1992-02-13

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Finance.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response thereto within 150 days.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling a petition signed primarily by the residents of Bums Lake, B.C. in my riding.
The petition expresses the ongoing concern of all Canadians over this government's bringing in "of the goods and services tax.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is signed by residents of the city of Winnipeg. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to recognize housing as a shared provincial-federal responsibility, and request support for the federal non-profit co-operative housing program and to maintain the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I have another petition from residents of the city of Winnipeg. The petitioners request that Parliament consider amending all federal superannuation acts in which inequities exist to allow for the retroactive pension credit splitting for all divorced spouses so that they may receive one-half of the federal pension credits accumulated by both spouses during the years of their marriage.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of the residents of the North Thompson valley in British Columbia who are concerned now, as they have been for many months, about a proposal to divert the North Thompson River.
They ask that we maintain a very clear position and that the Government of Canada oppose such a venture.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have a second petition regarding financial support for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The petitioners, all from Kamloops, are asking that the federal government and the provincial government take whatever steps are necessary to ensure an adequate level of policing.

February 13, 1992
Routine Proceedings DON RIVER


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to present petitions duly signed by many constituents of Broadview-Greenwood. The petitioners continue to hope that the government will honour the commitments it made in the green plan and funding statements that it made earlier in attempts to reclaim the Don River which flows through my riding, the most polluted river in all of Canada.
The petitioners hope that by reclaiming the Don River, we can use it as a model of our ability to reclaim all the dirty rivers in this country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 148, 149, 150 and 195.


Mr. Berger: With respect to the subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act which requires that immigrants apply for, and obtain a visa before appearing at a Canadian port of entry, what is the average time required to process regulations exempting an individual from this requirement?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Persons applying for landed immigrant status from within Canada must meet statutory requirements which include medical and security checks as well as requiring an Order-in-Council to exempt these applicants from the requirement of subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act.
The average processing time for Order-in-Council visa waivers has fluctuated over the last two years in response to immigration levels achievement and volume. At this point virtually all visa waiver Order-in-Council requests submitted by applicants prior to January 1991 have been completed, indicating an average processing period of 10 and 12 months.


Mr. Berger: What is the average time which elapses between the delivery of a completed application form by an individual seeking permanent resident status who is presently in Canada, and the actual landing of a successful applicant?


Bernard Valcourt: Persons applying for landed immigrant status from within Canada must meet statutory requirements which include medical and security checks as well as requiring an Order-in-Council to exempt these applicants from the requirement of subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act.
The average processing time for Order-in-Council visa waivers has fluctuated over the last two years in response to immigration levels achievement and volume. At this point virtually all visa waiver Order-in-Council requests submitted by appliants prior to January 1991 have been completed, indicating an average processing period of 10 to 12 months.


Mr. Berger: Is the Department of Employment and Immigration contemplating any administrative or legislative changes to facilitate the processing of applications for landed immigrant status received from within Canada?


Bernard Valcourt: There are presently no plans to amend subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act which requires that immigrants obtain a visa before appearing at a port-of-entry.
Persons applying for landed immigrant status from within Canada must meet statutory requirements which include medical and security checks as well as requiring an Order-in-Council to exempt these applicants from the requirement of subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act.
Recently, Employment and Immigration introduced administrative measures, namely automated processing and tracking of Govemor-in-Council submissions, to improve the processing of applications for permanent residence by persons in Canada.
Employment and Immigration will continue to develop procedural changes to improve the processing of these applications.


Mr. Fisher: 1.	What is the current status of each Human Rights complaint emanating from within the CRTC., that is being considered or reconsidered before the Canadian Human Rights Commission or Tribunal?
2.	Who are the individuals hired, what services were rendered, including a breakdown of monies paid to each individual working for the CRTC., from 1986 to present, for each internal grievance procedure and each Human Rights complaint emanating from the CRTC workplace.


Albert Glen Cooper: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission as follows:
1.	There are four complaints emanating from within the CRTC The Canadian Human Rights Commission is considering three and the Human Rights Tribunal one.
Of the three complaints before the commission, one was just received and the investigation has just started. As for the other two, they originated from the same individual. The investigation of these two complaints started after the attempt of a negotiated settlement failed.
As for the case before the Human Rights Tribunal, a settlement was reached between the parties, therefore the tribunal has ceased to inquire into the complaint.
2.	The following listing is set out by year, category of incidents, company name, contractor's name, description of work to be performed from contract, and cost to the CRTC:


[Stage Direction]
Blake, Cassels & Graydon Russell Juriansz
"For Professional Services rendered in advising in regard to an investigation pursuant to section 59 of the Canadian Human Rights Act."
[Stage Direction]
Cooper Consulting Barry Cooper
"The work shall consist of two meetings with CRTC Personnel and other CRTC representatives to conduct
Routine Proceedings
a background study and provide advisory services with respect to classification grievances and processes."
[Stage Direction]
Blake, Cassels & Graydon Russell Juriansz
"For Professional Service rendered in advising in regard to an investigation pursuant to section 59 of the Canadian Human Rights Act."
[Stage Direction]
Blake, Cassels & Graydon Russell Juriansz
"For Professional Services rendered in reviewing, rendering an opinion, complete preparation for Tribunal, researching and advising management in regard to a complaint pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act."
[Stage Direction]
Blake, Cassels & Graydon Russell Juriansz
"For Professional Services rendered in finalizing the settlement in this matter."
[Stage Direction]
GRIEVANCE/CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
William Egner
"The work shall consist of performing a file review of three (3) personnel cases. This review will include recommendations and briefing to the Director General of Personnel, and to the Secretary General."
1,500.00
Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

February 13, 1992
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H; and the amendment of Mrs. Catterall (p. 6131).
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-26, tabled by the President of the Treasury Board, could have a major impact on Canadians and, more specifically, on the Public Service. I would like to discuss the preliminaries to this legislation which were broadly based on wide-ranging consultations across Canada and, more specifically, throughout the Public Service. I intend to explain how this was done by a government that must be sensitive to public opinion if it is to gain the public's support. And finally, Madam Speaker, I will also indicate how this reform can have a major impact on the Public Service, on federal services as such and on Canadians.
Madam Speaker, as you know, it is not easy to motivate members of an organization the size of the Public Service, which has more than 200,000 employees. It is not easy to get such a group actively involved in a wide-ranging reform program and the implementation of that program. However, when we consider the process and the history of Bill C-26 now before the House, and when we look at the extensive discussions that have taken place, the consultations and the meetings, we are impressed by the tremendous participation shown at all levels, both in the Public Service and among the general public.
Did you know, Madam Speaker, that this vast consultation campaign involved setting up task forces that worked systematically? For example, on 10 occasions, more than 300 people met at one time; in all, 3,000 people made 300 recommendations. Did you know that in addition to these discussion groups, there were innumerable conferences and workshops? There were telephone surveys. There were informal contacts between individuals and even the unions, officials and members alike, participated with the government people. There were also consultations in the private sector. In short, in addition to the 3,000 people whom I just mentioned, 7,600 more were involved in these discussions.
You already see that the consultations were held in a structured but fairly spontaneous way with unexpected developments, reactions and some wonderful recommendations. Throughout this consultation process, letters were sent and more than 1,700 people who would have been unable to take part in these consultation sessions reacted personally by letter to the President of the Treasury Board and his reforms.
All in all, summing it up, 12,000 to 13,000 people had the conviction to participate, and worked on sharing their visions of what the reform should be.
I am therefore pleased to note, that this major reform bill, C-26, was developed in such a systematic, democratic and wide-ranging way. This leads me to say that this bill cannot help reflecting to a great extent the goals of union members, public servants, section heads and each department in their long-term vision of what such a reform should be. But the purpose of having a consultation was not only to come up with a white paper.
Everything that was collected and collated from these
13,000	people was passed on to the Treasury Board, which then produced the white paper. With this document, which was tabled several months ago, we returned to the grass roots, which expressed its comments, expectations and concerns, and moved on to the second phase, raising awareness. Since the recommendations had been accepted in whole or in part, we consolidated them and went back to find out what people thought of it. Here again, more than in phase 1, we gave out 247,000 brochures, 11,000 posters, 19,000 reports and 344,000 copies of the white paper, throughout the Public Service and to the public, because ultimately, the public will benefit from all these reforms.
All in all, 800,000 documents arising from this white paper were distributed, giving all their readers a chance
February 13, 1992

to react or at least to find out about the proposed policies. That's not all. In addition to these written documents, Treasury Board and its president took their concern for the democratic process, information and awareness farther, by involving group leaders. They visited senior managers in various departments; 294 groups were involved in this process. Furthermore, the President of the Treasury Board himself gave several speeches in various places, again to ensure the dissemin-sation of information. Two of them were even given before labour groups. Finally, 13 joint committees were set up.
As you can see from all this, the information and awareness phase was as extensive as the first one, the information gathering phase. Did you know that, in the Correctional Service alone, 3,500 proposals were put forward? Did you know that more than 4,500 came from Health and Welfare Canada? Does this not go to show the level of interest and participation of our civil servants from various departments across the country? Is this not solid, fabulous proof of their beliefs and concerns?
At the same time, it shows the commitment of this government which, throughout its mandate, while it introduced bold and hard changes, it never failed to dig out the facts and then release this information to better inform the public about these reforms. And that is great.
That is what brings me to the conclusion in this first part, that this approach was great. I have to thank the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. minister, for conducting such a fine operation.
Aside from this campaign and process, in closing, I would like to mention the major thrusts of this reform: to increase civil servants involvement, to give them a sense of belonging, to allow them to take part in the assessment of their own work environment. Isn't this great? So, civil servants' participation is essential, since they are the heart and soul of the federal government. What we stand to gain from all this is obvious.
Besides a greater sense of belonging and a more efficient public service, you can easily imagine, Madam
Government Orders
Speaker, how much Canadian citizens and taxpayers will benefit from this increased efficiency and sense of belonging as well as from improved services.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa West, seconded by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, that Bill C-26, an act to amend to the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be not now read a second time but be read a second time this day six months hence.
I acknowledge that there has been some significant dialogue and important participation. There is still much to be done because if there were not, we would have an acknowledgement on the part of the workers, part of the people that it affects, that this is not so. There are still some concerns out there.
If this bill were adopted, it would permit an indepth study of the legislation.
I wish to say a few words about the Public Service before I attack the substance of the bill. I believe and many of my colleagues also do in the importance of the Public Service. I am a former public servant and I have a great deal of respect for them. Obviously, like any other group, we have people who are more committed, more talented than others. At the same time, the majority are very capable men and women who devoted much of their lives and their talents to our country in order to attempt and respond to the will of politicians in Parliament and to deliver the best services possible. I salute them.
It offends me to see that the Public Service can become a target for political parties of government. We sometimes forget that the salaries they have, the pensions they have acquired over the years, and other benefits as well, are not ones they have granted themselves. They have negotiated them with government that at some point in time has in fact said yes.
My objective, and I hope it is shared by many others, is not to remove some of those benefits or lessen them or somehow diluer the rights they have acquired over time,

Government Orders
but we should be looking at how it is that we can in fact extend that to other Canadians throughout the nation. Surely that is a much preferred way of responding than it is to attempt to diminish-I say it again-the rights and the benefits that they have acquired over time. I want to point out that which they have they were granted by governments and it is too easy for them to become targets of politicians.
I want to say as well that I am offended when they become the scapegoats, often times, for the failures of political people or governments. I think the most flagrant example of that was the Al-Mashat affair where in fact they were used as bouc emissaire si vous voulez.
I want to point out as well that this bill, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, will not create the right kind of climate or environment for change and growth to meet the needs of Canadians and to meet the needs of a changing Canada. I think that is extremely serious. There is an attempt to streamline. No doubt there is a need to streamline the way resources are managed by the Public Service and to simplify and expedite the collective bargaining process. I think most people would agree, but where we probably disagree is: Is this the best approach? Is there still more to do? What is it that can be done in order to reach those particular objectives?
There is no doubt that the new legislation does make some positive contributions. There has been some dialogue, as I pointed out. There has been some participation, but in our opinion, not sufficiently so. There are still some people who are very anxious, who are angry, who are upset, who do not understand the total agenda of government. Another positive feature, quite apart from some important participation and dialogue, has been employment equity. Equal pay for work of equal value has been addressed, but we claim it is still too vague, that it needs to be more precise.
Let me talk about the reservation quickly. Some of the proposed amendments in the bill, such as those regarding appointments, layoffs and deployments, are highly controversial. We really need to see whether or not that controversy is justified. The proposed changes would serve to give managers greater authority to hire, fire and transfer employees without adequate appeal and redress mechanisms. Surely that is a very important gain that has been made, not only by this group, but many others. We do not want to go back. There is no assurance that the
actions of managers would support the merit principle. That is the fundamental flaw. We need to have assurance that the merit principle will in fact continue to be the very centrepiece of appointments to the civil service.
Deputy heads would be permitted to move employees into jobs without selection boards, without appointments, through deployment. The legislation would also allow the government to contract out work while laying off incumbents in these positions. Some federal Public Service unions contend that the contracting out of work does not save money. In fact, it would cost more. In many instances it could be done more cheaply and more efficiently by the current Public Service employees.
I find it interesting that when I asked on the Order Paper for a response to how many contracts were in fact awarded and what was the total value, I was not given that information. Supposedly it has not been accumulated. I find that shocking. Why do we not get the facts so we can put them on the table and look at them in a rational way?
The bill would make it easier to hire casual employees for limited periods. Continued turnover of employees which would result from this practice could cause a lack of continuity and lead to a decline in service to the people. Surely that has got to be our first priority. It could in fact run counter to the objectives of Public Service 2000.
The public accounts committee of the House of Commons, among others, has pointed out that there has been inadequate consultation. The government says it has been adequate, but the public accounts committee says it has been inadequate, inadequate with the interested parties before the bill was drafted and presented to Parliament.
My party is urging that the government establish a special parliamentary committee to consider the principle of the bill as well as its substance in the context of Public Service 2000.
We are concerned as well that there have been a number of extremely dysfunctional labour disputes. They have disrupted the service that has been rendered to Canadians.
The government has been chastized and will continue to be for its mismanagement of labour relations. It is this government that has caused the first ever massive walkout of public servants in the history of Canada. The

Government Orders
relations were not sufficient to be able to hold them people who have been in the Public Service for a long together to work out a sensitive and sensible agreement, time.
There are many public servants out there who believe passionately and unequivocally that the government cannot be trusted and that it does not listen. That is one of the problems we are in fact experiencing. If there is lack of trust and confidence, the public servants are extremely nervous about what has been happening.
I have another concern. I believe that this is another example of the dismantling of one of our institutions of nationhood. We are weakening the Public Service. It is not unlike the dismantling of VIA Rail, Air Canada, Canada Post, CBC; privatization and contracting out; or the use of short-term employees. All of this will weaken the Public Service as an instrument that serves the public and carries out the will of Parliament in all areas of the country. I am extremely concerned about that.
My party, the Liberal Party of Canada, believes that Canadians deserve acceptable quality service throughout the nation, delivered efficiently by a professional, nonpartisan Public Service which treats all employees with respect and fairness and is responsive to the needs of Canadians.
I am concerned that we may be departing in a significant kind of way from the merit principle and that this may lead to additional patronage and favouritism in the Public Service.

I realize that the legislation before us will not necessarily protect the merit principle, in fact I believe that it will not protect it at all. It will be possible to appoint people, to transfer employees and to do many things that cannot be done now and that I think will truly weaken the Public Service.

There have been court orders and a court case where the actions of the Government of Canada have been struck down. There was the moving of employees without full consultation, without accommodating them, which is another serious flaw.
There will be a new class of casual employees who can be hired or fired within 24 hours. Managers will have a great deal of power to be potentially insensitive to
As I pointed out, the Auditor General has in fact chastized government for mismanagement. My great concern is that over all not only the merit principle may in fact be simply thrown aside but the Public Service Commission, which in fact as my colleagues have said is the watch-dog, can now become very weak and perhaps even the lap-dog of government. That would be unfortunate.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak in the debate on Bill C-26 which incorporates in legislation a lot of the principles and ideas included in the PS 2000 review of the Public Service by this government.
There is no question that the Public Service needs modernization, that it needs streamlining, and that it needs a reduction in a number of reclassifications. Most of all, what the Public Service needs in my opinion is a radical decentralization of decision making.
It is my opinion that a lot of the pressures for decentralization of powers to the provinces currently under discussion in the constitutional debate could be accommodated by a decentralization of decision making within the federal Public Service so that decisions made by the federal government and the practices which it carries out in the regions would in fact be subject to decision making at local and regional levels rather than centralized in Ottawa.
However, I believe the number one problem with the Public Service is the problem of morale. Certainly an organization of that size, of that complexity and of that importance cannot function at the level of morale that exists today.
Why does that low level of morale exist? I think it is because of the feudal, backward, 19th century attitudes this government has taken toward its own employees. Certainly that is the kind of attitude the government took during the strike last summer which radicalized a group that never before had contemplated those kinds of actions. It was really despicable to see this fine group of people used for partisan ends, in the case of the prairies to pit farmers against working people for the political ends of the government.

Government Orders
This kind of an approach was further reinforced in the way the government has gone about introducing this whole notion of Bill C-26 and PS 2000. Contrary to every modern management technique which says that employees have to be involved from square one, from day one, in designing the work flow, the work place and the management structures, this government has chosen to ignore the input of its public servants and their organizations and adopt a top down approach wherein a new management structure is to be imposed on the work force. Surely all modern management theories say this is exactly contrary to the way we should go about it.
Before I go on to some of the problems I see in this legislation, I would like to pay tribute to the public servants in my constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River. These people do a tremendous job on our behalf, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada and on behalf of the Parliament of Canada as they carry out the duties assigned to them.
In La Ronge and Prince Albert there are manpower offices that are very much understaffed and very much under pressure because of the increasing workloads that fall on them as a result of the very high unemployment rates in that region.
We have an Indian Affairs office in Prince Albert that I think is doing a commendable job in restructuring itself to accommodate the whole movement to self-government by Indian people and their organizations.
We have a Health and Welfare office in Prince Albert that has responsibility for the delivery of health and welfare services throughout half the province of Saskatchewan, a huge geographic area with very difficult circumstances in many cases. It is doing a commendable job while at the same time facilitating the transfer of responsibilities to the Indian people.
We have a Forestry Canada office that has some very creative people in it who are working in partnership with provincial governments and various stakeholders in forestry to implement the model forest program and the federal-provincial agreements. It provides a real stimulus to the forestry industry in our community. A former minister of that department is here feeling good about what I am saying, and I think he should. It is one of the commendable developments we have seen in our community.
As well we have the Saskatchewan penitentiary which employs large numbers of people who are working very hard and in very difficult circumstances. That institution has an awful lot more inmates than it was originally designed to accommodate. There are fewer staff members than there should be. There has been significant contracting out within that institution, which both creates instability and a situation where there are people in the institution who are not as professional, I do not think, as the people who are part of the Public Service. That creates a real security dilemma within that institution and something that the government needs to look closely at.
There is also the Prince Albert National Park, one of Canada's finest parks. The work force there is undermanned but still doing a tremendous job on our behalf protecting one of the unique environments in the boreal forest in an exemplary fashion.
There are outposts of other departments, Immigration and so on, with just a few people in them who often do a very good job in isolation.
However, there are significant problems with this legislation. I think a lot of them stem from the fact that the government is trying to do by legislation things that it cannot win in the courts. This further serves to undermine the morale of public servants. As well it is a fairly despicable way to go about making changes. Some of these problems involve the threat to the merit principle, the danger of patronage and all evils associated with a non-merit type approach to hiring.
In this legislation we contemplate something called deployment. Under the concept of deployment there will be huge classifications created within which managers have the power individually to reclassify people, to move them from one job to another, and to fill positions without competitions.
Recently the government tried to do that under existing legislation. It issued something called the transfer exclusion order which was intended to waive the merit principle for the transfer of individuals from one position to another at the same group and level.
February 13, 1992

The Public Service Alliance challenged this attack on the merit principle and recently received a decision from the Federal Court of Canada which said that the federal government could not do it. This was a mere two weeks ago, and now the government is pushing forward legislation which would permit exactly the kind of practices the Federal Court of Canada said would undermine the merit principle, something that has been at the heart of our Public Service for decades and something I think all members of Parliament would endorse publicly.
We also have a problem within this legislation of condoning and promoting the whole notion of contracting out, which is really just a code word for privatization of the Public Service.
Again we have a situation where the government lost a case in court and therefore is trying to do by legislation what it could not win by normal channels.
The government brought forward a proposal to transfer out work, to contract out work, and in March 1990 the Public Service Staff Relations Board ruled that employees lost their jobs because the employer contracted out for service, a complete reversal of what it was obliged to do under the policy. In other words the Public Service board ruled that the government could not lay off workers because of its contracting out function.
Flowever, within Bill C-26 we now see that where the services of an employee are no longer required by reason of lack of work, the discontinuance of function, the transfer of work or a function outside the Public Service, the deputy head in accordance with the regulations of the commission may lay off the employee.
In other words, the government has the ability to privatize job functions, to privatize jobs on a carte blanche basis. That leads to further patronage, that leads to further undermining of the merit principle, and that leads to a further degradation of the Public Service and its efficient functioning.
The last problem I have with this legislation is the whole question of pay equity. To be brief, the government talks a good line on pay equity, on equal pay for work of equal value, but we see right now before the Human Rights Tribunal government lawyers stonewalling every attempt to bring to bear the principles of equal pay for work of equal value.
Government Orders
This PS 2000 concept envisioned in Bill C-26 will institutionalize and create such confusion in the Public Service that it will take another 10 years to bring in pay equity.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we need a Public Service that is on side. We need a Public Service that is appreciated. We need a Public Service that is involved in the day-to-day design of the work place, and we need a Public Service that is professional and non-partisan. I think all those things will be undermined by the legislation before us.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. President of the Treasury Board would like to say something. I am sorry, but questions and comments are not allowed at this time, only 10-minute speeches. I believe that the hon. minister has already participated in the debate.
Consequently, the hon. member for Dartmouth has the floor.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I am going to try to limit my comments today. I think I have 10 minutes on debate.
I will be up a little later on today to talk about some of the other major problems that I have with the government's approach in dealing with the Public Service of Canada. I want to speak specifically at this point in time about the motion that is before us.
It is affectionately known by those in this House as a hoist motion because it effectively takes this piece of legislation and it holds it in limbo, in suspension for a period of time.
The amendment was put forward by the critic of the Liberal Party. One of the reasons that I want to speak about this is because of the process that the government did not go through in arriving at this particular piece of legislation.
It was not that long ago the chairman of the public accounts committee indicated that before anything be done with the white paper, or the discussion paper about the Public Service of Canada, an all-party committee should be struck in a non-partisan fashion.
It would sit down, go through that particular discussion paper and formulate a piece of legislation that would

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
look after all of the various interests put forward by those sitting around the table. Most important, it would have established a principle that before the federal Public Service is fundamentally restructured, there would be an open process by which everybody in this House could contribute.
Unfortunately, the way the House works is that when a bill is presented, no matter how bad the bill is, the government and its people on the other side dig their heels in. Somehow, it is a matter of pride that if there is something wrong with the bill then we are supposed to close our eyes and go full speed ahead.
The chairman and the public accounts committee made this very clear. The process they thought should have been followed was that the discussion paper should have been put forward. The committee should have invited input from those very public servants and other user groups, from Canadians, on what was the best structure and most efficient structure for our Public Service. But the government chose not to do that. The government chose not to have that level of consultation.
So we now have before us a bill, which as you heard from other speakers leading up to this debate, is regressive. It is a bill which is fraught with difficulties. It is a bill that literally thumbs its nose at the contribution and the worth-while efforts of our Public Service.
The hoist motion is one that I am going to support. If the government would agree with us, it would give the government an out. My goodness, when you are at 12 per cent in the polls I think sometimes you might want to do the right thing instead of the stubborn thing. Maybe it would go up a point or two.
If the government would agree to this hoist motion it would give Parliament an opportunity to sit down and to write a proper bill dealing with the restructuring of the federal Public Service, one that could probably be supported by all members, or most members in this House, and a bill that would be supported by the public servants themselves.
The problem is indicative of the treatment this government has levelled at Canada's federal Public Service. What this government has done is it has treated the federal public servants in this country as goats. Everything that this government has done that is wrong it wants to turn around and somehow blame a federal public servant for it.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party just said it a few minutes ago, we saw what it has done. It has caused the first general massive strike in our history of the federal Public Service. That is what it did a few months ago. Those very same individuals, and they are not radical unionists, are people who live on your street, Mr. and Mrs. Canada. That is who they are. All they are trying to do is an honest day's work for an honest day's wage.
This government, because of its crazy economic policies and the deficit that it drives up every second you breathe in this country, its tax policies, all those things have created climate that it has to strike out at somebody. So who does it strike out at? That is right. Those people who the government made goats of, those federal public servants in this country.
If you listen to the government opposite you would think the federal public servants are all getting $60,000 a year, work 25 hours a week and get a 50 per cent Christmas bonus. Well, it is not the case.
I can look around right here and see federal public servants who look after us in the House. There are not many of them who are making what I would call an over-generous allowance for the days that they work in this place, or in federal offices and institutions across Canada.
The government would have us believe that they are all fat cats in the federal Public Service and that somehow they are less deserving of fair treatment by this government than other citizens of Canada would expect from their government.
We forget that the people it forced out on strike with its zero, three and three policy were not $50,000 and $60,000 a year employees. By and large, they were women in lower income groups. They were women who were getting paid $17,000 to $21,000 or $22,000 a year.
They were forced out on strike because the government would not listen to them. It will take some of those women as long as one year or one year and a half to make up for the money that they lost. There was no gain, but they finally said: "Listen, we are not going to take this type of nonsense, even if we are going to lose money".
February 13, 1992

Somebody has to stand up here and say to this government that we demand fair treatment. We do not look for anything that we do not deserve, but we demand fair treatment. But this government has poisoned the atmosphere between those tens of thousands of public servants across this country and their own government, their own employer. It has practised types of labour relations that if they are not illegal they should be made illegal.
The government came in with this bill that we are currently debating. It put things in the bill that certainly, in my view at least, are going to lead not to a Public Service that is the watch-dog on government, but could lead to a Public Service management or senior officials who become the lap-dog of government.
There are more clauses in this particular bill that are offensive than probably in any bill that I have seen since I have been here. If you really look at it, the government had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It had plenty of opportunity to sit at the table with the Public Service.
I am not in government; I am in opposition. But somehow I have a sense of proprietorship over the Public Service of Canada because I am one of the people who vote in here on bills and regulations and legislation that affects Canadians. So I feel some collective sense of responsibility before we go in and restructure the Public Service to talk to those people who are going to be affected the most. This government obviously does not think that that should be the case.
The Conservatives have mismanaged their own credibility, these guys on the other side, that is what they have done. They are down to, what is it today, 14 per cent, 10 per cent, whatever it is.


An hon. member:: It's 12 per cent.


Ronald MacDonald: It is 12 per cent is it, and it is dropping fast I understand, is that right? Dropping like a stone.
This particular bill is not one that I am going to be proud to say was passed through Parliament if indeed it does get passed while I was sitting here. I have a lot of public servants in my riding. They deliver damn good service for the little bit of money they get. They deserve a heck of a lot better treatment from the Government of
Government Orders
Canada, their employer, than what they have received over the last four or five years from this gang opposite.
Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left here? Am I getting close?


An hon. member:: You have 20 more minutes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: One and a half.


Ronald MacDonald: One and a half minutes. In conclusion to the members opposite, you have an opportunity here to do the right thing.
I do not like to lecture you, but you have an opportunity to do the right thing. I do not even know if there are
150,000	Canadians left who like the Tory government opposite. But there must be one or two people that the government members might be able to pull back onside by doing the right thing so they will not be embarrassed the next time they have to call up a CEC office.
When you annoy the people who work for you, they do not do the type of work or give that extra special push.
I ask the government to look at this amendment and to see the sense in the amendment, to pull this bill away from Parliament, to give it to a special committee of Parliament, a non-partisan approach to restructuring our Public Service in this country, and to invite all of the interested players in.
In that way this place will work properly and we will have a bill that adequately reflects the needs that we have as a nation in our Public Service and recognizes the great contribution that those people who serve in our Public Service make toward Canada.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say that in my experience as a member of Parliament I and my staff have been very pleased with the service we have received from individual public servants working both here in Ottawa and in my riding of Willowdale. They are very conscientious people. They care about their jobs. They care about the service they give; not everyone of course, but then not all members of Parliament are up to scratch. However, by and large we have been extremely well served on a day to day basis by our public servants who are trained, conscientious and caring.
Let us give the government some credit for having recognized that there are problems within our Public Service. A mountain of red tape and a bureaucracy and a

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
methodology have built up which actually hampers and retards the ability of our public servants to do the type of job they are equipped to do and which only they can do and want to do.
For example, staffing procedures are so complicated today in the Public Service that they take three times as long as the private sector. If you are going to switch a person from one job to another, it is estimated that it takes 105 days to staff a position in the Public Service using internal competitions. That is one third of a year. Even in Crown corporations the time taken is about half of that. This is unacceptable.
There are so many classifications of jobs in the Public Service and so much time is spent finding out which little bracket you fit into-who can apply, who is eligible-that about 40 to 50 per cent of all job positions require a complicated classification procedure with hearings, discussions and debate. As a result, more public servants look after hiring public servants in many areas than there are actual people doing the job.
The government has recognized some of these problems and so has the Public Service. So what do we get? We get PS 2000. The procedure was instituted from the top, where the top mandarins planned to give themselves more power. They proposed some laudable procedures to cut red tape but in instituting their reports and bringing them forward, they did not involve the Public Service, the people on the front lines. The civil servants of Willowdale that I have met with were not part of that discussion. It was a streamlined bureaucracy, but if you do not involve all of the people in the decision-making process, you are heading for disaster. That is what happened. The Public Service has balked.
The people in charge of PS 2000 pulled back a bit and what did they do? They brought in their tenth report, introduced by Mr. Rawson, who I think is a very capable public servant, and tried to change their course, gearing it toward public servants; service to the clientele and service to the public. However, this process lacked the involvement of the public servants themselves.
We are reaching a stalemate. The people do not like it. This is why we as the Official Opposition have called on the government to back off. Let us, as parliamentarians, have hearings so that we can get all of the people involved and develop a consensus because without the
co-operation of everyone involved-and you know this, Madam Speaker, in your work with this House and our staff- in the decision-making process they are not going to feel committed to the end result.
Let us look at how this government has treated its own staff. It has questioned the competence of its own public servants to do a number of jobs through contracting out, which is increasing rampantly. Rather than having people who are trained and on the payroll doing a number of jobs, it contracts out without any sense of accountability and without being able to explain to either parliamentarians, the Public Service, its own staff, or even its own labour pool why outsiders are better equipped to do it. Is this just an attempt to get rid of jobs in the Public Service? Until accountability becomes a criterion for contracting out, we have real reason to suspect, and so does the Public Service, that this is not in the best interests of either them or Canadians.
Then there was last summer's strike by public servants. This was when the government said: "Public servants, you get 0, 3 and 3 per cent increases, one, two, three years". At the same time the top tiers of the Public Service obtained reasonable increases or very big increases. What happened? The Public Service went on strike.
I believe the government knew that they would go on strike because that was the only alternative they had as a self-respecting body. I believe the government wanted them to go on strike so that it could legislate them back to work and take the political credit that it thought would be due to it as Ronald Reagan had apparently won the hard right in the United States when he ordered the air controllers back to work. I think the government was that cynical. If it was not that cynical, then it was just plain stupid. It knew its policies would lead to that result.
Then what do we see? The government brings in its prosperity agenda and makes a wonderful declaration: "We are going to work together; governments, business and labour to make Canada prosperous, to make Canada competitive". It asked labour to buy into its concept of what co-operation between management and labour and government is. It said: "Come and sit with us at the table". What do you think labour said? "No way, not the way you are treating your employees. We will have no
February 13, 1992

part of it because we've seen what your concept of co-operation involves".
Looking at the example that this government has set, in terms of its own relationships with its own employees, is it any example for Canada's private sector and dealings between management and labour in our private sector?
I have a dismal record to present to the House today. It comes from the World Competitiveness Report and looks at working days lost per 1,000 inhabitants. The 1986 to 1988 average looked at 33 different countries. Canada is at the bottom of the list in terms of the number of days lost per 1,000 inhabitants. I will be happy to table this if the Speaker wishes.
Let me just go through some of the shocking statistics. Looking at the G-7, Canada's record is by far the worst. We are 403 times worse than Germany, 99 times worse than Japan, 16 times worse than France, 4 time worse than the U.K., 3.4 times worse than the U.S.A., 2.7 times worse than Italy in terms of our record of days lost.
The government is considering a free trade deal with Mexico. Our record vis-a-vis Mexico is 93 times worse. How are we going to compete in this world if our record of days lost, of management-labour strife in the private sector, fueled by the example of the government in dealing with its own employees is the worst in the world? We just cannot afford it.
This is why the government's initiative, in perpetuating its pig-headed view of how it is going to dictate to its own public servants, is a failure. This is why we call on the government to back off.
The importance of all three sectors working together has been recognized by the government. May I just quote two paragraphs from the Liberal Party task force on deindustrialization and economic renewal. At page 25 we said: "In conclusion, the federal government must foster a new spirit of co-operation, collaboration and common purpose among all the partners in our economic future, including business, labour, education, finance, consumers, communities and governments themselves". In order to do that we gave a practical recommendation, recommendation 11, a new approach to industrial policy,
Government Orders
"that the government bring together the representatives of labour, business, education, finance, consumers, communities and governments to find ways to work in a spirit of co-operation and collaboration".
The best thing the government could do at the moment is accept our party's recommendation and send this whole matter of PS 2000 to a committee.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak 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.
I want to say at the outset that I support the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Willowdale that the appropriate way to deal with this right now is to suspend further debate in the House of Commons and examine the implications very clearly in a special committee as to just what this legislation is all about. If anyone actually has read this legislation, has spoken to the people who are directly involved, he or she will realize that this is probably about the last piece of legislation we should proceed with in terms of developing and building the federal Public Service.
I will simply say that in the Kamloops area over the years, the dedication, professionalism and service to the public demonstrated by the federal employees has been nothing short of extraordinary. The people in Health and Welfare, Employment Canada, in the immigration department, Agriculture Canada at our research station, the airport employees, CMHC, the customs people, those working with Environment Canada and income security, those involved with fisheries, public works, to say nothing of the excellent service that we receive from Revenue Canada folks and those related with the Canadian Jobs Strategy out of Kelowna and Penticton are really outstanding, professional public employees.
These are people who have dedicated their lives to serving the public. They take that mandate very seriously. I would say that out of all the thousands of federal employees in our constituency offices, we virtually have never heard a complaint.

