something
Government Orders
which, for practical purposes it cannot do, nor should it do.
I regret veiy much that the end of this long consultation process is the unilateral imposition of a law such as this one, for this is off on the wrong foot entirely and will bring heartache to a great many people who certainly do not deserve any more.
It is true that the principles put forward in this bill are roughly following a pattern, a pattern where the Government of Canada says to its employees: "Okay, we are in tough times here, but we do not want to talk to you any more. Now we are going to impose a law".
It did that last year when it tried to go through contract negotiations and impose by law, a settlement at that time. It is doing it again this year with this bill.
It did not work well during the course of contract negotiations; it will not work any better now. That lesson has to be learned by the Government of Canada and all of the members in here.
This is not the kind of thing that one can do successfully. You can cause a lot of pain. You can cause a lot of hardship. You can displace a great many of your employees, but you will not make the process of governing in this country more effective by the imposition of this kind of a law. That is why I oppose it.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity to debate not only the bill which is before us today, Bill C-26, but also much of what has happened in the context of Public Service reform over the last several years of the current government.
Unfortunately, even as we debate this bill today, there are many across Canada who continue to hold in their minds an image of a federal Public Service which is somehow fat, overpaid, perhaps incompetent, and perhaps unresponsive to people in their times of need.
I think that it is important for the people of Canada to understand not only the kind of Public Service we have today in our country, but the history and traditions of that Public Service over the last number of years, really since it was formed in its present way in 1919.
We have today in the Public Service of Canada approximately the same number of federal public servants as there were in 1974 delivering a vastly increased

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
burden of responsibility and service to the people of Canada.
Well over one-half of them are employed outside the national capital region. Again, the image that somehow federal public servants are centered in the city of Ottawa and are pipe-smoking semi-retirees is a false and misleading one.
The Public Service of Canada delivers a whole variety of vital and important services to our people.
Surveys have shown that public servants are not well paid in comparison to many working groups in the private sector. They often perform functions which the private sector is incapable and unwilling to perform. As well, they perform a very important role in advising government on a daily basis. The traditions we have built up in the Canadian Public Service are fine and honourable traditions going back many decades.
We have had in the Public Service of Canada an understanding of the fact that it was an honour to serve the public, that the traditions of extending oneself on behalf of the citizens of the country was an honour in itself beyond simply earning a living. It was somehow a higher, nobler calling and often a calling which extended throughout one's working career.
Those traditions have been very important to the building of Canada as it is today. We have many well-known and important examples of public servants who have distinguished themselves in the service of our country.
Lester Pearson comes to mind as having been a civil servant who rose to the top office in this country, who in service to Canada won the Nobel Peace Prize.
It is critical at this time as we look at reform of the Public Service that we do so preserving the essential values and concerns that are at the heart of the Public Service as we have come to know it.
In the document Public Service 2000, Renewal of the Public Service in Canada some of these values have been set out. I think they have been well expressed.
Service to Canada and to Canadians, loyalty to the duly elected government, honesty, integrity, and nonpartisanship, prudence in the use of taxpayers' money, faithfulness to the principles of fairness and impartiality,
professionalism in carrying out their duties, and respect for ministers, other parliamentarians, members of the public and other members of the Public Service, these are the values which underlie this important institution in Canadian life.
So when we embark on a reform of it, the outcome of that reform is exceedingly important to our country. Not just because the Public Service delivers services like air traffic control and meat inspection to the people of Canada, important as those are, but because as Canada faces the very important challenges that confront us over the decade to come, we need the very best of our people, the sharpest minds, and the most innovative policymakers to be advising and directing in the policy-making of our country.
How is it that we are meant to face the challenges of internationalization without a Public Service devoted to solving those problems consisting of the very best and the very brightest.
It is crucial that at this point of renewal, of revitalization, we get it right. It is too important a task for us to fail to do it properly.
For that reason I find that I have to raise for myself at least, the question of whether this government at this time in its mandate is in a position to undertake this vital and crucial task.
We have a government-Mr. Speaker, you need only look to see-of ghosts in this country, ghosts because they have been deprived by their own unpopularity, by their own misguided policies, of the authority granted to them at the voting booths to continue to govern this country in an effective way.
We are confronted by a series of crucial problems, one of which is revitalization of the Public Service. This government of ghosts stumbles from problem to problem, clearly without the authority to make the important decisions that will set the course for this country for the years to come.
When we look at these ringing words of truth on values in the Public Service one wonders where are the ministers and what values do they pursue in carrying out their duties. The core of the problem, if there is a problem in the carrying out of the duties within the Public Service today, has been the deterioration of the morale of our public servants.

February 10, 1992


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, at noon yesterday in Rouyn-Noranda, I met the regional president of the UPA for Abitibi-Temiscamingue, Mr. Jutras, and several members of his organization.
I have defended Quebec farmers for several months at our government meetings in Ottawa. Today we must intensify our efforts so that our farmers win the battle in GATT. We must accept no compromise on the four main pillars of agriculture: supply management, stabilization insurance for farm incomes, crop and farm insurance, farm credit and above all we must strengthen article XI of GATT.
As in past years, I strongly support the demands of our Canadian farmers.


HOUSING
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement last week by the housing minister, reducing the amount required for down payments on first homes, first suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, is laudable and most appreciated by people on this side of the House. It is widely viewed as a positive step for people who would otherwise never achieve the dream of owning their own home.
My office has received a number of suggestions from the people of Halifax as to how the initiative might be improved. One idea is to expand the scope of the program to include those individuals who have owned a home previously but who have lost it. This is a request that is grounded in the fundamental tenet of fairness.
As the minister knows, these are difficult economic times. Many Canadians have not been able to keep pace with interest payments. Therefore, it would be fair to allow them the ability to re-enter the home market in a period of lower interest rates. This initiative could be subject to certain regulations to ensure that the government allows flexibility while maintaining the twin principles of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility.
Once again I urge the minister to heed the calls of ordinary Canadians and expand his already admirable initiative.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians from across the land are getting involved in the political system.
Today at the standing joint committee on a renewed Canada my constituents had the opportunity to voice their opinions on the national stage. By expanding our horizons with new initiatives and ideas, we will forge a new beginning for this country where elected people in the House of Commons and the Senate will equally represent constituents from all regions of Canada.
This is a plan that will allow all of our resources to be utilized in a way that will maintain our strengths and freedoms; strengths and freedoms that have made Canada the envy of the world.


NORTHERN TAX BENEFIT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the northern tax benefit plays a vital role in the development of Canada's north. It helps to offset the higher cost of living associated with northern Canada.
Recently the Reform Party has said that if elected they would take away the northern tax benefit. This shows that Preston Manning does not understand how important this tax initiative is for the northern economy. By eliminating the northern tax benefit, the Reform Party would hurt the fragile northern economy and would make it difficult to attract new residents to the north. By questioning the northern tax benefit, Preston Manning is showing his lack of vision for Canada's north.
I have received written resolutions from the councils of a number of northern communities, including Faro and Dawson in Yukon, Churchill and Leaf Rapids in

February 10, 1992
Manitoba and Nampa in Alberta which strongly support the northern tax benefit.
In Alberta the provincial Liberal and Conservative by-election candidates are both Reform Party members federally. However, in this House we must not pander to the narrow vision of the Reform Party. This government must renew its commitment to the northern tax benefit and it must do so in the upcoming budget.


FOOD BANKS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, as the first ministers meet to discuss the economy, tens of thousands of Canadians will eat today, thanks only to food banks.
Hunger in Canada is a disgrace but still the Prime Minister refuses to visit a food bank and calls them "some sort of short-term thing". Gerard Kennedy of the Daily Bread Food Bank is on the front lines and says: "There is more hurt and extreme hardship out there than there has been in the last 25 years". Denial will not stop the reality of malnourished children who cannot learn and adults who become more depressed every day.
What is the government's plan for economic recovery? Why did this government miss the opportunity, from 1985 to 1990, to cut the deficit instead of bringing the economy to a halt?
We in the Official Opposition have shared our five point economic recovery plan with this government, including the plan for infrastructure development.
Let us put aside our partisan politics. Let us co-operate to put Canadians back to work and eliminate the need for permanent food banks in our society.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the Winter Olympics opened this past weekend in Albertville, France. They have brought back fond memories of Calgary and the 1988 games.
This week we can all be proud of the Canadian athletes who are each going to reach for the highest standard of personal performance for themselves and for our country.
I have three friends and constituents who are each medal contenders in these Olympics. One of the best known carries the extra weight of high expectations on his shoulders as he competes in men's figure skating. Kurt Browning is three times a world champion and is favoured to excel again. He has already proved that he is the best in the world. We sincerely hope that his skill and conditioning serve him well in Albertville.
Our best wishes go out not just to Kurt, but to all the Canadian Olympians. May they do their physical best and may all Canadians share pride in their performance and recognize the tremendous personal contribution that each of them has made in order to represent us in these games.


HIBERNIA PROJECT
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to say a few words to you on the Hibernia project. The federal government has invested or will invest over $1 billion in this big project without having done the necessary environmental studies. Nor has it taken the time required to assess the profitability of this project. Today we realize that Gulf Canada is withdrawing from the project.
Therefore, I ask the federal government, since there is still time, to withdraw from this project, which is considered unprofitable.


MEMBER FOR SAINT-DENIS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, today our colleague and friend, Marcel Prud'homme, is celebrating his 28th anniversary as a member of Parliament. He was elected for the first time on February 10, 1964 in a by-election.
Last night, the executive committee, board of directors, advisory board and general assembly of the Greek community all decided unanimously to declare him an honorary member of Montreal's Greek community in recognition of his services to Canada, Quebec and ethnic groups in Montreal, more particularly their community.
February 10,1992

Many of us had the opportunity last night to hear him speak at an evening reception in his honour.
Marcel, congratulations for these 28 years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


WINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, when the free trade agreement with the United States was announced, many thought that one of the big losers would be the grape and wine industry.
However, with the help of the federal government and the Government of Ontario, the necessary restructuring of the industry took place in the Niagara region.
This year the results are becoming evident. For the first time in 12 years there is no surplus of crops, as all the grapes produced have been used by the industry. Domestic wine consumption has increased while the consumption of foreign wines has declined. In fact, international bodies have recognized the quality of Niagara wines, one example being Inniskillen Ice Wine.
The Niagara grape and wine industry is an example of what can be accomplished with quality products and the willingness to compete in the world without the need for a restrictive trade policy.


ONTARIO LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, over the past weekend more than 2,500 delegates gathered in Hamilton to elect a new leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.
The city of Hamilton, her people and the wonderful facilities again demonstrated that Hamilton is a most hospitable and wonderful community.
Thunder Bay is extremely proud that our own daughter, Lyn McLeod, was elected the leader of the Liberal Party. To quote from Lyn: "There will soon be a day when women in Canada will be able to seek high public office without gender being raised into question." Throughout the race she said her main goals would be to
revive the Ontario economy and the electorate's faith in the political process.
I am sure that Lyn McLeod will rule Ontario with an iron hand but always in a velvet glove. We all applaud her wonderful victory.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, hopefully today's economic meeting among first ministers will produce constructive initiatives by all concerned. There is one important move, however, that could be made by every premier, that being to harmonize provincial taxes with the federal GST program.
Two weeks ago a public lecture was delivered in Fredericton by economist Dr. William Milne, who holds the Vaughan Chair of Regional Economics at UNB. In his analysis of current economic circumstances, he was not particularly kind to any government and certainly had lots of criticism for federal financial policy.
However, he did address one issue strongly and clearly: the goods and services tax is an absolutely essential measure for the country; it is a major improvement over the old tax system that it replaced; and all provinces should harmonize their provincial sales tax systems with it.
Those are initiatives which could commence today. They would address the financial requirements of governments at all levels; they would simplify sales tax administration for companies, customers and consumers alike; they would dramatically dampen present incentives for cross-border shopping.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, this government has promised action to end violence against women over and over again.
Parliament passed a law declaring December 6 a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.

February 10,1992
Ministers continually boast about the family violence initiative. Now it seems that funding to end violence, so proudly announced by this government, is being cut off before it can be used.
Five government departments recently made commitments of almost $40,000 to a conference called "Justice: Extending the Vision-A National Conference on Victimization and Recovery".
This conference is bringing together service providers who work every day to help women and children suffering from abuse and violence. Now this funding is in jeopardy just a few weeks before the conference is scheduled to start.
So many promises to end violence. Is that all we hear, words? As many Canadian women fear, is it simply just talk?
I call on the government to reinstate this funding today and to keep faith with the women and children of Canada.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I recently conducted a survey in my riding of Halton-Peel and thousands of constituents responded.
Doug Rowan of Caledon East writes me:
I am 49, struggling with a new business, but expect things to improve financially and everything else will follow along. I am blessed with a close and supportive family and we all work at keeping it so. The country will rally together finally this summer, to keep Quebec in but not without difficulty and continued grumbling. The economy will rally but ever so slowly. The future will brighten if we start talking positively in every respect.
Ed Ford-King of Cheltenham writes me:
I believe in a strong central government with the courage to make and stick by hard decisions, that concentrates on and believes in education and training, that develops an environment for opportunity and growth, that believes in the rule of law. I am saddened by the party system which lies and bribes with giveaways to gain power. I am sickened by a political system with little or no fiscal responsibility, where different governments go in opposite fiscal directions. I seek a political, fiscal environment in which one can grow in safety and with pride as a Canadian.
I look forward to reporting on my other constituents' views.


MEDICARE
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, who is George Bush and why is he saying these nasty things about Canadian medicare?
George Bush is the best known beneficiary of a government medical care system, so why does he want Americans to believe that the hopelessly expensive U.S. system-where 34 million people have no insurance and 50 million people have only partial coverage-is somehow better than Canada's?
Bush is complaining that there are six month delays for heart surgery in British Columbia but the fact is that most critical cases receive surgery within two weeks. That is not bad when you consider those 34 million Americans without medical insurance who would not get needed heart surgery even when they wait a lifetime.
And who is Frank McKenna, and why is he now advocating an American, two-tier means tested health care system? Is he the Republican party's Liberal echo in Canada?


TAXATION
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, a great many Canadians firmly believe that Canadian corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes. Many if not all of the same Canadians are concerned about jobs being lost and transferred to the United States.
One reason that businesses move to the United States is taxes. Prior to 1986 the average U.S. corporate tax rate was 51 per cent while the comparable Canadian rate was 48 per cent. Today the U.S. rate is approximately 39 per cent compared with a 42 per cent Canadian rate. Our corporate tax rate, previously slightly lower than the United States, is now higher. When withholding taxes, as they affect Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. corporations are taken into account, Canadian rates are substantially higher than the U.S. rates.
No wonder we are losing jobs. We do not have a level playing field. As far as corporate taxes and calls for even higher corporate taxes are concerned, we appear to be our own worst enemy.
February 10, 1992


ILLITERACY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, adult illiteracy is not just a problem for the Third World, it is damaging our economic performance as well as the performance of many of the world's developed countries.
An international survey has pointed out that up to one-third of adults in some countries may be hindered in their work by inadequate reading and writing skills. A Canadian study has pointed out that 38 per cent of Canadian adults tend to avoid situations that require reading because of their inadequate reading skills. Just a couple of years ago a Southam survey found that illiteracy is costing the Canadian taxpayer $10 billion a year.
In September, 1988 the government made an announcement of $22 million for five years to fight illiteracy. This represents an investment of less than $4.50 per illiterate adult in this country. The government has instituted a tax on books and other reading materials. It is now time to take serious action on illiteracy.

What is happening now is not enough. It is inadequate. Nothing has changed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
For months opposition members, business leaders, labour leaders, even bank presidents, have been telling the government that their economic policies are wrong and are leading the country in the wrong direction.
In this month's issue of Inside Magazine a former Conservative MP and the party's former finance critic says that the current policies of the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada are "not only ludicrous, but extremely counter-productive, wrong, wrongheaded, unrealistic and bordering on the tragic".
Oral Questions
Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with this prominent Conservative's assessment of the government's financial policy and does he realize that what we need is a new economic direction for this country?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is no.
The premiers of this country, together with the Prime Minister, are meeting today to discuss the short and medium-term economic situation in this country. I might remind the hon. member, as she had the opportunity this morning to listen to the premiers as they made their presentations in a very reasonable and thoughtful way, that there are differences of opinion, that there are different approaches to the situation here in Canada. Some premiers are supporting the approach of the federal government, others would like to see us take a little different line. But, generally speaking, I think they are supportive of our work in getting the deficit under control, getting it down, getting interest rates down, having a dollar that is competitive and getting people back to work on full-time meaningful employment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This morning at that same conference, Mr. Speaker, we saw 2,000 farmers demonstrate to appeal to this government about article XI of GATT. According to the publicity in today's newspapers, thousands and thousands of farmers are counting on this government to do its best to protect and even improve article XI of GATT. Therefore I ask the Acting Prime Minister: When will he be able to protect the interests of 100,000 farmers who depend on article XI of GATT?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the position that the Government of Canada has taken in the GATT negotiations is the position that was developed with the stakeholders, with the farmers in Canada. Our position has not changed. We developed that position jointly. Our negotiators are attempting to have that position accepted wherever they are able to find an ear.

February 10,1992
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister has been involved in discussions with leaders. I have been involved in discussions with my counterparts. The minister of trade has been involved in discussions with his counterparts. We will continue to put forward the case that we developed with the stakeholders in supply management.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing is that while the government is publicly claiming it is moving to strengthen article XI of the GATT, it is privately moving to prepare for tariffication and in fact discussions in that regard have already occurred.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The Acting Prime Minister should know that Canada is not alone in its intention to strengthen article XI of the GATT. In fact, the government could find allies with Japan, Norway, Israel, Switzerland and other countries who are willing to help us in our battle.
Will this government not, at the very least, develop a common position with other countries to protect the
100,000	farmers whose livelihood is on the line in these negotiations?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I welcome the suggestions put forward by the House leader of the opposition. We have met with those who support Canada's position. They include Japan, Israel, Norway, Korea and Switzerland.


Mr. Tobin:: We know that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: If you know that, as the member says from his seat, then why are you suggesting that we should seek it? We have been involved with those five countries. We led a demarche into Mr. Dunkel to try to gain the position that we share with those six countries.
I can only say to the hon. member she is absolutely wrong in her preface, we have not initiated discussions on tariffication. We never looked at the text to see if the numbers were going to be there until I had consulted with the provincial ministers of agriculture and with the supply managed agencies themselves. They said: "Yes, see what those numbers are.". We looked at those numbers.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: They say "oh". Ask any supply management leader if he authorized us to look at the numbers. We sent the numbers to the supply management groups and now, we are waiting for them to say: "are those the numbers" because we cannot negotiate until we know what harm will be caused. The hon. member should know that.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The Canadian supply management system has been in place and has worked both for the benefit of the consumers and the producers in Canada. The dairy, egg and poultry producers of this country have not and are not part of the world's surplus problem.
Why are these producers being asked to be part of the solution when they are not part of the problem?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The
hon. member knows full well that the agencies, developed with the Government of Canada and with the provinces, the position that the Government of Canada is putting forward, that article XI should be strengthened and clarified. It is not something that the Government of Canada, on the side, made a decision on. We consulted directly with the agencies, the supply management groups, developed the position that Canada had at the outset, developed the position that Canada had in December and continues to have to this day.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the the same minister. Mr. Lowen, an Alberta turkey producer says that as a result of the Dunkel proposals at the GATT, that: "Everything that I ever worked for in my whole life will be trashed."
Another rally in Ottawa today of 2,000 farmers agrees with Mr. Lowen. Knowing all of this, why has the government not carried out and published an impact assessment of the Dunkel proposals to GATT?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The
hon. member asks why the government has not changed its position. We have not changed our position because we developed the position with the supply management agencies. The supply management agencies have not changed their position and therefore the position of the Government of Canada is that article XI shall be strengthened and clarified under the GATT.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the first ministers are meeting today. The Prime
February 10, 1992

Minister is calling for co-operation. The finance minister says he is willing to look at reallocations in his budget to help the economy.
With housing starts down dramatically again today for another month, this economy badly needs help. Federal money for infrastructure would create 63,000 new jobs this year.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the federal government will reallocate money for this kind of program by cancelling the $100,000 capital gains tax exemption, an unjust tax break that increases the deficit by $2 billion a year and gives three-quarters of its benefits to the rich in this country.


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member would be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that of those who claim the $100,000 capital gains tax exemption, about 60 per cent of them earn under $50,000 a year. Those are the facts.
The other thing is that the small business exemption, the farm exemption and the $100,000 capital gains exemption help create employment.
The hon. member should understand that. That is investing in the Canadian economy. That is not the area that we necessarily should be looking at.
But I can tell the hon. member this. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are meeting today with the first ministers. They are going to listen to all the suggestions that are made. They will be having discussions which I am sure will be carried on in the weeks ahead. When the budget is presented the hon. member will see this government's position for the next fiscal year and how we are going to handle the financial affairs of this country.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have the taxation statistics here for the most recent year and they show that 76 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax exemption go to people making individually over $60,000 a year. That is not fair. That is not right. Over a quarter go to people making over $250,000 a year. There has to be change.
I want to ask about another area of economic policy. The United States is using bully tactics on auto industry trade. U.S. firms and unions are pushing their workers to buy U.S. made cars at the expense of Canadian made cars in clear defiance of the auto pact.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the government, given news today, that we have also seen a drop in auto sales in the most recent month, will the government protest as strongly as possible against these unfair discriminatory U.S. actions?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my hon. friend that first of all he is wrong in terms of automobiles and motor vehicles. Sales have been up the last two months on trucks and vans and they have been up in a material way.
More important, the hon. member fought tooth and nail against the whole idea of a free trade agreement which would include a dispute settlement mechanism. Under article 18 of the FTA we have a dispute settlement mechanism which allows us, when we are faced with protectionist pressures in the United States that are unfair, or incorrect, to bring them, as we are in fact bringing an automobile case that we announced on January 5 to the dispute settlement mechanism, to a panel which comprises one Canadian, one American and a neutral chairman. We have equality with the Americans when we have a dispute. This is far better than we ever had before the FTA.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, each time a dairy farm dies, part of Canada dies too. These are the words of Canadian dairy farmers today, a truth which can be repeated by all Canadian farmers.
Twenty-six million Canadians cannot feed themselves. As my colleague said before, Japan, Switzerland and other countries want to strengthen article XI. Where is Canada?
The credibility of this minister's statements are questioned by farmers. Why is this government not adamant that supply management is the best system for Canadian dairy and poultry producers?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I say once again to my hon. colleague that the position of the Government of Canada is that article XI should be clarified and strengthened. We have tried to

February 10,1992
Oral Questions
find allies to reinforce that important position that the Government of Canada has in the GATT negotiations. We have, along with five other countries, joined forces to try to convince another 102 that that is the way that we should be going because Canada knows that the system that we have under the existing article XI has not distorted international trade. That is why we, with the stakeholders and with the provinces, developed the position that Canada had at the start of these negotiations and that Canada has today in those negotiations.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the survival of our food production capacity is a matter of national security. Europeans are very aware of this. Because of the government's weakness in supporting article XI, 100,000 farmers in the dairy, egg and poultry industry are at risk.
Does the government have a strategy and can it show how, and at what cost, it intends to meet the Canadian demand for dairy products and poultry, in the event that
100,000	Canadian producers are wiped out?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the hon. member's reaction, when we consider that Canada's position has always been to maintain marketing boards-as explained in the document we tabled in Geneva in April 1990, almost two years ago-and that our position has not changed.
I think we have supported farm producers in all areas, including supply management. I would urge the hon. member and her colleagues in the other opposition parties to join us in defending the position taken by the government, which is that of our farm producers.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this is no time for divisiveness. It is time for all political parties, including the opposition, and all governments, federal and provincial, to pull together and show the world that Canada is serious about the position it is defending in Geneva. I believe that would probably be more helpful to our farm producers than raising fears that have no basis in fact.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the trade minister, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On January 14 the government agreed to a GATT proposal to extend drug patent protection to 20 years, thereby endangering the Canadian generic industry at home.
Why did government officials write a letter, of which I have a copy, to one of the largest generic firms, Apotex, on Friday, January 10, seeking its input when, only after one full working day and without any response, the government completely gave in to the GATT recommendation? Why did the government not honestly seek the advice of the generic industry and Canadians on such a fundamentally important matter?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, the minister of trade said that he did consult the generic industry. I believe that the position was and remains that in terms of research and development, on the question of the compulsory licence, we consider that the decision will be good for Canada.
I met with the ministers of health from all provinces, except Quebec. We had the commitment to consider all the implications of the decision. We are in touch with the provinces. We believe that at the health level, the cost of drugs, for example, will remain reasonable, as Bill C-22 proved.
The member said years ago that there would be sky-rocketing prices. There were not. We have the same kind of approach to reality today.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the government insults the intelligence of Canadians when it says it has consulted, when it writes a letter on Friday, does not wait for a response and moves on it Tuesday. That is just shameful.
I ask the same minister this.
Given that the generic industry employs some 3,000 Canadians, invests all of its research and development in the country and has had a stabilizing effect on the price of prescription drugs, why will the government not seek a better deal and balance between the foreign based
February 10,1992

multinational pharmaceutical companies and the home grown Canadian generic industry on behalf of and in the interests of Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said before that the policy and the decision have been made to strengthen the development of research and development in Canada first.
Second, the member says that the generics will not be able to continue their operations. I tell my friend that in the United States there is no compulsory licence for generic pharmaceuticals.
Third, he should know that 60 per cent of all generic companies products are on non-patent prescribed drugs. The pricing situation worked and will continue to work.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Dairy and poultry farmers have been saying loud and clear at rallies at Kemptville, Kitchener, and here in Ottawa Friday and today that they have no confidence in this government's commitment that it is protecting supply management at the GATT. Farmers are saying that the proposed GATT agreement would do for rural Canada what the free trade agreement has done for manufacturing in Ontario.
At least 120,000 jobs are on the line at this time and this government cannot figure out a way to get those Canadians who are already unemployed back to work.
Will the government give Canada's farm families the confidence they are looking for by telling this House simply that tariffication is not an option and that the retention of supply management is Canada's bottom line?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The
retention of supply management is why Canada sat down with the supply managed groups and put forward a position that we support jointly, that of clarification and strengthening of article XI. That was the position two years ago.
Oral Questions


Mr. Hovdebo:: What's the bottom line?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The NDP is asking if this is the bottom line. Is there a bottom line? Most people, when they come to a bottom line, wait until they see what an agreement is. I know what Canada's position is. It is strengthening and clarification of article XI.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I will bet you that no farmer will invest five bucks on the basis of that assurance.
Nevertheless, I would like to direct a supplementary to the same minister. The Canadian public is being fed the line by the media, by opponents of orderly marketing and by utterances of this government that grain farmers in the west like this GATT agreement. That is not true, as demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of farmers across the prairies who are saying loud and clear, and who are adamant that the Crow benefits continue to be paid to the railways contrary to the proposed annex 7(e) of the Dunkel document.
Will this government quit trying to pit western grain farmers and orderly marketing farmers against each other and assure us that the government is as committed to maintaining the payment of the Crow benefit to the railways as it claims to be committed to keeping supply management?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, for some reason the New Democratic Party does not understand the position that was developed with the farmers in Canada.
The position that was developed by the Government of Canada in conjunction with and on the advice of the farmers in western Canada was that we wanted a removal of the trade distorting subsidies that have been harming our industry.
In the supply managed area, we wanted clarification of article XI because the existing article XI as it is written, and as has been found by GATT law, as the supply managed industries have said and continue to say, is not adequate to give them the protection they need.


Raymond John Funk: I asked about the Crow.


Mr. Dick:: He looks like a crow.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The hon. member I am sure would like an answer.

February 10, 1992
Oral Questions
The answer is that we have a balanced position in Canada, a position that will support supply management and will support the exporting part, the red meat part. It is a position that Canada has developed with the producers, and it is the right position.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Destruction of the ozone layer has reached such an alarming point that the minister has had to warn children not to go out and play in the sun. What a tragedy when the environment committee told the minister a couple of years ago that action was needed to control all chemicals that destroy the ozone layer, including among others, halons.
Will the minister act now on the advice that he got two years ago and ban the import of halons by 1993? Do we have that commitment?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this question came up in the House of Commons last week. I guess it is useful to remind ourselves that what the member is referring to is a problem to which Canada contributes about 2 per cent in terms of greenhouse gases. We have taken aggressive measures to eliminate these greenhouse gases to the point where we are now four years ahead of schedule. We think we can go faster. We will be looking at ways with the provinces to accelerate whatever measures we have.
Furthermore, we will in the international community, with the countries that have signed the Montreal protocol, also ask those countries to accelerate the phase-out of CFCs.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. Since last week, we have had forecasts but no action. In addition to the weather forecast, on a sunny day we will now need a cancer index to warn us against the dangers of sitting in the sun.
One of the substances that causes thinning of the ozone layer is methyl chloroform. Will the minister do as
the environment committee recommended and prohibit the use of this substance before the end of 1993?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the government, especially this government, has always been very concerned about this problem. It was the present government that was responsible for the ratification of the Montreal protocol in 1987.
We are now four years ahead of our self-imposed schedule under the Montreal protocol. We think we can speed things up by, for instance, eliminating 45 per cent of CFC emissions between now and 1995. We intend to ask the provinces to work together with us to help speed up measures to eliminate CFCs.
We intend to take the same approach within the international community, always mindful of the fact that the problem we are facing today is a global problem to which Canada contributes 2 per cent, while suffering a far higher percentage of the consequences. That is how we intend to approach this problem while using the green plan to help the provinces and the present government to attain our objectives.


