1992-06-23

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PRIVACY COMMIS SIONNER


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to table the annual report of the Privacy Commissioner for the year 1991-92.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I ask my friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, whether he is aware that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans plans to make a statement today on the request of the Shuswap Nation to meet with him to address the impact of the aboriginal fisheries strategy on their aboriginal rights, particularly including the reductions in funding for their stock production and enhancement activities. Does the minister plan to make a statement on that later today?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any knowledge of that statement. I will make the appropriate inquiries and get back to my friend.



INTERNATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRENCH-SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS REPORT ON ACTIVITIES OF CANADIAN SECTION

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report on the activities of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians at the meeting of the Commission des Affaires culturelles in Brussels, Belgium, from May 11 to May 16, 1992.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, in both official languages.
The committee focused its study on the credit card market and ways of increasing competition and improving disclosure. It also re-examined the question of cap on credit cards.
The first appendix to this report is a draft bill that will at last provide consumers with the means to choose the credit card that best fits their needs. The bill calls for uniform disclosure by card issuers of the important terms on credit cards, interest rates, fees, grace periods, et cetera, on all advertisements, solicitations, flyers, circu-

June 23, 1992
Routine Proceedings
lars and any other printed material. Experience in the United States shows that this information can make credit cards work more efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, I request a response in accordance with Standing Order 109.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-90, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Ms. Campbell moves that the bill be read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



PATENT ACT


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters.


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


Mr. Duhamel:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent of the House to present a private member's bill and to waive the normal introductory period.
Do I have that unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX ACT


Ron J. Duhamel: for leave to introduce Bill C-357, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (allowances of volunteers).


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


Ron J. Duhamel: I am informed that volunteer fire-fighters now receive a very well-deserved income tax deduction not to exceed $500.
This particular bill seeks the same consideration for other volunteers, such as volunteer ambulance and emergency medical services. In other words, any volunteer in situations involving the health or physical wellbeing of a person responding to an emergency for a public authority would get the same consideration.

So I present this bill for the purpose of removing a discriminatory element.


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 ordered to be printed.
June 23, 1992



RECALL FOR ROYAL ASSENT

['Agreed.']
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 28(2), at any time during the adjournment of the House between June 24 and July 31 and September 1 to September 21, 1992, the Speaker may, after consultation with the government, cause the House to sit for the sole purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill or bills, and, following each Royal Assent, the Speaker shall, each time, further adjourn the House forthwith, until September 21, 1992; and
That the provisions of Standing Order 28(3) respecting the recall of the House for urgent and pressing matters not be superseded by the provisions of this Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, there is unanimous consent, certainly on this side.
I have two questions to my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. The bill on environmental assessment was recently held up in the other place. Has that been passed now? Could he bring me up to date on that? Also, the rape shield legislation that was passed through this House, could he give us some idea of the status of that legislation or is it still being held up in the other place?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to give full answers to the questions my friend was asking. I can give him a report on the bills we can expect to receive Royal Assent on today, and others that we anticipate will be receiving Royal Assent in the future, if the House is agreed to receive that information.
Specifically, the first bill he inquired about, Bill C-13, the environmental assessment act, has passed committee in the Senate and there is hope that it will receive a favourable disposition later today.
These bills that I am about to enumerate will be receiving Royal Assent today:
Bill C-22, bankruptcy; Bill C-48, CDIC; Bill C-74, customs and excise; Bill C-75, fuel tax; Bill C-81,
Routine Proceedings
referendum; Bill C-87, the supply bill; Bill S-9, the Northwest Evangelical Church; Bill S-10, Green Shield Canada; Bill S-ll, airport transfer; and Bill S-12, the merger of the Montreal Board of Trade and la Chambre du Commerce.
We also hope the following will be receiving Royal Assent:
Bill C-7, status of the artist; Bill C-13, environmental assessment; Bill C-33, coasting trade; Bill C-41, energy efficiency; Bill C-45, dangerous goods; Bill C-49, sexual assault; Bills C-51 and C-52, the Northwest Territories and Yukon Water Acts; Bill C-58, oil and gas; Bill C-70, jury; and Bill C-82, CMHC.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, along the same lines. I might have missed it but I am glad the parliamentary secretary gave the numbers and/or the subject of the bill. I may have missed it but has Royal Assent been given on the bill concerning veterans benefits for the merchant marine?
Could you please tell the House the status of this bill? Has it already received Royal Assent? I would hope that it would.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to consult the Journals of the House, but I believe that if my hon. friend will check, he will find that it has been documented as having received Royal Assent.
With a small qualification, I think we should consult the records. I believe on doing so we will discover that it has.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1992
Routine Proceedings

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I have 35 petitions from Canadians in nearly every province, from British Columbia to Newfoundland.
These petitioners urge the government and especially the Parliament of Canada to restore the Court Challenges Program which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, regardless of their financial resources.
These people deplore the government's decision to end this important program which, as we know, helped Canadians assert their language rights and equality rights and have them interpreted by the courts.
These many Canadian petitioners ask this House to make a positive decision in this regard and reinstate the program.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by Canadians who support the following statement: In the hope that all Canadians will give their elders the necessary support to live as independently as possible, the federal government has the primary responsibility to ensure that old age pensions are adequate.
Therefore, the petitioners ask the House of Commons to urge the government to make sure that Canada's old age pensions are high enough to meet the essential needs of Canadian seniors.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions from my constituents in Whitehorse and Pelly Crossing, Yukon, who are very concerned about this government's actions which have very much undermined rural life in Canada.
They state in this petition that whereas recent actions of the government have been a direct attack on the rural
way of life including cuts to VIA Rail service, abandoning rail lines and neglecting fisheries, forestry and agriculture and the erosion of rural postal services, particularly by the closure of small rural post offices, whereas post offices are the backbone of many of our rural communities, these petitioners pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to support Canada's rural way of life, to support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services and to reject the agenda of closures and cutbacks and make sure that rural Canadians can be truly Canadians from coast to coast to coast.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present four petitions today on behalf of Calgarians who care about the Young Offenders Act. Their specific petition is to request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from across the upper Ottawa Valley dealing with the promotion of pride in being a Canadian.
It is appropriate to encourage all Canadians to take pride in a united, strong and independent Canada. Canadians are normally a reserved people, often concealing their patriotic feelings.
Whereas Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada have created an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the Proud to be Canadian project during the celebration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation in 1992, the petitioners hereby support the Proud to be Canadian project as an opportunity to nurture a positive lifelong relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.
The petition is signed by people from many communities across the upper Ottawa Valley: Petawawa, Cobden, Westmeath, Pembroke and many other communities.

June 23, 1992


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition in which people are asking the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government and the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces, with the territories being given the status of one province.
The petition is signed by many people from across eastern Ontario.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present two petitions with several thousand signatures of residents from the riding of Saint-Leonard and the general Montreal area.
Your petitioners ask the federal government to continue to support and encourage the preservation and promotion of heritage languages. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to reinstate full financial funding for the Heritage Cultures and Language Program of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, which was cut by the government in the February 1990 budget.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions this morning from 100 residents of the riding of Jonquiere and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
Your petitioners call upon the government to remove the goods and services tax from certain items that are essential to women.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by 100 people who humbly call upon Parliament to review the provisions of Bill C-21 concerning parental leave for adoption, so that
Routine Proceedings
all parents, whether biological or adopting, will receive the same 25 weeks paid leave in order to spend this time with their new child.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased today to present to the House three petitions. The petitioners request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lower maximum age of 13.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by 585 Canadians.
This petition points out that hundreds of thousands of Canadian senior citizens live below the poverty line and over 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty. It is desirable for all Canadians to provide senior citizens with the necessary support to live their lives as independently as possible.
These petitioners call upon the government to ensure that Canadian Old Age Security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadian senior citizens.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present this petition, certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by many residents of my constituency, The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake. These are signatures collected by Fisher's Drug Store in North Battleford, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners recognize that the Government of Canada has put forward proposals for amending the Constitution of Canada and call upon Parliament to enact and carry out legislation providing for a referendum in Canada, binding upon Parliament to accept or reject the constitutional amendments, and that the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments should be determined by a majority of the total votes cast in Canada as well as a majority vote in the majority of provinces and territories in Canada, the so-called double majority that was dealt with by the House.

June 23, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from people from Calgary Southwest who ask Parliament to revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the duty to rise in this House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present the House with a petition certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions.
These are Canadians who have joined the hundreds of other petitioners urging the Canadian government to apply pressure on the Rwandan regime immediately to stop killing innocent Rwandans and they urge the Canadian government to support the EEC resolution on Rwanda issued on February 20, 1992, in Santa Domingo.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from a couple of hundred fishermen and plant workers on the southwest coast of Newfoundland in the communities of Rose Blanche and Fox Roost, Burnt Islands, Margaree, Port aux Basques, Petites and Isle aux Morts.
These people have two elements to the prayer in their petition: first, that the government ought to take immediate steps to rebuild the fish stocks and the petition specifically advocates the closing of 4RS-3PN fishery for the purpose of rebuilding the fish stocks. It also calls on Parliament to take such action as it deems advisable to assist the affected fishermen and plant workers in the LaPoile to Codroy area.
I am pleased to support the petition and present it on behalf of those 200 people who are going through some very difficult times and who need Parliament and government to address their concerns at this point.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present signed by residents of Bragg Creek, Calgary, and Edmonton, Alberta, requesting that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the
Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Chase and Kamloops, British Columbia. As a matter of fact there are quite a number of communities. It totals now into the thousands of people who are opposed to the diverting of water from the North Thompson River at Valemount into the California area as part of the plan that is presently being considered.
The petitioners are asking simply that we state as parliamentarians that Canadian rivers are not for sale to the United States.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting petitions from hundreds of people from Cannings Cove, Newfoundland, Burnaby, British Columbia, Baie Comeau, Quebec who are upset with the 37-cent increase in old age pensions; that 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty; that the federal government has a primary responsibility to ensure the adequacy of seniors' pensions.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure that the Canadian old age pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadian senior citizens.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a duty and an obligation under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition today signed by residents from the province of Quebec who are calling upon the Government of Canada to make certain that Old Age Security and in particular old age pensions reflect the economic concerns that many old age citizens have in this country.
These residents are alarmed at the 37-cent increase which has been given to them. In fact, over 80 per cent of the women over 65 years of age are living below the poverty line. They call upon the Government of Canada to examine very seriously the provisions of the Old Age Security and to make certain that the necessities of life are able to be provided under this particular piece of legislation, thereby granting suitable increases as they deem necessary.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a large number of Canadians who are very concerned about the goods and services tax and its impact on the tourist industry.
They are aware that the preliminary tourist industry figures for this year are way down over last year. Of primary concern is the goods and services tax.
They point out that a $50 expenditure means $5 provincial tax and $3.50 goods and services tax and creates an enormous burden on the ability of small businesses throughout Atlantic Canada- Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland-to earn an income.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of voters from Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec.
Your petitioners are concerned about the abolition of the Court Challenges Program which has helped many individuals and minority groups to have their constitutional rights clarified before the courts. They declare that the abolition of this program represents an incalculable loss to social justice and equality in this country.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider the option of reinstating the Court Challenges Program which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three separate petitions this morning.
The first one is from residents of Scarborough and area. It calls upon the government to amend the Immigration Act and the regulations to facilitate the visitor visa application process by bona fide family members visiting family members in Canada.
Routine Proceedings CRIMES OF VIOLENCE


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of West Hill, Mississauga and other parts of Scarborough, Ontario, evolving out of the recent criminal tragedies involving death.
They call upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent. They also call upon the government to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, and the Penitentiary Act.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from residents of Scarborough and Durham region.
It calls upon Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to preserving and protecting the Rouge River Valley in Ontario and to participate with the Ontario provincial government in developing a Rouge River park and a heritage park at that location.
 * *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 295, 296, 297 and 298.


Mrs. Stewart: With respect to the Human Rights, Women's Equality and Social Affairs Division of the Department of External Affairs, is its first mission to promote the integration of human rights and women's equality into all aspects of Canadian foreign policy and, if so, (a) how is this promoted through other ministries whose policies and programs are part of Canadian foreign policy such as trade, immigration (refugee determination) and aid (b) what specific functions are undertaken by staff to ensure the inclusion of human rights and women's equality into foreign policy (c) how is information gathered and who or what groups are consulted to gather information (d) how does it support or influence other federal departments to implement international human rights instruments?


Hon. Barbara Jean McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: A prime focus of the Human Rights Women's Equality and Social Affairs Division, IMH, is to

June 23, 1992
Routine Proceedings
promote the progressive integration of human rights and women's equality into Canada's foreign policy.
The Department of External Affairs, both IMH and other divisions, works in close consultation with other ministries whose policies and programs impact on Canadian foreign policy. This is particularly true with regard to CIDA on any matter involving official development assistance and multiculturalism, citizenship and justice on implementation of international protocols. It should be noted that trade issues are handled within the department itself. The division works with CIDA to offer a joint course in human rights and democratic development for officers in both departments. The course addressed, inter alia, trade and immigration issues. The division also takes the lead on interdepartmental meetings dealing with multilateral human rights issues involving the Departments of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Indian and Northern Affairs, CIDA, Justice, Status of Women Canada, Labour and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Specific functions undertaken by IMH staff to ensure the inclusion of human rights into foreign policy include:
Working closely with other divisions responsible for specific regions to ensure that Canadian concerns about human rights and women's equality concerns are, as appropriate, raised with foreign governments. The division is consulted on all military export permits to sensitive areas, relevant policy memoranda to portfolio ministers, ministerial briefing material, statements and news releases.
Requesting and co-ordinating the preparation of annual reports on human rights in various countries, monitoring these and ongoing reports from embassies, NGOs, media and other sources.
Working with Canada's multilateral missions and other external affairs divisions to ensure that human rights and women's equality are managed appropriately at the UN, the OAS, the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and the CSCE.
Preparing briefs and instructions for the Canadian delegation to the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, and the Social Committee of the UN Economic and Social
Council. Staff may also serve on these delegations as advisors.
Organizing consultations with non-governmental organizations in the human rights field. These consultations are also attended by representatives of geographic divisions. Individual meetings with Canadian and foreign NGOs are organized on request during the year.
Information on human rights in various countries is gathered from a variety of sources, the main ones being Canadian posts abroad, the United Nations, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition to preparing annual reports Canadian posts abroad keep the department up to date on any developments affecting the human rights situation.
IMH is in regular contact with Canadian and international non-governmental organizations in the field of human rights, and receives numerous United Nations documents and NGO publications, including all of Amnesty International's country and thematic reports. The division ensures that these are given appropriate distribution to concerned decisjon-makers. The division also has access to media monitoring services available in EAITC.
The division consults on an ongoing basis with other departments regarding the implementation of international human rights instruments, primarily Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, which has a lead role in that area, the Department of Justice, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Status of Women Canada, et cetera. The division reviews drafts of Canada's reports under the international instruments for coherence and consistency. Over-all responsibility for the preparation of these reports lies with the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and other sectoral departments assume responsibilities for the preparation of the relevant federal sections. The division is also responsible for ensuring that the reports are prepared and sent to the UN or OAS on time and as required, may assist in their presentation and defence before the relevant treaty bodies.
The division also ensures that UN and NGO documents, telegrams from posts and other relevant material is circulated to the appropriate officials in the domestic departments to keep them informed of international developments in the human rights field.

if

m

*ft
m
m
June 23, 1992

The division participates in the meetings of the federal-provincial-territorial continuing committee of officials on human rights to keep the provinces informed.
The division is kept informed about and is consulted by the appropriate legal authorities on Canadian responses to complaints received by the UN Centre for Human Rights under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


Mrs. Stewart: With respect to the Human Rights, Women's Equality and Social
Affairs Division of the Department of External Affairs, how does it
convey Canadians in promoting Canadian values of human rights and
social justice?


Barbara Jean McDougall: A key objective of the Human Rights, Women's Equality and Social Affairs Division, as cited in the division's mission statement, is "to convey to Canadians the department's deep and abiding interest in promoting Canadian values of human rights and social justice." In conjunction with other divisions, such as those directly concerned with public communications, IMH works to ensure that the Canadian public is aware of Canada's efforts to promote human rights at the international level. The division's specific activities in this regard include:
Informing non-governmental organizations in the field of human rights of Canadian initiatives and actions. This is done both through regular consultations between the department and NGOs, and through the mailing of reports, speeches and other relevant information to a list of some 150 non-governmental organizations.
Responding to correspondence and telephone inquiries from the public on what Canada is doing to promote human rights internationally.
Drafting and presenting speeches to Canadian audiences, including NGOs, universities, et cetera, and preparing or contributing to public statements on international human rights issues by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister for External Relations and other ministers.
Providing up-to-date information and briefings to the EAITC media relations office and ministerial spokespersons.
Ensuring that Canadian media representatives covering international fora receive copies of Canadian statements and are aware of Canadian initiatives.


Mrs. Stewart: Routine Proceedings
With respect to the Human Rights, Women's Equality and Social
Affairs Division of the Department of External Affairs, what
procedures are in place which aim to improve public transparency
with regard to policies?


Barbara Jean McDougall: A key point in the division mission statement of the Human Rights, Women's Equality and Social Affairs Division is "to encourage co-operative relations between the Department of External Affairs and non-governmental organizations, and to convey to Canadians the department's deep and abiding interest in promoting Canadian values of human rights and social justice." This is particularly relevant at a time when there is growing public interest in the issues dealt with by the division.
The public is kept informed of the department's policies and actions in the area of human rights in the following ways:
Ongoing consultation with non-governmental organizations in the field of human rights and organizations representing aboriginal peoples.
A three-day consultation prior to the annual session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Ongoing contact between IMH officers and NGO representatives. These can range from regular telephone conversations to meetings with specific NGOs. IMH has also facilitated bilateral meetings between major human rights NGOs and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other authorities.
Reporting on Canadian and UN actions through the circulation of statements, reports and documents, for example, the division prepares a detailed report following the annual session of the Commission on Human Rights outlining the outcome of the commission and Canada's role. This report is sent to approximately 150 non-governmental organizations in the field of human rights. This year, the division also mailed out reports of the January consultations with NGOs and aboriginal organizations, as well as a report on the recent Second Preparatory Committee for the World Conference on Human Rights.
Preparing or contributing to ministerial correspondence, statements and briefing material for meetings with parliamentarians or Canadian organizations. IMH regularly prepares responses to public inquiries on the department's policies and activities in the areas of international human rights, women's equality and social

Routine Proceedings
affairs, and responds to requests for information and/or documents.
Drafting and presenting speeches to Canadian audiences, including NGOs, universities, diplomatic or foreign affairs associations, et cetera. IMH also welcomes and responds to invitations for the Secretary of State for External Affairs or other senior officials to speak or to participate in seminars or conferences dealing with human rights.
Providing up-to-date information and briefings to EAITC media relations office, ministerial spokespersons and posts for responses to media inquiries or to allow embassies abroad to communicate effectively.
Working closely with other departments and institutions, for example, Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Status of Women Canada, Indian & Northern Affairs, Health and Welfare, CIDA, Canadian Human Rights Commission, to keep them, their clienteles, and provincial authorities informed about the department's policies and activities and about international developments.


Mrs. Stewart: With respect to the Human Rights, Women's Equality and Social Affairs Division of the Department of External Affairs, how many are employed exclusively to fulfil the functions of the division and what background and qualifications are required to fill the(se) position(s)?


Barbara Jean McDougall: There are currently nine person-years on the establishment of the Human Rights, Women's Equality and Social Affairs Division. These include:
One director;
Three deputy directors-Human Rights, Women's Equality and Social Affairs;
One officer as international aboriginal affairs co-ordinator;
One officer for international women's equality;
One officer for human rights;
One officer for international social affairs;
One secretary.
At various times the division's establishment may be complemented by short-term contracts with consultants, secondments, COOP and COSEP students, and support staff. As of May 11, 1992, the division also had the benefit of one desk officer on secondment through Labour Canada, one consultant and one secretary.
As with most divisions of external affairs, the majority of staff members are career foreign service employees with varied experience at headquarters and overseas. Foreign service officers are recruited through a nationally-advertised competitive examination and assessment process in which the Public Service Commission participates. All candidates must have a university degree. Selection is based on merit and positive measures are taken to ensure that successful candidates include employment equity target group representatives: women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and persons with disabilities. Assignment to the division is based on the profile of the candidates, for example, experience in multilateral affairs, previous postings in countries or work on geographic desks where Canada promotes human rights, relevant academic background or private sector experience, and required capability in Canada's official languages, and the career interests and aspirations of the candidates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 251 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 251 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
June 23, 1992


Mr. Dubamel: Since November 21, 1988, which organizations, boards or commissions have had appointments made to them and, in each case, (a) what was their location (b) what was the length of such appointments (c) what was the remuneration for such appointments?
Return tabled.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry) moved:: That, in relation to 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, not more than four further hours and one further sitting day be allotted for the consideration of report stage of the said bill and one sitting day for the consideration of the third reading of the said bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the final day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the government resorting to tactics which can only be akin to bullying Parliament and bullying substantive public policy issues which the country believes to be very important.
I find it rather strange in the ninth inning while Parliament is to close today that the government would come in with this closure motion to terminate debate both on the report stage as well as the third reading stage
Government Orders
of Bill C-26, which is of fundamental importance to Canadians and to members of this House. I find it to be totally-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind the House that the motion is not debatable. The opposition House leader.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. Can he indicate to the House whether or not private members' hour will be proceeded with today and whether or not second reading of Bill C-88 will commence today after he has choked us off with the four-hour debate on report stage of Bill C-26? It is an intolerable position by the Government of Canada.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend's mock outrage, I can just say that part of what is contained in the motion, just for the benefit of the public, is the signal we got from the opposition that it would be nice to be able to adjourn earlier than 10 o'clock tonight.
In response to my friend's question, private members' hour will of course be in place today. If there is consent later in the day for second reading of Bill C-88, it is the intention that it would proceed.
There have been consultations with the Official Opposition and we are waiting to hear back from the New Democratic Party on that issue.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think the record should show very clearly that there were very little if any consultations under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2). In fact the parliamentary secretary dropped off a copy of this particular order and I indicated to him quite clearly that we were opposed to it.
To suggest to the House and to the Chair that we would wish to adjourn the House in order to get out early, we are prepared to stay to 9.45 or 10 tonight if necessary and have a vote this evening, if the government is prepared to do the same. We are prepared to stay here tonight to vote on report stage.


Ms. Langan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am certainly quite offended by the reference to the mock outrage of the opposition in this House, as well as to the opposition wishing to leave this House early at the expense of public sector workers.

Government Orders
The committee on this bill met for weeks and weeks and watched while the government had not one word to say about this, only the bureaucrats.
We want to talk about this bill and we want the government to talk about it in this Elouse.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. That is not a point of order and this motion is not debatable.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those opposed will please say nay.
Halliday
Hawkes
Horner
Hudon
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Layton
Loiselle
MacDougaU (Tuniskaming)
Marin
Masse
McDermid
McKnight
Moore
Oberle
Paproski
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Sobeski
Stevenson
Thacker
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
White
Worthy-109
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Holtmann
Horning
James
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Larrivee
Lewis
Lopez
MacKay
Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Siddon
Soetens
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Lotbini&re)
Van De Walle Vezina Weiner Winegard


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.
++NAYS
Members
Angus
Black
Blaikie
Callbeck
Dingwall
Duhamel
Finestone
Rilton
Gagliano
Grey (Beaver River)
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
MacAulay
Marchi
McCurdy
Mifflin
Mills
Now lan
Rideout
Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island -Powell River)
Stupich
Vanclief
June 23, 1992

Government Orders


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 17, consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the motions of Mrs. Catterall
(p. 12268).
Mrs. Catterall:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. There is so much noise in the Chamber at the moment that it is extremely difficult to hear the Speaker through the ear-pieces. I wonder if the Speaker could clarify exactly where we are at and exactly what we are doing and perhaps ask members to have their conversations outside so that those of us who have duties to perform here today can perform them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind hon. members that we are considering Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, at report stage. Further to the Chair's decision, we are considering Motions Nos. 1 and 3. The debate had begun at the last sitting. Several members had spoken. It remains to be seen whether other members wish to speak on Motions Nos. 1 and 3.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

The next vote is on Motion No. 3, standing in the name of Mrs. Catterall.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the motion rejected on division?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We now proceed to consideration of Motions Nos. 5 and 7.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 17 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"lished by the Treasury Board or by the Commission for purposes of section 5.2, to improve".
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 5 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 3 the following:
"5.2(1) In exercising or performing any of its powers, functions or duties under this Act, the Commission shall act in such manner as is likely to advance the implementation of employment equity in the public service and may, for this purpose, establish policies and programs to improve employment and career opportunities for designated groups in the Public Service, including women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada, and to correct the conditions of disadvantage experienced by such groups in their employment.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
(2)	For purposes of subsection (1), the Commission shall, in consultation with the Treasury Board and the bargaining agents representing persons employed in the Public Service, advance the implementation of employment equity by:
(a)	identifying and eliminating each of the employment practices of the Commission not otherwise authorized by law, that results in employment barriers against persons in designated groups; and
(b)	instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodation as will enable the employer to ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in the various positions of employment within the Public Service that is at least proportionate to their representation
(i)	in the work force, or
(ii)	in those segments of the work force that are identifiable by qualification, eligibility or geography and from which the Public Service may reasonably be expected to draw or promote employees.
(3)	The Commission shall, in respect of each fiscal year, prepare a plan setting out
(a)	the goals that it intends to achieve in advancing the implementation of employment equity in the year or years to which the plan relates; and
(b)	the timetable for the implementation of those goals.
(4)	The Commission shall include in its annual report laid before Parliament the number of applicants for employment in the Public Service, the number of persons recruited, referred, and appointed by the Commission or within its jurisdiction and the number of such persons falling within designated groups."
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present these two motions which are intended to complete the issue of employment equity in the Public Service and to comment at this time favourably on the words of Senator Pat Carney who in a previous incarnation asked: "Where are the women?".

Of course, the basic principle in the Public Service with hiring, promotions, recruiting and the merit principle is that someone can have a job and advance according to his or her ability.
This has worked well for the past 70 years, if you are a white man. If you are a woman or disabled or native or have a different skin colour, the merit principle has not worked. Of course, half the employees in the Public Service are women, but less than 15 per cent of the other
public servants are women. The same principles apply if you are not white or are disabled or a native.
The legislative committee made progress on this question. The committee agreed to ensure that Treasury Board, as the employer of public servants, must respect employment equity and have programs for ensuring equal opportunity in promotions and hiring, even for women, native people, coloured people and the disabled. The Public Service is a different kind of employer from the private sector. We have an organization called the Public Service Commission which has a very specific and special role to play in ensuring employment and advancement based on ability within the public service.