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
We have heard from time to time some concerns, but when we have examined and studied the situation, the concerns that people have had have been unfounded and misplaced. I could say that you would not find a more professional, committed group of employees anywhere, in spite of what the government has done.
I say that thinking back to not long ago, a few months back when we were entering into those contract negotiations. I suppose the ultimate in humiliation was when the employer said to the federal employees: "We feel you are not worth any increase in pay for this year. While we have given pay increases to others, and while the settlements generally in contracts being resolved around the country are coming in at somewhere between 3 and 8 per cent, we are going to offer you zero. As a matter of fact, not only are we going to offer you that, we will force that through legislation so that we do not really even have to bargain".
The signal that that sends to people who have dedicated their lives to serve the people of Canada was probably the most serious blow to morale that one could imagine. Read the books on management styles these days, study the manuals and attend the seminars on how to improve productivity in the work place, how to enhance morale and if you listen to all the things you should do. I suspect that this government does none of them.
This legislation allows the government to continue to contract out work. The government now spends in excess of $5 billion on contracting out. There is no accounting of this expenditure and no study of the cost effectiveness of this contracting out process.
This bill also increases the discretion of managers in the deployment of staff. It provides the mechanism for increased devolution of managerial responsibility and accountability and attacks the job security of public sector workers generally.
What it does not do is address the serious problems of low morale within the Public Service. It does not address the deterioration of service to the public that one is experiencing because of employee absenteeism, which my friend from Willowdale has pointed out is one of the highest in the world.
It does not do anything to modernize the collective bargaining process. Still the alliance will not be able to bargain issues of classification and staffing levels. What the workers want is to make staffing classification and deployment of staff a bargaining issue. It wants an adjudication process to hear grievances and an end to the contracting out of work. Yet this legislation goes against all of the concerns that people have registered, all of the wishes they have made clear, and imposes some Draconian form of management that is quite unbelievable.
My colleagues have identified a whole number of concerns that we have identified. Fundamentally I want to direct my concern today to the issue of pay equity. While Bill C-26 does not deal directly with reclassification, we all know that it does allow Treasury Board to define classifications. Treasury Board has made very clear its desire to implement the recommendation of Public Service 2000 to reduce the number of job classifications. While the unions agree with the principle they do not agree with the process. Treasury Board will not negotiate these reclassifications. As a matter of fact, Treasury Board will determine the appropriate bargaining units. This is contrary to other labour legislation including the Canada Labour Code which gives this power to the Labour Relations Board. We all know that Treasury Board has established the classification simplification task force. Its mandate is to develop a universal job evaluation plan capable of addressing pay equity as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to serve as the model in the development of most future classification standards. A single evaluation process is appropriate. However the last time Treasury Board agreed with the joint union-management initiative it backed off when the associated costs of pay equity were discovered and understood.
Once this classification is implemented, at least this is what PSAC certainly fears, the government will use sleight of hand to say that it has achieved pay equity without costing any money. Salary discrimination would basically disappear because the old female dominated and male dominated groups will have disappeared. The inequities are still there. They are just regrouped. The argument is totally fallacious.
PSAC believes that when it challenges the government's claim of achieving pay equity at the Human
February 13, 1992

Rights Commission it will win. However this will have delayed pay equity for a long time. In fact it will likely delay it for many years.
Here is an example. Part of the reclassification would result in a general administration group which will have approximately 116,000 employees performing a very wide variety of tasks. There would be six levels within that general administration group and each level would have its own salary range. The ranges will result from slotting the old jobs into the new six salary levels based on the old salary levels. This means that the lowest paid groups remain at the lowest levels and that the highest paid at the highest level, with females at the bottom and males at the top.
In other words Treasury Board will provide a new package for the existing out of date and discriminatory job classification system. Treasury Board officials have consistently referred to how the old groups will be slipped into the brand new system. It is this discriminatory system that is currently under view by the Human Rights Tribunal.
If this government were committed to pay equity then it would proceed with the equal pay adjustment guidelines passed back in 1986. As was recommended by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, these ought to be done on existing job classifications. We should not transfer the old wrongs into a whole new structure. We should make it right now that we have the opportunity.
In 1985 the joint union-management initiative on pay equity in the Public Service was established. The government paid an American consultant, Mr. Norman Wills, over $1 million. There were 50 to 60 Treasury Board employees who worked on the initiative and 40 paid persons from the union. The study showed the gross inequities between female and male dominated groups. The government ignored this study and used its own calculations of what the pay adjustments should be. PSAC disagreed totally, and rightly so, and decided to pull out in 1989.
The case went before the Canadian Human Rights Commission in October 1990. The commission decided there was merit to the case because government rates were not high enough and were not consistent with its own guidelines and therefore referred the matter to a tribunal. The tribunal will hear from PSAC and the
Government Orders
Professional Institute of Public Service of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and Treasury Board. Although Treasury Board originally agreed with each step of the equal pay process, that agreement is now forgotten. Every step of the study process had to be painstakingly presented and justified before the tribunal in order to substantiate the equal pay complaints.
Each party can and will call witnesses and cross-examine. This will result in an extremely lengthy process and likely will continue into the fall of 1992 and perhaps even into next year.
In conclusion, I will simply say that while women represent half the world's population, provide two-thirds of the world's labour, and produce half the world's food, they receive only one-tenth of its remuneration and they own a mere 1 per cent of its property.
This is a chance to rectify some of these past wrongs. We should be acting on pay equity in a very serious way.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, this is the first time I am addressing the House in my new role as labour critic for the Official Opposition. I hope my remarks will not be taken in a spirit of condemnation but as trying in my own way to enlighten the ministers who are here and my colleagues.
It is sans dire that over the years there has been a push to have co-operation between management and labour, labour and government, and management and government. A few years ago it was called tripartitism, but it is a recognition that those people in the position of making decisions which affect the welfare of all Canadians should be working together.
Today we are discussing in large part the public servants of Canada. I would like to put into perspective what the government says it is attempting to do and what our views are with regard to its attempt. It is my view at the outset, and my colleagues have pointed this out, that our public servants over the years have done an admirable job under circumstances which were not always the best.
This move the government is making is not designed to boost morale, and much less productivity. As a matter of fact I believe, with all respect to the minister, that it is counterproductive.

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
Let me quote from the backgrounder to Public Service 2000 put out by the government. The Public Service Reform Act, Bill C-26, was introduced in the House on June 18. Today we are debating its particular merits. The government claims that the legislation will streamline outmoded legislative rules which control collective bargaining, staffing in the Public Service which I want to deal more specifically with in my address, human resources management, and the disposal of surplus assets.
The Chair should be aware that I intend to introduce for greater scrutiny at a later time in this debate the third topic which I mentioned. What I want to deal with today is the whole theory of merit pay.
The government has said that the goal of PS 2000 is to eliminate a good part of internal red tape and the cumbersome and far too numerous checks and doublechecks and to reduce the unnecessarily long chain of command to get approval for straightforward transactions. I am in favour of that. My party is in favour of that.
It is incumbent upon us to take obstacles out of the way of the clients whom the public servants are there to deal with.
Changes to the operations of the Public Service have already begun. I agree with that. I do not agree that they have been done under the best of circumstances. While rules and regulations are being examined I am wondering how much input the public itself has had on these changes.
I am now quoting. This is what it says: "The person on the front line at the service counter is going to have more freedom of action and the chance to use common sense and good judgment in helping Canadians to count on the government for services". Well, of course. However haven't our public servants always used good judgment? Haven't they always used common sense? I suggest that they have. I suggest that many times we have not given them the proper tools to carry out the work we ask of them. It also says: "The federal government is the largest employer in Canada". It will probably continue to be. It continues: "The daily work of its employees affects every region and all communities in the country".
I want to put on the record a few of the statistics we have been given by the government. Two-thirds of public servants are based in communities across Canada, which means that they are external to those who are living and working here in Ottawa. Perhaps erroneously it has been said that Ottawa is a fat cat city. This is where the public servants are supposed to be living high on the hog. I would suggest to the minister, to my colleagues in the House and to all Canadians that for the most part our public servants are not overpaid. In my view there could be a great debate to say that they are overworked in many circumstances. We are asking them to do more with less. That is a principle I believe we cannot condone.
Since most public servants are based in cities and towns across the country and are delivering what I call very good services every day, they should be recognized for the work they have done. They have been providing top quality work, and they have been providing cost effective and efficient services to their communities.
I set that up as the basis for my remarks today because I want to put on record the Liberal view of the Public Service. Those in my party believe that Canadians deserve accessible quality services which are delivered efficiently by a professional, non-partisan Public Service which treats all employees with respect and fairness. It must be responsive to the needs of Canadians because their raison d'etre is to help the people of Canada when they are having difficulties vis-a-vis the federal government.
My Liberal Party is committed to the partnership between the public sector and the private sector and to the partnership between the government and its employees on whom it relies for policy advice and to carry out the programs, the services and the regulations mandated by this Parliament.
We support revitalization. We support the renewal of the Public Service to allow it to adapt better to rapid change. Most of all we wish to create an environment in which the employees can be creative, innovative, responsive and adaptable to the changing needs of their clients and to the nation.
It should also be noted that we hope to be able to attract and to retain competent, dedicated employees. When we say "dedicated employees", I know from

February 13, 1992

having visited many of the offices in my riding and in neighbouring ridings that these front-line troops are under a great deal of stress and pressure. Over the years and still today they are performing admirably well in an economic situation which leaves a great deal to be desired.
The Liberal Party believes that change can best be managed in a climate of mutual trust, co-operation and consultation with its employees. That includes respect for basic collective bargaining rights. This was not shown to be so when unilaterally the government imposed a wage freeze for our public servants with some increases, at least it says now, of 3 per cent in the second and third years. I am not as sure and as confident as some members that this will come to fruition.
Perhaps this government, feeling a greater pinch if the economic situation does not improve, will once again be turning to our public servants to use as scapegoats, as people it can put the blame on when all the time what these people are doing is carrying out their responsibilities in a milieu, in an atmosphere which is not always conducive to working as hard as they want to.
We, in the Liberal Party, are committed to accountability to Parliament and to the public for the use of both human and financial resources.
I turn now to the merit principle. The Liberal Party supports the merit principle and will oppose the government's efforts to reintroduce patronage and favouritism to the Public Service.
I notice, Madam Speaker, that you are indicating that my time is running out, but I do give notice to all members of Parliament that I intend to enter this debate again when we continue our deliberations in the House.


Larry Schneider: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the comments that some hon. members have made about contracting out.
First of all, I find them to be somewhat misleading and that is indeed very unfortunate. The Government of Canada believes it should deliver its programs and services in the most cost-effective way possible. To do this, it is sometimes advantageous to have work done by able Canadians in the private sector. This has occurred since Confederation.
With restraint and budget cuts to the operating costs of departments, managers are seeking the most cost-effective means of program delivery, using an appropriate mix
Government Orders
of resources, just as they are doing in the business community.
There are many areas in which contract work is clearly both proper and desirable, such as projects of relatively short duration. It makes no sense to hire a plumber on a permanent basis if one visit is all that is needed to fix the problem. Second, perhaps the workload fluctuates throughout the year or from year to year in a given location such as snow removal or where there is a sudden and unforeseen workload generally speaking. These are areas where contracting out is not only desirable, it makes common sense.
The government is also committed to a world-class career Public Service. Are these two imperatives incompatible or mutually exclusive? I think not and I would like to look at the issues surrounding them in some detail.
First of all, what is contracting out? Opposition members and the Public Service Alliance of Canada have said that the government contracts out $5 billion worth of work per year. At least, the Alliance said $4 billion back when the bill was introduced last June. Today it says $5 billion. Neither figure is realistic so it really does not matter.
Assuming the figure quoted is derived from some official source, such as the public accounts, then the figure has to do with contracting, not just contracting out. If it is contracting, the figure would appear to include huge national defence contracts, capital projects and major construction work performed by private sector companies and the costs assessed when one government department contracts with another to perform work; for example, when Transport Canada contracts with Public Works Canada for offices for its employees and other facilities.
Real contracting out, in any meaningful term, is only a fraction of this alleged sum. So while the government does not have the staff necessary to compile and maintain exact figures on all types of contracting and contracting out costs, hon. members can be assured that the government is not attempting to hide figures it does not have.
So why are the unions and some members of the opposition bringing the issue up in the context of Public Service renewal? Contracting out occurs where work formerly done by Public Service employees is performed by the private sector on behalf of the Public Service as the result of a contract. This is what has caused govern-

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
ment unions some concerns in the past. But contracting out does not represent a significant threat to jobs in the federal Public Service. Since 1984 less than 1,500 employees out of a work force of 215,000 people or so have lost their employment in the federal government as a result of their work having been contracted out.
For the last fiscal year, only 154 employees out of the entire Public Service of Canada-that is right across the country-were involuntarily laid off for any reason, including contracting out.
Why does the government have such an enviable record of placing its surplus employees? A comprehensive and highly successful work force adjustment policy has historically provided excellent protection to employees who are declared surplus for any reason, including as a result of contracting out work.
The policy has achieved a 99.5 per cent rate of employment security, one the highest rates in Canada. This is not a job for life, rather it is a recognition that a large employer can usually accommodate most of its surplus staff if those employees are willing to be flexible and take another job elsewhere in the system.
It is the same with responsible employees in the private sector and examples abound. For instance, it should come as no surprise that when General Motors opened its new production plant in Tennessee to assemble the new Saturn automobile, it staffed the plant almost entirely with surplus and laid-off employees from Flint, Michigan operations.
The issue seems to be what kind of protection do current government employees have when their jobs are contacted out and do the provisions of Bill C-26 in some way erode or undermine this protection? The answer is a resounding no.
It has been suggested that somehow Bill C-26 if enacted would become some sort of charter, enabling government to contract out at will and jeopardize the employment of Public Service employees. This is simply not so. It seems most unfortunate that so much heat and confusion has been generated over this issue and debate time wasted when no change of any real significance is occurring through these legislative proposals.
Let us look at the facts. What Bill C-26 does is recognize by amendment to section 29 of the Public Service Employment Act that movement of a function outside of the Public Service can constitute the discontinuance of a function and therefore can legally lead to the possible eventual lay-off of employees whose jobs are so affected.
This change becomes necessary because of the so-called Cantin case concerning the contracting out of the work of data processors in the department of customs and excise that was taken by the Public Service Alliance of Canada first to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and hence to the Federal Court of Canada.
These cases which went against the employer were decided on the technical wording of a section concerning contracting out. However, it is both interesting and important to note that the Federal Court decision contained a strong suggestion that moving jobs outside the Public Service did not constitute a discontinuance of a function within the meaning of the work force adjustment policy and by extrapolation within the meaning of the Public Service Employment Act.
This went contrary to all previous government interpretation, practice and thinking and indeed the Treasury Board has sought and received leave to take the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In consultations leading to a renewed National Joint Council work force adjustment directive in December 1991 these issues were fully and frankly discussed. The employer's aim in these consultations was to reach a new agreement with the unions that would ensure the government's right to contract out while at the same time protecting the rights of surplus employees.
In this regard the government announced in the February 26, 1991 budget:
-should agreement not be reached through negotiation, the government is prepared to introduce the necessary legislation to remove barriers to contracting out.
The government was determined that contracting out would remain one option among many available to it to deliver its programs to Canadians.
February 13, 1992

As it turned out, an agreement was reached with all government unions through the National Joint Council. The new directive contains enhanced job security provisions which ensure that no one whose job was contracted will lose their employment security within the Public Service except under the most extreme circumstances or where such people had failed to co-operate with the employer's attempt to place them in alternative positions in their home area.
In short, all that Bill C-26 does is clarify in law what has already been agreed to between the unions and management through the National Joint Council; that is, if and when work is contracted out, such actions cause a bona fide discontinuance of a function within the Public Service of Canada and employees affected are protected.
Another aspect of the work force adjustment directive that is of note is the provision which guarantees that as soon as senior management of a department has decided to examine the viability of a contracting out option with regard to a departmental operation, the relevant bargaining agent or agents will be informed. The directive also guarantees that where departments undertake cost benefit analyses with regard to the consideration of a contracting out option, the analysis shall be done consistent with professional principles and practices and according to standards acceptable to the Treasury Board.
As soon as possible after tenders have been received and analysed, the department shall disclose to the relevant bargaining agents the reason behind the decision to go ahead with contracting out work, including any cost benefit or feasibility studies that may have been undertaken.
If this is not bending over backward to be fair and open with employees and the representatives, I do not know what is. The only caveat on this, and it is a most proper one, is that most departments will not share those parts of such studies that fall under the exemption provisions of the Access to Information Act concerning third party information.
All of these provisions are new. They are in addition to the information in Part III of the Estimates already available to hon. members and the public, including unions, which already provide information on significant changes in financial requirements, type of resources
Government Orders
used and means of program delivery and they are in addition to the considerable information on professional and special services contracting expenditures that is already disclosed in the public accounts.
This disclosure details for each program the total amount spent on professional and special services together with detailed listings concerning individual and aggregate payments of significant size.
To sum up, first, charges made during the second reading debate on this bill to the effect that the government contracts out billions of dollars worth of work that its employees could do just as well are unfounded. So too are charges that the government is unwilling to provide any information it may already have on the subject.
Second, the government's work force adjustment directive continues to provide comprehensive protection for surplus employees whose jobs may be contracted out in the future.
Finally, nothing in Bill C-26 in any way erodes the employment security of current Public Service employees. That is, the change proposed to section 29 of the Public Service Employment Act merely recognizes in law what already has been effected de facto by the mutual agreement between the employers and its union.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in the debate on this very important bill.
Let me reiterate for the sake of the public record that I worked as a broadcaster and journalist at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for almost 20 years. I suppose, in the eyes of some people that would have made me a federal public servant. Not so, because as you know, the CBC is a Crown corporation. Moreover, I spent more than half of my time at the CBC on long-term contracts. So I was not a civil servant. However, because of my work as a broadcaster and journalist, I certainly came in contact with public servants almost daily in my long career in broadcasting and I am certainly in contact with them as a politician.
I think I can say, without reservation and without hesitation, that civil servants are committed people, committed to their work. They are loyal and hardworking. Really, when you come right down to it, they are more or less just like all Canadians. Most Canadians are

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
committed to their jobs. Most Canadians are hardworking and federal civil servants are no different.
I know that in the work I am doing now and in my relations with offices like the Canada Employment Centre or the immigration services or Revenue Canada, all the government offices that we have to work with on a daily basis, these are people who are dedicated and provide in the main a pretty good service. I want to put that on the record because if this bill is passed in its current form it would certainly affect their lives.
Public servants are telling us that they do not want this bill in its current form. They want it changed. It is incumbent upon us to take a veiy serious look at this bill and do it in a way that will provide very good results down the road and make it a much better bill. There is strong opinion out there that this bill is in bad shape.
Among other things that is one of the reasons we in the Liberal Party are asking that we get this bill out of the House and turn it over to a special committee. I will have more to say about that in a moment.
Something has gone wrong in the Public Service in the past few years. Something terrible has gone wrong. The morale is very low. In fact the air is virtually poisonous. That is how bad the morale is. The trust has been lost.
I suspect one of the reasons for that is the suspicion of public servants with regard to this government. They are suspicious about government policy. They are suspicious about the government's intentions. They are certainly suspicious about the government's ideology. They are in effect saying: "We have seen what the government has done with respect to free trade. We have seen what the government has done with respect to the GST. We are seeing what the government is doing in the area of the GATT as it pertains to supply management".
What are they seeing? They are seeing a government committed to privatization. They are seeing a government committed to the open market system. Public servants are very suspicious. That is why they want this bill vetted, examined, scrutinized to the nth degree.
One of the things that contributed in a major way to the current low morale, to this poisoned atmosphere, was the strike that occurred last year. Perhaps that was the low point in government-employee relations in many years.
Government more or less announced in its budget earlier last year or in effect told public servants: "Your collective bargaining rights are cancelled. You are going to get zero this year. Sorry about that, but you are not getting any increase". That to me is tantamount to cancellation of collective bargaining rights. In fact some months after that the government's own staff relations board said that the government was bargaining in bad faith.
That strike certainly contributed to the bad relations that currently exist. On one hand, public servants were told that they were going to get a zero per cent increase in their wages. Meanwhile, they were told on the other hand that federal judges, some of whom earn almost $200,000 a year, were getting 5 per cent. This is not a good way to contribute to better staff relations.
As a party we are saying: "Get this bill out of the House, turn it over to a special committee, and examine the bill in detail". One of our hopes in that regard is to get it out of a partisan atmosphere. We are saying: "Get everyone involved, get all the parties involved, get PSAC involved, get the government employers involved, get everybody involved and treat this in a very non-partisan but serious way". Perhaps we could accomplish something that way. It is because of the serious situation that exists. Somehow or other we have to get some trust back into the process. We have to get people back on friendly terms, on working terms, and maybe we can accomplish that if we choose to appoint a special committee.
After all, that is what the public accounts committee suggested. We are only following up on the suggestion brought forward by the public accounts committee.
There are many contentious issues. I am not going to go over them in detail because they have been alluded to several times in speeches earlier today. There is the contracting out issue. It really does not matter whether the figure is $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion that is spent on contracting out. It really does not matter what the figure is. It is a very divisive issue. It has public servants
February 13, 1992

very upset. We really do not know the impact on public servants. We really do not know whether we are getting our money's worth from contracting out. That has to be looked at.
There is the merit principle which is something that cannot be lost. We cannot have as good public service without operating on the merit principle. Yet there is strong opinion that if the bill went through in its current form the merit principle would go out the window and we would have in its wake patronage and favouritism, and we cannot have that. Another concern is undermining the Public Service Commission, and we cannot have that as well.
There are many things of great concern to public servants that are not in the bill, for example pension reform, employee rights or the political rights of employees. Sometimes the issues have to do with contents of the bill; sometimes the issues have to do with things left out of the bill.
We suggest, and I certainly support it, that we take the bill out of the House, turn it over to a special committee, and give it a real good working over.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, in the very brief time I have to speak on this bill I would like to take the opportunity to comment generally on the proposed legislation. Also I would like to put on record some of the comments from my area, given the discussion and debate about a very important issue that sometimes may seem a little dry. To those of us concerned about Parliament, about government and in particular about the effective delivery of government programs and services, this kind of legislation must receive very serious consideration.
In discussing the bill I want to note that public employees in my area, primarily in the Prince George, B.C. area, have spoken to me about this legislation, basically about the report that it flows from. They have been expressing their concerns about what they see the legislation possibly doing. They are certainly going to be following this debate closely.
I am assuming that when this bill passes second reading in this House and goes to committee we will get the detailed analysis that I think is necessary. Certainly time must be set aside for witnesses from the various unions and collective bargaining agents with the federal government to have every opportunity to present their
Government Orders
arguments and cases to the committee when it is reviewing the legislation.
As members of Parliament we have all come into contact with members of the Public Service, given the work done in our ridings, particularly by our staff.
At the airport in Prince George there is a great deal of contact between our staff and a number of service agencies. One in particular is Canada Unemployment and Immigration Commission, regarding unemployment insurance and many of the problems associated with it. In northern B.C. there has been a large increase in the number of UIC claims. Extra effort is being put in by government employees to ensure that claims are processed as fast as possible. There is work being done by employees of the Canadian Jobs Strategy on the training program side.
Given the debate in the House yesterday, we are wondering what kind of a training program we will have left if some of the advice is taken by the government in terms of what these training programs are going to do. A couple of departments will have a tough job. I am thinking of immigration. It is a very difficult post and one which our offices are in contact with a great deal. There has also been some shifting in the Prince George area. Unfortunate decisions have been made by this government to close down the Agricultural Experimental Farm in the Prince George area. On the other hand a small Forestry Canada Research Unit is being created which of course we support. We are doing some work with the minister and the provincial government and hope to make some arrangements with the new University of Northern B.C. in Prince George.
All of us have a vested interest to ensure that the public service is well represented when any legislation dealing with it is brought forward. I will be ensuring that copies of this debate are forwarded to those people in my riding who have expressed their concerns about this legislation.
I have a couple of comments pointing out the major concerns we have with this bill and what it does not do. I would like to outline some of the concerns and views we have heard from employees in our ridings and in meetings with our caucus. Our labour critic, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, has developed a good working relationship with Public Service unions and of course has co-operated when need be with the government.

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
The bill is going to allow the government to contract out a great deal more than before, and that is a real concern. That matter was raised when I appeared before the Prince George city council a few weeks ago. All of us know that the Canada Unemployment Centres, as we used to know them, have ceased to exist. Training programs are being contracted out to a number of new consulting and training firms that are delivering many of the services we used to expect Canada Employment to do. The public still thinks it provides these services.
It is our concern that this bill will allow a great deal more of that. I am concerned on that point because like any employer we should make every effort to develop a good working relationship with our employees, bring them along and train them. We get better service and an incredible commitment from employees when we do that. If we reduce many of the public employees simply to shuffling paper around, we are not going to have the kind of innovative work force that we need.
Some of the concerns raised were the discretion of managers in the deployment of staff, the increased devolution of managerial responsibility, accountability, and some of the attacks on the job security of public sector workers.
What does the bill not do? The serious problem of low morale in the Public Service has been raised before. The government has not given any indication of the need to develop a higher morale in those employees who work for the federal government. In fact, during the recent dispute, it certainly appeared to many that the government went out of its way to work against the relationship that was needed.
I mentioned a very serious problem with unemployment insurance earlier in my comments. There has been a deterioration in service to the public because of the increased numbers of people the administration has to deal with. I mentioned specifically the unemployment insurance program in northern B.C., the vast number of claims that have to be processed, and the incredible effort being made by many of those people to see that the work is done.
Something must be done to modernize the collective bargaining process. The Public Service Alliance, representing the majority of the employees, will still not be able to bargain issues of classification and staffing levels. It is a very important point that I know and trust the
government will consider. I hope we will deal with it in committee when this bill gets there.
What do the employees want? Often it is their voice that is not heard and it is important that we raise their concerns here. They want to make staffing classification and deployment of staff bargainable. They want an adjudication process to hear grievances on the above, and that is very important. We all know of people who have made efforts in terms of promotion or classification and would dispute a decision by either a manager or a regional manager. I think that has to be included in the process to ensure it is taken care of. Of course the employees are very concerned about the need to ensure that we do not have the policy of contracting out that the current government has followed.
I would urge the government to go the distance in committee to ensure that every effort is heard and the time is given to the employees of the Government of Canada to make their case. The government must be open to improvements and suggestions. By doing that I think we will ensure better legislation and a better Public Service.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on an issue that is of concern to all Canadians, namely the future of their Public Service. I say "their Public Service" because we must make it clear that it is neither an institution for public servants nor an institution just to serve the government. The Public Service of Canada exists to serve all Canadians.
For this reason, like so many other issues of public policy, this issue is one of balance and reasoned compromise. For a long time Canadians have properly prided themselves on their ability to reconcile important objectives and find solutions which serve the common interest. In this case it is a balance between the rights of public servants as employees and the need for a system which supports responsive service to the public.
I believe these needs have been reconciled by the government in bringing forward this bill. That is where I believe the opposition is off the mark in comments made so far in this debate. I applaud the comments made by many hon. members in support of the men and women of the Public Service of Canada which is justly regarded as one of the best in the world. This bill provides for the maintenance and enhancement of that tradition of excellence.
February 13, 1992

I would like to make a couple of broad points in support of the proposed legislation and then deal with a few of the specific inaccuracies raised in this debate. There are two predominant messages in the white paper Public Service 2000: The Renewal of the Public Service of Canada. I would urge all members who might not have read this important policy statement to do so.
The issues are fundamental to the reform legislation and our consideration of it. The first issue I would suggest is the recognition of the importance and affirmation of the government's commitment to a professional, merit based Public Service. This is a Public Service open to all Canadians of talent and commitment. It is a Public Service where entry and progress are based on skills and ability and where patronage, both political and bureaucratic, has no place.
In this Public Service people can make careers. They will have the opportunity to develop consistent with then-abilities and interests. There will be special consideration given to the needs of employment equity groups, to ensure that Canada can benefit fully from a Public Service which reflects all of our citizens and then-capabilities.
The Public Service Reform Act proposals reinforce this by confirming and strengthening the role of the Public Service Commission as the guarantor of merit at the most critical points, that is on entry to the Public Service and on selection of those to be promoted.
The proposals also ensure appropriate protection for public servants from patronage or abuse of the staffing system. This is accomplished by strengthening the audit investigation and appeal authorities of the PSC. There is, in addition, recourse provided against abuse of authority in the case of deployments which must, in most circumstances, be consensual. It provides for direct action in support of employment equity groups and makes it clear that the employer is responsible for this.
Government Orders
But we must also look at the second and overriding theme of the white paper. It is the enhancement of the service orientation and capacity of the Public Service to provide mechanisms to allow the Public Service to be responsive to the needs of Canadians and allow individual public servants to progress and contribute.
It is no surprise to those of us who have occasion to work with its women and men that the vast majority of the Public Service is dedicated to doing a good job. But many studies and commentaries, including the Auditor General's, have found that the system built up over the years has constrained responsive management and the innovations which dedicated and skilled people are capable of generating.
It is here that the issue of balance must be resolved between a system where all staffing requires a laborious process of comparison and the need for a less rigid regime which allows people to move quickly to new challenges for which they are qualified, between a staffing system based on the premise that jobs can be narrowly defined and the one best person can be identified through relative assessment, and one which provides flexibility to recognized legitimate needs of the public for responsiveness.
I would like to address some of the issues raised in error in this debate. One, for example, is that the changes proposed fatally undermine merit. The merit principle has never been an absolute concept. It has always been tempered by the context within which it was applied. It has reflected the needs and views of society at a given time, with an eye on administrative efficiency.
It seemed quite fitting in 1918 that women should be denied opportunities in the Public Service on the mere grounds that they were women. Today we would consider that view in conflict with the merit principle. Throughout many of these years francophones were at a distinct disadvantage when it came to tests and examinations that were based on curriculum of the anglophone school system. Today we know this would be unacceptable.
Yet these views were able in their time to co-exist with the merit principle. The current Public Service Employment Act contains many provisions that could be viewed by strict interpretation as contrary to the merit principle. Take, for example, the preferences that are given to veterans, to local residents and even to Canadian

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
citizens. There is the fact that public servants are to be considered for appointments before looking at the outside market. There are priorities for appointment before all others that are given to persons facing a lay-off or returning from a leave of absence. There is the area of competition policy which allows us to limit consideration for appointment to persons employed in a particular organization or location.
I raise these examples to show that the merit principle has never been an immutable concept. It has always been balanced by other important needs, principles and values, and this is as it should be. It is our view that the needs of the public for quality and timely service and the needs of employees for opportunities for career development are important principles that need to be brought into the equation.
The merit principle, which is the selection of the best qualified person, will continue to apply to recruitment, hiring, change in tenure from term to indeterminate, and promotion within the Public Service.
Once employees have proven themselves to be the best qualified and competent in moving to a given level, little is served by requiring them to undergo a complete reassessment every time they move into similar jobs.
Members might be interested to know that although the merit principle was introduced in 1918 it did not apply to transfers. From 1918 to 1961 transfers were made by deputy heads of persons considered qualified by the then Civil Service Commission. This is exactly what we are suggesting today. Even after 1961 transfers for the most part were simply considered as a change in record content. That means they were not considered to be substantive moves of employees, and no reassessment was done.
It was not until a policy change by the Public Service Commission in 1975 that transfers were treated as appointments subject to the selection of the best qualified. A competent, professional and highly respected Public Service was developed despite the fact that transfers were not subject to the merit principle for many years.
It has been said that managers will be arbitrary and capricious in the selection of employees for deployment favouring some at the expense of others. They suggest
that employees have no recourse to the manager's decision.
This has been the most disturbing part of the debate. There is an interesting inconsistency in the suggestion that the majority of those selected for management positions under the existing merit system cannot be trusted to deal fairly with other employees. If this were the case, I am not sure that it provides a compelling case for maintaining the present system. In reality I am pleased to say that this is simply not the case. There is simply no evidence to suggest that managers as a group are arbitrary, unfair, lacking in judgment or unconcerned about their employees. It is to the contrary. Public Service managers are competent and committed to both their employees and to the public interest.
There are a number of other points I would like to make, but in closing I would just like to refer to the recent decision of the Federal Court of Canada regarding the lateral transfer exclusion order. The Federal Court was not castigating the government. Rather it was suggesting that the government might well wish to follow the direction it is now taking and change the legislation. In that decision Mr. Justice Rouleau said: "Being satisfied the commission does not in some instances require more flexibility"-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the various speeches made in this House on the reforms proposed by the government for the year 2000: PS 2000. Naturally, in the time allowed to us, we could raise many issues, and I see my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier who is a great expert in this field. Of course, my own experience in it was gained when I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly. A commission, on which I sat, was set up to overhaul the Quebec government's public service. Of course, the will was there, and I am convinced that it is also there within this government, to bring in useful changes to modernize the Public Service. I remember that we emphasized one thing, namely the issue of accountability. The term used in French was "imputabilite".
February 13, 1992

This is a very important element, not only for the public, which expects services from its public servants, but also for members of this House and others, mayors of municipalities, et cetera, who must deal with the federal government. Those people will occasionally meet with a deputy minister, an assistant deputy minister or even a minister but, more often than not, they contact members of Parliament. It is important for people that when they contact a department, be it National Revenue, Transport or Agriculture, they have someone who will be able to answer their questions, provide them with the information they need, even if their request is by mail, or make decisions. Too often, complaints are made because requests are transferred to others, and too often nobody is held accountable. It is impossible to say who is responsible, whether it is a case of making a decision or providing information to the public. So, the issue of accountability is important and I would have liked to see it dealt with more seriously. We should, along with civil servants, see how things could be simplified for people who want to get information, or when decisions have to be made.
I remember that we set up a system whereby if someone phoned, whether a contractor or some other business person, that person was in contact with a specific person who was in authority, and who could deal with that person until the issue was settled, which is very important, and at the same time very easy for that person. In the end, someone has responsibility either to make a decision or to pass the file on to a higher authority. In this manner, the process can come to a conclusion. People do not have to wait for months before a decision is made.
Another issue before this House, which has often been raised by the Public Service Alliance, is subcontracting. That procedure affects the morale of our civil servants, and I would have hoped that the minister would have taken that issue into consideration. As long as this issue of subcontracting remains unsettled, this conflict will persist with our civil servants and will affect their morale.