CENTRAL GUARANTY TRUST
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for financial institutions.
Central Guaranty Trust Company shares have traded from $2.25 to $11 since January 1 of this year. The value of shares in its parent, Central Capital Corporation, have been even more volatile, trading in a range from 50 cents to $22 in the last year.
Why is the government refusing to step in and protect the interest of shareholders, depositors and the Canadian taxpayers in this matter of Central Trust?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the identical question was asked of the Minister of Finance on Friday. I cannot add anything to what he said. That was the identical question and I will give the identical answer:
- the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is reviewing this matter and has not as yet brought a recommendation to me. I am told that it is under very active consideration. I think the hon. member would recognize it would be inappropriate for me to
February 10, 1992

comment while these negotiations are ongoing, but as soon as we have got word I would be pleased to let the hon. member know.
That was the identical question asked of the Minister of Finance on Friday. The answer is the same today as it was on Friday. Nothing changed over the weekend.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the problems for shareholders and investors are the same today as they were on Friday also.
My supplementary is for the same minister. The ordinary men and women who have invested in what they believe to be a stable, solvent, well-managed and government regulated financial institution are the ones who will be the big losers in this affair. Will the government conduct a full inquiry into the disaster at Central Guaranty Trust Company and its parent, Central Capital Corporation?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would caution the hon. member to watch the types of descriptions that he is making because that does not give any confidence in any financial institution in this country. I cannot comment on individual situations with financial institutions in this country. When there is something to announce to my hon. friend, if he will listen, I will be happy to give him the answer to the question.


PENSIONS
Kenneth David Atkinson: Mr. Speaker, regulatory changes in the Income Tax Act published in the January 15, 1992, edition of The Canada Gazette codify certain rules with regard to pensions and take away the ability of workers to retire after 25 years without a reduction in their pension.
Foundry workers at General Motors in St. Catharines and Ford in Windsor had negotiated retirement with full pensions after 25 years. Public safety workers such as firemen and air traffic controllers have been exempted from these regulations and are able to obtain full pensions.
Will the government consider exempting workers such as the foundry workers who have produced evidence that
Oral Questions
their life expectancy has been reduced as a result of then-working conditions?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the pension plan registration rules were codified to ensure that all Canadians are subject to the same limits on pension benefits provided on a tax assisted basis.
There were some categories due to health and safety reasons that were exempted. However, the foundry workers were not one. I understand their situation. I think it is possible under the plan to deal with the foundry workers particular situation by readjusting their existing pension to continue to allow them to take early retirement.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day in the history of medicare in Canada. The premier of New Brunswick has called for an end to universality in medicare.


An hon. member:: He is a Liberal.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: A Liberal premier, I hope Canadians will take note.
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to rise in his place today and say that the federal government has no intention of responding in any way whatsoever to this outrageous call for an end to universality in medicare by the Liberal premier of New Brunswick.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I did not wait until today to rise in the House of Commons to say that, but I believe that the health care system in Canada is maybe the best in the world and Canadians should do their best to keep that system intact. I repeat exactly that today.
I believe that we should all work very, very hard to keep our health care system universal, accessible, and with all other principles we put forward. Once again, it is the best system, but it has to be viewed in light of the reality of today. That is why we are working with the provinces. To my knowledge, all of those provinces agree that we should do what needs to be done to keep the health care system intact, and I share those views.

February 10, 1992
Oral Questions


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The premier of New Brunswick apparently said he believes that wealthy Canadians should be paying more for their health care.
Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare agree with me today that the way to meet the funding problem at the root of the crisis in health care is to make sure that the rich are paying their fair share of taxes so that medicare can be fully funded out of the common treasury?
Will he say today in this House of Commons that this government is going to finally bring in the kind of tax reform that will enable us to pay for medicare instead of following the advice of Liberal premiers like Mr. McKenna, who is more afraid of the Irvings than he is of ordinary people who fear for their medicare system?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member knows that Mr. McKenna is not the first to raise the question of the health care system in terms of the way that we support it financially.
The premier of Newfoundland said that universality should be over. The province of Quebec is now looking at different ways of refinancing the system. I hope the member does not ask me today to raise taxes to finance a system which is the second most expensive in the world. The ministers of health, including ministers from Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, have said that there is enough money in the system and we should look at the way we are managing the health care system in Canada to provide the same quality of services. It is not an answer to put more money in the system.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, farmers in Abitibi and Temiscamingue feel it is important to protect the supply management system for the dairy, poultry and egg industry.
Could the minister tell the House today that negotiations are still going on and that the Canadian government will maintain the supply management system and defend it to the very last, even after March 2, 1992?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I personally had a chance to meet a number of farm producers in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. At the very least, our conversation was frank and forthright, and the same applied to the positions that were taken.
I can repeat, for the benefit of farmers in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and farmers throughout Quebec and across Canada, that our position has not changed. I realize people are spreading all kinds of rumours, but I would urge the hon. member to repeat this to his farmers: The important thing is that farm producers in Quebec and Canada stand together and support the federal and provincial governments in defending our position at GATT. It is the only way to show the world that the Canadian government stands by its position, and we will do so to the very last.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last week Statistics Canada announced that more than 11,000 people lost their jobs in Manitoba, 25,000 in Alberta, and 15,000 in British Columbia. In the last year
50.000	westerners have lost their jobs. The economic policy of this government is crippling western Canada. What specific measures will this minister take to put
426.000	westerners back to work?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I think the concern that the hon. member raises regarding the situation of unemployed people in Canada is well reflected by the First Ministers' Conference that is taking place as we speak.
We heard the premiers of every province and the territories and the Prime Minister this morning trying to come together to find a way. The Government of Canada has already, according to the premiers I heard this morning, put in place a series of measures that puts into
February 10, 1992

place the fundamentals for a sustainable recovery. We are on the verge of that recovery.
In the meantime, the Department of Employment and Immigration is spending some $3 billion in training and in adjustment of workers in the work force. That is applicable to western Canadians just like every other Canadian.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The training strategy to which the minister alluded is not completely reaching out to young Canadians.
Let me give an example. A young constituent told me this week that he just sent off his 500th application for a job. He has a Masters degree and will go anywhere in the country. What advice would the minister have from this government for that young man?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I cannot on the floor of the House start advising people as to how to access a job, except to say to this individual and all others that the Canada Employment Centres throughout the country have people in place who have the abilities and the means to help these people access jobs that are available in Canada.
I told the House last Friday that in 1991, last year, our interpretation of the help wanted index showed that we had 300,000 jobs that could not be filled because of skills shortages.
If he has a Masters degree, by contacting an employment office that person can seek help to find a job.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago all three parties in the House urged on the government the importance of "close consultation with Parliament as the North American free trade negotiations proceed". Yet it is only through the Access to Information Act that Canadians have now become aware of various government studies of the proposed agreement which concluded two years ago that its net cost can be high while the benefits may be marginal.
Oral Questions
Given the all-party support for close consultation with Parliament, will the government now table all relevant documents, including an analysis of the draft treaty?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my hon. friend that in fact the documents that were prepared over a year ago to advise the minister on the pros and cons of a NAFTA negotiation were put together in a form and made public over a year ago.
The minister in fact met the committee on October 3 and the deputy minister a few months before that. The minister will be meeting the committee on Wednesday of this week to give my hon. friend the information he pursues and, I am sure, fill the committee in on all aspects of the agreement that he can do without jeopardizing our negotiating position.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that the government has tabled all relevant documents? Last week the Minister for International Trade said that Canada had entered the negotiations to protect its interest, not presumably to seek any particular benefit for Canadians.
In response to Parliament's plea that the government keep Parliament regularly and fully informed, will it finally tell Canadians how it intends to protect their interest with regard to the environment, communications, energy, culture? What specifically are the national interests that this government intends to defend in these negotiations?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be reminded of the over-all objective of these negotiations. It is to make sure that investment that will occur in North America is not shut out of Canada because we are shut out of the Mexican-American-Canadian NAFTA negotiations. Our tariffs, by the way, are pretty well gone against Mexico. They have quite high tariffs against us. We want to negotiate their tariffs down. We also want to have leverage on those other two countries in a broad continental way.
That is why we are pursuing these negotiations and that is why we will continue to pursue them.
Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT

February 10,1992


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the banner headline and story over the weekend is surely one of the most frightening of our lifetimes to those who read it and understand it: "Keep children out of the sun, Charest warns". Parents should not let their children play in the sun at any time. Environment Minister Jean Charest has warned: "It is a lot more prudent to stay out of the sun".
The minister's words make clear the urgency of the situation to Canadians. I would like the minister to confirm the need for a complete world-wide phase-out and ban on ozone depleting substances, the urgent need to recapture those CFCs and other ozone depleters that are already out there and that are in use, and confirm the need that we need to have the Montreal protocol treaty negotiation and meetings now, not next November.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to reports of a statement. I think he draws a distinction in his question between titles in the newspaper and the quotes. In fact one specific quote that he made is one that just follows common sense and is in fact part of advice that parents who have children in that age group have been receiving for years.
Let me offer a quote of my own. It is an article in le journal Le Soleil in French by a person I do not know and he is quoted also, so there may or may not be an error. Dr. Bernard says, and I will read it in French:
[Translation\
"Dr. Bernard says that this warning is in line with the one agreed on several years ago by the Canadian Dermatology Association".

That in fact is what I was alluding to, that elementary common sense and prudence would indicate that we should be careful with the sun and that is especially true for young children.
I think the member and I are in agreement on the fact that this is a problem of global importance. I have already said that we. as a country are interested in
accelerating the phase-out of CFCs. We are not the only country to be part of the Montreal protocol, but we will be working very hard in the international community to accelerate the phase-out given this very important problem.


James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who I am sure must be sharing the views of the Minister of the Environment. The United Nations environment program has released a report that is just as alarming as NASA's from last week. It shows, in terms of health effects from ozone loss, massive new increases in cataracts and blindness, skin cancer, melanoma, increased severity of AIDS and other viruses.
I would like to ask the minister of health to give a very clear statement in this House to parents and to children in this country. Does he agree with his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, that the solution to this is just to keep the children indoors 365 days of the year, or should we be moving vigorously as a nation toward an absolute ban world-wide of the production of these substances and a mandatory regulation to get them out of use? We can do something. We are not a bunch of nitwits.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to want to indicate that he is taking this issue very seriously. If that were the case, with respect, he is not rendering a service to anybody by misrepresenting what I have said.
I have never said that parents should keep their children inside 365 days of the year. It is not true. What I have said is what is relevant to common sense and knowledge based on information given to Canadians by dermatologists for years now, that we should all be careful with the sun, that children between the ages of two years old and eighteen years old are more vulnerable, and that in applying common sense, given the information we have now, we should be more prudent. Those are the facts.
Given this situation, let me repeat to the hon. member that the Government of Canada will do everything in its power, as has been the case up until now, to accelerate the phase-out of CFCs in Canada.
February 10, 1992


ARTS AND CULTURE
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications.
As we all know, at all levels of expression our artists are the foundation of our cultural reality and yet in Canada the average artist lives at or near the bottom of the income scale. In fact, by virtue of underpayment or non-payment, ironically our artists are probably the strongest patrons of our cultural being in this country.
What policy initiatives will be forthcoming to compensate or to encourage fair compensation to Canada's artists for their work and when will those initiatives be introduced?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the point of view of my hon. colleague. Though people have sometimes talked about contributions made by the Government of Canada or by other levels of government in terms of subsidizing the arts, it has been Canada's artists who have been subsidizing the rest of us for too many years.
We have legislation before Parliament at the present time on the status of the artist bill which will help for the first time to properly put a value on the contributions made by Canadian artists to Canada.
In addition we will be proposing phase two of copyright and we have taken a number of other measures such as the new book publishing policy designed to enable artists and writers in Canada to be more successful.
In all of these ways I think we can help to put something back into the artistic community which has been giving so much to Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
Routine Proceedings
36(8), I have the honour to table, in both officials languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
[Editor's Noted: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-330, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Parole Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Hamilton West, and in fact people across this country, say that the time has come to address the issues associated with the victims of violence.
The intention of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code of Canada so as to give victims of violence a greater say in the disposition of persons convicted of violent crimes.
If passed into law the bill would see an end to day passes and escorted absences for persons convicted of violent crimes like sexual assault and murder.
The bill would also remove the so-called faint hope clause from the Criminal Code, which allows persons convicted of first degree murder the possibility of parole, because for the victims of such crimes there is no faint hope.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Keyes moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



EXCISE TAX ACT


Ron J. Duhamel: for leave to introduce Bill C-331, an act to amend the excise tax Act (books).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.

February 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Excise Tax (books). Its intent is simple. It is to exempt books from the application of the goods and services tax.
This bill clearly defines books and is in keeping with a 123-year old tradition in Canada of a zero rate of tax on books, magazines and newspapers, which was broken by the introduction of the goods and services tax in January of last year. It excludes books from taxation.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree, as will my colleagues, that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, culture and education in a literate, progressive and productive society.
It is for these reasons that I have introduced this private member's bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Duhamel moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-MEXICO

['Agreed.', 'February 10, 1992\nGovernment Orders']
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would find unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That the government table in this House all documents, studies and papers relating to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade negotiations, including copies of any draft treaty or agreement within 24 hours of the adoption of this order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.



Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by well over 300 residents of Prince Edward Island.
These residents are concerned about the possible impact on their island province of the federal government and provincial government's decision to call tenders for the construction of a bridge connecting Prince Edward Island with the mainland.
They indicate that the federal government has chosen to proceed with a bridge by calling for this project to be put out for tender, while ignoring the views of residents of Prince Edward Island and the warnings of its own environmental assessment panel of August 15, 1991.
The petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request a halt to all business related to this issue until such time as a direct vote of the public is held in the form of a plebiscite to determine specifically whether the construction of a bridge should proceed across Northumberland Strait.
The House will be reminded that an initial plebiscite was held asking about a fixed link, and a small percentage agreed to that. However, the question of whether it should be a bridge has never been put to the people of Prince Edward Island. I think it should.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with respect to the removal of the goods and services tax on books.
Petitioners from a number of parts of Canada point out that this tax does not belong in a democratic society; it runs against the principles of increasing productivity and increasing literacy.
February 10, 1992


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition to present.
The petitioners are requesting that the government reconsider the cuts that it has brought upon education, particularly post-secondary education.
The petitioners point out that there is a need for Canadians to participate fully in education in Canada if we are to be competitive and productive. They want especially the removal of the 3 per cent tax. They point out that this year alone $485 million has been cut from transfers and they believe investment in education is essential.
The petitioners cry from the heart: "Stop these cuts".


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present Parliament with a petition signed by constituents living in a senior citizens' co-op apartment, mainly retired school teachers.
The petitioners are concerned with the federal proposal to transfer jurisdiction over housing to the provinces without compensation. They are concerned that some provinces will not be able to afford the co-op and non-profit housing programs.
Therefore, the petitioners are urging the government to recognize housing as a shared federal-provincial responsibility, to support the federal, non-profit co-operative housing program, and to maintain the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present an official petition signed by many members of the riding of Broadview-Greenwood.
The petitioners are once again calling upon the government to honour the commitment it made to addressing the hot spots of Ontario, not only through the green plan but also in Hamilton in 1988 when it put $150 million toward addressing this problem.
In my riding the Don River, which is the hottest spot, the most polluted river in all of Canada, needs attention immediately. We ask this to be a model of reclaiming rivers in Canada.
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners humbly ask that the government begin the process of reclamation.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present some petitions today with many thousands of signatures to add to the over 210,000 signatures which we have already received.
These petitioners feel that there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. There are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children and disabled persons are at a particular risk.
These petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society. They ask Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 196 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 196 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Wood: With respect to the northern Ontario regional development called FEDNOR (a) how much money has the government appropriated to it for fiscal years (i) 1989-90 (ii) 1990-91 (6) how much is the government forecasting to spend in fiscal year 1991-92 (c) how much of the appropriation for fiscal year 1990-91 has been spent to date and (i) on what projects (ii) what are the criteria used in distributing funds?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

February 10, 1992
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations act and other Acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H; and the amendment of Mrs. Catterall (p. 6631).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The debate is on the main motion and the amendment of Mrs. Catterall. When the motion was adjourned at 2 p.m., the hon. member for Ottawa South still had 11 minutes left.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, at 2 p.m., I was saying that the main problem with the Public Service right now is the public servants' morale. This problem was very well explained when the report of the task force on services to the public, one of the studies done by Public Service 2000, was tabled.

The Public Service 2000 task force report refers to the following: "Recent research reveals low morale among sector managers when compared with their private sector counterparts. Our task force research also shows that public servants feel stereotyped as lazy and uncaring more by the general public than by their own departmental clients".
You might wonder why this is relevant to the reforms that are under way. I submit that in attempting through this process of Public Service reform and revitalization to address issues of service to the public, a failure to deal with underlying causes of low morale in the Public Service dooms to failure this reform. This task force, in its report on service to the public, a very interesting document, highlights the characteristics of a client centred organization.
Trying to focus on what reforms are necessary to make the Public Service of Canada more client centred, one of the characteristics which I have highlighted is: "These organizations", that is client centred ones, "treat their managers and staff well, engendering attitudes which
encourage empowerment, participation, delegation and trust.
If you accept the premise of PS 2000, the government is trying to get people lower down in the bureaucracy to take responsibility for things that are before them; to become accountable, yes, but to make decisions; as Glassco said many years ago, to make managers able to manage. If that kind of responsibility is going to be taken, the managers and the people with whom they work must feel part of the process.
Surely in embarking on a reform of the Public Service which was intended to make it more client focused, it would have been wise had that reform not been undertaken through a process of study which was entirely top down.
When you look at the issues that have given rise to what is currently a chronic and very continuing state of low morale in the Public Service, you ask yourself how a top down study such at this one, together with the kinds of problems that are compounding the problems that the Public Service is experiencing, will ever lead to a more effective, efficient Public Service.
Let me explain what I mean by those problems.
At present if you look at the people at the lower ranks of the Public Service, many of whom are my constituents, and you consider how the government provoked a labour action last year which led to a great deal of dissatisfaction and mistrust between those employees and their employer, you understand that it will be veiy difficult to rebuild that morale.
These people are low paid. They are the least empowered, if you like, of all of the government employees and very often they are the people with whom the public deals. In asking the Public Service to accept restraint in wages, which I think it was more than prepared to do, in choosing not to ask it to restrain its wage increases but in offering it a zero per cent increase in a year in which inflation was running on average around 5.5 per cent, the government was so unreasonable as to constitute a breach of trust with the very people we are now asking to be more responsive and more considerate in then-dealings with the public and more determined to provide more for less in the context of greater efficiencies.
February 10, 1992

At the other end of the spectrum, at the senior end of the spectrum, you have a different phenomenon occurring. Over the course of this past few years in government we have seen the erosion of the very important principle of ministerial responsibility. We have seen it in two cases. We have seen it first of all in 1989 in the case of the budget leak, in which the Minister of Finance proved himself unwilling to take responsibility for the fact that portions of his budget were leaked in advance. Instead he chose to stand in the House of Commons, as did the Prime Minister of Canada, and say that it was caused by a criminal act-complete abrogation of his duty as a minister.
Then, more recently, we had the case of the ministers of external affairs and immigration in the affair known as the A1 Mashat affair. In that case again ministers of the Crown not only failed to take on their ministerial responsibility but were willing to name public servants in public as being responsible for things that went on in their departments.
Kenneth Kemaghan, a political scientist at Brock University and respected authority on public administration, was quoted in The Ottawa Citizen in June 1991:
It is extremely important that ministers do not publicly name and blame whoever is at fault. This is to preserve both the anonymity and political neutrality of public servants. Loyalty, after all, is a two-way street. By tradition, public servants are not permitted to speak out in their own defence against ministerial criticism.
In commenting on this affair, the Montreal Gazette wrote:
What is indefensible is the spineless attempt by the ministers involved to cover their own tracks in this affair.
The Montreal Gazette says that the ministers involved:
-did not behave like ministers responsible by parliamentary tradition for all that happens in their ministries. They behaved more like cockroaches scurrying for cover when the lights come on. They all denied prior knowledge of Mr. Mashat's immigration and deplored his admission. They dissembled, they changed stories, they pointed the finger at others, they blamed and named civil servants.
In the face of the conduct of this government, in the face of the fact that it has lost credibility and authority as a result of its incompetence and unwillingness to listen to the people of Canada, how on earth can it come forward with a package of reforms such as Public Service 2000, with a bill such as Bill C-26, and expect not only
Government Orders
the people of Canada but particularly the members of the Public Service of Canada to take it seriously?
I suggest that it is unthinkable that this package of reforms, with its top down approach and coming from a government that has lost its authority over its own employees, can ever hope to solve the problems the Public Service confronts. It seems to me that the suggestions made by the public accounts committee, when it reviewed the PS 2000 documents earlier on, to refer the discussion papers to a House of Commons committee, was the correct approach. What we need is a study not only by the senior bureaucrats themselves but one by the Parliament of Canada into the Public Service to help us to understand how that Public Service can be best redirected at the end of the 20th century to meet the hopes and needs of Canadians.
It is not enough just to leave it in the hands of the ministers and their senior deputies. It is far too important a task.
I would like to add my voice to that of my colleague from Ottawa West who moved an amendment to the government's motion asking that this bill be pre-studied. Perhaps in that study there will be the opportunity once and for all for parliamentarians to figure out what kind of games are being played by the government in their continuing practice of contracting out functions that in the past have been performed honourably and competently by the Public Service of Canada.
The fact that this continues without any clear accounting system, enabling us to know what is being spent on contracting out, continues to be one of the unproclaimed scandals of the present government. This issue has to be examined under the bright lights of parliamentary and media scrutiny.
I do not think we can support this bill. This bill, bringing forward as it does a few elements of a very broad and very important study, is inadequate to be voted on in the House of Commons without a complete and thorough study of a lot of the principles and the basic concepts that underlie the Public Service today.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that my colleague from Ottawa is always here for his constituents, many of them being public servants. I know that the Public Service tends to be battered from one end of this country to

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
another, especially in ridings like my own where we do not have a lot of public servants. Quite often when service to the public is at fault or it is slow or there are problems in process, it is always the Public Service that tends to get the brunt of the criticism.
We are in a very difficult economic period where the demand on the Public Service is probably twice as high as it would be during a period of a good economy, so there is even more pressure on our public servants, those people dedicated to the service of Canada. They are constantly being bombarded with very difficult situations.
My question for my colleague relates to the number of people in the Public Service. I notice that the numbers in the Public Service right now are the same numbers we had in the early seventies. I think my hon. member, having a large riding of public servants, could be more specific.
I cannot imagine an organization like General Motors, any factory or any organization that was growing and meeting the needs of the market, having in 1991 the same number of people as they had in the early seventies and still expect to succeed in the quality of public service that was required.
Does my colleague not think that that sort of constricted action, that grinding down of numbers and support services within the Public Service Alliance of Canada not only affects the morale of the country but also the quality of service that ultimately we are all elected to provide through them?


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood for his question. All of us as members of Parliament from all parties have experienced the effects of the downsizing of the federal Public Service. We experience it on a daily basis in our constituency offices as we endeavour to help constituents who are trying to deal with whatever their problems may be with the federal government.
Recently we found in the area of income security the difficulty of getting information from income security offices on constituents' pension matters, on their Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and so on.
I know we all experience, especially in urban centres, the incredible delays in dealing with immigration matters where we have months and months going by while we wait for information on very basic and simple cases. I have followed up on letters I have sent as a member of Parliament to the minister of immigration for which replies were not given within a year of writing. This is how badly backed up the service has become in the Public Service of Canada. The reason is clear. When you look at the number of person years, which is essentially the number of people who work in the federal government, they have declined from about 258,000 in 1983-1984 down to 221,000 in 1990-1991. This is about the level it was in 1974.
All Canadians appreciate the fact that the federal government is being called upon to provide more and better and faster service to the people of Canada than it was almost 20 years ago, yet the people that are actually engaged in doing that are fewer in number.
That is also true in the policy development area. I mentioned earlier we are confronting a large number of very significant policy issues, partly the economic ones that I referred to of internationalization that is occurring, but also we are going through in our society a very dramatic demographic shift as the population ages. By the year 2040, regardless essentially of what we do with immigration, our population in Canada will decline.
We are in critical need, I think, of the very best minds that Canada has to offer in the area of policy development at the government level. Instead of twisting and squeezing and trying to grind this number of public servants down, ostensibly an effort to save expense, we are losing out on the opportunity to have the very best policy development occurring.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-26 that is now before the House. I do not at all pretend, as the hon. member for Ottawa South just did, that with this bill we are trying to decrease the number of civil servants or trying to denigrate them. I think that they render all Canadians valuable services.
February 10, 1992

I have often had to deal with officials of the Public Service of Canada and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am very satisfied with it. Most of them provide very professional and competent services and make the work of all of us much easier.
The bill before us today is not meant to diminish the number of our public servants or to degrade them; it is primarily intended to make them a little more mobile in their tasks and in their career progression. The Public Service of Canada now has 71 job classifications, which make it practically impossible for public servants of a particular rank and qualifications to move up to higher levels even though they may well be qualified to do so.
Basically, this bill is to allow that flexibility, to be fairer to our public servants, especially those in positions traditionally held by women, since in some categories, women cannot advance and it is practically impossible for them to apply for another type of employment with other qualifications that would give them the opportunity to provide Canadians with very good services and at the same time use their skills.
So I must support this bill because it will make the government more efficient by being able to obtain competent people from other sectors and assign them where they are needed and because it is fairer to public servants, who can apply for positions they could not before.
Therefore I do not at all understand the opposition's arguments against this bill, since it is meant to upgrade our public servants. Nothing in the bill says that public servants do not do a good job or could be used, as someone just said, to denigrate or subordinate them. That is certainly not our intention-quite the contrary, I think.
At the same time as it recognizes their skills, this bill can help them advance, because you have to put yourself in a public servant's position. If they really want to give their fellow citizens good service, they should be given the opportunity to do so. Those who are competent must not be limited.
So that is the purpose of the bill and I can only support it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the House proposes: That Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service
Government Orders
Employment act, the Public Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
This is a striking example of a government bill that must be examined in depth by this House, by all members interested in this issue, in order to improve it, Mr. Speaker, and to change its principle as well as its implementation and substance. Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the government did not follow the advice of the public accounts committee of this House which, a year ago, strongly recommended to the government the referral of this bill or of a draft bill to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, it has taken 25 years to bring significant changes before this House. If we go back 25 years, we notice that when the original act was drafted, all the parties were involved in the process. This process did not involve only the government. No. All the political parties had been involved in order to ensure a fair examination of the Public Service Employment Act, and to ensure that all parliamentarians be aware of the importance of a Public Service accountable to the public at large and to this House, as well as responsible in its administration.
Now we have a majority government that tables, on second reading, a bill which, as we know, could be passed in its present form, given the number of government members. Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret this situation, because I am convinced that the experience of the members of the opposition, as well as of those of the government, could have been beneficial and positive. We are therefore in the difficult position of proposing an amendment that asks the House to defer this discussion for six months precisely so that we can have this parliamentary exercise, so that we can examine the principle and the substance of the bill before passing it.
As I was saying, this bill is important for civil servants, but it is also important for Canadians. Since it was elected in 1984, the attitude of this government, the Conservative government, toward its employees, makes almost mandatory a complete revitalization of the Canadian Public Service. One only has to take a look at the numerous reports that were tabled, here in this House, or that were ordered by these royal commissions of inquiry, to know about proposed changes to improve the

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
Public Service. I refer hon. members to the Glassco report, in 1957-that is going back a long way-by the royal commission on economic perspectives in Canada; the Finkelman report, that many of us know because we spent several months with its author examining the scope of the proposals to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act; the Lambert royal commission in March 1979, again on financial management and accountability; the d'Avignon report, in September 1979, by a special committee on management and the merit principle; the McDonald report in August 1985, by a commission which again studied the economic union and the development prospects for Canada. All those reports Mr. Speaker, without any exception, proposed numerous solutions, some of them very interesting, that were often forgotten and totally ignored by the governments.
And now we are faced with the implementation of another report. This one is called Public Service 2000, with all its advantages and shortcomings, praised largely by members of the government and criticized by everybody else, mostly by the unions, employees and your humble servant.
The synopsis of the document on the renewal of the Public Service of Canada says, and I quote from the briefing notes we received: "What is different about Public Service 2000 is that it is led from within by those who must implement its results". We are told that public servants were involved. I know some were.
There would certainly be fewer critics if the government had taken the advice of the public accounts committee which I have the privilege to chair which had recommended or strongly suggested submitting the working paper to a special committee of the House on a proposed reform of the Public Service of Canada, well before tabling amendments in the House. We as members were excluded from the consultation process and from any direct involvement in drafting or improving this bill.
There would probably be fewer critics, Mr. Speaker, if the government had stood by its previous commitment to consider only amendments approved by representatives of employees and senior management, as reliable critics.
Consider some of the changes. Selection according to merit, which is the prevailing standard today, means that
a person is hired for a job in the Public Service according to merit. In other words, the person best qualified to do the work gets the job.
According to clause 10(2), instead of using the merit principle exclusively, in future the commission may use measures or standards based not on merit alone but also on comparative tests of candidates. In other words, so and so is better suited to the job for the time being, even if he does not win on merit.
We are told there will be regulations to ensure impartiality, to ensure that people do not revert to nepotism by appointing friends or relatives. What will those regulations be like? I don't know. Will they enhance or detract from the merit principle? I don't know. There is a possibility that not the best candidate is selected but the one that suits the manager.
That is what some people have said, and I think that until we have some clear and specific answers, those claims are justified. The unions told me this measure could be used as an excuse for favouritism and all kinds of harassment, including sexual harassment. Mr. Speaker, we don't want to go back to that. We don't want that.
In the case of temporary employees, a new clause would be added to allow the Public Service Commission to appoint any person for a period not exceeding 90 days. An extension could be granted, not exceeding 125 days a year, in the same department or any other part of the Public Service.
Many people, myself included, believe that continual employee turnover and lack of continuity could lead to poorer service rather than the improvement sought.
Some clauses deal with the organization of the Public Service, of the allocation of positions in it and their classification. Mr. Speaker, I have been talking about this issue of job classification for 12 years. These issues will not be subject to arbitration. Nevertheless, this same government in 1984 promised as firmly as it could and as often as it could that job classification would be negotiable, Mr. Speaker. It did not keep its word. We have proof in Bill C-26 today. Even Mr. Mulroney, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, promised in 1984 to make staffing and classification negotiable.
February 10, 1992

Mr. Speaker, many of the proposed changes will eventually have to be covered in regulations. What makes it difficult for members here to pass this bill is that we cannot assess the impact of many of its provisions. It is not a bill that is easy to read, I agree. It covers complex legislation. The staff relations act, Mr. Speaker, is hard to know. You almost have to have been involved with it for 18 or 19 years to begin to get a feel for it.
Let us return, Mr. Speaker, to the primary purpose of Public Service 2000: to give public servants and managers more power; to give Canadians top-quality services. According to the authors of this reorganization plan, PS2000, Public Service 2000, as it is called, and Bill C-26, if I go by the material given to us, were to increase to the government's credibility-please note-and to give greater importance to serving the public.
This morning-
-we heard the parliamentary secretary say that public servants should spend less time serving systems and more time serving citizens. I agree with that. But let us see if indeed that is the result of this proposal.