This principle of merit that the best qualified person gets the job has worked reasonably well for 70 years if you are a man and if you are white. The figures are absolutely clear that if you do not fit those two qualifications you have not been judged on merit.
We only need to look at the figures for this year for the Public Service Commission. Even in this year, with the voluntary policy of employment equity, although half of the employees in the Public Service are women, less than 15 per cent of the managers are women. Even this year over 75 per cent of the appointments, promotions and moves within the management category were men. If one happens to have skin that is not white it is even worse; representation in the management category is abysmal. Aboriginal Canadians or persons with a disability simply do not count and the glass ceiling is there throughout the Public Service.
It is unacceptable that more than two years after the task force on barriers to women in the Public Service reported to this House there has not been more progress, and that even these steps to achieve progress are not being taken.
The merit principle is one of the fundamental issues at stake in this bill. It is based on your ability to do the job, not who your friends are or how well your boss likes you. The merit principle should be the basis on which people
June 23, 1992

Government Orders
are either hired or promoted or, for that matter, demoted or fired in the Public Service.
We were successful in committee and I thank the members of the committee and the managers who assisted in drafting a change. We have had an Employment Equity Act in this country that applies to the private sector for over five years. It has never applied to the public sector. In committee we were able to move an amendment and work with members of the committee and senior managers to finally have the same requirements that apply to private sector employers apply to the public sector.
However, the job is only half done because those requirements apply to the Treasury Board as employer but they do not apply to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is the defender of the merit principle. Its whole function is to ensure that only merit applies and that the shape of your body or the colour of your skin does not determine whether you get hired or promoted in the Public Service.
The purpose of Motions Nos. 5 and 7 is to quite simply complete the work we did in committee to ensure that the Public Service Commission, as the employment agency of the Government of Canada, is bound by the same requirements to respect employment equity which the government has now accepted will apply to the employer.
The commission, for reasons totally mysterious to me, is resisting this. It says: "Well, we already do it". Yes, it does but it does it quite imperfectly. For instance 12 per cent of applicants last year in the Public Service were people of colour but only 5 per cent of hirings were people of colour. Why? What is being done to address that?
The Public Service Commission is the agent of Parliament that ensures that only ability to do the job counts in hirings, promotions, training or opportunities to progress in the Public Service.
If the Treasury Board has a legal obligation, which it will have under this bill, to be an equal opportunity employer then the commission, as its hiring agent and as the instrument of this Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency in the hiring process in the Public Service, must have that same obligation.
We will come to other amendments where the commission has resisted changes to how it carries out its work. I do not believe on this important issue that the commission can have the discretion to decide whether it wants to act in a manner consistent with employment equity or not.
It is up to us as Parliament, the commission is our agent, to provide a very clear legal direction that this Public Service is going to be fair and equal for everybody and to make it accountable to this Parliament and not leave it to the discretion of three appointed commissioners to decide whether they do or do not think that people of colour, women, aboriginals, and disabled persons should have equal opportunities in the Public Service.
I look forward to hearing the government respond to these amendments and explain why it does not think they are acceptable, if it does not.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank our colleague from Ottawa West and all members of the committee that examined this bill and who are proposing this particular amendment.
I want to thank them because since 1985 we have worked very hard to look at employment equity as a basic and fundamental principle in law. We have worked to ensure that section 15, which is the non-discrimination section of our Canadian charter, be not only written on paper but be applied in actual fact in the course of the life of this country, for the citizens in the working world and in general.
When my colleague came and told me that they had moved this amendment which would have an implication for Treasury Board and would apply the whole principle of employment equity to Treasury Board I was absolutely delighted. I congratulate her once again in public because that has been the most difficult group to move.
We wrote a landmark report on the application of employment equity and on the application of section 15 of the charter but when the government introduced the Employment Equity Act it managed to leave itself outside of the act and apply it to the private sector. Instead of being the role model that it should have been it left itself untouched by the application of non-discrimination in the work force.
The answer at that time was: "Well, we do it". If we do it then it must be applied in law and perceived to be just.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
It must be just and in the laws of the land. I am delighted that this will come to be within the purview of this law.
I would really like to know how the government can step aside from one's responsibility when it accepts the principle that it has a responsibility for the employment of visible minorities, women, aboriginal people, handicapped people, and those who have been perceived to be the weak and the underemployed in our society.
The government is now going to accept its responsibility that it should have in the first place, through the Treasury Board, but it is not going to apply to the hiring agent that is going to do the job for the government, the Public Service Commission. That makes absolutely no sense.
It is like putting together a lovely picture but forgetting to put a proper base to hold the stand, or building a statue with no stand to hold it so it will not fall down.
This is a very key amendment, as are the other amendments that are being discussed. If we want to respect this country that we want to keep unified and in which we want people to feel they are being fairly treated, then fairness, equity and equality must be not only perceived but must be a reality in law. The government must accept the principle that these particular amendments will be accepted.
I found it surprising that the whole issue of the merit principle in hiring and promotion would not be perceived as an obligation worthy of promotion by the Public Service sector and by the Treasury Board. The opportunity through review of the employment equity legislation was there and now through this piece of legislation it is again here.
I hope the government will grab this opportunity. As my colleague points out half the employees in the public sector are women but only 15 per cent of managers are women, and that 75 per cent of those who have received promotions have been men and while only half of the employees are men.
The visible minorities and the handicapped are not being promoted in any measurable number. I would say that fair-minded people, men and women, would see that there is justice in this request.
I would like to support my colleague. I would like to ask my colleagues across the floor to be reasonable in looking at Motions Nos. 5 and 7 and to please support them whole-heartedly to provide the full measure of equality, equity, and justice in our society.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I too want to support my colleague from Ottawa West in these two amendments, Motions Nos. 5 and 7.

Before I make a brief statement, I would like to pay tribute to the men and women who render important services to Canadians.

I want to reaffirm my support of the civil service and those many able men and women who render on a daily basis valuable service to Canadians. They are among the finest people with whom I have ever worked. I want to recognize that too often they are the scapegoats of timid, weak, and cowardly politicians.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Ron J. Duhamel: Oui, c'est vrai. Very often they are the scapegoats. You use them and kick them around because you have failed and then they become the target. If you want to debate that I would be delighted to debate it with you. However I suggest that you should not stand up and debate it because you would lose badly.

We talk about pay equity. I think it is an element of basic justice in our Canadian society. We must respect it. We must make every effort to ensure that we have a policy and regulations so that we can act more fairly towards those who are under-represented. When I talk about men and women who are under-represented, I mean native people, visible minorities, and disabled Canadians, whose handicap is often visible. And of course I am talking about women.

If one looks at employment in the Public Service it can be seen that there are a number of under-represented groups. We know that employment is a resource, particularly so today as employment becomes increasingly difficult for a number of Canadians.
June 23, 1992

If we want to continue to build a fair society and a compassionate country then we need to have policies such as those we are discussing today. We need to be sensitive to those who are under-represented.
Therefore, whole-heartedly, without hesitation I support these particular amendments and I would hope that my colleagues would do so as well. They reinforce the merit principle that must be the fundamental building block of our civil service.
Let us not fool ourselves. Many of these people, and I speak about aboriginal people, visible minorities, handicapped Canadians and women, are not getting the jobs that they deserve, not because they do not merit them but because of the deep-seated biases that are within the system. Clearly these amendments would go a long way toward setting those aside.


Mr. Eugene Bellemarre (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Motions Nos. 5 and 7. As we all know, there are almost a quarter of a million civil servants. These people have studied, some of them at the university level, in order to better serve their fellow citizens, their community, the best community of all: Canada. The Public Service Commission of Canada is the model for civil servants who work for various agencies, companies and firms from coast to coast. That is where the employer should set an example, where it should be a pleasure to serve other Canadians, where we enforce the Canadian legislation. The commission is responsible for the inspection of food and other products so that the community and consumers are protected.
It is vital that the civil servants feel they contribute in no insignificant way to the well-being of this country. They must feel they have their employer's support as well as that of the legislators. They must be happy and feel at home in the Public Service. They should never feel they are being mistreated.
I sincerely hope not one of them will ever be unfortunate enough to work in a group where there is sexual or racial discrimination. I hope that all civil servants, present and future, will always feel equal among their peers and will always know they have equal opportunities in the Public Service so that they may continue to work and advance in their carreers. It must be a question of
Government Orders
equity and justice and not a question of networking among friends.
At the legislative committee, the Liberal Party tabled an amendment to section 5 dealing with employment equity. The original section prepared by government was still seen as a discretionary policy, ill-defined and vague, offering no solution whatsoever for the discrimination problem. The amendment adopted by the committee submits the Treasury Board as an employer to the same obligations as those all Canadian employers must abide by since 1986.
The amendments extend to the Public Service Commission the actual obligations and responsibilities of the Treasury Board in the area of employment equity. They are necessary amendments since the Public Service Commission, and not the Treasury Board, is in charge of recruitment.
That is why, we must allow the Commission to implement employment equity programs.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from the Liberal Party from Ottawa West for her success in getting tremendous movement in this bill in the area of employment equity. I also want to say a few words in support of this amendment and talk about the process that we went through in committee.
First of all, this amendment elaborates on the manner in which Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission would establish employment equity programs.
There has been great reluctance in the past to having employment equity, as applied in the Employment Equity Act, apply to the workers in the public sector. It is one of those laws that applied to others but the government was able to escape its own legislation. Now, with the inclusion of employment equity in this legislation, we feel quite heartened that finally the government is going to take its responsibilities in the area of employment equity seriously.
These two amendments enable the commission to establish affirmative action programs. Affirmative action is one of the fundamental bases for allowing women to take their equal role in the community, to take an equal role in every part of the process of their lives or of Canadian life, including the ability to take full and equal responsibility.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
Without affirmative action and without employment equity we have had very real barriers to women's participation. When even one person in this country is faced with barriers, either because of physical disability, because of their sex, because of their sexual orientation, because of any of those reasons, then they are made less a Canadian than someone else who is not faced with artificial barriers.
These amendments are another step toward removing those artificial barriers for Canadian workers. They are another step toward showing respect for all workers in the public sector, whether they are men, women, people of colour, people with a physical or mental disability, or whether it is sexual orientation.
We think it is very important that the government acknowledge and respect these areas in the broadest sense, not in the narrowest sense that it can get away with but, in fact, in the broadest sense.
We had an opportunity during the discussion in committee to make additional amendments. We tried very hard to make amendments that would be all-encompassing as opposed limiting, and I have to say that my colleague from Ottawa West was able to make great gains. But the amendments that she is proposing give us the tools to see that those amendments clearly go into action.
We had witnesses for a number of weeks before the committee. It was from a broad range of presenters from the labour movement, from the unions that represent workers in the public sector, from the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women, from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, and a number of others. They noted very clearly, particularly NAC and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the under-representation of women and minorities in our government service. They strongly supported inclusion of strong employment equity provisions in this bill.
This amendment would bring the Public Service Employment Act into line with the federal Employment Equity Act. The Employment Equity Act does not currently include those who work for the federal government, for the people of Canada. In fact, the recommendations tabled recently in the Employment Equity Act included a recommendation that federal government
workers be included under that act. But currently they are not included.
The amendment includes a reporting mechanism for a timetable to be established to achieve employment equity goals. Without some kind of mechanism to measure progress how can we possibly hope to achieve the kinds of things that members on this side of the House are calling for? We need some way to measure the effectiveness of the amendments that are already achieved in the legislation.
I respect the efforts of my colleague from Ottawa West and other members on the opposition side in this committee. But I do want to say that I would very much like to hear from the government side its position other than when we vote some time in the future. I would like to hear articulated by this government what the problem is with this amendment.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that of all the dissertations made so far on this side of the House in this highest court of the land, we have not heard one come from the government benches yet. That makes one wonder. Maybe it makes those at home wonder. Maybe many of the members of the government, of the Conservative Party, are not knowledgeable on this subject.


Joy Langan: That is probably it.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: That is probably the point. How many backbenchers can we turn to today, if the only time a backbencher has an opportunity to speak in the House of Commons is just on a Standing Order 31 or in Question Period when we have the media sitting around here and then outside for later comment. Bill C-26 is so flawed that the member for Ottawa West-and I congratulate her for all the work she has done-went through the entire committee process, with the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester and the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam clause by clause by clause in this incredible bill. Mr. Speaker, do you know what they came up with? They came up, just at this stage of the bill, with 82 amendments. That is how flawed this bill is.
Because there are certain rules about what you can apply at this particular reading, and that it does not have anything to do with the bill or changes or alters the bill in
June 23, 1992

some way, the Speaker ruled that a group of amendments just did not cut it, so he dropped them.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what that left us to debate? It left us with 30 amendments to debate in this House. How much time do we have to do that? If you were in the House a little earlier you would have learned that the government said: "All you get is four hours today and another day when we come back in September", if we come back. Maybe we will have an election and we will not have to come back in September. We could take this bill and throw it back in the garbage and just get rid of it.


An hon. member:: In the recycling box.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, what are we stuck with? We are stuck with a bill that is, as I said, so flawed it has now, and the Chair has accepted, 30 amendments grouped into 19 different piles because some of the amendments are very similar to others.
It is a shame that we have not heard from the government benches opposite. There is much explanation that has to come, a lot of explanation. I am sure that some of the members opposite have experienced in their offices back in their constituencies the same outrage by those employed in the federal civil service that I have had in my office. Representations have come to me in Hamilton West to the office. Civil service unions and their representatives are protesting Bill C-26, a bill for the information of some that amends several pieces of legislation covering the federal government's employment practices.
They have told me, and I am sure they have told the members opposite-even the member from Burlington, I am sure they have even been in his office-that this bill will severely damage the merit principle on which the notion of a professional, non-partisan civil service is based. They have appealed to us. They have said: "It is just not fair. It is not set up to create the programs that we need. It is not fair when we compare our workforce to the private sector workforce. Let us put it all into line here". We have the opportunity to do that but the government does not take that opportunity.
What happens? There is a gentleman by the name John Edwards. He is the official responsible for pushing this PS 2000 through the works. He claims the fears of the representatives of the unions that have come to our offices are exaggerated and unfounded. If the govem-
Govemment Orders
ment members opposite and the minister have the nerve to stand in this House and respond to some of our inquisitions, they would say that all this disenchantment and this concern for the bill is all nonsense and exaggerated as John Edwards has said.
Guess what Mr. Edwards said when he went behind closed doors, when he briefed a meeting of departmental personnel directors on the impact of Bill C-26? This is what he said, according to the minutes and according to the record of that meeting, held back on May 25. He was asked how employment equity and the merit principle would be observed. His response was: "Bill C-26 gives managers authority to appoint and by-pass the system". Is that not great? Now, instead of being advanced on your merits, instead of being advanced because you have the skills, because you have been there and you have chewed it and know what it looks like, and because you can do a better job than anyone else in that particular department and you have the opportunity to be promoted, the manager is the one who will make that decision. Is that not terrific?
Thlk about the formation of the old boy's club. Do you not think that is going to complicate the situation a little bit in an office environment? Now the manager has the decision. Maybe members opposite are not getting up on their haunches today to speak to this bill because they sure know what the old boy's network is about, do they not?
How about Paul Tellier? Guess what he is going to become. He is going to be the president of CN. Do you know what? He admits that he does not know anything about railways but they are going to make him president of CN. He is a good friend of the Prime Minister, a good buddy.
How about Glen Shortliffe? The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, who was a member of the Conservative Party and is now an Independent, was a most competent chairman of the transport committee on which I have had the privilege to sit since the inception of this Parliament. He did a heck of a job. He was direct and he was honest. He will remember how many times Mr. Shortliffe appeared before us. Guess what? There is the old boy's network at work again. Now Mr. Shortliffe is the Clerk of the Privy Council. He will wear the top hat now and he will make the decisions on the Public Service.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
In conclusion, we are dealing with a bill that government members are not about to get up and make statements to because it concerns fairness and this government certainly is not known for its fairness. This government certainly knows about the old boy's network and the old boy's club. It certainly knows about putting control into the hands of one individual who can make a decision and tell an employee who may otherwise have gained a promotion that: "Too bad. How sad. I do not like the colour of your skin or I do not like your height and I do not like the clothes you wear". For whatever reason they are not going to get the job. The manager is going to decide: "Well, I like Jimmy because he is a nice guy. We go golfing on weekends and all the rest of it". That is a very familiar scenario to members of the government opposite.
I will be more than happy to bounce up time and again on the different motions that have been presented by the member for Ottawa West resulting from the hard work the member for Ottawa West and the member for Carleton-Gloucester have done through the many months of sitting on the committee and preparing these important, crucial amendments that will adjust and make Bill C-26 more fair.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I was brought up to believe that when an invitation is extended one responds to it in one way or another.
I am afraid that the hon. member for Hamilton West has brought some names into this debate that perhaps ought not to have been brought into the debate. The name of Mr. John Edwards, who by the way is no relative of mine but who is a distinguished Canadian public servant, has been brought into this debate. I do not know whether political motives are being attributed. I guess it is old boy network motives that are being attributed. He is a distinguished Canadian who rendered the country a remarkable service as Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration. Later, in his capacity as chairman of the Museums Corporation he oversaw the devolution of the four national museums, which my friends opposite supported so strongly.
It was interesting to hear reference to Mr. Tellier receiving an appointment. I think it is entirely appropriate because he is a distinguished public servant. Would my hon. friend rather have people of the ilk of Bette Hewes appointed president of CN?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think you will find my point of order valid on two issues. First, if the hon. parliamentary secretary is, through his comments, attempting to imply that I have ulterior motives in mentioning the gentlemen's names that I have previously mentioned then I must assume that the hon. member opposite is entirely incorrect because I made no passing judgment on these individuals. Mine were comments made by individuals in one place and then another.
If, as the minister himself or the parliamentary secretary himself has implied, the hon. parliamentary secretary would stand and speak to the bill I would be more than happy to hear his comments on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am not sure that was a point of order.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Hamilton West made reference to people in passing as they reflected the government's attitude toward the amendments on this bill. If we look at what the hon. member has been saying from across the floor, what he is saying has no relevance to this bill and therefore I would think that his intervention is not relevant.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am very glad that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader intervened and challenged some of the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West. I appreciate the point of order that we keep on the bill.
I have been sitting here. I should have spoken earlier when we were on a more general clause because I am very glad that the parliamentary secretary did start to respond, before the member for Hamilton West took umbrage, with not the personalities or the integrity or the character of some individuals involved, and I am leaving Mr. Edwards out of this. However, certainly if I can catch your eye sometime, Mr. Speaker, and make it somewhat relevant and using an old boy's club as a base to make it relevant-as a former chairman, and I did not realize my friend was going to intervene and say what he said.
I certainly tried to get the Speaker's eye yesterday on statements and today on the whole question of the old boy's club and not the integrity of any of the individuals. As a former chairman of a standing committee I am very disappointed and depressed that a top public servant, be it perhaps the Clerk of the Privy Council, as he is, has been appointed out of the blue to be president of the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. That is not a question of order-

To lighthen up the debate a bit, I would like to remind the hon. members of something Madam Sauve said regarding the rule of relevancy. In December 1982 she remarked that it was a rule extremely difficult to invoke because there is always the risk that a member will tell the Chair that he will stick to the issue and that in two minutes the Chair will realize the relevancy of his remarks even though what he is saying right now does not seem to have anything to do with the issue.
It is always rather awkward for the Speaker to invoke the rule of relevancy because the member who has the floor may say that he was getting to it or that you are soon to find it. In such instances you put me in a very difficult position. But now that messages have been exchanged on both parts, I would very much appreciate if the parliamentary secretary could finish his remarks within his allotted time.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your injunction and I will endeavour to honour it. At some other place and some other time I will defend the integrity of Glen Shortliffe, the first Albertan to be named Clerk of the Privy Council. I do not regard him as a member of an old boy's network because he was two years behind me in school.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that what I am about to say is totally pertinent to the bill at hand. I move:
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the purpose of continuing consideration of report stage of 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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundum):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Hamilton West had not raised the issue of how the government plans to circumvent the legislation then I certainly would have. If the government takes such umbrage at the naming of names that are certainly publicly known then I will refrain from doing so.
Government Orders
When the person responsible for the administration of this legislation says publicly that every effort will be made by the government to make sure that equity and fairness prevail within the Public Service there is no particular reason why one should doubt the man's words until we get evidence to the contrary, and we have.
It has come to the public attention that he has said that as far as Bill C-26 is concerned the manager will have the authority to appoint and by-pass the system. This more or less addresses itself to the question raised by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam. She asked: "I wonder what the government members would say. It would be nice if they would get up and say something nice about the bill".
The whole philosophy of PS 2000, as it is commonly called, is to make it simpler for those in a managerial position within the Public Service to not alleviate the problems that people have, particularly concerns about sexism, colour and the whole thrust of the equity programs.
There are also other aspects that do not have anything to do with the colour of one's skin or gender. Many of my constituents have come to me about problems with the administration of jobs within the government service and it has nothing to do with either of those reasons.
What this government wants to do and what this legislation does, in spite of everything the government says to the contrary, is to really short circuit the very things that it has so vociferously proclaimed that it intended to do. I must repeat that the manager has the authority to by-pass the system and make appointments.
That is precisely the philosophy that the government has come to in its whole thrust in changing this legislation. I do not care whether it is called the old boy's network or the the old girl's network, the final result is the same.
The bottom line is to get your buddies, regardless of whether they are men or women, into positions of authority, as evidenced by the appointment of the most recent chairperson of CN. He is somebody who does not know anything about railroads, and perhaps did not know a heck of a lot about running government departments either as far as that is concerned. That is from the perspective of being a benefit to the nation and a benefit

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
to the country, but it probably worked well for the network, whether it is an old boy's network or whatever.
The fact of the matter is and the examples are numerous that the government's intentions are no different than they have been all along. This is simply something to make it easier.
We had the example yesterday. Cases of sexual harassment within the Armed Forces were shown to be of epidemic proportions. We also have the instance where the particular circumstances surrounding a case have become public knowledge and not made public by the person directly involved, the person directly involved is court-martialled.


An hon. member:: Possibly facing.


Ron Fisher: All right, I stand corrected. That person is possibly facing court-martial on the basis that the circumstances surrounding the case became public.
We have to take a look at what is actually happening, not listen to what the government is saying. Actions speak much louder than words.
There is nothing in this legislation as proposed by the government which will alleviate the kinds of problems persons in the Armed Forces are having. There is nothing to alleviate the problems which people in my constituency are having vis-a-vis the unfairness of the way the government conducts its business in relation to its employees.
Certainly, the member is to be commended for having brought forward this amendment. It is probably best described as self-serving and cowardly on the part of the government not to accept this very fine amendment to the legislation.
[Translation\


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if I rise to speak about Bill C-26, an act to amend the Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which concerns the management of civil servants, it is because Public Service 2000 is perhaps the most important project this House has dealt with in many years. It is very important for us to carry an
in-depth review of the government proposals and I must congratulate the member for Carleton-Gloucester and the member for Ottawa West and at least the entire Liberal caucus for their hard work, a major contribution to the bill, which I think greatly improved this legislation.
The section under review, Motion No 5, which was presented by the member for Ottawa West, is just aiming at transferring responsibilities to the Public Service Commission. We know that thanks to her interventions, the member for Ottawa West managed to do what we had hoped for, what we had been anticipating since 1985, that is to say she forced the federal government as an employer through the Treasury Board which acts as the employer of all civil servants, she forced this employer to abide by the principle of employment equity.
These are amendments that the hon. member for Ottawa West our Liberal Party critic, successfully proposed. A number of amendments that were adopted give Treasury Board in its capacity as an employer the same obligations as any other employer subjected to the legislation, namely to eliminate discriminatory practices regarding employment, and to table each year a report on the progress made, as well as to implement proactive policies and programs to improve job and promotion opportunities for those groups designated in the Employment Equity Act.
One must realize that these provisions did not exist in the original bill. It is an amendment proposed by the Liberal Party that forced the government to assume its responsibilities.
So, this is included in the bill that came back from the committee and that is presently being reviewed at the report stage. What the hon. member for Ottawa West now wants to do is to force the Public Service Commission to implement also an employment equity program that would be equivalent, if you will, to the employer's obligation.
One must understand that there is a distinction to be made between Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. The latter is a parliamentary organization, an agent of this Parliament which is independent from the government and whose role is to recruit civil servants, to select the best candidate to do the job described by the employer.
June 23, 1992

As for Treasury Board, it identifies the positions that are to be filled, their classification, that is, where those positions fit in the civil service world, as well as the classification standards and the salaries.
The role of the commission is to search for the best candidate to fill a position that has been identified by the employer. As we know, this is done, or at least was done until now, based on the merits of each application.
Since appointments are the responsibility of the Public Service Commission, it seems perfectly normal and fair that the same commission be subjected to strict standards and guidelines regarding recruitment, precisely to avoid any discrimination and to make sure that the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which all Canadians value, be complied with and that no candidates are rejected because of the colour of their skin or a physical handicap.
Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says, "any program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." That is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What we want to do with Motions Nos. 5 and 7 before us is to give the Public Service Commission, which selects the best candidate, clear and specific directions in establishing policies and implementing employment equity programs for the designated groups I just mentioned.
I do not think that is so difficult. I think it is very easy and completely logical. The Public Service Commission is responsible for hiring, for selecting the most deserving candidate for a position. We know that the commission has delegated 95 per cent of appointments to departmental managers. Therefore 95 per cent are made by the departments under delegated authority.
The purpose of Public Service 2000 is to give managers more power. I fully agree that they should have more power but their powers should be clear and specific and the House of Commons must give managers directions on our intention to respect employment equity programs.
Government Orders
It is not complicated. That is what Motion No. 5, like Motion No. 7, proposes. They require the Public Service Commission, in selecting the most deserving candidate, to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 15 of our Constitution, which forbids discrimination on the basis of race, skin colour and other factors like those I mentioned earlier. I think it is a reasonable amendment; it is not so complicated.
I would just like to close by saying that I am pleased with the improvements that the Liberal Party made to Bill C-26. We will have other equally important amendments to debate. This amendment is clear and precise and I hope that hon. members have understood that it would not take much to accept it.
It would only require the Public Service Commission to implement employment equity programs in all it does-appointments, transfers, training or development-so that the candidates who have access to these programs are chosen without discrimination.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Motions Nos. 5 and 7 which have been introduced by my colleague for Ottawa West and deal basically with the issue of employment equity in the Public Service.
These motions would expand on the way in which Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission could establish an employment equity program. It would also enable the commission to establish an affirmative action program.
All of us who have been dealing with the issues of both pay equity and employment equity understand there is a fundamental difference between pay equity and employment equity.
Pay equity means people should be paid the same wages for work of equal value while employment equity means that one must look at ways to promote people of different ethnic backgrounds and different racial backgrounds within our Public Service to ensure our Public Service more accurately reflects the diversity of Canada.
Therefore, an employment equity program would be targeted toward disabled people, aboriginal peoples, women, visible minorities, and so on. These motions

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
then would give this provision to the bill we are debating today.
We know about the under-representation of women in the Public Service in terms of positions of responsibility. We know well about the under-representation of visible minority women, immigrant peoples and disabled people within the Public Service. There has been study after study done to document the under-representation of all of Canada's people.
There was a report commissioned by one of the previous Treasury Board presidents, Pat Carney. I think it has been mentioned already today. That report is called Beneath the Veneer. It pointed out very graphically and very clearly the troubles and problems that women, visible minorities and other disadvantaged groups have within the Public Service.
There has been a great deal of support for this kind of program in Canadian society as a whole. There is growing support for affirmative action programs. Most people who look at the situation for visible minority people and aboriginal people in particular in our society see that their numbers within the Public Service simply do not reflect the reality of their percentage of our population.
This amendment would bring the Public Service Employment Act into line with the federal Employment Equity Act. Unfortunately, the federal Employment Equity Act does not seem to make much sense to a lot of people. The federal Employment Equity Act does not even apply to our own federal government.
The amendment would also include a reporting mechanism so that goals could be set and a timetable set to achieve those goals and a mechanism for ensuring that in fact these provisions would be adhered to and goals that are set would be reported on. We would see how well we were achieving those goals in terms of the targeted groups in our society.
I am pleased to support the motion. I have done a lot of work over the years on the whole issue of pay equity and employment equity. I recognize very strongly how necessary it is to have teeth in the mechanism to ensure employment equity in the federal Public Service. It is a very much needed provision in this bill, one that I am sorry the government side has not seen fit so far to support. Without this kind of a provision, we will not
make the kinds of gains in terms of all peoples in our society that we must make in order to ensure that we have a fair and equitable society, a society that treats all of Canada's people in the same fair manner, and gives all people an opportunity.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I want to participate in the brief time allotted under the rules, the 10 minutes at report stage on these amendments on pay equity in particular. I compliment the member for Ottawa West who has done a mammoth amount of work on this very complicated bill.
I want to talk generally about the stage we are in on something the index of Hansard calls the Public Service Reform Act, which is Bill C-26, with the 82 amendments that were proposed, and I guess the 32 that were finally allowed by the Chair.
This is the blueprint for public servants from coast to coast in the Public Service of Canada. It is very interesting. In this last week or 10 days we had Bill C-55 which dealt with pensions of public servants, RCMP, the military and all federal public servants; and here we get Bill C-26 which is in effect the structure of the Public Service, and reforms and amendments to that structure.
It is rather incredible to me, but I certainly was stimulated to participate in this debate by listening to the hon. member for Ottawa West and other members, that this bill just came out of the committee and in effect on to the floor of the House last Wednesday, June 17. We all know Wednesday is usually a short day, but under our speed-up procedures in order to try and wind up for the summer, we sat that night. As I understand it, this bill really only hit the floor somewhere between eight or nine o'clock on Wednesday, June 17. There were four or five speakers under the 10-minute rule as well as the ruling of the Speaker on amendments. There was less than one hour's debate on Wednesday, June 17, and lo and behold, we get back here today and the government introduces closure to choke it all off, allowing a four-hour limit and then one more day some time in the fall when we come back.
In terms of parliamentary procedure, I find that a rather tight schedule, to say the least. In fact, dealing with something so fundamentally important as Public Service reform legislation and all its facets, it is almost impossible to have an adequate debate at this stage.