Mr. Loiselle:: That was settled.


Mark Joseph Assad: The minister says it is settled, but he should tell that to the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).
Government Orders
No one knows how much is spent on contracting out. However, studies carried out by PSAC even question the quality of the work the public sector does for the Government of Canada.
This matter of contracting out should be considered, and I think it would be a most worth-while investment on the part of government, especially with a partner like PSAC and all the government employees it represents, to ensure mutual trust exists on this issue. We are not talking about a million here and there. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars spent on contract work. Naturally, the credibility of the various departments is often called into question. The possibility of patronage was mentioned, among other things.
This it to say that the matter of contracting out is extremely important. Keep in mind that government, as the largest single employer in the country, sets an example. So, let us be an example for all provincial as well as municipal governments. That is why I hope this issue will be considered thoroughly and that PSAC and all the other organizations representing federal civil servants will be satisfied that, if there is to be contracting out, it can be justified as well as quantified.
Another point I would like to make deals with an issue that has been dragging on for years and that is whether there is employment equity within the Public Service, especially for women. We look at the statistics and we see that not much progress is made from year to year. The status of women in the Public Service leaves much to be desired. Many reports were written on this issue, and many assurances were given by governments, not only by this one. For years, we have sought to improve the condition of women in the workplace and to come up with programs as well as to ensure that they would have promotion opportunities within the Public Service. However, year after year, statistics show deficiencies in that area.
Once again, it is extremely important for the Government of Canada, which is the largest employer, to realize that one cannot leave part of our population feeling mistreated or unfairly treated. The role not only of the government but of everyone in this House is to make sure that is considered. We must not just make statements of good intentions and then say we did what we could. We must be vigilant on that issue. I believe that the issue of equity for women should be dealt with fairly,

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
once and for all. I know that it would be a tremendous benefit for the whole Public Service, because of the large number of women who work in it.
In conclusion, I looked at the Public Service Alliance's report, especially the chapter on the subject I spoke on before, contracting out. It seems to me to be a major point. If I go by the report from the Public Service Alliance, as I should, I recommend that you look at that aspect if you want to improve morale in the Public Service. I suggest that you study this question of contracting out because it will be raised in the House many times until it is settled.


Mr. Kempling:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to advise the opposition parties that should they have any amendments they wish to put to this bill we would be pleased to receive them at committee.


Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my remarks on this legislation today from two perspectives.
The first perspective is as someone who has worked in the Public Service in Ottawa, who has been on both sides of the competition process, who has competed successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully for positions in the Public Service, who has actually run competitions himself, and who has worked with public servants in the government in Ottawa where the vast majority are extremely competent, dedicated and able public servants at whatever level they happen to assume.
I know as someone who worked in the Public Service that the public servants want to make a difference. They are there to serve Canadians in various capacities. Whether it is as a mail clerk, an assistant deputy minister, an economist or a program manager, they are all there to serve Canadians and they really will not have an opportunity to contribute. That is their primary motive.
They are also in many places very demoralized because what separates them from being able to make a difference is a great deal of regulation and directives that require them to have their activities pigeon-holed into corners. They are essentially obliged to do things which
they cannot see as actually contributing to the well-being of Canadians.
Public Service reform is necessary. It is necessary to have a Public Service which is not only dedicated but is actually spirited. They should have an opportunity to do what they for the most part want to do, which is to contribute to Canada.
Second, I would like to speak from the perspective that we all share to a greater or lesser degree in this Chamber, that is that of an elected member of Parliament who interacts with public servants on a daily basis on behalf of constituents and who is in very much a direct way a client of the Public Service of Canada.
We are all in our ombudsman roles here as members of Parliament. We are clients of the Public Service on behalf of our constituents. As members of Parliament we are therefore very much affected by the legislation, the Public Service changes that will result from this legislation and the whole array of administrative, policy and regulatory changes that are being proposed in the initiatives and the report known as Public Service 2000.
That is why the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West, is appropriate. This legislation and the other initiatives encompassed in PS 2000 should not be proceeded with in a legislative committee but should be referred to a special committee for pre-study.
I think that recommendation is most appropriate. It reflects the recommendation that has been submitted by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that this legislation and the initiatives under PS 2000 be given careful scrutiny. It is also because as members of Parliament we are clients of the Public Service of Canada and all on line and front line government employees who effect programs and services which we deal with on behalf of our constituents. We are directly affected. We must be involved much more so than just scrutinizing the legislation. We must be involved in what is behind the legislation and the changes proposed by this government.
I would also like to speak from the perspective of a member, like many other members in this House, who has public servants in his or her riding. The public servants in my riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso are far fewer than those in the national capital region and there are not many highly paid executive public servants. Nevertheless the people who are there on the front-lines of delivering the programs of the Govern-
February 13, 1992

ment of Canada to the public have an important role. They ought to have a say through their elected representatives in this legislation.
Bill C-26 is the legislative framework for PS 2000, as I have already mentioned. The goals of PS 2000 are clear as they are stated in the government's white paper: "These goals are to foster and encourage a Public Service that is professional, highly qualified, non-partisan and imbued with a mission of service to the public". I wholeheartedly agree with that goal.
Whether Bill C-26 is an adequate vehicle through which to achieve that goal can be questioned. Several of my colleagues in the Liberal Party have raised valid concerns that Bill C-26 does not promote this goal. They have also advanced other valid concerns about this legislation.
I share these concerns. I have solicited the views of regular public servants in my riding and they are worried. Not only do several elements of Bill C-26 cause them concern. So too does the larger political and economic climate in which the Public Service exists.
Bill C-26 delegates much authority to the managerial level. Clause 22, for example, spells out that deputy heads will be able to deploy employees without competition to new jobs within their jurisdiction. Public servants in my riding fear not only that this proposal severely undermines the merit principle and the larger principle of decentralization which embodies it. It may well mean very different things in different communities and in different regions of Canada.
The reclassification system of PS 2000 raises some questions as well. Public servants in my riding see some positive elements of reclassification such as fewer units and simplified bargaining processes. These broader categories, however, could create as many problems as they try to solve and some of the problems could be very difficult to resolve.
How will classification affect employment equity when various job categories are combined and jobs which are female and male dominated will be mixed? This may cloud the numbers and potentially stall the implementa-
Government Orders
tion of pay equity laws to which we are all committed in this House.
Pay equity does not only apply in the Public Service to men, women and visible minorities. It applies as well to regions such as the national capital region. Have the goals and the rights of regional public servants been adequately addressed in this Public Service reform package? Will they be dealt with equitably in terms of pay, opportunity and benefits through Bill C-26?
Public Service reform is long overdue. Canadians hold them unfortunately in somewhat low esteem, and public servants have never been so frustrated and demoralized. I am not at all convinced, however, that PS 2000 and Bill C-26 will establish the sense of co-operation and common purpose that is vital within this most important national institution.
I fear that PS 2000 will further destabilize the Public Service by pitting worker against worker, manager versus staff, men versus women, regions versus Ottawa and so on. I am also concerned with the government's failure to ensure that professional, qualified, non-partisan and imbued public servants will actually have the resources and facilities necessary to deliver their talents and to provide the best service to Canadians. If I had more time I could provide a local example which would bear very precisely on this point. I will just summarize and complete my example.
It has to do with the income security program or ISP of Health and Welfare, which is in the process of being redesigned by this government. The redesign will, very conceivably, limit the access of the public to this very vital program to the public servants who administer it and result in, I believe, a great increase in the workload of members in this House and confusion and frustration on behalf of the public. Certainly that is not what this government is trying to achieve with this Public Service reform.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

February 13, 1992
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
February 13, 1992

Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Lake Simcoe was the site of the 1992 World Ice Fishing Championships hosted by the town of Georgina.
This is the first time that this championship event has been held in North America and it is very appropriate that Georgina, the ice fishing capital of Canada, hosted this great event.
Over seven countries were involved in these championships taking place on Lake Simcoe at Jacksons Point and at Beaverton. The organizers worked very hard for over a year to make this event very successful. A new attendance record was set. Thousands of spectators were out on the ice this past weekend.
Families, residents and visitors created a winter carnival atmosphere that added to the festivities. The organizers and residents extended a hardy winter welcome to all visitors, demonstrating the warmth and hospitality so prevalent in this country.
Congratulations are in order for the town of Georgina for a job well done.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to ask the hon. member for York-Simcoe: Who was on the side of the fish?


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian forest industry is once again threatened by U.S. retaliation against our softwood lumber exports.
The second decision by the Americans on whether we unfairly subsidize our lumber or have caused injury to U.S. markets is now scheduled to be made on March 5. Canada has filed over one million pages of evidence in order to make our case.
The federal government says not to worry, the free trade agreement will save us. Given the failure of the trade deal, Canadians and forest communities across the country should be concerned. Free trade has failed Canada and we must keep pressure on our own
government so that it does not sell out our forests and our forest communities again.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, many Canadians follow with interest the performance of our athletes at the Olympic Games in Albertville. I believe that it is appropriate to take a few moments to pay tribute to some of our most dd&erving athletes.
Tbesday evening, we watched with great emotion the performance of our figure skating couple, Isabelle Bras-seur and Lloyd Eisler, both from Boucherville, Quebec. They won the bronze medal. They kind of "broke the ice", since it was the first medal for Canada in skating since the Olympic Games in 1964.
Beyond medals, it is appropriate to mention the performances of two of our athletes who have obtained the best results ever by Canadian athletes in the history of the Winter Olympic Games. I am talking about biathlete Steve Cyr of Val-Belair, Quebec, who finished eighth in the 10-kilometre event, and Rob Crossan of Barrie, Ontario, who finished 12th in the alpine combined event.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you how pleased I am that our hockey team continues to do very well. Indeed, the Canadian team won its first three games and remains undefeated.
I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, as well as my colleagues in the House, to give a big hand to our athletes for their results so far at these games.


SALMAN RUSHDIE
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the third anniversary of the FATWA, the death sentence put on Salman Rushdie and all those associated with the publication of his novel Satanic
Verses.
Last March the 15 Khordad Foundation doubled the bounty to $2 million U.S. for the killing of Salman Rushdie. This foundation is a non-governmental organization authorized by law to operate in Iran.

February 13, 1992
The Iranian government has not condemned the bounty nor has it suspended authorization for the 15 Khordad Foundation to operate. Implicitly, the Iranian government condones the bounty for the assassination of a British citizen.
In spite of this, not only has our government not suspended trade, but it has increased trade with Iran and is actually normalizing diplomatic relations. The government is in a profoundly hypocritical position. Beyond the Rushdie affair our government continues to trade with and do business with a country whose human rights abuse*are widespread.
Canadians want to know: Has the minister for external affairs called in the Iranian ambassador to condemn the FATWA, the bounty on the head of Salman Rushdie or insisted on its removal conditional to furthering Canadian relations with Iran? Or are we just waiting for Salman Rushdie to die?


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, last September I stood in this House and spoke on the issue of foetal alcohol syndrome.
This terrible condition attacks the infant children of women who have consumed alcohol during pregnancy. It can leave the infant physically and mentally retarded.
Having talked with many parents and care givers of these children, I am struck by the lifelong devastation on the victims as well as their families. The permanent brain damage that results from FAS produces severe anti-social behaviour.
Those involved are left with the despair of knowing that there is no effective therapy that can help socialize the victims of this condition.
It is tragic that these infants are bom with the effects of FAS, but what is even more tragic is that this can be prevented through simple awareness. Widespread education including mandatory labelling of all Canadian alcohol products would be a significant step in the right direction.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, this past September, the government cancelled the memorandum of understanding on exports of our softwood lumber to the U.S. and told us it was on solid footing in doing so.
As we all know, the MOU which was signed in 1986 called for a 15 per cent surtax on our lumber entering the American market. Yet within one month of the decision, the Americans lost the countervailing duty investigation and imposed measures which reinstated the 15 per cent tax for the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
In other words, it took the U.S. one month to negate what it took us five years to do. This tax has devastated many communities in northern Ontario that rely on lumber for their survival.
While the government is spouting its glowing praise for free trade, it is allowing the Americans to dictate to us what our policy should be. Thousands of people find themselves in unemployment lines because of it.
Whatever happened to the secure access we were supposed to get with the free trade agreement? Indeed, if the government felt that it was on a solid footing in cancelling the MOU, why has it not responded in a more forceful manner to yet another attempt of harassment by the United States?
It is time that we started living up to the free trade agreement, the same way the Americans are.


DEGRASSI TALKS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by the statistics published recently on alcohol and drug use among teenagers. At the same time, it is comforting to watch a program such as Degrassi Talks. Seventy-four per cent of Canadian teenagers drink alcohol. Year after year, the primary cause of death among teenagers is drunk driving. Some 1,200 Canadians die each year because of drug abuse. In the program Degrassi Talks, you can see a 17-year-old former alcoholic relate her struggle, as well as a 20-year-old paraplegic tell how he was hit by a drunk driver. By discussing topics such as those in an open and frank manner, the actors
February 13, 1992

and production team directly help young Canadians and their parents.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate them on their good work, and I congratulate Health and Welfare Canada and Minister Benoit Bouchard on sponsoring this useful project.


VELLUPPILLAI JEYARAHAH
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, a Sri Lankan Tamil, Mr. Velluppillai Jeyarahah, is scheduled for deportation today. I am appealing to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for clemency in this case. If Mr. Jeyarahah is returned to Sri Lanka, he is destined to die.
Mr. Jeyarahah came to Canada in 1989 and made a claim to be a convention refugee. At the initial inquiry, he was found to have both the eligibility criteria and the credible basis for his claim.
Ultimately, his request was denied and the leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Canada was dismissed. Mr. Jeyarahah has not made claim to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, apparently because he was ignorant of this final avenue for clemency.
Easily attainable human rights information on Sri Lanka states that this man, who is a Tamil male between the ages of 15 and 35, and who professes Hinduism will be considered a potential militant.
Having just returned from a human rights fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka, I can say that Mr. Jeyarahah faces certain death if he is returned.
I ask the minister: Please, on humanitarian grounds, give Mr. Jeyarahah a chance at life. This deportation must be stopped today.


ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, for several years this government has tried to undermine, circumvent and even dismantle the Assembly of First Nations.
During the 1985 constitutional round, the Nielsen report questioned whether the AFN spoke for its members and proposed cutting its funding.
Five years later the Mulroney government cut AFN core funding by 100 per cent.
In my three years in Parliament, I have watched the government refuse to meet with AFN on the budget, on specific claims issues, on post-secondary education, and on land claims issues.
If you recognize an aboriginal right of self-government, you have to deal with aboriginal representatives on a govemment-to-govemment basis. This means accepting the legitimacy of duly elected aboriginal leaders. It means not concluding agreements affecting First Nations without their consent.
Rather than questioning the legitimacy of the AFN leadership or threatening to exclude them from the constitutional process, perhaps the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs should request an election to see whether he speaks for more than 12 per cent of Canadians.


COMMENTS BY OVIDE MERCREDI
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, recent comments by Ovide Mercredi are deeply offensive to Quebec. He misrepresented the facts, both in Ottawa and Quebec City, which is unacceptable on the part of a political leader in the present context. Quebeckers exist as a people and, as such, are not a threat to any other nation or people.
In 1985, under the government of Rene Levesque, the Quebec National Assembly passed a resolution recognizing the existence of aboriginal nations. Experts in international law have all recognized Quebec's territory. The Quebec nation includes everyone living in Quebec, and the rights of aboriginal nations will be recognized under the constitution of a sovereign Quebec.
The ignorance, bad faith and contempt shown by Mr. Mercredi have no place in the current debate.


TAXATION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, a number of constituents in my riding sent me a letter in which they deplored the federal Income Tkx Act.

O.	31
According to a study published in 1989 by Statistics Canada, 69 per cent of married couples with children under 18 had an average disposable income that was $1,670 lower than if they had not been married to their spouse.
A committee on the family has been created by the Canadian government. The hon. member for Calgary North has proposed that the Minister of Finance introduce a new federal fiscal strategy for families, a proposal that is highly commendable. In fact, I was involved in the work done by the Conservative caucus on this matter.
Many family and religious organizations have criticized the present tax system as unfair, complex and inconsistent, especially in the way it taxes families.
I hope that in the next federal budget, the Minister of Finance will introduce a new federal fiscal strategy for families.


TOBACCO
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, tobacco is a killer. Each year it takes the lives of 38,000 of our sons, daughters, wives, husbands, and parents. What shameful waste.
This carnage is helped along by the tobacco smugglers who deal in a cut-rate murderous product. For the sake of health, hurrah for yesterday's proposed new $1 per package export tax on Canadian cigarettes. Hurrah, as well, for high fines for smugglers. But as usual, this cash-starved government has dealt with the symptoms and not the cure.
I urge the government to take some of the billions of dollars collected in cigarette taxes and return them to the people who are addicted.
Fund workshops, counselling, toll-free help lines for those trying to break free. Fund nation-wide public education campaigns. Help smokers to quit. I tell this government: Do not just take their money and then turn your back.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I recently conducted a survey in my constituency and received thousands of comments from citizens.
Alexander Burke of Burlington writes: "Like the Japanese and Swedes and Swiss, we need to build a social contract between government, labour and business to form an us-against-the-world team. We are too confrontational and while we all defend our rights and fight among ourselves, there are other nations and groups taking over the economic world".
This is a theme shared by Ian Graham, a business owner in Inglewood, Ontario. His advice is this: "Hang tough on the budget, get your financial house in order and tell the straight goods. Like the Japanese foreign minister said, our workers are lazy and 30 per cent illiterate. Let's not avoid the issue. Canadians have grown soft from decades of living off our natural resources".
My constituents have a great deal of wisdom to impart and it is my honour to bring their words to this House.


TOBACCO
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that an opposition member can rise in this place and say that this government has done something that is appropriate and essential. But I am doing so today because the government has announced it will impose an export tax of $8 a carton to stop cigarettes from being smuggled back into Canada.
The smuggling of Canadian cigarettes from the United States has become an international racket which has promoted organized crime, undercut small Canadian retailers and undermined government revenues and anti-smoking campaigns.
A coalition of eight health groups and I have repeatedly called for an export tax of $10 a carton. In November, the minister of privatization said export taxes were not being considered. However, by February 3 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said our proposal was being reviewed.
February 13, 1992

The government has now imposed an $8 export tax despite strong pressure from the tobacco lobby. It is not the full amount we wanted, but eight out of ten is not bad.
I congratulate the Minister of National Revenue and the government.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, a one cent increase in the value of the Canadian dollar results in a $14 million sales decrease for our giant nickel producer Inco and puts the jobs of its 9,800 employees in jeopardy.
Inco, like all Canadian exporters, can to some extent at least to control its productivity and its labour costs, but it has no control whatsoever over the value of the Canadian dollar.
When the free trade agreement was signed, the Canadian dollar was worth 76 cents U.S. Today it is worth 85 cents U.S. When the free trade agreement was signed the spread between the Canadian and U.S. interest rates was less than 2 percentage points. Today it is almost 3 percentage points.
Sure we have problems with labour costs and productivity, but we cannot solve those in the short run. We can, however, lower the value of our dollar by reducing the spread between Canadian and U.S. interest rates.
Canadians can adjust to the free trade agreement. Canadians can compete. But we must have a level playing field as far as the value of the Canadian dollar is concerned. We appear to be our own worst enemy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Soon, Madam Speaker. The precise date I am not able to give now, but hopefully the Minister of Finance will be in a position to give the precise time very soon.']
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Everyone knows that Canadian farmers are the sacrificial lambs in an insane trade war between the United States and Europe. Now Canada has become the whip-
Oral Questions
ping boy in an absurd trade war between Japan and the United States.
The United States has decided to hit back at Japan by slapping a duty on Honda cars built in Canada. This is crazy. The government acts as if it was dealing with a technical problem when what we are watching is hardball politics in which Canada is being made the victim.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister even understand what is going on? If he does, can he do a little bit better than yesterday's mealy-mouthed statement that the trade minister was ascertaining the facts?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the hon. member that this is indeed a serious situation. We believe the audit that has been done on Honda was not done according to the rules of the FTA. We have made representations to the United States and will continue to do so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Deputy Prime Minister because this is a matter that affects Canada's ability to export its cars to the United States. I am waiting for his answer.
On June 18, in this House, the Leader of the Opposition asked what the government intended to do to prevent Americans from imposing tariffs on Honda cars built in Canada. At the time, the government claimed it had the situation under control and even accused the Leader of the Opposition of scare tactics. Yesterday, eight months later, the Minister of Finance said that he was trying to evaluate the situation. Why didn't the Minister of Finance do his job eight months ago?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, we made our objections to the United States as recently as February 12. We had a special note delivered to the United States on this particular issue.
As the member knows, we have already launched one panel on mortgage interest and we are considering launching others.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, once again the great powers of Canada are falling on deaf ears.

February 13, 1992
Oral Questions
I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister because this is an issue that touches the livelihood of every auto worker in Canada.
The American presidential primaries start next week and candidates are falling all over themselves to see who can be the toughest on Japan, but Japan has strong leadership and instead Canada is being caught in the squeeze. While the government tries to get its act together, will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that similar action is not taken against Canadian made Toyota, Suzuki, Hyundai or even GM products. Will he give us that assurance?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has just indicated to the hon. member, we disagree with the interpretation of the U.S. customs audit. We have served notice to that effect. We have done so in the form of a diplomatic note.
The most fortunate part of this is the fact that we do have a dispute resolving mechanism under the free trade agreement. The hon. member's leader wants to tear that agreement up. At least we have a fair and balanced method by which we can sort this out in an objective fashion.
As the minister pointed out, we have already launched an action under the disputes resolving mechanism under the free trade agreement and we will launch others if necessary.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadian workers should not have to wait for up to three years for a panel to tell Americans that they should not be doing this sort of thing to Canadian exports.
The government said the reason we needed a free trade deal with the Americans in the first place was so that we would not have this kind of harassment.
Now that the Americans have set a precedent with Honda of Canada, what is to stop them from having this same kind of investigation and slapping the same kind of duties on cars made in Canada by the North American big three? For that matter, what is to stop them from doing this to any product of any kind made in Canada and destined for export to the United States?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, there has never been any way that any country could be stopped from launching these kinds of investigations. The only thing that is different and which hon. members on the other side do not want to acknowledge is that now we have chapter 18 under the free trade agreement where we can launch a legitimate appeal.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, chapter 18 is cold comfort to the 1,500 workers at Honda in Alliston. Yesterday the Minister for International Trade assured us he would be approaching the Americans on this Honda issue "once he had ascertained the facts". The facts are clear. One is that the minister should have approached the Americans on this Honda issue eight months ago.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Has the Minister for International Trade spoken personally to U.S. trade representative Carla Hills about this Honda matter and has he pressed Canada's case vigorously? Why can the Deputy Prime Minister not tell us that the case has been resolved and we have nothing more to be concerned about, instead of the empty words of the Minister of State.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of that question is yes, the minister has spoken to the minister from the United States.
In answer to the second part of his question, we continue to press the United States on the issue. We believe it is not of concern because rules of origin should be settled under the free trade agreement.



Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. There are new signs today of just how grim things are in the Canadian economy.
For the fourth time in four months manufacturing output has dropped sharply. In fact, employment in manufacturing has not been this low since October 1972 and the government's action today in pushing the bank rate up a further 13 basis points is just going to make things worse.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance this. Is the government prepared to let Canada become an indus-
February 13, 1992

trial wasteland or will it stop the ruinous increase in interest rates which keeps our dollar high and puts our people out of work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been over the last number of months. He knows that interest rates have fallen by about 7 percentage points since the high of May 1990. There has been considerable easing in monetary conditions, both on the interest rate side and the exchange rate side.
While there is some volatility in the markets at the present time, I think the hon. member would recognize that interest rates have come down, are staying down, and monetary conditions have moderated substantially.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Minister of Finance has been. I have been here in this country where there are
1.5	million people out of work, where the interest rate has gone up for the past three weeks consistently, week after week.
We have seen the Bank of Canada raise that interest rate. Yesterday the Economic Council of Canada said that this manufacturing decline will continue unless the government stresses training people, yet government documents show that big cuts are planned for many job training programs.
Will the government take the advice of its own former minister and ambassador for disarmament, Doug Roche, cut the defence budget by 10 per cent and reallocate this money to training programs that will put people back to work and rebuild our manufacturing sector.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be reminded of the fact that Canada has the third lowest interest rates of all the G-7 countries.
The only two countries that have lower interest rates than Canada among the G-7 countries are the United States and Japan. Our intention is to get at the root causes of high interest rates by bringing inflation and inflationary pressures down. We have been somewhat successful, thanks to the efforts of the Canadian people and the workers of Canada. We now have a situation
Oral Questions
where there has been considerable monetary easing which should provide the basic groundwork for recovery.
The hon. member also knows very well that the Conference Board of Canada reported that of all the G-7 countries, Canada will have the best growth rate and the best recovery in 1992. It also pointed out the very serious difficulties that face the economies of all the industrialized world, particularly those of the G-7. It is a world-wide situation but Canada is well positioned.
I might also indicate further to an earlier question that automobile sales in the month of January have shown a 14 per cent increase over the month of December. That should be encouraging.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the minister suggests that we have the third lowest interest rates and then points out that those countries that have lower interest rates are the very countries, the United States and Japan, with which we compete. Those are the countries that are important in this calculation.

I have a supplementary for the minister. The manufacturing sector has been hurting ever since this government came to power. The number of jobs in manufacturing is at its lowest ebb since 1972. When will the minister do something to get us out of the present economic recession that is affecting the entire country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicates that two of the countries that we compete very vigorously against are the United States and Japan. That is quite true.
The Conference Board of Canada is convinced that we are going to compete quite well. The board points out in the growth projections for 1992 that Canada will have a
3.2	per cent real rate of growth, the United States 2.1 per cent, Japan 3 per cent, France 2.3 per cent, Germany 1.5 per cent, Italy 2 per cent and the United Kingdom 1.5 per cent. That is not a real satisfactory rate of growth, but it certainly is much better than the countries with which we compete. I indicate to the hon. member that while we share the concern that he has raised in the House of Commons, this is a world-wide situation. Canada is not alone in this situation. We are looking at a number of initiatives. As I have indicated on previous

February 13, 1992
Oral Questions
occasions, we have addressed the problems in the transportation sector.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move on.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue.
Yesterday the minister announced measures to reduce cross-border shopping. These measures only address the symptoms, not the disease. The major reason why Canadians are flooding to the United States is excessive taxation at home. The GST, the "go south tax", is forcing Canadians across the border while jobs and businesses are being lost here.
The minister should abandon his strong arm tactics in trying to get the provinces to harmonize their taxes with the GST. Why will the minister not at least lower the GST immediately with no strings attached?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been but the package that we announced yesterday, if he has read this morning's clippings, will show that shoppers get a tax break from Ottawa. "Duties ditched to fill shops", "Stores hail tariff cuts on imports", "Ottawa cuts import duties", ''Look for bargains", "Duties slashed $60 million", "Ikx cuts will keep shoppers at home". That is what we are doing for the consumers, Mr. Speaker.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Yesterday, when the minister announced his program to crack down on cross-border shopping, he said that he would not introduce any additional taxes. Cross-border shopping is a symptom, a reaction-I would even say a Canadian revolt-against the tax burden imposed by this government. To stop this exodus, will the minister lower the disastrous goods and services tax?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the point I made yesterday, which I confirmed today, is that there are no new or additional taxes for Canadian consumers shopping in Canada. In fact, we have reduced taxes by the elimination of tariffs on some 25 popular products, from VCRs to cameras and sporting goods. In fact, we have moved in a direction which has levelled the playing field and which has prompted business people from coast to coast, such as Steve Kahler, General Manager of Bleeker Stereo & TV Ltd. who said yesterday as a result of the announcement:
This means we could end up selling goods cheaper than in the United States. This is really good news. Maybe the tables will turn and we will have Americans coming to Canada to shop in Canada.


INTEREST RATES
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, today the bank rate went up 13 basis points. This is taking place at the same time as our unemployment is increasing to 10.4 per cent. It is taking place at the same time that we are losing thousands upon thousands of manufacturing jobs. As a matter of fact, over the past three years Canada has lost 325,000, or 15 per cent, of all its manufacturing jobs.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us this: Why is he deliberately increasing the interest rates to keep the dollar up, to keep it artificially high, because it is driving jobs south?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the exchange markets have been volatile over the last week or so. It has put upward pressure on the domestic money market rates. The hon. member knows very well that there has been considerable monetary easing, both on the interest rate side and on the exchange rate side. The hon. member knows very well that the Bank of Canada intervenes only to smooth out any erratic fluctuations.
What we are seeing here are the forces of the market at play. The hon. member is quite familiar with that.


MAIL ORDER INDUSTRY
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of National Revenue.
The U.S. charges Canadian companies $10 on mail order sales to U.S. customers. Under its new measures announced yesterday, this government charges American companies only $5 for mail order sales to Canadians. Why is this government giving a 100 per cent cost advantage to American companies?
The minister may have a family firm in Buffalo but he has no right to drive more and more Canadian jobs-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


Otto John Jelinek: My
hon. friend never ceases to surprise me. He is talking about the service fee imposed by the post office on a cost recovery basis. Because of the business plan that has been imposed by this government and the post office in this country, the post office in Canada is far more efficient than in the United States. Therefore we can charge a lower fee for Canadians.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question through the Speaker who will be receiving a much deserved honour in Vancouver on Friday night.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member, but the question had better be in order.


David Barrett: Last week and earlier this week I had several occasions to rise in this House to ask specific questions of the minister of trade relative to information access for members of this House and for the media to the draft bracketed treaty of the U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement pending.
Is the Acting Prime Minister willing to give this House and the press in Canada exactly the same access that the U.S. Congress has had to these documents? The Mexican Senate and the Mexican press have had two briefings and access to the documents. Is the government prepared to give exactly the same information briefings and
Oral Questions
access that both the senators in Mexico and the Congress members in the United States have had?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has stated in this House on many occasions that he is quite prepared to give a confidential briefing to members of the committee any time they ask for it.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, that is not the question that I asked. I am aware of the minister's offer.
The Mexican Senate and the Mexican press have access to this information. I have a letter from a Mexican senator detailing exactly what the Mexican Senate was briefed on and what the Mexican press was briefed on. We also have a note from a U.S. committee determining that there is no absolute confidentiality on the briefings in the United States.
I repeat: Is this government prepared to give exactly the same access to these documents that was given to the Mexican senators, the Mexican press and the U.S. Congress as the documents I have show?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the reasonable thing for the hon. member to do is to first accept the minister's offer of the briefing and then take it from there. So far that offer has not been accepted.