What this bill should do is streamline a Public Service that has become too complex as a result of administrative red tape. I will give an example, Mr. Speaker, which you may think is rather far-fetched, but just the same: One day, a Public Service employee is asked to go and get a bottle of vinegar from government storage. It cost $30, Mr. Speaker, to take a taxi and go and get a bottle of vinegar that probably cost two or three dollars. Thirty dollars to get a bottle of vinegar, when he could have bought a bottle at the corner store, had he had the authority to do so. But that would have been against the rules! That bottle of vinegar had to come from a vinegar depot!
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of story that makes Canadians somewhat cynical and is reminiscent of all the red tape that used to exist. When he appeared before the public accounts committee, the Auditor General suggested, and you will find this in the seventh report dated November 6, 1990, and I quote: "The current legislative and administrative framework is not adapted to the
Government Orders
environment and challenges facing the Public Service today-the need to eliminate unreasonable constraints, devolving more meaningful authority to departments and front-line managers, while ensuring proper rendering of accounts". There are references to increased delegation of authority. I think that is a sensible objective.
If I refer to the 1991 report of the Auditor General tabled recently, just before Christmas as a matter of fact, here is what I read: "An area of difficulty for past efforts at management reform appears to have been the absence of concrete proposals for moving from "here" to "there", for managing the process of change." Amendments to Bill C-26 are being put forward, but read this legislation carefully. Where are these concrete proposals for an efficient implementation? The Auditor General says further, and I quote: "The white paper on PS 2000 raises concern about excessive, detailed controls, but does not provide enough indication of the controls for government that are both essential and cost-effective." That is on page 26 of the annual report. He goes on to say that "any formal assessment of due regard to efficiency must rely on information about cost and performance."
Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, because I feel we should try to focus on this point. I will take the example of contracting out, in a department I am familiar with, the Secretaiy of State, and a function I know well, translation. At present, an employee maybe laid off by reason of lack of work or the discontinuance of a function. The bill before us will enable us to lay off an employee whose services are no longer required by reason of lack of work or the transfer of work outside the Public Service, in other words contracted out.
Such an amendment was deemed necessary by government following a November 1990 appeal judgment by the Federal Court upholding a Staff Relations Commission decision that government had violated a collective agreement when it filled 278 clerk positions in Revenue Canada by contracting out. The judge said that he thought it was not correct to say that the services of an employee whose work had been contracted out were no longer needed for lack of work or because a function had been eliminated. His services were no longer required because the function had been given to outside contrac-

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
tors. The task still had to be done and the function continued to exist.
Mr. Speaker, I see you signaling me that I have no more than one minute left. In the field of translation, Mr. Speaker, in 1985,1 think that 19 per cent of the work was contracted out. In 1989-90, it was 35 per cent and I am told that today, 50 per cent is to be contracted out. Where are the rules for accountability, Mr. Speaker? I know for a fact that officials now have a document for the decentralization of translation services because the departments are to be given the responsibility for administering this service.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you: Where is this document? Why do we not have it before us here in the House? Why can we members of Parliament not have it? I know that it exists. This document explains what the decentralization is about. It is important to know who will decide to privatize or contract out a service which it is this government's responsibility to provide as a servant of the state. I do not have all the information, Mr. Speaker, so I must tell you in conclusion that I cannot support this bill until it is reviewed and thoroughly studied by members of this House from all parties so that we can study this matter seriously fully documented and come to a consensus.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier who, I think all members of the House would recognize, has a very strong interest in this area, representing a very large number of public servants. There were a couple of observations that he made which I would like to comment on and then in turn invite his comments.
One has to do with the provision in this bill dealing with short-term contracting of up to three months and possibly renewable. I think it is important to note that it is difficult to recognize what workloads will be at any given time. From time to time within the Public Service, as within industry, workloads become particularly heavy and it is necessary to bring somebody in to assist in the short term. I would suggest that in such circumstances it makes more sense to go out and get somebody who can
perform the task necessary and carry on. If a full-scale competition were required each time somebody needed to bring in a little bit of assistance, the need may well have passed before the competition was completed.
I think what we have in the bill here is the application of common sense. I think it is important to note that such casual employees would not become regular employees by entry through competition in the regular sense.
The other point has to do with subsection 10(2), which my hon. friend addressed. I see this whole bill as an attempt to inject a little more practicality and common sense. My hon. friend suspects, as did some earlier speakers in the New Democratic Party, some kind of surreptitious motive by the government. I think what we really have here is an attempt to apply common sense to the process. I think that is what subsection 10(2) does as well.
We have never really had an adequate definition of merit as opposed to competence in the assessment of circumstances. My hon. friend represents a large number of public servants in the Ottawa area. I represent a relatively small number of public servants in departments like Fisheries and Oceans, Canada Employment, CEIC and so on. It is very important to us that, for example, not just paper qualifications be taken into consideration when assessing people for promotions but, whether they know the area. Are they familiar? Do they understand the lifestyle and the priorities of people in a particular area?
Those things might not reflect themselves in paper qualifications. On the other hand, they are very critical in determining the competence of an individual.
The last point I will make with regard to that are the circumstances, for example, in which a job has been reclassified. Does it make sense to go to the cost, the time and the energy to have somebody reapply for their own job when they have a demonstrated competence in it?
I will stop at that and perhaps my hon. friend would like to comment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the kind of debate I want. That is the kind of debate parliamentarians should have.
February 10, 1992

I brought out two or three points. I have another 25 points I could possibly bring out.
The member says that we do not have an adequate definition of merit. I have. The Public Service Commission is being attacked right now by his bill, in my view. I may be wrong. I have been wrong before. I am looking for some advice, some possible debate with the government members and those specialists in the field to make sure that the merit principle as I know it means that you get the job on merit, you can do it better than anybody else, and not because you know somebody or because you have better connections than the next guy. That is the merit principle as far as I am concerned.
I must say that I am satisfied with the annual report before this House by the Public Service Commission. I have been satisfied in the 19 years that I have been here that the Public Service Commission has addressed that question, has impartially administered that principle, that system.
I am worried now because the commission is being weakened. Look at clause 29 and look at clause 27. A new position is being created. I want to read it because it is important: "The Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet is the head of the Public Service".
Who is he? He is a nominee of the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister apolitical, non-partisan? Come on.
"He will table a report on the state of the Public Service in each fiscal year for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Prime Minister receives it".
My concern is to make sure the Public Service of Canada is apolitical, non-partisan, chosen on merit, and not on the basis of who you know in the Privy Council and if you happen to be a friend of the system. I think that is wrong.
That is why I am concerned on that point. That is the merit principle.
Regarding the question of term employees, I do not have any quarrel with term employees. They do not have any quarrels with our position. They would like to be treated like human beings.
Government Orders
If I read the bill properly they are going to have a nomination for 90 days with a possible extension to 125 days within the same department. Some people have said you can go on and on and this can be a continuous rotation in every department: "We will move our friends after 90 days to 125 days. We will move them throughout the department for another 90 days and 125 days". I say we need explanations. That is not correct. I could go on to every section of this bill.
I beg the member to vote for us, vote on this motion so that we can get into committee and debate these questions and return with a bill, with a response that has been properly studied by all of us who have an interest in this bill.


John Paul Manley: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think we have all been impressed not only with the thoughts that have been expressed by the member for Ottawa-Vanier but with his long experience as a member of this House and as chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
He has indicated that he has a number of other points that he could address. I wonder if there might be unanimous consent to give him an additional 20 minutes so that he can continue to share his wisdom with the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give more time?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in the debate on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada.
It is interesting that the government would see fit to bring in legislation at this time and to hear members of the government's side of the House tell us how fair it is going to be for the public servants of Canada and how efficient it will be.
We saw how fair this government was last summer when the Public Service Alliance was coming to the government with its concerns. We saw close to 100,000 out here on the front lawns and how this government reacted.
Before I start on the bill, it would be appropriate to give a little history of what this government has done

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
over the last seven years with regard to public servants. Since the Mulroney government came to power just over seven years ago, we have seen an unprecedented attack on government services. It has passed legislation which cuts funding for health care, education, housing, unemployment insurance, job creation, the CBC and VIA Rail. It has given us eight more senators. He found some money for eight more senators to be able to get a piece of legislation through the Senate. It increased the salaries of bureaucrats by tens of thousand dollars each, including a massive raise for the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. John Crow.
We are not talking about efficiency. We are not talking about fairness to the Public Service people. I have talked to the Professional Institute of Public Servants. Yes, there are some in those departments who would be only too happy to see this piece of legislation go through and some of the powers they would have.
I have many public servants in my riding. I have three national parks: Kootenay National Park, Yoho National Park and Glacier National Park. People are out working the highways with knowledge of what is going on. What this bill will do is take away the initiative and the pride they have in their jobs.
We also have joined highways of provincial jurisdiction that are now contracted out. I want to say to this House that I have seen the difference between privatization and our public sector workers through PSAC on our park roads. You can notice this immediately when you leave the federal park road and hit the provincial road that is now under private enterprise.
I have seen the kind of jockeying that takes place when it comes to contracts and how these are dished out. When I hear the member from the Liberal Party asking to have this bill hoisted for a six-month period, I am in full agreement. It is time this government started to listen to some of the people and let the opposition side of the House have some input into the kind of legislation that it is bringing forward. The kind of legislation that it is bringing forward is not going to address the needs of the Canadian people. We have seen that before. We have seen where this government stays in the polls at this time. It is down to 12 per cent. Is it any wonder that this government is down 12 per cent in the polls?
I talk to public servants in my riding and they tell me about the conduct of what is going on and how the morale has changed. When I talk to the people in the income tax department, in the unemployment insurance department, people involved in the highways, the parks or in customs throughout my area, I begin to realize exactly how these people are being treated and why the Canadian people feel the way they do toward governments.
They reflect what the government is doing to them and to the opposition members as well. It is wrong. These people have a great deal of pride in the work they cany out. They are very efficient in their work and how they conduct themselves. They are literally being throttled by this government with its policies and programs. Their grievances have built up through the years. These have not been processed and have not been put through the system in an efficient manner because this government does not believe in it.
It believes in giving them certification as a union to negotiate in good faith and then it treats them like it did last summer, passing back-to-work legislation without any mediation.
Then the member on the other side gets up and asks the member if he thinks this government is going to be fairer. In fact, his actual words were: "Flexibility to be fairer to our public servants". Can you imagine?
I do not know where he gets the audacity to come into this House and say they want to be more flexible because they are going to be fairer. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of trust.
The Public Service Alliance does not trust this government. The people of Canada do not trust this government. The opposition does not trust this government. The Liberal amendment asks for a six-month hoist on this bill. It recommends bringing in some of those PSAC representatives and those experts they have brought forward. Let us bring in the opposition side of the House and sit down and go over this bill. Let us bring about some changes.
We all know that some changes are needed, but let us bring in some changes that are going to be for the benefit of all Canadians and not for the benefit of the agenda of this government.
February 10, 1992

I would like to go over some of the concerns. Once again, the Tory government is going after workers in the public sector under the guise of reform. The rights of workers in the federal Public Service are being undermined. There is no question about that because that is what this bill is all about.
The government says it wants to establish a more creative, innovative, service oriented Public Service. In reality it wants to impose from the top down this vision regardless of the needs and the inputs of the workers.
I worked for CP Rail for 40 years and I saw an employer who I thought was callous. But I want to tell you that we used to operate those trains and leave that division. They knew that train was in our possession, and they respected that we were going to run those millions of dollars worth of trains across the country. They gave us some authority and some respect.
If this government did the same to our public servants and gave them the respect and dignity they need, we would see a much better response from those workers. We would see a much better attitude across Canada in what these people are trying to perform and how they are trying to carry out their duties.
That is the kind of legislation we should be looking at. If we want to really address the problem, we should be looking at some kind of communication among those workers, the government and management, and bring about the kind of legislation that is going to best address the system.
We talk about competitiveness in the work place. I will tell you that the Japanese have certainly shown us how to do it. They have been doing it for about 10 to 15 years, and this government still has not caught on to the idea that it better sit down with its workers, the people who are carrying out the every day chores and the every day agreements that are laid out and the process of that.
It better sit down with them and get the co-operation of those people, their managers and the various people, to bring about the kind of changes we need. It is not going to get it by forcing this kind of legislation through the House of Commons.
Many in the Professional Institute of Public Servants are waiting with their hands folded over for the authority that this new PS 2000 is going to give them to make the
Government Orders
kinds of decisions and changes they want. They are waiting for the extra power they seem to think they are going to have, but it will be short-lived.
It will be short-lived because this government will give them that authority until it decides it is time to make its patronage or other appointments. Those people will eventually find themselves down there with the other ones in the long run. I say to those who think there is something in this bill for them that they are sadly mistaken because it is not there at the present time.
The Public Service Alliance people, the workers who are out there trying to maintain their jobs and do their work, have had their fill of this government. They are telling this government in no uncertain terms that they are waiting for the day this government is out of power so they can deal with a government which will sit down and listen to some of their concerns.
I do not care whether you are dealing with public servants, labour in the private sector or whatever, you must have co-operation. This government does not seem to understand that you have got to have the co-operation of the people you hire and put in those places to work for you. Across Canada, this vast nation, there are public servants carrying out the regulations passed here in the House of Commons. This government does not give them the dignity nor the respect of trying to bring about that kind of co-ordination, co-operation between governments and the workers and the official staff and the workers. If this government thinks this response will do what it thinks it will do, it is sadly mistaken.
I would like to put on the record what some of the unions have to say. Contractors are taking the government for a ride. If it breaks down again, they will get more business. Members of the Calgary weather office produced a specialized snow forecast for the city of Calgary and the Ministry of Transport runway crews. MOT was not charged anything for this as it is an intergovernmental project, but the city of Calgary was charged $600 per month. In the name of privatization, the government has said that this cannot be done anymore. Now the cities pay 10 times as much for a firm in St. Louis to do it.
MOT has gone on to the St. Louis firm for the same reasons. The cost of total wages has been drastically reduced simply by contracting out services previously

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
performed by indeterminate employees at a high cost to the employer and a lower standard.
Reducing the number of employees has reduced costs, but has increased the workload of those remaining, contributing to low morale or no opportunity for job advancement and the ever-increasing fear that tomorrow they may not have a job. Is that the message you want to get out to your workers? Are those the kinds of opportunities you are telling these people about, that under the merit system they are going to be able to get their promotions? That is absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker. There is no way the average worker doing his or her job is going to have any recognition or any further protection under this piece of legislation.
The bill is not about reform, innovation or creativity. It is about the further emasculation of the Public Service and rights of workers. This bill allows the government to continue to contract out work. The government now spends in excess of $5 billion on contracting out. There is no accounting for the expenditure and no study of the cost-effectiveness of the contracting out.
Imagine, there is no study of the effectiveness of it. It reminds me of a provincial highway. When I leave federal park roads which have been nicely ploughed and I hit the private sector roads in British Columbia which have been contracted out, I can sure tell the difference and so can every person driving an automobile.
It provides the mechanism for increased devolution of managerial responsibility and accountability. It attacks the job security of Public Service sector workers. The bill does not addresses the serious problem of low morale in the Public Service. Does it address that? No. Does it address the deterioration of the service to the public? No. Is it to modernize the collective bargaining process? The Alliance still will not be able to bargain issues of classification and staffing levels. Again, it is a matter of trust. Where the government has said in the past that it would ensure that it would have these opportunities, it is taking it away.
What do the workers want? They suggested making staffing classification and deployment of staff bargain-able. That is not too much to ask. They would like an adjustment process to hear grievances on the above. If you have a grievance, surely to goodness it should be
heard and it should be heard in a reasonable period of time. If you want to speed up and have an effective Public Service, for goodness sakes, do not leave grievances hanging out there until they create the kind of atmosphere which we have had. They want an end to contracting out. Is that too much to ask if your people are doing effective work and carrying out the work? If you are trying to bring about fairness to these workers, that is not too much to ask.
I could go on and on, but I know the government is not going to listen. It does have a majority. It will do the same with this piece of legislation as it did with the back-to-work legislation that it imposed on these workers by bringing in its heavy hand, not even bringing about discussions or normal process of legislation when it comes to back-to-work legislation. No other government, including the Liberals, ever brought back-to-work legislation into this House without first going to mediation. That is the type of heavy-handed attitude that this government has toward its workers.
For this government to come and say now that this piece of legislation is going to help those workers and that it is doing it to bring about a fairer contract for these workers, I say is ludicrous. It is a matter of trust. This government cannot be trusted and we cannot support this piece of legislation.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend indicates that this government cannot be trusted and indicates that this government does not listen. I would remind him that the people of Canada in 1988 and before that, in 1984, had an opportunity to determine who best was qualified and in whom the people of Canada wished to entrust the governance of this nation. I would remind him that they twice chose the government of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party and twice elected the NDP not even as the Official Opposition, but as a rump within this Parliament. They might well remember that.
I am sure my hon. friend has ingratiated himself to his NDP colleagues in the labour movement and in the leadership of the labour movement, and I am sure Mr. Daryl Bean undoubtedly would have really enjoyed my hon. friend's remarks, but I think there is a certain dissidence between what he says and reality and the
February 10, 1992

facts. The facts are that Public Service 2000, the white paper, was an extremely comprehensive process of consultation. All of the Public Service sector unions were involved very extensively in the 10 task forces and in making presentations to the 10 task forces and were consulted at great length. The presentation of the white paper was delayed, I might remind my hon. friend, in order that extensive consultation could take place with the public sector unions. Changes were made, changes that manifest themselves in this eminently reasonable legislation in order to accommodate what the members of the Public Service themselves felt, through their organizations, should be there. I would remind him of that.
My hon. friend talks about contracting out and cites as the definitive authority on contracting out the very trade unions which have a vested interest against contracting out. I agree with my hon. friend that there should be very careful scrutiny of the effectiveness of contracting out, but it should be done by objective authority. We should not just automatically take the point of view of one side in that issue that has an unequivocally vested interest.
Finally, I would remind my hon. friend that the function of the Public Service of Canada is not to create or provide employment. It is to provide services to the people of Canada that through their elected representatives it was determined should be established.
I would remind my hon. friend that those services should be provided effectively, not only from the point of view of the services themselves, but efficiently in terms of the interests of the public, who after all are also taxpayers. If those services can be more effectively performed on behalf of the public through contracting out, then it should be done on that basis. In the same way, agencies of the government should not exist in perpetuity, and if tasks can be performed in the private sector more efficiently and do not have to be performed to meet public service needs through the government running the operation, then privatization is indeed appropriate.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member has asked me a few questions. The fact of the matter is that the process leading up to the PS 2000 report was one that saw the concerns of the workers, as
Government Orders
expressed through PSAC and the Professional Institute of the Public Service, ignored.
Therefore, for you to talk about a matter of trust in 1988, I want to say that the Prime Minister stood up in 1988 and told the Canadian people that our social programs were a matter of trust and he would ensure that they were kept. He even referred to his mother and said: "Even my mother would not support me if I were to deviate from this".


An hon. member:: And she doesn't.


Sidney James Parker: Now we find out that they are not a sacred trust to this government any more.
I want to say to the member that the Canadian people do not trust this government. Yes, we are talking about service, and in order to have good service you must have public servants and people who know what the programs are, what the government is trying to do, and co-operate with the government in order to carry them out. If you do not have this in this government or other groups, you will never have an efficient work force.
I say again, this piece of legislation is going to do some more harm. It is a matter of trust, and neither the Canadian people nor the workers nor anyone trusts this government at this time.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Kootenay East a question.
I know that along with myself he shares a number of federal government services. Being next-door neighbours, as it were, I am also acquainted with the fact that he has held considerable discussions with members of the Public Service Alliance and other employees of the federal government within his own area. Many of them work in national parks, both within his constituency and mine. In fact my colleague is a former mayor of one of the major communities in my own constituency. It is one of those vagaries of redistribution that we sometimes switch communities.
I do know that he has held some consultations, and I wonder, arising from those conversations, just what appreciation he has developed of the degree of consultation that took place with the government over the last two years on PS 2000 and other initiatives related to the bill before us, and what degree of confidence those

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
employees within his constituency have as to the legitimacy of that whole consultative experience.


Sidney James Parker: I would like to thank my colleague from Kootenay West. He is absolutely right. There have been small meetings throughout my riding, and I believe some over into his area, with regard to the PS 2000 and how it is going to affect workers. I was not able to attend some of those meetings, but I have copies of the minutes of the discussions they have had.
Some things that came out of those meetings regard loyalty and public relations. They feel they have been betrayed by this government. They had a loyalty to this government, as to all governments, to perform their duties well.
Other comments they made are similar to what I said with regard to appointing eight new senators to fulfil and to push a bill through the House and through the Senate, at the same time that they were forcing the public servants out on strike, at the same time that they were out on strike allowing the Governor of the Bank of Canada to have his wages increased by almost double.
Those were the kinds of things where they feel betrayed by this government. They recognize that changes must be made with regard to their agreements and how they can be streamlined. They are prepared to put in their input and hopefully have some say along with their managerial people.
I meet with the superintendents in my national park and I talk to them about what is going on. They rely on those workers who are out there doing the everyday work, and they have a fairly good working relationship with those people. When it comes to the top areas and how the programs are initiated, the people feel that they are being ignored. They feel that they have very poor public relations through that system. Even though they belong to trade unions and try to bring about their efforts, they feel frustrated. They feel they have been neglected.
I think they are just patiently waiting for an opportunity to throw this government out of office. I guess that is as much as I can say at this time.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased after a couple of warm-ups to now
have an opportunity to participate in this debate. I think we should remind ourselves that Public Service 2000 was a multi-year program of changes to internal administrative rules and regulations designed to make the Public Service more flexible, streamlined, and better equipped to concentrate its attention on providing services to the Canadian public. That is what the Public Service is all about.
Bill C-26, the Public Service Reform Act, is an essential part of PS 2000. It will streamline outmoded provisions regarding collective bargaining, staffing, human resources management, and the disposal of surplus assets.
Bill C-26 reaffirms the mandate of the Public Service Commission as the agent of Parliament charged with the responsibility for protecting the merit principle. In particular, the commission will maintain its role to assess merit with respect to recruitment to the Public Service and promotions to higher level duties. The commission will be authorized to define by regulation what constitutes promotion.
Back in the early 1900s, when Canada's civil service legislation was first being developed, the basic reason for requiring that appointments be made on the basis of merit was to prevent political patronage. Every government since that date, including this one, has supported the merit principle. As Bill C-26 demonstrates, this government continues to support that principle.
Merit is the recruitment of the best qualified candidate and promotion of the best qualified. This concept remains at the centre of the values of the Public Service Employment Act. To suggest otherwise, as has been done in this debate, is not to read this bill. Section 10 of the present act remains as it is.
Members who have been part of a large organization are only too well aware that organization charts are usually out of date on the day they are distributed. In today's world, jobs change over short periods to meet ever-changing requirements. The speed of technological change is dramatic. For example, the distribution of micro-computers in the Public Service increased from
10,000	in 1987 to 180,000 last year.
Public servants throughout their careers must continuously adapt through training and skills enhancement. In this environment, it would be short-sighted to recruit young people to meet only the requirements of their first
February 10, 1992

job in the Public Service. New recruits must also demonstrate that they can contribute to the needs of Canada's Public Service as they evolve over time. They must be able to show that they are the best qualified and that they have the potential to respond to new social challenges, to meet the needs for services of an increasingly varied public, and to consult widely with stakeholders in a truly client oriented fashion.
For these reasons the bill adds a new basis for selection according to merit in very specific circumstances.
The commission will be able to prescribe standards not only with respect to a particular position but also with respect to "present and future needs of the Public Service". In the old days it was relatively simple to define a job, to select standards needed to meet the requirements of that job, and to recruit by means of a competition the best person qualified to do the job.
I am pleased to see in this bill, among other things, that for the first time in legislation there will be provision for the establishment of employment equity, although we have had for some time employment equity programs.
I refer to new section 5.1, which says:
On the request of the Treasury Board, the Commission may provide for the administration and operation of programs for the improvement of employment and career opportunities in the Public Service for disadvantaged persons or groups of persons, including those that are disadvantaged by reason of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
I think it is very important that this provision be included in an explicit manner. There has been suggestion from time to time that employment equity is in fact a disincentive or indeed is an inherent form of discrimination. It is important to note that this is not at all what employment equity is. What this bill really is focusing on is the concept of providing fair criteria for decision making in terms of hiring and promotion. When we talk about people's qualifications for the job, a standard may be set of what is in fact a qualification for a position.
At the same time it is important that employer groups, obviously headed by the government, should have some kind of reflection of the community they are intended to serve. Whether we like to admit it or not, we have had for many centuries systemic discrimination in the way
Government Orders
large organisms or institutions like governments function.
If we can look, for example, in a statistical way at the people who are employed in large organisms, be it the Government of Canada or indeed the telephone company, large retail chains, oil companies or anything else, we should see some kind of balance, not only in the proportions of people of different groups that exist within that organism, but indeed they should be represented fairly at the different levels.
Employment equity is a concept that gives promotion advantage or hiring advantage not to people who are not qualified, because it only allows for the promotion of people who are in fact qualified, but gives preference from among qualified candidates to candidates from the under-represented group.
This is something that we as Canadians should applaud and welcome to ensure that the institutions of our society-and none is more basic than the Public Service of Canada-have fair representation of all peoples and all Canadians within our Public Service. The reality is that has not always been the case.
I applaud the explicit reference there. I might mention that there have been for some time de facto programs carried out through the Public Service and through Treasury Board. I refer to things like the Access Program, the Visible Minority Employment Program, the Northern Careers Program, the National Indigenous Development Program and OPTION, the non-traditional occupations program for women. Of course these programs have been very successful and have touched directly many hundreds of Canadians involved in the Public Service of Canada. I think it is important that we upfront the commitment of the Government of Canada to this very important priority.
There are many instances when it makes more sense to appoint a person who can demonstrate that he or she meets the standard of competence established by the Public Service Commission. I would like to give members present here today some realistic examples, not to be confused with some of the distorted examples I heard reference to earlier, where this would be a preferable route for us to take.
There are many training and apprenticeship programs taking place in the Public Service. As employees prog-

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
ress through various stages of their training they become competent to meet the requirements of the next level.
It would seem reasonable to make such appointments not on a competitive basis but on a demonstrated proof that the employee has reached a certain level of competence, for example by successfully passing a test or completing a certain number of hours of on-the-job training. It should be remembered that an assessment of merit was applied when the employee entered the program.
The point made is that when the Public Service of Canada goes out to recruit people to work for the Canadian public, if it wants the best possible candidates it is competing with industry.
When young people are looking for job opportunities, they are going to ask: "What is in it for me in the future?" It is not just a matter of asking: "What job am I going to have today, but where am I going to be five years or ten years from now?" Well, if they go with General Motors or with Eaton's or Imperial Oil, they have some reasonable expectation of how they are going to progress through the system.
At the same time when the employer, be it the Government of Canada or somebody else invests in an employee to see that he or she has the specialized training in order to progress through the system, it only makes sense that there should be a reasonable expectation, both on the part of the employee and on the part of the employer, that that person is in fact going to progress through the system.
Another case where this approach would be justified is where an employee's job has been reclassified to a higher level. If the employee has consistently demonstrated competence in fulfilling the job requirements, then he or she should be appointed without an extensive and costly-and I stress costly-staffing exercise involving a comparison with all potential candidates for the position.
If somebody is doing the job, the job has been reclassified, they are doing the job well and they are doing it effectively, the odds are that they should be allowed to continue in that position. Simply because it is being reclassified, it does not make sense to go to the tremendous expense of disrupting the whole process with a competition in that case.
I believe members will realize that the principle of merit never ruled out other principles of good management theory. The Canadian political system also values qualities such as efficiency, effectiveness, sensitivity and equality of opportunity.
The Public Service 2000 white paper noted that the executive has responsibility for management of resources made available to it by Parliament. For this reason Bill C-26 provides that deployments should be the responsibility of management.
What are deployments? They will be basically the same as a lateral transfer except they will not be an appointment. They will be under the control of the deputy minister who will be guided by policies and guidelines approved by the Treasury Board.
Managers need to be able to ensure that jobs get done when they need to get done. The staffing system should be flexible enough to permit a manager and an employee to agree that the employee should assume the responsibilities of a new position if it is at the same level as the employee's current position.
Deployments will only occur with the consent of the employee in most instances. Where an employee thinks that there has been an abuse of authority with respect to a deployment, he or she will have the right to seek redress including third party investigation.
The concept of deployment does not violate the principle of merit. Deployments will benefit individual public servants, in particular those who wish to expand their career opportunities by taking lateral transfers to jobs which present new challenges and which require the learning of new skills.
There was a suggestion put, I believe by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, to the effect that this bill did not acknowledge the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with respect to the issue of disclosure. I would say that to legislate along the lines previously suggested by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts might not respond to every situation. Let me illustrate.
There have been calls by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to make nothing introduceable in an appeal hearing unless previously disclosed. What if information came to an employee that would support his or her case after the disclosure step had been completed and the appeal hearing had started? It could in fact work to the disadvantage of the employee.
I would say as well that it is the practice within the Public Service in handling appeals to make sure that the
February 10, 1992

appellant is aware of the full circumstances under which the decision was made.
I wish to emphasize that these relatively modest changes to the current law regarding staffing provide for a system of checks and balances. The appeal system remains relatively unchanged.
The powers of the Public Service Commission to ensure the delegated authorities to departments are properly exercised are greatly enhanced.
I commend the bill to all members for its urgent passing in the interest of Canadians, but also in the interest of Canadian public servants.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the member from South Shore.
I want to come back to the debate he and I had a few minutes ago on the merit principle because he alluded to it. I want to make it clear there is a conditional obligation now for the Public Service Commission not only to look but it is an obligation to describe who is the best candidate to do the job. But there will be an assessment made now, and I take it that the member understands that, according to standards to be set by the commission.
In my view, this will bring about a situation where, instead of ranking employees according to the merit of each employee and comparing them to find the most qualified, the principle of hiring the most qualified will now be changed, modified or replaced by the principle of hiring a, I underline a, qualified person, not the most qualified. That is the point I want to make with the member.
The Public Service Commission which has been the watch-dog over the merit principle is going to become the lap-dog, not the watch-dog. That is what bothers me.
I want to ask the hon. member, being a member of the government, does he have any idea of the standards that are going to be set, the rules and regulations that are going to be in place? How is the commission going to reconcile merit on the basis of selecting the best to do the job with the new proposal, not the best among equals, but in someone's opinion one of those who is best qualified?
Government Orders
I do not understand why we want to dilute the Public Service Commission's mandate. I do not understand why at this time the government endorses such a move. I would like to have some explanations from the member as to why he does.