June 23, 1992

I may surprise some members, but I believe government perhaps should use time allocation and closure many times. This government certainly has been doing it as we try to get rid of a lot of parliamentary business before our summer recess. However, there is a big difference when using time allocation after you have had a second reading debate in a prolonged way and you know the bill is complex and very complicated and has got to be given serious study in committee. I think this government quite properly has done so in many cases. For example, we dealt with the immigration bill just the other day. It was very complicated and controversial. It affects people from coast to coast. Yet you could only debate that so long. I frankly think the second reading debate should have been longer, but you get it in the committee and that is where the real work is done.
The real work is done in committee. When that real work is over, it comes back to the floor where it is expected there will be meaningful time for debate on all the matters that were discussed in committee. As we know, most members are not members of that legislative committee that goes into the detail of the bill. This time we have allocation of time or closure to get a bill into committee. In this case the committee members, and I give them and the government credit, I understand wrestled with this bill for approximately three months in committee and did a lot of the detail work.
It is a perversion of the rules and in effect the reform spirit, so-called, of Parliament to have a committee wrestle with complicated Public Service structures affecting every public servant in Canada in the confines of the committee, where all the necessary detail work has been done and where conscientious members produced their amendments. This is one vital amendment. They are all very important. Some are more technical than the others, but this deals with pay equity. I must say as a man in this House I have been rather surprised and depressed at some of the reports showing that women at the top branch are not in those positions of responsibility, let alone visible minorities. However, I am more interested in the women, without being chauvinistic here, than some of the other groups.
Government Orders
However, in all the groups, the reports show that at the top level these women and visible minorities are very much in the minority. Therefore, this is a very serious amendment.
Yet we have the parliamentary secretary to the House leader on the second day it hits the floor, after only an hour or so of debate, choke it all off, so that four hours down the road some time today, that ends it as far as the report stage when members really can contribute to all these amendments and the bill.
Then we know at third reading, and I guess the allocation order gives one more day somewhere in the future, some time I guess this fall, it gets to be even a tighter schedule for members to participate in the debate.
I am glad I have the opportunity under this amendment to stand here to register my objection to the procedures of the government to in effect pervert a lot of the good work the committee has done by choking off meaningful debate at report stage. We are supposed to investigate, check and assess in committee. We ventilate in committee and then debate on the floor of the House at report stage. This type of motion absolutely makes a mockery of that procedure.
In terms of the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa West, I totally agree with it. Some of her other motions I agreed with, earlier ones that we have passed here on deployment and lateral transfers.
Just in the closing minute or so I have, I want to say I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West because there are difficult areas to bring out in the open. I think the fact that it has not been done and there has not been more public disclosure and public debate on it is again a reflection on how inadequate we as parliamentarians are on public issue matters. I have no hesitation in saying it, with no reflection on the personal integrity of anyone involved.
I frankly think it is a pretty poor way to run a railway to take the Clerk of the Privy Council, who may be a top public servant, trying to run PS 2000 with the help of Mr. Edwards, trying evidently to settle the Constitution, flying around the country and bringing some focus and consensus to that very complicated issue, and pretend that because he may be an expert in those areas that he can run the Canadian National Railway where we al-

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
ready have a chairman. He happens to be a personal friend of mine, but he has no railway experience whatsoever.
In trying to keep this within the rules so that I do not create any problem, it certainly may be an old boy's club, but it is certainly not very much of a railway buff club. Here you have the chairman of CN and now intending its CEO and active president to be the head of a railway that is fundamental to Canada at a time when railway problems have never been more critical. I say this is a disgrace to the railway workers who depend on top management to do the job. Two neophytes are going to run this railway at a critical time of competition with American railways, let alone Canadian Pacific and the trucking problem in this country.
I suggest that there is no better illustration of the potential in PS 2000.1 think in certain cases with checks there should be an Order in Council to make sure they are lateral transfers and/or in this questionable area, whether they are lateral transfers or promotions.
Talk about a choo-choo train running riot over procedures. We have the greatest illustration of a choo-choo train by having the Clerk of the Privy Council choo-chooing right into the presidency of CN when he himself admits he does not know a thing about a railway. I do not know if he even had a model railway as a kid growing up. Some of us may have had one away back when.
Then there is the chairman, who is a complete neophyte in the railway. This is a disservice to Canada, a disservice to Canadian railway workers and it is a disservice to Canadian taxpayers because CN costs the taxpayers a lot of money. In this day and age when you can have this nepotism of someone who has done well, work well and may nor may not be a friend of the Prime Minister, but a personal appointment to such an important position with no scrutiny at all-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. [Translation]
I would ask the hon. member to be a little more discriminating in his choice of words, in referring to a particular person. I heard the word "nepotism" and I am not sure that is a very parliamentary term.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I respect the Chair. I certainly withdraw it. It is unparliamentary. I will cut it out now. My time is just about up at this stage. All I am saying is that I will remove certain words. You are absolutely right, that is incorrect. I did not know it was. Frankly, I could think of a lot of other words that I think would be even more graphic but correct. However, I will not get into words. I do not care about the appellations. It is the procedure that concerns me. That is why members legitimately raised problems in the committee, as I understand it, reflected in amendments here as to the abuse that may be made of flexibility, of having transfers and promotions in the Public Service. When you have it at the top, then beware of what is going to happen all down the structure to the public servant who does not have a forum in which to protest and has to take his lumps without too much redress. You do not get much redress when you choke off debate in the House of Commons on something so fundamental as Public Service reform.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this bill today because it has far-reaching implications for the Public Service of Canada. I say that without any partisan view. The merit system in the Public Service has always been the very basis of good administration in this country.
Where the manager in this legislation has been granted excessive authority, he or she can exercise their bias at will. That not only discourages employees on the scene at the time, but it also discourages well qualified personnel going into the Public Service of Canada. That is the serious part of this whole legislation.
We have had great public servants over the years. They have been loyal in their advice and in their attitude to administrations of the day over the years of Canadian history. Their role was to advise ministers, advise the government. When asked to provide bills on certain matters, given the parameters that the government wanted to included in that legislation, in those bills, their job was to provide that information in the various departments concerned.
We have had some outstanding specialists in the Public Service of Canada over the years. That is not going to continue under a system where the managerial ego within individual departments is going to be the order of
June 23, 1992

the day. Who is going to be favourite of the boss? What are you going to say to your boss? Are you going to tell him that you think that his ideas are bad and that only yours are good? Is there going to be a free flow of information? Is there going to be a free flow of comment, of advice on serious issues where that information must be of a specialist nature because it will be going up the ladder to the front benches, to the ministers and the Parliament of Canada.
We have had some great public servants in this country over the years and we have them today, but why are we so gung-ho about passing a bill on Public Service 2000 through this Parliament under closure? This is going to build into that legislation the type of law that is going to give excessive power to the few and discourage great students, talented people, from coming into the Public Service of this nation. It is going to prevent them from coming into the Public Service when Canada needs some of the greatest advice, the greatest base of accurate assessment of information we have ever needed in years.
The merit system is indeed the raison d'etre, the reason for being, the reason for outstanding people coming into the Public Service of Canada.
The merit system promotes greater depth in the advice, in the accuracy and in the informed knowledge that will be passed on to this government and future governments in Canada.
If I am ever again on the government side of this House, I can say without any reservation or equivocation whatsoever that I will do my utmost to the nth degree and will not rest until the merit system is put back into the Public Service of Canada. There must be no favouritism. We want well-qualified people in the Public Service and we want people in this House who respect the employees of the Government of Canada.
A strong and well-qualified Public Service will be well managed by the minister. It will be well managed down the line into the Public Service, providing that minister is strong enough, is capable enough, of leading and if he is humble enough to accept accurate and well-based advice when he feels that his own is wrong.
Government Orders
That is the way the system must work. It must work on logic and firm foundations and well-informed decisions will come out of it.
A qualified Public Service not only shines across the country but it helps the country to shine in the eyes of the world. That is why this bill and the government's haste to get it through Parliament is so alarming. I have known a lot of those fantastic public servants over the years and governments in this House of Commons have benefited from their knowledge. Their knowledge does not just come from their own minds. Their knowledge would seep up through the Public Service from other levels and would end up in the best possible advice that could be given to ministers of the Crown.
In this bill, when it becomes law, the loyalties to the manager in the system can become very petty in nature. The loyalties will be more to the manager in the system than it will be to the Government of Canada politically. That is what is wrong. It can create jealousies, personality conflicts within the workplace and be a detriment to harmony in the Public Service.
Great statesmen over the years of Canadian history have made this country great. They have helped to make well-qualified elected public servants look very great too and have brought out the best in everyone.
If it was not for a great relationship between the Public Service of Canada and governments in Canada in the past, we would not have managed great issues like the building of the CPR railway across Canada; World War I, which required a lot of serious decisions; World War II, which was well managed throughout; the forming of the United Nations, which came about because of people like Lester B. Pearson, Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent in this country.
NATO was put in place to offset the Warsaw Pact and the power behind the iron curtain of the day and it worked. It is a success. That is why we have peace, relatively, in the world today. Our ambassadorial system has worked well around the world. Our peacekeepers have worked well because we have had civilian ambassadors and we have had military ambassadors built into the same system.
These are public servants of Canada. Never should this House of Commons ever vote for legislation that is going to take the merit system out of the Public Service

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
of Canada and damage the information that is going to the front benches of any government in Canada.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

We shall now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 13, all standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 20 to 22 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"7.1 (1) The Commission may conduct investigations and audits on any matter within its jurisdiction.
(2) The Commission shall investigate complaints filed by employees alleging sexual or personal harassment or abuse of authority and shall report its findings and the corrective action taken under section 7.5, if any, to the employee who filed the complaint." Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 33 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"or person employed with the Commission."
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 11 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"sion shall, on the basis of any investigation,".
She said: Mr. Speaker, since the government has clearly indicated its intention to reject Motions Nos. 5 and 7 on employment equity, Motion No. 9 becomes even more important, because it is an amendment that ensures the Public Service Commission has the authority and the responsibility for investigating complaints of sexual or personal harassment or abuse of authority filed by public servants.
It is even more important, since the government is not prepared to give the Public Service Commission, on behalf of Parliament, any responsibility in the matter of employment equity that these three motions which touch directly on the accountability of managers and an impartial method of ensuring that they do not abuse the new authority that this bill gives them, to have these safeguards in this bill.
The question of accountability was one thread throughout our debate in committee and is a thread throughout this bill. It is worth quoting from the minutes of a couple of meetings because throughout appearances by the minister and by senior officials I repeatedly asked them to show me where in this bill is the increased accountability that the minister and Mr. Edwards, responsible for PS 2000, have told Parliament, have told Public Service employees and have told the public is there. Tell those who rely on this Public Service for fair and impartial treatment on the front lines, in unemployment insurance offices, in getting their welfare cheques or their old age security cheques. Tell us where in this bill is the increased accountability.
Not once in three months of hearings was one senior manager or the minister or the parliamentary secretary able to point to one clause in this bill that clearly increases accountability.
We support the need for reform in the Public Service. We understand that people have to be given the responsibility and the freedom to be creative, to make decisions, to take risks, to manage well, but we also understand that increased freedom, whether for a citizen, for a child or for a manager means increased accountability for actions. It means checks and balances to ensure that increased power is not abused at the expense of others who are less able to defend themselves.
June 23, 1992



I would like to refer to several issues of the proceedings of the legislative committee where we had these discussions and where I asked a number of questions, lake the report of the task force on barriers to women in the Public Service, for instance. In its report Beneath the Veneer, the task force said that attitudes were the main obstacle to the advancement and equal treatment of women in the Public Service.
In other words, the merit principle has never been applied fairly to women. I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board, and I said that they talked about increased accountability but I found no trace of it in this bill. I asked about this increased accountability of managers to Parliament, to the government, that would ensure the Government of Canada was not governed by favouritism and nepotism. I received no specific reply on the clause of the bill that deals directly with increased accountability.

At the end of the minister's answer I had to say that I asked specifically: "Where in this bill is increased accountability contained?" and made the point that I had not heard that answer from the minister.

I put the same question to Mr. Edwards, and I said that since we were giving managers more freedom and greater latitude and possibilities for filing an appeal or reviewing management decisions were being reduced, had they considered provisions that would enhance accountability, as a counterweight to this greater freedom? Mr. Edwards answered that in their opinion it was clear that the provisions of the bill contained certain legal requirements.

Mr. Edwards, as well as the minister and Mr. Robert Lafleur, deputy secretary, Human Resources Development Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat, were not able to point out one sentence in this bill that increases accountability.
Government Orders
I attended hearings conducted by the Public Service Alliance and I attended meetings with Public Service employees during the development of PS 2000. I heard again and again from women and visible minorities that they do not get paid the same, they do not get treated the same, and they do not get the same opportunities for promotion. They never get beyond that glass ceiling. They are desperately afraid that with new powers it is going to become even more important whether their manager likes them and whether they are the kind of person he or she thinks deserves to progress in the Public Service.
Women particularly, but also those who are disabled and aboriginal Canadians, have expressed fears about both sexual and personal harassment and about attitudes that have nothing to do with their ability to do their work affecting their ability to progress.
This motion is an attempt to ensure that the commission, which is accountable to Parliament, not to the government but to Parliament, has fair employment practices. It asks that the commission has the responsibility and the power to investigate complaints of harassment and abuse of authority.
We as parliamentarians need that safeguard. I do not expect that every manager, most managers, or even a large number of managers are suddenly going to become raving power maniacs wielding whips over people in the Public Service. However we write laws for those whose own moral principles do not guide proper behaviour. We already have very good documentation that attitudes do not allow people to be considered only on their merits.
Taken together these amendments are very clear. Their purpose is to ensure that there is redress, there is accountability, and there are checks and balances against the new powers that managers are given by this bill.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I too want to lend my support to these particular motions. We have dealt with Motions Nos. 5 and 7 and they will be voted on in the future.
Now we deal with Motions Nos. 9,11 and 13. They are being grouped for debate. As we have heard so eloquently said by the member for Ottawa West, we are dealing with these particular motions on sexual harassment, personal harassment, or abuse of authority.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
If anyone out there believes that we do not need to tighten the bill because the reality of today is that there is a change in society, men are more understanding of women and men accept the fact that women are equals, we cannot believe that. We cannot believe that is what is being felt by all men. That is just not the case.
I am part of a generation, one of the later baby boomers I suppose, that says: "We accept this as a reality. I am not challenged or feel challenged by a woman of equal or more powerful stature or responsibility than I".
There are men who are threatened. We do not have to go too far to bump into these individuals. We do not have to go too far out of this place to hear what goes on in private conversations between men when they cloister and have a few laughs. It is a shameful display but it is a reality.
That is why we want something in this particular bill that recognizes that fact. That is why on Motion No. 9 my colleague from Ottawa West explained that the commission does at present conduct investigations on complaints of harassment or abuse of authority. We recognize that it goes on. However, there is no clear mandate in the legislation for it to do so.
What is the point then? We are missing something. There is a piece of that puzzle, of that picture that is missing. The picture is not complete. That is what this motion attempts to do.
Since we all admit here today that harassment can be and is a clear interference with the merit principle this subclause clearly spells out the right of the commission to investigate such complaints.
As well, the increased authority of managers creates the concern that some managers may misuse their new control over employees and their career opportunities within the Public Service to the particular disadvantage of women and visible minorities. To believe otherwise is living in a fool's paradise. That is quite clear.
My hon. colleague for Ottawa West speaks of a glass ceiling. I am not so sure it is glass. I think it is a concrete ceiling. Maybe it is a rubber ceiling because when women and minorities hit it they bounce right down. They bounce right down because the opportunity that is
afforded to them to advance is there but we all know that in many cases it just does not happen for them.
In this package we are also dealing with Motion No. 11, which deals with the delegation of authority to deputy heads when we are talking about audits and investigations. As the member for Ottawa West has already mentioned the common thread that is running through the entire debate, which went on not only at the three months of committee meetings that she and the member for Carleton-Gloucester attended, is the whole issue of attitude by individuals.
I had representation in my constituency office from those who are part of the Public Service unions. They were concerned that the commission could delegate to or allow investigations and audits to be conducted by deputy heads. Motion No. 11 will ensure that these investigations or audits are conducted impartially by someone under the direct control of the commission and independent of the departments.
It is especially important, given the extended authority of deputy heads, that investigations or audits be carried out at arm's length.
Also in this group of amendments, which we will seek the government to respond to in some way or say: "Yes, maybe we ought to have another look at that and maybe yes, we will accept that particular amendment", is Motion No. 13.
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that where an investigation audit or report indicates that corrective measures are necessary the commission shall take corrective action. In Bill C-26 it says "may take corrective action". We say "shall take corrective action". The clause still leaves it to the discretion of the commission to determine what corrective action is appropriate.
We are dealing with three motions at this particular time, Nos. 9, 11 and 13. These amendments to the bill have become very crucial by all indications. For the last hour and 15 minutes or so that we discussed Motions Nos. 5 and 7 not a single member got up in the House to debate those particular motions and answer our concerns directly. That is a shameful attitude on behalf of the government.
Couple that with the fact that we now have this jackboot tactic of closure and we are only allowed to speak for four hours on all 30 amendments put forward
June 23, 1992

Government Orders
by the member for Ottawa West. Just four hours of debate. What kind of time limit is that?
It takes me back to last night and the debate on the immigration bill. We had one day. We were talking about reform, the largest of any kind on immigration ever done since 1978. Today we are dealing with the Public Service and we are allowed four hours. This is an abuse of Parliament.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to these particular amendments, Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11. It is a good idea to read what is actually in these motions, particularly Motion No. 9. In clause 7.1 it says that the commission "may" conduct investigations and audits. The key part of the amendment that has been put forward by this side is:
(2) The commission shall investigate complaints filed by employees alleging sexual or personal harassment or abuse of authority and shall report its findings and the corrective action taken under section 7.5, if any, to the employee who filed the complaint.
The motion gets to the heart of the issue of protecting employees and giving them the confidence of feeling that they are part of a system that will support them rather than be against them and that they have the method of redress essential to this type of system.
We have to be mindful that the system is there to protect. The motion adds the additional protection of not having to work through the system but through the commission that reports to Parliament and tells us what is going on.
The concern I have, and I am sure others have as well, is that there is a trend away from Parliament. We saw a trend with the immigration bill last night to have things handled by regulation rather than by legislation in Parliament. We saw the use of closure in Parliament both on this bill and on the immigration bill. We only had one day to deal with the immigration bill. Now we have only four hours to deal with these very complicated and complex amendments, which were designed and offered in goodwill to improve legislation that has some flaws and problems.
We on this side of the House understand that reform is necessary and that reform dealing with the Public Service is an essential element. We want to work with the government to see that it is achieved.
However, you tend to lose your compassion and your desire to work with this government when you see the tactics that are being utilized to force this through.
It is the same thing, quite frankly, on a different topic. It ties in with Bill C-55 in dealing with pensions. The government adopted that legislation in an arbitrary way. It changed rates of contribution and established interest rates which were retroactive to the previous year. They may take away indexation and make changes to the plans that are in place and at their beck and call without Parliament or the people being fully consulted. We are again running into this type of situation with Bill C-26.
I think we all have to realize and understand that if we are going to have a civil service or a Public Service that functions properly then there has to be mutual respect and a system that will give these employees an opportunity to flourish and to achieve their goals and objectives as individuals.
Charlotte Gray in a recent Saturday Night article states: "Without the federal government to lubricate the wheels of Confederation, run airports, impose national standards, collect taxes and regulate phones, trade, and television stations, Canada might be even closer to disintegration".
We have to be mindful of what is involved with the Public Service. I think that when we do have these massive walk outs and wildcat strikes we do see some of the ramifications and we feel them for a short period of time. However, we do tend to forget all of the things that are done by our civil service which help hold this country together and provide the nuts, bolts, and glue to make the system work.
I will quote another portion of that same article by Charlotte Gray. It really drives home the point of the frustration and the concern and why we need Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11. It is to put into the system those protections. I quote: "One layer below, morale among managers spirals downward because of the contraction of the Public Service". It now constitutes 1.7 per cent of the Canadian labour force compared with 2.4 per cent in 1974. "Promotion prospects have dried up. 'We are treated like light bulbs,' moans one 45 year-old who works a 60-hour week and whose career is going no-

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
where. The guys at the top assume there are always new ones to replace those of us who bum out'."
I think that typifies the feeling that a lot of public servants have to what is happening to them. They of course feel that there is no mechanism for them to redress those concerns. There is no mechanism that will respond to their concerns.
We on this side feel that by strengthening clause 8, and in particular with Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 13, that mechanism will be strengthened to such an extent that people will not feel they are light bulbs who are just there to bum out and be discarded. Instead, they will feel that they are an integral part of a system that appreciates what they do, encourages them in what they do, and encourages them to seek the highest possible attainment of on-the-job satisfaction and the pride in doing a job and doing it well.
We have seen the politicization of the Public Service over the last number of years and I think that is a cause of great concern and another area in which the Public Service feels they have been put into the background and are not a contributor to the process.
I think they have been made to feel as scapegoats in the political agenda of this government. We need the strengthening of these sections and improvements in the bill over all. As we are dealing with these motions, we need some improvements in them to improve the power of the commission to protect the Public Service.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the issues before us today that deal with a number of principles involving employment in the public sector. The first interesting observation was of course the previous member speaking about the horrors of closure and phrases such as the application by the Conservative government of jackboot measures and other rather sedate and calm language. I remember in the House of Commons when the hon. member's party was in government we pretty well had a closure bill amended here during that period of time. To hear the Liberal Party stand up and justify the necessity of using jackboot measures and closure surprises me. It is kind of ironic to see the jackboots on the other feet for the time being.
I am sure that as the next election plays out we will likely see closure being applied the other way. Maybe we should just find a better way of doing it rather than going through this hypocrisy.
The interesting thing about the principles of the bill-and I do support the amendments that have been brought forward-is the question of equity in the work place and the protection of employees from arbitrary and illegal use of the power of position. On those two bases, I think there is an extremely important point to be made.
One of them is on pay equity. I had an interesting opportunity with the leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia. I admit that the individual is somewhat of a novice, but it would be interesting to see the federal Liberal Party and the provincial Liberal parties singing from the same song sheet. The song sheet that the provincial leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia was singing from basically said that we are in a recession. The economy will not permit a government to pursue pay equity for women.
Rephrasing that, the Liberal Party of British Columbia is saying the same thing that the Conservative Party is saying. Speaking on pay equity, society, and the Conservatives and the Liberals as parties, say that in order to retain the privileged position of men, women have to stay in the job ghettos. They have got to take the pay ghetto, as it were, in order that men can maintain that privileged position. It is an unfortunate thing for the leader of a political party to make such a statement. It was done on television and it was absolutely untenable.
What should happen is that federal colleagues who are advocating the position of pay equity against a government that seems not inclined to recognize how important this issue is should be looking clearly at giving a signal to their provincial colleagues that maybe they should be singing from the same song sheet if they want British Columbians and Canadians to believe what they are saying.
It is almost the same position as they are in with the closure issue. Let us come up with a new approach so as not to look so hypocritical to someone who is watching the Liberals in government and then watching them, or the Conservatives for that matter, in opposition.
June 23, 1992

The next question is whether pay equity is a right for human beings. That means equal pay for work of equal value. It must be recognized and dealt with.
The next important issue again deals with the whole question of harassment. It could be harassment of any type against men or women in the work place where one individual with power over another exercises that power in an inappropriate or illegal manner. Again women have borne the brunt of the harassment in the work place. The amendments before us today ask that that the government consider putting in place effective measures to reduce and eliminate harassment in the workplace.
I think the key point here is that the Government of Canada should set an example. The Government of Canada should not be the worst employer in Canada. It should be looking to be a model to signal other employers that this is what our expectation is. It could be changing the attitudes of employers by moral suasion and example rather than legislation. The government really has not seemed to be inclined to do that.
If we look at the Canada Post Corporation, it is probably one of the worst employers in Canada. There are Neanderthal practices within that corporation absolutely beyond a doubt.
Maybe one could say that in a perverse manner it is setting an example for employers in Canada of what not to do as an employer. The practices within that corporation are absolutely disgusting.
As the owner the Government of Canada should be looking at ways of making that corporation a model in terms of employer-employee practices.
Here is another example that is absolutely critical. If one is going to signal other employers in Canada, then one should be making the agencies of the Government of Canada a model. The Government of Canada, with the Conservative Party in power, should be making its agencies examples of what other employers should be doing and not examples of what they should not be doing.
It would be an incredibly good opportunity to bring employment practices into the 20th century or on into the 21st century in the Armed Forces. If you look at the Armed Forces as an employer it is an incredible organization. Here is an example. When I represented an area
Government Orders
in which the Armed Forces were involved an incredible issue would result where an individual would run into grief. They would go after tremendous frustration to their member of Parliament because they were suppressed by the officers. They were warned: "You do not go outside this system or we will get you no matter what happens".
Eventually they would go outside the system and go to a member of Parliament. The issue would then be adjudicated to some degree in the public eye, the individual would be transferred and, after a few years, he would indeed be driven out or he would be penalized to an enormous degree. If one breaks the chain of command then one is in serious difficulty.
It is time the Armed Forces in Canada had an effective union. In Europe there are countries with unionized armed forces. This country, in terms of its employment practices within the Government of Canada, is absolutely in the Dark Ages. We watched examples of arbitrary practices in there. Somebody is overweight. They decide to throw them out of the Armed Forces but the officer who makes that decision is overweight. Out they go. They put in a grievance. It takes two years for the grievance to be processed. The individual has been in total chaos and the grievance process in there is terribly ineffective.
In one case it eventually wound up where the cabinet had to consider the most dishonest practice that would ever have been considered in any public sector or any private sector of employment. The laws of Canada would have prohibited what went on inside the Armed Forces.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Raymond John Skelly: The individual was eventually reinstated by a decision of cabinet. They would not tolerate inside the Armed Forces any remediation of a terribly abusive order. That started on the ground floor. It is amazing. The officer who inflicted the order in that case was promoted and now sits in Ottawa today in a promoted position which took two years of enormous conflict within the Armed Forces.
In there goes sexual harassment and harassment of employees where a tremendous abuse of power occurs and there is no effective remediation. We are going into the 21st century. It is time that this Government of Canada dealt with its Public Service, an honourable,

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
dedicated, committed organization, in a fair and equitable way. It should use the employer-employee relationship to set a prime, key example for other employers in Canada. It should not set an example of what you should not do or an example of employment practices of the last century.
I view the amendments put forward by my colleague as constructive and worthy of support, making the Public Service of Canada and the Government of Canada an example of good, solid future-looking employer-employee relations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. That is why the hon. member for Mississauga should get up and give us a very inspiring speech as he knows how to do.
I am willing to give my time to the member for Mississauga if he would get up and give us his views on this very important matter. I know how he feels. He is a fair individual and a fair person. He is a man of great, great principle. He is a man who understands. All we are trying to do here, with these three amendments, Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 13, is to give a clear mandate to the commission in the legislation for it to do these investigations on complaints of harassment and abuse of authority.
One does not have to be a genius nor a legislator of great experience to understand this is a fundamental right of individuals, to know what is going on and to know that they will be informed of investigations and will have a right to comment on them.
As we know, the commission at this time does these investigations. We are trying, with these amendments, to make it clear that harassment per se could be an interference with the merit principle. We would like the commission to be empowered by legislation to do these inquiries and to do them in an open manner and to do them with the follow-up that is required of these investigations.
All we are asking is that the commission do the investigations, not somebody from the department where the individual works, not somebody from outside government, but somebody within the powers of the commission to appoint within that commission so that we make sure that is protected in the law.
The first amendment says that the commission must do those investigations and audits on any matter within
its jurisdiction and investigate complaints filed by employees alleging sexual and personal harassment.
I had a case this morning of harassment of a public servant by a superior. This individual works in national defence and his wife is very sick. He missed a few days because of his wife's illness. When he came back to work and told his supervisor that he was absent for the last seven or eight days because of his wife's illness, the supervisor refused to accept the medical certificate. He refused to accept the word of the individual and his medical doctor attesting to the fact that he was justifiably absent from work.
This is the second time this has happened. The last time this member of the Public Service was off work, every day at 7 a.m., at 10 a.m., at noon, in the afternoon and in the evening the supervisor would call to make sure that the individual was home looking after his wife. Getting seven or eight phone calls a day from your boss trying to verify that you are looking after your sick wife becomes quite tiresome.