David Barrett: Yes or no?


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Friday the Minister for International Trade told the House that he had not received any request from farm organizations for an impact study on the Dunkel proposals in the GATT negotiations.
Can the Deputy Prime explain why the minister told the House that when he knows full well that the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ralph Jespersen, wrote to the minister on January 10 to ask on an urgent basis for an impact analysis on the Dunkel proposals, and what impact that would have on Canadian agriculture.

February 13, 1992
Oral Questions
Why did the minister tell the House that he had not received a request when he full well had?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the question that was answered by the Minister for International Trade was a question relating to the supply management agencies.
The agencies, as the hon. member knows, are not the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is a massive umbrella organization.
In his letter, Mr. Jespersen said: "We are urgently requesting that your department make available to us its analysis of the potential impacts of the proposal on Canadian agricultural industry".
Thousands and thousands of farmers are fearful today that they are going to lose their farms, their livelihood, everything. I wonder why the minister and why the government are hamming around. Why is the government not making available immediately this impact analysis that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has asked for.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to understand, and I know he does, that agencies which represent the supply managed industries have had a great deal of difficulty in coming to grips with efforts to stay united in presenting their front and their common cause. As you know, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member does, agencies which have asked the government if it could provide information and we have agreed, provided they would work with us co-operatively, have said that they will only be able to make a decision after February 18.
Those agencies are having a difficult time arriving at a conclusion among themselves.


HIBERNIA
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my good friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, about the Hibernia project.
He will probably know that one of the remaining Hibernia partners, Chevron, indicated yesterday that pulling out of the development altogether is an option for Chevron.
His colleague, the minister of energy, will be in Newfoundland tomorrow to deal with this Hibernia issue. I want to ask the minister what the government hopes to achieve by tomorrow's meetings in St. John's. Is it to keep the project intact? Is it to delay the project, or is it to back away from the project altogether?


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the minister of energy is in the province of Newfoundland today meeting with the premier of the province and the minister of energy. All companies involved in the project will be meeting tomorrow and at that time, discussions will be held.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for repeating essentially what I said in the question. I want to put a supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister.
He will know that his colleague, the minister of energy, said he foresees some delay in the project. He will also know that his other colleague from Newfoundland, the minister of fisheries, has said: "No. Business as usual. The minister of energy does not know what he is talking about". Now his colleague in the back benches there adds further to the confusion.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not feel some obligation, given the great concern in Newfoundland over this issue, to send a clear signal on this issue? I will give him the opportunity to send this signal. More to the point, is the government still firmly committed to this project? What is it prepared to do to see it through to its completion?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, this government has been committed from day one in this project. The involvement of the companies and then-meetings tomorrow are critical to the future of this project.
February 13, 1992


TAXATION
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The present tax system is unfair, complex and inconsistent, especially in the way it taxes families. A number of constituents in my riding sent me a letter in which they indicated that 69 per cent of married couples with children under 18 had an average disposable income that was $1,670 lower than if they had not been married to their spouse. Is the minister prepared to say whether his officials are examining a new federal strategy for family taxation and whether we can expect the details in the next federal budget?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and other hon. members who have been working on this committee headed by the hon. member for Calgary North looking into the taxation of families for the veiy good work that they have done.
We have had the opportunity of meeting with the committee and officials have been examining a number of their recommendations.
I can assure the hon. member that we are taking their recommendations seriously, as we have taken other recommendations seriously in the context of the prebudget consultation. The answer to the hon. member is yes.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Mexico's bad record on human rights has not improved in the past year according to this week's report of the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America. They point to fraud and violence in elections and against democratic union movements and institutional torture by the police of Mexico.
Will the Acting Prime Minister assure this House that Canada will not sign a North American free trade agreement until such time as there is international verified progress in respect for human rights in Mexico,
Oral Questions
including free and fair elections, in keeping with the headlines that the Prime Minister won for supporting democracy and human rights in Paris?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the hon. member's concern in this area. Other members are concerned about environment and other such things.
As he probably knows, discussions are going on among the three countries about all of these issues.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In order to encourage better practice of human rights,
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if this government will invite Mexican and U.S. governments to send electoral and human rights observers to Canada before and during our elections in return for a matching invitation to the Canadian government to send electoral observers to their elections?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be pleased to take the member's suggestion under advisement. I will be sure that she is informed of his views in this matter.


PENSIONS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A few moments ago the Speaker of the Senate ruled that a private member's bill which had been passed unanimously by this House on a recorded vote and which-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I am having some difficulty with the question. It refers to matters in the other place. Perhaps the hon. member can put the question on a substantive basis and leave out the references to which he has been alluding.


Alan Redway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A short time ago this House passed unanimously a private member's bill which provided that late applicants be allowed to receive Canada Pension Plan disability pensions.

February 13, 1992
Oral Questions
That matter is now in question as a result of developments in other places. I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if the government would immediately move to introduce a government bill similar to the private member's bill so that some 4,000 disabled Canadians can receive the disability pensions that they have already paid for?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister answers, I just want to observe that, with the co-operation of the Chair, genius will out.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: You
will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to my colleague on the right for his great compassion and tireless dedication to protecting those in need. That being said, I was with the Minister of National Health and Welfare at the latest federal-provincial meeting and at that time he received the authorization and approval of the provinces. He will correct that anomaly and to this end an important amendment should be introduced as early as the beginning of next week.


ELECTORAL REFORM AND PARTY FINANCING
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. What does he propose to do with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing that were tabled this morning in the House?


Harvie Andre: As the hon. member I am sure is aware, on matters like this which affect all of us equally as elected representatives, we would want to have the views of members from all sides of the House. Therefore, we will be referring the royal commission report to a committee of this House as soon as we get the committee established. We anxiously look forward to their recommendations.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
Will the minister advise the House what schedule he is planning to ensure that the committee reports in time for the next election? Will he undertake to provide support for the bill should the committee propose a unanimous report to this House?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that students of this institution know very well is that delays in proceeding with legislation seldom occur from this side of the House.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: I am appreciative of what I hope is a commitment from the other side that on this piece of legislation that at least they will be interested in assisting the government.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications. Citing selected figures which he called staggering and devastating, John Crispo, a member of the CBC board of directors, implied that official bilingualism is working against unilingual English Canadians in their hope and wish of getting high level federal jobs.


An hon. member:: Nonsense.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not true. We know that. Will the government explain how it can tolerate having an outspoken critic on important government policy affecting national unity as a member of a board of directors of a Canadian corporation as important as the CBC.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the government's position with regard to bilingualism is abundantly clear. We support bilingualism. We support equity within the Public Service to ensure that all peoples have a fair opportunity of having employment in the Public Service.
Mr. Crispo's comments were made not as a representative of the CBC, but as a private individual on a private broadcasting outlet.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. This matter has been raised before in the House. As a consequence, with the co-operation of all hon. members, there was some
February 13, 1992

Oral Questions
indication that if properly pursued, the question could be put. The hon. minister is trying to answer the question. I think that after all we have put into this, hon. members owe it to the minister to listen to the answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would underscore the fact that in this instance, Mr. Crispo was speaking as a private individual on a private broadcasting outlet. It would be a remarkable change from the traditions of this Parliament and of government if we were required to censor the personal views of appointees to Crown corporations, government boards and commissions.
One of the things that makes Canada such a wonderful place to live in is that we have freedom of speech, including the freedom of speech of individual citizens to disagree with the position of the Government of Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the minister says that the government does not endorse John Crispo's divisive statements on official languages, an important government policy, will he ask John Crispo to resign from his position as a director of the CBC?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the implications of doing what the hon. member would suggest would be of interrogating members of all boards, commissions and Crown corporations with regard to their points of view. If they disagreed with the position of the Government of Canada, they would be rendered ineligible to serve as members of boards of Crown corporations. That obviously would be a form of censorship which would not be acceptable to Canadians.
The government's position is clear. We have consistently supported bilingualism in Canada. We have consistently taken the position that all Canadians must be treated with equity and we have consistently taken a position in favour of freedom of speech in Canada.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture. Some time ago, Canadian farmers and milk producers received a message from the government, signed by the minister and some of his colleagues, which said that Canada's supply management system was not for sale and would not be bartered. The government would not abandon a system that was recognized and respected by all its trading partners abroad, because it was an essential part of its long-term agricultural policy.
Are the signatures of the minister and his colleagues still worth something? Are their signatures worth more than the paper they are written on?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, we spent most of the time yesterday discussing this matter, and I believe that last night, parliamentarians on all sides of the House decided to firmly support the government's position at the GATT talks. I believe I am not being partisan if I say that for the past two years the federal government has fielded a position that was developed jointly with Canadian farmers. We supported that position, we defended it, and we continue to do so. I think that deserves to be said, and I am convinced that even people who have a different vision of Canada should fully support what we are doing at GATT.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, farmers don't want to hear about the position that has been discussed for the past two years. They all know it by heart. What they want to know about is the results and whether you stand by your commitment. Do you intend to abide by that commitment, and when the time comes to sign the final agreement, will you refuse to sign any agreement at GATT that threatens supply management? Yes or no?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I don't need any lessons from the associate of a former minister who, when he was minister in 1984, was unable to come up with a long-term dairy policy for

February 13, 1992
Oral Questions
Canadian farmers. We put that policy in place as soon as we were elected, and we maintained the supply management system. Furthermore, I think our position is quite clear, and Canadian farmers know our position. We will continue to defend it, bearing in mind, and this is important, that because of the present wording of article XI, our yogurt and ice cream are threatened as a result of a GATT ruling. That is why the status quo is unacceptable and why we must seek a new version of article XI. So that is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge the hon. member to support us in that endeavour.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the minister knows, a review is taking place within his department at the moment of immigration rules and, indeed, beyond that. The minister will know the medical and scientific community opposes mandatory testing of potential immigrants for AIDS and HIV and that the Department of National Health and Welfare opposes mandatory testing as well.
There is some concern that the review might lead to a recommendation that mandatory testing should be introduced. Will the minister confirm today that no matter what the review process says, he will not permit mandatory testing for HIV and AIDS of potential new immigrants to Canada.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a purely hypothetical question. If there ever becomes a need to consider that question, the government will do it in consultation with all concerned.


ELECTORAL REFORM
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question relating to the question from the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands on the report today on electoral reform. I
understand from the minister's answer it is going to be referred to committee. I have not read the report, therefore I want to hold my rights about a point of privilege. I understand in a general way that the report confirms my position, about which I wrote to the minister. I have had the courtesy of replies from several ministers that there is a very fundamental discrimination against independents collecting money because they cannot give receipts until the writ is issued.
I really hope that the House leader can confer with the other House leaders to remedy that problem before we get involved in the other issues so that we will not have to try to prevent the raising of all money for all parties.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member has written to me on this issue and I generally agree with him. He should not be embarrassed about not having read the report. It was just tabled at ten o'clock and is a thousand pages. There is a lot of material there.
I hear the hon. member's representation. I certainly will pass it on to the committee.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. A few moments ago the minister said in reply to a question by the member for Algoma in regard to the impact study of the Dunkel proposal that none had been requested by the five agencies in question.
How then can the minister explain the letter that I have in hand, written to him or to the minister of international trade, asking the very thing, signed by Louis Balcaen, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada? The letter states:
I am writing to you on behalf of Daily Fanners of Canada, the
Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian
Chicken Marketing Agency, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency-
Is this not slightly at odds with what the minister said, to put it kindly?
February 13, 1992


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It may
be, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member will not believe this, but occasionally people change their position.
A meeting was held on January 22 with representatives of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, Canadian Broiler Hatching Marketing Agency, at which time they were provided with the revised tariff equivalents.
These were discussed on a preliminary basis with the intention of a meeting to follow on January 28 or 29. The dairy farmers of Canada were also to be present at that time. However, the agencies decided not to discuss this issue any further with government officials until after February 18.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Garth  Timer@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Yesterday the minister unveiled a number of weapons in his war against cross-border shopping. One of them was the potential harmonization of the GST with provincial sales taxes. The federal government now wants to collect both at the border.
Can the minister tell us what possible benefit there would be to Canadian consumers and how does he address charges that this is a tax increase in disguise?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I repeat and emphasize that there is no tax increase for Canadian consumers in the package that was announced yesterday. As far as the specific question is concerned regarding harmonization, obviously harmonization makes common sense. It will eliminate duplication of services, duplication and overlap of programs. One tax, one system is the way to go. The Ontario fiscal outlook tabled a couple of weeks ago by the Ontario NDP government confirms it. It says: "A key difference is the taxation of business. The GST by providing business input tax credits has basically exempted businesses from federal sales tax while Ontario taxes businesses. Broadening the sales tax base or harmonizing could improve economic efficiency for Ontario".
Business of the House
I urge the province of Ontario and other provinces to harmonize as quickly as possible for the benefit of all Canadians.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Harold Gille-shammer, Minister of Family Services of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader pertaining to the business of the House for tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday, and the remaining part of next week.
Perhaps, Madam Speaker, while the hon. member is on his feet he might indicate to the House in reference to a question that was put to him by the hon. member for Don Valley East concerning the bill in the other place as to when we might see a tabling of complementary legislation in this House for adjudication by members here.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, in terms of business, I trust we will complete second reading of Bill C-26 this afternoon. After that we will be able to commence and hopefully complete second reading of Bill C-41, the energy efficiency act.
I would like to at this point designate tomorrow an allotted day for supply. It is my intention, but I would like to confirm tomorrow, to designate Monday an allotted day as well.
On Tuesday we will begin second reading on an act respecting spending control of government expenditures which will be given first reading tomorrow. In terms of the bill on the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan affecting the disabled, I will put down a notice for that this afternoon.
I believe the bill would be in a position to be brought forward tomorrow but in view of the notice provisions of

Government Orders
our Standing Orders, I would require unanimous consent to have it introduced tomorrow. If that were the disposition of the House, I believe we would be in a position to do that. I will have to confirm that with the ministry of health.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, with regard to the tabling of the bill concerning the disabled, I would like to indicate that he can expect and anticipate full co-operation from the Official Opposition to have this particular matter moved expeditiously within this Chamber after it is tabled in the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague, the government House leader. I wonder if he is able today to indicate when the budget will be introduced.


Harvie Andre: Soon, Madam Speaker. The precise date I am not able to give now, but hopefully the Minister of Finance will be in a position to give the precise time very soon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, when speaking to the bill, the minister responsible for this bill, the President of the Treasury Board, said and I quote from page 6777 of Hansard for February 11, 1992:
Seldom in our history has a program of organizational change been undertaken of the scope and magnitude of PS 2000.
Further in his speech he said, as reported at page 6778:
I would urge that the committee report back to the House by the end of March. There will be ample opportunity to consider improvements to the bill and I am confident that members will put
aside differences and take full advantage of this window of
opportunity.
Again this morning we had the parliamentary secretary to the minister stand up in the House and say that he was hoping that in committee the Official Opposition would bring amendments to this bill for discussion. We intend to do that. I just hope the government is in a good mood, a positive mood, an understanding mood because there are amendments needed to this bill and we intend to bring them forward.
We would have preferred that the government do the right thing in looking at this white paper dealing with PS 2000. It was our preferred choice that to avoid partisanship, to avoid misunderstanding, to avoid conflict, that the white paper be referred a special committee of the House or to a standing committee of the House of the government's own choosing for an all-party review of the white paper.
We could have a discussion on the principle as well as the substance of the bill. We could have come forth with an agreement in committee and brought to this House a piece of legislation that would have been more comprehensive, possibly better organized, and possibly better accepted than the present legislation before us, Bill C-26.
This bill, as the minister himself admitted in the House, is a very important undertaking. When we restructured the Public Service of Canada 25 or 35 years ago, the job was not taken up by the government itself. It invited all the opposition members to participate in the committee and a consensus was built up. Ever since then, whenever there were amendments to either the Public Service Employment Act or the Public Service Staff Relations Act, at least in my 19 years in the House, a committee of the House was struck before the legislation was put to the House. We examined the white paper and reported to the House with legislation to follow.
The last time there were amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Finkelman report was referred to a special committee. I served on this committee. The Speaker and a lot of members also served. We had long and arduous meetings with Treasury Board, other interested people and the unions to try to bring about better employee-employer relations in the Public Service.
February 13, 1992



Here is a quote from page 90 in the white paper that we have before us regarding accountability: "Mechanical accountability based on simplistic, quantified objectives is not what is needed. Fundamental to effective accountability is the exercise of judgment".
Madam Speaker, I ask you: We, from the Opposition have not been involved in the development of the proposal before us, the preparation of the document. We are told that civil servants were involved, as well as unions. In the last two years, civil servants from departments such as Treasury Board and, I imagine, the Privy Council and even the Public Service Commission, have been involved in an important examination of the changes required.
And now the minister tells us: We are in a hurry; it has taken us, the government, two years to come up with a document that we consider useful but you, the Official Opposition, barely have two months to go through the stages of first reading, second reading, committee review of each section, and third reading. Those are the veiy words of the minister, who said at pages 6-7 and 7-8:

I would urge the committee to report back to the House by the end of March. It is my earnest desire that the bill receive third reading as soon as possible ".

We cannot accept the fact that the Opposition and the civil servants in general are faced with more or less a blunt refusal as regards the important issues that we wish to raise.
As we know, civil servants are worried right now. Their morale is rather low. Is this the right time to bulldoze this legislation through the House of Commons in two months, to go through committee and the whole parliamentary process in two months? Madam Speaker, I tell you that this is not possible; it is not right. We want to be
Government Orders
heard, we want to hear the unions, we want to hear those who are affected, namely the civil servants.
The amendments included in Bill C-26 affect important institutions of the Parliament of Canada. How, for instance, can the Public Service Commission, which is an agent of this Parliament and which regularly reports to Parliament on its activities, remain impartial-I ask you that question-and free from any government interfering when its hands are tied with the principal adviser to the minister who, as we know, becomes the head of the Public Service?
We think that this appointment violates the autonomy of the Public Service Commission, which is to report only to Parliament, and thus casts doubt on its ability to defend the merit principle.
The public accounts committee, which I chair, has already taken a position on it. It has seriously proposed that a special all-party committee study the issue and not rush it by using the government majority to force its way. The public accounts committee, as I said, recommended a serious study before legislation is tabled.
I support some clauses of the bill which are meant to strengthen the Public Service; I support the ability of the Public Service to serve the general public and I support improved labour relations in it. We agree with that. However, I oppose the clauses of the bill that affect the merit principle. I think that they are not well explained and it is extremely difficult for us to accept them without clear and precise explanations. Madam Speaker, it will destabilize the public service, I tell you. It will probably cause us serious problems of public perception if the commission makes appointments that are not based solely on merit but on some other criterion.
I am disappointed with regard to certain barriers, including the political rights of public servants. God knows, we have talked about it in this House, and before every election, someone here sees some political advantages and raises the question. Why did the government not amend this bill so as to clearly indicate its policy on public servants' political rights? Nothing in the bill deals with that issue and I for one am disappointed.
The Auditor General of Canada said on page 25 of his annual report: "The reform and renewal of the federal Public Service in a time of global competitiveness, a time of change, is essential to enable it to meet the challenges that lie ahead". I agree with that. I see you indicating to me that my time is almost up.

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
I cannot support the bill in question. Therefore I move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-26 be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for moving his amendment. It is a good idea.
This is something that really should be looked at by a committee of the House and reported back. Then the government will have a better idea what should and should not be in legislation that so drastically affects the Public Service.
Maybe it is naive, but I have a wish, some experience and some knowledge that the most desirable kind of Public Service that can serve any government of any political stripe, no matter how often governments change, will conscientiously, diligently work in accordance with the policies of the government of the day.
I attended my first national convention of my party in Winnipeg in 1956 when we passed the Winnipeg declaration. I will remind my colleague from the Fraser Valley that the opening sentence in the declaration was that any society motivated only by a desire for profit is basically immoral. I hope he will keep that in mind in the future.
The guest speaker at that convention was the Hon. Richard Crossman of some fame and note in the Atlee government from 1945 to 1952. He was in government again the next time the Labour Party was elected.
I presume he has passed away now, but I recall him telling us that when they took office most of the cabinet ministers and MPs were first-timers. There were a few holdovers from the days of the Ramsay MacDonald government in the late 1920s and early 1930s. All the rest were relative newcomers.
He was appointed to cabinet and said he hardly knew where the washrooms were. He was frantically trying to set up a staff for his office and figure out the make-up of his department.
After he had been in cabinet four or five days, his senior deputy minister phoned and asked for an appointment for himself and two other senior officials of the department. They agreed on a time and day for them to meet. Of course the first thing that went through his mind was that they were going to resign.
When they met a day or two later the deputy minister laid two sets of documents on the minister's desk. He said that the first one contained the policy resolutions and statements of his party that affected his department. The other set of documents contained several options that he suggested be considered in implementing his policy on each of the issues. That is what I think anyone would call a responsible, disciplined, conscientious Public Service. Within a matter of 10 days of taking office, the new cabinet minister had senior people in his department outlining what the policy of his party was, because they kept track of those things in senior levels in their Public Service, and outlining one or more options for each of the policy matters which affected his department.
If only we could have that now and not this governing by the seat of your pants. Any political party that does not have policies which may or may not work-only experience will tell-or does not have a platform that it runs on and if it wins is expected to implement it, is not worthy of being in office.
Similarly, any senior levels of the Public Service that cannot conduct themselves in that manner are not worthy of being in the senior civil service. That is why I do not get excited when there is a change of government.
I think it would be stupid if the new government fired all the deputy ministers and assistant deputies. You would be losing a wealth of experience and dedicated public servants for many years in most instances.
I have no problem with the firing of the people who are brought in on a contract to work on a minister's personal staff. I would not want anybody working for me who was not going to be helpful. If he cannot support the policies of my party and my government or if he cannot be helpful in implementing those policies then I would expect him to resign.
February 13, 1992

In the case of those on contract, serving on a minister's staff or appointed to a board or something or a commission, I can understand them being canned. You would not want anyone working for you who is going to work against you. I do not blame any new government for getting rid of those kinds of people, but to go around with a meat axe picking on the permanent, dedicated, competent Public Service is not only stupid but it is terribly unfair and unnecessary.
I would like to mention one of the things that we are proud of in Saskatchewan. Back in the 1950s it was felt necessary to establish a new university campus in our province, the University of Regina. The university at Saskatoon was getting too full, we needed more space and we obviously needed another campus. To begin with it was one campus under the University of Saskatoon and later it was divided into two separate campuses.
We are most proud of this university, thanks to a man who was minister of education for better than 16 years in our province. He was the architect of establishing, on the University of Regina campus, a faculty of public administration. It recruited former public servants not just from Saskatchewan, but found some public servants who were willing to leave the Public Service to teach at the Regina campus. The person responsible for that was Woodrow S. Lloyd. We started the beginnings of what was a truly professional Public Service and we were proud of it. When we were defeated in 1964, the new Liberal premier, Mr. Ross Thatcher said in the initial days of his government that they were going to go after the CCF appointees with a meat axe. However, wiser and saner heads prevailed because mainly he left the Public Service alone. He put some new ones in of his choice, which he had the right to do, but mainly he left the Public Service alone.
That is the sort of thing that should be in legislation regarding the federal Public Service. We do not need the Treasury Board deciding what a bargaining unit should or should not be. That is something to be decided between the Public Service unions and each department and then collectively report to the Treasury Board with a total package of what bargaining units there should be.
Government Orders
The bill can do nothing but harm to our present Public Service. It could be changed to bring about an even stronger, better and more professional Public Service rather than the government, through the back door, trying to accomplish things it would not dare do through the front door.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this bill, particularly when one considers the number of public servants who work in the riding of Moncton. A very large component of our economy is made up of public servants. For that reason it is important that I speak against the bill because it will have very serious consequences for all those who work for the government and ultimately for all Canadians who deal with the government in the future.
We on this side are of the House are of the opinion that it is necessary to go back to square one and start over again, that we cannot deal with this matter on the basis of Bill C-26. Obviously a special committee of Parliament should go back and take another firm look at the suggestions that have flowed from both the private sector and from the public sector. We could work out a better arrangement which would create a better Public Service in which those who are working within the system could feel that they are making a contribution rather than being cogs in a giant wheel.
I am sure my concerns are shared by this House. The government is dismantling the fabric of this country. We see the attack against things like VIA Rail, the CBC, the postal service and now we see an attack against the Public Service. We wonder what is going to be left when this government is finished with this vicious attack against the institutions which have held us together. My concern is that there may be nothing left if we allow this to continue.
The Public Service linkages between all parts of this country are absolutely essential. They go further than just providing essential services. It is essential that there is an efficient, hard working, dedicated Public Service that provides service equally to all Canadians in all parts of Canada. This bill will contribute nothing toward establishing that goal or that mission for the Public Service.
That is not to suggest that we are not interested in seeing change. There is no question that, as we embark on this new global economy and as we embark on the future, we on this side are not opposed to embracing

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
change that is necessary. We must look at the fundamental shifts that are taking place in our economy, some of them not all that great as far as the shifts are concerned and are caused in large measure by government policy. At the same time we still must be responsive to a new, revitalized Public Service.
That is why we would like to take a new approach and to see a parliamentary committee really respond to the issues of the day.
There is no question in my mind that the present system in the Public Service does not work. The hierarchical system with everybody feeding into the top is an old system. It goes back to the smokestack-type industries.
For that reason, the Public Service does have to change and we do have to look at new ways of managing the Public Service. We have to make the Public Service responsive and also adaptive. There is going to be rapid change over the next 10 or 15 years and we cannot have a stiff, unresponsive type of system in place or else we will develop a system in which the Public Service will be an impediment to change and an impediment to development. In fact, in the long term it will create a veiy poor situation for our country.
How do you achieve that type of system? You do not do it through Bill C-26. You do it by working out a new partnership. It is really two partnerships and they overlap.
It is a partnership between the Public Service and the private sector. There are areas in which the private sector can do the job better. Then there are other areas in which the Public Service can do the task better. So we have to work out that partnership.
The second partnership we have to take a look at and work out is in the area of government and the employees, the actual individuals who are working for the Public Service.
I know in talking to a number of public servants that this government and its policies, the strike and all of those things have left a very demoralized Public Service. The Public Service is wondering what its role is and whether it is independent and not subject to the whims and fancies of different governments that happen to be in power at the time.
We have to go back and reforge that alliance between government and the Public Service so that confidence is built up, so those employees see that there is an opportunity to make a contribution to Canada and to provide the essential services that government must provide in an atmosphere in which the government, Canadians, and the employees benefit. That is not the situation now.
We saw the anger and we saw the frustration during the strike. No matter which side of the fence one sits on, one knows after a strike has occurred there is a lot of rebuilding that has to be done.
We on this side feel that a special committee that could take a look at this situation could reforge that new alliance between government and the Public Service and make for a better Public Service and a better relationship.
We look at the future and note that as industry is trying to adapt and change its philosophies and its directions, so must government.
We in this place talk of reform and the things that are necessary in order to make us more responsive and to make us more efficient.
By like measure, so must the people who actually deliver the things we create here. Like it or not, they must deliver what Parliament orders and in those circumstances we have to create the type of Public Service that can adapt to that very rapid change.
I am sure that there are those among the Public Service who are worried and reluctant to change and reluctant to look at the new measures and new methodologies as far as management is concerned in providing services. Deep down, I think that most in the Public Service are looking for the challenge and the opportunity which can be afforded them by a new revitalized partnership between the private sector, government and the Public Service.
In conclusion I should say that we cannot support this bill. There are some good aspects to it. There are some aspects that maybe would do the job.
But we feel, as a general statement and as a general point of view, that we have to go back to square one and take what is good in this legislation and work with the new arrangements and with a new understanding.
What would really do the trick, and I am sure all would agree with me, is if we had a new government which had credibility and could provide leadership, then I think you
February 13, 1992

Government Orders
would see the Public Service respond in the proper fashion.


M. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak a second time on Bill C-26, An act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Government has released this wonderful white paper on the Public Service entitled: The Renewal of the Public Service of Canada. Allow me to read the first few words of the very first page, and I quote:

"The Public Service of Canada is fundamental to the successful functioning of our democratic institution and our country. It serves Canada ably and has contributed immeasurably to our stable economic and social environment, to our achievements of a modem industrial nation and to our values and indemnity as a people." Je saute quelques paragraphes et j'arrive a "Public Service 2000 is the government's initiative to ensure that these expectations are satisfied. We believe that the policy for renewal set out in the white paper will equip the Public Service to serve Canada and Canadians into the 21st century."

And it is signed by Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada.
This is a fine white paper, fine words indeed. It should certainly be scrutinized by all interested parties, i.e. civil servants, unions, members of Parliament, government services' users in general. Everyone should have a chance to comment on the advisability of improving the legislation governing the Public Service.
The government has introduced a bill.

The law does not reflect the good mission that we see in the white paper. Compare both and all of this in the wake of what has been happening to the Public Service.

The fact is that the legislation governing the public service is almost 25 years old. It dates back to 1964 or 1967, and it is time we update it. I agree, but I think that the climate is not right, given the negative sentiment towards the Public Service at the present time. Picture this, an employer who prides himself on having reduced its workforce by 15,000 since 1985, an employer who contracts out instead of giving the work to his own employees, in a place-some government members refer to the headquarters of the Public Service as fat cat city-where all you hear about is deployment, an employer who gave zero per cent increase to his employees this year, a unique year that has seen the biggest strike in the history of the Public Service. There is a lot of uncertainty among the civil servants right now.