Peter L. McCreath: I would certainly like to respond to my hon. friend. I think it is important to recognize that the merit principle, as indicated in section 10 of the act remains in place and is indeed the basis for hiring decisions and promotion decisions within the Public Service.
What subsection 10(2) is designed to do is to deal with fairly specific circumstances. What we are dealing with here are situations where the circumstances effectively dictate the candidate for appointment.
Some examples would be: where no other candidate can possibly meet the requirements of the duties, such as the case with scientific researchers in a specialized field of research who are being promoted in recognition of their record of contribution in the field; or where an appointment is based on the achievements of an individual, as is the case of persons who are in training, development and apprenticeship programs who have successfully completed their training requirements and are ready for promotion, the example I referred to in my general remarks; or where candidates would otherwise be competing for their own positions, as in the case where an employee's position has been reclassified.
In addition, we would foresee using this authority to deal sensitively and compassionately with situations where an employee has been required by circumstances to accept a lower level job and has found an opportunity to be reinstated at the higher level. This may be the case where an employee has had to relocate in order to obtain medical treatment for a family member or to assist an aging parent. In these circumstances we would wish to provide for a manager to appoint the employee when a position at the former level for which the employee is qualified becomes available.
The provisions of subsection 10(2) will give the PSC the flexibility to deal with these circumstances and to adapt to new circumstances as the nature of Public Service employment changes in response to the changing needs of the Canadian people.

February 10,1992
Government Orders


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I go on to another point that the hon. member raised in his speech and that is employment equity.
Adding a clause on employment equity programs that are indeed initiated at the whim of Treasury Board and may be, I underline the words may be, implemented by the commission seems to me more of a public relations exercise than anything else, rather than a genuine effort to achieve fair representation for employment equity among the target groups.


An hon. member:: It's a diversion tactic.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, it is a diversion tactic. I ask the member in all honesty: Where does he see the great opening here, the opening of the heart to people to allow for a real good and effective employment equity program? I do not see it in that bill. He has tended to take it as a very forward movement. I would like him to give me more details on that.


Peter L. McCreath: I would be pleased to respond to my hon. friend. He refers to it as programs that exist at a whim. I see it rather as a further commitment of the government, a commitment based on the eight years during which these programs have in fact been in place.
I would suggest to him, for example with respect to the access program that it provides on-the-job training for persons with disabilities who require additional work experience to compete equitably for positions in the Public Service. Since 1983, there have been 1,228 participants. Is it a whim to those 1,228 people who have participated in this program, 1,056 of whom completed the program and over 70 per cent of whom are today members of the Public Service?
The visibility minority employment program provides incentives to departments to recruit members of visible minority groups from outside the Public Service. There have been 426 Canadians who have participated in this program since it was established by this government in
1986.	Three hundred have completed the program and 285 of them have been appointed to positions in the Public Service, 86 per cent of these at the officer level.
The northern careers program is another example of a substantive program which is responsible for increasing the representation of aboriginal peoples in the federal government in the Yukon and Northwest Territories through on-the-job and formal training. Since it was
established in 1983, 372 persons have taken part in this program.
These are just examples. If my hon. friend would like, I could give him more.
I think the point has been made that there is a commitment by the Government of Canada and I might say not just the current Government of Canada, but indeed the previous Government of Canada.
I believe all Canadians have an expectation that the Government of Canada will lead and will meet its commitments in this regard.
I would hope all members of Parliament would applaud and be encouraged by this further step, perhaps a small step, but this further step with the inclusion of section 5(1) into Bill C-26; yet another reason in my judgment why this bill should be expeditiously passed by this House.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on this bill. We are speaking about probably one of the greatest treasures this country has, namely its public servants, men and women who look after every aspect of serving the people of this nation from coast to coast.
So often I think we take this Public Service for granted. We do not realize that if we are in an urban area we may think of the Public Service as being the employment office or we might think of it as the department of health, or maybe the secretary of state or maybe the passport office. We do not realize that this Public Service is an institution of 250,000 men and women. Many thousands are employed in the Department of National Defence. We are covering every service here. Agriculture Canada has inspection agencies all across the country that make sure the quality of food and the agricultural processes and operations are looked after. We are talking about our first line service to the public in terms of the unemployment offices and customs and excise people. When tourists and business people come to this country, the first people they meet, quite often, are the customs officers at our 30 or 40 airports across the nation. We are talking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We are talking about the embassies all over the world.
We are talking about a bill today that touches the lives of people who have committed themselves more to a vocation than to a job. We are talking about people who


Jj5vi

are concerned about their incomes but there is a certain pride in working for the Government of Canada.
I do not think anybody would refute the fact that it would be a great thrill to work for an IBM or a General Motors or a McDonald's or Magna or whatever, but I bet you nine out of ten Canadians, if they had an opportunity to work for the Government of Canada serving the people and the nation, would take that opportunity.
Quite frankly, what I see here from the government side is this lean, mean machine approach to the human side of this government. It seems to me that it has brought many of the principles of business to running the Public Service when in fact those principles do not apply here.
I come from a business background myself. I have worked in small businesses, medium sized businesses and larger businesses. In business there tends to be: "What will our earnings be per share per quarter?" That tends to be our focus. We are concerned about our employee relations but the bottom line of the Public Service is a totally different operation than business. It is the business of serving people. You cannot analyse it in the same way.
I listened to the previous speaker from South Shore. He talked about streamlining as you would talk about constructing machinery on an assembly line in a factory. I really think he is missing a very important point here.
The spirit of the Public Service of Canada is one of the most important things that we must address and, quite frankly, because of the actions of this government over the last few years, the Public Service has become shell-shocked.
My riding does not have very many public servants. Whether I win or lose in the next election has nothing to do with the Public Service of Canada. I might have four or five public servants in my riding. I do know that my constituents care about the quality of service that the public servants in and around my riding give to them right now because of the way this government has shell-shocked the Public Service. This government, in the last few years, has dismantled agency after agency. It has cut man-years out of department after department. In this sort of possessed focus on reducing the deficit and the debt, the government has actually created an inverse problem. I will be very specific. In the city of Toronto they have cut the man-years of the department of
Government Orders
immigration to a point where not only have we affected the image and the reputation of that Public Service, which has been one of the most respected Public Services in the world for many years, because of its lack of ability to really deliver the kind of services that should be given to the public, but they have also caused a further cost to the treasury.
Again I said I would be very specific. In Toronto right now we have a backlog of refugees. I believe it is close to
50,000.1 might be off by 2,000 or 3,000 but that is not the point. It is such a backlog because of the lack of support in the Public Service. In the last two years it has cost the taxpayers of Canada, just in the city of Toronto alone, close to $3 billion to look after the refugee backlog.
In the name of efficiency and streamlining and cutting the Public Service we have actually added another $3 billion to the deficit and ultimately, the national debt of this country not to mention the wear and the tear on the morale of the public servants.
I could go on and on. I visited many embassies in the last couple of years and have talked to public servants. In some places we have so constricted the actions of public servants that they are even short of photocopiers. In a place like Hong Kong, where there are many entrepreneurial people who want to come to Canada, to invest their money here, invest in factories which will help keep Canadians employed, but because we have constricted the Public Service so much, we cannot even get some of the jobs done we are trying to do.
Therefore, when the Public Service feels this shellshock after shell-shock, this dismantling of the national government which has been going on for the last six years, a couple of things happen. Aside from the absolute natural breakdown of morale and spirit, we also develop a lack of trust. There is nothing more difficult to repair than a lack of trust.
Even if the national government was to present a proposal of change to the Public Service of Canada, it comes with tremendous suspicion. That is one of the reasons why we on this side of the House are supporting the amendment of my colleague for Ottawa West that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
We have a crisis of confidence in this country in every sector, in every region. There is no greater opportunity in the approach and in the challenge of rebuilding the national unity of this country than with a motivated, inspired, committed public service in every department of this government.
Let us just refer to the province of Quebec. Right now we are going through tremendous difficulty in terms of confidence and in terms of the relationship Quebec has with the rest of Canada. We have close to 125,000 public servants on the payroll of the Government of Canada to serve the people in the province of Quebec. What kind of a message are they motivated to send out, day in and day out, when they touch literally millions of Quebecers, when they see the nation's boardroom treating them in such a way that their morale is low, when they feel they are not being treated fairly?
I feel this is an asset that the minister responsible for national unity could not lean on because the morale is so low. If I were the minister responsible for national unity, I would certainly like to be able to count on the 125,000 men and women in the province of Quebec to go out and explain to their communities and all over the province the goods, services and programs that the Government of Canada is providing to the citizens of Quebec.
If that force is being crushed, is not being respected and is not being treated fairly well, it is no different than any other business or environment. It is not that we will not get work, but the quality of that work will not be as good as a force that is motivated.
I really feel strongly about this bill, not just in terms of the general service to the public but also in terms of the federal presence. Quite often, in disadvantaged and remote regions of this country, it is the public servant who really represents the hope, the anchor and the feeling of security of so many Canadians.
Two weeks ago I was in the Middle East on a mission to sell Canadian food. As a member of Parliament, I was so proud to come into the Canadian embassy in Amman, Jordan to see the flag flying and meet the public servants. There was a young student who was travelling. We were chatting about it and he felt the same way. The
response of the public servants was fantastic. That security for the government and the people of Canada is in the ambassadorship of all of our public servants, that feeling we get when we travel abroad and see an embassy. We should try to create that same feeling with our constituents and with the people of Canada when they come into contact with public servants all across our country.
When I first came to this city in 1978, the first person I met was a public servant, Craig Carpenter. It was his pride and his commitment to his vocation which inspired me to continue my work in this city. Quite frankly, when you multiply a force like a Craig Carpenter who was happy to speak for Canada, who was proud of working for the Government of Canada, when you multiply by
500,000	men and women across this country and in all areas of the world, I just do not think that we fully appreciate the positive force that can have on the morale of this country, whether it is the economy or the image of this countiy, whether it is to attract investment or to attract the minds and brains of professional people to come to this country because it is a great place to be.
I know the deficit is important. The debt of this countiy is important. We must be responsible and do what we can to address it. But there is nothing more important than the spirit of the 500,000 men and women who work for this place. They can eliminate waste on their own if they are inspired. They can create efficiency if they are inspired. They can create an attitude of confidence within the people of Canada if they are motivated. The government is so possessed by the deficit that it has this lean, mean machine approach.
When you are serving the public, it is not an earning per share or per quarter approach, and I know that all members of Parliament know that. We go home on weekends and we listen to our constituents. Quite often, even though very few people have respect for members of Parliament today, we know that we work hours and hours that people never see.
I want to say that most of the 500,000 public servants are the same way. They are counting on us to make sure that we treat them the way we would like to be treated.
February 10, 1992

Government Orders
Quite frankly I think that they are too easily used as a scapegoat, as a battering ram.
I know that there are public servants who like to use the MAD treatment, maximum administrative delay, people who would prefer to push paper and slow down the system rather than have the joy of moving it quickly. We all have examples.
I have cited a couple of examples in this House in which bureaucrats have used the system for whatever reasons they have wanted. Quite frankly there have been times when I judged them not to be the best motivated. Because of the few who have not committed themselves to this life as a vocation, we should not judge the majority.
Seventy or eighty per cent of the public servants of the Government of Canada put out. They work hard and I know members on that side of the House know it. We should not get brainwashed by the complaints that we get from the people or the clientele we have about the few who can sometimes drive us absolutely crazy.
I think that sometimes happens. We all get complaints about public servants who lost a veteran's cheque, messed up a postal service, or there was a contract in a particular department that should have been processed three months ago or a cheque to farmers that should have gone out. We all know that, but we should not condemn the whole system because of those bureaucrats who are possessed by the MAD treatment.
I say to public servants, if any are listening to this debate, that there is one thing as a member of Parliament I have learned in the last three years. There is one thing that frustrates me about the Public Service of Canada. Even though I am defending it here today, I will also debate with the Public Service. If there is one thing that the system can improve on, it is the movement and the processing of paper.
Quite often they are possessed by the MAD treatment, and not possessed by pushing paper through that they could have done today. Quite often they push it off to next week.
To the government, let us cut back on the lean, mean, machine approach and let us see if there is some way we can mobilize the federal presence and the will of the
500,000	people of this country to work for us rather than against us.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood that I greatly appreciated his statement in support of federal public servants. It comes from a former businessman who is very knowledgeable about the business world, so I appreciate it tremendously and I thank him.
I would like to ask a question about his statement dealing with morale. I know that he commented on his experience in the private sector and how essential it is to have dedicated people who want to work together. Since 1985, as he knows, federal public servants have been sacrificed on the altar of the budget deficit. The 1985 Wilson budget reduced the number of jobs in the Public Service by 15,000. The Public Service faces budget constraints that you are all aware of, as well as a capping of salary increases. Last year's strike, which literally pitted civil servants against each other, was, in my opinion, unnecessary. In other words, civil servants must now live with a budget freeze that deprives them of funds for training, for the replacement of equipment which is often obsolete, and I agree with them on that, when the workload is increasing, since hiring is frozen. This does not make much sense. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance even dared to brag last year that the size of the Public Service of Canada was the same as in 1973. Mr. Speaker, this is nothing to be proud of, when we know that the population of the country has increased by 20 per cent. It seems to me that the more Canadians there are, the more we should be able to provide adequate services for them. That is a fairly obvious statement.
Mr. Speaker, add to those restrictions the problems caused by the government's bad policies and you will see why morale in the Public Service is zero or below zero. Right now, the morale of public servants is the lowest I have ever seen, and it is a very bad time to undertake a complete reform of the Public Service. This does not seem to me to be a very wise move.
The hon. member mentioned certain contracting-out programs that will, we hear, be increased in the weeks and months to come. This means that we will transfer to managers additional responsibilities to dismiss, suspend and, occasionally, hire people. My question has to do with the accountability mechanisms that are in place. I

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
know that the hon. member worked in the private sector and I ask him: Without a known accountability mechanism, how can we improve the morale of civil servants and ensure that people know who manages what and how? What kind of fairness and justice can we expect in the public system from systems used in the private sector? What can the hon. member tell civil servants about this accountability?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier for the question.
First of all on the question of contracting out, there is absolutely no question about the fact that some contracting out is good. The way this government has handled contracting out is sort of a preoccupation. An analysis was done about six months ago and a lot of the contracting out that the government has done has ended up costing the taxpayer almost twice as much as if the government had kept it inside. This is what is going on. In the name of contracting out and in the name of creating efficiency, the exact opposite is happening. That is just fact, and the Department of Supply and Services will verify that.
I do not know who the winners are in this contracting out. It is a terrible thing if you are a public servant and you talk about merit in this bill. If you talk about merit and with the way this government is contracting out, it is contradictory. It is absolutely contradictory. I could be sitting in my department, working along, thinking that I have been doing a good job, and I could be seeing an opportunity to advance in the next six months or eight years. I am working hard and trying to achieve, and then all of a sudden the deputy comes along and contracts out the job that I was working on. What really bums you is when you find out about a year later when the bills come in that the cost of contracting out costs the taxpayer twice as much. That does happen.
I am sure there are some examples in which it is almost the same dollar cost, but you cannot forget the cost of the tear on morale. When you multiply that principle of contracting out in every office, in every system from
coast to coast to coast, I think there is a very bad mistake being made here.
I think in the name of efficiency there are a lot of things going on that are not actually turning out the way they are being stated.


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I heard our colleagues in the Official Opposition especially the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier talk about morale in the Public Service. At times his speech was so exaggerated and far-fetched that we had the impression our Public Service was as demoralized as the Soviet public service. I do not think that is the case, however.
If anyone has a morale problem, it should probably be the Liberals, not Public Service employees, would not you agree? A government is a little like a family. When management is strict and the budget is sensibly administered all members of the family are probably happier.
Of course, the Official Opposition would prefer the government to administer the status quo. Mr. Speaker, this is not a status quo government, and we have proved as much in many areas. If we had administered the status quo as the Liberals wanted us to do, the budget would now be $300 billion instead of $155 billion. The deficit would be over $100 billion, instead of having shrunk to $30 billion. I think that is something we should not forget.
In any case, I welcome the opportunity today to say a few words about Bill C-26, which is part of the reform process initiated by Public Service 2000. I think this reform bill will, over a period of several years, have an impact on all internal management rules and thus make the Public Service more flexible, more effective and more service oriented.
The Public Service Reform Act, a vital component of Public Service 2000, will restructure a number of outdated regulations concerning collective bargaining, staffing, human resources management and elimination of surplus goods. There are also some important points in this legislation, including the delegation of authority. The government wants to give more responsibility to people at the base, to all regional managers, who represent a very high percentage of all public servants,
February 10. 1992

Mr. Speaker. As a result of this decentralization, the number of Treasury Board submissions will be reduced by 40 per cent. I think that is quite substantial.
By giving more responsibilities to our regional managers, I think that across the country there will be more opportunities to take advantage of federal involvement. The reduction in the number of management levels is another important aspect. Ten per cent of management category positions will be eliminated. There is also the issue of transfers which will help all public servants acquire more experience in a variety of sectors. We must not forget that once people have had an opportunity to acquire more experience at the same level, they will be in a better position to obtain advancement within the Public Service.
Of course, a reduction in the number of professional groups, which now total 71, will be a significant improvement.
There is also the whole aspect of surplus Crown property. It is so complicated that every department has trouble disposing of its own surplus property. I think that legislation to rationalize this area will enable those officials, deputy ministers and ministers to feel more responsible.
Regionalization is extremely important. Our government has put more emphasis on regional development because we put even more trust in our officials who work in the regions. Most departments, especially Supply and Services Canada, CIDA and the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, are definitely moving towards regionalization. So I think that it is an important step toward the future and towards better service for all our fellow citizens.
For all these reasons, everything our government has done in the past seven years, whether in the economic, social or some other field, has helped us to be the country rated most highly by international organizations. I am thinking of the OECD and the International Monetary Fund, among others. It is not so well known, but I think that our fellow Canadians will gradually realize that what the government has done in each department, especially in terms of the budget, has given us a top national and international rating.
Government Orders
If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with employment equity at greater length today. For seven years, our government-this year, for example, we will invest $1.8 billion in worker training programs, while respecting the employment equity principle. I think it is good that what our government is doing for all Canadians it is also doing for our Public Service as a whole.
The bill expressly gives the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board authority to carry out programs to improve employment and career opportunities for disadvantaged persons. That is a very good thing, Mr. Speaker, because I think that the Public Service will then better reflect the make-up of Canadian society. In protecting the merit principle as Parliament has instructed it to do, the Public Service Commission will ensure that recruitment outside the Public Service and promotions within it help deputy ministers achieve employment equity in their respective departments.
Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission work closely together to establish special programs to make it easier for members of target groups who do not have equal opportunity to apply for satisfying positions in the Public Service to find employment and be promoted. I am talking about positions that women did not usually occupy before but in which they want to have a real chance to show that they are up to the challenge.
The Public Service Reform Act will enable the Public Service Commission and the departments to ensure that members of the target groups for employment equity can participate in competitions if they meet the established criteria. In its white paper on reform, Public Service 2000 believes that it is necessary to reduce the number of occupational groups in order to simplify the staffing process and to provide better career opportunities.
The new position classification system that has been developed will eliminate all systemic obstacles that prevent members of target groups for employment equity from obtaining a position or a transfer in the Public Service. We will thus have a neutral classification system that takes no account of race, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Members will no doubt want to know how the new classification system will favour employment equity. According to my information, it will make it possible to eliminate education criteria that are applied systemati-

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
cally and to adapt them to position requirements as established by the Public Service Commission. I understand that this change will mainly affect native people and recent immigrants who are a visible minority and did not attend high school in Canada. It will bring support staff and officers together in one and the same group, general services. This will make it easier for support staff to move up. This group is now called the administrative support category, and women represent 80 per cent of its members.
The elimination of such structural barriers will greatly contribute to do away with the "pink collar" ghetto of women civil servants. Bill C-26 gives legal basis to a deployment system with which managers are to meet more readily the career needs of every employee, in particular those in the employment equity target group.
It will be possible to make deployments between same level positions to allow employees to gain experience and be better qualified for another position or for promotion to the next level. I believe that doing the same job for 35 or 40 years is not the best way to get promoted and to respond successfully to job offers. That is what this part of the bill does.
Deployments will also enable managers to assign civil servants in such a way as to meet the operational needs of government. It must be emphasized that most deployments will require the consent of the employee. This would allow managers to transfer employees who are no longer able to perform jobs they are better suited for.
Certainly, members of this House will agree with me that all these changes are necessary so that the Public Service of Canada can reflect the diversity of the people it serves. I am also convinced that they will agree that the public service legislation should reflect the very best values currently recognized as such in our society. This does not mean everyone should be treated in the same way, but that equal opportunities be offered to everyone by accommodating differences.
This bill shows how much this government is in favour of change. Status quo does not allow us to meet the many national and international challenges facing us, and I am proud of my involvement in this bill.
[English)


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just make a couple of points to the member.
First of all, the member should not think that in any way, shape or form the spirit of the Liberal Party is low over bad. We are in pretty good shape over here right now.
I listened intently to the member speak. A lot of the things he said I agreed with. When he talked about employment equity, opportunities for minorities and new systems, I did not have any problem with what he said, but how does that square with the actions of the government with all of this contracting out? What good is it if I am a minority? What good is it if you say you are concerned about employment equity and I am working in a particular division within a department of government and then all of a sudden the deputy comes along and says: "Listen, I am going to contract this whole department out"? The government's words are inconsistent with its track record and its actions and that is what is driving the Public Service of Canada crazy. That is why there is no trust or very little trust. You say you talk to people and you do not get the sense that the morale is low. You could not have missed the demonstrations that we had across the country a few months ago.
My specific question, Mr. Speaker, for the member is does he not think that contracting out to the degree the government has-and again I am not against all contracting out, but it seems that this government is possessed by contracting out-is a deliberate dismantling of the Public Service of Canada? It is consistent with the dismantling of many other national institutions that we have had in Canada, all in the name of debt and deficit. Quite frankly, some of this dismantling has cost us more money than it has saved us. Again, does he not think it is a bit contradictory?


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. There are reasons that our government has been able to maintain employment in the Public Service at the same level as in 1973, and we do not hide what we are doing. It is obvious that our government believes that the private sector can some-
February 10, 1992

Government Orders
times provide services more rapidly, as well as more efficiently, in certain sectors.
Our privatization exercise has been successful, as he well knows, from a strictly economic point of view. He is also aware that our civil servants enjoy employment security and he is trying to tell us that the morale in the whole federal Public Service is at its lowest level. I will tell him that is not so.
The private sector throughout the world is going through an extremely difficult period. By comparison, I believe that to be a member of a Public Service such as ours is a rather extraordinary privilege. It is an extraordinary privilege and the mere fact that we have job security and substantial fringe benefits must, I believe, make us appreciate what we have as members of the government as well as members of the federal Public Service.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that a member of the government party would have this view of the morale of the Public Service and the rights of tenure that they have because this point of view gets promulgated out into the public at large in the country. It is false on two points.
On the issue of morale, the government's own documents on the task force report on service to the public identify low morale in the Public Service as a problem. It is clear by the surveys, particularly at management level, morale of Public Service workers is lower than equivalent people in the private sector. Morale is a problem. He did not even need to go out on the lawn of Parliament Hill last fall to meet the thousands and thousands of demonstrators. All he had to do was read the government's own documents.
The notion that Public Service workers somehow have a contract for life is long gone. I can introduce him to constituents. One comes to mind very recently, over 50 years old, over 20 years in the Public Service, laid off. Where is he supposed to find a job at this stage? The member who just spoke has just told Canadians across the country that kind of thing does not happen in the federal Public Service in Canada. I can tell him that it is happening in this city every day of the week.


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is trying in vain to impress me because the reputation of all the public services throughout the country and in particular the federal Public Service is well established. If our fellow citizens have a negative opinion of the Public Service, it is because the former Liberal government imposed on it absolutely ridiculous decisions that almost bankrupted us.
Do not forget that in 1984 the deficit was $40 billion-$23 billion interest on the debt and a $17-billion program-spending deficit which, after seven years, we have transformed into a $ 12-billion surplus that we just applied to interest payments this year. We reduced the deficit by 25 per cent and we expect to have a balanced budget in four or five years.
The whole federal Public Service will be proud of such a record in four or five years. Do not forget that the reputation of civil servants is due to the bad administration of the former Liberal government. To the extent that we reach our objectives, those people will be proud to work with the federal government.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to make a very simple point here to the hon. member. If you were at the Ottawa airport on a Friday afternoon, or any day for that matter, and there was only one security check because the government had said: "We are only going to allow one security check at the airport", all of a sudden the line-ups would become so large that you would end up missing your plane. The whole system would shut down. Do you think that is efficient? Do you not think that would cost the taxpayer money?
The same thing is happening in the Department of Immigration. Because of the cuts to the number of public servants in the Department of Immigration, we have a backlog of 55,000 refugees in the city of Toronto.
In the last two years in housing, social service payments and dental bills it has cost the Canadian taxpayer $3 billion, not to mention the morale of those poor people who are working 15 hours a day sometimes six days a week. What is a better system, hiring a few more

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
public servants and processing them or tacking another $3 billion to the deficit?
Frankly I think this government is doing a lousy job of handling the deficit. We should actually do a study on all that as it has ended up costing the taxpayer more because of the cutting and the constriction.


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals always react like spoiled children; they do not appreciate what they have and they think that the government can afford anything. A government cannot spend money it does not have. Don't forget that they increased spending by 15 per cent per year in the last 10 years of their mandate, and that the budget would be $300 billion this year, instead of $155 billion, if we had had the same increases. What he is saying is ridiculous. Restrictions exist in the private sector and must also exist in the public sector. That is why our government's performance for the last seven years is recognized by all international organizations.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk to Bill C-26. I wish first to make a few comments on the speech of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
We must all bear some responsibility for the problems around us. Very often, I resent the grandiose statements made in this place, especially when they come from Conservatives members opposite, who tend to forget that they have been in power for seven years now. I think it is high time that they stop hiding behind what was done by the Liberals up to 1984. It is clear that there are things we could have done better, but it is also clear that since 1984, there is a number of things that they could have done with a little more compassion, a little more caring for the Canadian people.