An hon. member:: Harassment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is what we call harassment. That is exactly what we are trying to do here. An employee who is harassed that way should have a right, if there is a complaint lodged by the employee as to a supervisor harassing him or her, to say to the commission: "Investigate this problem. Find out why this person is harassing me and for God's sake, let us stop that nonsense". That is all this does. It gives the commission the authority to do not as it so feels about it, not as clause 8 says: "The commission may-". We want the word "shall", not "may". We are trying to replace the word "may" within the legislation before us with the word "shall". The commission shall investigate, not may investigate.
The other point we are trying to make with Motion No. 11 is that the unions have expressed concerns to us that to delegate this authority to investigate or audit to deputy heads of the department could be a conflict of interest within the department.
That point is very easy to understand. We are telling managers that by Public Service 2000 we will give them more powers to manage. That was not anything new. It was said in many royal commissions before: Give the managers power to manage and pay them accordingly. That is why managers are paid more than the average worker. It is because they manage a department. They have responsibilities and judgment calls to make.
June 23, 1992

In Public Service 2000 we have a different tack now. Not only are managers going to be paid to manage, but we are also going to give them a carrot. We are going to give them something else and that is more authority. Well, that authority must be controlled.
With these amendments, all we are saying is that people in the departments have a right to and should be entitled to equal rights. All we are asking is that the House adopt the three amendments that would make investigations and audits of the commission an in-house Public Service Commission obligation. A follow-up must be done and as much as possible it must be done by somebody not within the department, not within that section of the government where the person works.
These amendments are not very difficult and I recommend them to the attention of the House.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: On these amendments dealing with auditing within the department concerned or where the complaint comes from, that procedure would be a very simple one because we have a situation here where unions express concern that the commission could delegate to or allow investigations and audits to be conducted by deputy heads.
I have just gone through some of my public accounts papers when I chaired the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for three years. Oddly enough, I found in there that we are supporting the Auditor General of Canada in having a greater control over the internal operations of departments and that is the role that any public accounts committee in this House should be playing. My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier is now chairing that committee and I am sure he would agree with me very strongly that is precisely what should take place.
Instead of bringing in a bill that is going to delegate these duties, instead of tightening up the system, where are we going to get the strong financial control in the Government of Canada? It is not only in big contracts or big deals that money sometimes is lost, but it is also all the dribbling away here and there down through the system. That is where the tax dollars are lost.
I support the Auditor General in his desire to have absolute tight control within departments. I support the
Government Orders
suggestion of my colleague from Ottawa West who brought in Motion No. 11 which specifically mentions the term "investigations and audits" which the commission might wish to delegate to other department heads.
So let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. We have had some good systems in place before which have served the country well. In passing any legislation in this House we must support the Auditor General of Canada because he is the one the public of this country looks to, to make sure that he is bringing out the wrongdoings in government, the leakages and wasted tax dollars in government, and to try to tighten up the system and give the Canadian people some value for their dollars.
In relation to Motions Nos. 9,11 and 13, they deal with some very serious matters. Harassment is mentioned here. My hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier mentioned one case this morning. You are going to run into some very good managers in the Public Service of Canada, but you are also going to run into some managers who cannot handle a little bit of authority. Calling somebody's home six, seven, or eight times a day I would say is a pretty good case of paranoia. These people should not be in positions of authority.
How can anybody say that by passing this legislation today we are going to increase the efficiency of the Public Service of Canada? Is that manager or his delegate getting paid on a salary or at hourly rate to pick up the phone every once in awhile to phone somebody's home like a little Gestapo agency? Why do we pay people to do those things? Is there no trust left in the system at all? If a boss cannot trust his employees, why should the employees trust the boss? That is where management comes into this system.
I want to read something relating to procedures outlined in these three amendments in a very general way. It is a report I tabled in this House on November 8, 1990, when I was chairing the public accounts committee.
Part A says: "Your committee recommends that the government give consideration to tabling a discussion paper prior to proceeding with the introduction of legislative amendments and/or administrative changes and that this discussion paper set out the principal conclusions and recommendations arising from Public Service 2000". That covers the type of details we are talking about here.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
Part B reads: "Referring the aforementioned discussion paper to a special committee of the House on reform of the Public Service and that the special committee conduct a consultation process involving employees, the Public Service unions and other interested parties and report back to the House within a reasonable period".
At first, the President of Treasury Board wrote me a letter. He thought it was a tremendous idea and he was willing to adopt it. Then he went ahead and did the very opposite. He brought the legislation into the House and what do we see today? Not only did he not have full consultation with the Public Service of Canada as he promised me as chairman of the public accounts committee that he would do, but he also brought legislation into the House and skipped the process altogether. That is why we have this legislation before us today.
The government has compounded the difficulty of dealing with Public Service reform today because not only did it just bring the bill forward for discussion on report stage today but it has also put a time limit on this bill when it must be passed by the House.
We might as well face the facts. The government had its mind made up right from the start, right from the beginning on what it wanted to do. It was going to do that regardless of who said what or what process took place in the Parliament of Canada or in the public accounts committee or any other committee dealing with this issue. That is the ramrodding business this government goes through.
One of the people we had the most trouble with during the discussion of Public Service 2000 was none other than Mr. Tellier who has just now been promoted to head up the CNR. I hope he can run a railroad better than he ran the government business at that time.
He was always very agitated when he had to come before the public accounts committee. He even sometimes suggested when his officials should appear and when they should not. We ran into many problems with Mr. Tellier. I must say with regret that I was very disappointed in the type of co-operation we had from him and his little department.
Now I come back to the same thing, right to the beginning. If we are going to have good conduct in the Public Service of Canada, if we are going to have value for the tax dollars of the taxpayers of Canada, and if we are going to have proper auditing then I would very strongly suggest that the Auditor General of Canada must work very closely with the Public Service Commission when these audits are done in departments. We do not want someone else fixing things up before the Auditor General has a chance to report them to the Canadian public at large. That is his job.
The Auditor General has specialists in his department. He has about 670 or 690 employees over there and he brings people in on contracts to do special types of projects. He can bring somebody in on contract to do a particular investigation or audit in a department if he sees that there is a serious problem there.
Let us make sure, as we go on with this legislation, that the Auditor General is going to play the responsible role on behalf of all Canadians in departments of government and it is not going to be delegated to someone who is going to fix up the problem and as a result the public are not going to know what dollars were lost.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise to speak on these amendments. It is important in any large organization that complaints of personal, sexual or other types of harassment be treated with a great deal of dispatch in an independent investigation and that there be some method of reporting back to the people involved.
Over the last period of time we have become much more sensitive to harassment in the work place. Certainly the issue of sexual harassment has become a major focus of attention, not only in government work places but also in industrial work places and places like the Armed Forces.
Sexual harassment has been pervasive within our work force for many years and has resulted in the inability of women to contribute to the maximum and to their potential in support of themselves and to the betterment of the total community. However, there are other kinds of personal harassment that this legislation would also assist.
June 23, 1992

Racial harassment in the work place, including racial harassment in government work places, is something we must all be concerned about. There have been allegations made about the National Research Council concerning the fact that people of visible minorities have been openly harassed at work and have also been harassed by not being given fair opportunity to apply for and receive promotions.
As a country we cannot afford this. We must use the talents of everybody to their maximum. Harassment in the work place takes this away and people who have a lot of skills, a lot of knowledge and a lot of expertise are not then contributing.
Racial harassment can take many forms, from open confrontation and open racial slurs to casual derogatory remarks that to the visible minorities are very hurtful but to the rest of us may seem to be rather humorous, or which we think are humorous when they are not.
It is important that these amendments go through because they do a number of things. They ensure that there shall be a commission that is independent and has the ability to report its findings and take corrective measures and that these findings will be reported back to the worker involved.
That is one of the significant things that must happen. In large bureaucracies when there has been an allegation and there has been an investigation the person involved often is told: "That is a personnel matter. That is a matter on which we cannot get back to you and tell you what is taking place". That is simply not acceptable.
It is particularly important when we take a look at some of the new powers that have been given to managers in this scheme. The more discretionary powers we give the more the people who have been harassed become frightened of making a complaint. Therefore, it is more important to build in some type of an independent commission that has these kinds of powers.
Another area we are not very sensitive to is the harassment of disabled people within the work place. People who have disabilities frequently are subject to belittlement, to crude comments or to designs of the work place that are a physical harassment because they
Government Orders
do not allow them to function to their maximum ability within the working community.
We already heard another member talk about harassment of people who are ill. I only wish that this legislation directly applied to Canada Post. It has a horrendous record of harassment of people, particularly people who are ill. I have had a number of complaints in my riding from people who have illnesses, particularly mental health problems, and who have been systematically harassed both at work and at home about their mental illness and have been questioned about it, even with a doctor's certificate. All sorts of snide comments have been made that it is not a real illness but simply malingering, that it is a method of trying to get out of job assignments, and all sorts of things. That constitutes harassment.
Unfortunately, this legislation may not directly apply to Canada Post but it is going to be the model legislation for public corporations, particularly corporations in the federal domain. I would think it would be the model for Crown corporations in the public field, in which Canada Post is certainly a significant and major player.
I support these proposals. We all have to become much more sensitive. We have to build in mechanisms that allow for the independent review of sexual harassment and personal harassment, whether based on racial characteristics, disabilities or other things. There is personal harassment of people because of their clothing styles. It is still quite incomprehensible that in this day and age there are employees being harassed because they choose to dress slightly different than the norm of society.


An hon. member:: We cannot even come in here without a tie.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: That is true. People still report to me that they are harassed about the length of their hair. I wish I were in the position to be harassed about the length of my hair but unfortunately I am not. Young people, particularly, tell me that they still receive comments and harassment in the work place from superiors because they wear a hair-style more in keeping with the younger people in this country than with the middle-aged managers in their departments. We have to be much more sensitive about this.

June 23, 1992
These are good proposals. They include an independent commission and the responsibility to report findings and corrective measures back to the worker involved. Make sure the investigation is done by an employee of the commission, not some other nebulous person. It would be a tremendous step forward to ensuring that harassment in a workplace ceases.


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. 0.31
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Bank of Canada recently published a special newsletter issue on Canada's 125th anniversary. It says that Canada has become what is called the first international nation in the world and that this remarkable cultural diversity should be viewed as a source of strength and national pride.
I am in complete agreement with that and urge the members of this House to keep working at making this cultural mosaic even better by making full use of the varied resources at our disposal. Canada is a country where every one has the right and the duty to make their difference known.


PESTICIDE CONTAINER RECYCLING
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers in co-operation with agrichemical companies, the Crop Protection Institute, federal and provincial governments and rural municipalities are speaking with action to promote environmental stewardship of the land.
One excellent example is a program where fanners bring their used pesticide containers to collection sites where they are recycled into products such as fence posts and reinforcing bars.
The University of Guelph Centre for Toxicology has tested these products and found them to be totally safe to humans and the environment.
Just a few years ago, up to 5 million chemical containers were used on farms annually. Today, in some parts of the country, up to 80 per cent of these are being returned by farmers to the sites for recycling.
This week collection sites are being set up in the maritimes and Quebec. Through the efforts of farmers and the Crop Protection Institute, what was once a disposal problem has been turned into an environmentally and economically viable solution.


CANADIAN OLYMPIC COINS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, in 1976 the Government of Canada to finance the Montreal Olympics issued $5 and $10 coins. These coins were guaranteed to be worth everything one paid for them, were always to be a good investment and were certified to be worth their face value.
The profit on the coins was retained by the government and the surplus earned on the sale of the coins was turned over to finance the games.
Again in 1988 in Calgary, the government did the same thing. The government issued $10 and $20 silver coins. The promise was the same. The coins would always be worth their face value.
These coins cannot be cashed. No one will cash them. Coin dealers will give 50 cents on the $1 for these coins. I suggest that something be done to honour Canada's reputation before our coinage becomes worthless.


CANADA 125 CELEBRATIONS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is exciting to see that so many Canadians are in the mood to celebrate Canada's 125th birthday next week.
In my riding of Hamilton Mountain, a Canada 125 party I recently hosted was attended by more than 500 people.
This is a great country and we have much to celebrate.
One thing has puzzled and disturbed me and many of my constituents who have heard the song Listen to the Land, which has been chosen as the Canada 125 song. The song is very pretty but the lyrics do not contain the
June 23, 1992

word "Canada". In fact, there is nothing in the lyrics to signify the song is about Canada. It could be about any country in the world or if it were still national, a great VIA Rail commercial.
It was the Minister of Communications who organized the contest to choose this song and provided the $10,000 award. I wonder if the minister would agree to have the word "Canada" inserted in the lyrics before July 1, Canada's birthday.
I want to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and everyone in the House, and indeed all Canadians a very happy Canada Day.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK
Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Sarnia-Lambton did yesterday, I want to stress the importance of this seventh annual Occupational Health and Safety Week, which continues until this coming Saturday, June 27.
We must not seek a competitive edge and increased productivity at the expense of the health and safety of our workers. They are our most precious resource. We must be as inventive and vigilant in protecting our employees as in preserving other vital interests. Health and safety also influence the level of prosperity and quality of life achieved by Canadians.
Labour Canada has the mandate to develop progressive policies to ensure that workers and managers carry out their occupational health and safety obligations toward each other. The Minister of Labour met with his provincial and territorial counterparts two months ago to look at the possibility of further harmonizing Canadian legislation in this area. All agreed action was urgently needed and will be paying closer attention to this national issue.
As members of Parliament, we too should exercise our influence to support any initiative aimed at improving regulations dealing for instance with building safety, dangerous substances or the handling and storage of materials. On the occasion of the Occupational Health and Safety Week-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, a very popular French singer, Yves Duteil, was saying in his song La langue de chez nous, that French is "a melodious language, with wonderful words which flow through history".
On the eve of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Frenchspeaking people have good reasons to be proud. French Canadians are no longer alone in celebrating then-national day. They are now joined by a growing number of francophiles like me whose mother tongue is not French. We had the good fortune of learning it and sharing it with our families.
We celebrate with pride this Canadian heritage. This is why I wish to all my friends and constituents, and all Quebecers, a merry and festive Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.


ATLANTIC SALMON
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: While there appears to be broad and instinctive support in Canada for the concept of native self-government, there are a great many Canadians who are concerned about what that concept will ultimately mean in terms of practical applications.
Nowhere do these concerns exist more currently than among those who are committed to the conservation, indeed the preservation, of the Atlantic salmon. This magnificent resource has been declining under serious pressure by all users for many years. Despite conservation measures on all sides which have been introduced recently, the continued use of gill-nets by many native people constitutes a serious ongoing threat to the salmon's future.
Surely, the fundamental principle of self-government is one of responsibility and self-control. It is in that context that I call upon native fishermen to consider their own interests and obligations with respect to the Atlantic salmon and to voluntarily abandon gill-netting as some bands have already done in favour of a less destructive method of exercising their fishing rights.

June 23, 1992
The salmon is a symbol of our environmental integrity. Let it also become a symbol of responsible self-government by all Canadians.


TRADING CARDS
Dawn Black: The
Minister of National Revenue said he would stop the importation of mass murderer trading cards which outline the grisly actions of over 100 serial killers. He has failed.
These cards are currently being sold to children and adults in stores across Canada. They tell children, for example, how one man raped and killed four women, removed portions of their corpses as trophies, dressed their bodies in underclothes from his collection and photographed them.
Our obscenity laws are out of date. I call on the Minister of Justice to amend the Criminal Code along the lines of the Supreme Court Butler decision to deal with the presence in Canada of violent and sexually violent materials, not just their importation.
Consensual sex itself is not obscene, but violence, murder, degradation and dehumanization is, with or without sex.
What will the government do about the violent images that have become an ordinary part of our children's lives?


CANADIAN SIKH COMMUNITY
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: I have a letter from the World Sikh Organization of Canada referring to the National Alliance of Canadian Sikhs. I would like to quote from that letter: "The interference from the minister of multiculturalism in our community is truly appalling. Such an act is common in the Third World, but in a civilized country like Canada it should not happen. It undermines our credibility as a nation."
"The World Sikh Organization has represented Sikhs since 1984 without any grants or subsidies, either provincial or federal. This in itself is proof that we are truly representative of our community. Sikhs believe in the World Sikh Organization enough that they are willing to pay from their pockets to keep us running".
"After spending $130,000 of taxpayers' money, Mr. Weiner calls the alliance the principal organization of Sikhs. This is an insult to our community. We are being approached by Sikhs in all walks of life to seek your support to advise the minister of multiculturalism to stop his unwarranted interference". It is signed by Ram Chahal.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on this eve of Quebec day and, shortly, Canada Day, I wish all my constituents in Abitibi merry celebrations.
May these celebrations be evidence of fraternity and unity, allowing us to share our pride of being Quebecers and Canadians. Filled with pride for our identity, let us look toward the future with confidence and optimism.


BREAST CANCER
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, every two hours in Canada a woman dies from breast cancer. More than 14,000 Canadian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year and more than
5,000	will lose their lives to this disease.
Despite these grim statistics, many questions remain about the disease such as, what causes it, how best to detect it and how best to treat it.
I therefore welcome last week's breast cancer report by status of women sub-committee which calls on governments, the medical community and the general public to answer these questions. Finding these answers must become a national goal and a national challenge because breast cancer affects not only women, but also their families, communities and indeed the whole country.
June 23, 1992

I urge the government to adopt the principles of the sub-committee report on breast cancer and to support my private member's motion which calls on the government to take effective action against breast cancer.


SHOP CANADA DAY
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the initiative of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, its president, Dick Dolphin, its executive director, Rebecca Johnson, and all of their out-shopping committee and thanks to the members of this House for their gracious consent, Saturday, July 4, 1992 has been proclaimed Shop Canada Day.
This is a great opportunity for all retailers, large and small, in Canada through advertising to invite their customers to shop at home on July 4. Let me suggest to all retailers in this country that they run a trailer in all their advertisements reminding Canadians to shop on July 4 in Canada.
Today, I will be asking Eaton's and Simpsons, the largest retailers in Canada, to incorporate that in their advertisements.
This is a great opportunity for all Canadians to work together to make Shop Canada Day a success and make all Canadians think about shopping at home.
Let us protect Canadian industries. Let us protect our retailers in Canada. Above all, let us protect those jobs that those retail industries will bring to our country.


MILTON POST OFFICE
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, there was a time when members of Parliament had a lot to say about the affairs of the post office.
In most rural areas the post office was the one direct and visual link between the people and the Government of Canada. Naturally MPs took strong notice of constituents' concerns regarding postal issues. Most rural MPs still do. Certainly I do.
Canada Post has been a Crown corporation since 1981, operating increasingly at arm's length from government. Canada Post officials say they have removed politics from the post office.
Nevertheless, the people in rural and small-town Canada still expect their MPs to be able to do something and influence decisions regarding the post office. That is why 650 residents of Milton have written to me during the past week with a plea that I save their post office.
I took that plea to officials of Canada Post who listened but who will not budge from their unpopular conversion policy. In the case of Milton, a centrally located and convenient post office will be replaced by an inconveniently located RPO on the edge of town.
People in Milton are mad and dissatisfied and I urge Canada Post to reconsider this bad decision.


DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-22, the amendment to the Patent Act, was passed in 1987, the government and the multinational drug companies pledged to create jobs and to hold down drug prices.
They have done neither. They no longer talk about the promised 3,000 research jobs which have not materialized. In fact 700 jobs have been lost in drug manufacturing. The cost of drugs has risen faster than any other component of health care costs.
Where do the Liberals stand on Bill C-91 tabled in this House today that will kill the uniquely Canadian generic drug industry? Their consumer spokesperson stated this morning that he supported the prices review board which approved all these inflationary drug prices and increases for multinational drug companies.
Who is the chief spokesperson and lobbyist for the multinational drug companies? None other than Judy Erola, former Liberal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That is like making the shepherd the spokesperson for the wolves.


PROFESSIONAL WOMEN
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, while women professionals have made great strides in establishing their abilities in a number of professions, they have been less successful in achieving substantial progress in the engineering field.

June 23, 1992
The proposal to build institutions for women offenders across Canada provides a unique opportunity to address this problem and encourage women engineers and architects.
My proposal is that women engineers and architects be given special consideration when selecting professional services for the design and construction of these institutions for women.
I urge the Solicitor General to take careful note of this request and act upon it. Otherwise women engineers and architects will not achieve the advances they deserve.


THE CONSTITUTION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, Parliament rises today and will remain in recess until such time as Your Honour calls us back for matters relating to the Constitution, whether it be a referendum or other business dealing with proposals.
I say to every member in this House and to every Canadian that this is a time of reality and a time of coming to grips with yet another challenge in Canadian history. It should be looked at as another challenge because we have had many in the past.
From now until such time as we return, let us consider the examples set by great statesmen like Baldwin and Lafontaine in the years leading up to Confederation, George-Etienne Cartier and Macdonald, the Fathers of Confederation in 1867, and all responsible MPs who have sat in this House over the years.
Let us also remember, as we come down to the constitutional discussions this summer and fall, that common sense, decency, fairness, flexibility, the love of nationhood, and loyalty and dedication to Canada must stand foremost and out front.
That should be the objective of each and every one of us in this Parliament of Canada as we work together to try to blend a good constitutional arrangement for the future of Canada.



Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Sarnia-Lambton have always exhibited three basic qualities: optimism, confidence and pride.
In our community, the discussions on the Constitution have been no different. First and foremost, my constituents are proud to be Canadians. The deliberations under the Sarnia-Lambton constituent assembly are a good example.
My constituents are also optimistic that a constitutional deal can be reached. They are confident that in the end, we will pull together as a people and as a country.
Today, on behalf of my constituents, I rise to express thanks to all parties involved, especially to the Prime Minister and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. I thank them for their unrelenting resolve and leadership in reaching a negotiated settlement.
To the provinces, aboriginal groups and other participants, I also thank them for their commitment and determination for bringing about meaningful and lasting constitutional change.



TRIBUTE TO HOUSE OF COMMONS PAGES

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to make a statement about our pages.
All members will agree that these young people have diligently fulfilled their duty over the year. Their dedication and hard work reflect well on the rest of our Canadian youth. Parliamentary pages are the ambassadors of youth on the Hill and they served it well.

I am sure hon. members will want to join me in thanking the parliamentary pages whose term will end shortly.
As they prepare to leave we extend our best wishes, and perhaps some of them will one day return to the Chamber to sit among us.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
June 23, 1992


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I also wish these young people every success.

Every one of us has enjoyed them. They have worked hard and have learned a lot about Canada in meeting members from across the land.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Since this is the last day of the session and there is still a great deal of uncertainty about the constitutional future of this country, could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that any agreement his government will try to conclude will contain two very important components that were supported by this House? I am referring to a strong economic union in Canada and the preservation and promotion of the linguistic duality of our country, two aspects that were emphasized by Parliament and which we absolutely want to see in the constitutional agreement we hope to obtain very shortly.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs happens to be working on obtaining these two provisions, among other things. I am referring to the two clauses relating to economic union and linguistic duality, which would in any event be major clauses in any constitutional agreement.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister on the subject of a strong economic union in Canada. Constitutional negotiation cannot be a one-way street going in the direction of devolution. If we want to face a strong future for all Canada, we need to make sure that the movement of people, goods, capital and services will be protected and enhanced in the new Constitution.
Oral Questions
Could the Prime Minister give a clear assurance to the House of Commons that the notion of a strong economic union to strengthen the federation will be part of the negotiations and the results of the negotiations in the days to come?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have been seeking to obtain this kind of a clause precisely because of the difficulties my hon. friend has indicated that he encountered himself 10 years ago when we failed to incorporate this kind of clause in the Constitution in 1981-82.
I say that recognizing that my hon. friend tried to have it achieved. Unfortunately it was rejected at that time. We have made some improvements and we are going to try to make certain that the concept of an economic union will be accepted.
Obviously there is something bizarre when there are fewer trade barriers existing in Europe among 12 sovereign countries than there are among 10 Canadian provinces and two territories.
Canadians seem to be all in favour of liberalization of trade outside but not within our own boundaries. It does not make a great deal of sense that a company from Toronto would, for example, have to dig up bricks that were put in a street in the Outaouais, in Hull, because they did not meet certain provincial requirements. This is destructive of productivity. It is destructive of enhancing our competitiveness.
The provinces have to understand themselves. They talk about one Canada. One way they can strengthen one Canada is by lowering trade barriers within Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the Prime Minister. It is what we have always said. It would have been more logical to have an economic union within Canada before having one with the United States and Mexico.
In order to achieve this goal that we all share in the House of Commons, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Does he agree with the opposition that if the people of Canada were to be consulted in a national referendum they would tell the premiers and those who oppose a real economic union in Canada that they are wrong, that we need one in Canada and that the best way is to consult the Canadian people in a national referendum?

June 23, 1992
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why the government brought in legislation in respect of a referendum was precisely to keep open for Parliament that option in the event that the premiers or the first ministers failed to agree on methods of strengthening Canada and strengthening our Constitution including the economic union.
As my hon. friend knows, I have not set aside at all any of the possibilities. I will be meeting with the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, with Mr. Tellier and with others over the next couple of days. I will be consulting with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP. We will take whatever actions are appropriate to do what most of us in this House-not all, there are a few exceptions-want to do and what most Canadians want to do.
They want to keep Canada and they want the economy modernized. As well they want the Constitution modernized, brought up to date for 1992.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They want to be consulted.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that they want to be consulted. Indeed I think he would acknowledge there has been historic consultation in the process so far. No doubt we could do more, but most of all the objective is to strengthen Canada, to maintain Canada, and to promote and strengthen the unity of Canada.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House shares with the Prime Minister the desire to see a true economic union in Canada. It has been an essential element in our position on the Constitution from the veiy beginning.
So it has been for many governments in the past. There have been governments after governments, not just 10 years ago but for most of Canada's 125 years, that have asked for or sought a true economic union in our country.
Could the Prime Minister state whether that is a basic position of his government on completing the constitutional talks? Is he committing his government to that requirement? If so, could he tell the House which of the provinces have now agreed to a true economic union in our country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have indicated that many people
including the Leader of the Opposition have regretted the fact that among the weaknesses of the 1981-82 arrangement was the absence of this kind of economic union clause.
When we brought forward our proposals, I think on September 23 or September 28 last, they contained recommendations in regard to an economic union. They then found their way into the Beaudoin-Dobbie report. We have been building on this, trying to persuade the provinces of not only the value but the indispensable nature of lowering barriers to trade among Canadians.
That has been our objective. The Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and Mr. Tellier are out today doing precisely that.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that in the Meech Lake proposals there was any such commitment on the part of the government.
Let me ask the Prime Minister this. He himself has drawn attention to the rapidity with which Europe is moving toward a single market. Here in North America this government has committed itself to a North American free trade agreement with enforceable provisions.
Is it his commitment to the Canadian people that in seeking a true economic union in Canada there will be provision for its enforcement through an internal trade tribunal or some other device to ensure compliance with a true economic union in our country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that I certainly would not be opposed in any way to that kind of concept.
I find it very strange indeed that provincial premiers would be asking, for example, for some jurisdiction in international trade. They want to play a larger role in international trade. I can understand their request, but they turn around the next day and are disinclined even to lower barriers from one province to another.
It is a kind of advanced thinking in respect of international trade but very parochial thinking in some cases in regard to trade among provinces in Canada.
My hon. friend says that the Meech Lake proposals did not contain an economic union clause. He is quite right. As he will remember, the premiers met in August 1986 in Edmonton. The premiers requested the Quebec round designed specifically to bring Quebec back into the signing of the Constitution.

This was a course of action that was encouraged by the Leader of the Opposition in December 1984 when he strongly advised me to begin negotiating with Quebec with a view to bringing Quebec back into the Constitution. That is exactly what we sought to do. It was for that reason there was no economic union clause at that time. Obviously this is something we should continue to fight for and it is part and parcel of our constitutional objectives.


HEALTH CARE
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I believe every Canadian is aware of the great crisis our health care system is in, both as we see funding cut back and increased demand.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, given that just before the Canada-U.S. trade deal this government introduced Bill C-22 limiting generic drug availability in this country, why now, just before the NAFTA talks may be concluded, this government insists on increasing the limitations on competition for generic drug companies. Why is this government introducing legislation that would undermine further the ability of provinces and territories to finance their drug plans and subsequently their universal health care system?
I want to ask the government why it has chosen once again to favour multinational corporations over the health care of citizens of this country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I announced on January 14 of this year our intention to comply with the proposal in the Dunkel paper on the GATT talks which provided for the elimination of compulsory licences for all member states.
Canada has been out of step with the rest of the world as the only industrialized country which did have a compulsory licensing system. It was the proposal of Mr. Oral Questions
Dunkel to see this eliminated as part of the freedom of trade in products based on patents.
We have seen a delay in the GATT negotiations but we believe it is important, since we are in a very competitive world, to attract this type of high quality, high R and D, high value-added investment to Canada and in that way create jobs and economic growth and welfare in Canada. That is important to our country.
It is on that basis that we decided to proceed to eliminate any lack of understanding or lack of confidence that could be perceived and in that way ensure that the $320 million worth of investments that have been committed for Canada would indeed come to Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This country has seen cutbacks by the federal government to health care that have resulted in a loss of jobs in the health care professions across this country and in health care services.

On January 15 the minister said that if the price of drugs increased faster than the rate of inflation this would kill the health insurance system.
Well, that is exactly what happened. According to a report by Green Shield in Ontario, the price of drugs manufactured by multinationals has increased 11.4 per cent since 1987. My question for the minister is this: What will the minister of health do to prevent his predictions from coming true?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think the report to which the leader of the New Democratic Party referred, the Green Shield report, includes the salaries of pharmacists in the price of drugs. I think we should put this report in perspective like all the other reports that have been mentioned.
As for the price of drugs, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology believes that the bill tabled today represents an increase of practically zero per cent for this year and up to 2 per cent by the year 2000.1 think the bill tabled today is a commitment.

June 23, 1992
Oral Questions
Furthermore, last week I gave the health ministers the assurance that everything would be done to guarantee a reasonable price, and that is what we did after Bill C-22, a bill the hon. member severely criticized, but in the final instance the hon. member must admit today that the government was right. Canadians know we will apply the same procedures.
As the minister of health, I do not expect prices to increase beyond what is reasonable.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
I am surprised that the minister is not concerned that under the current rules the generic drug industry has saved the Canadian health care system $1 billion a year, $1 billion which is so badly needed by the health care system in this country. The provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and British Columbia have already commented that this legislation will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
The government says it does not have choices in health care. The government does have choices in health care. It is true that the generic drug industry has helped keep prices to the consumer down.
Why does the government insist on supporting multinationals instead of those most vulnerable in our society, the sick and the elderly who need to have reasonable drug prices?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada supports research and development. It is a little different from what she said. Second, I will give her real figures.
Listen to me. The difference between the drug industry, the pharmaceuticals, the innovative drugs and the generic drugs is about $300 million a year; $225 million is for off-patent drugs which will continue tomorrow as today. It means that we have $75 million and half of that $75 million is covered by the health care system. It means about a $30 million increase for all the provinces in Canada.
Do you not believe, Mr. Speaker, that we need to encourage research and development of drugs in Canada for that $30 million? I believe it is a very good deal for Canadians.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Ten days ago, the President of Mexico announced in Rio that he would seek to conclude not only a free trade agreement but also a common market with Brazil.
What would the effect of such initiatives be for Canada in its agreement with the United States and Mexico?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, our first objective is to complete negotiations with Mexico and the United States to complete a North American free trade agreement.
If following that there is interest from other countries, whether it is Brazil or Chile, which are two countries that have indicated some interest in this, then that is a step we could contemplate at that time. Our first objective is to complete the negotiations with the United States and Mexico.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not responding to my question. On the other hand, he is being consistent.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister was unable to comment on how new country accession would occur within the North American free trade agreement. Three weeks ago the Minister for Science was not aware of the significance of Chile's initiatives with the United States and Mexico. Latin American governments are on the move and it is very clear that this government has lost control of the agenda.
So that Canadians might better judge the Mexican agreement, will the government undertake to provide them, prior to signing NAFTA, with a paper setting out its trade agenda for all of Latin America, if indeed, it has one?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to respond to my hon. friend's questions when he has a question to which I can respond. When he asks hypothetical questions, it is difficult to come up with a response that will meet his requirements.
June 23, 1992

He asks a question that indicates he is supportive of the North American free trade agreement being completed and being extended to countries like Brazil and Chile. As we have indicated before in this House, there is a good possibility that we might in future negotiations increase the free trade zone to other countries. At this stage it is important for us to simply contemplate the terms of the one negotiation before going further.
Clearly a free trade zone that encompassed these other countries that are going through a reform similar to what Mexico has done do deserve the support of countries like Canada.



Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Earlier today the government tabled legislation which effectively puts an end to compulsory drug licensing in Canada, a system which has saved Canadian consumers up to $1 billion annually on the cost of prescription medications.
At the very time that this government has been lecturing provincial governments about spiralling health care costs, how could it possibly justify introducing legislation which certainly will lead to higher health care costs in the provinces?
[Translation\


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, PMPRB, was tabled in Parliament earlier today. It reports that last year, as in the previous five years, the price increase for patented medicines was under 3 per cent, 1.5 per cent less than the Consumer Price Index. This shows that the system in place has kept patented medicine prices for which we are responsible from increasing.
Oral Questions
Furthermore, the new government policy announced today is that beyond the $1.1 billion in investment obtained since 1987, the increase last year alone of nearly 24 per cent more investment in Canada means $2 billion in investment for Canadian drug companies over the next five years. That means jobs and better medication for people in hospitals. It is a plus for Canada and Canadians.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
It is very clear that this government has the support of the multinational drug industry in eliminating compulsory licences in Canada. What is less sure, however, is whether or not this government has the support of the provincial health care ministers in doing the same thing.
I want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he has the support of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia in eliminating compulsory licences, thereby increasing provincial health care costs.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I informed the ministers of health in Canada about the policy and of course the ministers had questions. I said that during the summer, particularly on the 25th and 26th at the deputy ministers' level, we will have meetings to determine exactly the conditions that the provinces would like to see put in the legislation to be sure that we will have control of the legislation.
The provinces will support it when they are sure that the recommendations they made will be considered. But by and large, we do not make recommendations before the legislation is tabled in this country.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, we had questions last week about information the Ministry of National Health and Welfare had in 1989 calling for action on breast implants and this government's failure to act.

June 23, 1992
Oral Questions
I have in my hand a document which shows clear alarm in the department of medical devices in 1987, five years ago, five years of pain and suffering for women with defective implants.
Will the minister admit the failure of his ministry to act for Canadian women facing the need for implants or for those more particularly who already have had implants?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I could provide as many documents as the member does, but I will not because all the documents we have on breast implants have already been tabled.
We know the way the department works. I will answer at the same time the fallacies raised by the member for Hamilton East last week about that. I would like to correct what she said.
The Department of National Health and Welfare makes decisions at the bureaucratic level on whether or not to accept certain kinds of implants. The decision is not made by the minister. At no time were documents presented to the then minister to make a decision. It was made by the officials of the department, on scientific evidence, as it always is done.
All documents are provided to the people who make the decision at the departmental level. So do not say that the documents go to the minister for a decision. It never happened.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I never said that the document went to the minister. I said his department had failed. I asked him to admit that his department had failed.
Last Friday, the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration said that this government did not want to deal with the past but wanted to deal with the present and the future. Yet we have women in provinces in this country today who are unable to get the help they need to deal with failed implants. We have had not one, not two, but three Ministers of National Health and Welfare, successive ministers, who have failed to act while these women suffered. Will the minister tell us that he will ensure a woman's ability to get implants removed without having to depend on her own pocket-book and not depending on whether or not her implant was cosmetic?
Second, will the minister tell us what arrangements were made at last week's provincial health ministers meeting to ensure that Canadian women will get the care they so badly need?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that the silicone gel breast implant was removed from the market last January and the ban was imposed and maintained since last April.


Joy Langan: But not on our bodies.


Benoît Bouchard: I want to deal with that issue in the best way I can. If the member wants to listen to me, that is exactly what we are trying to do. We have put forward different studies since April. She knows that the report I received from Dr. Baines' committee asked for many recommendations which we are trying to follow in order to give women in Canada the best guarantee on any kind of breast implant. As long as we do not have the assurance, we will not permit its use again.
In the meantime, women who have already had breast implants will be asked to report to their physician. We are looking to the physicians and doctors offices as the best way to answer any questions women have. This is what we want to do and I know it is what the member wants done. If the member wants to work with me and the department, we will certainly give her the answer. Once again, it is not in the way the member works that we will find the answer.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade and concerns the negotiations with the United States and Mexico.
On May 12, in answer to a question from my colleague from Saint-Leonard, the minister told the House that he was trying to improve the Canadian position in the textile and clothing sectors.
He said: "The basis on which we are negotiating -is to have a special access to the United States market which would be greater than the access provided under the free trade agreement".
June 23, 1992

Has the minister been able to obtain better access for the textile and clothing sectors?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is aware of the status of the negotiations. We are not satisfied nor is the clothing sector satisfied with the current state of the negotiations. That is why we continue to press for greater access than has been offered at this point.
We will continue to do that, working closely in consultation with both the clothing and the textile sectors in order to ensure that there is balance also between these two segments of industry which are so closely interrelated.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is not satisfied with the current state of negotiations. He knows that the mistakes that he made in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement are coming back to haunt him today.
I would ask the minister to state categorically that he will not sign a North American free trade agreement which would mean a further restriction of Canada's ability to export clothing to the United States.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the FTA. I think that there are some segments in the clothing sector that have made considerable strides in developing the improved access that they have from the FTA into increased business. There are a number of companies in his region that would qualify for that description.
We will continue to improve as best we can the access that is there, as I said working closely with the industry as well as with the textile sector, which is also an important industry in his province and in that way try to get the best possible deal that we can for those two industries.


NCC GREENBELT
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. The greenbelt
Oral Questions
lands here in the nation's capital were created in the 1960s by the federal government to protect environmentally sensitive lands, to limit urban sprawl, and to enhance the nation's capital. Recent actions by the National Capital Commission have Nepean and other area municipalities concerned that there is movement away from the original objectives for these lands.
Does this government plan on maintaining the status quo on all greenbelt lands or are these lands in fact up for sale piece by piece?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform the member for Nepean, whose interest I greatly appreciate in these matters, that the NCC as she probably knows is conducting a major review on the greenbelt to re-examine and redefine the use of the lands, and to ensure these lands continue to enhance the quality of life of the national capital into the next century.
Any changes that will be made on a case by case basis will be looked at closely and all levels of government and affected residents will be consulted. I can assure her there is no drastic change contemplated. We continue to exercise the most careful stewardship over these lands.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. I have here a letter which clearly reflects the wishes of the majority of the people in this region and it states: "We do not want the greenbelt lands severed and sold for residential and commercial development". Can the minister give a clear undertaking to this House here today that this will not happen in the national capital region?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly identify with those sentiments. I want to assure my colleague again that any such steps affecting these lands will be taken after close examination on a case by case basis, after close consultation with all levels of government, and with adjacent owners.
I see no likelihood of any of these lands being severed and sold for residential purposes except in perhaps very exceptional circumstances. I certainly do not endorse such a policy.

June 23, 1992
Oral Questions OLYMPIC COINS


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization. The government has known for a long time the banks will not accept the Olympic coins issued at the time of the 1976 Olympics or the 1988 Olympics for their face value or in any way at all.
These coins were issued, as the minister knows, on the undertaking by the government that the coins were true coins of the realm, they would always be worth their face value. They were issued at a premium but they would always be worth their face value as a good investment. Is the government prepared to redeem these coins at face value?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows because he has been kept right up to date, this matter is actively being pursued by the Department of Finance. I can assure him however that the stability of the Canadian currency is not based on the value of Olympic coins.


FISHERIES
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and relates to the fact that the deputy minister negotiated with aboriginal nations in British Columbia a number of co-management agreements in the fishing industry. The deputy then reneged on those agreements and has refused to meet with the aboriginal nations concerned.
Would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans order the deputy minister to go to British Columbia to meet with those aboriginal nations, to complete those fisheries co-management agreements, and then honour them?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the assumptions or suggestions of fact contained in that question.
The Deputy Minister of Fisheries and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries were both in British Columbia last week. They have done a first-class job of
conciliating and dealing with the various conflicting interests in the fishery in British Columbia, including the aboriginal peoples.
They will meet with aboriginal leaders from time to time as that is required. I certainly have no intention of issuing such instructions on such unspecifics. The member's question lacks all specificity and all decency and all truth.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps to offer some specifics, the minister will be well aware that the Shuswap Nation in the interior of British Columbia has operated for the past 10 years in good faith with the co-operative management programs of the department.
They just learned from the deputy minister that their fisheries program which is funding for fish stock production and enhancement activities will be cut by in excess of $1 million this fiscal year. This will put their entire fisheries program in jeopardy and make it impossible for their hatchery, which was a training hatchery, to be able to continue.
On those two specifics would the minister indicate a willingness at least to meet with representatives of the Shuswap Nation to discuss these cuts and the implications this would have in terms of their future co-management production?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately or fortunately, we have disciplines imposed upon us with respect to the amount of money that is available for various purposes so we cannot always spend all of the money on good causes that we would like to spend.
However, we do not spend our time straddling every issue. It is a miracle to see how the NDP are such expert straddlers. On the one hand they are supporters of the aboriginal interests and on the other hand whenever there is any complaint from any other conflicting interest or the fishery, they write to me and support the other conflicting interest too. Get your act together.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
June 23, 1992


HOUSING
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
It has been encouraging to note that housing industry activity in Canada has been increasing in recent months. For example, at the end of the last period, May 31, for the first five months this year housing starts were just over 52,000, whereas a year ago at this time they were under 40,000. We have a long way to go to recover the pre-recession levels of housing activity in this country, but we have a good start.
I would like to ask the minister if the measures which were introduced to stimulate housing earlier this year have had an impact and, if so, which of the two, the 95 per cent mortgage or the RRSP funding, has been most effective.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform my colleague that there is some good news from the housing sector these days. There is more to be done of course but some of these measures have had a noticeable effect.
I guess the most encouraging one would be the 5 per cent down payment provision, the first-home buyer's loan provision, which since February has resulted in about 30,000 such purchases, about 1,000 in Nova Scotia and about 800 in the province of New Brunswick. The encouraging thing is that a survey done by Canada Mortgage and Housing shows that about 75 per cent of these transactions would not have occurred without this program.
Another thing that is encouraging is the budgetary measure involving the RRSPs which also has been positive but which is not as easy to quantify.
Of course the most beneficial policy of all, as the House knows, has been the unprecedented low rate of inflation and interest rates which have contributed greatly to housing in this country and have made homes much more affordable.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
On May 4 at the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans the minister stated a number of times that the safety and effectiveness of wharfs was his top priority. Since that time little has been done in my riding of Egmont or, indeed, in Prince Edward Island.
Given the serious state of disrepair of wharfs like Tignish Run and Miminigash and the need for dredging at wharfs like Howards Cove and Milligan's Shore, can the minister assure the fishermen at these ports that emergency work will be carried out immediately?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question sounded like a line from an Irish Rover song. Luckily I happen to have on hand a report on the Howards Cove, Miminigash, Milligan's Shore, and Tignish wharfs. I must be psychic.
We have 90 projects at over 50 harbours in P.E.I. and we will spend in excess of $2.6 million. I do not have much time. At Howards Cove the harbour basin dredging has begun. At Miminigash the breakwater reconstruction project is in the engineering stage. A public tender should be called in August.
Your colleagues are shouting me down so I have to stop.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I probably should insist on this going on the Order Paper but the hon. member has a very short supplemental.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the very generous leprechaun, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I am sure he is aware that a few years ago a number of fishermen lost their lives at Alberton because of the lack of dredging and the lack of response to requests to have dredging done. I am sure like myself the minister would not like to see that action recur.

Oral Questions
Can the minister say today before the House rises-he can give me the date after Question Period-when this work will be done?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with reference to Milligan's Shore, we are hoping to fund the dredging required there within the budget of the region. We will have a survey of the required dredging available by the end of June.
A reconstruction project at the Tignish co-op wharf would cost in excess of $2 million and there is little probability I can fund it in the near future, unless somebody provides me with more money than it looks at the moment they are going to provide me.


SENIORS INDEPENDENCE PROGRAMS
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In February 1988 the government made a commitment to spend $120 million over five years on seniors independence programs. After five years we see the government has spent just over half of what it had promised.
Why has the government cut back on these independence programs? I ask the minister if the programs will be continued and if the funding will be continued.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, our government respects its commitments. This independence program for seniors has been supported for nearly five years. So that groups could present projects that could be spread over two or three years, I asked Treasury Board to carry forward $3.5 million until
1993-94. There have been no cuts in program funding. We have wonderful programs and projects and we will always continue to support the energy, assertiveness and will to act of Canada's seniors.


CREDIT CARDS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The bank rate now stands at 5.91 per cent.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John R. Rodriguez: The average credit card interest rate is 17.5 per cent, more than three times the bank rate.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame.


John R. Rodriguez: Is the minister prepared to call in the heads of Canada's largest financial institutions and instruct them to lower the interest rates on credit cards, or is he prepared to let them enjoy the music of: "Oh, what a friend we have in Pierre"?


Mr. Shields:: Don't borrow on your credit card. [Translation]


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member did not mention it, I think that the committee on consumer and corporate affairs will table its report on credit cards today. I received a preliminary copy of this document.
I find it too bad that my colleague from Nickel Belt again wanted to be the black sheep by not signing the report, which could have been unanimous. I will have to study both reports, the one from the committee and the one from the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I will soon have the time to examine the recommendations made to the government. I think that the committee did an excellent job and we will be back shortly to respond to its recommendations.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. John Burdett, member of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of South Australia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
June 23, 1992


POINT OF ORDER
Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask leave of the House. During Question Period the minister said that he had tabled all documentation regarding breast implants.
I believe the document that I referred to has not been tabled and I would ask for leave or unanimous consent to table it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for that?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Benoît Bouchard: I do not have any problem with that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be consent for the document to be tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Frank Oberle: that Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Copyright Act, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee of the Departmental envelope.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon on this bill to amend the Copyright Act. You know that my colleague, the Minister of Communications and myself share different responsibilities regarding intellectual property and I follow very closely this whole issue of copyright and this legislation at second reading today.
However, before discussing this bill in detail I would like to say a word about the context of this bill. Four years ago the members of this House passed a reform of the Copyright Act which had not been amended in any significant way since 1921. In so doing we confirmed the judicial recognition of the exclusive right of the author to authorize the use of his work and to profit from it, as is
Government Orders
fitting, since the very object of the legislation is to protect creative activities.
Evidently the copyright concept has changed considerably in the last 20 years. Originally it only included printed works but technology largely contributed to expand this concept. However, technical progress has not only changed the concept and the scope of copyright but also the relation between the creator and the user. It is with this reality in mind that our government undertook to revise the Copyright Act. So while having the fundamental objective of protecting creators the legislation also tries to create a fair balance between the parties.
The bill that will be read for the second time today reflects the efforts made by this government to ensure that the importance of copyright and intellectual property in general be adequately recognized. Among other things this bill changes the definition of musical work.
Under this technical change, any work of music or musical composition, with or without words, is musical work.

As previously defined a musical work consisted of any combination of melody and harmony, or either of them, printed, reduced to writing or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced.
This definition has a very limited scope as it could effectively reduce a musical work to a simple piece of paper. This purely technical amendment is necessary to clarify a situation that has proven to be unfair to authors and composers of musical works.

In this sense the amendments tabled by the government this morning complement the ones that were made following the signature of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States on February 13, 1989.
Indeed, I remind the hon. members that under article 2006 both countries had to amend their Copyright Act regarding cable systems. This provision, as you will recall, provided for a right of remuneration for any retransmission of distant radio or television signals. This right came into effect in Canada in January 1990.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
At the same time, Canada made other amendments to the Copyright Act which include substituting the right to broadcast for the right to communicate with the public through telecommunication. Indeed, it had become urgent and essential to redefine musical work. Thanks to this new definition, SOCAN will be better able to collect on behalf of authors and composers royalties for performance and communication of their musical work.

The tabling of this technical amendment demonstrates the commitment of the Government of Canada to ensure, with the least possible delay, fair and equitable compensation to song writers and composers for the use of their musical works.

Consequently, cable system companies will have to pay SOCAN retransmission rights for specialized and payable services such as Much Music, First Choice, Family Channel and others.
[English \
As for other kinds of uses, it is the Copyright Board that will decide the amount of money to be paid after full and open hearings in which the users, as well as creators, have the chance to explain their points of view.

Moreover, this bill reflects through various provisions the distinction made in the act between the right for the performance in public of works as well as the communication to the public by telecommunication of works. These new provisions will only take effect once the bill receives royal proclamation.

In conclusion, this amendment is designed to bring immediate benefit to Canadian authors and composers. I would also point out that proceeding with this amendment now will in no way delay this government's commitment to bringing forward the proposed phase 2 amendments to the Copyright Act.
Phase 2 drafting is proceeding as planned and the consultative committee that I announced with the Minister of Communications on March 27, 1991 will start working as soon as possible.

This is a technical bill which will enable us to regulate a situation which is often referred to as a hole in the legislation. It will enable authors and composers to get a fair treatment before we get to all the details contained in the amendments to the Copyright Act.
I therefore ask my colleagues from both sides of this House to pass this legislation quickly which I think is only fair and reasonable. It will not deprive anybody of any right, but will rather regulate a situation that was deplorable.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I want to say to the minister opposite who has just deposited the bill, along with his colleague the Minister of Communications, that he gave a very clear and succinct perspective to a drafting error that was committed.
There are not many people out there who are interested in copyright. In any event, the assistant House leader knows all about copyright, but I can tell him that there are not a great number of people out there who are totally interested in intellectual property in this refined small sector although it is a vital and important sector. As a matter of fact I think it brings in about $8 million at this moment. It is of importance to a small and select and very important sector of our society.
I am really very pleased to speak to this bill and support the amendment that is being proposed after we have had hearings. I was most pleased to hear the minister say, right up front and very straightforwardly, that this technical error that was committed will be addressed in committee with a full hearing of interested and involved parties. This will include restaurants and cable people and I believe a whole series of bars, et cetera, which are concerned with the economic impact of this bill. As well, there is the effect that it might have on some legal proceedings that we have been told are a paragon of neutrality in terms of the way this bill has been written. That comes from the department staff and I would believe that they would not mislead us with respect to the concerns of the television people about their proceedings before the court.
June 23, 1992

It is a very short bill. It is not going to answer the huge second phase that so many people have been waiting for since 1987. This is not part of the exemption section that we need for many other aspects of copyright or intellectual property.
As I said, the bill is to correct a drafting error or an omission that was made when amendments to the implementation of retransmission rights were before the House as part of changes made after the 1988 free trade agreement. This technical drafting error has to do with the redefinition of a musical work. It changes the 1924 definition that did not include the transmission right itself, only what you printed on paper, in essence.
So unfortunately we have been penalizing copyright owners and creators. They have not been able to earn royalties on some of their songs that are carried by cable systems because they are linked to satellites or to other delivery systems into our homes, as different from off-air or non-broadcast things.
To give an example, composer Hagood Hardy's work, The Homecoming or Luc Plamondon's songs which are carried on CTV or Quatre Saisons and are very popular, receive a performance royalty. Bryan Adams, who is a popular English-speaking song writer, if you look at what happens to his works with Rogers Cable or Videotron, on the one hand, versus PBS and NBC on the other, he earns a royalty on a cable retransmitted distant signal, and for those in copyright land they know that as a retransmission right. So that seems to be okay.
However, Roch Voisine, who is, by the way, at the top of the charts in France, an incredible earner for Canada and a very productive song writer as well as performer, if you look at his Helene and Pourtant and Avant de partir which are carried on Videotron by Musiqueplus or on CF-Cable by Much Music, earns no royalties. I think anyone who listens to music and appreciates the intellectual vigour and the competence that is displayed in this intellectual property, would understand that this is not fair. They would expect this artist to earn a decent living out of the creative works that are appreciated by so many people.
The reason he is not collecting royalties is because of the unclear wording that is in the Copyright Act, and so
Government Orders
this is why this small minor amendment has been brought in.
There are cable companies that are arguing that they are following the Copyright Act which defines musical works as "those printed, reduced to printing or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced". It is sound on the telecommunications aspect. Well, you and I know that telecommunications today is the most pervasive force in our society and that is how it is transmitted, and it's only fair that we should make that correction.
I support what we are doing here and hope that this omission that will be addressed here in this Bill C-88 is favourably received and will move forward so that non-broadcasting services or satellite-to-cable services, which are being carried presently by Much Music, Musiqueplus, First Choice, Premier Choix YTV, Le Canal Famille, Super Channel and Super Ecran will now have to pay copyright royalties to the rightful copyright owner, be it the composer, the author or the music publisher.
The position of our party is that we give serious and positive consideration to this bill and that it be referred to committee; that we hear from all of those who are impacted upon by this bill. We believe that because of past drafting errors that this committee study is key. It would be our hope that there will not have any further errors of this nature.
There are retail stores, restaurants, bars and the CCTA so I would suggest that when we are looking at the use of radio and big screen TV videos we will hear from them and know what the issues are so that we can come back and perhaps make any types of changes that will be required and then pass this bill.
In the interests of immediate benefits to those artists, we are told that if this bill goes through on time they would start at the beginning of September to place their requests before the Copyright Board and that payments could start as early as January 1993.
With that, I hope we will have these hearings soon so that we can be finished with this error that was committed and has caused undue hardship.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Madam Speaker, I rise to indicate to the House our support of Bill C-88 in the second reading stage and to urge speedy passage by the House so that this bill can go to committee and be properly examined.
I would indicate that the bill before us is to some measure a compliment to the parliamentary co-operation that has occurred on all sides of the House.
A few months ago when the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture were meeting we had representations from SOCAN, the organization representing composers. The technical fault in the copyright legislation of 1987-88 was pointed out to us. At that stage I said: "Well why do we not tiy for a quick little amendment? I am sure we can get all-party approval". All of us at the committee thought at that time that it was obviously a mistake or an oversight by those who had drafted the copyright legislation in 1987 and that with the full agreement and co-operation of all parties in the House we could quickly change it.
We have all worked together on this to ensure that the bill before us is brought to the House so that we could correct this mistake in the copyright legislation. However, things are not always that simple and the amendments that we saw seemed to suggest that it has opened the field to other areas that we did not anticipate when we originally looked at this and heard testimony earlier this year.
Concern has been expressed to us and I am sure to many members of the House regardless of what side they sit on, about the attempt by the composers association at one stage to collect fees from little town fairs. We have had letters from little restaurateurs expressing their concern that they would have to pay copyright fees because they happened to have a radio on and the restaurant is open to the public.
We all agreed that while this flaw in the copyright legislation had to be corrected, we also should listen to the various parties affected by this amendment. Instead of giving it the speedy passage in the House in all stages, all parties agreed that we should have some committee hearings on this and try to straighten out some of the conceptions and perhaps some misconceptions there
might be about this bill. For example, we are all happy to note that the organization involved with the countiy fairs and exhibitions have reached an agreement with SOCAN and that is no longer an issue.
It is important that we attempt to straighten this out in committee and that the report of the committee comes to the House as soon as possible, hopefully for final passage, so that this basic flaw in our copyright legislation can be corrected.
I think this House is in agreement that artists should be remunerated for their intellectual and artistic work.
The copyright legislation had a serious flaw that the cable companies took advantage of. We might add that most broadcasters, in terms of the regular television and radio services, did not take advantage of this loophole and have been paying the royalties.
It was the cable companies that decided to stick to the legal meaning of the law rather than the intent. Therefore, they have escaped paying royalties.
They are making money on other people's work and artistic talents. Those artists, the creators of the compositions, should be remunerated.
What we are doing is correcting this situation to ensure that the artists do have a proper return on their work.
I urge the House to pass Bill C-88 so it will come to committee very quickly so that we can give it serious and in-depth consideration. Then it would come back to the House for third reading. Hopefully, the bill, after committee, will be such that all members of this House can agree to it and therefore give it speedy passage.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
June 23, 1992
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent to admit some travel motions at this time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[English)

James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That five members and one staff of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Fredericton, New Brunswick, from July 5 to July 8, 1992 to attend the 14th annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees;


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That three members and two staff of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries be authorized to travel to Gaspe, Ues-de-la-Madeleine, Moncton and Prince Edward Island during the adjournment of the House between July 15 and August 28, 1992, in order to conduct an evaluation of programs and activities funded under the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program and the Federal Program for Quebec Fisheries Development.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Further, that five MPs and three staff of the subcommittee on the St. Lawrence Seaway be authorized to travel to Thunder Bay, St. Catharines and Montreal, to hold meetings concerning the competitiveness of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system for a period not exceeding six days while the House is not sitting between June 23 and September 30, 1992.
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the Chief Whip of any recognized party may effect substitutions for that travel from any envelopes, by filing notice thereof with the Clerk of the Committee, and such substitutions shall be effective for the entire
Routine Proceedings
period of travel and should be effective immediately when they are received by the Clerk of the Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Finally, that three members and three staff of the subcommittee on the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General on the recodification of the general part of the Criminal Code be authorized to travel to Canberra, Australia and to Auckland and Wellington, New Zealand from September 8 to September 20, 1992, in order to participate at the 4th International Congress on Criminal Law to be held on recodification of general parts of the Criminal Code as well as to participate in working sessions with the Australian and New Zealand parliamentarians and senior officials.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have some concern with reference to what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader just introduced. I certainly have no difficulty with the travel for examination of the St. Lawrence Seaway as well as the travel to Fredericton, New Brunswick.
I must say that the matter of travelling to Australia and New Zealand to the tune of $54,000 is news to me. This was just handed to me. That seems to be an awful lot of money for a trip that I have no background information on.
With all generosity to my hon. friend, I want to say that I have no difficulty with the three trips in Canada at all. However, before I can give my support to spending $54,492 to go to Australia and New Zealand, I need some information. I do not know what kind of a trip this is. There has been no consultation and for that reason I support the three trips but not the fourth one to Australia.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Maybe I can help the House. Maybe there could be more consultations on the fourth one and the hon. parliamentary secretary could come back to the House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I concur with the first three motions that have been put to the House. I want to indicate our willingness to co-operate in expediting these motions to see that they are passed immediately this afternoon.

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) by a legislative committee; and on Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 13.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the House started statements by members, there were two minutes left for the hon. member for Surrey North. Does he intend to use them?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: No.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to continue debate on Bill C-26 which is a bill to supposedly improve the Public Service Commission of Canada. It is to be an example to the world and to be an example to other provinces to make sure that the rules of the game are applied properly within the Public Service.
I have great pride in telling you that in my particular riding of Carleton-Gloucester, which is in the national capital region, I would estimate that at least 80 to 90 per cent of the people who work there work either directly or indirectly for the federal government or its agencies. If they do not, they then work for other institutions such as school boards, the provincial government and municipal governments. Therefore, it is a Public Service town. It is rather important that the rules of employment be applied in a proper and correct fashion.
I had the honour to represent the Liberal Party along with my colleague from Ottawa West on the legislative committee that studied the proposed bill of the government. I do commend the government for, after a quarter of a century, addressing the question of Public Service 2000 and looking at a renewal or a rebirth of the Public Service bill. However, I did observe that during the deliberations of the legislative committee there was a rather great amount of impatience on the part of government members to have this bill passed as quickly as possible. This impatience certainly tickled my curiosity, but in a negative fashion. I wondered, since we were all employers, whether we are really thinking of our employees. We have after all a quarter of a million employees spread out across Canada.
We create and make laws here in Parliament but it is up to the employees to make sure these laws are implemented across the country. Some of these laws are policing laws for example. Some of these laws are to gather income tax.
Some of these laws are to inspect food for example. They are made to inspect flights and airplanes to make sure that the Canadian community feels secure in what it eats and consumes and when flying or travelling either on the railway or in vehicles.
The application of these rules falls on the Public Service. These public servants staff our immigration offices and customs offices to make sure that we have an orderly country. We also provide services in the health field, the multiculturalism field or a variety of other fields.
This large group of employees that is providing services to the community or helping us in making sure that this is a safe and secure country, obviously wants to make a profession of being a public employee. Many of them take adult education programs and pursue courses to get better and better in the work they do. Some work their way right up to the Ph.D. level. Many of them, certainly in the science field, we rely a great deal on for research.
In order to pursue education for your profession you must have a future. There must be something for all the time you are going to be putting in for the government that would help you and stimulate you to always want to do better and to improve what you do in your environment.
This is why it is rather important that we do the correct and proper thing. This is the reason why I believe that we should listen to our employees. I am sad to say that my observation of the legislative committee was that it was ramming through a new law with great impatience.
We are going away from modem management to the old management philosophy of "the boss runs the shop and if you do not like it as an employee then you leave the shop". The boss runs the shop and there is the employee who is treated practically like a slave and is always threatened to be let go.
June 23, 1992

This particular bill is this in essence. It says the manager will manage because the manager is impatient. Yes, we do need to have changes in our Public Service Act. Yes, in the past and right up to now, a great number of the decisions regarding employment, staffing, transfers and even the motions, were rather a long, arduous and difficult task.
Now we have swung the pendulum completely. We are about to give the authority to the manager to manage in his or her way with his or her attitude which could be tyrannical.
The Liberal Party, along with the NDP, has proposed quite a variety of amendments. I would say that 90 to 95 per cent of the amendments came from the Liberal Party. I was amazed at the reaction, the chuckling and the giggling on the government side. I was amazed at the impatience, the deaf ears, the lack of attention, the lack of compassion and the failure to really understand what a large work force should be and could be in 2000 and beyond.