Managers have prepared the white paper for Public Service 2000 and obviously the government prepared Bill C-26 to change the law.
It did not seem to care to have the input in a non-partisan fashion by all members of Parliament in a committee that would make recommendations prior to having the second reading of this bill.
Concerning the mission of the Public Service, according to the white paper Public Service 2000 this bill goes against some of these very admirable principles. For example, it says in the mission: "-through members who are appointed and promoted on the basis of merit".
In Bill C-26 the merit principle is effectively gone. As seen in section 10(2), no longer will there be competition in the Public Service. Managers will now write job descriptions to suit the candidate of their choice. There are no safeguards against political and administrative patronage.
Again from the mission statement: "Representatives of the public and the regions of Canada". If the government was really interested in fully representing the Canadian public, as employees of the Public Service it would have made stronger its article on employment equity.
In Bill C-26 clause 5 states that Treasury Board may, I repeat, may provide for the administration of programs for the employment and career opportunities of the

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
disadvantaged and groups that are disadvantaged by reason of race, sex, colour and so on. Why only may? Why do we use may provide?
A government that is serious about rectifying the situation which women, who by the way as every one knows represent well over 50 per cent of the population, the handicapped and our minorities find themselves today when it comes to obtaining employment and advancement in the Public Service would have put some teeth into this part of the bill.
From the mission statement: "-professionally manage and develop in accordance with the highest ethical standards". Does deployment, which means transfers- transfers by command, you are ordered transferred, you do not have a choice-and the constant threat of a position being transferred at the whim of a manager lend itself to a professionally managed Public Service?
This is not what employees are telling me in my riding of Carleton-Gloucester. They are worried and their morale is at an all-time low. They look forward to a totally management-driven Public Service.
None of these facts will help in attaining the very lofty goal of Public Service 2000, that of providing the best possible service to the Canadian people, while at the same time attracting Canada's best individuals to offer themselves for service to the public.
My constituents are very nervous. Most of my constituents are public servants or rely on the services of public servants. They feel extremely insecure. They feel annoyed by the way they are being treated by their employer. They feel afraid of their managers. They are becoming desperate. They are unsure of any future.
They used to be absolutely dedicated, happy in participating in the delivery of government programs, happy to assist the communities. They were happy to do inspection work, for example making sure that people fly airplanes safely, that medical products are safe and the list goes on and on.
While many of the initiatives in Public Service 2000 are worth while, the proposed Bill C-26 does not reflect the views of Public Service 2000.
I will definitely be voting against Bill C-26 because of the many inclusions and exclusions which I and my fellow caucus members have highlighted during these debates.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, I had a first impulse when I read the description 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.
It catches the imagination. One would think that we are progressing. It is a wonderful thing that the government has decided to address the problems of the Public Service. We certainly have known for a long time that there are problems.
I have talked to representatives of the Public Service unions. I have known many of them for a long while. I dealt with many of these people before I was even elected to Parliament. They certainly do have problems.
The first impulse was one of gratitude and looking forward to something positive. One does not have to go very far into the legislation, though, to realize that certainly is not the case. I should not have been surprised, because if this government were anything it certainly was consistent. If it has been anything in relation to its employees over the last number of years, not to mention the people of Canada, it has certainly demonstrated disdain and contempt for both its employees and the Canadian public. It has been consistent in that sense.
This piece of legislation popularly known as PS 2000 is no exception. When we look at almost any particular reference in it, as far as the major classifications are concerned we see under certification that it intends to have a very dominant role in deciding who shall be in a bargaining unit and who shall constitute a group within any particular part of the Public Service. This is without consultation with the unions involved and without consultation with any employees involved.
That really flies in the face of long established employer-employee regulatory bodies in so far as labour relations are concerned over many years in Canada and in all jurisdictions.
February 13, 1992

For the employer to take a unilateral stand on what shall constitute part of a bargaining unit or not is really a very arrogant stand for the government to take. It is pre-emptory and does not go any distance at all toward solving the problem we have within the Public Service.
The major problem is that over the years there have been changes. There is a need within the Public Service for what in many cases could most commonly be described as reclassification. At least there should be a study of the classifications that are there. That is certainly needed.
The government has described it as classification simplification. On the other hand it has really spent an awful lot of time in making it more complicated. It is certainly not simplifying anything at all.
I do not mean to suggest a reclassification of jobs or a study of jobs for any number of reasons but to make sure that the people within the classifications are properly paid for what they do. That certainly includes the matter of pay equity. There is a whole body of evidence, including cases which have been taken to court by the union representing the Public Service and before the Human Rights Commission.
Invariably the courts and the commission have found that the government has not been treating its employees fairly in so far as many of these matters are concerned. In spite of that the government seems to be hell-bent on a course of unilaterally making these changes in the face of decisions brought against them. The philosophy seems to be if one has not been able to succeed in accomplishing what one wants and has been told that one should change one's ways then the thing to do is to change the law in order to make the situation conform to one's biases.
I mentioned this was predicated on a disdain and a contempt for government employees. I cannot understand why this would be the case. In a fairly short period of time we have had many examples. Since I have been in the House we have had the case where the government has been perpetrating strikes by hospital employees in which the major issue was pay equity. Most of those employees were women. In spite of the fact that the government had received judgments saying it should be paying these people differently, it did not do so.
Government Orders
The same thing happened to the Coast Guard. These strikes happened almost concurrently. Just last summer we had the general strike where one of the major causes was the discontent among the employees caused by the government's disdainful attitude toward them. One of the previous speakers mentioned that in the province of Saskatchewan we had developed an exemplary Public Service. I do not wish to indicate that our present Public Service is not exemplary either. Since becoming a member of Parliament and having dealt with public servants, I must say that we have received nothing but the greatest of co-operation in a most professional way in spite of the fact that they have had such hard working conditions under their present employer, the present government of our country.
The major problem is that there has been a need for a reclassification for a long time. I do not mean to imply that rectifying the problems in the Public Service is going to be simple. In so far as reclassification is concerned, nothing that is worth while is simple. Certainly one of the major issues in the country today and one of the major tasks of the government to make sure that our public servants are well trained. It should make sure they are well qualified and that the Canadian public gets the best service possible from them.
In some cases that may not be the case now, the problem being the structure more than the classifications themselves. There have to be some classifications. This government is proposing to bring in a classification system based on what we have now. Instead of bringing in a thorough, follow-through program based on fairness, it is going to bring in one based on animosity, denigration or antiquity.
PS 2000 is a catch phrase for something sounding good. In the long run it will not be a benefit to the Canadian public and will not address the negative responses of the Human Rights Commission toward the government in relation to its employees.
I urge this government to rethink. I certainly hope it will listen to the committee and its representatives.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, my friend, the distinguished member for Ottawa-Vanier, has moved an amendment to this motion which would allow the Chamber to do what

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
needs to be done, that is to have a committee of this House look long and hard at this restructuring of the Public Service.
Speakers on all sides of this Chamber have admitted that what is proposed in this bill is fairly sweeping. I certainly will not stand here and say that everything in the bill is bad. None of our speakers have said that. There are certain things about it that are very good because some of the elements would contribute to the strengthening of the Public Service in its ability to serve the public, and that is a good objective. I am very much in favour of that.
At the same time there are aspects of Bill C-26 which would undermine very drastically the merit principle that says one gets hired by what one is and not who one knows. One gets hired on one's qualifications, not on whether one is prepared to kowtow to some of the senior mandarins in a particular department of government.
That is a sound principle but that principle is being undermined here. That is one of the reasons we in the Official Opposition are saying that this legislation should be sent to committee before rushing to judgment on this one. We should do what the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, a committee of all parties of this House, said last May needs to be done. This legislation and these ideas for reform need to be adjudicated and gone over with a fine tooth comb by members of all parties. Members should be sitting down, not in the partisan atmosphere of the Chamber but rather in a committee where so much good work gets done and can be done in this particular instance as well.
What is so earth shattering about that kind of a suggestion? Why is the government balking on that particular one? It would improve the legislation. If the government means what it says, that it wants to improve the Public Service, let it put its money where its mouth is. The minister of multiculturalism is in the Chamber. Maybe he would want to indicate that the government is prepared to do that. If so, we are prepared to stop talking now and let this bill go forward. That would be the desirable solution. That would allow the committee to come up with some improvements to make the bill not only palatable to all sides of the House but, more to the point, make it better serve the interests it is supposed to serve.
We have in this country from coast to coast what must be one of the best, most professional public services in the world. There are 250,000 men and women who serve this country very well. When I say 250,000,1 have in mind direct employees of the government itself. If one includes the Crown corporations, I suppose one would add
just about that number again and it would be close to
500,000	people. Whatever category we are talking about, in total we are talking about many hundreds of thousands of people who are on the front line daily in terms of the programs of our government. This is the case for whatever administration happens to be in power.
This is not a reflection on the people who are in the Public Service but their immediate political taskmasters. Unfortunately there has been a real over-effort to politicize the senior levels of the Public Service, and we have seen some unfortunate results of that. We have seen senior mandarins on the TV channels mouthing the government's political line and being apologists and lap-dogs for the government.


Mr. Belsher:: You are talking through your hat.


Roger Simmons: If my friend from Fraser Valley East, B.C., wants some specific examples, I can give him very specific examples. If he wants me to name names on this one, I can name names. Mr. Paul Tellier holds an office that is the most senior in this country in terms of the Public Service. It is an office that has been occupied by many people over the years who have always remained above the fray. To his credit, Mr. Tellier for the most part has remained above the fray. I say for the most part.
I regret to say that on occasion I have seen him being an apologist for our government, and that is shameful. I hope he has learned his lesson because he does neither himself nor the Public Service credit when he does that.


Ross Belsher: Roger, you have a poor memory. You have a very selective memory.


Roger Simmons: Perhaps the gentleman from Fraser Valley East wants to help my memory. He suggests my memory is selective. He asked me for examples and I gave him one. Now it is his turn. Does he want to give me one? If he suggests that my memory is selective, I now give him the opportunity. I am listening.


Ross Belsher: You have the floor.
February 13, 1992


Roger Simmons: As he says, I have the floor. Decoded, the member means that his bluff has been called.
This government has very badly managed the Public Service by downgrading, contracting out, replacing permanent employees and so on. It has badly mismanaged the Public Service.
Before I go on to that, let me not leave the previous item I was mentioning as a loose end. I was terribly distracted by my good friend from Fraser Valley East who is too much an apologist for a government that he does not support very enthusiastically any more, but a congenial fellow nevertheless.
I was making a point when he asked for examples, and of course I gave an example. I could give him several more, but this is not intended to be an opportunity to parade out people's names. The one I did parade out had already, by his very act, paraded his own name out in the public anyway. I did not exactly tell any state secrets when I referred to the actions of Mr. Tellier.
I used that example in response to the invitation from the gentleman for Fraser Valley East to make an appeal to those who are under the thumb of this administration not to yield to the pressure to become apologists or lap-dogs for an administration. That will only tear away at the quality of what I have said is one of the best public services in the world. Almost everyone in that Public Service understands the line of demarcation between the bureaucracy and the political taskmasters. Once in a while somebody gets sucked across that line, but that should not be a reflection on the great army of men and women who always understand where the line is and stay on the right side of it. They not only stay there in the passive sense but do their jobs extremely well. Whether they are in Port au Basques, one of the communities in my riding or in the fisheries or manpower office, the fisheries office in Grand Bank or the employment office in Marystown, or anywhere else in this country, they are people who are serving this country very well.
That is all the more reason why we ought to take our time on this fairly sweeping bit of legislation. I recommend the solution of my friend from Ottawa-Vanier. It is very simple. Just vote for his amendment. Send it to a committee and let members from all sides of this House
Government Orders
scrutinize this fairly sweeping legislation so we can come back with better, much improved legislation.
What does the member for Fraser Valley East have against that eminently good idea? Is it because it is a good idea? Why does he not embrace a good idea for a change? I invite him to do so.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. friend and colleague, the member for Burin-St. George's, on the remarks he just completed. He was unduly harassed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East somewhat earlier in his remarks, when he suggested that the hon. member for Burin-St. George's was talking through his hat. I can only say that it is a wonder, after the things this government has done to Atlantic Canada, that anyone from Burin-St. George's or anywhere in Atlantic Canada can afford a hat.
At any rate, it gives me great pleasure to rise again in this debate and speak as the member of Parliament for Halifax, the city which has the third largest Public Service contingent in the country.
When I spoke at another stage in this debate some days ago I spent my time talking mainly about the problems relating to regional rates of pay. I also mentioned pay equity. Both of these problems are singularly unaddressed by this legislation. I do not wish for a moment to suggest, when I go on to different matters in my remarks today, that I think the two areas of pay equity and most particularly regional rates are any less important, but there are other problems with this legislation.
I would like to say at this point as well that I too support most strongly the amendment of my learned colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. I think this would be a most excellent way to deal with this legislation.
The Government of Canada is the largest single employer in the country and should be in the vanguard of progressive employment practices. It should be a model of fair practice and implement equal pay for work of equal value. It should eliminate regional rates of pay and resolve employee-employer disputes in a manner that shows the private sector and the provincial, municipal and territorial governments of this country how it should be done.

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
In the long and excellent history of the Public Service in this country that has been the way things were done. But things have changed and unfortunately they have not changed in any way for the better.
For example, rather than resolving long-standing pay equity disputes, this government tries to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission's tribunal of its powers to arbitrate pay equity disputes by taking it to court. Rather than allow for the right to strike and bargain collectively, the government engaged in a fruitless, lengthy and acrimonious strike with the Public Service, further demoralizing and leaving it with a very low level of morale.
The infamous zero-three-three, read my lips, was the pronouncement of a government unwilling to bargain in good faith. It was unwilling to compromise, negotiate, discuss or even listen. Even before bargaining began the government had already decided it would legislate the workers back to work and impose the zero-three-three formula on the Public Service.
The possibility of reaching a compromise via arbitration and conciliation was therefore thrown out. It was an exercise in futility because the government said it would override any settlement that did not conform to this formula.
That is terrific. What a tremendous example to set in the area of labour relations. What a tremendous way to inculcate in the people of Canada some feeling of trust in their government. Sadly the words trust and government have become mutually exclusive. Sadly for all of us who sit in legislatures across this country, it is going to be a long time before those words mean anything to Canadians again, at least in the political sense.
Given this government's track record it is not surprising that Bill C-26 is found wanting in several areas, most notably in the realm of merit and fair staffing practices. The following are just a few examples of the attempt to do away with the merit principle.
It evaluates candidates according to a set of standards rather than employing a ranking system in which one candidate is compared to another. This could translate into the best candidate not necessarily being chosen for the job.
The principle of hiring the most qualified person is replaced by the principle of hiring a qualified person. It gives deputy heads the exclusive right to deploy staff permanently, i.e. to hire and move staff around within the deputy head's jurisdiction without competition. Theoretically deployment is voluntary but acceptance of deployment may be included in terms of employment any time an employee is hired or moved to a new position or level. In such cases an employee would have no choice and would either take it or leave it. These changes are referred to as appointment to level as opposed to appointment to a position through competition.
What is wrong with competition? Why is the government eliminating this aspect of fairness in its Public Service?
Another example is that a 90-day casual employee clause creates a new sub-class of employee with no rights or benefits. Casuals may be hired without regard to qualifications. The 90 days can be extended to 125 days, but there are no safeguards against them becoming full-time continuing casuals if they are working for more than one department. And guess who are likely to be the major victims of this kind of legislation? Can anyone guess? I bet the minister can. Who does the minister think I am referring to?
What class of people do we think? I bet my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier knows which class of people are most likely to be injured by this. We all know. The minister is nodding; he knows. It is women, that is who. That is the group of casuals with no benefits or job security. Terrific. This is from a government allegedly committed to pay equity. Well, we shall see.
Another example is increased contracting out. Contracting out is probably the single most devastating morale breaker in the Public Service of Canada. People see their jobs disappearing. They see themselves being replaced, and they see a government that wants to downsize to the point where the standards they have worked hard-many of them for many years-to establish in government departments no longer mean anything. Again who are the most likely people to lose, as jobs are contracted out? The lower levels. Who are in the lower levels, in numbers that far exceed their
February 13, 1992

percentage of the Canadian population? Women. But this government is committed to equity and justice and fair play and all of those wonderful buzzwords. A little action rather than buzzwords would be a major relief, particularly for public servants.
What do we have with contracting out? What comes with it? Do the words patronage, favouritism and punitive measures, as well as based upon a manager's personal likes and dislikes or the whim of the government of the day, come with it? But of course this government does not have whims. We can all remember years ago when a Prime Minister, who came to office supposedly on a rising tide against patronage, mentioned the fact that he certainly would appoint non-political people to positions as soon as the very last living member of his party had been taken care of. I guess, although there have been some changes in that manner, one cannot teach too many old dogs too many new tricks.
This legislation undermines the merit principle, leaving all but the original hiring and limited promotions to a discretionary group, with no backup in policy in the Public Service at large. It is very sad. It deals a terrible blow to a superb Public Service that deserves better, but has received nothing but hard knocks and disillusionment at the hands of its own government.
The much recognized need for increased flexibility for management is not adequately offset by the arbitrary exercise of staffing authority and the loss of the merit principle. This appears to be something that the government does not understand.
I only have a moment or two left and I would like to conclude briefly by going back to the issue that is of primary concern in Atlantic Canada, the issue of regional rates of pay.
At present Atlantic Canadians have the lowest rates of pay for designated occupational categories such as the general labour and trades group and the general service group. These differences in pay reinforce the already glaring disparities between the standard of living in Atlantic Canada and that in the rest of the country. These differences in pay contribute to the unequal development of Atlantic Canada as compared to the development of the rest of Canada. These regional rates of pay cannot be justified on the basis of a lower cost of living.
Government Orders
It is simply an illusion to think that the cost of living is lower in our part of the country than in central Canada. Equal work must enjoy equal rates of pay. This is a hallmark of an equal society. The government should listen for once.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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 Willowdale- The Economy; the hon. member for Malpeque-Education; the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap-General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; the hon. member for Nepean-Breast Implants; and the hon. member for Mackenzie-Agriculture.
The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has given me written notice that she is unable to present her motion during the time reserved for private members' business on Friday, February 14, 1992.

It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a). Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), Private Members' Hour will therefore be suspended and the House will proceed with the business at hand.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to enter into the debate on Bill C-26. I will not be long. My friend, the former chairman of the finance committee, wants to enter into this discussion as well. We are all anxious to hear what little gems of wisdom our colleague and friend can contribute to this debate.
I want to join with all of the speakers I have heard this afternoon in condemning aspects of Bill C-26. That is not to say that we entirely condemn everything that is in the bill. Common sense would tell us that there are things in this bill that require a parliamentary process of going through committee, preferably in a non-partisan way, to work on this bill and to bring out some changes in it. In many ways Bill C-26 reflects a government that is driven more by ideology than by experience or common sense.

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
It is an ideology that attempts to portray the Public Service as lazy, bloated, inefficient. It tries to score political points from the Public Service. We can all find examples of ineffective public servants just as we can find examples of ineffective clerks in stores or ineffective executives in the high-rise office towers. We have human beings throughout, whether it is in the Public Service or the private sector, who are good and who are not good.
Unfortunately this government has tried to gain quite a bit of political mileage by sort of stomping on the Public Service.
The unfortunate part is that the government seems to believe its own rhetoric. We have in Bill C-26 a reflection of that. It is a reflection of a government that is at war with its own workers. That is unfortunate. It is not just unfortunate for the government, but it is unfortunate for the country.
In a more enlightened day and age, enlightened people recognize that workers and management have to work together. Management cannot do it on its own. Workers cannot do it on their own. We need a co-operative environment in which people are working together, sharing a common goal, and then attempting to deliver the services in such a way that they are the most efficient, most cost effective, et cetera.
If a government were serious about saving money, the best people who could save money are its own employees. They know when too much paper is being used or whether a trip is really necessary, if you are at war with your own employees then you are going to have those employees fighting back and sabotaging you. It means waste, inefficiencies, and increased costs, and it is the Canadian people who suffer.
What are some of the main aspects that we find unacceptable in Bill C-26? First, it gives the Treasury Board the authority to determine bargaining units unilaterally. An important point to workers is who determines what bargaining units they are in.
Bill C-26 gives that power unilaterally and totally to the employer. This goes against what is included in all other labour legislation, including the Canada Labour Code which gives this power to a labour relations board.
The government in many ways is exempting itself from the Canada Labour Code, from its own legislation. If the
Government of Canada can claim to be able to do that, why should many of the other private companies not try to claim the same type of right? It underlines existing labour legislation in the Canada Labour Code.
The second thing we find objectionable is that the bill gives managers the right to deploy or to transfer at their discretion within the levels. To give this power to the Treasury Board rather than to the Public Service Commission where it should belong goes against rulings of the Federal Court of Appeal which said that removing the right to compete for or to appeal a transfer within a level seriously undermined the merit principle.
We have the Federal Court of Appeal making a decision. This government, rather than complying with the decision of the court, goes around and changes the legislation. So much for the sense of the rule of justice.
The third aspect that we find objectionable about Bill C-26 is that it gives the government the power to eliminate jobs in the public sector through contracting out. The government now, we understand, spends some $5 billion a year in contracting out, but there is no accounting for this expenditure.
The Auditor General, in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, has asked for some accountability of the cost effectiveness of this practice. The government refuses to supply that information. Again, I go back to my original comment that Bill C-26 is more politically driven, ideologically driven, than by a sense of good legislation and what is good for the country and the people of Canada.
Take the case of contracting out. The government wants to be able to claim politically how many jobs it has eliminated, that it has cut the fat out of the bureaucracy in Ottawa.
The people back home know that the people who are being laid off by this government are the people who supply the services, the people who do the actual work. The top echelons generally remain untouched. The government then lays workers off and it contracts out. It claims to be saving money, because it does not have to make any pension contributions, et cetera, to workers who come in under contract.
February 13, 1992

The government is incapable of showing to the Auditor General and the public accounts committee how effective this practice is. Is it really saving us money? I suspect it is not, but what it has done is alienate many of the employees of the government.
In this day and age, if we are to survive economically as a country, I believe we have to move very strongly to where there is almost a social contract between the various productive elements of our society.
There must be mutual understandings and agreements between the private and the public sector and between employers and employees. Look at some of the examples and models. Look at many of the European countries and we find models that allow for increased efficiency and effectiveness through a co-operative process in which the employees and the employers are working together toward common goals.
What we have, especially with this government, is the opposite. We have an adversarial system in which the employers and employees are at war with each other, and it is the public that suffers. This government is to be blamed for that. It has deliberately created this war, very often for political purposes. Quite often it thought it would win political points by pouncing on public servants. It thought it would be great for its standing in the polls.


An hon. member:: Not really.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Exactly, not really. It has not worked that way. It is the opposite that has worked that way. As with so many things of this government, it thought one thing would happen when exactly the opposite has happened. It thought it would win political points by stomping over the public servants, but the opposite has happened.
In closing, I would like to mention that for a while I worked in the Public Service in Saskatchewan and there were two ways of describing ourselves. We could either look at ourselves as government employees or we could look at ourselves as public servants. I always liked the notion of a public servant. Part of the reason I entered into the Public Service in Saskatchewan was my sense of public service.
Many of the government employees are saying: "We are not being treated as public servants. We are being treated just as employees with management trying to get the most out of us, and therefore we would rather see ourselves being called and termed as government em-
Govemment Orders
ployees". I am afraid that is what has happened. The sense of service is being destroyed, not because people do not want to serve but because they are being treated badly by their employers and they have to do everything they can just to protect their dignity and their rights.
The legislation is poor legislation. This government is not going to be here two years from now. I suggest it should quietly sit on it, not introduce and proceed with Bill C-26 if it cannot come up with something better. At least the new government that will replace it will come up with proper legislation and the proper reform needed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I was distracted by the member for Ottawa South. I was actually sitting here in anticipation of his participating in the debate because he is a member who has had a lot of experience in motivating people in the private sector. This bill is fundamentally about how to motivate and mobilize the largest work force in Canada to work for the people of Canada.
What we have right now is a situation in which the morale of the Public Service is so low that, as the hon. member for the New Democratic Party said earlier, the real loser in this friction between the political culture, namely the government and the bureaucratic culture, is the population of Canada.
The biggest crisis we are facing is unemployment. I have been saying that repeatedly for the last two weeks. One area in our country that could really do a lot to put people back to work is the sector in our economy under the umbrella of entrepreneurship. There are close to one million entrepreneurs in this country and if each one of those entrepreneurs were to take the chance and hire someone, put someone back to work, then the spirit and the morale of this country would be a lot better off.
One of the reasons the entrepreneurs of this country right now are taking such a conservative approach, an approach which is basically hesitant, is that they are getting signals from all parts of the economy, all members of the government and even public servants. They are getting signals that the institutions of this country are not working correctly.
Right now our business people are coming into contact almost constantly with public servants. I hear repeatedly from businessmen their feelings on the attitude of public servants toward their particular frustration. Whether it be the GST situation and forms that have to be filled out, whether it is assistance from the Federal Business Development Bank and how to get their eligibility for a loan processed, whether they are eligible in various

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
regions of this country for small business loans or grants or whatever, whether it is people who are looking for retraining programs and companies that are trying to keep people employed, they go into employment offices and get a sense that the will of the Public Service, the will of the bureaucrats, is not really there to serve the people of Canada.
I do not want to make a blanket statement on all public servants because I spoke on this bill earlier and I happen to think that one of the great treasures of this country is the Public Service. I have been working around this city since 1978 and some of the finest people I have ever met in my life are employed with the Government of Canada. I say that with all sincerity.
We can take an institution that employs close to
300,000	people and see the number of people it touches day in and day out in a 10-hour to 12-hour day. If the morale of that organization is not strong, there is no debating the fact that it can affect the attitude of all the people it touches. In Canada we have a Public Service which touches every aspect of our daily lives.
The specific area that I am concerned about is the Public Service and how it interacts with the business community in this country. This includes small, medium and large businesses.
I want to give a positive example. About five months ago there was a company named Amertek that manufactured fire trucks in Canada. It was going through a particularly tough period in terms of its cash flow, and the Canadian Commercial Corporation was managing its contract. The officials at Amertek were appealing to the government agency for financial assistance because they needed help in order to meet the demands their bankers were putting on them.
The officials at the Canadian Commercial Corporation came in and did an audit on the company. They saw that it was eligible for the bill it submitted which was due and owing. They literally went to the bank in Ottawa and wired the money to the account of this small business. It is an example of where a public servant went beyond the
call of duty and served not only the employer of that company but indirectly served everyone working in that factory. It gave that company added cash flow and a burst of security. It has kept the company going. Now it has rebounded and is doing better than ever. It is that kind of attitude of going the extra mile that is so critical when times are tough.
There are also many examples where we are not getting the quality service that has always been part and parcel of this great institution, namely the Public Service of Canada, because its morale is so bad.
I support the approach of my colleague, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, that this bill be given a much more thorough analysis. I have said repeatedly that public servants are used as scapegoats or battering rams if all of a sudden things are not going well in government. We always say: "Look at those public servants. They just are not doing their jobs".
What we have to realize is that we are as politicians inextricably intertwined with the Public Service. If the Public Service is not serving well then it is a mirror of those of us in this room. So often we forget that. If people are complaining about the Public Service, ultimately they are complaining about us. We are the people responsible for the caring, approachable, action oriented Public Service that must be a part of the community service in this country.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts back in 1989, 1990 and 1991 let me say that our committee held several hearings on the PS 2000 document that the government tabled.
We did so because the Auditor General, with whom the committee works day after day, suggested that there were problems in the Public Service of Canada that needed to be ironed out for the sake of efficiency within government itself. The thing that came through loud and clear in our hearings as a committee was that Public Service 2000 was not being given enough attention. Employees were not being consulted. The consultation was from the top down, not with the regular front line
February 13, 1992

employees who have to face the public day in and day out in their jobs.
A considerable amount of disagreement was pointed out by the people who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts at that time. It proved that a real open discussion on the government's Public Service 2000 document was absolutely essential.
After we had those hearings we brought in a report to this House of Commons with several very important recommendations in it on several meetings we had. At this time I would like to repeat, for the benefit of the House and for the record, recommendation 18(a). We recommended in our seventh report that the government table 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.
Part (b) referred the aforementioned discussion paper to a special committee of the House of Commons.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, as you well know Madam Speaker, must have hearings on practically every government department and agency. The Auditor General's report is very thick. There is a lot of work in there. It means a very heavy job for members of this committee. We did not have time to carry out this total report on our own. We recommended that a special committee of the House of Commons on the Public Service conduct a consultation process involving employees, Public Service unions and other interested parties, and report back to the House within a reasonable period of time.
If I remember correctly I tabled this report in the House on November 8, 1990. We wanted a report back from the government by November 30. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has the right to put a timeframe on its demands of the government and it is up to the government to meet those demands.
That special committee became the subject of several pieces of correspondence between me and the President of the Treasury Board. He committed himself to set up such a committee for hearings and then proceeded to fail to do so. He did not live up to his own commitments to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This com-
Govemment Orders
mittee brings people before it from all levels of the Public Service of Canada including senior officials from the Treasury Board and senior officials from the Privy Council. How can a parliamentary system work if we get commitments from them and those commitments are not lived up to?
The bottom line is that the government did not bring in a paper we wanted for discussion, laying out its main objectives. The committee was never established. There were no such hearings. Therefore there was no open, broad discussion before a committee on the Public Service 2000 document of the government. As a result, what did the government do? It handled it in its usual high-handed manner. It ended up bringing the legislation into the House.
Let us make the comparison with what has happened in the past on these issues dealing with the Public Service of Canada. The Public Service is supposed to be non-political in its everyday operations. Therefore it is important that there be fairness and independence from politics in the way it works from day to day.
In the late 1960s we had the Finkelman report. There were many meetings on that paper. That is why the Standing Committee on Public Accounts recommended that a similar procedure take place this time. First there were many committee meetings on the paper itself, as well as many on the legislation. Then the legislation came into the House and was referred to a special committee. Something like 118 recommendations were brought in with that bill in the late 1960s. The bill had the most amendments of any bill returned to this House of Commons. I remember the chairperson of that committee was Mr. Jean-Thomas Richard, the long-time member for Ottawa East. Presently this is the territory held by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
He did an excellent job then. Members of all parties worked so effectively and so well together on that committee that when that bill was brought back before the House of Commons for final reading and passage there was very little debate on it. Instead members were thanking and congratulating each other on the co-operation that existed in committee. As a result the bill passed

February 13, 1992
Government Orders
through the House very smoothly, simply because the proper groundwork had been done in advance.
For the reason that very little discussion has taken place with regard to the legislation brought forward right now on Public Service 2000,1 totally agree with my hon. friend, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, that the motion of the government should be amended. All the words after the word "that" should be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "That Bill C-26 dealing with Public Service 2000 be not now read the second time but that the order for second reading be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and that the public accounts committee bring a report back to this House as to how the bill should be handled from thereon".
No doubt one of the recommendations would be a special committee to have those hearings.
I mentioned the commitment of the President of the Treasury Board to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. That commitment was not met. This is not surprising, because the government does not know how to deal with its own employees. It does not know how to go about reforming the framework of the Public Service. It does not know how to work with opposition parties in this House. It dictates to them also.
The reason is very simple. This government is anything but reform minded in the sense of reforming legislation and reforming everyday operations of government. It is a reactionary government. It is a dictatorial government. It is a government that directs the country's business from on high and has little or no relationship with everyday Canadians.
The departments of government are staffed by some excellent public servants.
I have had the privilege over the years of dealing with excellent public servants from many government departments, whether it be Energy, Mines and Resources, whether it be Public Works, whether it be Industry, Science and Technology, whether it be National Defence where we have a large number of very dedicated public servants, External Affairs and so on.
These people put themselves out to come to meetings that we have. They will come to our offices and discuss
matters. I just want to pay them a tribute. They deserve better. If we are going to have a professional Public Service in this country they deserve better treatment than they are getting from this government now.
I ask the government to open up the discussions. Free up the discussions on this bill. Take it back, submit it to a special committee of this House and let the discussions go on. It will be an improved bill when it comes back to the House that will be acceptable, probably not only to the opposition but to all public servants. Do them that favour.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, like my colleagues who spoke before me on Bill C-26,1 also want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa West, which reads as follows: That Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the public service of Canada, be not now read a second time but be read a second time this day six months hence.
I believe it is important to revise the Public Service Act so that all Canadians can benefit from quality services, wherever they may live. To provide these quality services, it is essential that the Public Service treat every one of its employees with respect, without favouritism and, above all, without intimidation.
The Liberal Party knows that partnership between the public and private sectors is the only way to build our country. Everyone must be aware that they are part of the Canadian economy, from non-governmental organizations to the public sector, and including unions as well as ordinary Canadians.
The Liberal Party does not want to pass a law that could in any way adversely affect the quality of services provided by the Public Service. We must all be able to study these changes thoroughly.