I always want to respond when I sit in this House and I hear things. The last speaker spoke in terms of this not being a government of the status quo. Believe me, truer words were never spoken.
I can recall hearing the Prime Minister, shortly after he was elected, saying; "Just stick around and within 20 years you will not recognize this country". He was right.
It did not take that long. It has only been seven years and we are having a heck of a time recognizing it.
Someone else made a reference that public servants do not feel as bad about their jobs as the public servants in Russia feel about their jobs. My goodness, where are they? Who have they been talking to? What is this kind of nonsense we are hearing, this constant, constant nonsense?
Please open your ears. Talk to people out there.
Today I talked to a public servant and I asked him how he felt about this Public Service 2000. He was just an ordinary guy, just one of the little guys who works in one of the departments. He is not a manager, not a deputy minister, nothing like that. He is just an ordinary little guy working in one little department somewhere.
He said: "What frightens us the most is this feeling that there are going to be no consequences. Who is going to bear the consequences? The way they are talking about it, the manager will have all the power. What happens to us little guys? Who thinks about us?" They are also asking: "Are we going to bear the consequences if the manager of the department is not doing his job properly? Is it going to be the little guy who is going to lose his job? Is the manager going to get a bonus for getting rid of the little guy?"
This is what they are saying. They are worried about it, how this all works.
I cannot help but support what the people on my side of the House want to do, which is delay and prevent this bill from moving forward at this time. The morale within the civil service is terrible. It is absolutely terrible. The way of helping build morale is not by imposing things on them. No one ever got anywhere by dictatorial methods. We need a little bit more consideration, a little bit more co-operation.
In January I visited a business here in Canada that had come up with some very innovative ways of dealing with its unionized personnel. This business looked at the bottom line and realized that the confrontational approach was no longer working. It was spending thousands of dollars on cases of arbitration, grievances, and people were very unhappy. It was having problems with environmental things. When people are not happy, they do not
February 10, 1992

work properly and they are not always as careful as they should be.
It really surprised me the kind of thing that the business came up with. In effect, it was a system of team work in which really there are no longer any managers. Managers are facilitators. The team itself takes responsibility for the output.
I would very much like to see us take that kind of approach perhaps with the Public Service. I know it is difficult because there is no bottom line. We cannot look at profits and say: "This department is not profitable". Let us look at what we are supposed to be doing. Let us have goals. Let us have goals in terms of how much service we can deliver for a certain amount of money and get everyone together, including that little guy at the bottom of the heap so that he can make those kinds of decisions.
You would be surprised sometimes when you speak to them about the ideas they have and the things they see and the things they could change if they were given the opportunity. The same company I visited implemented this kind of a system approximately two or three years ago. Today it has very few grievances and is really working well.
I spoke with some of the employees. Even the employees who at first were very apprehensive feel a lot better about their job. They feel as if they are actually contributing to what is happening. They have been empowered. Everyone hears the word empowerment, but that is the only way that we will get the Public Service to react, to do what it has to do, to do it well, and to enjoy doing it.
We cannot impose things. It is just impossible to get things done that way. One of the goals of the Public Service is to provide services for Canadians. That should be considered in light of the fiscal restraints. I am certainly very conscious of the fact that we have to be very careful with dollars.
I will give an example of some of the new technologies, the new in things. I do not know if some of you have had the opportunities that I have had. When I work in my constituency office I often do all of my own calling. I decide I am going to call this government department or this other government department. The new in thing now is this voice box recording answering machine. It is a
Government Orders
voice box answering machine. I do not know how many of you do your own calling but I do.
I will tell you what happens. You call a government department. It may be good for the people there. I do not know how they feel about it, but I can tell you as a Canadian trying to get service that you can press buttons ad nauseam. You get this beautiful modulated voice on the computer which answers and says: If you wish to speak to so-and-so or you want this kind of information, please press zero. After you have listened to maybe two minutes of this voice box machine, you press zero. You wait and then you get another beautiful voice and another beautiful message: If you wish to speak to Mrs. So-and-So concerning this and this, press this number, but if it is for so-and-so then press this other number on your telephone. Again you press a number on your telephone. That is said in both official languages so it goes on and on and on. You press another number and the same thing happens. It is the most frustrating thing for a Canadian to have to call a government department these days. I am not at all sure it is a good thing to have in place. On the other hand it may save all kinds of money.
However, in one of the government departments the staff was not told that these machines were coming in. It was not even taught how to use them and the machines were in place. Since then, in that particular department the staff has learned how to use the machines. This is the kind of thing that I am talking about. Was this something that the staff was aware of? Did it ask for it? Did someone explain in advance how it would be used and how it would be more effective? In that particular department, no. I did speak to some of the employees later on and they did tell me that they were sorry, but they did not know how to work that machine yet so they could not access the messages in the voice box.
I know government is a big machine and I know there are a lot of layers, but can we not simplify things and just sit down and talk to each other? I think that is really what is necessary.
We talk about the revitalization of the public sector and we talk about contracting out. Contracting out can be a good idea. It can save money, and there are times when it actually does. I know this for a fact, but there are

February 10, 1992
Government Orders
also times when it is a good way of giving your friend a job. You do not have to worry too much about explaining it. You can then turn around and say: "Look at that, my employee numbers are way down". A contract is not an employee. It is just an amount of money and you can hide all kinds of things in there that may or may not be good for us or for the economy. I think some of the previous speakers have said it. They hear that there are massive amounts of dollars that are spent that way and not necessarily in the most economical fashion.
We have to relook at everything. We especially have to talk to people. We have to talk to the people concerned. We cannot just impose these things. You say a manager will have more autonomy. He will have more ways of managing his department, but what is to say that this manager will be the perfect manager and will treat people equitably? What is to say that he will not start rewarding some of his friends and not necessarily the good work? What is to say that equity will always be achieved?
I can recall working and being on city council. I remember how the upper echelons of management worked. I will explain this because it is something that men in general do not realize. I sat down one day and they were talking about staff. We were doing some interviewing for a top level position and in the middle of the interviews we went out for lunch. When we went out for lunch, they talked about how they were going to groom so-and-so, a male, to move into this position, and they went on. I let them go on for about 20 minutes. Not once in that whole time did anyone talk about any of the female employees, about grooming them for jobs. When I mentioned it to them, they said: "Oh, well, do you think maybe they would want to be groomed to be moved up to the echelons?" I said: "Of course they would". It is so much easier to deal with your men friends and to consider them, and so I worry.
Some of the better trained, the more forward thinking people, are going to do a great job and they will consider all these things, but many will not. You can legislate equity all you want, but when all the power is in the hands of a person, a manager, there will be abuses of power. How can we guarantee that these abuses of power will not happen? How can we reassure the people who are employed within the public sector unions and the public sector that they will be protected in some way?
How can we reassure them? Certainly not by imposing a piece of legislation they have not been consulted on. Why do you not withdraw this piece of legislation? Why do you not try to build some consensus among those people? Make them feel better. Make them feel as if you care, as if you know what you are talking about in terms of what is going on in their daily lives. Until you do that, your program will not succeed. It just will not succeed. I would hope that you would seriously consider doing some of these consultations with the employees, with the unions, and not just with the higher people there. Do them with the ordinary every day guy.
It is so difficult to explain unless you speak to those people. As I said, I spoke to one just today. There are so many parts of this whole thing that frighten me.
We Liberals are committed to fair treatment of Public Service employees and of everyone. It is not that we do not want to see a better control of spending. Obviously we absolutely have to watch the way our money goes. But we all have to work at it together. We need co-operation.
One of the previous speakers talked about being in a household and someone sets the budget. Things work along a lot better, lickety-split, if somebody sets a budget. Yes, but does that person set a budget all by himself or all by herself? Does it not work better if he sits down with the others involved and says this is how much money we have, or this is how much money we do not have, and what can we do within the confines of this money?
Do you not think it works far better when you do that? Then everyone concerned is consulted. They are very much aware of the limitations that are within that budget, so everyone works together. Tomorrow, if one of the people in the family wants something and realizes they cannot have it, they are not unhappy. They think: well, this is my share; I know how much money there is, and it is just not there.
Let us try a new consensus building approach, rather than my way or the highway, which has been the case of what has happened with the government over the last little while.
I want to end, because I see the clock is moving on. I want to say that we are not going to support Bill C-26 as Liberals at second reading, and that we urge the government to establish a special committee of Parliament to
February 10, 1992

consider the principle of the bill as well as its substance in the total context of the Public Service 2000, as recommended by the public accounts committee.
We urge our members to support some of the clauses of the bill that would contribute to strengthening the Public Service and its ability to serve the public and improve labour relations. We oppose this bill, as it undermines the merit principle without adequate safeguards, destabilizes the Public Service, discourages the hiring and retention of highly qualified individuals, and reduces accountability.
We would like to see this bill, if it does move forward, substantially amended.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. First of all I would like to congratulate her for the excellent speech she gave us this afternoon.
She was saying earlier today that when we phone some government departments, we get an answering machine rather than an employee. I would like to tell her that it is worse than that. If you call the immigration office here in Ottawa, nobody answers the phone. You can let it ring for half an hour. People there will tell you that they do not answer the phone because they just do not have time. This is the level of service you get from the immigration office here in Ottawa. This is intolerable, but it is thanks to the people opposite.
Here is my question. It has to do with advancement within the Public Service. If I understand the bill correctly, Mr. Speaker, from now on, should it unfortunately come to pass, all the government needs to do-


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 6, consideration of motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the third time and passed.
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Under Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the third reading of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Nowlan	Shields
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


SPECIAL DEBATE
[Stage Direction]

Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order adopted on Wednesday, February 5, 1992, the House will continue its proceedings for the sole purpose of allowing members to make presentations on the results of discussions they have had with their constituents on the constitutional issue.
For the purpose of the special debate, the question before the House shall be:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity the House has presented to all members of Parliament to discuss what I think is probably the most important issue that we will deal with in this term of Parliament. Obviously the future of our country is very important, not only to the 295 members of the House, but to all 26.5 million Canadians. I appreciate that the House has collectively decided that each member of Parliament should be allotted some time in this Chamber to present the views that he or she has been able to put together from constituents in their individual riding. It does show that in this House members of the opposition, the opposition House leader and the government House leader can come together to come up with a system or a process whereby we can all participate.
What I would like to do this evening in the time that is allotted as the lead-off speaker in this particular session is to present the views of the Ontario riding as they relate to the 28 constitutional proposals that the government has circulated.
At the end of my presentation I would like to table in the House this document that was put together by the constituents of Ontario riding. Earlier today this document was presented to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. It was also presented to the joint committee dealing with the constitutional proposals. It was also shared with many Canadians today who travelled to Ottawa to meet with the minister and the parliamentary committee.
As well, I would like to table a questionnaire that was sent out on behalf of the committee to all 57,000 households in my riding. They invited all 57,000 households to present their views on the constitutional proposals that are presently under way.
Last August, at the outset of this process, I invited eight Canadians of several political persuasions who are residents of Ontario riding to come together and spearhead a very public process and to present their views on the Constitution.
February 10, 1992

These eight Canadians, augmented by five more who volunteered to join the committee, and I would say that all people who volunteered to be on the committee in fact were on it, these 13 people worked to put together the views of Ontario riding. How did they do that?
The first process they participated in, as the group of 13, was organizing five public meetings in the riding. One was strictly devoted to high school students and four others were devoted to the community at large.
It happens that Ontario riding has four unique areas, three towns, Whitby, Ajax and Pickering, and of course the community of Claremont. There were four public meetings, one in each town. I can tell you that in each of those towns there was extensive advertising inviting Canadians from Ontario riding to come together to present their views.
There were these public meetings that were held. The public meetings brought a real variety of interest. I would say certainly the first observation that the committee reports on, one that I certainly noticed myself, that regardless of the views that existed on any one of the 28 proposals, there was very clearly an interest by all of those who participated that we must find a solution to this constitutional impasse.
Not only must we find a solution to this impasse, but we must get on with the other issues that face this country. They recognize that some of those issues could not be addressed until such time as the constitutional process was completed. There was really a very unanimous feeling that the only way we could successfully draw any conclusions out of the constitutional process was to end up with a united Canada, a Canada that stretches from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean with no great gaping holes in the middle.
There were really very clear views on that, but I would say that that is probably where the views started to separate. We had a very interesting process at the students' forum that was held at Trafalgar Castle School in Whitby where there were some 90 or so students. They showed very clearly their strong desire, not only to keep Canada together, but to recognize some of those things in this country that are different.
A major topic of discussion was the issue of "distinct society". I can tell you that the students really had no problem with the concept as expressed, that Quebec does have a very different language in the majority than
The Constitution
do other parts of Canada. It does have a very unique culture and a civil law tradition. The students of Trafalgar Castle School and the other schools that participated certainly support that concept.
Throughout the entire process, the other four public meetings, I can tell you there were many comments raised about the distinct society. One of the most common concerns-it is a recommendation of the Ontario riding committee-is that somehow the government has to be very clear and very precise in its meaning. Whatever verbiage it finally brings forward in the final constitutional proposal, it should be concerned about recognizing those things that are unique to Quebec in the Constitution.
It also wants to be sure that whatever that recognition is, it not be something that in fact reduces powers that other provinces or the federal government may want in their area of jurisdiction. They were certainly very clear on that. There were many points of discussion over that particular proposal.
One of the things we found most interesting was the discussion as it centres around some of the economic concerns that were raised in the constitutional process. It is very clear that the constituents of Ontario riding are most concerned about the economic future of this country. They certainly support the idea that we must have free and open borders within Canada for business to conduct its affairs, for the mobility of people, for the mobility of products and services throughout Canada. There was certainly a very strong feeling in support of that.
They wanted to make sure that however we arrived at that particular process, it enabled the Canadian economy to function. Certainly the point was very well raised by many who participated in the public forums that the process of free trade with the United States was there. Maybe we ought to have some free trade in Canada as well. I think that point is reflected in the report of the committee.
Another area, of course, that raised a lot of discussion was the whole issue of Senate reform. I would say that there were very few people who participated in the process who did not want Senate reform. Surprisingly though, there were some who said they believe in an appointed Senate, they do not want an elected Senate. I

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
would suggest to you, and it is borne out by the report, that the majority of people were in favour of Senate reform. They clearly wanted an elected Senate, they clearly wanted an effective Senate.
I would say on this point that there is no unanimity among my constituents. Other parts of Canada may think that equal means exactly that, but in my part of Canada and certainly in Ontario riding this issue of equality is something that needs further explanation, if I can be polite in explaining it that way. For example, it is very clear that Ontario riding today has one MP, as do all the other 294 ridings, but Ontario riding has 170,000 people. The average riding in Canada is 80,000 people. If we are suggesting that we want equality in the Senate, then some of my constituents suggested that Ontario ought to have equality in the House of Commons. That either means another 15 or 20 seats for Ontario in the House of Commons or maybe 20 less seats for all the other provinces.
They are not opposed to equality but suggest that we should not lose sight of the inequality that exists in this Chamber at this particular time. Perhaps we could have a debate on that point.
The other interesting point was the questionnaire that was distributed. I have a copy of it which I will table as well. The results of the questionnaire were somewhat different from the information received from the people who participated in the public process. We mailed out
57,000	questionnaires. There were 28 questions and you had five options on each of the 28 proposals. I think you will find in this report that it summarizes very nicely the responses.
I would suggest to you in a very brief comment that of the 28 proposals, 27 were endorsed wholeheartedly. The 28th, which is the distinct society clause, did not go down to defeat wholeheartedly, in fact it was 41 per cent in favour and 51 per cent opposed, which I think is a fairly close comment. However, all the numbers are in the report and I look forward to the committee and to all members of Parliament reading what my constituents had to say on the proposal.
I thank the government and all members of this House for providing this opportunity for me to present, on
behalf of Ontario riding, the views of my constituents on this subject.


Ms. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, Shaping Canada's Future Together, this is, in principle, the raison d'etre of all these three rounds of consultations across the country. We held consultations after consultations, at the Canadian citizens' expense, citizens who have had it with all those words and papers, and who are desperately waiting for us to finally make a decision and go on to something else.

Even if many have doubts about the weight their input might have on where this country might go, groups from all segments of society have taken the time to bring forward their concerns and their hopes.
I would like to share with you some of the opinions held by my constituents, expressed to me at different meetings and convey their attitudes as measured by a small survey I conducted in my riding.

When asked what kind of government would best handle certain matters, most people gave answers which shed new light on what Canadians expect from their government.
Of all respondents to a survey conducted in my constituency, 59 per cent answered that education should be controlled by the provinces; 40 per cent answered that health care should be controlled by the provinces; 65 per cent answered that housing should be controlled by the provinces; 40 per cent answered that labour force training should be controlled by the provinces. However, 37 per cent of these respondents were in favour of sharing powers in the areas of labour force training and health care.

As for communications, it was very interesting to note that 61 per cent wish the federal government to keep control of this dossier. In other words, Canadians want the provincial governments to handle most provincial affairs, there being a possibility of sharing in certain areas. The federal government would keep control of communications to assure a Canadian vision of this country.
February 10, 1992



As for the content of the constitutional statement, it is interesting to note that 96 per cent of the respondents to our survey want a clause preserving our two official languages. Eighty-six per cent find that the diversity of our cultural heritage is important and 80 per cent want the role of aboriginal peoples to be recognized.
It is also essential to recognize the distinct character of the Quebec society for 67 per cent of them and that in a multi-ethnic constituency. Those sole percentages already show that the men and women of Saint-Laurent- Cartierville wish Canada to be a countiy that recognizes its history and lives for its future without rejecting its past.

While the people in my riding consider the constitution issue as a priority, they are telling me that the economy is even more paramount. Ninety-seven per cent of the respondents to my questionnaire said they believe that the free circulation of people, goods and capital is an important objective if we are to improve Canada's sagging economy.
Many Canadians believe that people with skills and products must be able to circulate without barriers in our own country if we seriously want Canada to be competitive in the global market.
The elimination of provincial buying policies for 62 per cent, the elimination of interprovincial restrictions on trade for 76 per cent, and the elimination of interprovincial restrictions on professions for 72 per cent of respondents are essential, in their opinion, to make Canada more effective.
It is only by free circulation of goods and services that we will be able to answer the working needs of so many and thus boost the economy to a healthier tomorrow for all.

In spite of all these data and all these consultations, it really seems like the country is rapidly disintegrating. Bankruptcies are common. So too are lay-offs and the Constitution is the topic, again and again. People are
The Constitution
tired, if not fed up with the word Constitution. They are disgusted with words like unity, separation, amendments, proposals, and consultations. These are only words and they will not necessarily lead somewhere. They are fed up with paying, because their tax money pays for all these consultations which seem to carry on endlessly throughout the country. While the government is spending, sometimes through mismanagement, the country is economically disintegrating. More and more permanent jobs are being lost-in fact, they are becoming a rarity-and, for the most part, they are being lost for good.
The government keeps talking about labour force training programs. But what is the use of this nice training if there are no jobs to go to? If it is important to have a united Canada, it is essential to have an economically sound Canada.
The Liberal Party does not wait to be in office to offer concrete solutions to the economic problems of Canadians. As soon as January 1992, it proposed a one-year emergency economic plan which includes the following: a 5 per cent downpayment on a first home purchase.
On that point, I would like you to note that the Conservative government had the good idea-it happens sometimes-to put that proposal into effect as soon as the House opened, that is at the beginning of February.
Our second proposal deals with the possibility of using a RRSP to buy a first home. The third one is cost-shared programs to modernize the infrastructure. The fourth one is the enhancement of labour force training. The fifth one is an emergency federal aid to food banks.
People are ready to give Canada a chance. They are ready to support leaders that will make this country an economically healthy place again. They are ready to work and it is up to the Prime Minister to start answering their basic demands if we are to survive.

All Canadians must once again be proud of their country. If the existing government cannot meet this challenge, there is no doubt that the Liberal Party can. And it will be proud to prove it after the next election.

February 10, 1992
The Constitution


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to take part in this most important debate.
I am very proud of the fact that this morning Brenda Wahlen and Michael Manley-Casimir, both of Coquitlam, British Columbia, made a presentation of a brief which reflects the work of our constitution committee in the riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam. They made the presentation to the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee on shaping Canada's future. I was very proud of them. They did a great job. It was a great example of Canadians getting involved in the decision-making process.
As I speak now, those two people are on a jet aircraft flying the 5,000 kilometres back to the riding. Do not feel sorry for them, however. It is minus 24 degrees outside here in Ottawa with the wind chill. They are going back to something like 10 or 15 degrees, where last weekend people were playing golf, playing tennis and cycling with their families. So they are very lucky.
My riding consists of five municipalities; Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Anmore and Belcarra, in the suburbs of Vancouver. They are the fastest growing areas of the country and the people who come from them, as these two people did today, reflect a confidence and a generosity that is really unique in a country that is somewhat dispirited. We are a spirited bunch and we have much to be thankful for in the beautiful natural setting that we have in Port Moody-Coquitlam.
I want to go over the brief because I think it is important and instructive. It dealt with some of the most difficult points that we have to deal with as a nation in the next few critical months. Quebec's distinctiveness is one. Can we recognize Quebec as a distinct society? Here is what the committee said. This committee consisted of a number of people who responded to an advertisement I put in the papers. I contacted people, asked people to come and they met a number of Sunday afternoons in November and December, got together with a larger group in January and put together this brief.
What do they say about Quebec's distinct society? They say that Quebec is historically, sociologically, politically and culturally distinct. So what is the problem? The government proposals define the distinct society in that Quebec has a French speaking language majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition. They have had
that since 1763 and before that. Therefore, the committee says they propose to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness and by doing that acknowledge what has always been the case. So let us not tear ourselves apart as a country over whether Quebec is distinct. Let us say it. Let us get on with other things.
The second thing is aboriginal self-government. Grand Chief Ovide Mercredi of the Assembly of First Nations gave a most passionate speech today before the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee. It was really moving. What does my committee say about this? They said the proposals put forward by the federal government which would say in 10 years you can go to court and try the notion of inherent aboriginal self-government are not satisfactory. Let us be generous, let us be open and let us bring native people also into a modem Canada. They said: "let us recognize inherent self-government now and then let us get a mechanism that we can to define it, to bring in what it really means for all the different native groups across the country".
The self-government should be within Canada. It should be subject to the charter of rights or to some other charter that would fit in the collective nature of what the native people want to do.
Dealing with questions of jurisdiction of money and of other mechanisms of native self-government, they suggest that could be worked out with the help of a royal commission on aboriginal people. They also pointed to New Zealand, where the Maori are represented in Parliament; they said perhaps this could be done in a reformed Canadian Senate. Finally they said let us zero in on where we could really aid native people, that is in post-secondary education, in culture, and in economic matters. I think that the brief makes sense.
On the Canada clause, the third item dealt with, the Canada clause defines various elements in Canada. My people, my committee wanted us to make the Canada clause a stirring preamble to the Constitution. They suggested there are areas of fundamental values Canadians share: human dignity, mutual responsibility-we have responsibilities to one another, they said-economic equity, fiscal fairness; the right of all persons, communities and institutions to fair fiscal treatment we fairly contribute to the well-being of all; social justice, and finally something that is very important in a young community like mine, environmental integrity. Let us put the environment in a modern constitution.
February 10, 1992

The committee also dealt with Senate reform. It was divided on it, quite frankly. X Some, like me, wanted to abolish the Senate outright. Others wanted the Triple-E Senate. When asked this morning, they said that to the committee. They came up with a compromise, which would be an elected Senate with reduced powers but on the German model, where the bigger provinces get more seats and the smaller provinces fewer, but the smaller or middle sized provinces like British Columbia have a little more than would be normal so that they could be better represented in the federal government. It seems like a good compromise.
They suggested that the House of Commons be reformed, but that should be done here in the House of Commons. It does not need to go in the Constitution.

They dealt with the Supreme Court of Canada, and they had a particular British Columbia worry. The government proposes to freeze the Supreme Court as it is now: three Quebec judges, three judges from Ontario, and three judges from the rest of the country. They said: "Wait a minute, B.C. will soon be one of the most populous parts of the country; people are moving to B.C. We are growing like mad. Let us not enshrine this", they said, "because there may in the future need to be a judge in the Supreme Court specifically from British Columbia". This reflects the dynamic nature of the B.C. way of thinking.
On the Bank of Canada, they said do not constitutionalize a failed economic policy or one political idea of an economic policy. However, we could put in the Constitution the nature of an economic union. We should be able to move goods and services and people throughout the country. That makes sense.
An interesting aspect is on culture. My committee dealt with the CBC. They said: "Yes, you can have provincial control, more provincial powers in broadcasting and so on, but do not destroy a national institution like the CBC; be careful about that".
Under government programs and services, where the constitutional proposals are that the provinces get additional powers like in wildlife conservation, tourism and
The Constitution
so on, they had a good point. One of the points they made was that when a boater pulls into a small harbour in British Columbia they see a sign that would say: "Canada". My people want to keep that. They want to keep the symbols and the signs and the powers over all of the Government of Canada.
On property rights, I will read what the group said: "The committee is thoroughly uncomfortable with the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution, because the proposal as it stands is vague and undefined". The idea was seen as pandering to big corporations, business and real estate interests, and again not in the general public interest of Canadians at large. There is a clear sense within the committee that a constitutional provision should apply only to a matter of central national public interest and not to particular interest or special interest. The committee opposes the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution.
Finally, although this is not in the government's proposals, the committee wants us to deal with the social charter. It thinks there are general social benefits that are available to Canadians as a whole and this should be in the Constitution.
Let me say again how proud I am of the submission. Let me table it for the House and for other members to see. Let me conclude by saying we want to see and we should see more people participating in the process. When you get the ordinary Canadian participating and sitting down to talk together you get real constitutional solutions.
This country could be lost. We are in a constitutional crisis, and we have to use all our talent. I am very proud of the moderate, visionary and doable proposals of the group from Port Moody-Coquitlam, and I am pleased to present them to the House.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Madam Speaker, tonight I take this opportunity to present to this House and the Canadian people the views of many of the constituents of Calgary Southwest regarding the constitutional proposals. My report is expressed in terms of a consensus that was generated after listening carefully to

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
hundreds of people and reading the many briefs and letters I have received.
In March 1991 I sent out 1,200 questionnaires and received a 16 per cent return. The results were: 95 per cent favoured one unified Canada; 90 per cent favoured a strong federal government; 90 per cent favoured a government that is fiscally responsible to reduce spending, to balance the budget, and to remove inefficiencies and duplications; 80 per cent favoured Senate reform: a Triple-E first, if not, abolish the upper house; 75 per cent favoured all provinces treated equally, equal rights for all Canadians; and 70 per cent wanted aboriginal difficulties resolved, recognizing the realities that exist today, for you cannot bankrupt the country.
Following the tabling of the proposals Shaping Canada's Future Together in September 1991 I held five town hall meetings, well advertised to all Calgarians, participated in five school discussions, plus a CMHC co-operative housing meeting. I also received many briefs with well thought out excellent insight and had numerous meetings in my office.
The views of my constituents are, first, too much to consider in the time available. The main issues are keep Canada whole, Senate reform, aboriginal peoples, and economic union. The challenge that constitutional reform poses for Canada is a unique opportunity to both unify and strengthen our country.
On unity, Quebec a distinct society, I quote: "Quebec contributes much to Canada. There is a special magic in her culture and her language that all Canadians recognize, but we are not willing to keep her at any cost".
There were many heated debates and discussions on distinct society. Most people now understand and have come to grips with the historical significance that Quebec is different through culture, language, and law, but in no way superior. All provinces must be treated equally, while recognizing their differences. There can be no special status for any one province. What is offered to one province must be offered to all, and whether they accept or reject it is another question. Bill 178 in Quebec was and is a lightning rod and is unacceptable to the constituents.
On Senate reform, the Triple-E, elected, equal number of persons from each province, and effective, this is the Senate wanted and supported. I have received
suggestions and briefs supporting different opinions. Some want equal regional representation; others say as long as the total number of seats from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia equal or are more than Ontario and Quebec combined, that is satisfactory. One submission received called for the ACE model-accountable, consensual, and elected-and it is worth study.
Aboriginal peoples: while we did not have extensive discussions, most people agreed upon self-government for natives, yes, but it must be done within the boundary of Canadian laws. The move to self-government should be matched by the elimination of the Department of Indian Affairs. The question asked many times, and I quote: "Self-government is a nice sounding expression, but how can it become a reality when these people are scattered from coast to coast to coast?"
The whole arrangement with aboriginal peoples must be totally revised. Whatever the results, it must include democratic freedom to every individual native and be guaranteed in the Constitution.
Canadian economic union: the free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital, plus the dismantling of our interprovincial barriers, is crucial to our success as a competitive nation. Understanding and identifying what is required to make Canada internationally competitive is perhaps easy; reaching that objective is more difficult. It requires the co-operation and support of all levels of government with one goal: Canada first.
Council of the Federation is not needed, and it really received very little if any support.
The Canada clause should be moved to the preamble of the Constitution. We are all Canadians. We are a free democratic society that respects all people in this diverse country. There should be a responsibility clause, and I quote one suggestion: "a recognition that government is an organization to which we all contribute, i.e. taxes, according to our abilities and from which we obtain services in general according to our needs, and that we citizens have unalienable rights and serious responsibilities to conduct our lives in an honourable manner in harmony with the Constitution, and to inform ourselves of our government's activities and to exercise our rights
February 10, 1992

to participate in the political governmental process at all levels".
Also the environment must be included in the final package.
Other areas have been discussed, and I want to bring them to your attention. Institutional reform: Canadians want a responsible and a responsive political process. The consensus from all groups, while reviewing the House of Commons, was that the discipline imposed by parties should be reduced and elected members must exercise the wishes of their constituents more freely. Free votes should be encouraged and members must participate and examine bills right from the beginning, before tabling, and allow more input. There should be a mechanism or guidelines to establish bills of confidence. All members must raise the quality of debate and make the House of Commons a more credible institution. MPs must curtail verbal abuse, learn to acknowledge positive suggestions, do what is right for Canada.
Housing: the Midnapore Co-op Housing Association expressed a very strong and urgent need that all Canada Housing and Mortgage contracts be honoured if housing is moved to a provincial responsibility.
There is a consensus that property rights should be in the Constitution. Property rights is a basic tenet of freedom.
Most of the constituents believe that appointments to the Supreme Court should not be a matter included in the Constitution. I quote: "The purpose of a Constitution is to set rigid parameters and guidelines within which government is empowered to fulfil the duties set out heretofore. The Constitution is therefore not to be an act of government, but a law to government by the people who pay their representatives to serve them in the said administration of the affairs of the nation".
In conclusion, the main issue is the unity of Canada. At one meeting the suggestion was made to let Quebec have its referendum first and then Canada could debate the Constitution. Bill 178 in Quebec is unacceptable. Distinct society, while acknowledged, should be defined by adding a sentence that distinct means different and not superior. All provinces are equal and must be treated equally. There are no second-class citizens. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories are important and when they become provinces the amending formula of seven out of ten provinces with 50 per cent of the population
The Constitution
will have to change. We are all Canadians; no hyphenated Canadians and no multiculturalism.
A strong economic union is necessary to maintain our standard of living. Any amendments to the common market clause, section 121, must be beneficial to all with no specific economic benefits given to one province in particular.
I want to thank all the constituents of Calgary Southwest who participated and gave careful consideration to this process. I have tried to reflect their views here tonight. I have drawn a consensus in opinions received from them in order to meet the time allocated to me tonight. I respect each individual's direction, concern and viewpoint.
I will conclude with a quote: "The federal government should be vigilant of the need to move the governing of the country and provision of services closer to the people, while still maintaining efficient and effective service to all".