We have proposed amendments and I have the pleasure to comment further on these amendments. Since PS 2000 gives a substantial amount of power to the manager, it is only normal that several unions and organizations be concerned this will create an environment where such authority over the employees' careers, especially women and minorities, could be abused.
While the Public Service Commission is currently investigating complaints of abuse of authority, nothing in this bill requires the commission to conduct such investigations. Employees' representatives have expressed concern about what could happen if the commission as a third party, were not officially recognized the power to investigate complaints. The worst case scenario would be that the head of the department that you complained about would be designated to investigate. Can you imagine that, Madam Speaker? This is certainly an unacceptable scenario. This amendment is only making official what the Public Service Commission has been doing for ages. It ensures a fair and just investigation.
Government Orders
Another advantage of these amendments is to ensure that the Public Service Commission not only may, but shall, take action against abuse of authority. There is also a possibility that certain instances of harassment could be tied directly to the merit principle. As the so-called keeper of this merit principle, it stands to reason that the commission be officially recognized as having the power to investigate complaints in that area.
Another proposed amendment to clause 10 of Bill C-26 is designed to make it clear that the merit principle will generally be based on competence, so that the best qualified-I repeat, best qualified-candidate will be selected for the job. We want to make sure that this idea of competence will prevail in the definition of merit and that the notion of "competence measured by such standard as the commission may establish" be the exception to the rule.
When government developed this new definition of merit in clause 10 it did not stop to think that this could be setting a dangerous precedent. It will make it difficult for the court to interpret the traditional definition of merit which ensured that the best qualified person-I repeat, best qualified-gets the job. The norm could well become "selection based on competence, as measured by such standard of competence as the commission may establish".
The other element of these amendments backs up the preceding amendments on employment equity. The idea is to ensure that the Public Service Commission will take into consideration minority groups in our society before establishing standards for competitions and personnel selection.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct some drivel that I heard in an earlier speech in this debate. It was from this side of the House but it was from down there, from the New Democrats.
The hon. member for North Island-Powell River made a speech earlier today that was absolute drivel. I know that the hon. member who is paying such close attention will agree with me when she hears the facts and figures that I have to relate.


An hon. member:: I can hardly wait.

Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: She can hardly wait. I am glad to hear it because she is going to get it.
The hon. member for North Island-Powell River tried to suggest that somehow this government in adopting time allocation techniques and applying them to this debate today was acting in the same way that Liberal governments have in the past. I want to correct that record. I have some figures here to help me. Perhaps the member for North Island-Powell River will recant such heresy.
The facts are that in the period from 1913 to 1981, which was the last time closure was used before this government took office, closure was used a total of 22 times.
Since this government took office closure has been used over 16 times. In fact, closure has been used almost as much in the eight years that this disastrous government has occupied the Treasury benches as it had been in something like 48 years before that. It gives some indication of the depravity of the current government in its constant abuse of the rules and procedures of this House.
I could go on. I could cite the figures for use of time allocation, under which we are labouring today, not closure, and the government has used it more often than it has closure.
To suggest that somehow this pattern reflects previous government patterns is false. The hon. member for North Island-Powell River should check his facts before he spouts such drivel and nonsense in the House.
I want to urge him to take some care because we all know what is going on in the Ontario legislature these days.


Joy Langan: Look at them, not us.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam says: "Look at them, not us". Her colleagues in the Ontario legislature have introduced a whole bunch of new rules that will gag the Ontario legislature and silence the opposition, the very effective opposition being offered there by my colleagues in the Liberal Party.
In fact there was a picture the other day on the front page of The Ottawa Citizen of her leader in this House holding up the hand of the premier of Ontario supporting-


Joy Langan: She is proud to do it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam says: "She is proud to do it". She and her colleagues in this House condemned this government for using closure and gagging the House when her colleague, the premier of Ontario, is doing exactly the same thing in the Ontario legislature.
I really find it quite shameful and disgraceful. There is a lot of hypocrisy in this action.


Mr. Angus:: What are they doing?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan, who is joining his soul mates on the Tory benches for the time being, is yelling at me to tell them what they are doing. I am telling them what they are doing. They are introducing a series of rule changes that will gag the opposition. They are threatening to use closure and they are telling the members of the opposition they are going to have to sit all summer to pass very unpalatable and unpopular legislation.
Had the hon. member tried the same thing here in the course of the GST debate we would still be here. The New Democratic Party pandered to the wishes of the Conservative majority, urged the government to use closure by using stalling techniques in the House, minimizing debate on the bill and preventing us in the Liberal opposition from presenting the arguments and concerns of Canadians against that bill in this House.
That is the way the New Democratic Party and the Tories get into bed together. That is the way they get into bed together, and that is what they are doing in the Ontario legislature. They are trying to gag the Official Opposition, and that is exactly what is going on here today.
The New Democrats pretend outrage at the use of closure then they say it is the Liberals and Conservatives that are doing it, when all the time it is the New Democrats that jump at the chance to silence intelligent capable opposition offered by the Liberal Party when they get into office.


Joy Langan: Just like you are doing right now.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Exactly. As the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam says, much like I am putting forward right now.
I am glad she is enjoying my speech.
June 23, 1992

I want to turn to the bill before us and discuss the amendments. The hon. member seems relieved that I have got off the subject of her party's duplicity with the Conservative Party. I can understand that. It must be very embarrassing.
The bill before us has some amendments moved to it by the hon. member for Ottawa West that I wanted to talk about. The amendments she has moved deal with complaints alleging sexual or personal harassment or abuse of authority.
What the member from Ottawa West is trying to do through these amendments is stiffen the government's resolve to deal with these issues when complaints are made in the work place.
This bill is deficient in that it fails to provide for corrective action in the case of these complaints. The hon. member for Ottawa West has urged very reasonable and sensible amendments. There is nothing wild-eyed, there is nothing that smacks of the NDP government in Ontario in these amendments.
These are sensible amendments. These are reasonable amendments. These are competent amendments and they are straightforward amendments. They are amendments, that must commend themselves to all members of the House, including any right-thinking member on the government side. I urge the members of the government to look at these amendments and to not blindly vote them down, as it seems to be doing with every other amendment we have considered so far. Look to the protection of people who suffer from these kinds of complaints and offer them some protection in the law so that instead of allowing the Public Service Commission possibly to make recommendations and possibly issue directives it will require the Public Service Commission to issue directives and take steps to deal with the complaint when it comes before us.
That is all the amendments are asking for. That is all the amendments propose. It is not too much to ask in this day and age. I urge the government to look again before it votes these amendments down and accept them.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on Bill C-26, sometimes referred to as Bill PS 2000, and probably more appropriately referred to as BS 2000.
Government Orders
It is amazing how we go through these management fads, but it dismays me to see what the government has done in relation to the changes it wishes to impose upon its employees.
One of my colleagues from the Liberal Party previously spoke in as eloquent terms as I have ever heard anyone speak with respect to the civil servants, most of whom are within his constituency and he therefore represents them. I am not surprised that he speaks so eloquently on their behalf and as knowledgeably about them as he does.
We all have many of these civil servants in our constituencies however, and I certainly would like to put on the public record that the amount of support they have given to my office, and I know to the offices of other members of Parliament as well, is valued beyond measure. Some of the things proposed in Bill C-26 really work against that and mitigate against the excellent work that these people do.
With reference to the previous Motions Nos. 5 and 7, they would bring the Public Service Employment Act in line with the federal Employment Equity Act.
I am not so sure that is necessarily an exemplary recommendation. As a matter of fact it has certainly come to my attention that the federal Employee Equity Act is tremendously deficient.
I have had the misfortune of having people in the federal civil service come to me having exhausted the process in so far as standing up for their rights within the federal Employment Equity Act and having gone to the Human Rights Commission, which is a body put in place to protect federal employees even beyond what the equity act does. I must say that I have found both to be deficient. Tragedy has befallen people who have stood up for their rights. The particular motions refer to sexual harassment. Some of the people who have come to me have suffered under that category as well. I can only say that in all categories, whether it is the Human Rights Act or the federal Employment Equity Act, the government, the prime employer in this nation, has come up far short.
The amount of tragedy that has befallen these people is beyond description. I have to repeat something that has already been referred to by me today. I think it is worth while referring to it again. It was also referred to by one of my colleagues on this side of the House. Imminently a female of the Armed Forces is about to be court-martialled because circumstances surrounding her appeal before the military tribunal, circumstances sur-

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
rounding the charge of sexual harassment within the Armed Forces, became public.
It was not even she who made those details public, yet this person is suffering the indignity of a court-martial. In the initial phase of this whole thing it is not even she who is to blame. As with so many of these cases, whether it is sexual harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, colour or religion, the victim is the one who suffers and the perpetrators get away scot-free and often are found to have been promoted or transferred to more favourable jobs, or perhaps more favourable geographic locations within the federal Public Service.
I commend the member for having brought forward this excellent amendment to Bill C-26. I cannot for the life of me understand why on earth the government would not take cognizance of the excellent recommendation within this amendment, other than to conclude that it does not really have the interests of its employees as the prime motive for making these changes.
I guess we really must come back to a reference that was made earlier today as well and conclude that it is a desire to preserve the old boy's network. I guess that is the best description of it, because sure as heck they would not want any uppity women or any uppity people of another race or colour or religion to gain some kind of an advantage within the elite of our wonderful Public Service.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this matter. I trust the government will take this recommendation to heart and adopt it as its own.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam in a second.
I just wanted to let the House know that in keeping with tradition, as of four o'clock the Speaker will be delighted to receive members in Room 216, as is the habit of the Speaker every year on the last day before we all go home for the summer.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, while some may be visiting the Speaker's
offices, others of us will be here labouring in the House, including you.
I rise in support of the amendments put forward, Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 13. When we talk about these motions I think it is important to put them in the context of the concept put forward by PS 2000, the bumph that referred to PS 2000 as being very, very progressive and forward thinking and even the title, Public Service 2000, taking us into the next century.
Having sat along with other members of this House for weeks on end listening to the Public Service justify Bill C-26, I am sad to report to the House that we are talking about dragging the Public Service, kicking and screaming, into the last century.
This bill is not a progressive piece of legislation. It is drafted by people who 30 years ago in their early days in the Public Service might have had a vision, but that vision has not moved forward in the last 30 years. Now their 30-year old vision is being presented before this House, wrapped up and packaged as something to take us into the next century.
The best the opposition can do with this legislation at this time-we can hope that maybe there will be an election call in the fall and it will not in fact pass in the House-is support amendments that would at the very least bring this legislation a little closer to 1992.
Motion No. 9 adds a provision that the commission shall investigate complaints of personal or sexual harassment, report its findings and corrective action taken to the worker involved. It is important we think about the fact that without this amendment we were in a situation where the commission may investigate complaints but in fact could have abrogated its responsibility and given the responsibility to department heads.
Let us think about this. We looked at the bill. We looked at the reality of the work place. We had the Public Service Commission telling us that employers in the public sector are good people and would never ever harass someone and would never ever certainly be involved in sexual harassment. It essentially said: "Trust
June 23, 1992

us". There is a long list of complaints filed by unions on this issue but there certainly have been complaints on these issues that have been spoken about publicly.
The vast majority of managers and employers in the public sector are good, decent, hard-working people. But there is an old saying, and I will probably get it wrong, that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is important we have checks and balances in the legislation to ensure that the power is not absolute, to ensure that there is a process by which redress can be sought by workers in the public sector, to ensure that these people can not only be protected but that there is a bit of distance between the person who is the complainant and the person who makes the decision about the propriety of the complaint. To have the very people whom the complaint was against make any kind of a determination about whether it is a valid complaint is hardly appropriate.
Therefore we very strongly feel that anything that can be done to improve the wording of the legislation by these kinds of amendments, or indeed by other amendments that were unfortunately found to be inappropriate to fit the parameters of the legislation, should in fact go into it.
Another problem is that in the whole context of the merit principle harassment can clearly be an interference in the process and the confines of the merit principle as the Public Service Commission has outlined.
We are also concerned that the employer now has the right to deploy people hither and yon. It is particularly important, given these new powers, that these amendments be in place.
We also have to be cognizant that without these kinds of checks and balances these amendments would bring we could very well find workers in the public sector victimized by the very Public Service Commission that purports to be the protector of these workers.
It is absolutely critical. I would plead with hon. members on the government side of the House to give us good, solid reasons why these amendments would not be appropriate and could not be accepted by the government. We have not heard one word on these particular amendments from the government, either in the committee or here in the House.
Government Orders
I think it is time. My goodness, I am sure hon. members on the government side of the House have the independent thought and ability to put words together and give us rational explanations for why the government cannot accept these kinds of amendments.
I would urge that the parliamentary secretary who is responsible in the House and his colleagues get up and tell us why we are wrong and why these amendments should not be supported.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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

June 23, 1992
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of information, actually. I am wondering if when one votes in a situation such as this it is imperative to be in one's seat.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is not like when each member is called by his or her name. It is as long as there are five members in the House. I think the hon. member would understand this.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-


Joy Langan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I was otherwise occupied informing the House. The hon. member for Mission- Coquitlam, I am sorry.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me with all due respect that having to prompt the government side on how to stand on these motions, we have always been under instruction that to speak in the House or to undertake activity in the House we must in fact be in our places. Could Your Honour give us a clear ruling on that, please?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member will allow me I will verify the Standing Orders. Certainly to be recognized to speak the member must be in his or her place in the House. It is the first time I have had to face that. I will certainly look again in the Standing Orders and I will come back to the hon. member.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-Employment; the hon. member for London-Middlesex-Pearson International Airport; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie-Trade; the hon. member for Ottawa Centre-Children.
The first motion is Motion No. 15 which stands in the name of Mr. Riis who is not in the House. Is there unanimous consent for somebody else to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, there was discussion with all three parties that the motions put in the name of Mr. Riis would be put in my name tonight. There was agreement on that because I had been a member on the committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I had not been advised. I asked the question and consent was given. You understand I could not put the motion to the House without asking consent. I thank the hon. member.


Joy Langan: Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 10.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 22 to 30 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), selection according to merit shall, except in particular prescribed circumstances, be based on the competence of each person being considered in a competition for appointment as measured against the competence of the other person or persons also being considered in the competition, except that the Commission may prescribe by regulation circumstances in which selection according to merit would be inappropriate in view of the nature of the responsibilities of the position to which the person is to be appointed and in which selection may be based on the competence of a person being considered for appointment as measured by such standard of competence as the Commission may establish without being measured against the competence of other persons."
June 23, 1992


Joy Langan: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 23 and 24 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor.
"selection according to merit may, in such instances as apprenticeship or occupational training programs, reclassification actions, or promotion within certain occupational groups as designated by the Commission, and with respect to the regulations of".


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 5 to 9 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall not
(a)	discriminate against any person by reason of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted; or
(b)	prescribe or apply any standard that represents an employment barrier to women, aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities or persons who, because of their race or colour, are in a visible minority in Canada."
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 40 to 43 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) In establishing criteria under subsection (1), the Commission shall not establish criteria that present an employment barrier to women, aboriginal".
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 41 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion (1) the Commission shall not establish criteria that present an employment barrier to groups of persons that are disadvantaged, including women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are because of their race or colour in a visible minority in Canada.
(3) In establishing criteria under subsection (1), the Commission may establish dif-".
She said: Madam Speaker, on the group of motions you have just read, I will not be moving Motion No. 21. The content is duplicated in fact by Motion No. 23 which has a better wording and accomplishes more clearly what I wish to accomplish in the motion.
Government Orders
At this time, I would also like to request unanimous consent of the House to substitute a different wording for Motion No. 16 and I will briefly explain why.
Motion No. 16 as it is in the Order Paper was prepared by legal counsel at my request and submitted. In subsequent discussions with legal counsel we provided an alternative wording and asked to have it translated and put on the Order Paper in lieu of Motion No. 16.
That was not done and I take full responsibility for not having verified that it had been done. If I could read the alternate wording its intention is to accomplish the same thing but in a manner that is more correct and more appropriate to the legislation than Motion No. 16 as now worded. If I could just read the alternate wording, it is in the hands of the Table officers in both official languages and has been provided to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board as well as to the NDP critic on this issue.
It reads:
"That clause 10 be amended by striking out lines 22 to 30 on page 5 and substituting the following:
For the purposes of subsection (1), selection according to merit shall, except in particular prescribed circumstances, be based on the competence of each person being considered for appointment as measured against the competence of other persons; except that the Commission may prescribe by regulation, circumstances in which selection according to merit would be inappropriate and which selection may be based on the competence of a person being considered for appointment as measured by such standard as competence as the Commission may establish rather than is measured against the competence of other persons."
Madam Speaker, I do not expect the government will agree with this amendment. I simply want the opportunity to present the motion as I drafted it and have a more correct wording before the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will start by Motion No. 21 being withdrawn as it is actually in Motion No. 23.
Motion No. 21 withdrawn.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As far as Motion No. 16 is concerned, is there unanimous consent for the wording to be changed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent is not given. On a point of order, the hon. member from Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I ask the hon. member who said no to reconsider. The hon. member for Ottawa West has put forward a very reasonable explanation as to why the wording of her motion is incorrect. She has asked to put another motion before the House. Apparently it is in order. Notice has been given. It is an unusual request but there has been a reasonable explanation offered. I would have thought that the hon. member might reconsider and allow this to proceed.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent is not given.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I guess I am quite concerned because it was through no fault of the hon. member that the incorrect wording appeared before the House in the first place.
It would seem to me to be a little bit mean-spirited in view of the fact that the hon. member had made every effort to have the correct wording before this House and is now seeking leave to ensure that it is correct.
I would urge as well that the hon. member from the government side of the House reconsider and allow this wording to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand that there is a change of heart?


An hon. member:: No.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, I wonder if we could get an explanation from the hon. member for Burlington why he will not agree to this particular motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: When unanimous consent is sought members who do not give consent do not have to give reasons. Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not.
I am in a situation now where the motion that will be debated by the House is as written on the Order Paper.
I would like to answer an earlier question by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. Upon a division, the yeas and the nays shall not be entered upon the minutes unless demanded by five members. It is Standing Order 45. Nowhere does it say that five members must be sitting in their places when they are asking for a vote to be taken.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I would like to have clarification at this point with what has just taken place. Are we now debating Motions Nos. 15 and 18?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are debating Motions Nos. 15, 16, 18, 19, and 23.


Joy Langan: I would like to rise particularly on Motions Nos. 15 and 18 which I have presented. These motions are central to the bill as we have it before us.
This bill and the vision of Public Service reform put forward by the Public Service 2000 report is veiy complex. It modifies the existing definition of the use of the merit principle. It modifies it in the appointment or promotion of workers in the Public Service.
Representatives of the vast majority of the workers who appeared before the committee-and we had a long list of people who presented, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada; the Professional Institute of the Public Service; and the Economists, Sociologists and Statisticians Association. Those three major unions, among others, all condemned this edition, the edition that is found in this section of the bill, as an attack on the merit principle.
The clause we are talking about modifies the traditional definition of merit and that is the best qualified as compared to all others. It modifies it by allowing the Public Service Commission to appoint persons based on the competence of a person as measured by such standards of competence as the commission may establish.
We believe that in fact the measure of competence, the best qualified person as compared to all others, is a principle that should remain entrenched in this legislation.
June 23, 1992

We would ask that the government support our Motions Nos. 15 and 18. In fact we would bring out this legislation with these amendments intact.
Hugh Winsor said in The Globe and Mail of May 23 that: "This clause opens a loophole that will give civil service managers a major new opportunity to play favourites and dispense their own form of patronage".
We are painfully aware of patronage run amok in some departments of the Public Service. It would be tremendously unfortunate to enshrine in a brand new piece of legislation, albeit flawed in many parts, the kinds of clauses that would open a loophole giving Public Service managers a major new opportunity to play favourites and dispense their own form of patronage.
Canadian people have told us very clearly, have told this House, have told this government, have told opposition members, their opinion of blatant patronage. I would suggest their opinion of blatant patronage does not diminish if it is being dispensed either by mandarins or Public Service Commission corporate managers. It is no less distasteful than if it is being put forward by the government itself.
We then have a situation where the department can make appointments, can deploy, can put people into positions without consideration under this new broadened description of competence of a person. What we find is the ability for a manger to end-run the process of merit and appoint by favouritism, by special favours from whomever is seeking the appointment. Possibly the debate on that point was more relevant in the last clause we discussed, sexual harassment. However, we have a situation where managers have wide discretion on who should get appointed to a new position. Again, the Public Service Commission, in presenting to us in committee, very clearly said two things.
First it said, trust us, and second it said that the calibre of manager in the Public Service is tremendously high and they would not see this right misused. I would not suggest that any manger in the Public Service is not of high calibre or is not a fair-minded, good-hearted man or woman. I would suggest that when one is faced with opportunities to show favouritism to someone they like
Government Orders
over someone who is qualified for the job, sometimes that opportunity is tough to ignore and overcome.
When one is faced with an opportunity to let a little bit of racial discrimination sneak into the decision or not wanting to be bothered with someone who may have a disability because it means a little extra work on the part of the manager, it is very possible we could find ourselves with a manager who would not deliberately make mistakes because of the broadened parameters of this definition of the merit principle.
If the House does not like the reference to Mr. Winsor and his suggestion that this opens a loophole that will give civil service managers a major new opportunity to play favourites, then maybe we could make reference to the head of the PS 2000 exercise, Mr. John Edwards, who said: "Bill C-26 gives managers the authority to appoint and by-pass the system". This was reported in The Globe and Mail on June 20, just a couple of days ago. When bureaucrats were briefed by the Public Service Commission in response to a question he said: "This section gives managers the authority to appoint and by-pass the merit system".
It is passing strange that we got one story at the committee about how committed the government service is to the merit principle and that this clause makes no difference and that managers in the Public Service would never dream of doing something like that and then we have reported in the minutes of a meeting with bureaucrats, with the very same person who gave us those assurances, that managers could now by-pass the system.
We think it is absolutely critical that these amendments be included in the legislation. Even the Public Service Commission has admitted in its most recent annual report that there has been too much abuse of the merit system by senior managers who have been appointing their friends and redeploying those they do not like.
Now we have legislation that allows those managers to redeploy people they do not like, redeploy people who do not share their views or redeploy people whose hair cut they do not like, or whatever. We also have in this legislation a provision that would allow, not only redeployment but by-passing of the merit system which we were all told by the head of the Public Service Commis-

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
sion, was very much sacred. We are very concerned about this section of the bill.
The addition of this clause to the Public Service Employment Act will allow the government and managers to circumvent the merit principle I have talked about. The result will be a less competent Public Service, more and more dependent on political favouritism. Surely as we move toward the year 2000 we do not want to find a Public Service that is more dependent on political favouritism.
In committee, the government and the Public Service Commission argued that it needed this clause to deal with special circumstances, circumstances that were defined in regulations. But regulations do not receive the kind of scrutiny that a bill does in this Parliament, and so we asked why cannot the government make specific those circumstances where the principle of relative merit would not apply? Why can that not be in this bill? Why give such far-ranging powers to an agency that has demonstrated it is incapable of protecting the merit principle and safeguarding the Public Service from patronage, nepotism and political whim?
Motion No. 15 seeks to eliminate the addition of this concept to the application of the merit principle. The reason to eliminate it is very simple: the government and witnesses before the legislative committee could not come up with anything other than "trust us, we need this flexibility", but only hinted to us how this provision would actually be applied.
In light of such vagueness, this House should not be prepared to grant the government or the Public Service Commission carte blanche to erode the merit principle.
I would ask that Motion No. 15 be supported as well as Motion No. 18, which seeks to clarify the circumstances in which the commission may ignore the principle of relative merit. If there is a need to use the principle of standard of competence, then this need should be spelled out in the legislation if abuse of the system is to be avoided.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I support most of the amendments introduced by my colleague from Ottawa West because they are fair amendments. We make no bones about it as the majority of public servants live in the national capital region and
we know them because we work with them. I think every member of Parliament also deals on a daily basis with members of the Public Service and they know the high calibre of the service they receive. I would say without hesitation that we have one of the finest Public Services anywhere in the world.
These motions call on the government not to abandon the merit principle. It means that we are urging the government not to open the door to patronage. We call on the government to not proceed with the deployment of public servants without any kind of safeguard because we know that would not be in the best interests of the public servant, nor in the best interests of the government itself.
When we speak out against contracting out without adequate accountability, it is because we want to make sure that the government as well as the country gets a good return on its investment. We do not want to end up contracting out a job which in the end will have to be done over once the contract has been completed. So we need some sort of cost analysis.
When we talk about the excessive use of regulation, simply put it is because we want to see a streamlined Public Service without too much complication, without too much regulation. We want to see more flexibility in the hands of management as well as in the hands of the public servants themselves.
When we talk about accountability, it is simply that we believe accountability would increase flexibility within the public service.
When we talk about collective bargaining we are talking about a partnership between the public servant and their employers.
I do not see that any of the amendments which my colleague from Ottawa West has introduced in the House are done in bad faith; in fact, they were done in order to improve the Public Service, in order to streamline many of the complications that exist within the Public Service.
One segment in one of the amendments deals with the question of casuals. As the House probably knows, the government has gone on a rampage hiring casuals. Many of my constituents are thankful to have jobs, even though many of these are short-term positions. I want the government to know that by its actions it is creating nightmares for families in my constituency.

June 23, 1992

About a week and a half ago, one of my constituents told me that he would have to sell his truck because he could not pay his rent. He said that he needed a job even if it paid $3 because the day care centre would not keep his child any more if he was not working. When I asked him why, he told me that he was a casual with the federal government and as part of his agreement after six months he has to be out of work for a week or two and then he can apply all over again.
While we are helping these individuals in a way during those six-month periods, we are creating a chaotic situation for many of the families that we represent. The government has to put some sanity into the system. It either needs those workers on a full-time basis or it does not.
I know why the government is using casuals. Somehow casuals do not show up in the person-years. The government, in its wisdom, has decided on downsizing, thinking that by simply letting all employees go, the problem will go, not knowing that there is a tremendous amount of work out there that needs to be done and that management in the departments all across the land would have to look for manpower in order to do these jobs.
I do not understand why the government is proceeding with contracting out in a massive way without proper accountability, without proper analysis, hiring casuals left and right. I am not complaining about the fact that we should be hiring people, but never yet has the government taken the time to do a proper analysis to find out whether in fact we do have a surplus of public servants or whether we have a shortage.
Do we have a surplus or do we have a shortage? My view is that we have a shortage. If we did not have a shortage of public servants then we would not be hiring casuals and we would not be contracting out.
I am not against contracting out nor am I opposed to hiring casuals. But we need a proper assessment to see whether in fact what we are doing is the right thing, whether we are getting the return on the investment we are putting, yes or no. The challenge for the government is to do that particular assessment and that particular analysis.
Government Orders
Many of the amendments that my colleague from Ottawa West has introduced puts some sanity into the system. We have called on the government to create and establish a partnership with its workers. What we have seen is a walk out by the Public Service that the country, in its history, never saw before.
We call on the government to make a proper assessment so it would deal with question of promotion in the Public Service. There is no opportunity for public servants to get promotions. Look at the morale in the Public Service, look at the uncertainty in the Public Service. Look at all of those issues, and you come to one conclusion every time, we have a problem and it is that public servants have lost faith in their employer, the Treasury Board, the government as a whole.
To put sanity back into the system, an element of trust has to be created. We have to re-establish that partnership and go back to those who are building the infrastructure of this country, those who are providing service to the people, and seek their views and their opinions. They are telling us: "No, we are not happy with Bill C-26. It does not meet the purpose". The Minister of National Health and Welfare agrees with me because his department is one of those departments that needs every bit of help, as well as the immigration department.
We need sanity and this government does not seem to care. I know we are at the stage of no return because the government is stubborn. It is proceeding on it with or without the concurrence and approval of the public servants. The last call is to get out and speak with those who are affected, look at their concerns and address many of those amendments, which are all fair amendments and, if anything, will improve the system. None of these amendments was done in bad faith and none of them will create any kind of problem for the public servant, for the government itself, or for the people of Canada. Why do we not proceed with them?