This bill is of fundamental importance to all Canadians because it deals with the very people who are there to deliver the services of the federal government to the citizens of this country. I am dismayed that the Conservative government has decided to pursue this particular course of action.
February 13, 1992

Members on this side of the House support clauses in this bill that contribute to strengthening the Public Service. We support any and all initiatives that will increase the accessibility of services to all Canadians. We agree with any move on the part of the federal government that will improve relationships with its employees.
Canadians are tired of confrontation. They do not want to see the government and its employees bickering. Whereas the Conservatives are more inclined toward confrontation and enforcement, we in the Liberal Party believe in dialogue and fairness. If members of-the Public Service are not treated with dignity, then the entire workings of the federal government are compromised.
The Liberal Party has urged the government to establish a special committee of Parliament to consider the principle of the bill as well as its substance in the total context of PS 2000 as recommended by the public accounts committee.
It is important for us as parliamentarians to take our time on the renewal of the Public Service. Mistakes that we make today could affect the performance of the federal government for many years to come.
It is particularly important to deal with this matter at this time because we are in a serious national unity debate.
I can only speculate on the effects that a demoralized bureaucracy has on services and how this might impact on Canada's unity debate. We must establish the special committee so that we can truly work together to find a formula that will give Canada a Public Service that it truly deserves.
This government simply cannot manage the affairs of this country. Because of this ineptitude, service to all Canadians is suffering. Its inability to deal fairly with public servants has had a devastating effect-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. member.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke) moved: that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (unjust dismissal), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee B.
He said: Madam Speaker, in addressing Bill C-240 for probably the second or third time in the last number of years there are just a few comments I want to make. Whether I will take the full 20 minutes I am not quite certain.
The substance of the bill, as stated within the bill itself, is:
Subsection 94(3) of the Canada Labour Code be amended by striking out the word "or" at the end of paragraph (f) thereof, by adding the word "or" at the end of paragraph (g) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph: (h)-
To put it in context it would say that no employer may
(h) suspend, discharge or impose any financial or other penalty on a person employed by him, or take any other disciplinary action against such a person, by reason of that person having refused to perform an act that he has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited by law.
It is a simple bill and the idea behind it is very straightforward. There is nothing hidden or very complex about it.
It ought to be in the public interest for this Parliament to pass an amendment to the Canada Labour Code that would help all employees under federal jurisdiction in assisting the government in enforcing the laws of Canada. That seems to be a reasonably noble objective to almost anyone.
This bill in itself probably would not do enough in some circumstances to cause employees to take the risk involved in losing their employment by refusing to carry out a direct order, which normally in industry is a cause for dismissal.
But this bill, together with other types of law enforcement mechanisms, together with the processes of grievances and arbitration and the courts, and with other types of amendments to other pieces of legislation, commonly called whistleblowing legislation, may assist many employees across Canada in having the gumption to take the risk involved. They might then refuse to cany out certain instructions from their employers that could

February 13, 1992
Private Members' Business
place both their employers and themselves in contravention of the law if those instructions were carried out.
To give a couple of examples of areas in which this might happen, it may be a necessary tool or a worthwhile tool in terms of the protection of the environment.
It is not uncommon across Canada today to find many employees who are required on a regular basis to discharge toxic substances into waterways or into areas that the law forbids. This is even despite the limits of pollution control permits and other legislation and regulations that are designed to prevent a company from making those kinds of discharges.
In many industrial towns, in a number of industries- and these are not necessarily under federal jurisdiction, but some of them will be-it is a standing joke among employees in a particular industrial operation and among the citizens in the community that as soon as it gets dark, just shine a spotlight.
It would be very obvious that a lot of discharges are taking place into a river that ought not to take place, not only from a moral or ethical or environmental judgment, but also according to the laws of that province or the laws of this nation.
It has become such a common occurrence for that kind of practice to take place that it is necessary for this Parliament and other legislatures to send some kind of signal out to people in the working community that they do have the right to say no. They should have this right without putting their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families at risk.
Surely, that is the least they should expect from Parliament whose job it is, presumably, to pass laws for the protection of the public and to create mechanisms to enforce those laws.
The appeal that I am making is to allow employees to assist in the enforcement of the laws of the land. I know in previous debates in this place and in many private discussions, there were many who objected saying: "There is obvious opportunity if someone refuses to carry out an order that would obviously be illegal. Surely,
the grievance procedures and the arbitration procedures and the courts will come to their assistance".
That is not always the case. Even more so, a lot of working people do not believe that is the case. If they do not believe that is the case, they are not going to place their livelihoods at risk and sometimes 10, 15, 20 years of seniority in order to enforce a law or in order not to place themselves in the position of violating the law.
It is again a matter of making them feel comfortable in the role of helping us to enforce the laws that we pass.
Another example is we have had many, many media reports when it comes to the collection of fees and duties, et cetera, at border crossings. For many customs officers, there is a large amount of moneys that ought to be public revenues escaping across those borders when goods are shipped without proper manifests and proper bills of lading being filled out and supplied.
Goods are smuggled across and I suggest sometimes that it likely happens on the direction of someone other than the truck driver involved. It becomes a matter of practice over the years.
When that kind of activity is carried on, especially with the cutbacks there have been in the Public Service, an awful lot of revenue that ought to be collected is not being collected. One reason would be because employees do not feel that they can put a halt to it themselves and have any guarantee that their jobs and their livelihoods will be protected.
We all like to believe that people would say: "You are asking me to do something that is against the law. There is no way I am going to do it". In the real world when you have years and years of earning capacity at stake, people just do not take those chances.
There was another private members' bill just a week ago, I think it was on Februaiy 4. It was submitted by my colleague, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, and was legislation concerning whistleblowing. Again, part of the purpose of that bill coincides with the bill that is presently before us. It would approach it from a different angle. It encompassed amendments to several pieces of legislation in order to accomplish its task, but it stated it in a more positive way that employees would have the
February 13, 1992

right to blow their whistle on an employer if they felt that they were doing something wrong. This goes the other step and attempts to protect their livelihood.
It is also somewhat similar to the provision within the Canada Labour Code. I believe it is section 128 of part II of the Canada Labour Code where an employee has the right to refuse work when that employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the performance of such a task would place his life in jeopardy or may cause injury to himself or to others. The same kind of principles are involved.
For years and years and years, until 1984, we had similar kinds of objections in this House to that kind of legislation, which was cast in the dying days of the Parliament that ended in 1984, as are made against this legislation and against the bill that was submitted by my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam just a week or so ago.
People at that time also believed that if the matter went to grievance through arbitration or through the courts that surely the laws of the land, the courts and the judicial system would serve to protect the right of someone to protect their own life by refusing direct orders, but that did not happen then until we had those kind of laws. It is still sometimes difficult to get employees to take the kind of risks that are necessary to protect themselves. If they are being asked to take risks of their own livelihood in order to help enforce the law, it is even farther fetched to think they are going to take that kind of gamble. People simply do not do that. Anyone who thinks they will, except on the odd occasion where somebody is really so conscientious that they think: "God, this is against the law and even if I am going to lose my job and my livelihood and my pension rights and everything else, I am going to help enforce that law because I am a good citizen", has got to be dreaming if they think that ordinary employees out in the labour force are going to behave like that. They simply do not.
There are, regardless of party, philosophy and ideology, a lot of members of Parliament and a lot of members of provincial legislatures whom I still think are very much liberal idealists. It does not matter if they are Liberals, Tories or socialists or what they are. There is a tendency for a lot of people to think, as they come out of
Private Members' Business
the school system, that just because the law says something, it is so, or because we say that people have these rights and those rights that they have those rights. They do not in many cases.
Even with this kind of legislation, if it were passed, and I hope that at some stage it is, along with the kind of companion whistleblowing legislation I referred to and others, we are still going to have severe difficulties. It is hard to even enforce this kind of very clear legislation unless you have a unionized workplace with a very strong militant committee that will ensure that its members understand what their rights are and are willing to fight along with those members to ensure that their rights are protected and the rights that are protected under the law will in fact exist.
I have no illusions that even if we have all of these kinds of protections that everybody in society is still going to be protected if they want to be good citizens. It will help to give them at least a feeling of security that Parliament has said very clearly that they do have these rights. The law makers of the land will assist them if that employee chooses to assist Parliament and law enforcement agencies in the courts in upholding and enforcing the laws that we have deemed it suitable to pass.
I really do not want to say much more. It is a simple concept. I think it is a worth-while and an important concept, but again, I do not have any kind of illusions that this would wave any kind of magic wand to make it an ideal society.
Again, if it helps to give employees under the federal jurisdiction some sense of security, it is our intent to protect their livelihoods. If they assist us in enforcing the laws that we pass, we will have done something worth while. I hope other members agree. I know it needs additional improvements. There are probably companion pieces of legislation and amendments that may be worth while to make to the bill before us, hopefully within a committee, to give it teeth and provide safeguards against abuse or misuse by employees. That is also a possibility. I do not deny that.
I think the concept and the goal is worth while. I hope other members will agree and we will refer it to Legislative Committee B as stipulated and find it possible to proceed.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity speak on Bill

February 13, 1992
Private Members' Business
C-240 introduced for the consideration of this House by the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, one of my fellow B.C.ers.
In the brief remarks I will be making on the bill, I want to indicate to hon. members of this House that I shall take a short review of the Canada Labour Code which makes it readily apparent that the code contains already several measures in which the protection of workers under its jurisdiction is already provided for.
Consequently, I am doubtful that the bill's recommendations for change are necessary. Yet, I understand the feelings of the hon. member opposite and his deep concern, because he has come from a trade union background, as I recall in meeting with him in various committees.
In fact, the bill might have some undesirable consequences that we should be aware of when considering its clauses. One of my colleagues will be outlining these in a few minutes.
It may be useful to provide members with a general overview of what Bill C-240 proposes and what currently exists in federal labour legislation. The bill suggests an amendment to the Canada Labour Code which applies to employees in federal jurisdiction. The spectrum of industries under the jurisdiction of the code is very broad in scope and covers a wide range of economic and industrial activity.
The range of industries covered by the code's jurisdiction encompasses the different modes of interprovincial and international transport, including railways, airlines, trucking and bus transport. Encompassed as well are the telephone, telegraph and cable systems, shipping, long-shoring, broadcasting, banking, pipelines, ferries, tunnels and bridges, primary fishing and most Crown corporations.
Also included are certain undertakings that have been declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada, including grain elevators, uranium mining and processing, flour and feed mills. These are the industries to which the code applies and which would be affected by the hon. member's proposals in Bill C-240.
To be clear on what is being suggested by this bill, the hon. member for Kootenay-Revelstoke recommends an addition to the unfair labour practices section of the code, section 94(3), a paragraph that would prohibit an employer from discriminating against an employee who
refuses to do an act required by the employer but which in the employee's estimation is believed to be unlawful.
The words of the proposals are:
No employer or person acting on behalf of the employer shall:
(h) suspend, discharge or impose any financial or other penalty on a person employed by him or take any other disciplinary action against such a person by reason of that person having refused to perform an act that he has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited by law.
A brief reading of section 94 of part I of the code will indicate the numerous prohibitions against unfair practices by an employer against an employee that are related to industrial relations. For example, under section 94(3)(f) an employer cannot discriminate against an employee because the employee refuses to do something that would be prohibited by the labour code. In other words, if something is prohibited by the code and an employee refuses to do it, an employer cannot penalize him or her. There are protections in the code to support the employee in this regard.
Another example of the protection afforded to employees can be found in part II of the code which deals with the right to refuse to do dangerous work. If an employee has reasonable cause to believe that conditions exist that pose a danger, he or she may refuse to do the work. The employee may not exercise the right to refuse work if the refusal puts the life, health or safety of another person directly in danger or if the danger is inherent in the employee's work or is a normal condition of employment.
An example of such a situation might be where a flight attendant discovers threatening conditions of an aircraft and reports them to the flight captain for repair. The unsafe conditions constitute a legitimate grounds for a refusal to work. However, the flight attendant does not have the right to refuse to work once the deficiencies have been corrected.
The procedure under part II of the code requires that an employee must report a dangerous situation to his or her employer and to a member of a safety and health committee if one is established or to the appointed safety and health representative, if any. On receipt of the report the employer must investigate the report in the presence of the employee and one member of the safety and health committee where one exists. If this results in an employer's or committee's decision that no condition or danger exists but the employee continues to reason-
February 13, 1992

ably believe in the existence of a situation of danger, he or she may continue to refuse to work but both the employee and the employer must then seek an investigation by a Labour Canada safety officer. If the safety officer decides that a situation of danger does not exist, the employee can no longer refuse to work.
The employee may nevertheless require the safety officer to refer his or her decision to the Canada Labour Relations Board. A determination of the matter by the board is final.
These procedures establish safeguards that serve to protect the employees rights to refuse to do work that would endanger his or her person without fear of reprisal or retaliation by an employer, including dismissal. An employee dismissed or exercising this right under this section of the code has the right of appeal in this case to the Canada Labour Relations Board.
These provisions were reviewed and improved upon during the last round of major amendments to the Canada Labour Code in 1984. The hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke undoubtedly feels that the amendments proposed in his bill would bring about a further improvement in the rights of a worker to refuse to do work he or she considers contrary to the law. No member of the House, I am sure, is likely to be against improving the rights of Canadians. However, I would suggest that Bill C-240 does not break any new ground. It does not add anything new to the Labour Code.
I have cited examples of protection to aggrieved employees under the Canada Labour Code to various forms of redress against wrongful dismissal resulting from an order by an employer to violate certain provisions of the code. The protection afforded to employees through the Canada Labour Code in this regard is comprehensive. Clearly an act in violation of the Canada Labour Code is subject to punitive provisions of the code itself, as it should be.
I would also suggest that in cases in which an employee is ordered to carry out an act which contravenes the law other than the code then recourse for the application of the appropriate penalties exist under the Criminal Code.
Private Members' Business
Therefore I respectfully submit that the existing provisions of the Canada Labour Code provide the necessary coverage that workers need in the matter of their right to protection against arbitraiy retaliations by an employer. The proposed amendment while well intentioned, and I can understand the hon. member's concern, should at this time not be adopted. We should continue with the code as it now is.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I thank you once again for recognizing me. It was mentioned by the members who spoke earlier that the Canada Labour Code came about in 1984.1 am happy to say that at the time I was involved in clearing up the wording of the labour code. I have very carefully read the amendment that is put forward by this Bill C-240. I would tend to agree that the thrust of the amendments to be made are surely made in good faith. For that, I commend my colleague from British Columbia.
On the other hand, I am inclined to believe that the labour code, as it is set out covering the federal jurisdiction, has given ample clout to the employee to refuse work he or she believes to be illegal or dangerous.
There is no question in my mind that if an employer asks an employee to do something illegal, this clearly contravenes not only the Canada Labour Code, but the criminal law. The hon. member for Kootenay West suggests that criminal law would not or might not cover an employee who refuses to work under these circumstances. I suggest the hon. member must lack confidence in the laws of our land.
I do not have a background as a labour union person. However, I have worked in situations where I did belong to a union. While the overwhelming majority of employees in unions are good, conscientious workers, I think under some circumstances employees might use this in a mischievous way.
I read the interview that the hon. member went through when he appeared on December 4, 1991, to more or less defend his bill to be brought into the House. The hon. member stated at that time it is not always credible to believe that a citizen is going to say that he will not do something illegal because he fears he will lose his job. I submit to you that many of our citizens do have the courage of their convictions. I would grant them the

February 13, 1992
Private Members' Business
benefit of the doubt to say they would speaking up if they were asked to do something illegal.
One of the questioners at the time, the member for Kingston and TTie Islands, asked if this would include refusing work which would be hazardous to a person's health. Here I find myself squarely on the side of the member for Kootenay West. I believe that if an act is illegal, it is going to be covered by the Criminal Code and definitely by the Canada labour laws.
When you come into the area as to whether an act or a job will be dangerous to a person's health, it brings me back to situations which have occurred in our history before. The asbestos strike in Quebec was because of health hazards for the people who were working there. The people were right at that time to strike because of the general work conditions and conditions that were injurious to their health.
Today, we hear more and more about the environment. We hear for example about the dumping of chemicals into our rivers and lakes. This should definitely be stopped. Is the hon. member, in putting forth his private member's bill, suggesting that workers, unionized or not, across Canada do not have a stake in our environment? Is he suggesting they will not tell the authorities if something is being done that they believe to be injurious, not only to their health, but to the health of their fellow citizens? If that is so, I suggest to you with all respect, Madam Speaker, that these people are doing a disservice to our nation.
I would encourage anyone who is engaged in this type of activity to surely tell the authorities so we can act on it properly.
The environment is something that belongs to all of us. Unless we as Canadian citizens are prepared to defend it by whistleblowing if necessary, I think we are in jeopardy as a nation.
I read over the labour code this afternoon and have virtually immersed myself in it over the past two or three weeks since I became the labour portfolio critic. I am reasonably secure in my knowledge that the labour code
will indeed cover just such a case as this amendment proposes to stop.
I believe that the labour code, federally, is perhaps much stronger than those of the provinces. With all respect to my hon. colleague, I believe that all provinces should have labour codes as strong as the federal code with regard to the matters of protection for the employee if he or she is doing something illegal or injurious to their health. Perhaps this should be addressed in the provincial legislatures.
My party believes it is always necessary to review whatever legislation we have, and I include here the Canada Labour Code, to see how we can strengthen it and make it better for our citizens.
Although Bill C-240 tends to bring our attention to the Canada code, I am not sure it will bring about the desired effect the hon. member believes it will.
At this point, I believe this legislation needs further modification to change the labour code to make it beneficial to all of our citizens. I think it needs a little more work, but I compliment the member for bringing it to the attention of this particular section in the House, so we can once again make sure the legislation serves our people.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate on Bill C-240 introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke. Hon. members will appreciate the importance of ensuring that our labour laws are current and relevant in addressing the circumstances we find in federal industries under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.
This bill seems to have been introduced in response to the hon. member's assessment of an isolated event described by him when a similar proposal was debated in this House in 1983. The proposed amendment is being introduced in the Parliament of Canada to address the actions of a handful of employers.
When amendments to the Canada Labour Code have been made in the past, they have been introduced in response to changing circumstances in federally-regulated industries. Actually, legislative amendments should be contemplated in the context of a requirement for such
February 13, 1992

inervention by Parliament. It is incumbent upon the sponsor of a bill to demonstrate that new or improved legislation is needed to protect and promote the rights of Canadian workers in the workplace.
The presentation of such evidence during the honourable member's introductory remarks might have persuaded us that the proposed amendments are required and should be adopted. We have already heard of the way in which an employee is protected against acts of discriminatory behaviour by an employer who might, for instance, counsel an employee to carry out an act which would breach the law under the unfair labour practices section of part I of the Canada Labour Code. We have also been apprised of the right of an employee to refuse to do dangerous work. The avenues of appeal available to employees and the safeguards in place to protect employees exercising such rights against discrimination by the employer have been explained. These latter procedures are contained under part II of the Canada Labour Code.
Part III of the code contains yet another separate section under labour standards dealing with unjust dismissal and I want to comment briefly on these provisions because they are yet another important example of the way in which the employee is protected against unjust treatment by an employer. The unjust dismissal provisions of part III of the code provide an employee with the right to make a complaint in writing within 90 days of his or her dismissal to a federal inspector if the employee considers the dismissal to be unjust. This part of the act applies to employees in federal jurisdiction who have completed 12 consecutive months of continuous employment with an employer and who are not members of a group of employees covered by a collective agreement.
Under this provision, the employee or the inspector may make a request to the employer for a written statement giving reasons for the dismissal. Any employer who receives such a request is obliged to provide the person who made the request with such information within 15 days. An inspector, on receipt of a complaint, shall endeavour to assist the parties to the complaint to settle the complaint or will appoint another inspector to do so. A complaint that is not settled at this stage can be
Private Members' Business
referred to adjudication. In fact, where a complaint is not settled, the inspector, within a period of time that he or she considers reasonable, can refer a written request for further action on the complaint to the next stage, which is adjudication.
The Minister of Labour may then appoint an adjudicator to hear the complaint. The adjudicator is to give full opportunity to the parties to the complaint to present evidence and make submissions. The adjudicator shall consider whether the dismissal of the person who made the complaint was unjust and render a final decision thereon. Where an adjudicator decides that a person has been unjustly dismissed, he or she may order the employer who dismissed the person to pay compensation, reinstate the person in his employ, and do whatever is equitable to require the employer to counteract any consequence of the dismissal.
In reflecting upon these legislative clauses and the attention to detail contained therein, I am impressed by their comprehensiveness. These provisions, in conjunction with similar protections in parts I and II of the Canada Labour Code, comprise a thorough legal foundation, a foundation that has been constructed with the rights of workers in mind. In this case, this legal foundation serves to protect the right of the worker from dicriminatory actions by an employer.
In closing, my remarks have covered what I believe to be two important considerations relating to bill C-240. First, several legislative safeguards are currently in place to protect employees from discriminatory treatment at the hands of their employers. Indeed, I see no evidence to change my view that the present industrial relations climate does not warrant such legislation.
Second, if this bill were to be adopted, I believe it would be rendered redundant by the fact that the existing provisions of parts I, II, and III of the Canada Labour Code are comprehensive in the protection afforded to the rights of Canadian workers.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate today on this private member's bill.
What the private member is attempting to do is introduce legislation which would toughen up the Canada Labour Code. The effort is very laudable. He

Private Members' Business
believes that there is a perception out there that workers feel that if they report or if they are asked to do an illegal activity and they report it, they would be punished for doing so.
I would argue that this protection already exists in the Canada Labour Code. It exists through grievance procedures, it exists through the unjust dismissal procedures, and so on. There is a fine in the Canada Labour Code which is the result of a lot of consultation and refinements over the years. There are a lot of fine checks and balances which do provide that protection, especially to those under federal jurisdiction.
From the intent of this bill people might believe that management asks its employees to break the law and do illegal or dangerous activities. I do not believe this to be the case so much any more. Management today is quite responsible about that sort of thing. We have provincial labour practices and the Canada Labour Code.
Employers and firms coming under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code, such as companies operating in the transportation, communication and other major industries of national importance, play a key role in the Canadian economy.
The hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke introduced this bill in response to a specific isolated incident which occurred in his riding many years ago. I believe it had to do with pulp mills. The proposed amendment does not accurately portray the current state of employer-employee relations in industries under federal jurisdiction.
There are many penalties which can be imposed on an employer by the Canada Labour Relations Board, and the board plays an important role in these aspects. When an employee has been disciplined for refusing to perform an act that he or she had reason to believe was prohibited by the law, the board may order specific action to be taken against that employer.
One example of such a penalty is that under section 99 of the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Labour Relations Board may order an employer to reinstate an employee who has been laid off or otherwise discriminated against. It may order the employer to pay to an employee compensation that he or she was forced to forgo as a result of this discrimination.
We have two examples. The employer can be required to reinstate the employee and pay that employee compensation. Also, the board may ask the employer to rescind any disciplinary action that may be taken against that employee. Those are strong regulations in the Canada Labour Code.
What this member is doing is introducing a bill which if passed would supplant the penalties in the Canada Labour Code and impose others. I do not believe this might be appropriate. Is it appropriate for the Canada Labour Relations Board to become involved in disciplinary matters resulting from attempts by employees to enforce legislation other than the Canada Labour Code? The Canada Environmental Protection Act, for example, sets out specific protection for persons who have attempted to enforce that act.
Section 58(4) of the Canada Environmental Protection Act states: "Notwithstanding any other act of Parliament no employee of a department, board or agency of the Government of Canada or of a corporation to which any regulation made under 54 applied shall be disciplined, dismissed or harassed for making a report".
Each law of Parliament has its own disciplinary provisions. The Canada Labour Code has its own, and each is applied to each jurisdiction.
I would like to emphasize that Parliament is in the best position to determine the seriousness of the obligations any given situation might impose and the remedies that are likely to be most appropriate to the circumstance.
In the case of labour relations, the prohibitions and penalties or method of redress established for labour relations purposes under the Canada Labour Code are not likely to be commensurate with the requirements of other pieces of legislation. The prohibitions and remedial measures in the code were established to give meanings to the rights granted to employees and employers under the code. They should not be expected to perform a function different than their original purpose.
Workers who have been subject to discriminatory treatment by employers, because they have attempted to enforce the provisions of legislation, already have recourse to numerous protections that have been described by other hon. members in this debate.
February 13, 1992

I would like to comment briefly on a course of action open to employees that has not yet been mentioned. We have already heard a number of examples of the protections that are available to employees directly in the provisions of parts I, II and III of the Canada Labour Code. I mentioned those before. The Labour Relations Board may be able to step in. It would rescind any disciplinary action. It would ask to reinstate the employee and the employer could be made to give a payment to an employee. There are others.
One that has not been mentioned is the grievance procedure. There is a grievance procedure because if you are in a period of collective bargaining, let us say there is an agreement for two years, during that period there are to be no strikes by the union or lock-outs by the company. During that two year period, for example, there has to be a method of solving disputes and that is the grievance procedure. We have a grievance procedure to which employees can avail themselves.
The grievance procedure provides an avenue of appeal for employees covered by collective agreements. For those not covered, there is the unjust dismissal provisions of part III of the code. These address the rights of the unorganized, non-union employees who are not covered by collective agreement. The grievance procedure provides an appeal procedure for other employees.
I would like to indicate that when our labour laws were constructed, they were constructed with enforcement penalties appropriate to the Labour Relations Act and consistent with the spirit of the intent of labour legislation. For this reason, and because of the numerous methods of appeal available to employees in support of their rights, I would respectively submit that Bill C-240 should not proceed any further.
I would very much like to compliment the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke for bringing it to our attention. It is a laudable bill. The spirit of the bill can be admired, but I believe that employees have many recourses of action to which they may avail themselves. They have full protection under the law. This has worked out to be quite a strong protection and has worked well up until now. Therefore, I do not believe that we should proceed further with this bill.
Private Members' Business


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate on private members' Bill C-240. Those who have taken part in the debate have presented for the consideration of hon. members the results of their reflections on the content of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
Over the course of the debate today on this bill, we have heard much about the intended purpose of the bill. We have also heard about some of the practical difficulties or legislative conflicts which might arise in implementing its provisions.
Hon. members who have spoken in the debate have made a number of useful and constructive observations, and some of these remarks stand out as particularly relevant. We should keep these in mind as we consider the acceptability of the proposed amendment.
One such line of debate has been to the effect that several legislative avenues currently exist to protect employees against unfair treatment by employers in situations in which they refuse to carry out an act that is contrary to the law. Because of these protections found in the existing legislation, Bill C-240's recommendations for change have been described by some as being redundant.
Part I of the Canada Labour Code, for example, protects the rights of workers to refuse to carry out an act that is prohibited under the code. These protections would prevent an employer from discriminating against or treating an employee unfairly by an alteration in pay, a suspension or dismissal where the employee refused to carry out an employer's directive that is specifically forbidden by the code.
Another example is found in the health and safety provisions of part II of the code. These procedures establish safeguards which serve to protect the employee's right to refuse to do work that would endanger his or her person without fear of reprisals or retaliation by an employer, including dismissal. An employee dismissed for exercising this right, under this section of the code, has the right for appeal and, in this case, to the Canada Labour Relations Board.

February 13, 1992
Private Members' Business
Part III of the code, under labour standards, contains a section dealing with unjust dismissal. It provides an employee who is not represented by a trade union with the right to make a complaint in writing to a federal inspector if the employee feels that he or she has been unjustly dismissed.
There are provisions for written statements by the employer outlining the reasons for the dismissal as well as for further stages of appeal, including involvement by the federal inspector and the appointment of an adjudicator by the Minister of Labour.
At the adjudication stage there is a full opportunity for the parties in the complaint to present evidence and make submissions prior to a final decision.
Reference has also been made to the fact that unionized workers under the code are covered by collective agreements which generally contain grievance procedure mechanisms. The grievance procedure provides an appeal procedure for employees covered by the contract who feel that their rights have been abridged along the way. The unjust dismissal provisions of part III of the code address the rights of the non-unionized employees who are not covered by a collective agreement. The grievance procedure provides an appeal procedure for organized employees covered by the collective bargaining regime.
In addition, it should be noted that provisions found within the Human Rights Act give prominence to the role of the citizen in society and mandate the Human Rights Commission to hear complaints by the individual.
If there is an alternative review procedure available to the complainant that ought to be exhausted, or if there is another act of Parliament with a more appropriate procedure for dealing with the complaint, the commission, that being the Human Rights Commission, will direct the complainant in the most effective course of action.
It was pointed out by a previous speaker that labour relations issues often border on subjects within the purview of the human rights legislation. Given this fact, the Human Rights Commission can clearly be a practical alternative avenue of appeal for employees who might be the victim of the discriminatory treatment contemplated by Bill C-240. It is a treatment and a concern that
certainly the member who has proposed this bill has been concerned about.
I found it especially interesting to note the concept of progressive discipline and its importance before adjudicators in appeal proceedings in federal jurisdiction industries. It is clearly a process that encourages fairness in the treatment of employees in disciplinary matters.
The practice of issuing warning letters to employees in writing not only documents the disciplinary process but also provides an encouragement to employers to treat their workers with fairness.
In the context of Bill C-240, the process implied in this concept would also encourage employers to refrain from counselling workers to act in ways that would be contrary to the law.
An important comment was made earlier in the debate in the reference to the provisions of the Canada Environmental Protection Act. The act explicitly protects individuals from discriminatory measures or ultimate dismissal because the individual seeks to enforce the provisions of the act.
This protection is specific to the Environmental Protection Act just as the current provision, section 94(3) of the Canada Labour Code is specific to the code and not to some other act.
I agree with the earlier speaker in questioning the appropriateness of having the Canada Labour Relations Board, as provided in Bill C-240, involved in disciplinary matters related to attempts by employees to enforce legislation other than the Canada Labour Code.
This illustrates the point that each type of legislation should have its own enforcement mechanisms and penalties appropriate to the nature of the particular legislation and Parliament is best equipped to make such a determination.
In the case of labour relations, the prohibitions and penalties for a method of redress established under the Canada Labour Code were established to reinforce the rights granted to employees and employers under its jurisdiction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton has another couple of minutes before six o'clock.


Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, previous speakers have outlined a number of major objections to the bill under consideration today, Bill C-240.
They have argued that measures already exist to protect workers who might be forced by an employer to carry out an act that contravenes a particular law. As detailed in their remarks, there are several ways in which an individual worker is protected against the form of discrimination described in the bill.
In my opinion, the adoption of this bill would only serve to confuse the functioning of our current legal structure since it would subject certain matters that are dealt with in other legislation to labour law, as found in the Canada Labour Code.
In my remarks today, I would like to briefly comment on the Canadian Human Rights Act. When we consider the alternatives available to individuals, including workers who feel they are being discriminated against or treated unjustly by employers, the human rights act is particularly relevant. It spells out its purpose very clearly in the preamble to the act. The purpose of the act is:
To extend the laws of Canada to give effect to the principle that every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society.
While the Canadian Human Rights Act-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.
The time for consideration of Private Members' Business now has expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, when I raised this question originally in the House in October, I
Adjournment Debate
was asking the minister what he would do about the government's high interest rate, high dollar, high tax policies that were driving thousands of Canadian shoppers south of the border and thousands of Canadian jobs to the United States. At that time, the unemployment rate in Canada was 10.2 per cent and the minister said his policies were working. He told us that: "The unemployment rate is going down, not going up".
Today we find ourselves with an unemployment rate of 10.4 per cent. Unemployment is going up. It is not just the unemployment rate but it is the thousands of people who have dropped out of the work force in addition to those who are not getting recorded. On top of that there are a record number of Canadian welfare cases. This government's high interest rate, high dollar, high tax policies still continue to plague Canadians.
The minister is unrelenting. We have had three interest rate increases in the last three weeks. The interest rate has gone up 47 basis points. This is an attempt by the government to keep the dollar up, but the high dollar is what is costing us jobs. Our interest rate in Canada is more than twice the U.S. rate. The U.S. rate is 3.50 per cent. In Canada, the rate is now up to 7.46 per cent. This is away beyond the historical spreads with the American rates.
Who is this helping? It is not helping Canadian producers or Canadian exporters; Canadian businesses that want to create jobs here. This is the difficulty with this policy. Today we saw one response. Rather than dealing with some of the fundamentals such as our tax structure, high interest rates, high dollar structure which is driving these jobs south and Canadian consumers south, the government brought in some band-aid measures to stop cross-border shopping from decimating communities along our entire frontier.
What did we see? There was no tax measure in respect of gasoline. They did not deal with the question of gasoline pricing in Canada vis-a-vis the United States, yet our Liberal Party task force on deindustrialization and economic renewal found in our hearings that this was the single biggest reason why Canadians went to the United States to shop, cheaper gas prices. We met truckers who had not bought fuel in Canada in six months; they bought it all in the States.

Adjournment Debate
What else did this government do? It attempted to blackmail the provinces into harmonizing their provincial sales taxes with the GST. It said: "We will collect provincial sales taxes on cross-border shoppers who are returning to Canada but only if you harmonize your provincial sales taxes with our GST". In other words, you impose your provincial sales taxes on things you are not taxing already such as clothes, food, shoes, books and many other items. We say to the government tonight that the provinces will not be blackmailed into introducing the GST.
Finally, the government is decimating the mail order industry. What does it do? It does not give us a level playing field. The Americans put a $10 charge on Canadians doing business there. We put on a $5 charge. For whom is this government working? Let it get its act together.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague's remarks. I want to remind members of this House that we are working and considering the people of this country in the policies we have put in place and the policies we are continuing to bring forward.
We have to be prudent. We have to be careful where we spend our money and we have to make sure that when we do harmonize measures we are saving money. The government believes that the economy is on the road to recovery. To do this we had to bring inflation under control. Inflation pressures had to be reduced, there is no question about it. I am sure the hon. member would agree. As well, it is essential for sustainable lower interest rates if we follow that program.
We believe our policies are working. Inflation pressures are easing. Over the second half of 1991, CPI inflation was 1.7 per cent. Interest rates had declined in step and are almost 7 per cent lower than their peak in May 1990. The prime interest rate is 7.5 per cent, the lowest rate since May 1973.
The economic recovery began in the second quarter of 1991 and is continuing. UDP, a factor cost, grew at an annual rate of 3.3 per cent in the second and third quarters of 1991. The pace of the recovery weakened in the fourth quarter due in large part to a weak international economy, particularly the unexpected weakness in the United States. As growth picks up in the United States, Canadians will benefit from an expanding market for their exports and a stronger over-all economy.