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in the House today to present the report of the constitutional panel that was held in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk throughout the month of January.
I feel that it has been a very important process and certainly a learning experience. I learned more fully the views of my constituents on this issue. Furthermore, I know that their views are indicative of the attitude of the rest of Canadians.
My riding of Haldimand-Norfolk is really in a unique position in that it encompasses so many different interests. It is an agricultural community with a small manufacturing and industrial base. People settled in this region from all around the world to farm the fertile land of the area. We also have the largest population of original peoples located at the Six Nations and the New Credit.
Quite simply, my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk has a cultural and linguistic diversity that could be an example of how compromise and understanding have really built this strong and united country.
Let me begin by telling the House how impressed I was with the interest shown by the group of Canadians in my riding, particularly Mary Edmonds, Hilda Howes, Zelda Stadder and Flora Chute, who organized the two

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
panel discussions in Simcoe. Mrs. Edmonds and Mrs. Howes made their presentation to the special joint committee on a renewed Canada earlier today.
These are people who obviously care about their country and care about the future of our country. After all, they have taken the time and the effort to participate in this current round of constitutional talks.
It impresses me because I know the mood of Canadians. They are tired of this debate and a greater consequence is that they seem to be really fed up with what is going on with the constitutional talks. However, these people have proved that there are still many Canadians in this country who want the country to stay together. I am proud that they are willing to work to help keep it that way.
I believe that their views represent what the majority of Canadians want. They have not let the media or the academics or the politicians skew the reality that Canadians want a strong and united Canada. These Canadians are telling us what Canadians want and we should start listening.
We have had years of this debate. We know what the positions are. These Canadians are telling us that they want us to get on with it.
The constitutional meetings that took place in my riding in January discussed Senate reform, property rights, aboriginal rights, women's issues, Canadian agriculture, trilateral free trade, interprovincial trade barriers and youth issues.
However, the underlying theme of the whole convention was national unity and the importance of Canada staying together and being united. In order to achieve this, the panel concluded that we must all be prepared to compromise, specifically in terms of the issue of Quebec. It noted that in some instances it may be necessary to accept change and go along with things we do not really like in a compromise to preserve national unity. It is exactly the spirit of compromise that can get us through our current constitutional dilemma and guide us into the future.
The panel also recognized the distinct nature of Quebec's language and culture and its need to preserve and protect it. Most important, the panel recognizes that without Quebec there can be no Canada.
Without the French language and culture there can be no Canada. What concerned the panel the most was that Quebecers would not see that the majority of Canadians really realize that, and I hope my friends to my left in the Party Quebecois are listening to that.
Therefore I was pleased when Mrs. Edmonds and Mrs. Howes pointed out to the committee that when the media pays more attention to the defacing of a Quebec or Canadian flag than it does to covering the productive constitutional meetings like those in my riding of Haldi-mand-Norfolk, it really does a disservice to this country.
I am happy to see that more and more Canadians will recognize this and this may in some way help influence how the media portrays what is happening in this country.
The committee also noted that it was very concerned about the regional economy, specifically the crisis facing Canadian farmers and the many who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector. Among the recommendations for a national economy was the importance of eliminating interprovincial trade barriers because "they hamper the prosperity and the freedom of all Canadians".
Women's issues were discussed by school principal Mary Lou Norman who noted that women still do not have a major role to play in constitution making. She stressed the importance of equality regardless of gender, race, ethnic origin, colour or disability.
Graham and Shirley Smith, Oshweken residents of the Six Nations, told the constitutional panellists that land claims are the biggest issue for native peoples. However, they wondered how natives fit into the Constitution and the constitutional process. I quote: "There has to be a respect. There has to be a dialogue on both sides. There has to be a representation on both sides".
The streamlining of government services was a concern of city of Nanticoke mayor Rita Kalmbach, who told the panel that putting an end to the duplication of government responsibilities must be a high priority of any government. She also pointed out that the accountability and efficiency of government must be restored if the public is to have confidence in our government. I quote again from her proposal: "We need simpler
February 10, 1992

government with a clarity of purpose. We need effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of services".
As you can all see, some very important viewpoints were presented at the constitutional meetings that took place in my riding. I must say I am very proud of all my constituents who involved themselves in this process.
To conclude, I would like to say how much I appreciate the time and the effort that went into the Haldimand- Norfolk constitutional meetings. I now realize like many other Canadians that the people of my riding are working together in promoting our great country. Moreover, there really was a realization that we need to rejuvenate national pride and restore a national sense of purpose and a common cause.
The conclusions reached at the constitutional panel meetings in Haldimand-Norfolk are a real reflection on the Canadian values of fairness, sharing, caring and compassion, but most important the concept of compromise.
The meetings that took place all over Canada had an underlying theme of compromise, recognizing that without it this country really does not stand a chance.
I would like to end by quoting an important passage presented in Mrs. Edmonds' and Mrs. Howe's brief before the committee this morning. It is something that I think all Canadians should think about: "Nothing can be gained by dwelling on past grievances. Bearing in mind past mistakes, we must put old grudges aside and move ahead in the 1990s, working together for the future".
I would like to thank everyone who participated in these discussions for caring so much about Canada and caring so much about our people, and for taking the time to get involved in the future of their country.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate which may be a milestone in the development of our country or perhaps the turning point. I trust that we will take the right decisions in the days and the months ahead.
I represent the constituency of Fundy-Royal in New Brunswick, Atlantic Canada, and I believe that my constituents fairly represent the feelings and attitudes not only of Atlantic Canadians and New Brunswickers
The Constitution
but Canadians in general, particularly those Canadians from outside the province of Quebec.
Over the last months I have had an opportunity of conversing with them to gain their opinions. I would like to share with the House and nation some of their thoughts with reference to what this country is all about and what the future of it should be, particularly in relation to how it would affect Atlantic Canada.
Recently, some have called for a wholesale restructuring of our Constitution which would include a new division of powers. This year, Canada and our Constitution will celebrate their 125th birthdays. It is a Constitution which has seen us through massive urbanization, two world wars, the Great Depression and the technological revolution. It clearly has some merit.
It is important that we do not overlook the remarkable flexibility of our Constitution by ignoring these achievements and completely restructuring our fundamental law.
The context in which the national unity debate is taking place is clearly a difficult one. The recession has Canadians' attention focused on the economy and there is a tendency to be somewhat apathetic where the Constitution is concerned. That is understandable, but surely all of our problems pale in comparison to the very unity of our country.
Economic recovery will be meaningless at the end of the day if we have no nation. We must make unity first, and it must he our top priority. It is important that we, as Canadians, are fully aware of what is at stake. We must carefully weigh our options and discard those that would tear us apart rather than unite us.
As with the Meech Lake Accord, the underlying purpose of the current constitutional package is to bring Quebec into the constitutional fold as a full partner. Abraham Lincoln astutely predicted prior to the American civil war: "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Without Quebec as a full participating partner in our federation, our house, if not divided, surely is on a precarious foundation.
Equality in the Canadian context has never meant identical treatment. Indeed, each province negotiated its own terms of union with Canada. That is why British Columbia got the promise of its railroad. Newfoundland

February 10,1992
The Constitution
got its denominational schools and the maritime provinces benefited from the redistribution of wealth from the more prosperous provinces.
It is this unequal treatment that allows each province to be distinct in its own way, but this should not be confused with Quebec's individuality. The distinctiveness of Quebec is not an issue here. No one surely who is familiar with our nation would deny Quebec its unique character.
The issue is how do we incorporate Quebec's distinct identity into our Constitution. Unfortunately, the issue has been fraught with emotion, but if we are to resolve it, we must approach it from a reasonable and a compassionate point of view.
In my opinion, the new distinct society clause is a much improved version over its predecessor, the Meech Lake Accord, because it makes clear that Quebec's distinct society refers to its French-speaking majority, its unique culture and its system of civil law.
I believe that New Brunswickers and Atlantic Canadians as a whole are fair and reasonable people. We recognize the contribution of Quebec to Canada's identity and we remain confident that an accommodation can be reached with Quebec.
For Atlantic Canada, the issues of prosperity and unity are directly linked. A Canada without Quebec would have serious repercussions for the Atlantic provinces. There would be geographical isolation. There would be a tendency to gravitate to the United States. What are the implications of those types of moves?
It would mean that Atlantic Canadians would have no equalization payments. It would mean that there would be no medicare as we know it today. There would be no support for post-secondary education. There would be no regional development, and there would be no unemployment insurance. There would be no support programs for our agricultural community.
The list goes on. If this were not the unity debate one might think that I was speaking from the platform of the Reform Party from the west, because indeed those are the very things they would have us do away with in Atlantic Canada.
Even if the remaining Canadian provinces somehow regroup, I doubt very much that it is reasonable to
assume that the philosophy of equalization would apply. I doubt that very much.
Although the extent of our dependence on the federal government is not something that we are proud of, the fact of the matter is that Atlantic Canada relies on the federal government for its economic well-being more than any other region of the country.
For example, we are a net beneficiary of transfer payments. This year New Brunswick is forecasted to receive $875 million in equalization payments; $198 million under the Canada Assistance Plan; and $550 million under Established Programs Financing. These major transfers account for 39 per cent of New Brunswick's revenues.
Loss of these and other transfer payments would surely result in a decline in our standard of living. There would be substantial emigration from our region. It would have a ripple effect on local economies whose pools of skilled labour would be depleted. It would discourage businesses from relocating to our region and youth would emigrate from our area as surely as the robins fly south in the winter, only not to return. Atlantic Canada would become an area, a region of geriatrics.
I want to emphasize that New Brunswick does not want to remain a have not province. We want to decrease our dependency on the federal government. We want to develop our economy to the fullest extent.
We want to be contributing partners in the federation. But to do so we need the leadership of the federal government. We must recognize that one strong undivided Canada is essential to the economic health of New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada.
The government's proposal to eliminate provincial trade barriers is a positive step. Trade is the life-blood of New Brunswick and it makes no sense to have a free trade agreement with the United States when we erect trade barriers within Canada. We have already taken steps in the maritime provinces to tear down trade barriers. We must do the same throughout the rest of Canada.
We believe that our central institutions must be revamped. They have not necessarily served us in a beneficial manner and for that reason we believe that a reformed Senate is indeed in the best interests of
February 10, 1992

Atlantic Canadians. Elected, effective and equal is a step in the right direction.
I want to conclude my comments this evening by saying that for all of our problems, in Canada we are truly a blessed nation. We have a standard of living that most countries would simply love to emulate, a network of social programs that are the envy of the world, and an international reputation surpassed by few.
The challenges that Canada is currently facing are great, but I do not believe they are insurmountable. In the weeks and months ahead we must call upon our qualities of fairness and willingness to compromise, to forge an agreement that will respect the diversity of all Canadians. To do otherwise would be to sacrifice all that our forefathers worked so hard to create.
We cannot afford to be complacent and assume that Canada will always be there. To have a world without the Soviet Union only a few short months ago would indeed have been unthinkable.
So while the challenges are great, the alternatives are all too real. We must work diligently to ensure that those alternatives do not become the reality.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this special debate to allow members to report to the House and to all Canadians what their constituents think and have told them on the constitutional issue. First, I would like to explain what I did in Saint-Leonard, as the member of Parliament for that riding. Some members have held public meetings; others took polls. Others again went from door to door.
I am one of those who sent a questionnaire to all their constituents, to every address in their riding. During the summer, I also set up a three-week door to door program, so that those who wanted to provide answers could do so using the questionnaire, or by giving me personally their opinions on the whole constitutional issue and the future of the country.
This exercise started with a Liberal Party proposal for constitutional reform which was made public by the Leader of the Opposition during a speech in Montreal on April 21, 1991. The proposal included nine points
The Constitution
which I will read briefly, and that everybody knows. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition himself has already explained the proposal during his speech on constitutional reform and has tabled it in the House. Those nine points are: (1) a declaration on the nature of Canada; (2) the attachment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
(3)	the strengthening of the Canadian economic union;
(4)	the institutional reform; (5) the division of powers: (a) spending power, (b) immigration; (6) the Supreme Court of Canada; (7) the aboriginal peoples; (8) the amending formula; and (9) the national referendum.
With these nine points, I prepared a questionnaire that, as I said, was distributed to some 38,000 households in my riding. Since this questionnaire was mailed in June, people had all summer to fill it in. At the same time, I announced a canvassing operation and I visited one neighbourhood per evening, of which there are 14 in my riding. On August 12,1 was in Rosemont; on August 13, in Mont-Carmel; on August 14, in Garibaldi; on August 15, in Saint-Gilbert; on August 16, in Hebert; on August 19, in Saint-Leonard; on August 20, in Delorme; on August 21, in Port-Maurice; on August 22, in Ferland, on August 26, in Saint-Angele; on August 27, in Pirandello; on August 29, in Pie-XII. Unfortunately, because of the persistent bad weather, I was not able to visit the neighbourhood of Coubertin.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you that during those 13 evenings going from door to door with a group from my riding, we met people from all ages and all walks of life. So I can tell you that it is their opinion; that opinion is rather representative and is more or less similar to that of those who filled in the questionnaire and returned it to me.
Madam Speaker, I do not intend to give you my opinion on this whole constitutional debate this evening. As members of the House, I believe that we will have the opportunity to do so when the report of the joint committee is tabled, or when the federal government makes offers to the provinces. At that time, there will be a debate in the House and, as a member of Parliament, I will then give my opinion. So this evening during the 10 minutes that I am allowed in this special debate, I want to make sure that it is the people from Saint-Leonard who are heard. I want to tell the House, as well as my hon. colleagues and all the Canadians who are watching us and can read Hansard starting tomorrow morning,

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
what the people of Saint-Leonard think of the Constitution.
As regards the constitutional declaration on the nature of Canada, 74 per cent of those who participated in the exercise think that this declaration should include our attachment to both official languages. A majority of 70 per cent think that this declaration should also include the distinct character of Quebec. As well, 63 per cent of the participants think that this declaration should include a recognition of the role of the aboriginal peoples. This is all about the declaration on the nature of Canada, which defines our country.
Regarding the question as to whether we should promote the free flow of people, goods and capital in Canada, 87 per cent are in favour. The approach and details may vary but, on the whole, 87 per cent are in favour.
As to Senate reform, we asked this question: "In a reformed Senate, do you think senators should be elected?" Eighty-five per cent of respondents were in favour of elected senators. Of course, when you go into specifics, percentages and answers can be a little different, less clear cut. As I said when I started, these are the citizens of Saint-Leonard speaking tonight, not their member, so I will read exactly what they said.
There was a sub-question which asked: "If you answered yes, do you think that elections should be held on a fixed date?" Forty-seven per cent said yes; two per cent said at the time of provincial elections and 34 per cent said at the same time as federal elections. It is not clear cut, and I think we should wait and see whether the committee can come up with some suggestions on that.
About the role of the Senate regarding appointments to federal boards and agencies, 50 per cent of respondents thought that the Senate should have the power to review and 20 per cent said it should have veto power.
The role of the Senate in the legislative process. Forty-seven per cent said the Senate should be able to amend them, while 25 per cent said it should have the power to defeat them, and 14 per cent believe it should have the power to delay approval for no more than six months, which is called a "suspensive veto".
The seventh question, was the following: "Who, in your opinion, should decide whether or not a new
province should be established?" Forty-eight per cent answered that it should be up to the federal government and the population of the potential province; 30 per cent said the decision should be made by the federal government, with the approval of at least seven provinces, and 24 per cent that it should be made by the federal government and all 10 provinces.
As regards Supreme Court appointments, 71 per cent of those who responded felt it would be important that the provinces and territories be involved in the process. As a matter of fact, I think there is a nation-wide consensus on this point, judging from various statements that were made and the results of various surveys. The problem is this: in the event of a deadlock, who should decide? Forty-three per cent said it should be the Chief Justice, which I think is a new idea. That is why it is sometimes important that the people be consulted. As I said, 43 per cent think the Chief Justice should decide; 26 per cent said that it should be the province or territory and 25 per cent said that the federal government should settle the dispute.
Where it gets both interesting and complicated is when we deal with the distribution of powers. We asked this question: "In your opinion, which level of government would be best suited to have responsibility in the following areas: communications? Ottawa, 41 per cent; Quebec, 12 per cent; shared responsibility, 45 per cent. Education? Ottawa, 18 per cent; Quebec, 41 per cent; shared, 41 per cent. Fisheries? Ottawa, 39 per cent; Quebec, 24 per cent; shared, 37 per cent. Elealth care? Ottawa, 25 per cent; Quebec, 37 per cent; shared, 39 per cent. Housing? Ottawa, 12 per cent; Quebec, 55 per cent; shared, 33 per cent. I think housing is the only area the people of Saint-Leonard clearly felt should be a provincial jurisdiction. Immigration? Ottawa, 40 per cent; Quebec, 26 per cent; shared responsibility, 34 per cent. Official languages? Ottawa, 26 per cent; Quebec, 30 per cent; shared, 43 per cent. Labour market training? Ottawa, 24 per cent; Quebec, 58 per cent; shared, 39 per cent. There is no doubt in the minds of the people of Saint-Leonard that responsibility for labour market training should rest with the province of Quebec. Natural resources? Ottawa, 26 per cent; Quebec, 27 per cent; shared, 47 per cent. The environment? Ottawa, 28 per cent; Quebec, 17 per cent; shared, 55 per cent. Finally,
February 10, 1992

unemployment insurance? Ottawa, 46 per cent; Quebec, 14 per cent; shared, 40 per cent.
That is what the people of Saint-Leonard told us, Madam Speaker. I have also received letters, but I do not have enough time to read them into the record.
In concluding, I would like to say that for the citizens of Saint-Leonard, the Constitution is not necessarily the most important topic. In Saint-Leonard, the most important topic is employment, access to jobs for our young people, as well as unemployment and taxes. Madam Speaker, the Constitution came in fifth place. Therefore,
I hope that we can settle this issue as quickly as possible and move on to more important things such as the economy and the creation of jobs for our young people. Of course, the process and the specifics could influence the percentages, but by and large 87 per cent were in favour.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, as a member from Quebec, I have always felt that the constitutional question was absolutely vital. In fact, it was one of the reasons that made me decide to run federally. Constitutional issues have been a favourite subject of Quebecers and of mine for many years, but became even more significant between 1970 and 1980.
In 1980, we had a referendum in Quebec, in which about 45 or 46 per cent of Quebecers voted for Quebec's sovereignty. I felt this percentage was significant enough to consider this particular preference on the part of Quebecers.
The unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982 violated the rights of Quebecers. In 1984, the Progressive Conservative Party said it wanted to start a process of reconciliation. As we all know, a proposal was tabled and accepted by the first ministers in 1987 and then turned down in June 1990, the so-called Meech Lake proposal.
Since that time, or I should say, since June 26, 1990, two members, one from Lac-Saint-Jean and the other from Compton-Megantic-Stanstead, resigned in protest during the negotiations on Meech Lake, when we realized that Quebecers were getting the short end of the stick once more.
On June 26, 1990, three members of the Progressive Conservative Party resigned: the members for Rose-
The Constitution
mont, Richelieu and myself. The day after my resignation, I received more than 300 calls from my riding, congratulating me on my brave gesture. Only three callers told me they were upset about what I did. All of which confirmed, as far as I and my colleagues who resigned were concerned, that ours was a legitimate and courageous act in the eyes of Quebecers. Ever since, I have had no regrets. It was a gesture made by members and people here in Ottawa to demonstrate clearly their position on the rejection of Meech Lake.
What did Quebec do? What did Quebec decide after this rejection? Quebecers and the Government of Quebec, in co-operation with the opposition party, decided to create a commission, one of the most high-powered commissions ever in Quebec. It was called the Belanger-Campeau commission. Two well-known Quebec figures, with a great deal of credibility, agreed to act as joint chairman of the commission, with a mandate to consider and analyze Quebec's political and constitutional status.
This very serious undertaking was supported by 36 commissioners, including the Premier of Quebec, the Leader of the Opposition, members of the National Assembly, federal members from Ottawa, business executives, union leaders, cultural leaders, and others. They sat for six months and travelled through 11 administrative regions in Quebec. They sat in 11 cities and enjoyed the support of 55 experts. They held 277 hearings, including 32 forums with young people. They received 607 briefs from groups and individuals.
This was one of the most serious exercises ever conducted by Quebec. I think that today the federal government intends to forget what was achieved here. People said Quebec needed sweeping powers in order to be able to develop its full potential.
Since then, after this commission in Quebec, one can also read in the Belanger-Campeau report: "We are going to see whether the federal government is serious, whether it can offer Quebec sufficient opportunities for development, we are going to look at all this, and if we don't like it, we will hold a referendum on Quebec sovereignty in October 1992 at the latest".
What did the federal government do? It established a committee, the Spicer committee, which travelled across Canada and made a fool of itself as a rule. Its own existence has always been questioned. It was a more or less serious exercise. Finally Canadians were asked for

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
their opinion and I hope it will serve a purpose when the time comes to finalize the report. The Castonguay-Dob-bie committee was also established. But as you know, Senator Castonguay resigned because, as we have seen later on, he was against the federal government's proposals, particularly the Canadian economic plan. He clearly said so a few days ago. Hence he was replaced by Senator Beaudoin.
As this did not work very well, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs decided to hold constitutional conferences which are mostly made up of people who want to renew Canada. In the invitations, mention was made that the purpose was to renew Canada. We have completely forgotten that in Canada there are more than 3 million Quebecers in favour of sovereignty. We have completely neglected to ask for their opinion. Quebec made sure that federalists were represented on the Belanger-Campeau commission, but the federal government refused to hear sovereignists, even though they number more than three million in Quebec.
Will Canadian men and women understand the reality of Canada? I do not think so. The fact that the federal government refuses to hear Quebec sovereignists in this consultation process prevents Canadians from understanding that francophones are part of the Canadian reality. They are not an ethnic group, they are a nation. Quebecers represent a nation and never in this whole federal process did the government give English Canadians an opportunity to understand what Quebec is. Quebec is a nation; it is not an important ethnic group in Canada. Yet that is what Italians and other newly arrived ethnic groups believe. They believe that Quebecers are an important ethnic group. I think we should perhaps remind them of the history of Canada.
In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the distinct society. Some people want Canadians to believe that the distinct society concept is limited to language and culture. It is not limited to language and culture, and I mean culture in the proper sense of the word.
Quebec's distinct society includes all our financial institutions, such as the Caisse de depot, Desjardins, our
trust and insurance companies, and our small businesses. All these economic features set Quebec apart from the rest of Canada. Some people want us to believe that our distinct society is based solely on language and culture, in the strict sense of the terms, but that is not so. Quebecers also wish to protect and promote their economic characteristics.
That is why Quebecers will never accept that their economy be managed out of Ottawa. We will never accept such a thing, and I think several people got the message.
So if they tiy to delude us into believing English Canada is starting to understand how important it is to recognize our distinct society, it might be because they simply do not understand what Quebec means by "distinct society".
I see my time is running out. I just want to add that we can hardly wait for the federal government proposals. We are anxious to have this constitutional problem resolved so that we can undertake economic projects aimed at promoting Quebec's economy in particular.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride and opportunity that I participate in this debate this evening and to tell this House, on behalf of the constituents of my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury, about their views, about the consultations we have had with respect to the constitutional proposals and to deliver the promise which I made as I commenced the consultations in my riding several months ago.
I would like to say that over the past many weeks in a number of ways I have had the opportunity to consult with my constituents at public meetings held almost every month, at citizens' committees which met on regular occasions and in the normal course of interchange in our constituency: at the market, on the street, by phone, by letter and in personal conversation. My message was generally always the same, that I came to my constituents with a sense of pride and responsibility as their member of Parliament, available to talk with and listen to any individual or group of constituents having a
February 10, 1992

message to exchange with me about the historic and significant events which are before us. I said that the opportunities were not an exchange about party politics, but rather about identifying a common vision for our country and finding a sense of Canadian citizenship that we could all share and support.
I went on to say, and I say again, as most of us in this House know, that citizens are getting tired of hearing about the subject of Canadian unity I suppose and they wonder why we do not leave that subject alone and perhaps get on with the building of the economy, creating jobs and prosperity, cleaning up the environment and preserving the quality of life which Canada should possess in such abundance.
Truly those are the major goals that we all seek, but there is a foundation required on which all of our aspirations must be built and that foundation is a Constitution that fully reflects the values and the visions of all Canada's peoples.
I persevered and asked for the keen interest and earnest participation of my constituents over the months that were to come from the beginning of the release of these proposals. As we moved through them together, I believe that we commenced to learn and to understand them well.
We began to determine how we should best deal with them and hopefully we have come to a general consensus in many areas. There are certain areas of disagreement. In many cases there are people in my riding, as there are in every riding, who do not yet fully understand the proposals and those who understand them well and, frankly, oppose them because they do not appreciate the means by which we are trying to put this country together.
What really matters is that we did work at the process, as similar communities have done across this land and we are now realizing the achievement of a public opinion that is based on public involvement and a consultative process that has helped the decisions to be truly made by Canadians together.
As I said at the beginning, I undertook to my constituents that I would ensure their general views were delivered to this Parliament in some fashion, whether in total consensus or not and so I thank the House for the opportunity to do so tonight. I would also like to say I
The Constitution
have had the privilege of sitting with the joint parliamentary committee on a renewed Canada at which time, I also, by letter, expressed my views through the co-chair persons to the committee. I will summarize those views briefly.
First of all, the people of Fredericton-York-Sunbu-ry believe deeply in the potential and in the sanctity of a unified Canada. It could be construed as virtually a unanimous point of view. There are many differing opinions about how we should achieve the unity of our nation but I do not think there are many citizens who are strongly opposed to keeping Canada whole. In fact, most citizens are strongly committed to keeping Canada whole.
I am also convinced that in our province of New Brunswick, which is Canada's only official bilingual province, there still does remain an abiding majority support for the linguistic duality of two official languages, both in New Brunswick and in Canada.
There are, of course, many citizens who prefer the perceived simplicity which they feel would exist with only one official language, English, and there are others who are concerned about unfair application of the Official Languages Act and about preferential treatment in government employment practices, but on balance, I do believe that most New Brunswickers take pride in the model which our province has demonstrated for the harmonious and effective living together of our people under the mantle of official linguistic equality. Personally I support those policies in all respects.
With respect to the proposal to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within the context of language, culture and civil law, I also feel that most of my constituents would accept this to be a reasonable reflection of Canadian reality. There are concerns that such recognition does not constitute preferential treatment over other Canadians and there are others who would strongly prefer not to see such recognition take place at all. Again, on balance, I am convinced and would judge the majority view of my constituents to be one of reasonable acceptance of the distinct society provisions as a means of reaching consensus for the unity of our country. Certainly I personally support that position. There seems little doubt that most citizens in New Brunswick and in my riding do share the vision that Canada must include the province of Quebec.

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
I think also, Madam Speaker, there is a prevailing mood for the concept of aboriginal participation in our constitutional reform and for the principles of aboriginal self-government. There are concerns about the means by which those principles will be established but most Canadians in Fredericton-York-Sunbury would encourage us to move forward expeditiously and constructively.
I have also detected support for measures to improve the objective and constructive operations of the House of Commons and to convey a stronger perception of responsible and accountable representation by members of Parliament. For my own part, I must say I have not felt inhibited in that regard in any way and personally subscribe to the principles of parliamentary democracy, to the party and to the caucus process where I feel that I have been able to advance the cause of my constituents to their benefit in a manner that reflects the great traditions of this Parliament and of this country.
There was a surprisingly large body of opinion which would have been quite content to see the Senate abolished. I would say, however, on balance-this one a much closer balance-there is support for the concept of a Senate which is elected for sure, which is effective and which has function and powers and one which is equitable in the context that most people do not really believe that we can achieve equality in the true sense of numbers except perhaps by regional representation which I and my constituents would also support.
The citizens of Fredericton-York-Sunbury are very significantly concerned about a strong economic union. As original founding partners in Confederation, we have been the beneficiaries of dividends of that Confederation for many years to the extent that at this point in our history the benefit of those dividends amounts in a fashion in our favour to almost $8 billion per year throughout Atlantic Canada or almost $3,600 per citizen. It is extremely important that that participation in the equalized financial life of our country be maintained.
There are two other significant items that citizens advanced which I would like to put on the record.
First is the thought that the concept of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be enhanced to include also
the sense of responsibility which we as Canadian citizens must share in the affairs of our country.
Second, the Constitution should reflect the concept of economic and financial integrity. By and large we should be a society that pays our way, that remains free of debt in the normal course of events and except for the cyclical flexibility which is required in any kind of economic planning, we should in effect practice that kind of economic integrity.
I know that I am running out of time but I would just like to finish very quickly by saying that it is with a great sense of pride and responsibility that I have worked with my constituents to understand these constitutional proposals. I believe that there is a majority consensus view among the citizens of Fredericton-York-Sunbury which by and large supports the initiatives put forward by the government and which certainly, above all else, supports the efforts being made by all members of this House and by all citizens of this country, I would hope, to achieve the unification of our nation.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont -Dundas):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak this evening during this special debate on the Constitution and how this important issue is being viewed by my constituents in Stormont-Dundas.
Last month I conducted a series of constitutional forums in my riding in the communities of Iroquois, Finch and Cornwall. I wanted to discuss with my constituents in an entirely non-partisan and informal manner each of the 28 constitutional proposals that have been put forward by the federal government.
In devising these constitutional forums, I wanted to provide my constituents with an opportunity to have their views and opinions heard. I believe it is vital that Canadians have the opportunity to become a part of the constitutional reform process. It is equally important for their voices to be heard, as we know all too well the dangers involved in proceeding with constitutional reform without full and open public consultation and participation.
Aside from the three constitutional forums I held in my riding, I also placed a constitutional questionnaire in my last householder to my constituents. I believe it is incumbent on all members of Parliament to take an active role in finding out what their constituents think on
February 10, 1992

an issue of importance such as the one we are debating today.
While I received nearly 500 responses from my questionnaire in my householder, I can say that the results were very similar to those I obtained from a questionnaire I distributed during the constitutional forums. I will, therefore, confine my remarks to the comments I heard at the forums and refer to the results from the questionnaires I received from these three forums.
To begin with, I was very pleased to see the interest my constituents had in the constitutional debate. I would, of course, like to thank those constituents who did come out on three winter nights to meet and discuss with their member of Parliament, friends and neighbours an issue which they felt was of considerable importance.
I was particularly delighted with the general consensus present at each forum whereby participants had a shared desire for Canada to remain a strong and united country.
There was also substantial support for the aboriginal people of Canada. A clear majority of participants supported aboriginal self-government and native participation in the current constitutional deliberations. Strong support was also present at our forums for a constitutional amendment to permit aboriginal matters not addressed in the current constitutional talks to be addressed in the future.
On the issue of Senate reform, an overwhelming amount of support was displayed for an elected Senate. There was, however, a rough split on whether or not there should be an equal number of senators representing the regions of Canada. In addition, support for an equal number of senators for each province was not evident.
With regard to reform measures for the House of Commons, a significant majority of participants supported members of Parliament having more free votes and having vacant seats in the House filled within 120 days.
On the question of designating Quebec as a distinct society, the majority of participants were not in favour of the proposal. However, while I am committed to this proposal on a personal basis, I respect the views of my constituents and I was heartened by the support that was
The Constitution
given to the recognition of Canada's linguistic duality as being a fundamental characteristic of our country.
While there was support for a Canada clause to be placed in our Constitution, there was concern expressed as to what exactly would be in this clause. Some participants commented about the ambiguity surrounding some of the aspects being considered for insertion in the Canada clause.
The proposals relating to a common market throughout Canada and the issue of an economic union were closely examined, and while they were afforded considerable support especially as they relate to the free movement of people, goods and services across the country, there was some concern expressed as to a need for clarification. Specific concern was expressed over how the economic union should be arranged and what it would entail.
The harmonization of economic policies between the federal government and the provinces did however receive support, while questions were raised as to whether or not the federal government or the provincial governments should have sole jurisdiction in certain matters.
Concern was also present over federal funding in provincial areas of jurisdiction. Most participants wish to obtain assurances that standard programs and services would continue to exist throughout Canada and federal funds would not be reduced if provincial governments obtained complete jurisdiction in specific matters currently involving the federal government.
On a more general theme, most of the forum participants in my riding believe that the proposals put forward by the federal government were indeed too ambiguous. Another common observation was that there were just too many proposals. This sentiment I believe has been echoed by many Canadians in recent days.
I too share these two comments on the constitutional proposals of the government but I recognize that they are proposals and there is every hope that we will see a number of these proposals better defined in the final package, as our party has suggested to the government.
I also believe that we will see a reduction in the number of proposals contained in the final package when it is presented in the House. I will, for now, leave those

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
two matters in the capable hands of the committee which is currently discussing the government's proposals.
Finally, with regard to the opinions of my constituents on the matter of the council of the federation, a clear majority could not support the establishment of such a council. Many feared it would be just another layer of government with an equally cumbersome bureaucracy and an expense which we could do without. First ministers' meetings held on a regular basis were viewed as a more appropriate alternative.
I was grateful for the opportunities the forums presented me to obtain the views of my constituents on the government's constitutional proposals. They will be part of my response in this Chamber to the government's final constitutional package when it is presented in the near future.
In conclusion, I am also grateful for this opportunity to share with other members in this House during this special debate some of the views and opinions of my constituents on the Constitution and the government's proposals.
The Liberal Party has also presented its own position on the Constitution to the government and to Canadians. We have indicated the direction we would like the government to take in order to bring about what we all desire for Canada: a united, proud and independent country for all Canadians.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would just like to add this.