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased to stand here in the House 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.

June 23, 1992
Government Orders
I wish to speak to one section of the amendments before us today, and that is the merit principle. I have risen before in this House to speak to this bill and I am rising again mainly to express in the strongest terms my opposition to the proposed changes to the merit principle of the Public Service act.
As a member for Parliament for a constituency that has a large number of public servants I obviously have received many telephone calls and many letters expressing concerns to me. There is a deep sense of despair among public servants in Canada. There are so many problems with Bill C-26 that it strikes at the very fundamental principles of our Public Service. The merit principle probably is foremost in the minds of those who oppose the bill.
Bill C-26 erodes the merit principle. It would do away with the principle that was established to stop rampant political administrative patronage and assure Canadians of a non-partisan Public Service in which employment and opportunities were open to all, based on competence, not favouritism. The merit principle also ensured that only the best qualified and most competent persons would get appointed to positions within the Public Service.
This has been the cornerstone of the Public Service for many years. Scholars have talked of the benefits credited to the merit principle. It is a principle that has been awarded with high praise. It has become a sacred institution within Canada, admired both at home and abroad. Yet this bill would change this principle from a sacred cow to a sacrificial lamb.
What is at stake here is the quality and efficiency of our Public Service. No longer will the Public Service settle for the best qualified person to fill a position, instead a minimum set of standards or qualifications can be set, and all a person needs to do is meet those minimum qualifications.
What sort of standards are we setting to do this? What sort of people are we going to attract to the Public Service? With this new bill we will cease to have the very best representing us and caring for our country here in Canada. Our Public Service is still recovering from its first strike in Canadian history. Morale is low within the Public Service right now. Imagine how low it will be once its employees have to work with or under people who are only second or third best for that position.
In fact, Bill C-26 will act as a deterrent to the best qualified people, the cream of the crop. It certainly was the cream of the crop that we have been able to get for this good many years. Why would the best want to work in an organization in which mediocrity was promoted.
Bill C-26 opens up the opportunity for political patronage. I can see no other reason for it. Why else would the federal government want to do away with the merit principle? Does the federal government place such little faith and importance in the Public Service? Does it really want to put all its friends and cronies into the Public Service for the little favours they have done? Does the present government plan to be around long enough to implement the patronage plans? I certainly hope not.
Bill C-26 leaves all but the original hiring and limited promotions to the discretion of managers who set those minimum standards. Hiring and promotions therefore are open to the whims, likes, dislikes, favouritism and personal biases of the manager. This creates a dangerous potential barrier for women in the Public Service in particular. It is human nature for the person doing the hiring to look for similar characteristics in the potential employee.
This fact, along with the fact that most managers are men, allows for the likelihood that women will find it even tougher to find promotion within the Public Service.
Beneath the Veneer, the report on the task force on barriers to women in the Public Service, documented that attitudes are the main barrier to equality of opportunity. These attitudes often unconsciously keep women, as well as visible minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians, at the lower echelons of the Public Service. Is the federal government prepared to add to this problem? It sure looks that way to me.
Further to the merit issue is the issue of deployment. Clause 22 of this bill gives deputy heads the exclusive right to permanently transfer staff without competition. This transfer or deployment cannot be appealed. The only recourse is to complain to the same deputy head, and ask for an investigation, making that person both the judge and the jury.
On January 30, 1992 the Federal Court of Canada struck down an Order in Council giving deputy ministers the freedom to transfer any employee because "it departs substantially from the merit principle".
June 23, 1992

The judge said: "I would be defeating the whole purpose of the Public Service Employment Act, which is to ensure that appointments to the Public Service are made on the basis of merit".
The government is deviating substantially from the merit principle once again.
Members of the Public Service entered it to carry out a career in a position in which they could contribute to their country. This legislation leaves them little choice in terms of the direction in which they can move as they follow their career. For many it prohibits career development.
Before closing I want to state that I, and I think the members on this side of the Elouse, continue to support the clauses within the bill that continue to contribute to the strengthening of the Public Service and its ability to serve the public, and improve labour relations.
We on this side of the House continue to oppose clauses of the bill that undermine the merit principle without adequate safeguards, that destabilize the Public Service, that discourage the hiring and retention of highly qualified individuals, and that reduce accountability. '
We on this side of the House also propose further substantive amendments to this bill at the report stage, which is what my colleague from Ottawa West has certainly done.
In closing, the merit principle has always guaranteed that the best can move up the ladder. This legislation literally puts an end to that. I cannot support a bill that embraces mediocrity. Obviously this government can.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, again it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on Bill C-26, the amendments to the relationships which the government is going to have, for the most part unfortunately, with its employees.
The merit principle has been the cornerstone of what has undoubtedly been a magnificent civil service in this country and one that has certainly been exemplary in relation to other civil services around the world.
Government Orders
This morning my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam asked what the government could possibly say in relation to the changes it was proposing in another context. To put it in the context of this and the whole bill itself I can just imagine the government standing up and saying: "We have the best civil service in the world. We are going to have the best civil service in the world". They have already said this is going to bring Canada's civil service in line with the 21st century.
As has been pointed out, that is certainly not the case. This is another management fad. Many management fads in the past have usually proven after a short period of time to be fallacious, to be ineffective, inefficient, and certainly unable to accomplish what the perpetrators of it wanted it to accomplish. I guess "perpetrators" is the best word. Then it is only to be supplanted by some other form of management fad. One shudders to think what the next round of changes to this particular aspect of our Canadian society may bring forth.
It was pointed out previously in relation to the whole concept of Bill C-26 that John Edwards, who heads the PS 2000 exercise, when asked in private what effect it would have, replied essentially that it would not have any effect at all because it does give the managers the authority to appoint and to bypass the system, whether it refers to sexual harassment or to the merit principle, a fair system of promotion within the civil service.
I refer to that incident again because it epitomizes, it underscores, it highlights the government's philosophy and the government's purpose in what it is doing in bringing forth these changes, a management fad which will disappear and prove to be ineffective. It will also show itself to be disastrous as far as the people are concerned within the civil service because it will show itself to be a betrayal of them by their employer.
This is not the only incident that makes reference to these changes. Hugh Winsor in The Globe and Mail on May 23 said that this clause opens a loophole that will give civil service managers a major new opportunity to play favourites and dispense their own form of political patronage.

Government Orders
Whether we are dealing with standards of promotion or standards of hiring based on the merit principle or the standards principle the fact of the matter is that the people who are going to be administering this act are prepared to circumvent it in any way that suits them.
I would suspect that if at a point in time it was decided that they would not go by the merit principle but by the standards principle, which this portion of the legislation allows, it would be no time at all before a hiring situation would open up in which they would ignore their own principle of doing it on the basis of standards and revert to the merit principle on the basis that the person who was being hired was a friend of the manager, or maybe a relative of the manager. Certainly, the potential for nepotism is ripe within these changes and on political whim, which is something that is to be abhorred in the extreme.
To reiterate, the merit principle has demonstrated itself to be the very best method of determining the qualifications of someone when it comes time for hiring or promotion. We cannot help but think that if the government was to adopt the amendment as put forth here many of the abuses that are anticipated and predicted to occur within this legislation would be averted.
To my sorrow, I am sure the government will not be taking into account amendments put forth by both the opposition parties in this debate. That is much to the disgrace of the government and to the loss of the civil service and the government.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the amendments to clauses 15, 16, 22 and 23.
The amendment restores the definition of "eligibility list" as it appears in the current legislation.
If we approved the government proposal which allows the Public Service Commission to make regulations on how the eligibility list is established it would be possible to change this list at any time. The obvious effect would be to make it extremely difficult for employees or potential candidates to know what their rights are. Moreover, abuse would again be possible with regard to the merit principle.
As for the restrictions put on the right of appeal in Clause 16 and subcontracting vis-a-vis term employees, this amendment is designed to change subsection 21(4), in clause 16, which would impose serious restrictions to employees who would want to exercise their right to appeal if they felt that an appointment has been made without due consideration to the merit principle.
This clause seems to be further emphasizing the problems we have uncovered with the new wording of clause 10 which deals with the merit principle. We have great difficulty with clause 16 as it stands, because it enables the commission to interpret the merit principle as they please. Without the proposed amendment the clause could give the commission the power to decide whether the appeal board is required or not in a particular case provided it is of the opinion that the merit principle was respected.
The amendment to clause 19 gives certain rights to term employees under the workforce adjustment policy.
As regards transfers in clause 22 the bill as it is presently worded is not subject to the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act dealing with eligibility criteria, qualifications, bilingualism and merit as they apply to transfer. None of the principles that ensure fair treatment at the time of hiring apply to transfers. The results are obvious.
Motion No. 43 strived to at least have merit and bilingualism included as eligibility criteria for transfers.
Finally, as regards appeal regulations in Clause 23 this amendment forces the Public Service Commission to make regulations ensuring that appeals are duly carried out.
The essence of this amendment was the subject of three reports from the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. The Public Service Commission constantly refused to make such regulations.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I wish to address some remarks to the government's abandonment of the merit principle contained in this bill. This is really one of the most shocking amendments that the government has put forward in the whole legislation.
June 23, 1992

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
Now we are to have a civil service based not on merit-promotions and so on-but on competence and the standards of competence are now to be set by some other person. The Public Service Commission apparently is to set standards of competence which are to be measured, according to the government's definition, not against the confidence of other persons, but on the basis of standards set by the commission. I will read the section:
For the purpose of subsection 1, selection according to merit may in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations of the commission be based on the competence of a person being considered for appointment as measured by such standard of competence as the commission may establish, rather than as measured against the competence of other persons.
The hon. member for Ottawa West has proposed a very reasonable amendment. In fact, the amendment that the member for Kamloops has proposed is also reasonable. It gets rid of this offending clause.
I have some material I think I should draw to the House's attention concerning this amendment that may be of interest to the hon. member for Burlington who has been following this debate so closely.
There is apparently some official called John Edwards. He is a sycophant of the government who has been pushing Public Service 2000 down the throats of unwilling workers in the Public Service. It is not clear whether or not this man is a liar. He has given contradictory statements to the press. I would like to refer to those statements as quoted in The Globe and Mail in an article by that very distinguished journalist, Mr. Hugh Winsor.
['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills without any modification: Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade; Bill C-82, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof; Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations be-\nJune 23, 1992', 'tween artists and producers in Canada; Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods; Bill C-58, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources; Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process; Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal code (sexual assault); Bill 51, an act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories; Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon Territory, and Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code (jury).']
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, unfortunately, I will have to interrupt the hon. member.
[Translation)
I wish to inform the House that, under the terms of the motion passed this morning, the four hours provided for the consideration of Bill C-26 have expired.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, for the benefit of Canadian fisheries, urgently take the necessary steps to ratify the International Law of the Sea, and urge other nations to do so in order to reach the 60 signatures required for the Law of the Sea to come into force.
He said: Madam Speaker, it has been seven years since this government was elected to power by the Canadian people. In connection with this issue related to the Law of the Sea, it has been seven years of dilly-dallying and lost opportunities in providing leadership while this nation, as you well know, is surrounded by three oceans.
It has also been, unfortunately, seven years of piggybacking on the Law of the Sea and using the best features of that convention without taking the responsibility for it in the international community.
It has been seven years of yielding to pressure by international and national corporate interests at the expense of the common good, namely the fisheries and the communities that derive their living from the oceans.
In a way it has been a way of allowing Wall Street and Bay Street to determine government policy on the management of the oceans. In a way, it has brought about an unfortunate development, which is the compromising of Canada's international credibility.
It has also been five years of prime ministerial high rhetoric, both at home and abroad, on sustainable development. This has created the impression that Canada is, as it should be, committed to the implementation of the principles of sustainable development.
In the light of this quick sketch that I just gave you, the question arises as to why Canada is afraid to ratify the Law of the Sea.
One may recall, that it was given a signature by 119 countries, including Canada, in Jamaica, roughly at the end of 1982. However, the signatures are not enough for an international document to become operative. It requires ratification. It is a two-step process. The signature is first and the ratification is the second.

June 23, 1992
Private Members' Business
Canada has taken the first step. Not only that, but Canada was extremely active in promoting the text of this convention. It had a full-time ambassador involved in it and received a lot of political support in the years that led to its conception and finalization. Today, as we speak in this House, 53 nations have ratified the Law of the Sea treaty. Canada, unfortunately, is not among them. With the exception of Iceland, all the countries that have ratified it are from the developing world. They include Mexico, Brazil and India.
In order to become effective, the Law of the Sea Convention requires 60 nations for ratification. That means that we are short seven nations to make this convention operative and to trigger it into effect. Once the 60 nations have ratified it, then the provisions of the convention come into force.
The reluctance of industrialized nations to ratify the accord revolves apparently around concerns on section 11 which deals with the mining of the sea bed. Yet, it is increasingly evident that the commercial prospects for viable sea bed mining are way down the road, maybe 20 years or more, if it is viable at all.
What is happening is this. Canada has benefited directly and indirectly in many ways from the provision of this Law of the Sea without however carrying its burden and doing its share. For instance, Canada has now in place a 12-mile territorial zone around our coast. That, is a big plus.
Second, the 200-mile limit, called the exclusive economic zone, gives Canada the right to declare sovereignty over 1.3 million square nautical miles off of Canada's coast. This also gives Canada control over fishing and oil and mineral exploration in such areas.
Third, Canada has the right, as a result of this convention, to regulate fisheries in the exclusive economic zone by determining the total catch allowed and its optimal use.
Fourth, there is article 66 of the Law of the Sea Convention which has the effect of protecting Canada's salmon stocks. This article gives those states which ratify the convention the primary responsibility on river fishing stocks which originate in the signatory and ratifying country.
Fifth, in the Law of the Sea Convention there are articles 63 and 64 which are very important because they
address the issue of management and conservation of straddling stocks and migratory species. All of us in this House have heard a lot in recent months about straddling stocks in connection with the northern cod. We heard about their importance and the importance of protecting it. That matter is recognized and is embedded in the Law of the Sea Convention.
Sixth, the convention gives Canada enhanced jurisdiction for the prevention of marine pollution and also special provisions for Arctic waters.
Seventh, the Law of the Sea Convention maintains Canada's right to complete sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, a matter of enormous importance to the pride of Canadians, a matter that has been debated in this House, particularly in the 1970s at the time of the Manhattan. I am sure you will agree, Madam Speaker, that matter is very close to the heart of our nation.
Finally the convention represents a precedent-setting international convention which seeks to protect our environment and which promotes sustainable development of fisheries, of fishery stocks, and of other marine resources.
What more could we ask from a convention? It seems to have been written by a Canadian for Canadians of this generation and generations to come.
By ratifying the Law of the Sea, Canada would strengthen the sustainable development of the high seas and straddling stock fisheries, as is clearly pointed out in the Brundtland report, Our Common Future. In that connection I just want to quote briefly what Our Common Future says at page 273:
The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is the most ambitious attempt ever to provide an internationally agreed regime for the management of the oceans. The resulting convention represents a major step toward an integrated management regime for the oceans. It has already encouraged national and international action to manage the oceans.
The convention reconciled widely divergent interests of states and establishes the basis for a new equity in the use of the oceans and their resources.
And so on and so forth. Time precludes me from quoting any further but we can see the thrust of how the Brundtland commission, the global commission on environment and development, assesses the importance of the Law of the Sea, and this was five years ago.
June 23, 1992

The ratification would obviously help Canada. It would be good for Canada in a number of ways.
First, it would ensure that high sea fisheries would pursue ecologically sound practices, including deploring the use of drift net catching practices and others.
Second, it would enhance the maintenance of ecological marine systems in the oceans.
Third, it would complete the protection of fish stocks within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
Fourth, the Law of the Sea provides the signatories with the appropriate mechanism, so to say, to implement these principles at the earliest possible opportunity. This is why it is so important to reach the magic number of 60 nations. As I mentioned earlier, we only have 53 nations ratifying it.
Finally it would also provide momentum to the implementation of the recommendations of the Harris report which include, and I quote from it, "the management of all fish stocks indigenous to the Canadian continental shelf that extends beyond the 200-mile limit and the right of Canada to deny authorization for foreign fishing fleets to fish within its exclusive economic zone".
What more do we need? What more do we want? These are clear benefits that are lost to Canada, that are lost to our fishermen. Therefore the question that one inevitably must ask is: Why has Canada not ratified the Law of the Sea? Why does it seem to be afraid to do so?
The government has admitted that provisions in the Law of the Sea Convention would be able to aid Canada in its attempt to protect cod stocks off the coast of Newfoundland.
There was a statement made in Cancun on May 6 of this year by the minister of fisheries himself. It is on the record. There was a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whose parliamentary secretary I suppose will reply, in Hansard of February 25 of this year. Yet the government is dragging its feet and refusing somehow to sign the pact. It seems to be waiting for other nations to come forward before we will ratify it.
Private Members' Business
At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, at the preparatory committee meeting in New York last March, Canada submitted, along with 40 other nations all of which except one, New Zealand I believe, ratified the Law of the Sea, resolution 16 for the protection of the oceans and all kinds of seas. It included enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, the gulf we were debating last night, coastal areas, and the protection, rational use and development of living resources. It called for, and I quote, "the establishment of principles and measures for an effective regime based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea".
Canada supported this measure. It is a good measure. It is a very good document because it is intended to strengthen the provisions in the Law of the Sea. We did this last March or May. I am not sure of the date exactly, but it is a very recent initiative and a good initiative for that matter, particularly with reference to the articles 63 and 64 I mentioned a moment ago regarding the management and the protection of straddling stocks beyond the 200-mile limit.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs also stated that the government was working on a number of other international initiatives intended to establish regimes for our oceans and its resources. This is what she said on February 25, 1992 in the House of Commons, yet the step of ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention is not being taken.
In Cancun the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said: "This resolution outlines principles and measures that will give proper effect to the provision of the Law of the Sea Convention". This was the measure supported there. Therefore, how can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans talk about clarifying and strengthening provisions in the Law of the Sea Convention, supporting the convention itself, giving it momentum and giving it his endorsement when the government has yet to ratify it? This is the basic question.
Without being a signatory to the Law of the Sea, Canada's efforts to get nations on side, to understand our position of straddling stocks, for instance, are weakened. Our credibility is affected. It is as basic as that. To

June 23, 1992
Private Members' Business
take advantage of the convention without ratifying it shows that Canada tries to be self-serving with little regard for its international responsibility. It is a policy that is self-defeating. It would be very difficult to get other nations to agree to establishing principles of sustainable development in the fisheries and for the high seas when we act in such a short-sighted manner.
In conclusion I must say that although the government does not admit it, at least officially, it has been under pressure by some international and Canadian mining corporate interests not to agree to article XI of the treaty. I am told that Inco and Noranda are each involved in separate mining consortia headed by American firms. American lawyers representing this consortia have made representations to the Government of Canada pressing for revisions to the sea bed mining provisions and for Canada not to ratify the convention until those revisions are in place.
There is a public interest at stake that is much broader, much deeper and much more consequential in the long term than that of the mining industry and of the private sector. There is a public interest at stake.
One has to ask why the Government of Canada in the seven years since it has come to power has shown itself to be more sensitive to remote concerns than to present-day concerns of our fishermen and the long-term concerns of the communities that are affected.
There is no manner in which one can deny that the Law of the Sea Convention is helpful to the fisheries industry. The government has admitted this on more than one occasion.
The crisis of vanishing fish stocks off the Canadian coasts needs coherent action which includes the ratification of the Law of the Sea, a convention which I tried to demonstrate this afternoon only strengthens the sustainable development of marine resources along the coasts of our three oceans and globally in the interest of the global community.
I rest my case.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to rise in my place to participate in this debate.
I congratulate the hon. member for Davenport on bringing forth this very important topic, though I must confess I do not entirely agree with the proposal he has put forward. I would like to respond to a number of the points he made.
Like myself he had the privilege of being part of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Like me he was there when Canada really had a day of crowning glory. The proposal of the Santiago group, the 40 countries, relating to convening on an urgent basis an international conference on high seas fishing, the problem of overfishing and management of transboundary stocks, was really Canada's initiative. It was really a very great day for Canada and indeed for all Canadians.
When that proposal was incorporated into agenda 21 it became perhaps one of the most significant outcomes of the Rio conference. I believe a great deal of credit is due. I would take this opportunity to give credit not only to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment who played such key roles at that conference and in achieving that very important development. I would also like to recognize the officials of the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and External Affairs, Bob Applebaum and Serge Avril, who did such an outstanding job of putting forth the Canadian point of view.
With respect to the ratification issue, like so many things it seems to be not quite as simple an issue as is presented by my hon. friend opposite. As he indicated in his remarks, the main reason Canada and all other industrialized countries with the exception of Iceland have not as yet ratified the convention has nothing to do with the provisions relating to the extension of the 200-mile limit and the control of fisheries resources and so on. Rather it had to do with sea bed mining and the issue of undersea resources and minerals. All industrialized countries in the western world except for Iceland have concerns with respect to that. That is why they have not ratified it.
June 23, 1992

Notwithstanding that fact, the Law of the Sea has become customary international law so that Canadians already do benefit from the provisions of great significance such as the 200-mile economic zone.
I might say this is not really a partisan issue but I would remind my hon. friend that the government of which he was Minister of the Environment could very well have ratified the document if it had thought it an appropriate thing to do at the time.
In any event, it stands as it does and Canada stands with the other G-7 countries and most of the OECD countries in the position that it has taken. The significant point is the benefit is there because of the principle of customary international law so there is no loss.
Incidentally, my hon. friend indicated 53 countries had ratified it. It is the Government of Canada's understanding that only 51 of the 159 signatories have ratified at this time. Nevertheless, they are seven or eight countries short and even if Canada ratified it still would not constitute the 60. The issue in a sense is a moot one and I suspect when the issues relating to sea bed mining get sorted out then perhaps we will see a further development in that regard.
Regardless of that, with respect to the problem of foreign overfishing and overfishing in particular on the east coast, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, the real problem we are faced with from an international point of view is something that happens outside 200 miles where we would not have control with or without the international Law of the Sea.
Our control extends only 200 miles and our control up to that 200 miles is fully recognized by foreign nations. No foreign nation has a quota to harvest within our 200 miles without our consent.
Under the Law of the Sea the agreement the nations adhere to is that the adjacent country has the right to control those resources, is expected to make surplus resources available, but only surplus resources. Licences are only issued with respect to stocks that Canadians do not have an interest in harvesting. Normally that is because they do not have a commercial viability. That has been the practice.
In the final analysis with respect to dealing with the problem of foreign overfishing off our coasts, it is an external problem that can only be solved through international co-operation.
That really has been the basis of the approach the
Private Members' Business
Government of Canada has taken for the last several years to try to bring the countries which have been overfishing, such as Spain, Portugal, South Korea and some others to a more limited extent, to try to achieve through co-operation what in fact there is no basis in international law for us to oppose.
Much as it might be nice to say: "Let us just unilaterally extend the limit," there is no legal basis for doing so. Much as we might like to say: "Well, let us go out and blast them out of the water," that is hardly acceptable. I know all members of this House would be absolutely outraged if some other country took it upon itself in international waters to arrest or otherwise interfere with a Canadian vessel.
Really, the only approach we can take is the diplomatic one frustrating though it may be. It is important to note significant progress is being made, in no small measure I might say, as a result of the efforts not only by the Prime Minister of Canada, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but also by industry representatives, members of Parliament, and many others who participated in a very extensive campaign of putting this issue on the public agenda in Europe and in other parts of the world.
The problem of overfishing on the high seas is increasingly being recognized by the international community as an important environmental issue. It was on the basis of the fact it was an environmental issue that we were able to get the whole issue brought into the Rio summit. Some would suggest we bootlegged the issue in late in the game, but the bottom line is that it was recognized there as an environmental problem which in the final analysis is what it is.
Increasingly over the past few years there has been international recognition of the gravity of this problem. For example in 1987 the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development warned of the threat to living marine resources posed by over-exploitation, pollution and land-based development.
In 1991, more recently the G-7 heads of government issued a declaration urging compliance with the regimes established by regional fisheries organizations through effective monitoring and enforcement measures.

June 23, 1992
Private Members' Business
A report released in 1991 by the Secretary-General of the United Nations underlined in eloquent terms the dimension of the problem of overfishing by distant water fishing fleets.
The United Nations General Assembly took up this issue for the first time in 1989 when in response to the problem of overfishing in the northwest Atlantic outside Canada's 200-mile zone it expressed concern regarding the use of fishing methods and practices on the high seas that can have an adverse impact on the conservation and management of the living resources of the marine environment. The concerns were elaborated on by the General Assembly in a resolution it adopted in 1990.
Canada and other like-minded countries built on these resolutions at the last session of the General Assembly. As a result of those efforts the General Assembly adopted a very significant resolution.
It is against this background of developing international concern with respect to the problem caused by overfishing Canada launched its legal initiative to resolve the problem of overfishing on the high seas.
The Canadian initiative sought to develop specific principles and measures consistent with the Law of the Sea Convention with a view to giving full implementation to the provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention, strengthening regional organizations and ensuring the recognition of special interest of coastal states with respect to straddling stocks. This would provide for an effective legal regime governing activities of the high seas.
The first steps in the elaboration of the principles and measures were taken at a conference held in St. John's, Newfoundland in September 1990.
The conference recognized the need for such measures and agreed on a set of conclusions reflecting an increasingly shared view of how the rules of international law should be interpreted and applied. This document was further developed at a meeting of Latin American states, New Zealand and Canada in May in Santiago, Chile. Hence, it is referred to as the Santiago paper or the Santiago document which was put forward earlier this year in a series of conferences.
The first was the International Conference on Responsible Fishing held in Cancun, Mexico in May. Of course, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans led the
Canadian delegation at that conference at which 66 participants at the conference declared:
First, that states should co-operate on bilateral, regional and multinational levels to establish, reinforce and implement effective means and mechanisms to ensure responsible fishing on the high seas in accordance with relevant provisions of the Law of the Sea;
Second, that the freedom of states to fish on the high seas must be balanced with the obligation to co-operate with other states to ensure conservation and rational management of the living resources in accordance with relevant provisions of the Law of the Sea; and
Third, that states should take effective action consistent with international law to deter reflagging of vessels as a means of avoiding compliance with applicable conservation and management rules for fishing activities on the high seas.
It is interesting to note following that, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans visited Panama and got the agreement of that government to discourage reflagging and the same proposal has now been made to Honduras, another country where there has been some progress.
I see I am getting the eye, Madam Speaker. I thought I had a couple of more minutes.
I will conclude by saying that all this led to the tremendously significant development at Rio. Early this fall Canada will be calling a conference of interested nations to come forward to St. John's, Newfoundland, to look ahead for that UN conference we hope will come early in 1993. We hope that will lead to the resolution of the problem and the establishment of a proper regime for the management of transboundaiy stocks on the basis of sustainable development.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills without any modification: Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade; Bill C-82, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof; Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations be-
June 23, 1992

tween artists and producers in Canada; Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods; Bill C-58, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources; Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process; Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal code (sexual assault); Bill 51, an act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories; Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon Territory, and Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code (jury).