EDUCATION
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in more depth on a question which I previously asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration regarding the government's lack of commitment to students.
I would like to share with this House some of the feedback that has been received from students in Prince Edward Island. In today's Guardian, a report indicates that students are questioning the federal government's sincerity when it comes to student needs. A delegation of Island students report that skyrocketing tuition fees, federal funding cuts for post-secondary education, taxes on student loans and books make it difficult to believe that the federal government is serious about a prosperous future for Canadians.
According to Andrew Hughes, a representative of the P.E.I. branch of the Canadian Federation of Students: "The student delegation wants the Mulroney government to start living up to its word as stated in the prosperity agenda. It is hard right now to take the government at its word. Instead of providing a clear path for students to further their education, they are constantly creating barriers".
I have quoted Mr. Hughes to demonstrate that this is not a partisan argument, it is a legitimate argument. Certainly we have been trying to make the same argument on this side of the House for some time.
The consequences of this government's education policies become increasingly apparent in the Canadian labour market and the Productivity Centre quarterly report.
Despite the fact that the unemployment rate across the country is at 10.4 per cent, despite the fact that in my province the unemployment rate is at 16.9 per cent, the second highest in the country, there are approximately
300,000	jobs available in Canada that cannot be filled.
This is an unacceptable situation. There are almost 1.5 million Canadians out of work so there are enough jobs available to accommodate approximately 20 per cent of the unemployed Canadians. Many of these positions require skills that unemployed people do not have. This is also affecting our productivity as a nation. The same quarterly report, 1989, indicated that Canadian busi-

nesses were having production difficulties because they could not find enough skilled employees and they expected the problem to get worse unless education and training policies were changed.
While the recession may have lessened the current impact of this problem, the need to improve our labour force skills still exists. The need for greater skills and education requirements is obvious. Yet, there is not a decline in the number of graduates from post-secondary institutions. It is obvious that if the country is to prosper, if our work force is to be competitive, if we are to ensure that the current level of unemployment is reduced, we must make sure that our education system is accessible and affordable.
I repeat my question to the minister. Will this government remove the 3 per cent surtax on student loans? Will it remove the 7 per cent GST on textbooks? Will the government stop cutting back on funding to post-secondary education which is causing tuition fees to sky-rocket? Will this government finally recognize that students in our education system are the most important block upon which our future competitiveness must be built? Will this minister agree to take action today?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the prosperity initiative is an opportunity for all Canadians to contribute to the development of a plan of action for our future economic and social well-being.
In launching this initiative, the Minister of Employment and Immigration tabled a discussion paper "Learning Well, Living Well". This paper identifies a number of the learning challenges facing Canadians and Canada in this decade.
To meet the challenges of the future, Canada will have to improve upon its learning system. High skills jobs, a competitive economy, economic prosperity and a good quality of life are interdependent. To maintain them all Canadians must build a learning system which boosts basic skills and encourages a much higher level of advanced skills.
The government acting alone cannot create a learning culture. On the contrary. There is little government, any government, can do on its own to develop a learning
Adjournment Debate
culture. It will require partnerships among all interested groups and for this reason the government invites all Canadians, parents, students, teachers, labour and management, to participate in the prosperity initiative.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the other day in the House I stood to declare that across this country, Canada's 38,000 dairy, egg and poultry producers are preparing to storm Parliament Hill to protest this government's wavering position on the future of marketing boards and supply management. They are holding this government directly accountable for the future of supply management and for the future of the agricultural industry in Canada.
They want the Prime Minister to declare that his government will settle for nothing less than the clarification of article XI in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, nothing less than an unequivocal commitment to supply management.
The proposals that were tabled December 11, 1991, by GATT director Arthur Dunkel would effectively destroy article XI and with it destroy the economic underpinnings that Canada has developed for its dairy, egg and poultry industries. The Dunkel proposals I think are proof positive that the United States is about to get its way with supply management in Canada. It has been bullying its way toward the elimination of quotas as a means of penetrating the Canadian market.
Tariffication will not work. It is incompatible with the principle of supply management. It will knock out the pillars and once supply management is dead, it is simply a matter of reducing the tariffs and then they have got us. That will open the entire Canadian market to excess U.S. agricultural production and will kill the Canadian dairy, poultry and egg producing industries.
When I asked the Prime Minister on February 5 whether he would get tough with the Americans and declare his unequivocal support of supply management, he replied that this government had maintained a vigorous defence of Canada's marketing board structure and will continue to do so. Those kinds of statements are why nobody believes the Prime Minister anymore. While he was waxing philosophic about the virtues of supply management, we find that his Minister for International

February 13, 1992
Adjournment Debate
Trade has been providing all government MPs with briefing notes on how to get out of supply management and sell the concept of tariffication. If you do not believe me, Mr. Speaker, just ask the head of the B.C. Lower Mainland Dairymen's Association.
While the government talks a good line about how it is fighting hard for the principles of supply management, all the while it is quietly preparing to dump marketing boards and sacrifice the future of Canadian farmers.
The other day the Prime Minister chided me for suggesting that we play tough with the Americans. He trivialized the issue by suggesting that we also declare war on them. The Prime Minister knows full well that Canada has been a saint when it comes to the observance of the rules of GATT. He knows full well that we have always abided by its rulings while most other countries I might add, including the United States, have transgressed those recommendations and rulings at will.
I say to the Prime Minister that now is the time to stand up and be counted. Now is the time to get tough and to defend the future of our Canadian farming community, to defend our Canadian way of life because if we lose marketing boards we are going to lose the industry. We are going to jeopardize 38,000 poultry, egg, and dairy operations in all regions of Canada which provide over 60,000 jobs in the production sector and
36.000	jobs in processing.
Tariffication puts a $10 billion industry in grave danger. If the government rolls over on this one, we will dismantle the system which directly provides more than
97.000	Canadian jobs.
That is why Canadian farmers have taken their gloves off. They are not prepared to stand by and watch everything they have worked so darned hard for go down the tubes.
They are angry. They are worried. They want action. From B.C., Ontario, Quebec, and elsewhere across Canada our dairy, egg, and poultry producers are preparing to take a stand. They are preparing to storm Parliament Hill if this Prime Minister and this government fail to keep their promise to maintain our supply management systems and to preserve our Canadian way of life.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, it would be very easy to get into a very intense debate on this issue, but we will leave that for another day.
To say that farmers are going to storm Parliament Hill I believe is exaggerating. The farmers I spoke to representing the farm communities, the farm leaders, said they want to come here to show their support for the government's position, their position, in respect to article XI and the furthering and clarifying of article XI, not to come here to create problems with great anger and great fight. To say they are going to storm the Hill is exaggerating a situation, especially with the farm leaders I have spoken with as recently as four o'clock this afternoon.
To say that MPs on the government side have a document indicating how to get rid of supply management is utterly ridiculous. That is not the case. I would love to see a copy of it if the member is so certain there is something like that. I do not believe any member of Parliament does have that.
Canada's position to support article XI has not changed. It is no wonder the producers are confused in this country from the statements that were made here tonight and during other times in Question Period because this government has never wavered in its support. It continues to support the position that was taken over a year ago that was developed by the farm leaders, the federal government, and the provincial government. We had strong supporters that balanced good position and we will maintain that.
I want to assure all members of the House that we are not about to abandon our supply management industries as the negotiations on programs progress. We believe it is a good program. It is a time to be solid, not divided. It is unfortunate that very often comments made in this House indicate that we are divided on the issue. That is not the case.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, each year over one million Canadian women are diagnosed with breast cancer. Over 150,000 of these women have resorted to implants to try to ease the trauma of a painful and humiliating surgery and disfigurement that results from this terrible disease. Their fears were eased
February 13, 1992

because Health and Welfare Canada has assured women again and again that there is not sufficient evidence that these products are dangerous.
Today I had the opportunity to speak to a remarkably wonderful woman whom I have had the privilege of getting to know over the past few months. This woman had cancer and subsequent surgery, followed by silicone implants. That was only the beginning. She soon found out that these implants are not safe. Despite Health and Welfare Canada's approval, these products cause even greater pain and suffering. Thousands of women across Canada have suffered major complications from these devices. Dow Coming, a major American producer, has had doubts about their safety since 1971 but it has continued to sell these products anyway. That is 21 years ago, over two decades.
Health and Welfare Canada too has had reason to doubt the safety of the implants. In fact, in 1986, which is over five years ago, a senior scientist at Health and Welfare was fired for questioning the safety of these products, and yet they continue to be sold.
Earlier this week I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare what he was doing to ensure an effective and safe product review process. He responded that there already is a serious review process. He even had the gall to boast that silicone gel implants are no longer available on the market.
Manufacturers of these implants were requested to stop distributing these products only last month, yet we know that most of the doctors have them in their offices and will continue to use them as long as they are there.
Mr. Speaker, you will note that I did not mention the name of this woman, the reason being that she has received death threats, not one but several, on her answering machine. When she gets home at night from work, she takes her messages off her machine and the message is: "You will die for promoting what you are doing with regard to these implants". This woman has organized a group of women, probably 800 women, in her area. They meet regularly. In fact, they have a conference coming up very, very shortly.
Despite what the minister said here in the House yesterday, she has filed conclusive evidence with the
Adjournment Debate
minister that these implants are defective and that they are cancer causing. Yet the minister continues to deny, deny, deny.
I too would like to mention that I have also received a threat. My threat was by letter. My threat was by the distributor of this product, where he challenged me to dare to say the things that I say in the House of Commons on this product outside the House. I consider that a threat and a harassment of the worst kind.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Beryl Gaffney: I suggest to the minister once again that it is becoming increasingly clear to me that there is a major cover-up. Who is hiding what at women's expense? I believe the issue is so serious that the RCMP should be called in to investigate. I ask the minister this: What will he do to ensure the product review process is improved so that an atrocity like this will never happen again, and that this one must cease immediately?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the government would like to use the opportunity following several weeks of media claims and statements in the House to bring hon. members up to date on the department's actions concerning silicone gel-filled breast implants.
First, let me say that Health and Welfare is very concerned about the comments expressed over the fear of cancer following breast implant surgery. Let me put a stop to speculations right now. Dr. Hans Berkel and his colleagues in Alberta demonstrated clearly that women who have breast augmentation do not have an increased risk of breast cancer. He also found that breast implants do not decrease the survival of breast cancer patients.
This is a very powerful study. More than 11,000 breast implant patients were followed for an average of 10 years. Where 49 cases of breast cancer were expected in the normal population, 23 developed breast cancer after breast implants.
Rarely in the field of science can a better demonstration be made about the low risk of using a medical device. This work which was done in Canada by reputable epidemiologists is confirmed by a similar study done in the United States.

Adjournment Debate
I wish then to reassure the women in Canada who have silicone breast implants that at this time there is no evidence to support the scare tactics used by media and others.
Let us go on now to the basis of this whole discussion. This basis centres on the fact that the Department of National Health and Welfare makes its decisions on safety and effectiveness based on science, not on media reports, not on innuendo and not on testimony of unusual events.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, on November 21, just after the announcement of a $700 million package of aid to grain and oilseed producers, I stood in my place and raised a question with the Minister of Agriculture about the methods being used in implementing that program. There had been an announcement that about $7 an acre would be paid for crop land, a quarter of that payment for lands that were seeded to summer fallow, and lands seeded to forage crops would also get one-quarter of that amount.
I wish to respond further to that answer tonight, because it seemed to me that the Minister of Agriculture in his response was pretending ignorance of his own government's policies and his own department's stated objectives.
Among the stated objectives of that department are to encourage diversification and market responsiveness.
Because of the market conditions, a great number of farmers, particularly in the northern prairies in western Canada, have seeded good two, three and four class farming land to forage crops, alfalfa and other grasses. Some of those crops are being processed into cubes and pellets for shipment to the Japanese and South Korean markets and elsewhere. These are export commodities. They depend on export prices. Their market was ruined just as thoroughly by the U.S.-European trade war as any other market.
In his response the minister seemed to ignore that hay prices respond to those same market influences and they are also low. He also seemed to think that his government was doing a good job of looking after forage crops because he talked about having paid something like $50 million in the prairie region to promote forage production and $22 million in the rest of Canada to promote forage production, making a total of $72 million to forage producers.
What he ignored was the sense of my question. I pointed out that I was talking about forage seeded on classes one to four farm land, the very best farm land in Canada. He should have known as the Minister of Agriculture that the program he was talking about only applies to classes five, six and lower classes of farm land. In other words, the program applies to lands that probably should not be growing grains and oilseeds to begin with.
He has totally missed the point and is not addressing the very real problem that the countryside is going to be faced with, now that we have GRIP and this program here. Both of those programs have ignored forage production as an integral part of agricultural production in the northern prairies. He is encouraging those lands to be worked up again and planted into cereals and oil seeds which the system does not need.
I think he has to recognize that forage production is a legitimate crop and pay it on the same basis as cereals and oilseeds.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce and say again that the government came through, as it always has before, and supported farmers with a program of $800 million assistance under the FSAM II. That was in November 1991.
The way the payments were delivered to producers grew out of extensive consultations between this government and members of the Third Line of Defence Committee. This committee is made up of industry, producers, academics and provincial representatives.
The payments were made on the recommendations of producers, academics and provincial representatives. That was how it was made up. It was not totally a minister's decision.
This committee recommended we deliver the assistance based on seeded acreage and pay 25 per cent on summer fallow and 25 per cent on forage.
This serves as another example of how the federal government continues to consult with those affected before making any decisions. It is a process the opposition parties should be supporting.
February 13, 1992

Hon. members should realize that of the three options delivered to the government by the Third Line of Defence Committee, the government selected the one that included the highest level of payments for forage and summer fallow.
The government, under the provisions of FSAM I, delivered $50 million to promote forage production in the prairie region and an additional $22 million to promote forage production in the rest of Canada.
That could hardly be interpreted as the government penalizing farmers with forage crops.
The $700 million is being delivered to compensate that sector for the level of hurt it has sustained as well. The low commodity prices, caused by the international trade war, have been why we have had to stand there and support a program in this country that has been caused by the devastating things that the U.S. and the EEC have been doing.


SPECIAL DEBATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 5, 1992, the House will continue the debate on the adjournment motion for the sole purpose of allowing members to make presentations on the results of discussions they have had with their constituents on the constitutional issue.
The hon. member for Levis.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, during the past few days we have heard members report to the House on the results of their discussions with Canadians on the constitutional process. During 1991, I also consulted with Canadians, including my own constituents. My questions focused on the economy and a number of items that could be included in the Constitution. Together, these could be defined as an anti-deficit clause.
I think we should take advantage of the fact that Canadians generally disapprove of deficits. Perhaps this would be a good time to include in the Constitution a clause that would put elected representatives in a better position to administer the governments of this country.
The Constitution
The clause would contain certain parameters according to which our elected representatives would be obliged to bring their spending in time wiht the resources of the community, without mortgaging the lives of future generations.
It is time we stopped using deficits as a substitute for taxes. It is easy to say yes to the demands of taxpayers and voters during an election campaign. However, if the Constitution provided for maintaining a balance between what the community pays and earns and what governments can give that community, I think this would make for a fairer and franker political debate during election campaigns. It would mean that candidates, irrespective of their political stripe, would have to explain to voters that the program they are offering or the program voters want would cost a certain amount of money, and that this amount would be raised through the tax system. Today, party candidates are far less forthcoming and are inclined to advertise programs without mentioning the cost involved to the taxpayers because as politicians, they know they will always be able to borrow to fill their orders.
I think that if they face certain restrictions, this may be the best way to reduce the deficits incurred by federal, provincial and municipal governments. Granted, people will say this is technical, that it may create certain problems when definning expenditures. We are used to describing government expenditures in terms of envelopes for the various departments. I would say that if we included an anti-deficit clause, expenditures would also have to include what we call tax expenditures, such as tax rebates enjoyed by taxpayers in certain cases and also the constraints governments impose on certain companies, including environmental or social constraints.
Those are part of the expenses incurred by the community and they should be included in the context of an anti-deficit clause. Some will refer to the famous theory of Keynes, an economist who lived from 1883 until 1946, to oppose an anti-deficit clause in the Constitution. A lot of people refer to that theory these days, but I say that it is obsolete. For one thing, it applied at a time when there was no unemployment. According to that theory, it is in a period of economic difficulties that important public projects should be undertaken. Nowadays, unemployment is always high, it is a chronic problem. The conditions are not what they were in 1950 or 1960.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
Also, if governments decide during a period of recession or economic crisis to announce important public projects, whether it is the building of roads, houses, et cetera, once the decision is made, these programs must go through the hands of many technocrats and it often takes from 18 to 24 months before they become reality. At that point, economic recovery is under way and the programs that were announced during the economic crisis become inflationary programs that create an artificial demand on money. That is the reason why Keynes theory must not be taken into consideration.
Some will also say that we must provide implementation mechanisms. We will not be able to achieve that in 365 days. But I believe that if there is a consensus to adopt such a clause, we could allow a period of a few years to absorb the accumulated deficit and then, inevitably, there will be no more deficit in the budget.
Some will also mention emergency situations, such as a war or an environmental disaster. In such instances we could for all intents and purposes have a form of agreement or a vote requiring the approval of 75 per cent of the members of the House, or some other mechanism that would have to be discussed and developed further.
After having tried to sell this anti-deficit clause, I received comments and I will end on that note. I received a letter from the Business Council on National Issues which says that this organization would approve the inclusion of an anti-deficit clause in the Constitution. The letter is dated January 8 1992 and it is addressed to me.
I also have a letter dated December 17, 1991 from the Conseil du patronat du Quebec which says that it agrees in principle with including such a clause. Last fall, the Conseil du patronat appeared before the caucuses of members of the Quebec government, the Parti Quebecois caucus and the Liberal Party caucus, to suggest that they include a no-deficit clause in their legislative process. Also, the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, when it appeared before the federal Committee on the Constitution, said that the Chamber-the Quebec Chamber of Commerce-reiterates its support for the idea of putting in the Constitution the principle that the federal and provincial governments must balance
their budgets, as municipal governments are already legislated to do.
That is serious support. Also, I have very important support from a local source, the South Shore Chamber of Commerce, which for all practical purposes covers the federal riding of Levis. They officially supported my plan for a no-deficit clause in the Constitution. I have two more major supporters, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Timothy Rae, who said that the deficit problem should be included when the constitutional issue is settled. I refer to an article in the Financial Post of July 4, 1991.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. I also received 432 resolutions from municipal councils throughout Canada. I have excerpts from the resolutions of those councils, all 432 of which are in favour of having a no-deficit clause in the Constitution. These resolutions come from all the provinces of Canada.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask those who are responsible for presenting the federal government's position and even all federal members of Parliament to take account of what many Canadians who pay and generate wealth want. They have a right to say how this wealth will be spent.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know a great deal about constitutional law, but I do know that I am living in a great countiy and that it has the potential to become even greater.
As Canadians we sometimes forget how good we have it. Canada is one of the most peaceful and prosperous nations on this earth. You just have to ask those outside of Canada. There are thousands of people lined up at embassies all over the world trying to emigrate to our country.
We cannot afford to let constitutional issues divide us and ruin our great land. We need to build a climate where consensus can be reached. It is time to focus.
We need to concentrate on what we want. We also need to concentrate on what we have. We must examine the things we have in common and build on our strengths by looking toward the future.
February 13, 1992

We must establish a Canadian vision, a blueprint for the next generation. We must address the things all Canadians would like to preserve and achieve, instead of the things that divide us.
Then we can begin to agree. Once we begin to agree, we can develop a climate favourable for negotiation. Then we can reach consensus.
It has been my pleasure during the last few months to help residents of Ottawa Centre participate in a constitutional discussion. Many of my constituents have strong opinions and interesting ideas on the Constitution.
In December I distributed a referendum form on the constitutional proposals throughout my riding. The referendum summarized the proposals and divided them into three broad sections, keeping with the government format. Constituents were asked to mark whether they agreed, disagreed or were undecided about each proposal. They were also asked to write down specific comments if they wished.
So far, my office has received in excess of 200 responses. It is obvious to me that Canadians, at least in my riding, like to be directly consulted. We have received a high number of replies in a short time and many forms with written comments. When asked to help, the people feel empowered to set the direction for the country.
Our methods were not scientific and our statistics are not necessarily accurate. However, we have noticed some strong general convictions. Ottawa Centre residents who responded are most concerned about parliamentary reform, economic union and a strong central government.
Respondents expressed overwhelming approval of the proposals that allow more free votes in the House of Commons and called for an elected Senate. In both cases the yes vote was about 80 per cent.
On the proposals dealing with Senate appointments more concentration on Private Members' Business, and the question of provinces and territories submitting names for appointments to the Supreme Court, the support was between 50 and 70 per cent. When asked to comment, respondents clearly demanded reform of the House of Commons and the Senate.
The Constitution
Respondents also approved of proposals dealing with the Canadian economic union. Almost 95 per cent supported the elimination of trade barriers within Canada.
Around 75 per cent supported the proposals dealing with federal power to make laws for the economic union and harmonization of the government budget process.
Fifty-five per cent of the people supported the distinct society clause for Quebec.
Constituents were less supportive of the devolution of power to the provinces. Only the proposals dealing with culture, immigration and broadcasting issues received more than 60 per cent support.
The level of support for other proposals was somewhere between 30 and 50 per cent. For example only 30 per cent supported the elimination of the declaratory power.
It is clear to me from these results that many Ottawa Centre residents want to make the country work. They also have a good idea of what they want Canada to look like.
The referendum is not the only constitutional initiative underway in Ottawa Centre. Something different is happening in my riding. I have been working closely with several Ottawa Centre residents who have set up a constituency assembly process.
They are trying to bring the constitutional discussion down to the grassroots level. The organizers are convinced that there is a need for a fresh approach to the constitutional debate in this country. They believe Canadians are ready to contribute fresh ideas and are looking for channels to do so.
The constituency assembly process is designed to provide such channels. It is a non-partisan citizens' initiative that, by definition, includes everyone in the constituency. The structure stimulates informed discussion and allows for a wide variety of input and perspectives. The intention is not to build a consensus, but to express ideas.
The assembly involves organizing and sharing the results of work study projects on the Constitution. So far, it consists of several workshops and an open house.

February 13, 1992
As far as I am aware, Ottawa Centre is the first constituency to organize a creative democratic process of this nature.
Of course, the assembly was not created in a vacuum. It follows an information session on the Constitution that I hosted last spring, a discussion meeting on the Constitution convened in June, and a workshop series offered through the summer on Parliament Hill. It was all at the initiative of the constituents.
The whole process has been assisted by the creation of an open register to record study projects. The register facilitates communication between Ottawa Centre constituents concerned about the Constitution. Currently over 30 projects have been registered. It is our hope that the register will eventually aid networking between constituencies.
The assembly organizers recognize that citizens are responsible for their Constitution and government. They are hoping the assembly process will deepen the democratic basis of constitutional discussion.
By encouraging Canadians to participate directly in the political process, they believe their approach will show that Canadians have more things in common than the differences that divide them.
They see the constitutional issue not as a crisis for Canada, but a remarkable opportunity to preserve and develop common sense assets such as goodwill, peace and mobility.
I feel tremendously privileged to have constituents who take the concept of self-government so seriously. There are so many of them. I wish to especially acknowledge Gail Stewart, Nancy Doubleday and Dianne Corke. They are actively involved in the political process and they are encouraging others to contribute as well. Such input can only benefit Canadian politicians and make the process of governing richer.
The constituency assembly will likely continue regardless of government deadlines. Ottawa Centre residents still have a lot to say about the Constitution. The process is also flexible enough to include issues of national interest other than the Constitution. I think it is a model that could be adopted in other ridings.
I am tabling some documentation related to the ^m constituency assembly process. Some of this material has 9 already been tabled with the special joint committee on a 9 renewed Canada.	9
It is my hope that other members of Parliament will be	9
encouraged to organize grassroots initiatives with mem-	9
bers of their riding. My constituents have been talking	9
about the need to identify and build on common Cana-	9
dian interests.	9
A few days ago I received a letter signed "I am a	9
Canadian". This person eloquently expressed what it	9
means to be a Canadian. I would like to close by quoting	9
him or her.	9
For me, Canada is more than a country and more than a nation.	9
Canada, for me, is tolerance, open channels of communication, and	9
peaceful methods of solving differences of opinion and	9
disagreements. Canada, for me, is a great open society, in which	9
everyone is equal and at the same time can be unique and distinct.	9
Canada for me is a humane society that cares for the well-being of its	9
members: their health, education and living conditions. Canada, for	9
me, is a society that is fair, just and positive. Canada, for me, is a	9
society that cares about pollution, and seeks to reduce it within its	9
boundaries and beyond. Canada, for me, is a society that understands	9
the importance of preserving nature and all species, and knows the	9
destruction of nature will eventually lead to the destruction of	9
mankind. Canada, for me, is a society made up of individuals, nations	9
and races that came from the old ways of the old countries to find and	9
pursue better ways for all-to walk into the future with open eyes, and	9
to improve it for all. For me, Canada is not only a land for British and	9
French, it is land that we all came to share together with those who	9
were here first. For me, Canadian culture is neither English nor	9
French - it is the culture of peace, and I consider myself privileged to	9
be part of it. For me, Canada is a ray of hope shining in the sky of	9
humanity and the greatest country on Earth.	9
* (1850)	I


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, first 9 I would like to thank the Sarnia-Lambton	Committee	9
for Canada's Future for taking the constitutional propos- 9 als as presented by our government to my community for 9 discussion.	9
This committee is a constituent assembly formed to	9
collect views and write a report on the federal govern-	9
ment's constitutional reform proposals.	Citizens	from	9our community volunteered or were approached from a 9 variety of backgrounds and societal groups	to	form	the	9constituent committee.	9
The Constitution



, fag

February 13, 1992

The committee met as a group and with the public on 13 occasions and an information booth was manned by the members at the Sarnia Eaton Centre on November 27 through 29, 1991.
Interaction with the public of our community took place at the information sessions as well as at four public meetings held at different locations throughout the federal constituency.
I met with the committee on January 24 and was presented with its report. I had already advised the special joint committee on a renewed Canada that a report from the Sarnia-Lambton Committee on Canada's Future would be reporting and I had requested that representatives of the committee personally meet and appear before the joint committee.
I am happy to report that their chairman, Mr. Mark Sutor, secretary Mrs. Shirley Latham and committee member, Mr. Peter Westfall travelled to Ottawa on this past Monday and presented their report.
Upon receipt by myself of Shaping Canada's Future Together proposals, I read and re-read them and then I decided that certainly the way for me to decide on how I should be supportive or question the proposals is that I should listen. So, I have listened either before or after to a lot of presentations.
I listened last summer to 250 high school students in Toronto at a student forum, who talked about keeping our country together. I read the Group of 22 report, I read what the Spicer commission reported on what they heard, I read about what the Group of 15 said, and the Sarnia-Lambton Constituent Assembly Committee told me what our community was saying. I have also watched and read about the constitutional conferences, four or five which have been held as of this date.
As far as the area of Senate reform, this is one of the very important aspects of the institutional reform within the constitutional proposals. The concept has sparked widespread discussions; clearly Canadians have expressed a desire for the old place of privilege to be replaced by a Senate which is more useful, more democratic and more effective.
The divergence of opinions has come as to what form of structure best meets these principles. The Sarnia- Lambton Constituent Assembly supported reform of the
The Constitution
upper House, as with the Group of 15 and the Group of 22. They all called for an elected Senate.
Two further guiding conditions expressed where the powers of the Senate must be carefully delineated and not be broader than those of the House of Commons. The latter should retain their pre-eminent legislative role and that aboriginal people should be guaranteed representation in the Senate.
I myself would like an elected Senate, one based on the principle of proportional representation. In the spirit though of consultation and negotiation I doubt that this will happen. More equitable regional representation may be more likely the outcome.
As an Ontarian what we will lose in seats we will gain in institutional legitimacy and a forum for truer regional representation. In my mind, the Group of 22 may have put it best: "The country needs an institution that will express the national dimension of provincial responsibilities as well as an institution that will express the provincial dimension of national responsibilities."
In the area of distinct society, the Sarnia-Lambton Constituent Assembly Committee interpreted the clause as reasonable, provided that Quebec gains no additional powers which will either affect the other provinces or weaken the federation. It was sympathetic to Quebec's concern for the continuance of its society and its culture.
Distinct society has prompted much debate, as we all know. Clearly, many of the people appearing before the constituent assembly blurred the difference between recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and the federal official languages policy. We all must be careful that the two subjects are not confused.
It seems to me that the country is no longer stuck, as I would call it, on the distinct society proposal. English Canada, it seems to me, from what I have observed and have been told, wants a strong central government, while at the same time English Canada has no problems with the notion that Quebec might exercise powers which the other provinces choose not to exercise.
At the Toronto constitutional conference Montreal lawyer Eric Maldoff pleaded for Canadians to understand the linguistic and cultural fears of French speaking Quebecers. He said: "The question of a survival strategy is a dominant issue in my province. We must be prepared

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
to open our arms to the survival of French speaking Quebecers".
Mr. Maldoff is an English speaking Quebecer and the founding president of the English language rights group called Alliance Quebec.
The students' commission last summer recognized that Quebec should enjoy jurisdiction over its culture, civil code and immigration.
Recently The Toronto Star reported: "As we approach the home stretch we accept the distinct society clause as something we could live with".
What I have observed in recent months is that the people of Ontario believe that the clearest translation of distinct is different, a different society in which one may choose to strike a different balance between the rights of individuals and cultural groups from that may exist in other provinces.
The Group of 15 acknowledged that Quebecers might choose to favour collective rights over individual rights in order to preserve their heritage. The forum members continued: "The distinctiveness of Quebec is an historical fact and a current reality that enriches the lives of all Canadians".
Again, in view of what I have heard and seen, I can endorse the constitutional proposal to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. This recognition is very much in the tradition of flexible constitutional arrangements that have been part of Canada for 124 years. The distinctiveness of Quebec is an historical fact and a cultural reality that enriches the lives of all Canadians.
It allows Quebecers to make their own decisions about the balance that they would like to have in their particular province.
Property rights are part of the proposal, and I would like to touch upon them very briefly.
The charter does not guarantee a right to property and therefore it is the view of the government of Canada that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to guarantee property rights. I recommend the reading of an evaluation done by Mr. David Stratas of the law firm of Osier, Hoskin and Harcourt in Toronto entitled Property Rights and the Canadian Constitution:
Scenario I: After twenty years of effort and sacrifice in meeting mortgage payments, you unexpectedly receive a notice by registered
mail. "Your house shall be expropriated for a new freeway next month," the notice reads. The finer print of the notice indicates that the notice is issued pursuant to the Freeway Act which was just enacted. After further investigation, you discover that owing to "the needs of the motorists of the province" no hearings are to be held in order to determine fair value of property being expropriated -
You find you are getting only 50 per cent of the current market value.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Maybe the hon. member could file the rest of his documents with the Clerk.


Kenneth Albert James: I would like to end up by saying that I endorse property rights and certainly I commend this evaluation for reading.
Later I will touch on native rights, the economic union, the barriers to trade, and many other areas that should be touched upon in this important debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The list of speakers is as follows: the hon. members for Ottawa-Vanier, Essex-Windsor, and Joliette.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this special debate on the Constitution and to read into the record some of my own initiatives and those suggested by my constituents. The order was made for the sole purpose of allowing members to make presentations on the results of discussions that they have had with their constituents on the constitutional issue and to table all relevant documents. That is the clear and very specific purpose of this debate.
I started consulting constituents in Ottawa-Vanier last spring. I held a public meeting on June 26, which was set up as a forum on the Constitution, with Jean-Luc Pepin, Professor at the University of Ottawa, Dr. Robert Jackson, Professor at Carleton University, Ms. Caroline Chretien, Liberal researcher for the Liberal caucus, and about 200 people with an interest in these issues.
The survey I conducted at that time concerned the nine recommendations or proposals presented by my leader, Jean Chretien, to the Canadian public on April 21, 1991. His nine point plan was based on a statement on the nature of Canada, a commitment to the Charter
February 13, 1992

of Rights and Freedoms, strengthening the Canadian economic union, institutional reform, the division of powers, including spending power, immigration, the Supreme Court of Canada, aboriginal nations, the amending formula and, finally, a national referendum.
This provided a fairly broad range of items to discuss with our constituents, which I did all last summer. The constitutional forum I mentioned earlier, which was held on June 26, was televised throughout my riding and watched by thousands of constituents. I would like to thank Skyline Cablevision, which agreed to televise the proceedings.
Today the situation is no longer the same. Since last September we have been discussing the government's proposals. I distributed the document in my riding and I am glad to say it was given a rather favourable reception. It was widely discussed by various groups and was the subject of both oral and written comments at my office and in the community in general.
Last summer I went from door to door and I actually knocked on more than 5,000 doors, which is quite something when the temperature is in the nineties, or should I say the thirties. I noticed that people are concerned about the constitutional question. They are wondering whether we politicians will be able to find a solution to this particular problem, whether we will be able to reconcile Canada's duality with a common respect for Canada's regions which are the two pillars, as it were, of this country. What I remember particularly from my meetings with constituents is their concern for respecting the distinctiveness of our regions as well as Canada's duality in a country that has two official languages.
I was left with a great deal to think about after my consultations with the people in Ottawa-Vanier. If we get rid of Canada's duality or if we remove the concept of Canadian regionalism, we destroy this country. In discussions I had with a number of constituents, I tried to make them understand how important it is to respect differences-what we call tolerance-and the importance of respect for duality, for the other person's right to speak the language of his choice, and respect for regional differences, a Canadian concept.
The Constitution
I had a team of volunteers, consisting of public servants, students, unemployed workers, professionals, pensioners and people working in the home, who accompanied me on my walks last summer, and I found that very encouraging. I also sent out two householders. One was on the Constitution and constitutional amendments, a document I will table with the Clerk later on, and one is a questionnaire on how my constituents view the issues, how the division of powers should be changed, and how we could solve the Canadian question.
I would like to inform the House of the results of these surveys.

There were 1,778 respondents. These were voluntary responses given by people who did not have to return the questionnaire but did.
I want to take a few minutes to present a resume or highlights of the results.
To the first question of a constitutional declaration on the future of Canada, 69 per cent of my constituents believe that the constitutional declaration will have to include our commitment to two official languages; 64 per cent want to include cultural diversity; 76 per cent want recognition of the aboriginal people; 43 per cent recognized Quebec as a distinct society, 36 per cent are against and 21 per cent expressed no opinion.
On lowering the barriers between the provinces, a strong majority of respondents, 91 per cent, favoured the free circulation of goods, people and capital in Canada.
On a reformed Senate, 79 per cent of respondents favoured an elected Senate, but one with a right to review rather than a right to veto. The review condition is supported by 65 per cent, with 33 per cent supporting the right to veto. The majority of the people also favoured giving the Senate the right to amend laws proposed by the House rather than a right to reject or to delay.
Concerning the power to the provinces for nominations to the Supreme Court of Canada, 71 per cent of respondents believed the provinces and territories should participate in the nomination of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
On the constitutional process, the majority of respondents favoured a referendum; 35 per cent favoured a direct participation in discussions rather than leaving decision-making exclusively to elected representatives.
As for the adoption of a constitutional amendment, the majority of respondents prefer a referendum in each province rather than a provincial legislative approval, or two-thirds of provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, which is the present amendment before us.
On the sharing of powers, in the two questionnaires the majority of respondents preferred to give provincial governments the responsibility for education, housing and training, while giving the federal government communications, immigration and unemployment insurance.
In the second questionnaire, the majority favoured federal-provincial co-operation in fields which have been contentious in the past, such as the environment, language and health care.
Those are the results of two questionnaires. Those are the messages I get from the constituents of Ottawa- Vanier. As for myself, I will get a chance to debate these questions whenever the government tables its proposals formally in the House in the months to come.