If I may for a moment, I would like to say something on a different matter. A few hours ago I heard that one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Saint-Denis, is celebrating today his 28th year in this House. He has been elected to this House 28 years ago, and I want to congratulate him.

Also, I see in the Chamber the member for Winnipeg South, the co-chair of our constitutional committee. I want to express my appreciation and respect for the committee and wish it well in its future endeavours.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. gentleman opposite for his kind words and good wishes. It means a great deal to all of us in the House that we conduct these discussions in the kind of non-partisan manner that we have been able to do.
You see, Madam Speaker, that I come today without a formal speech. I am doing this because of some of the things that we heard in the committee over the past two months. It is very clear that many people are concerned that members of Parliament come and appear to simply read from material that people in the public believe has been drafted by the status quo, by the bureaucracy. They are feeling very fearful and suspicious that members of Parliament are not speaking from their hearts or are not speaking from their own sense of conviction.
I hope that I will be able to cany on a coherent discussion this afternoon because I intend to do so only from notes in order to respond to some of those concerns of Canadians all across the country.
I would like to begin by making a comment about the committee's work in the travel that we have had. We have been from one end of the country to the other and to all sorts of far reaches, the furthest reaches of the land. During that time we have received over 4,000 submissions and, believe it or not, we have heard from 560-some individuals and we still have some more tomorrow. Of that number, about 192 represent organizations. This is in addition to the four conferences that we have also been participating in, as listeners in most cases and sometimes as participants.
I think it is indicative of this round of the constitutional talks that Parliament has listened, all members of Parliament have listened to what their constituents have been telling them since the last round of constitutional talks that ended in the failure of Meech Lake. This time our concern is that people have an opportunity to fully participate in this constitutional debate and to know that if they are determined to have a say that they will have the ability and the opportunity to do so.
This is the Canada round. There is no doubt about that. It responds to a host of concerns that were expressed throughout the process of reviewing the Meech Lake Accord when it was tried at the last dying moments to resurrect it by listening to Canadians, and from the things that we have heard since, not just from


February 10, 1992

the Spicer commission but also from the Beaudoin-Ed-wards committee that came before the committee that I co-chair.
That is why there are 28 proposals on the table. We have heard criticisms that that is too much. First of all, I have to point out that not all of the 28 proposals are constitutional proposals. Some of them are instructions to the committee about the fact that we should do certain things and we should look into certain things. Some of them are intentions that the government has expressed about legislation that it intends to enact and it asks for advice on that legislation. One of those items, for instance, is reform of the Bank of Canada Act which would be accomplished merely through an act of the House of Commons.
You cannot have it both ways. When we went through the Meech Lake hearings, people were saying: "You didn't include us, you didn't count us in. Because this is the Quebec round, this is an exclusionary process and we want in". We heard that from aboriginal people, women, people who come from ethnic communities, people who are physically disadvantaged, and so on.
This 28 proposal package is an attempt to respond to all of the concerns that we have been hearing over the past two years. I suppose in the final analysis, the essential items that have to be dealt with according to the timetable that we have before us now are the ones that will be dealt with by the First Ministers when it comes time for them to begin to negotiate the final results of the committee's deliberations.
For the time being, it is very important that all of the options are there for the First Ministers to examine. These are things that Canadians have been telling us. For example, in the west, they have been saying that they feel alienated. Therefore, they want some fundamental change to the system so that they will feel included in the decision-making that emanates from the centre of the country.
It is important to make sure that we leave all of the proposals as wide open as we can so that First Ministers can make their decisions accordingly. However, there are three issues that concern us all very much. We must respond to Quebec because we have been dealing with this question for many many years. Surely after 10 years of having repatriated our Constitution, it is time to do
The Constitution
the generous thing and respond to the minimal requirements of Quebec in order to become part of the Constitution of Canada.
I know that at all of the hearings we have held across the country, people responded very favourably to the idea that Quebec could be included as a distinct society, as represented by its culture, its French language and its civil law. I do not believe if you were able to take a vote of the people who are aware of the issue, who have studied it and thought about it, that you would find many were opposed. It reminds me of some of the more emotional issues that have been before this House where 25 per cent of the people are violently on one side of the issue and 20 per cent are violently on the other side of the issue. The vast middle majority say: "Please, find a reasonable accommodation somewhere down the centre, get it fixed and get on with it". This is true of the constitutional issue and it is true also of some of the more controversial issues in this particular round.
There is a deep desire to resolve the issues that are outstanding for aboriginal people, at least some of them on this round even if we do not get to them all. We should remember that constitutions are not things that are finite. They are never completed. They grow and evolve with the needs of society at that particular time. Of course, we must respond to the feeling of western alienation.
In addition our institutions, the parliamentary reform process about which we heard Mr. Brewin talk earlier, is an integral part of what we are doing. If we do not respect each other as parliamentarians, if we do not learn to listen carefully to what our colleagues are saying, listen with concern and believe they have a valid point, it is very difficult for Canadians to believe that they should respect us. If we have lost some respect perhaps it is time to look into our own hearts and see how we can reform our own conduct to ensure that we reinstil that respect for this particular institution in Canadians all across the country.
I suppose that it is no secret that there will be changes to the constitutional proposals when the committee makes its report. I think that it is a very positive thing for this country and for this government. They are after all proposals and they were put on the table so that people would have a foundation of discussion, a basis upon which to carry on the discussion.

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
This discussion has been very healthy and very helpful. It will help us to sort out exactly what we need to do when we come to the end of this particular process.
I want to mention something that bothers me a great deal. It seems to me that in some places in this country there are forces of darkness. These are the kinds of forces that instil fear and insecurity in the hearts of all Canadians because they play on all of the little things of which we are afraid.
Because this is a great democracy, these people and these forces have a voice. It is important that Canadians resist the temptation to believe absolutely everything they hear. They should use their heads. They should examine the positions that are being espoused and ensure that they are rational and reasonable. It is only by understanding the obligations of our citizenship that we will be able to preserve this democracy. These voices sound very appealing at times. They are the ones that pit the French against the English, the aboriginals against the French. They pit interest group against interest group and they pit everybody against the national interest. It is up to us to ensure that we exercise our responsibility as citizens in a way that resists those forces and looks forward to the optimistic, the wonderful and all of the things that are good out there.
I am going to just very briefly read from a booklet that was given to us today by one of the people who came to speak before the committee. It says: "Let Young People Speak". Young people have a way of saying things that get right to the heart of the matter and they say it much more eloquently than I ever can. I will read a couple of them very briefly. One is "Canada is a rainbow of people and places". This is from a student in London, Ontario. There is another one from Medicine Hat, Alberta which says: "It is like being in paradise". Another says: "Canada is a clean country, free of earthquakes and wars". Young people understand the value of these things. Another said, and I love this one: "When they ask about Canada, I usually tell them about the snowstorms, the fields and the caterpillars".
These kids really get down to the basics. They understand that there is more to life than fighting about constitutional issues. Finally, a teacher reports from Lumsden, Saskatchewan, that a vote was taken in her
class to decide if Canada was a good country. The result was 20 out of 20 are in support of Canada.
Twenty out of 20 are in support of Canada in this House of Commons as well. I think that with good will and with a lot of leadership, we will get through this round and we will keep the country whole.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity of joining the discussion tonight. I would rather call it a discussion than a debate on the future of our country.
First of all, let me start out by making it very clear to the members of the House that most of my constituents would rather see me rise in my place and talk about economic issues than about the Constitution. I think it is fair to say that a lot of Canadians who are facing severe economic uncertainty in their lives are much more concerned about their personal lives.
I have many constituents that are farmers who are seeing their family farmland that has been in their family for generations disappearing. I have constituents that are workers, that have worked in certain industries and shops for years and years who have lost their jobs or on the verge of losing their jobs or are afraid that they might lose their jobs.
They see that their own lives are falling apart. They are concerned about the future. They are not optimistic about the future. They feel Parliament should provide some economic leadership and that the Constitution is almost like a discussion about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
This does not affect their lives. They would like to see some leadership out of Ottawa. They are angry in many ways. To tell the truth, yes, they are angry at the constitutional debate. They have gone through the debate through the eighties and they would rather have us get on with what they consider important things in their lives. There is no denying it, they are important things in their lives because they affect their lives so deeply and so severely.
Having said that, I also wish to indicate to the House where I come from on the constitutional debate. I was one of the four in my party who disagreed with my party when the initial constitutional proposals were presented by Mr. Trudeau back in the 1980s. I felt uncomfortable
February 10, 1992

for a variety of reasons. One was the unilateral nature of the proposals by Mr. Trudeau at the time.
Perhaps essentially I felt uncomfortable because I thought we had in this country something that was very appropriate. To be sure we had to go to Westminster and the Parliament in England if we wanted any constitutional change, but really I was not losing much sleep about that fact. It would have been nice to bring it back home, to have some amendments occur back in Canada, but the notion of a written constitution was what disturbed me and it still disturbs me.
In a country as wide and as different as Canada, with all of its different regions and its different peoples, to try to define it in legalistic terms or to put it into little boxes is a recipe for disaster.
I prefer a common law type of British constitution that is organic, that changes, that allows elements and degrees and shades of grey and is not sharply defined. The former Prime Minister, perhaps because of his legalistic and Jesuit background, wanted things more precise, more defined. Many of the problems we face today are as a result of that.
Now we are trying to define reality. Well reality in this country is something that has to be loose. Living in the 21st century, the century where change is the constant, we want something that is loose, something that is organic, something that can grow in an organic way, rather than something that has to be defined and everything put in pigeon-holes.
Down the road, we go through the process of trying to define. We run into these problems all the time.
As I understand it, Quebec wants recognition in the Constitution in written form, that it is a distinct society. Well that now has to be defined and once it is then others are going to ask: "Well, what about us? Are we not also distinct?" By not mentioning others does that not single out one group? Yes, it is one of the founding fathers, or one of the founding nations of our country. To make them distinct does that mean that the aboriginal people are less distinct, or other groups are less distinct?
You get into this debate that goes on and on and on. It is like a debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. To many people it begins to become unreal
The Constitution
to them while their own lives, which are very real, are unravelling.
They look at us as a bunch of fools here on Parliament Hill talking about things that have no effect on their lives as their lives and their communities go under. I must say that I am in deep sympathy with many of my constituents on that.
In 10 minutes I will not attempt to go through all the proposals of the distinct society, of the economic proposals, of the proposals to change some of the powers in terms of the federal and the provincial governments.
In the end, it is a question that the people of Quebec really have to decide. I believe and my party believes they have the right to self-determination on this.
They must in the end decide whether to remain as part of the Canadian Confederation. In doing this they will look at various options and all we can do in Englishspeaking Canada is to attempt to work things out so that the aspirations of the people of Quebec can be fulfilled within the larger Confederation.
The process in the end might not be entirely rational either. There is a deep desire within the people of Quebec because there is a feeling that they are part of this union, part of this marriage and that it was a forced marriage. This is psychological; it is not logical at all.
Then at some stage this might be expressed in the form of a referendum where the majority of the people of Quebec will vote for something that changes the basic relationship between Canada's nine other provinces and the province of Quebec. I hope that does not happen. I hope that logic will prevail.
Let me put it this way. I have heard Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bourassa and others in Quebec talk about the European Community as a model. I think it is a good model because we are living in an age of economic globalization and internationalization.
Certainly the demographics, the geography, the history, and the economics necessitate an ongoing close relationship between the province of Quebec and the other nine provinces and the territories.
Let us look at the European model. The European model is a case of where nations that used to be at war with each other in our lifetimes are now joining into a

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
union and are giving up significant parts of their sovereignty to form a larger union.
It is not just a trading agreement because out of the trading agreement is also a social agreement. It is an agreement on social policies, an agreement on the environment, an agreement on labour policies and so forth, to ensure that one nation does not have some economic advantage because it has lower wages or lower social policies in order to attract industry. In order to have a free trade type of integration, there must also be an integration of social policies, labour policies and environmental policies.
I would suggest to the leadership in Quebec, particularly the leadership in the PQ, that they take a close look at what a European model for Canada would be, what an economic union would mean. I would suggest to them that an economic union would not be far different from what we have today. In fact, I would suggest that in an economic union Quebec will lose powers that it enjoys today.
I do appeal to the leadership and the people of Quebec to rationally look at the situation. We can go through the angst, the trauma and the anguish of a breakup and then the reconciliation. But it is my deep hope that we can skip that, that we can jointly come to the realization that we have some good things going for us in this country. With God's blessing I hope we can keep our countiy together.


Louise Feltham: Madam Speaker, first I would like to express the appreciation of the people of Wild Rose for the opportunity to offer their views where they feel it will make a difference.
The people of Wild Rose believe in Canada. They represent a good cross-section of Canadians and their views are fair and honest.
They took the time to attend meetings on the Constitution, to telephone, to send me written comments and to meet with me personally to offer their advice. Now I am taking this opportunity to bring to the House their opinions, their ideas and their suggestions.
My presentation will be brief, for although the people discussed many topics briefly, they all placed their emphasis on two or three areas which were usually always the same. They discussed Senate and House of
Commons reform, aboriginal self-government and a distinct society clause for Quebec.
They did dwell on the subject of special powers and a distinct society and that perhaps if one portion of Canada was distinct, the rest of Canada might have a lesser role to play in the making of a nation.
They understand Quebec's historical, cultural and linguistic differences. However, they have a definite reservation when it comes to the word distinct. They believe that the definition of the word means superiority and preferential treatment. They question that one Canadian because of heritage may be better than another one. My constituents believe that all Canadians are equal.
With reference to the subject of language, it is no secret that in my riding many people believe that Canada cannot afford two languages, that our population is not large enough to support the expense of two languages and that French should be the language of Quebec, while English is the language of preference outside Quebec.
One of the participants at the forum stated very eloquently his love for this country and all its distinct regions. Mr. Leatherdale stated that each and every province and territory brings to this country a unique and a distinct contribution.
On House of Commons reform, my constituents urged comprehensive parliamentary reform to the House of Commons and entrenchment of such reforms in the constitutional package. They would like the reform, which would allow members of Parliament to be responsive to the constituents and to reduce the adversarial tone of the House while improving the decorum.
On Senate reform, my constituents viewed reform of the Senate as essential. They strongly supported the creation of an elected Senate, equal and effective. They want to see the Senate continue, but in a new and a reformed manner. The solutions as to how and when varied, but all agreed that equal representation by province was needed and that in no way should Senate elections be linked with House of Commons elections.
Over all, the perception is politicians do not listen or are held back from voting the way constituents would like them to. Some believe this is the result of too much involvement by bureaucrats. They also believe that no vote in the House of Commons should be considered a confidence vote unless it is a special non-confidence
February 10, 1992

motion, and that votes that are lost should go back for revisions.
Aboriginal self-government should be studied in more detail. Interprovincial trade barriers should be eliminated and property rights should be enshrined. The federal government should also retain its jurisdiction over the environment. Difficulties could be encountered with some of these issues. However, my constituents wish to see parliamentarians study them more carefully.
Freedom of speech and opinions are important to Wild Rose constituents, and they welcome other voices and opinions because together the future is bright. Combined we can stand strong and free.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I would like to first of all thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South for her role up till now as chairperson of the special joint committee on the Constitution and for having expressed so well tonight the aspirations of the people of the West.
We too have consulted the people of the riding of Davenport.

In the month of July we mailed a booklet with questions to every household, and 162 people took the trouble to reply. At that time, eight months ago, the mood was quite different from that of today. Today the mood in the riding of Davenport is one of intense despair due to the fact that plants have closed and unemployment is high, gasoline stations are scheduled to close, people are running out of unemployment insurance benefits.
The general economic situation is in such a decline that people are even losing faith in the future of Canada. Therefore, for these reasons, Madam Speaker, as you have heard from many other colleagues who have spoken here tonight, the sense of confidence in the future of the country is progressively undermined. For this reason the population at large finds it extremely difficult to understand the purpose of the constitutional exchange, important as it is.
The Constitution
In broad strokes of the brush, those who have replied in substance say that they strongly favour one Canada. They express faith in a strong federal system. They express a belief in bilingualism as a binding force for Canada. They express a dislike for preferential treatment of any province. They express strong commitment to the cultural diversity of Canada. They express strong support for a unifying Constitution, as opposed to one that would parcel out Canada and make it a collection of 10 or 12 provinces or territories, communities or regions. As you can see, Madam Speaker, the perspective from a riding in west Toronto is obviously for strong federalism.
In reply to the question whether a constitutional statement on the nature of Canada should include our attachment to the two official languages, you may be pleased to know that 67 per cent replied yes.
In reply to the question whether a constitutional statement on the nature of Canada should include the diversity of our cultural heritage, again 67 per cent replied yes.
When it came to the difficult question whether a constitutional statement on the nature of Canada should include the distinct character of Quebec society, only 33 per cent said yes.
To the question whether a constitutional statement on the nature of Canada should include the recognition of the role of aboriginal peoples, an astonishing 81 per cent said yes.
Then the question was asked: Do you favour the free circulation of people, goods, and capital within Canada? Here, the highest percentage to any question came through, 93 per cent. Specifically on the elimination of provincial preferential buying policies, that elimination was favoured by 69 per cent. As to the elimination of interprovincial restrictions on trade, 86 per cent said yes. As to the elimination of interprovincial barriers to practising some professions, again it was in the eighties, 81 per cent said yes.
The question then was asked: Do you favour a reformed Senate in which senators would be elected? Here the reply in the affirmative was 85 per cent.
The next question: When legislation is passed in the House of Commons, do you believe that the Senate should have the right to amend it, the right to reject it, or the right to delay it for six months? The majority, 45 per

February 10,1992
The Constitution
cent, favoured the right to amend it, followed by 31 per cent for the right to reject it. The lowest percentage went to the right to delay such legislation for six months.
Then the question was asked: Do you believe that the creation of new provinces such as Yukon or the Northwest Territories should be decided by the federal government in conjunction with all the provinces, or seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of the territories? Here strong support was given, namely 49 per cent in the affirmative, to the population of the territories to express such an opinion in conjunction with the federal government.
Then the question was asked: Do you believe that it would be important to involve the provinces and the territories in the appointment of federal Supreme Court judges? Sixty-nine per cent replied in the affirmative.
When it came to the question of raising the possibility of an impasse in the appointment of a federal Supreme Court judge as to who should have the final word, the options given were the federal government, the province or territory, or the federal chief justice. Here the largest number of support, namely 35 per cent, went to the federal chief justice.
Moving on to the last two questions, it is interesting to note that when it comes to seeking an opinion on whether unanimous consent of the federal government and all the provinces is required for constitutional amendments in matters relating to the office of the Queen, the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, the use of English and French in certain situations, and the possibility of future amendments to the amending formula of the Constitution, the question focused on who should exercise a veto on these changes. Forty-nine per cent of the respondents felt that all the provinces should exercise the right to veto, followed by 25 per cent in favour of regional groupings, all of them. Unfortunately-and this reflects of course an interesting attitude that does not favour favouritism for one specific province-only one per cent favoured giving the veto power to Quebec.
Finally the question was asked whether a certain level of government would best be responsible for certain responsibilities. Without going into all the responsibilities, I will only highlight for you that communications was given 48 per cent of the respondents favouring a
federal responsibility, education was given 41 per cent in favour of remaining a provincial responsibility, fisheries received 40 per cent favouring a federal responsibility, while housing was the preference by way of 61 per cent in favour of becoming a provincial responsibility, immigration was given 58 per cent for a federal responsibility, and unemployment insurance 43 per cent.
It was interesting to note that when it comes to environmental protection 56 per cent of the respondents felt this would be a shared responsibility between the two levels of government. This was the highest percentage expressed in the category of shared responsibilities, followed by 40 per cent being the next one, health care in the forties as being a shared responsibility the respondents would favour.
This is a snapshot taken, as I said, last July. It represents replies given to questions I did my best to attempt to formulate in a manner that would not be leading but as objective and unbiased as possible, which we all know is ultimately impossible. Nevertheless the attempt was made. I thank you for the opportunity of making this report to the House.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate on this historic occasion as we debate the future of our country. La-chine-Lac-Saint-Louis, which I have been proud to represent since 1984, is a unique riding in Canada, with almost a 50-50 balance between French and English speakers. It includes the four cities of Lachine, Dorval, Pointe-Claire, and Beaconsfield. I believe we are a great example of harmony and co-operation, particularly of French-English co-operation for Canada.
Canada Day celebrations are an example. Special events were planned last year by volunteer committees in Lachine, Dorval, and Beaconsfield, and over 10,000 people in my riding took part.
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis is a model example to the rest of our province and to the nation. We have our problems, but we have our solutions. We are a suburban riding at the west end of Montreal Island, surrounding Dorval airport. The prosperity of the whole Montreal Island is of great importance to the residents of our riding. For this, a renewed Constitution is very impor-
February 10, 1992

tant. The economy is important and success in our deliberations now is crucial.
I believe, and I sense that my constituents share this view, that the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee is developing a good track record. There have been many comments of support from my riding. We are beginning to see the fruit of their labours. Any who have watched this committee at work across the country in their direct hearings and in their participation in the many conferences will admire and respect this dedicated team of members of Parliament.
Just a short time ago I was a participant at the special constitutional conference in Montreal. Again in this dramatic and challenging way we are struggling to find the best method to resolve our differences. Our consultations with electors in Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis included a questionnaire, a survey in one of my householders, and I received hundreds of replies and comments. They were not all complimentary, but most were. People are accepting the process. They feel they are now being listened to.
Finally I held two public opinion forums, open meetings in the riding: one just this last week and the other in November. They were all well attended. The debate and discussion was informed and the process is working. Our concerns from the west island of Montreal are first and foremost for a united and prosperous Canada. We must have a special sensitivity to all our neighbours, all our fellow Canadians, new and old.
Bill 178 in the province of Quebec is disliked by many, very evidently. At our open meetings this was the very first thing many of our participants would raise. Senator David was our guest in November at the public forum, and he said not everyone is in love with this bill. A young law student from my riding, Tasha Kerriddhin, a panellist at the discussion, said although the bill is not ideal it is a reality, and we must work together as English and French to eliminate the need for such a bill.
Dr. Goldbloom, a highly respected and broadly experienced member of the English speaking minority in Quebec, and now Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages, reflected the mood and sensitivities of our minority, the English speaking minority at the west end of Montreal and in other corners of the province, when
The Constitution
he made a presentation to the special joint committee for a renewed Canada. He said: "In recognition of the distinct character of Quebec and of linguistic duality, we welcome the government's proposal of a Canada clause to entrench in section 2 of the Constitution Act of 1867 such factors as recognition of the responsibility of governments-governments, all of them-to preserve Canada's two linguistic majorities and minorities, as well as the special responsibility borne by Quebec to preserve and promote its distinct society".
Dr. Goldbloom went on, saying: "We find the non-limiting, yet well-defined description of the distinct society to be felicitous, and likely to allay the misgivings expressed in the past. While we acknowledge that the commitment to ensure preservation"-

-that means protection-

-of the existence of our official language minorities is a large step forward, we do not consider this wording the best possible safeguard or the most dynamic. We therefore advocate more positive wording that would foster promotion of Canada's English speaking and French speaking minorities and would support their development in keeping with the very objectives of the Official Languages Act".
I sense, as do my colleagues, that the goodwill and tolerance and moderation of all Canadians is expressing itself, and it will result in a solution to our current constitutional debates.
Time is a precious commodity, both in the over-all process and even here tonight, as I watch my time wind down. But ultimately my electors and I have confidence in this process and its eventual outcome. It will be positive for my riding, Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis; my province, Quebec; my country, Canada.

I think I represent faithfully and honestly my constituents' feelings when I say that we should consider this country with our hearts. Let our vision be far-reaching like that of generations of Quebecers and Canadians before us. We will then be able to see this great country as our ancestors and Fathers of Confederation foresaw

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
the country and that our children hope to see, the country we love wish to continue to love.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity given me this evening to participate, be it briefly, in this very important debate. Let me first say that my presentation will center mostly on the views of my constituents on this constitutional package and on the process in which we are all involved, that is the renewal of our Constitution and of our country.
I understand that this debate is mainly supposed to give us, members of Parliament, an opportunity to bear witness to the diversity of feelings expressed throughout the country on the constitutional issue. However, I hope that I will soon have the possibility to express my own ideas on that issue and on what is at stake in this case. Evidently, my thoughts will reflect not only my own concerns, but also the conversations I have had since my election with many constituents of Cape Breton High-lands-Canso.
Yesterday I was in Pomquet, an Acadian village of my riding, for the opening of their winter carnival. Pomquet, which was founded in 1761, is a community located about ten kilometres east of the village of Antigonish and surrounded by various cultures, including Scottish, English, Micmac and other cultures established there for many generations and which have been increased by immigrants in the eastern part of Nova Scotia.
Looking at people taking part in the carnival, it was very clear that Pomquet is a community which is very proud of its origins and very proud of its culture, of how they could maintain their French language. In addition, it is a community where people get along well together.