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Madam Speaker, I hope the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod will get lost in the halls of Parliament on his way here so that I may have at least a minute or two to make a few comments.\nLet me say that the motion that is before us today calls on the Government of Canada to take the necessary steps to ratify the international Law of the Sea.\nIt should be noted that what Parliament is being asked to do, what the government is being asked to do, is to take the necessary steps to ratify an international convention that I think most Canadians thought had been ratified. The fact of the matter is that it has been nearly a decade, 10 years, since 119 nations, including Canada, signed the Law of the Sea.\nJune 23, 1992', "I think most Canadians are unaware that even though it has been 10 years since the Law of the Sea was signed, with a great deal of fanfare, it has not been ratified. It has been ratified by 53 nations. It requires 60. Only one of the western industrialized nations has ratified it.\nWe must ask ourselves why have so many nations signed a document and then failed to ratify it?\nI will tell you why, Madam Speaker, in veiy simple language: greed. It is the very same eyes wide open greed that led-and this is why it is criminal-to the wanton destruction of cod stocks, both northern cod and gulf cod, and the Pacific fishery stocks. It is the very same greed and lack of conviction and backbone on the part of regulators which is destroying a renewable resource and is now at work preventing the ratification of the Law of the Sea.\nIt is in Canada's interest. This House in an emergency debate last night and during the last week heard about the state of fish stocks, heard about a 500-year old industry that has supported a culture, a rural way of life, a value system that has been destroyed in the name of greed. We have not been able to restrain ourselves from squeezing every last convenient quick buck out of a renewable resource and treating Mother Nature like a convenient piece on a monopoly board instead of showing the ocean and the cod stock the respect we ought to have done.\nCanadians are now ready to see our government move to ratify the Law of the Sea as another means of rebuilding the cod stocks.\nWe saw at the last Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting a resolution supporting all the measures required to restore the cod stocks. That is a conference of every major municipality right across Canada.\nChuck Furey, the Minister of Development for Newfoundland, proposed before the Northern Ministers' Conference in Sudbury just last week a resolution calling on the five provinces attending to support the end of overfishing and the necessary measures to rebuild Canada's cod stocks. Those five ministers unanimously endorsed that position. It is another indication that Canadians are ready to take the tough decisions, the necessary measures to protect this nation's vital resources.\nPrivate Members' Business\nCanada has benefited immeasurably as a result of the Law of the Sea Convention. We have signed it. As a consequence of it, we have been able to declare sovereign rights over 1,290,000 square nautical miles of continental shelf. We have been able to claim the right to manage what is now, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, the largest marine nation in the world, bar none.\nThis country has the largest marine coastline on the planet earth. There is not even a close second any more with the break-up of the Soviet Union. Surely Canada should lead the charge to see that ratification of the Law of the Sea takes place. We cannot allow the interests of private concerns that want to ensure they continue to be unregulated in their desire to mine the sea bed to prevent this nation from being forward looking, confident and committed to protecting the sea resource.\nThis motion today is not a motion asking our government to blindly ratify the convention. It is not a motion that calls upon the Government of Canada to rush forward without any consultation with our partners in the G-7 or in the western industrialized world. It does not say that.\nIt says that in the opinion of this House the government should, for the benefit of Canadian fisheries, urgently take the necessary steps to ratify the international Law of the Sea, and urge other nations to do so in order to reach the 60 signatures required for the Law of the Sea to come into force.\nThat is what it says. It says Canada should show leadership. Canada, among western nations, should take a leading role and not leave it just to the Third World to ratify the Law of the Sea. It says Canada, which has benefited so immeasurably from this convention, ought now to give something back to the rest of the planet by urging that this convention be ratified.\nIt is a motion that does not condemn the Government of Canada. It does not call into question the commitment of the Government of Canada. It does not call into question the interests of the Government of Canada. It does not seek to convey one shred of partisan advantage by the proposer, the member for Davenport. It is a motion that is consistent with the integrity of this member who in all his years in this place and his many hours of debate and as many questions put on the floor", 'Royal Assent\nof the House of Commons has always stood on the side of sustainable development.\nIt is a motion by a member who has said a thousand times if we ever must err in this place in so far as the environment is concerned, let us err on the side of the environment, not on the side of the speculators who want to mine the bottom of the ocean as if it were an open pit mine.\nHave we not done enough damage? Have we not destroyed enough of this planet with our eyes wide open? Have we not understood by going to the real conference. The real conference is the one that I and some of my colleagues held a week ago with 1,000 fishermen and plant workers on the great northern peninsula who have seen 500 years of history wiped out because of the wanton destruction of gulf cod stocks. That is the real conference.\nThat is the reality we must face. Those are the people whose eyes we must meet. It is to them, the builders of Canada, those who come from the primary resource sector in Canada, those fishermen together with farmers, together with the people in the mining section, the forestry section, it is to those people we owe a vote of confidence.\nI conclude with this. Remember the words of the Haida Indians from the province of British Columbia. They said that we do not inherit the land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. The same is true of the sea. Let us leave it better than we found it.']
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 23rd day of June, 1992, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The list of bills you read is very impressive and I know there is a tremendous list already waiting for Royal Assent in the other place which of course have been passed in this House in the last few days.
I see the parliamentary secretary to the Government House leader is here. I wonder if he could explain why it
Private Members' Business
is that time allocation is being used on government bills when such progress is being made.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia (p. 12693).
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I want to have an opportunity to make a few remarks before we adjourn to deal with the products of the Senate but I would like to share it with my colleague from Newfoundland if the time is short.
The motion before us today put forward by the hon. member for Davenport certainly is a very supportable and commendable proposal and I recommend it to the House.
I would also point out there are some serious problems in our attention paid to critical issues in the marine or oceanic environment. I would like to point out a couple of those. These are long historic problems that neither government, the previous Liberal government nor the government of the day, the Conservative government, has dealt with.
The first one is the Dixon Entrance problem, the boundary dispute with the United States in Dixon Entrance in which people who fish on the coast of British Columbia are constantly harassed by the Americans who had moved the AB line into the centre of the Dixon Entrance.
We see constant harassment by American coast guards, arrests, seizure of catches, seizure of vessels, and a completely intolerable response from the Government of Canada which turns around and allows this to happen.
Canadian maps show Canadian fishing territory. Canadian sovereignty should be exerted there and the Canadian law enforcement, the Canadian government, everyone allows them simply to be arrested in areas that we show on our maps as Canadian area. They are in that area harassed by the Americans, arrested, hauled to Ketchikan, their catch is seized, taken to court, fined,

June 23, 1992
Private Members' Business
and it is an absolutely intolerable situation that we as Canadians have to join together and say this is intolerable. It cannot continue.
The Americans simply move the AB line out of the treaty of 1903 or 1904 and say that they are going to allow petroleum drilling in an area that is shown on Canadian maps as Canadian territory. Absolutely unacceptable.
The Americans run nuclear submarines through there, and this government concedes to it. The previous government conceded to it. The government of British Columbia and most of the communities in the area have designated themselves as nuclear-free zones for the purpose of communicating more to the Canadian agencies than the Americans, that this is the desire of Canadians, to remove nuclear vessels and their threat from the area.
The Law of the Sea Conference was an area in which the Canadian government and the delegates acquitted themselves very well. The intent was to give sovereign states jurisdiction over the surrounding coasts and oceans. But we have seen the Canadian government renege on drift-net fishing and from 1980 till today, we have seen Liberal governments and Conservative governments ignore the issues of drift-net fishing.
One of the worst examples of our neglect of our marine environment, and the intent I think of the Law of the Sea Conference, was the efforts that Canada exerted to try and get national control of an anadromous species, the salmon of the west coast. We are now almost in a war with the United States over that species.
We began a long process under the Liberal government in the late seventies, early eighties, of negotiating an interception treaty on the west coast, the Salmon Interception Treaty. We felt that we were completely sold out by the Conservative government that needed some kind of throwaway for the first visit of Ronald Reagan to his corporate vice-president here in Canada and we wound up with a situation at Quebec City where that fishery was literally thrown away.
Today we are faced with a new fish war arising in the United States where the Americans are saying that the Fraser River stocks, which are part of the old Hell's Gate
problem where the Canadians allowed the Americans to come in and build the fish ladders and claim half the stocks out of the Fraser River. That is absolutely intolerable.
Canadians who live on the west coast wonder where is their federal government. They are under the impression that the Pacific fisheries are a complete throwaway, that if there is a problem with an auto treaty or an auto agreement in central Canada, then elements of the Pacific coast fisheries can be thrown away.
In this House of Commons we need to see the government spend more attention and serious attention to those fisheries. They are worth a billion dollars a year. They are not throwaway items, they are absolutely critical to native people, to the people who live on the coast of British Columbia, and they need to be stood up for.
The Pacific coast fishery should be turned over to the province of British Columbia with the full cost from this federal government, probably in tax points, to cover the cost of the operation. British Columbians care about that resource, they care about the people who depend on the resource, their enhancement, survival and protection. The government in Ottawa over the years has demonstrated that it does not care for it.
I am just absolutely appalled about the Dixon Entrance issue, about the Pacific coast salmon interception. When we talk about the Law of the Sea we have to look at the total perspective.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I hope the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod will get lost in the halls of Parliament on his way here so that I may have at least a minute or two to make a few comments.
Let me say that the motion that is before us today calls on the Government of Canada to take the necessary steps to ratify the international Law of the Sea.
It should be noted that what Parliament is being asked to do, what the government is being asked to do, is to take the necessary steps to ratify an international convention that I think most Canadians thought had been ratified. The fact of the matter is that it has been nearly a decade, 10 years, since 119 nations, including Canada, signed the Law of the Sea.
June 23, 1992

I think most Canadians are unaware that even though it has been 10 years since the Law of the Sea was signed, with a great deal of fanfare, it has not been ratified. It has been ratified by 53 nations. It requires 60. Only one of the western industrialized nations has ratified it.
We must ask ourselves why have so many nations signed a document and then failed to ratify it?
I will tell you why, Madam Speaker, in veiy simple language: greed. It is the very same eyes wide open greed that led-and this is why it is criminal-to the wanton destruction of cod stocks, both northern cod and gulf cod, and the Pacific fishery stocks. It is the very same greed and lack of conviction and backbone on the part of regulators which is destroying a renewable resource and is now at work preventing the ratification of the Law of the Sea.
It is in Canada's interest. This House in an emergency debate last night and during the last week heard about the state of fish stocks, heard about a 500-year old industry that has supported a culture, a rural way of life, a value system that has been destroyed in the name of greed. We have not been able to restrain ourselves from squeezing every last convenient quick buck out of a renewable resource and treating Mother Nature like a convenient piece on a monopoly board instead of showing the ocean and the cod stock the respect we ought to have done.
Canadians are now ready to see our government move to ratify the Law of the Sea as another means of rebuilding the cod stocks.
We saw at the last Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting a resolution supporting all the measures required to restore the cod stocks. That is a conference of every major municipality right across Canada.
Chuck Furey, the Minister of Development for Newfoundland, proposed before the Northern Ministers' Conference in Sudbury just last week a resolution calling on the five provinces attending to support the end of overfishing and the necessary measures to rebuild Canada's cod stocks. Those five ministers unanimously endorsed that position. It is another indication that Canadians are ready to take the tough decisions, the necessary measures to protect this nation's vital resources.
Private Members' Business
Canada has benefited immeasurably as a result of the Law of the Sea Convention. We have signed it. As a consequence of it, we have been able to declare sovereign rights over 1,290,000 square nautical miles of continental shelf. We have been able to claim the right to manage what is now, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, the largest marine nation in the world, bar none.
This country has the largest marine coastline on the planet earth. There is not even a close second any more with the break-up of the Soviet Union. Surely Canada should lead the charge to see that ratification of the Law of the Sea takes place. We cannot allow the interests of private concerns that want to ensure they continue to be unregulated in their desire to mine the sea bed to prevent this nation from being forward looking, confident and committed to protecting the sea resource.
This motion today is not a motion asking our government to blindly ratify the convention. It is not a motion that calls upon the Government of Canada to rush forward without any consultation with our partners in the G-7 or in the western industrialized world. It does not say that.
It says that in the opinion of this House the government should, for the benefit of Canadian fisheries, urgently take the necessary steps to ratify the international Law of the Sea, and urge other nations to do so in order to reach the 60 signatures required for the Law of the Sea to come into force.
That is what it says. It says Canada should show leadership. Canada, among western nations, should take a leading role and not leave it just to the Third World to ratify the Law of the Sea. It says Canada, which has benefited so immeasurably from this convention, ought now to give something back to the rest of the planet by urging that this convention be ratified.
It is a motion that does not condemn the Government of Canada. It does not call into question the commitment of the Government of Canada. It does not call into question the interests of the Government of Canada. It does not seek to convey one shred of partisan advantage by the proposer, the member for Davenport. It is a motion that is consistent with the integrity of this member who in all his years in this place and his many hours of debate and as many questions put on the floor

Royal Assent
of the House of Commons has always stood on the side of sustainable development.
It is a motion by a member who has said a thousand times if we ever must err in this place in so far as the environment is concerned, let us err on the side of the environment, not on the side of the speculators who want to mine the bottom of the ocean as if it were an open pit mine.
Have we not done enough damage? Have we not destroyed enough of this planet with our eyes wide open? Have we not understood by going to the real conference. The real conference is the one that I and some of my colleagues held a week ago with 1,000 fishermen and plant workers on the great northern peninsula who have seen 500 years of history wiped out because of the wanton destruction of gulf cod stocks. That is the real conference.
That is the reality we must face. Those are the people whose eyes we must meet. It is to them, the builders of Canada, those who come from the primary resource sector in Canada, those fishermen together with farmers, together with the people in the mining section, the forestry section, it is to those people we owe a vote of confidence.
I conclude with this. Remember the words of the Haida Indians from the province of British Columbia. They said that we do not inherit the land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. The same is true of the sea. Let us leave it better than we found it.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-48, an act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof- Chapter No. 26.
Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend the Income Thx Act in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 27.
Bill C-74, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Thriff and the Excise Thx Act-Chapter No. 28.
Bill C-75, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Income Thx Act-Chapter No. 29.
Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada -Chapter No. 30.
Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade-Chapter No. 31.
Bill C-82, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act and to amend another acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 32.
Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada-Chapter No. 33.
Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods-Chapter No. 34.
Bill C-58, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 35.
' Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources-Chapter No. 36.
Bill C-13, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process-Chapter No. 37.
Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault)-Chapter No. 38.
Bill C-51, an act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories-Chapter No. 39.
Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon Territory-Chapter No. 40.
Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code (jury)-Chapter No. 41.
Bill S-11, an act to amend the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act-Chapter No. 42.
Bill S-9, an act to amend an act to incorporate the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church.
Bill S-10, an act to incorporate Green Shield Canada.
June 23, 1992

Adjournment Debate
Bill S-12, an act to amalgamate the Montreal Board of Hade and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal.
Bill C-87, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March 1993-Chapter No. 43.

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the precedence list on the Order Paper.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I hope it is an appropriate time to intervene on a point of order and to suggest that we call it 10 o'clock.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would there be unanimous consent to call it 10 o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think I had a smile thinking that the hon. member was calling it 10.30.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your sentiment and oh, that I could have agreed. However, under the circumstances I think you will appreciate that I would want to be heard on the adjournment debate. I will be as brief as I can.
I am speaking in amplification to a question I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration last Friday. There was a lot of concern for my riding shown by the response that the minister gave. I know that the minister really did not intend to be flippant. I understand. I have never been a minister but I do know they have fantastic responsibilities and to come to the House and answer questions for one hour a day is another part of their responsibilities and I know that tempers get short.
The minister did indicate that it took a demonstration to get this side of the House to ask questions on the desperate situation of those people who are without compensation in my riding and the six ridings in Newfoundland.
I want to keep this on as positive a note as I can. I know I have made 27 interventions on that specific subject in this House and I think the Speaker and the government have been pretty good about allowing us to air this issue.
We had an emergency debate on February 19, an opposition day on March 12, and last night from 10 p.m. until almost 1 a.m. this morning. We had an emergency debate on the plight of fishermen and plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the dreadful condition of the northern cod and gulf cod stocks.
A number of points were made. The reduction in the cod catches and stocks both offshore and inshore is mind-boggling. It has resulted in two concerns. One is the concern for the likelihood of a moratorium which will affect the offshore and the inshore in the long term. However, the purpose of the debate last night and the focus of the debate was-and if it wandered off it should have been-on the short-term requirements for those people who have in a general sense been without compensation since May 15.
In my specific case I am on my feet this evening for 60 families that do not have compensation because they had not worked long enough in Port Union at a plant with 1,200 people, at the time employing 850, and 155 trawler-men.
I am pleased to report that today I received a letter from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and he did say he was taking a personal interest in the 60 people. I hope he is still considering some kind of compensation. However nothing has happened and it is a little bit wearisome to hear about, as much as we do appreciate it, the previous $584 million in 1990 and the $57 million the year before.
These are not normal times. These are times when people are required to take notice. Some things have happened that have never happened before. In 500 years there has never been a consideration, even a discussion, of a moratorium on any kind of fish stock.

June 23, 1992
Adjournment Debate
There has never been a sea demonstration like there was on March 30 when 11 trawlers and 125 fishermen and other crew members sailed to demonstrate against foreign overfishing. We have had, in a relatively short time, two emergency debates and one opposition day on a subject that relates to this whole problem.
There is a message. We are as vocal as we can be on this side of the House, the NDP as well as the Liberals, on this subject and I know there are members on the government side who are concerned as well.
In the closing hours of the House somehow it has become a tradition. I have always managed to do this. It is not by intent. It is by accident. I want to stress to the government that as we close this House there are still people who do not have compensation in the short term, and in the long term those who will not have compensation if the fisheries are given a moratorium and who will expect some announcement from the government in the very near future.
I will certainly look forward to that, and hope that in the response there will be some indication given as to what is going to happen this summer.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I do want to answer on behalf of the government. I want to say that I am sure that all members of the House share the concerns raised by my hon. friend and none are more concerned about this problem than the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Prime Minister of Canada himself. All three have made it very clear that they will respond, as this government has indeed responded in the past, to this very serious problem. The minister spoke eloquently and passionately last evening on this subject. I spoke, as did my hon. friend for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
I want to make it perfectly clear that this government will respond. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has to make a decision with respect to whether that moratorium on the northern cod fishery should be extended. I am sure that he will want to announce the compensation package at that time.
I know my hon. friend would acknowledge that the references that have been made to the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program and to last year's Catch Failure Program are simply there as testimony to the fact that
this government is aware of the problem, is prepared to respond and will respond.
The minister has said he will be making his decision on northern cod in the near future and that accompanying that decision will be a program of assistance to help those affected. The government will assist these people, as we have done in the past, when it is needed and we will do it again.
The Prime Minister has stated his concern and commitment. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have stated their concerns.
I want to assure my hon. friend that the government's objectives are clear. The first is to ensure the conservation of the resource so that we do have a future in that very important fishery off the Grand Banks. The second objective is to assist fishermen, plant workers and families in communities.
The minister of fisheries was forced to lower the total allowable catch of northern cod from 185,000 tonnes to
120,000	tonnes this year. That was not an easy decision to make, but it was made. Earlier this month we learned that it appears the northern cod stock that once supported a total allowable catch of more than 250,000 tonnes is more depleted than what we know from last February. The definitive advice and the decision flowing from it will soon be in the public domain.
The government's record is exemplary and unprecedented. I want to assure my hon. friend that the support that is needed will be here. The Government of Canada, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Prime Minister of Canada hear the cries of the people of Atlantic Canada and they will respond with compassion, with generosity as appropriately as they have done in the past.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to expand on my question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the development of Terminals 1 and 2 at Toronto's Pearson airport.
I was assured that the project is on stream. I was told that the runways would be developed, but I then learned there has been an extension on it until July 13 with regard to the Terminals 1 and 2 project. I want to give the key reasons why this is important. The federal government can create up to 20,000 job-years of employment in
June 23, 1992

construction, service and related industries over the life of the project. The federal government can create up to
3,000	jobs this year when construction unemployment in Toronto is about 50 per cent. The redevelopment of Terminals 1 and 2 will be with private investment and absolutely no expenditure of public funds.
I think these are really important reasons and all of us who have gone through Pearson airport know that we do not want to wait until 1998 to do this project when there will be 28 million passengers per year and therefore completely overloaded. The idea is to do this project now when it is not at full capacity so that the airport can still work while this is going on.
There are tremendous benefits to Pearson airport. One per cent of all people employed in Ontario work at that airport. It is of big, big importance to all of us in Ontario. I must say, though, that the overwhelming reason why, at this point in time, the government should act is clearly this one. This is an opportunity for not just short-term economic impact, but really long-term prosperity. The development of Terminals 1 and 2 will give Canada-and a truly Canadian firm-the opportunity to reach out past the successful completion of Terminals 1 and 2 into the international marketplace. Canadian expertise used at Terminals 1 and 2 will able to be show-cased to the world. It will show that we are real leaders in this kind of technology of people and cargo moving and successfully running an airport. Canada has the capability. With Canadians working and making a show-case example of Terminals 1 and 2 we are going to have something for the world, which is our long-term prosperity. I think that is the key reason why we have to get on.
We had a big setback yesterday in Ontario when we were refused the 1998 world's fair. Big-scale economic projects come along very rarely. We cannot afford to let this one slip by. We need this and we need it now. We do not want to see any more delays after July 13.
Twenty months ago the federal government announced it was going to do something at Terminals 1 and 2. Southern Ontario is hurting economically along with everyone else. The government has an opportunity to create thousands of jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. This
Adjournment Debate
will be good news for Bob Rae because you do not have to, by creating all these jobs, drive up your deficit.
This is a new way of doing it. It is completely financed by the private sector. It is a good message not just for Ontario and Ontarians but indeed for all of Canada to do it this way. I think that with 3,000 jobs and up to half a million dollars of investment per day we cannot afford to be dragging our heels. We have to get this government acting as quickly as it can after July 13. It must ensure that the project, once it starts, is accelerated.
The development of Terminals 1 and 2 at Toronto's Pearson airport is important for everyone.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the government and compliment the hon. member for London-Middlesex for bringing forth this very important matter. I assure him that the Minister of Transport and the Government of Canada share his concerns with respect to this very important project.
On behalf of the minister, I would like to reaffirm the government's clear and firm commitment to the future of Lester B. Pearson International Airport. The Minister of Transport has initiated an impressive program for the restoration and modernization of Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport.
In March 1992 a request for proposals was issued inviting the private sector to submit competitive proposals to undertake the project. We are now awaiting those proposals with considerable anticipation.
I am sure the House can appreciate the very fact that this is a very short time frame for such a complex project reinforces the minister's commitment to this valuable initiative. We believe it demonstrates the government's commitment to accelerating the front-end phases of the project so that the work could begin at the earliest possible date.
With regard to air-side development, in 1989, the Minister of Transport outlined the first phase of a development plan for southern Ontario. The detailed analysis of the capacity problems at Pearson revealed that two new east-west runways would provide an increase in hourly capacity from 96 to approximately 126 movements. A proposed third runway in the north-south

June 23, 1992
Adjournment Debate
direction would increase hourly capacity from 50 movements to approximately 70.
The government believes that the runways would yield positive net benefits for the Canadian economy. The proposed development is of course subject to a full environmental review.
In early May 1991 a detailed environment impact statement describing the environmental and social consequences of the proposal was filed with the federal environmental review office panel. Recommendations by the panel are expected, and indeed eagerly waited, in the not too distant future. Rest assured that the report will be given every priority by the Minister of Transport.
Madam Speaker, before I sit down, may I wish you and your colleagues of the Chair who have served this House so well a very pleasant and happy summer. We hope it will be a long summer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Thank you. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to elaborate on a question I posed to the Prime Minister on June 4 of this year.
It was with regard to pending trade actions by American steel producers against a whole host of countries. I believe it was 36 countries and Canada was included. This was just subsequent to a visit by our Prime Minister to the United States. He came back and said he was confident that frivolous and vexatious American trade actions would cease. We indeed hope that that is true.
Although we were waiy, we felt that the Americans would lodge these actions on June 15.1 am now told that they are expected on June 30.
We do not believe that the visit of the Prime Minister has changed anything in the United States with regard to protectionist sentiments toward Canadian steel producers. The Prime Minister in his response said that we were caught in a side-swipe from Korea. I suggest that we were not only side-swiped, but front-ended and back-ended and everything else.
We have been exempt from voluntary restraint agreements as other countries have received therefore supposedly striking up a special relationship with the United States.
That has not happened. Our market share of the United States has been consistent at 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent since 1988, whereas the American share of our market has risen from just over 7 per cent to about 16 per cent at this particular time.
There is no agreement on the definition of subsidies. The Americans say we are subsidized. We know that they are subsidized to the tune of several billions of dollars.
Certainly we have had some warning that this would happen when the visit of the Canadian steel producers to the United States was cancelled 24 hours prior to arriving there. The suggestion was that it was the Pennsylvania primaries that postponed the visit. I suggest they knew about this months in advance. Also we have been unable to schedule another session. We expect on June 30 that the shoe will drop.
Canadian steel producers and the United Steel Workers of America went to Washington. They told me: "Play this low key. We feel the Americans are very sensitive to the problems of Canadian steel. We will not involve you in any trade actions".
Those sensitivities have proven to be incorrect. I think they are going to be as sensitive as a sledge-hammer come June 30. I would hope the government would respond by indicating just exactly what it is doing to preclude us from being caught up in this unnecessary, unjust trade action against Canadian steel producers.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer today the question the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie asked the Prime Minister of Canada on June 4 regarding the looming crisis in Canada-U.S. steel trade.
As the hon. member knows, it is anticipated that the U.S. steel industry will include Canada in its expected filing of unfair trade petitions against steel imports from a number of countries.
June 23, 1992

As he may also know, both the government and the Canadian industry have been expressing to the U.S. administration and the U.S. industry our strong view that including imports from Canada in these petitions is unnecessary and potentially destructive to the mutually beneficial trade in steel between our two countries and would likely precipitate a major bilateral trade dispute between Canada and the United States.
We have emphasized to the U.S. administration, most recently during the June 9 meeting between the hon. minister for International Trade and U.S. trade representative Hills, that while U.S. steel imports from Canada have remained stable, Canadian steel imports from the United States have tripled in recent years.
In 1991 imports from the United States accounted for over 16 percent of our market as compared to the 3.3 percent of the U.S. market accounted for by Canada.
The government has also emphasized that if included in the U.S. petitions, the Canadian steel industry would have no choice but to include imports from the United States in unfair trade cases that they are preparing against imports into Canada.
On the latter point, the Canadian steel industry is committed to taking action against imports of steel from the United States should their exports be targeted by the U.S. industry. The government stands ready to initiate investigations based on complaints filed by the Canadian industry.
We are extremely disappointed in the response of the U.S. administration to our message and would deeply regret it if the U.S. industry chose to include Canada in its petitions.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion I would like to join my hon. colleague from South Shore in wishing a happy holiday to you and to the staff who assist you in carrying out your duties, and to all the Canadians who are listening to us.


CHILDREN
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, on June 12, I asked the minister of state a question concerning the full indexation of the child tax credit so that it would be tied to inflation. She answered by
Adjournment Debate
referring to the deficit as a reason why we have child poverty. I am not sure the minister knew at the time about the magnitude of the problem in my region of Ottawa-Carleton.
I want to elaborate on my question in order to make the point that child poverty is a major national issue that needs the attention of everyone. In our region the number of children who are poor is really alarmingly high. Fourteen per cent of all children under 18 years of age are poor. That is approximately 19,000 children who are living in poverty.
Poor children normally live in poor families. Children are poor because their families are poor. Their parent or parents do not earn enough income to provide for the basic physical and social necessities of life. For example, in excess of 12,000 families with children are living in poverty in my region of Ottawa-Carleton. Also the number of poor two-parent families is almost equal to the number of single-parent families living in poverty.
Young families are extremely poor. Fifty-five per cent of families living in this region with children where the household maintainer is under the age of 25 are living in poverty. The situation improves somewhat for a family with children where the household maintainer is between the ages of 25 and 34, but one out of five of these families is also poor.
Also, Madam Speaker, you will be veiy sad to learn that 93 per cent of all single parent families living in poverty in our region are headed by women. The poverty rate for single mothers is 33 per cent and 12 per cent for single fathers. That translates into 5,725 single mothers who are living in poverty and 455 single fathers are poor in my region.
The poverty rate for single mothers increases with the number of children. For example, 29 per cent of single mothers with one child are poor and 56 per cent of single mothers with four or more children are poor.
This has a tremendous impact on the education of children. Approximately one out of three students in Ontario, as a whole, drops out before completing grade 12, and it is no different for this region. Nearly one out of four families with children where the household maintainer has not completed high school is living in poverty.

Adjournment Debate
Finally, almost half of all poor families in this region has a household maintainer who has not completed high school.
That is why I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the government so that we can implement some action plan by the year 2000 to eliminate child poverty.

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has suggested that the proposed child tax benefit will make families on welfare worse off. This is not true.
In addition to thousands of dollars per child in social assistance benefits, families on welfare will continue to receive at least the same level of federal child benefits under the child tax benefit as they are now receiving under the current system.
Some families on social assistance will receive higher benefits if they have three or more children, or more than $3,750 in annual earnings.
Families on welfare will also gain from having their full child benefits paid monthly. For example, in January 1993 their monthly child benefit payments will more than double from the current $35 per child to at least $85 per child. Since the child tax benefit will be paid in a timely matter, welfare mothers will no longer need to sacrifice benefits to tax discounters.
The hon. member has also suggested that the government does not care about child poverty because the child tax benefit is indexed to changes in prices in excess of 3 per cent.
The child tax benefit is being automatically indexed in the same way as the rest of the tax system. I would like to point out that this new benefit will automatically increase total federal assistance to children by $2.1 billion over the next five years. In addition to this automatic increase of $2.1 billion in child assistance, the government is committed to reviewing child benefits over time and further increasing payments as fiscal conditions permit.
The hon. member conveniently ignores the fact that since 1985 the government has demonstrated its commitment to helping children by enriching the refundable child tax credit five times. These enrichments have
ensured that the average level of federal child benefits paid to low-income families has more than kept pace with inflation.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion I would like to associate myself with the salutations to yourself, to the Table Officers, and to the pages who have served us so well this season.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, having listened to my colleague with his eloquent French I would like to take such an-

-opportunity to congratulate him for his very good French. This is extraordinary.
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish you a good holiday. I congratulate you, as well as all the people who have helped you.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion that this House do now adjourn is deemed adopted.
However, I would also like to thank all those who are with us here, and particularly the young people who may be spending their last day in the House of Commons.

Despite all the work you had to do while studying and having exams and so on I do hope that you enjoyed your stay in the House of Commons as much as I and each and everyone of my colleagues appreciated your work at each and every moment.
Have a nice summer and good luck in your careers, whatever you choose to be. Hopefully, one or two of you may come back to the House. I hope you did not find it that bad after all.

Since this is June 23,1 want to take this opportunity to wish all Quebecers a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, and Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic, a happy Canada Day.
It being 6.37 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 21, 1992, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2). I wish a good summer to everyone.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 8,1992