Pomquet is like many other communities in Highlands-Canso, populated by people who are steeped in tradition and people with a proud and deep knowledge of their heritage, whether they be Acadians, Scots, English, or United Empire Loyalists who have come and settled in the county of Guysborough, or even the descendants of the southern slaves from the United States who lived in communities such as Lincolnville and Sunnydale.
They are people who are proud of their heritage, whatever it may be, and who have grown together to live in harmony with each other in the areas of eastern Nova Scotia.
The important fact about these communities is that we get along. We are able to recognize and accept and rejoice in the differences we have as a result of our cultural heritage. Perhaps one of the best expressions of this is in the music, particularly the Scottish highland music, which has been developed mostly in Inverness County and has spread across the constituency. It has been passed down from generation to generation and exported beyond our borders and around the world. It has been borrowed and enriched by the Acadians, by the Micmacs, and by other groups who have found such pleasure in it.
The point of this is that the people in my constituency of Highlands-Canso want Canada to work like their communities work. They are not preoccupied with the fine points of constitutional reform for the most part. They are more preoccupied with the mundane business of making a living, of feeding their families, of finding a job and keeping a job, and of growing and preserving their community and their culture. They believe fundamentally that is what is possible within this wonderful country called Canada. They want Canada to work and to reflect the kind of mutual respect that is so present in the communities of Highlands-Canso.
Although my constituents are somewhat perplexed that we as politicians and as experts in the constitutional field have had such difficulty in resolving these seemingly intractable differences, they have joined in this collective search for constitutional resolution and have responded. For example, last summer I sent out a survey to my constituents in the form of a householder, and they responded.
I would like to give you a brief synopsis of some of the salient points that I received from my constituents on some of the constitutional elements.
First, regarding official languages, two-thirds of the respondents want to include some recognition of our official languages in a Canada clause.
Second, regarding cultural diversity, 83 per cent want to include a statement on cultural diversity in the Canada clause such as what I have just spoken about in
February 10, 1992

terms of the community and the cultural diversity which exist in my own constituency.
Third, with respect to aboriginal Canadians, 83 per cent voted to recognize a role for aboriginal people in the Canada clause. There is a deep respect for aboriginal Canadians and a deeply felt need that our first citizens need to find their proper place in our Constitution and in our country. That is from people who live in close proximity and intermingle with native people in the constituency.
Fourth, with respect to a distinct society, respondents were more evenly split on whether to include a statement on the distinct character of Quebec in the Canada clause.
Regarding the Senate, 87 per cent wanted a reformed Senate that would elect senators and only 3 per cent wanted the Senate abolished. Views were split on whether the Senate should be able to veto or only review appointments and whether they should be able to reject or just to amend legislation.
Regarding interprovincial trade, an overwhelming majority favoured free circulation of people, goods, and capital, eliminating preferential buying policies, eliminating trade restrictions and eliminating barriers to practising some professions.
Regarding future constitutional change, people were split on who if anyone should get a veto.
Finally, regarding the division of powers, with the exception of communications, immigration, and unemployment insurance, the majority of respondents favour shared federal-provincial responsibility for issues such as education, fisheries, health care, housing, language, natural resources, environment, and training.
Generally, though, most of the comments that I have received in response to this questionnaire and in letters were positive, constructive and have exhibited great hope and optimism for Canada and for our future and a determination to make Canada work.
I received many letters, and I continue to receive letters on the Constitution expressing the need for us to get on with the business of resolving our constitutional difficulties and to build a better Canada. I would like to quote from a couple of these.
In addition, I also received a tape which is from a Mr. Carl Cann in Baddeck who expressed in a very moving
The Constitution
oral testimony what he thought was wrong with the current process. I would like to table this tape for the use of the committee.
I wish I had more time, but I will conclude by reading excerpts from a letter received from Robert MacRury who expresses a sentiment that is shared by many in my constituency.
He writes: "I want to remain a Canadian. My ancestors have been in this country since at least 1758 and we have fought for this country in every war and defensive action that she has ever been in.
My dad lost his best friend and first cousin in Belle-sur-mer, France and was one of the first Canadians killed on the beaches of Normandy. My uncle was shot up in Holland and he also got some shell fragments in his back and he survived these two wounds.
Many of my grand uncles were in the first war and my great-granddad was in the militia when they were preparing to fight the Finians. When he finally got paid for this 40 years later, he was one of the three of his unit that was still alive and able to collect his pay.
Some of my ancestors were United Empire Loyalists and they were forced to flee the U.S.A.
I am sure that the people of Quebec and other parts of Canada have as deep and as long an attachment to this country as I have and that our differences are small and the things that make us the same are great just like Canada."
This reflects a sentiment that is shared by the vast majority of Canadians.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: In fact, Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate what my colleague has just said. It is a fact that you are known in this House for your kindness. Like he said, you are so kind. Congratulations.
I think the people of my riding of Outremont reflect just about all ideological positions in Canada. This riding is made up for the main part of French-speaking Canadians. However, in the western part of the riding, which is know as the Cote-des-Neiges district, live many Canadians of various ethnic backgrounds. Those can also be found in the eastern part of the riding as part of a

February 10,1992
The Constitution
population both homogeneous, because it lives in Outre-mont, and heterogeneous, because they each have their own cultures and personalities. A few months ago, I asked my constituents to fill out the questionnaire included in the newsletter I sent out. We then compiled the results and published them in a subsequent newsletter. I intend to submit these results and this whole file to the committee, as many of my colleagues have done.
Besides the questionnaires and the formal and informal meetings, there were our daily contacts with all these interesting people which stimulate the debate at all levels-intellectual, financial as well as emotional. I will try and summarize this for you in the few minutes I have left, but I will submit in writing the position that ensues.
I suggest that this debate is part of a necessary and very healthy process toward shaping the future of our country. Again, I thank you for this opportunity to express my views on this issue, to speak on behalf of the community so that we can do our share in looking for a solution to this problem that concerns all Canadians. I will not have time to get into the whole issue of the Constitution. I would need several hours to deal with the various aspects we have to consider when we think of the future of Canada. So I will merely raise specific points, including the cultural issue and the concept of a distinct society. And I may occasionally make use of information and briefs we received from a number of associations and individuals at the committee on communications and culture.
Finally, it can be said that culture is expressed by how one thinks and how one lives, how one senses and approaches reality. It would be a combination of what people in a certain area see as their history and what they reflect in their behaviour. This culture, which is constantly evolving while maintaining certain basic givens, reinforces sets of values and causes a whole society to reach certain heights of achievement. We can say that all the elements of our cultural values will affect the values and cultural manifestations of others. French speaking Canadians are not French, any more than English speaking Canadians are American or English. We are Canadians, with our own identity, and hence our similarities and differences. And that is what we must protect, share and develop.
We must also realize, that economics exist as an extension of culture, since the relationship between economics and culture is not one of equals.
We have examples across the world that show us that countries value their identity and sense of belonging before they value economics. Great Britain is unwilling to adopt a common currency because it believes that in so doing, it would adversely affect its culture and way of life.
Quebec's society has always seen itself as being distinct. The desire for recognition has always been there. However, I think it is time to get rid of the idea that being distinct means being superior. Nothing could be further from the truth. Distinct means there is a difference. It means a desire to be accepted for what one is, with one's strengths and weaknesses. In fact, Madam Speaker, feminist movements have always asked for women to be recognized as distinct from but equal to men. The same applies to aboriginal people. I think that soon we should stop talking and be reconciled with reality, which is beckoning.
Before changing the subject, I would like to add that the influence of different cultures actually reinforces our own identity, and this paradox is even more astonishing in our present world of instantaneous communication. On one hand, one must recognize the unity of the nation, which must have a certain size to be able to exist and trade with other nations in a satisfactory, profitable way that does not unduly call into question the various aspects of its national identity. On the other, the critical mass of the smaller groups that make up the larger whole must be preserved so that they are not assimilated to the detriment of the various regional entities.
That being said, I will touch on a few points in the time I have left. When the government tabled its proposals on September 24, 1991, at the same time it invited all Canadians to contribute to a real political renewal of their country.
The government has indicated many times that the proposals are a starting point. However, they are all interesting approaches to building a better Canada that will let us achieve our common goals while respecting our diversity.
Canadians' identity and values are at the forefront of the constitutional proposals. We plan to add to the beginning of the Constitution a Canada clause which would define us as Canadians and set forth our common aspirations and values, especially the respect for diversity
February 10, 1992

that the country and its inhabitants are prepared to defend.
The participants at the Toronto conference gave eloquent testimony of this willingness on the weekend when they recognized the distinct character of Quebec society and said that they agreed with including this recognition in the Constitution. But while each of these cultures makes up our Canadian heritage, the government should recognize the distinct nature of Quebec society and Quebec's need to protect and promote its character as a society where most people speak French.
Since the aspects of institutional reform and a more prosperous future for Canada were not dealt with as such in the questionnaire, I would prefer to stop here.
I will move on to some other issues, such as the aboriginal one which I touched on a few moments ago, and on which I will dwell a little. Given the importance we attach to the role and the contribution the first inhabitants of this country have made and will make to the progress and prosperity of Canada, the aboriginal right to self-government constitutes one of the pillars of the proposed constitutional reform. Members of the First Nations will then have the right to devise their own solution to the problems affecting their own society, the right to take their own place in the Canada of tomorrow. If we cannot change anything to the past, we can see to it that our aboriginal people are masters of their future.
In closing, I would like to reiterate how great a country Canada is. How many times will people from outside have to repeat it before we begin to really believe it; Every day we are enjoying conditions of living that are the envy of other people on this planet. In all honesty we cannot act in such a way that our children will be deprived of all that makes our life so enriching.
It is our duty as Canadians to work together to foster dialogues that will assure national unity, economic stability and the needed degrees of autonomy for the provinces. The proposals tabled by the government have set off a process, the success of which only our efforts can guarantee. Now is not the time to give up.
The Constitution


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on the work done by people regarding the Constitution.

As a member of the special joint committee on a renewed Canada, I have had the opportunity over the last few months to hear many views on the government's 28 proposals for constitutional reform.
I would like to begin my address by extending a very special thank you to all of the people who took the time to come and address the committee. They were extremely helpful to us in attempting to find solutions to this tremendous challenge that faces us.
As well I want to extend great appreciation to those many Canadians who would have liked to appear before the committee, but for a lack of time and a number of other reasons, were unable to do so. They deserve special thanks as well.
I hope hon. members will forgive me if I pay a special tribute to my own constituents who took the time in a number of ways to inform me of their views on a number of critical issues that are found within those particular proposals.
Many of you will know that the constituency of St. Boniface is very close to the geographic centre, east-west of Canada. It, as well, has access to our great north. We have a majority of English speaking citizens with an important minority of French speaking citizens, almost 20 per cent, and of course, we have important representation from our new Canadian communities as well as our aboriginal Canadians.
How did my constituents participate in the debate and help to inform me? There were phone calls to both the Ottawa and Winnipeg offices. There were a number of well thought out letters to me indicating concern, identifying priorities and both the telephone calls and the letters were extremely useful.
I also managed to meet a broader range of constituents through three hearings which I held. The first one was on January 6 at Dakota high school. The second one was on January 7 at J. H. Bruns Collegiate which is the centre of the constituency. Dakota is in the south. On

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
January 8, there was a meeting at College Louis Riel which is in the northern part of the constituency.
At these town hall meetings, I heard comments such as the following. I want to share them with my colleagues here and my fellow Canadians who are listening. Here is one quote that came from one participant: "Having lived in many provinces as well as Africa and Europe, I have realized that Canada is a wonderful place to live and that it is rich in its variety of people". The person goes on to say: "In a community there is room for differences and acceptance that people do different things in different ways".
Those were some of the thoughts that were shared with me. I was also invited to speak at a number of schools. I realize, as I know a number of my colleagues do, that the Constitution is not only for ourselves, and those slightly younger or slightly older, but for our children and their children and those who will follow. I was invited to College Jeanne Sauve on December 16, at George McDowell School on December 18, at the Nelson McIntyre Collegiate on December 19, at 1'Ecole Provencher on December 19, at l'Ecole Louis Riel on December 19-it was a busy day-and at Pierre Radisson Collegiate on December 20.

At Louis-Riel College, the format was extremely interesting. Some students had prepared a number of questions to examine the three sections of the government proposals on the Constitution, from the document entitled Shaping Canada's Future Together. The students asked me numerous questions that I truly appreciated.

The students of George McDowell School, even though they were a bit younger, as I recall it was a junior high school, asked many interesting, pointed and challenging questions, and I salute them and extend my appreciation for their preparations as well. Also, there is a very special thank you that must go out to the students of the Grade 11 history class at Jeanne Sauve school whose teacher, Helene Roy, sent me the fruits of their deliberations.

These students also gave me their own suggestions concerning the Canada clause. Among the values that
they would like to see included in that clause are: the promotion of a sense of pride, belonging and unity within the Canadian pluralistic society; the promotion of tolerance among Canadians, regardless of their origins and differences; offering to all Canadians the possibility to develop their potential, wherever they live in the country, and to have equal access to employment, as well as equal treatment in the workplace; facilitating the development of the full potential of all aboriginal peoples in the aboriginal languages, and guaranteeing their total autonomy while respecting their fundamental rights as full-fledged Canadians.

I also held an open house in the constituency on January 11, and further, I distributed a questionnaire on constitutional and national issues in my fall 1991 householder.
There were, of course, people who were unhappy about certain aspects of the government's proposals and there was some criticism of the committee's deliberations, particularly in its initial stages. But generally, there were some positive remarks as well. I want to share some of those remarks with you and some of those views.
Let me deal first with the questionnaire. People rank Canadian unity within the first half of the issues that I brought to their attention. They really felt that it was something that was essential to us as Canadians. In addition, 86, almost 87 per cent, of those who responded were in favour of a Triple-E Senate; elected, effective and equal.
There was some significant concern expressed as to the meaning or ramifications of entrenching the distinct society clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After debate and discussion, which brought forward many different opinions and proposed solutions, I think it is safe to say that a few general themes emerged among the constituents of St. Boniface. Many more Canadians, as are my constituents, are far more preoccupied with the present economic situation than with the Constitution. The lay-offs, the bankruptcies, the poor, the unemployed, the food banks are really a great concern to them. In fact, 64 per cent, just a few more, of those who answered the questionnaire felt that we should not be discussing the Constitution at this particular point in time because there were more pressing issues
February 10,1992

and because it was a particularly delicate time to be dealing with it.
However, there was a realization that if we needed to do it, and a grudging acceptance that perhaps it was necessary because perhaps economic development is linked to constitutional stability, then there were a number of urgent priorities. If I have understood my constituents well, as well as fellow Canadians who have spoken to me as I have travelled with the constitutional committee, these are the most important concerns. There is an acceptance, a desire, that the inherent right to self-government for Canada's aboriginal peoples be realized; that there be a reformed Senate. There is a clear preference for the Triple-E. They want a Canada clause that truly reflects the reality of a very diverse multicultural, pluralistic Canada. They ask that we deal with the division of powers without neglecting the minorities and what they have acquired over time. The question of distinct society for Quebec is also a great concern and one that needs to be dealt with.
Although there is a sense that accommodation is necessary, the message is really quite clear. The message is as follows: It is not appropriate to move on just one of those main points, the distinct society, a reformed Senate, aboriginal self-government, the Canada clause or the division of powers. We must move on all of them in order to get an agreement that will respond to as many needs of as many Canadians in as many parts of the country as is possible. There will be very little progress unless we can do so.
I should point out that Canadians from my constituency and I think throughout the country want a Canada clause that reflects the values and visions we have as Canadians. They also want the preamble to properly reflect the founding nations of this country and the contributions of all of those who have chosen Canada to make their home.
The division of powers is presenting a real challenge to many Canadians. We have used asymmetrical federalism as a possible way out, but it makes a lot of people nervous. They are not sure what it means, whether or not we will grant special status, whether or not we will favour a particular group over others. They want that looked at very carefully.
The Constitution
They are very worried about weakening the power of the federal government with respect to a number of programs: medicare, education, language rights for official minorities, culture and communications.
Among the constituents of St. Boniface, the economic proposals in the government's package are very important. They wondered whether or not the best way to treat it was within the Constitution. They also wanted a possible inclusion of social rights within the Constitution.
I would like to thank all Canadians, particularly my constituents of St. Boniface, for having contributed to this debate, for having informed me and for having enriched my life. I believe that the nation is still at risk, but if we are willing to look at each other's needs and respond generously to them, Canada can become a stronger, more united country.
I wish to complete my remarks by saying that we should build a nation by protecting rights, by building upon them and by responding to those who have been neglected with an appropriate and generous response.
I want to remind the House of what Sir John A. Macdonald had to say about this country a little over 100 years ago. I shall complete it very quickly. It is a statement which is very applicable today, and I quote:
If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect; I would leave them with the legacy: whatever you do, adhere to the union. We are a great country and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it.
We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken.
God and nature have made the two Canadas one. Let no factious man be allowed to put them asunder.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, home for me is Cariboo-Chilcotin, an area of the country that is truly spectacular and is matched only by its residents who are friendly, feisty and definitely outspoken. They would be the first ones to tell you that they are Canadians first and British Columbians second.
Over the past months many of these proud Canadians from the Cariboo have expressed their concerns to me. Some have written, some have stopped me on the street and others have dropped into my office. Most recently I was able to attend and participate in four town meetings organized by different communities.

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
At each of these four meetings I posed a question to the people attending: "If Canada did not exist today, would it be worth inventing?" My constituents were unanimous in responding with a very resounding yes. However, the Canada created might be different than the one we know now.
The meetings we held were highly charged and emotional. They included Cariboo-Chilcotins from all walks of life; ranchers, municipal leaders, natives and business people. A wide range of views were heard, both positive and negative. Basically, they all wanted the opportunity to speak and, more important, to be listened to.
It would be obvious to anyone attending these meetings that there was a great deal of anger toward certain topics in particular, and in particular, bilingualism. There is a perception that French is being forced down their throats. As one constituent stated: "We need language by choice, not by legislation". Why are they so angry? Most have never been exposed to French. They do not see it unless it is on the back of a cornflakes box. If you probe that anger, Madam Speaker, it comes down to what they see as a form of unfairness, a forced or legislated bilingual policy for some, and yet what they see as a denial of basic rights to a minority in Quebec as a result of the now infamous sign law. There is no question that this has become the lightning rod for their anger.
There is also concern about the cost of maintaining not only bilingualism but also multiculturalism. Why, they ask, should they pay for something they see as unnecessary? Why should they pay for something they believe creates irritation and division among Canadians? One Canadian, originally from Hungary, made this reasoned and somewhat passionate appeal: "Canada is a country that accepts and encourages Canadians from other countries to retain as much of their culture and heritage as they want. However, we run into problems when we start creating government departments and funding whose sole goal is to encourage immigrants to live among themselves and to amplify their differences".
This anger I am reporting on is an honest anger and it is deep-rooted. They are very leery of special status Canadians, or what some refer to as hyphenated Canadians. For some, anger and negative criticism was all they could offer. Yet for most there was a strong desire to focus on what will keep us together, and not what will
push us further apart. Most of the discussion on keeping us together focused on three issues, not surprisingly the same three issues most of the country focused on: Quebec as a distinct society, Senate reform, and aboriginal self-government.
A lot of the tension was focused on Quebec. However, the Quebec issue is one where I have noticed a real swing in opinion over the past year. This time around I got a real sense that they have come to accept, albeit somewhat begrudgingly for some, that Quebec is a distinct society: they have a different language and a different culture and therefore different needs and interest. As such, they can accept and accommodate Quebec into the country as a distinct society, but that acceptance is conditional. Distinctiveness can be accommodated, but it must be done with both fairness and honour for all other regions and provinces. As one constituent put it: "I have no problem giving Quebec what it wants, as long as it is done within the framework of Canada and as long as it does not weaken us as a nation".
The next issue I will address is that of Senate reform. As we all know, Senate reform is a hot topic in western Canada. The Cariboo is no exception. Everyone agreed that there is a need for a change. The difficulty was in deciding on what kind of change is needed. There was the expected support for a Triple-E version of the Senate, but there were also some who did not see this as a total solution. Others felt the Senate as a house of sober second thought is needed, but if it is to be truly functional, then its partisan nature must be reduced and minimized.
One suggestion was to restructure the process so that the Senate veto can be overruled only if it can command a two-third majority vote in the Commons. There were others who saw no need at all for the Senate, but they continued that if it does remain then the representation should be structured in such a way that costs are kept to a minimum.
While there was some disagreement as to what changes were needed, there was no disagreement on the desired result. If I may paraphrase a constituent, we have the House of Commons, an elected body representing the people. What we need out of the Senate is something that will adequately represent the regions while keeping in mind the best interests of the nation.
February 10, 1992

There is no question that the people of Cariboo- Chilcotin believe that the Senate as it is now constituted is unacceptable. Either abolish it or reform it, they told me, but it must be changed. While we are at it, they suggested that the Commons could use a little work as well: less partisanship and more free votes. Our governing institutions must ensure that the needs and interests of all regions are better looked after.
Unfortunately, when it came to some issues, such as Senate reform and distinct society, there were some in my constituency who threw their arms up in the air in exasperation. As one editorial stated: "Quebec and the other constitutional issues are just too far away from the Cariboo for the local people to take them seriously".
If there is any issue that brings this constitutional debate home to us in the Cariboo, it is that of Canada's first citizens. The Cariboo-Chilcotin's population is nearly 20 per cent aboriginal, representing 32 different bands. In some communities the majority of the population is native Indian. It is the people of these communities who will have to live with the solutions we create, and it is their co-operation that will be instrumental in making the process work.
Most agreed that self-government is both desired as well as necessary. But as was the case with Quebec, autonomy is conditional. It too must be achieved within the confines of Canada. As one constituent said: "Native self-government must include both rights as well as responsibilities, and it must be restricted to within the over-all Canadian system".
The situation as it exists presently is unacceptable to natives and non-natives alike. There is a reliance on a system that is overly paternalistic. It is a system that stifles economic, social, and cultural independence, and it is a system that both natives and non-natives alike want to see dissolved.
There is little doubt in my mind that everyone who participated in the meetings came to understand that this is not an easy process, but few would disagree with the need to find a unity solution. There was a great deal of pride expressed in being Canadian, and in the end I think this is what helped us to get past the irritants and begin to look for constructive solutions.
The Constitution
One mayor said it best when he approached me a couple of days after a particularly stormy session: "Frankly I am embarrassed by what was said the other day. I realize that we were allowing the irritants to get in the way of presenting constructive solutions. I know that when you return to Ottawa you will have to do better than that. I hope you will look past the anger and remember that we love this country and we expect that you will do what is necessary to keep it together".
It is evident to me that the people of the Cariboo want to see this nation remain one, a nation that embodies basic fairness and one with the wisdom to acknowledge its obvious differences, differences that can make us stronger. This is the Canada those in the Cariboo want to be part of.
There were many voices from the Cariboo that comprise what I have conveyed to the House tonight. I know that many of them will have heard themselves in the words I have used. It is only fitting that I close my comments with the words of one of Cariboo's older and I suspect possibly wiser constituents. She said: "Being Canadian should be something of which we are proud. Being Canadian should be something which we practise".


Mr. Murray YV. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening and present here in the House of Commons of Canada a report from the citizens of Edmonton Northwest. Like my colleagues from all parts of Canada, I have received thousands of communications from constituents concerned with the unity of Canada. I have received letters from seniors who have built this country, veterans who have defended our democratic institutions, students who will inherit the responsibility for this country, business people and people from all other walks of life.
Many of my constituents are worried that our country will come apart over our differences. Many express anger over the perceived inability of elected persons at all levels to solve some very serious problems in society.
We are all aware in this House that Canadians want facts in order to help them decide important issues, not mixed messages and old time rhetoric.
In general, my constituents tell me that they are no longer satisfied with the old ways of constitution-making. It may have been okay for Sir John A. Macdonald in 1867 and even Pierre Trudeau in 1982. However in 1992

February 10, 1992
The Constitution
Canadians want to be consulted on the issues of the economy and the Constitution.
In the spring of 19911 mailed a questionnaire to every household in my riding, to 40,000 homes representing
80,000	constituents in Edmonton Northwest. I have in my hand a copy of this householder entitled "Constitutional Survey -Edmonton Northwest. What do Albertans want?" This householder provided background information and asked 26 detailed and sometimes lengthy questions.
The response from Edmonton Northwest was outstanding, in that 1,000 households replied. I want to publicly thank these good citizens and assure them that I am representing their views in the House of Commons to the best of my ability. At every opportunity I discussed the results of my polling with my caucus colleagues.
My constituents realize that the economy and the Constitution are inseparably linked. They realize that there are fundamental problems with the rules set in the Constitution that are impeding our economy.
Provincial trade barriers were seen as a major irritant. Measures to improve the underlying framework of our economic union are being favourably received by many more people than the media reports. They are adamant that the federal government maintain a strong role for the economic well-being of Canada. They said that the government should continue to develop policies that will assist in meeting the challenges of the international community.
My constituents told me that education and training are necessary services of governments needed by Canadians to create jobs in a competitive world. They repeatedly told me to accelerate the deficit reduction measures so that tax dollars could go into these services or to provide some tax relief.
My constituents are, quite rightly, angered when they are shown the books and realize that 36 cents of every tax dollar is lopped off the top for interest payments on the national debt. Thankfully when I had the opportunity to explain the situation and discuss the government's progress in cutting costs, they were usually satisfied that Parliament has been doing a good job.
To summarize the central themes from the 26 detailed questions, my constituents in Edmonton Northwest wanted to see first and foremost a mechanism for increasing regional representation in federal institutions. Senate reform was most frequently mentioned.
Also, my constituents wanted a change in the process that has been followed since Confederation of constitution-making by first ministers. Like other Canadians, my constituents wanted to be more involved in the public debate and to have more control over the adoption of constitutional amendments.
The actual instrument of control was not crucial. Many cited referendums as the only way to have democratic ratification. But others realized that there are many ways for society to come to consensus on major issues.
My constituents gave a high degree of importance to providing in the Constitution means for native populations to achieve self-government and self-reliance; to empower governments and individuals with the ability to protect the environment; to empower the federal government with the ability to provide economic leadership in the major policy areas, while bringing the administration of services to a more local level of government perceived to be more responsive and accountable.
Issues that were raised which were not directly related to the Constitution yet shaped the context of the constitutional debate dealt more with the efficiency of government and a distaste for the overlap of bureaucracies.
My constituents did not approve of a large scale decentralization of powers. However they did express a desire for more clearly identified roles and responsibilities.
In fact, when asked for their preferred model for a Constitution, 72 per cent favoured either the status quo or a modest re-alignment of powers between the two levels of government.
Madam Speaker, 64 per cent of the respondents to my poll said they would favour a re-alignment of tax laws so that the government that is responsible for a particular service be responsible for taxing us for that service. This is a very direct signal to policy makers. Constituents feel as if they are being taxed without representation.

February 10, 1992

On the other hand, 74 per cent of the respondents insisted that the federal government have the authority to set national standards. I was not specific enough about this question. However, I think it is generally assumed that when we speak of national standards in Canada, we are speaking of health care, post-secondary education and similar programs, all of which are in provincial jurisdiction, funded in large measure by the federal government through transfer payments.
I draw attention to these two specific results to point out that the current system was an appropriate set of arrangements to meet the challenging and somewhat opposing public goals of local responsibility for service within standards set and largely funded by an outside body. Surely federal and provincial governments can streamline operations and find formal ways to eliminate duplication and improved service to the taxpayer.
I for one welcome the government's proposals to streamline and co-ordinate public services to save the taxpayer money.
My constituents value their Canadian citizenship. They were resolute in the desire that Canada remain a united country. They are proud of our charter of rights and 45 per cent indicated they would like to see extensions to the enumerated rights, property rights being most often mentioned.
As well, 61 per cent expressed a desire to abolish the notwithstanding clause. Although it was inserted at the insistence of western premiers, it has been used to infringe on minority rights. In fact the notwithstanding clause was seen as the cause of many of the irritants that some are speaking of these days.
I am told often by constituents that more needs to be done for the environment. Obviously my expertise is in the realm of public finance and my communications often reveal that. Therefore I must take this opportunity to state and affirm on behalf of my constituents here in the House of Commons that they are fearful of irreversible damage to our national environment and to public health. One constituent said: "If we do not fix our environmental deficit, then what will our efforts to fix our money deficit achieve? Our children will still be deprived of living in a healthy world".
The Constitution
This citizen spoke for many other constituents within my riding. In fact, 36 per cent of respondents to my survey said they thought environmental protection should be a responsibility of the federal government, 40 per cent would accept shared powers, but only 15 per cent would leave this crucial aspect of public policy to the provincial governments.
Canadians are telling us that they consider environmental protection to be of utmost concern. Even during these uncertain economic times they remain resolute. They want a strong central government to protect citizens from misguided development projects and from local governments competing to lower environmental standards.
Canadians want strong federal leadership to press the world for international environmental protocols and to have the fiscal authority and ability to use public funds for environmental causes.
At no time in our nation's history have the Canadian people been more a part of the development of constitutional proposals. The Spicer commission brought Canadians from coast to coast together to air grievances and give politicians direction. Every conceivable effort was made to provide opportunities for Canadians to express the values and aspirations that bind them together and to identify problems in our system.
A special joint committee chaired by my colleagues Mr. Edwards and Mr. Beaudoin heard from Canadians on the amending formula of the Constitution. Canadians in my riding and across the country told this committee that they were wary of extending the unanimity requirement. Canadians said they were comfortable with the current requirements that seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of the population were required for passage of constitutional proposals.
Canadians have participated in provincial committees, national forums, in federal committees, and will again be consulted after new proposals for constitutional renewal. I am grateful for this opportunity to summarize views expressed by residents of Edmonton Northwest and ask that all members consider these views.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to have the time in Parliament, limited though it might be this evening, to give the response of the constituents of Regina-Wascana on how they feel about the Constitution. There is no question in my mind that the earlier comments received

February 10,1992
The Constitution
by our offices both here in Ottawa and in Regina have been by and large letters from constituents saying get on with the job, we have much more important things to do such as the economy. Yet I cannot help but think that now the importance of the Constitution has come before our constituents they have felt as I do that indeed the Constitution must be addressed. Without a resolve to solve the constitutional crisis we will not have an opportunity to have a Canadian economy.
Before I go into my summation of what the constituents have said to me thus far, I would first of all like to thank the constituents particularly for their patience.
Regina-Wascana is indeed a true test of one's intellect when comparing that with the constituents' because I probably have a higher level of intellect in the constituency of Regina-Wascana than other constituencies, and I say this with all due respect to other colleagues and their constituents, having the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, Canada's first accredited university for Indian people in Canada as well as the University of Regina and, as well, just simply the cross section of people whom I represent.
When they come to testing you, you know you have been tested. I take the responses that I got to the questionnaire that I sent to the constituents to be a response that has been well thought out as best they can given the information that they had, and one that will truly bind me.
We are receiving in the order of about 30 responses a day now. The initial influx of responses has subsided to some degree and until such time as I am comfortable that we will have received all the responses from the people who are going to communicate with our office, I will not attempt to propose that the results I am going to give you tonight are final.
I do propose to give you a figure that will show a trend. This will be a report card. It will not be a statement of philosophy. We will save that for the final report, and indeed the report card I think you are going to find interesting as I did.
Coming from Regina-Wascana, primarily a western constituency, one is liable to think that first of all the very weighty issue of Quebec's distinct society clause which we have heard so many negatives of in the past would be held true to form in my constituency. I am pleased to report that in a particular item as one of the
28 proposals presented by the Government of Canada to the constituency general in Canada, in the constituency of Regina-Wascana there was an acceptance of the distinct society clause.
I can tell you that when I read that, it gave me a tremendous amount of relief because I thought that perhaps representing a western constituency, I would be hard pressed to see that kind of support. It was not unanimous. I do not want to say for a moment that it was unanimous, no, but it was approved in a majority. The distinct society clause as presented in one of the 28 was supported by a margin of constituents from my constituency that I say at the outset gave me great relief.
As a matter of fact, when I read all 28 proposals and the numerical results, I find that other than in areas where the constituents did not understand the precise meaning, such as question 23 for those who are following my remarks and have their forms in front of them, one with respect to the federal government and its declaratory powers, the majority of them were brave enough to say they were undecided. As a result, that tells me they did not understand the question, but as we go through the many categories, the very first one, shared citizenship and diversity, again a good substantial majority with respect to point one.
I mentioned point two, the matter of the distinct society clause. Our constituency accepts that wholeheartedly.
Point number three, that is the matter of the aboriginal participation in the current constitutional process, a very significant number. I would guess without calculating the percentages that 75 per cent of the people felt that the aboriginal community should have a stronger role to play in the development of a Canadian Constitution.
That holds true to point four, aboriginal self-government and the aboriginal constitutional process. As well, there is point six, the representation of aboriginal peoples in the Senate. We find a declining number of people who are supporting these items as I proceed, items three, four, five and six, but nevertheless, in the majority.
We find people rather strongly agreeing on some items. We look at the column entitled "agree" and we have to extrapolate that. When one goes from strong agreement to general agreement, perhaps there are
February 10, 1992

slight reservations. Over all, the principle of items espoused are generally accepted.
A Canada clause in the Constitution, I cannot help but feel from the people whom I have spoken to in the past that yes, indeed. How can I define what it feels like to be Canadian when I have no guidance or no leadership in this particular area.
I think that item seven dealing with the inclusion of a Canada clause in the Constitution seems to address Canadians' lust for truly wanting to be Canadian.
I see my time is rapidly passing me by and I have merely got into the first third of what I was going to say this evening. It is obvious that there is much more that I will have to say with respect to the report card that I will be presenting to the House of Commons from the constituents of Regina-Wascana.
The Constitution
I should close out of respect for the clock. I encourage those who have not taken the time to fill out these forms, to do so because I will be collating all the data that I have received from my constituents as well as all individual comments and will be responding to the residents of Regina-Wascana.
Again, I want to say to the residents of my constituency, how relieved I am that they have accepted these 28 proposals and accepted a united Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 5, 1992, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.