And now the proposals my constituents came up with. One was for a constitutional log book. One of my constituents suggested setting up a constitutional log book that would contain proposals by people in the riding and where various suggestions could be entered. I have here a copy of this log book, which I will table with the Clerk. It contains documents that reflect the aspirations of my constituents and may have some impact on the committee.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is almost up. In concluding, I want to urge the people of Ottawa- Vanier and Canadians in general to continue their participation in this constitutional debate. It is extremely important for us to know where people stand. Personally,
I appreciated the experience of meeting the many people in my riding and discussing these issues with them. I know they are interested, because after all, without a Constitution, we don't have a country.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, throughout the country we have seen Canadians trying to come to terms with the very difficult constitutional challenges that face this country and our future. This is certainly true in Essex-Windsor, as it is in other parts of this country.
In the case of Essex-Windsor I have consulted my constituents through talk-back forms, which I have asked members of my constituency to send back, and also through community meetings which I hold regularly. They have focused in more recent months on some of the issues which the Constitution has brought before us.
I could go through a whole list of subjects, as various members have, but I want to focus on five which have been stressed in our meetings and in the responses that I have received. I want to say first that one new element which has emerged in this round of constitutional discussions, as compared with the past round, is the notion of a social charter and putting into the Constitution some commitment, hard or soft.
Suggestions vary, but there should be some commitment nevertheless to the social rights which Canadians believe they have, such as the right of access to medicare, the right of access to a good educational system, the right of access to social services and the right of access to employment or to unemployment insurance in the absence of such, and a right of access to environmental protection.
This is a notion which our party has particularly emphasized and which the premier of my province, Bob Rae, has particularly stressed. Also it is something about which constituents in Essex-Windsor have been especially enthusiastic. Constituents in Essex-Windsor have had to make use of the right to access to unemployment insurance because of the ups and downs in the auto industry.
They have had to make their past history of building access to medical care through community institutions, turning that into a national system. When the national medical care scheme came into effect in this country, they came to see it as something crucial to their lives, especially as they compare themselves to people across the river in Detroit who have to bankrupt themselves and their families in order to provide medical care.
The social charter and a commitment to a social charter is something for which my constituents have stressed their strong support.
February 13, 1992

I was very pleased today to see the premier of Ontario bring out in more detail the notion of a social charter, to outline the particular elements which the Ontario government would like to see included in section 36 of the Constitution as principles to which governments in Canada are committed.
They are principles such as comprehensive, universal and accessible health care, social services and welfare based on need, high quality public, primary and secondary education and the emphasis on preserving and improving the quality of the environment within a sustainable economy.
I am also pleased to see the commitment which has been suggested by the province of Ontario that agreements reached by governments in areas covered by these social charter rights in the future would be made constitutionally binding.
In other words, it would not be possible for a government to renounce an agreement which it had reached with provinces as, for instance, this government has done in the case of the Canada Assistance Plan in renouncing its commitment to provide support through the Canada Assistance Plan to the various provinces that have been affected by the 5 per cent cap in that plan.
The second area which my constituents have expressed themselves very strongly on is the question of the rights of aboriginal Canadians. People in Essex-Windsor feel strongly that aboriginal Canadians have been left out of the opportunities in our society. They have expressed, in community meetings, their agreement with aboriginal Canadians who emphasize their inherent rights to selfgovernment. They have emphasized that these inherent rights to self-government, in order to become real to aboriginal people, must include significant assistance from the federal government for economic development for aboriginal communities.
The third area which my constituents have expressed their concerns about is the proposals in the federal constitutional package for economic union. There are some parts of this package which are unobjectionable, such as an emphasis on mobility of goods across the country. But there are other parts of that package which
The Constitution
are extremely dangerous, such as removing from the mandate of the Bank of Canada the idea that it should take into account the impact of monetary policy on employment levels. I think that is important. It is also important to see to it that the Bank of Canada maintains a recognition of employment considerations in its policy decisions.
There has also been grave concern among my constituents with respect to the idea that companies might be able to take either provincial or federal governments to court and have laws declared unconstitutional because they run counter to some judicially established notion of economic union. I will have a chance to say more about this in future debates. I just want to report the views of the community meetings that have taken place on that subject.
The other subject I want to deal with which has come out in community meetings is the question of Quebec as a distinct society. I have to say that both in responses to questionnaires to my constituents and in community meetings there have been some serious concerns expressed about the notion of Quebec as a distinct society. This has reflected the fear that many of my constituents have expressed, that if you recognize Quebec as distinct that means giving Quebec special powers.
I think that we can recognize Quebec as distinct in the sense of different without recognizing special powers or special status, but my constituents are concerned that that distinction between a difference and a special status be maintained in the constitutional structure.
The final point which I want to make is something which has come to me in meeting after meeting across my constituency as I have spoken at banquets, as I have met with groups. It has come not just in community meetings or in pamphlet returns, it has come everywhere, and that is a commitment to this country as one Canada, a commitment to national unity, a commitment to the maintenance of a magnificent country. That is the most powerful sentiment which has been expressed by the people of Essex-Windsor. It is a sentiment which I would want to leave with this House as we face the challenge and the future of dealing with the constitutional concerns which the government will bring back to

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
us in the form of its response to the special committee's report when it comes forward.


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I am delighted to avail myself of the little time granted to us by the House to express the feelings of my constituents, the people from the riding of Joliette.
We cannot say much about the future without looking back on the past. In the context of the constitutional debate, two major events have taken place these past few years, say 10 years, that have had a great impact on the people of Joliette. I am talking about the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982, from which Quebec was left out, and, more recently, the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990. I think that these two events have dampened the enthusiasm of those who had believed in a strong and united Canada and have also motivated the proponents of separation.
Of course, our present economic situation must also be taken into account, with our huge debt leaving government with very little room to manoeuvre. I must point out that I was given a very clear mandate when I was elected in 1988. The Meech Lake Accord, by which Quebec could have reintegrated the Canadian family, was being negotiated at the time and I think that it was clear that the people of Joliette were contemplating the future of their riding, and their province of course, as part of a united Canada.
But they lost confidence first in 1982 and then in 1990. They lost confidence in our institutions for not making the Meech Lake Accord possible and having it ratified. They lost confidence also in the people, the elected people, who went back on their word. That is a fact. At any rate I have come to realize from my contacts with my constituents that they still have a faint ray of hope. They may lack confidence, but they still have some hope that, through its proposals, the federal Parliament will manage to develop a constitution that will come up to the expectations of the people in all the provinces concerned.
In order to keep the people of my riding informed, shortly before Christmas I distributed a survey questionnaire because people hear all kinds of things about the
Constitution, but cannot always make sense of it all. I tried to lay it out in the simplest terms, as I feel the people want it, these people who want me to go on looking out for them and fighting to maintain Quebec within the federation, in a united Canada.
I was pleasantly surprised, but it only confirmed my perception. The surveys that MPs usually take of their constituents are to find out what the people expect. My survey told me that even though we have been talking about the Constitution for a very long time, interest is now very high in my riding. Most of the people who answered this survey, I would say about three quarters, expressed great interest in the discussion and the proposals and I would like to thank them for their interest.
Of course, as I said, the survey also showed some loss of confidence. They hope that Parliament will be able to propose a Constitution whereby Quebec can work well within Canada. But they have lost some confidence in their elected officials, and that is understandable, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
My fellow citizens also showed me their interest in being well informed on everything that is going on and in receiving plenty of documentation. They also said that they would like their MP to be more available so that he can keep them informed. We know very well that it is a problem for a federal member of Parliament, especially a backbencher in Ottawa, who must always be in the House, which sits very often.
As for the options, because the survey gave people a chance to take a position on the Constitution, many respondents told me that they saw their future within the federal system. Many told me that they considered themselves nationalists, but always within a federal system and a united Canada. Some, not a majority, told me that they were for an independent Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is up. I find that the time went by very quickly, but in conclusion, I would just assure my fellow citizens that I will continue to respect the mandate that they gave me to bring Quebec back into the Constitution, in line with Quebec's wishes. I think that it would be hard for Canada to exist without Quebec, but I think that Quebec can bring much to the rest of Canada. This whole process must be done with us parliamentarians here in a climate
February 13, 1992

of respect, of course, and especially of tolerance and generosity, with a firm resolve to build a strong, prosperous country for future generations.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue in the House this evening.
I want to report on a series of four public meetings held in the riding of Guelph-Wellington on the constitutional proposals put forward by the right hon. Prime Minister on Tuesday, September 23, 1991.
The meetings were held in November and December. While the meeting were chaired by me, the critical part was the panel of three respected University of Guelph political scientists: Professor Bill Christian, Professor Patrick Kyba and Professor Fred Vaughan. I hope that they will agree with me tonight that my summary of the summary is adequate to the task.
The subject of the first of the four meetings was property rights and the Canada clause, followed by reform of Parliament and federal institutions. The third meeting dealt with economic union and distribution of power. The final meeting looked at the issues of a distinct society and native peoples.
The three professors opened each meeting by giving the historical perspective and some analysis of the issues, and that presentation usually took from 15 to 20 minutes. A simple show of hands was used to indicate the position of the meeting on the various issues. There was only one predetermined rule to the whole session. We were where we were and we were not going to ascribe blame to anyone or revisit the past.
The following is a very brief synopsis of the content of the four meetings with the general comments and the positions developed. I will have an opportunity to express my own views in this House in the days to come. The full report has been tabled with the constitutional committee.
On property rights there was at the meeting little enthusiasm for the inclusion of a constitutionally protected right to own property. The audience did not believe that the courts had used the existing charter of rights to threaten property. It was concerned that if the
The Constitution
right to own property were constitutionalized it would unnecessarily hamper future governments in pursuing socially desirable policies.
On the Canada clause there was no consensus on all of the proposed elements. The audience believed that the Constitution was best kept simple, and that meant not constitutionalizing certain current concerns however worthy they were.
On the reform of the House of Commons there was considerable frustration with the way the House functions today. Members of Parliament, it was felt, no longer represented the constituents wishes. The power had been taken out of the hands of the people. Party leaders wielded too much power over their backbenchers and so on. The group wanted reform but noted that these reforms could be carried out by the House of Commons itself and did not need a change in the Constitution.
There was agreement that the Senate should be reformed. There was support voiced for the house of the provinces model which would do away with the concept of the proposed council of the federation and lessen the need for more federal-provincial ministers conferences. There was also support for an elected Senate, especially a true triple-E Senate with equal representation from all provinces, and for special provision to ensure the representation of minorities. In general there was little discussion about the powers of the Senate as proposed in the document.
On the Supreme Court and amending formula there was no general discussion of these items, although the panellists commented upon them. Those who did mention the amending formula cautioned against a formula that would make amending the Constitution more difficult than it is today.
On the economic union and the distribution of powers there was cautious support for a national free trade scheme. The elimination of preferential procurement practices was thought desirable. The view was expressed that a co-ordinated national economic strategy was desirable in view of the new global order. There was concern that the proposals attempted to do too much across too wide a spectre.
The proposed amendment to the Bank of Canada Act to restrict the bank's mandate to price stability was perceived as unduly narrow.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
The transfer of responsibility for job retraining to provincial governments was thought likely to reduce the amount of capital spent on such programs and therefore did not receive endorsement.
A suggestion to include in the proposals a provision requiring a balanced budget received a lukewarm reception. A proposal to establish a council of the federation and an independent monitoring agency was challenged on the grounds that a renewed Senate might more properly exercise these functions. Canada did not need another level of government.
There was general agreement that federal spending power should be restricted, but it was noted that if such restrictions had been in place in the 1960s Canada might not have in place its much valued national health scheme.
Concerning immigration, it was noted that under section 95 of the Constitution Act of 1867, the Parliament of Canada had all the authority necessary to accommodate any provincial aspirations in this area.
On aboriginal rights there was consensus that constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights is long overdue. Given the complexity of the problem, the fact that the government is only offering a process, is perhaps all that can reasonably be expected at this time.
With respect to the distinct society, the panellists observed that Quebec had always enjoyed a special status with respect to its civil law and rights of religious observation. However, there was concern that the distinct society concept, unless carefully worded, might entail allowing Quebec privileges of special access to the federal treasury that would be unacceptable in the kind of Canada that we are tiying to build.
With respect to the general question of Quebec separation, the most accurate summary would be simply to note that there was no consensus. Opinion toward Quebec ranged from actively hostile to a passionate and eloquent statement by a woman who said it would break her heart to see Quebec leave. There was widespread concern that separation would cause financial harm to both Quebec and the rest of Canada, and that in an age in which economic units are becoming larger it would certainly prove to be a retrograde step.
We had between 25 and 80 people at these meetings. I believe the results represent the kind of thing we would get in any cross-section of my riding. I express once again my thanks to all the people who turned out and my special thanks to my three friends, political studies professors at the University of Guelph, for agreeing to hold these conferences and to do that hard work. It was theirs and I am very grateful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say to the
minister that the hon. member for Nipissing gave up his spot for you to speak. Perhaps you could thank him also.


William C. Winegard: I am very grateful to the member for Nipissing.


Bob Wood: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that recognition.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to participate in this discussion, one which perhaps will be one of the most important that this House is going to engage in for quite some time.
We are here today to talk about the Constitution, the document which defines who we are and how we relate to one another as citizens of this great country. We are here to exchange views and to listen, to tell this House what our constituents think and what they told us as their representatives. We are here today to try to reach an understanding and an empathy for people's views and concerns, and to do so in a sincere and honest way without any partisanship or any other antics that this House has been recently characterized by.
It truly is an honour for me to present the views of my constituents on an issue of such magnitude. My riding of Nipissing in many ways is a microcosm of the larger Canadian society. Demographically it consists of many different cultural groups with a significant native population. The proportion of anglophones to francophones is approximately 70:30. In economic terms the entire sphere of private and public employers can be found, ranging from military bases and government services to resource based agricultural, manufacturing and service industries.
Geographically the riding is comprised of both rural and urban communities, with our biggest centre of North Bay consisting of roughly 52,000 people. In Nipissing one can find a sample of most facets of Canadian life.
February 13, 1992

As we all know, this past September the government unveiled its list of 28 proposals for constitutional renewal. It was decided that to solicit people's opinions on them a joint Senate and House committee would be formed to travel the country and listen to what people had to say. When the work of this committee began to flounder, people's cynicism was fuelled. It was ironic that a committee trying to put Canada together could not get itself together.
It became clear that the committee would not be visiting many communities it originally planned to. The prospect of not being included in those deliberations was disheartening for many, including myself. It was against this background that I decided to organize and host my own constitutional forums for the people in my riding.
On November 18, 19 and 20 I held three such forums in the communities of Sturgeon Falls, North Bay and Mattawa. These meetings were advertised in advance as non-partisan avenues for people to come and participate in and share their views on whatever issues or topics were of concern to them. There would be no huge committee or travelling entourage, no public relations people or any such advisers. It was just myself, listening and taking notes without rebutting any participant regardless of my own opinions.
These forums turned out to be an overwhelming success. They were well attended and constituents got a chance to speak frankly without feeling intimidated on issues important to them. I must say I was very surprised with the amount of media coverage we received. It struck me as odd that a member of Parliament, basically doing his job in gathering the views of the people he represents, would obtain publicity from coast to coast. I could not believe the good wishes and praise I received from all quarters, regardless of political affiliation, for doing what I thought was a fairly simple exercise in democracy.
I say this to the House not to seek praise but rather to illustrate how detached many people feel from the political process; to demonstrate that we as politicians, and perhaps even the political process we symbolize, are quite literally out of touch with the people we claim to represent; to show that cynicism and negative attitudes can be overcome if parliamentarians do their jobs and
The Constitution
ensure that people are an integral part of the process. Moreover, in spite of what many people say, people are not so apathetic and indifferent as we are led to believe.
On the contrary, if given the opportunity, people are responsive and willing to take part in the process. I am left with the impression that to some degree it has been the almost paternalistic-like attitude in which politicians know best that has turned many off.
Now that I have stated my observations, I want to share with all members of the House the views of my constituents on the constitutional proposals. As I promised them, they would be presented in a non-partisan way and they would be forwarded to the joint committee for consideration, which I have done.
I want to begin with the issue of distinct society for Quebec. In the Meech Lake round this was the contentious issue. Now that the government has defined what it means, it appears to be less controversial and more acceptable. In Nipissing, a slim majority favours distinct society on the condition that it would not subordinate anyone else's rights. Perhaps the following statement from a constituent best summarizes this view: "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and promotion of a vibrant French speaking society in Quebec that protects the quality and influence of French as the expression of its culture and as the primary but not sole language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business".
There were two issues for which people were nearly unanimous in their support: Senate reform and parliamentary reform. On the question of Senate reform, the vast majority favoured the concept of a triple-E Senate, noting that some kind of counterbalance to representation by population was sorely needed. People were sensitive to and aware of the feeling of regional inequality on the part of the west and the maritimes.
However, there were some stipulations put on this support. A few felt that some seats should be reserved for women and natives. Others stated that an elected Senate should have a full range of powers and not just the limited scope the government is proposing.
Additionally the issue of the six-month suspensive veto came up several times. Everyone who commented felt that a three-month veto would be more appropriate

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
and would not unduly interfere with the workings of the House.
On the matter of the Senate's role in appointments, people did not want to see a ratification process similar to that in the U.S. They stated that they did not want them to become a media show or vindictive character assassinations.
Parliamentary reform was another interesting area. Practically everyone was in favour of the concept. Constituents stated that they wanted to see more referenda on issues of national importance and more free votes in the House to reflect the wishes of the people and not of party discipline. This last point was reflective of most people's concerns. We must ensure that our elected officials represent us as was promised by them on election day. They must be accountable for their actions and represent our feelings and not what their leaders want, stated one constituent.
Another comment was: "There has to be a more equitable line drawn between party politics and what people want". Citizens are asking that their representatives speak for them and not for their party.
It is clear that we have to change the way this House operates if we are to have any credibility in the eyes of our constituents. The statement that best summarizes this sentiment came from one participant who said that politicians are asking people to be reasonable and yet politicians behave like children in the House.
The general feeling was that although people support a strong central role in economic affairs, the powers necessary to fulfil this objective must not be given away. We cannot claim to want labour mobility and yet have no national training and educational standards. We cannot hope to compete in a global economy with such an unorganized, inefficient and uneven approach.
On the question of native self-government there is not much that needs to be said. My riding of Nipissing has a thriving native community and people there have been living in relative harmony for quite some time. As a result most, if not all, participants agree that self-government must be recognized and entrenched.
I have presented the views of my constituents on the main issues but I want to share with the House a few other comments and observations of a myriad of others I received. I heard from young people who felt they had
been neglected by the entire process. I heard from disabled persons who told me that disabled people should be recognized for their abilities. I heard about women's issues that were also very important and mentioned on several occasions.
In concluding, I want to thank the people of Nipissing for reaffirming my faith in this nation and the electorate. The constitutional forums proved to me that people care deeply about this country and are more than willing to keep it together.
I believe that a solution to our constitutional difficulties is within our grasp. All that is needed is for all politicians and decision-makers to park their egos at the door, stop the grandstanding, put the country first, and work out a compromise. We should not fear compromise for our country was built on it, not confrontation.
I would like to leave the House with one thought and one last statement from one of my constituents who said: "In the summer when I paddle down Trout Lake and the Mattawa River on the trade routes of our ancestors I am awed by our history and our culture. When I walk on a winter night and hear the frozen silence and see the moon break through the unpolluted skies I revel in the vastness and texture of our country. When I talk with Canadians from all cultures I am renewed by the opportunity to share their experience and yet strengthen their commonalities as Canadians".
This is Canada, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by quoting the renowned astronaut, Roberta Bondar, when she said as she spoke to the Prime Minister just a few weeks ago: "I would like to walk across every mile of our country Canada". She said this as she looked down on Canada from space.
Indeed, this is an important time for Canada. We are at a critical watershed in our history. We have always maintained that the constitutional choices we must face in the coming weeks and months are not about phrases, wording, or jargon but rather they are about people.
Canada is a diverse mix of many different and unique people. Our particular brilliance is in our accommodation of these differences, everyone is enriched.
February 13, 1992

In Scarborough we were privileged last fall to have the right hon. Joe Clark, Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs visit and participate in the very first community meeting in Canada to launch the government's proposals concerning our constitutional renewal. Over 600 people turned up for this exciting event at the Armenian Cultural Centre in Scarborough. There were numerous Canadian flags in evidence. There were Girl Guides and Boy Scouts who handed out flags to everyone. The Sea Cadets assisted. The Agincourt Collegiate Institute band played. There was applause, there were speeches and most of all there was this heartfelt dialogue about the future of our magnificent country of Canada. The concerned citizens shared their views with Mr. Clark and myself.
During the discussion in that first meeting there was a question from a young student from the Woburn Collegiate, Gary Pirtam. He did not ask a question about legal jargon, about an asymmetry arrangement or distinctiveness, but he asked one simple question: "Will you come back, Mr. Clark, and speak to the students, the young people of Scarborough?"
On January 15 a Unity Festival was held at Woburn Collegiate in Scarborough, sponsored by the Scarborough Board of Education. It was organized largely by students and staff and under the direct leadership of John Volpe, the principal of the school. Special thanks need to go to Earl Campbell, the director of education for Scarborough and the chairman of the board of education, Dianne Williams, for their work.
No less than 25 schools were represented, with over
1,000	students jamming into Woburn Collegiate for that event. The festival began with a choir that sang "Bridge Over Troubled Waters". It was a moving experience. Students from different schools and different backgrounds described what Canada was to each of them.
If our current dialogue is about our future as a country, then I say who better to listen to than the young men and women who are our collective future? Let me share with you some of the excerpts from the students' comments:
Bogart Quinn, who is a student at Alternate Scarborough Education, spoke:
The Constitution
One hundred and twenty years ago, a man named John A. Macdonald envisioned a society based on the precepts of tolerance, diversity and good will.
Inevitably, our future must lie in the hands of each and every Canadian, or fate will take its course. I only hope that the children of my generation will have a country to call a home, a country called Canada, that weathered its darkest storm and came out all the stronger.
Barbara Warner of Stephen Leacock Collegiate Institute said:
We must come to terms as to what Canada means to us, and what we see as Canada's future. For myself, I see a country whose economic troubles can only be overcome if unified. I see a country that treats all its citizens with respect. I see a country whose native peoples are self-governed, and whose traditions are preserved. I see a country that finds its strength in its diversity. I see Canada entering the twenty-first century united, and all Canadians looking forward together to a bright future.
Marcus Sharaput of Woburn Collegiate Institute added some prose:
As I grew up, I was told by the media, by my teachers and by society that my country does not have an identity. I will not and I cannot agree with this statement. Canada does have an identity, we simply do not brag about it. Canada is a country without rhetoric. Our past is not based on wars or great speeches, but on compromise and on consensus. Canada has heroes, we simply do not glorify them. Canada is a mature country, far more so than many nations who consider themselves our political elders and as such we must make a mature decision regarding the upcoming crisis. There are radicals on both sides of the unity question. But moderates on both sides realize that if Quebec separates the loss to Canada's economy, culture and identity would be irreplaceable.
There are people who wish to see the world in terms of black and white. Life is not that simple. We exist in a world of grey. No one side can be completely satisfied, we must reach a consensus, we must find a compromise.
On the question of Canadian unity and the question of black and white, it is our duty as citizens of this country to become involved. We must do whatever we can to help our leaders find a suitable shade of grey.
These are good words and advice for all of us from the students of Scarborough.
It was a thrilling day, ending with a unity march for Canada to the Scarborough city hall by hundreds of Scarborough students. They were led by the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario Horse Guards. It was a demonstration of love for Canada, a reaching out to other citizens, other students across Canada. As a follow-up 25 members of the Principal's Association of Scarborough will be travelling to Quebec on March 5 and 6 to meet with their counterparts in Montreal.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
I am proud of the enthusiasm and initiative the Scarborough students demonstrated. In fact, Scarborough hosts the largest Canada Day celebrations in metro Toronto. The planning is already under way for the festivities on July 1 toward a meaningful celebration to mark our 125th birthday.
Since being elected to the House of Commons, I have had the opportunity to serve on three parliamentary constitutional committees: the Committee of Equality Rights, Committee on the Companion Resolution to the Meech Lake Accord, as well as the Special Joint Committee on the Process of Amending the Constitution. Indeed, from these opportunities, I have learned a great deal about the country and about Canadians and I have heard of the love and respect that Canadians have for this country.
Let me turn to one of the specific proposals within the constitutional package. Someone said that our Constitution should be a mirror in which Canadians could see themselves reflected. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the proposals of the Canada clause. It sets out the values and the ideals which unite us as Canadians, concepts like equality, fairness, openness, diversity, tolerance and, of course, freedom. The Canada clause makes us proud to be Canadians.
One section of the Canada clause is that part which sets out our commitment to sustainable development, our unique responsibility to preserve and protect the environment which we share for future generations.
We have heard much talk over the past few months about the economy on one hand and the Constitution on the other. Some have argued that the two are separate and unrelated issues. A strong economy and a healthy environment are two of the pillars upon which we have built this magnificent nation. These two concepts are not themselves separate: a healthy environment and a strong resource base are both fundamental elements of a strong economy. Further, economic growth and prosperity are required to support wise resource and environmental management.
We are aware of the linkages between the environment and the economy. It is the basis of our commitment in the Canada clause to sustainable development. The government has proposed that sustainable development be entrenched into the Constitution itself. This is not just symbolism. Canada's green plan makes it very clear
that we are firmly on the path of sustainable development. It is a long-term and comprehensive plan of action that addresses Canadians three basic environmental desires: clean air, clean soil and clean water.
The constitutional proposals include additional measures for co-operation and co-ordination. They will allow governments to co-operate in establishing national objectives and standards and harmonizing policies and programs.
The young people of Scarborough, our young people of Canada, understand the importance of environmental protection and a united and strong Canada as the best way of making this happen.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this discussion tonight.
I would like to start by referring to a quotation by Sir Wilfrid Laurier that is contained in the booklet Shaping Canada's Future Together. The quotation reads as follows:
Canada has been the inspiration of my life. I have had before me-a policy of true Canadianism, of moderation, of conciliation. I have followed it consistently since 1896, and I now appeal with confidence to the whole Canadian people to uphold me in this policy of sound Canadianism which makes for the greatness of our country-
I talk about the Constitution and try to reflect the views of my constituents with some degree of apprehension. I do so for a reason. I speak tonight very frankly and very honestly. I think that is the purpose of these special sittings of the House.
Very frankly, my constituents are tired of listening to talk about the Constitution. They are tired of seeing politicians and others, some elected politicians and many non-elected politicians, rolling up their sleeves and intervening in the nuts and bolts of how our country works because they have a great fear that we are going to mess it up.
My constituents believe that much of what we have in Canada is worth preserving, that it is very good, that it has worked well, that it has made us a safe and prosperous land, one of the most blessed nations on earth.
At all costs, what we do in changing it must be a change for the better rather than a change for the worse. I think that part of their frustration about hearing us continuously talk about the Constitution is the fear that
February 13, 1992

somehow or other we are actually going to make matters much worse than they already are.
Part of it, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, is because they have reached the point where they mistrust political leaders at all levels. They start, of course, with the Prime Minister. All of us know that on both sides of the House of Commons, but it is not limited to him in particular. It extends to each member of Parliament as well as elected officials at the provincial and the municipal levels. There is a very great mistrust of the provincial premiers.
There are many other concerns that my constituents are more anxious to discuss with me than the Constitution. I suggest to you the first at the moment is the economy, and very close to that particularly in recent days with the news of the depletion of the ozone layer is the environment.
The message that I bring from my constituents is: For goodness sake, get this out of the way and get on to the issues that are really, truly important to us. That being said, I wish to override everything that follows with those comments. Indeed, what my constituents think are most important are not constitutional matters.
I have endeavoured to obtain their opinions on constitutional issues first of all by circulating a survey door-to-door within my constituency .This was done before the government's 28 proposals were made public. I gained, in response to that, about 1,400 individual answers from constituents to this series of questions.
In addition, I have held public discussions. We held a televised phone-in program on the Constitution to give people the opportunity to discuss it. On top of that, there were many calls, letters, and conversations with people throughout the constituency.
Ottawa South, Mr. Speaker, as you might not be surprised to hear is a constituency very in tune with federal politics. People in my constituency and in the national capital region have more at stake in this discussion than those in any other part of Canada. They follow it closely, they are well informed and they are very anxious to participate.
I have learned a number of things from my consultations. I would like to just summarize some of the messages. First of all, I think that there is a clear
The Constitution
identification with a Canada that is bilingual and multicultural. That message was revealed in my question about what the nature of Canada statement in the Constitution should include.
Fifty-four per cent said yes to an attachment to two official languages and 37 per cent said no. Sixty-six per cent believed that the diversity of our cultural heritage should be noted. I think this is very important: 77 per cent wanted a recognition of the role of our aboriginal people. I think that that is a particularly strong sentiment in Ottawa South.
There is also a great desire to see some changes to the institutions of our government, particularly reform of the Senate. A very large percentage wish to see the Senate elected and on reflection rather than from the survey but by subsequent discussions, a very strong reform of the House of Commons is desired as well.
The people of Ottawa South exhibit a very great attachment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has come out consistently in discussions that we have had. For that reason, people are very concerned about what goes into the charter and how it is given effect in our system of law.
It would be fair to say that many object to the use of the notwithstanding clause by any level of government. They would like to see it removed from the Constitution.
While we do not like to pre-judge the results of a referendum in Quebec, I would be failing to reflect the views of my constituents clearly if I did not say to those who wish to advocate an independent Quebec, particularly a sovereignist Quebec, that the people in my constituency do not consider sovereignty association to be an option available to the sovereignist movement in Quebec.
If they vote in that province to go apart from Canada, people will want to look very closely at the kind of negotiations that would occur. The option of saying they can have it both ways, that they can have a strong economic union with Canada and independence on the other hand, is simply not available in the views of the majority of my constituents. I must say to the members of the Bloc Quebecois that I share those views.
There is concern about the economic union. We are united on the need for strong social programs. Whether

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
it is put in the context of a social charter or whether it is simply said, Canadians are united in their desire to share nationally the kind of programs we have become so attached to, particularly our health care system and our educational system.
There is also a recognition that in order to successfully maintain that social network, we are going to have to have a strong economic union. That includes the reduction and eventual elimination of trade barriers between and among our provinces.
About 500 of those trade barriers do a few things. First of all, they limit our prosperity because they limit our ability to trade freely with one another.
Second, they make us much more vulnerable than we would otherwise be to the pressures of internationalization that are occurring despite our best efforts.
Instead of being 10 little markets as we economically are at the moment, we should be one little market which is all that Canada can be. At least it would be much bigger than any of our provinces are on their own so that we can in preserving our national identity resist as much as possible those global pressures.
Finally, I would like to note the value that our people see in Canada. We offer to the world something that truly is unique. We offer a country which has a view of the world that says that bigger and stronger is not always better. We offer a view that says we need to look after our poor, our weak, our sick while rewarding talent, skill and enterprise. We need to continue to put forward on the world stage a view that says it is no shame to seek compromise where others see only conflict. This is what has made Canada great.
I conclude by one last comment on my own fears. Two days ago, two young Canadians, Lloyd Eisler and Isabelle Brasseur, distinguished Canada by winning the bronze medal in the Olympic Games.
As I watched our national newscast that night, what did I see? Not a celebration that these young Canadians were the third best in the world. I saw clips of Isabelle falling as she did perhaps once or twice in a long program.
Why is it that instead of focusing on the few things that maybe do not go perfectly in our country, why do we not focus on the things that make us so great.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I stand here tonight as a Canadian, someone of Scottish descent whose family landed on the shores of Canada some 160 years ago in Broad Cove in Cape Breton. This makes me a fifth generation Canadian of Scottish heritage. I had a great uncle who represented the riding of Inverness County in Cape Breton in the early 1920s. I am very pleased to now represent a riding in northern Ontario, the riding of Timiskaming.
Over the last number of weeks and months I have had the opportunity to travel in my riding. I have had constituents come into my office. I have had letters and phone calls, talking not only about the Constitution. Quite frankly, in my riding the number one concern within the hearts and livelihoods of my constituents is the economy. We are going through some very difficult times. We know that if we as a country are divided, we are never going to be able to ensure stability or a future for those of us who are living in parts of the regions today and our families of tomorrow.
When talking with my constituents, one concern came out very loud and very clear from veterans who have served in three wars and individuals who have immigrated from other parts of the world to Timiskaming, whether it was in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or into the 1980s, or our francophone community which makes up 27 per cent of my riding. Every one of them made it very clear to me that they are not a hyphenated Canadian, they are Canadian.
Those who fought in those wars fought for the security and the future of Canada from coast to coast and to ensure that our young people would have the opportunity for the freedom that everyone in this room here tonight has and what all Canadians have been able to enjoy.
I would just like to take one moment and quote a few lines out of just one of the many letters I have received from my constituents. "We Canadians should show more of what we believe in. We do not show that we are proud of our country and I am always surprised at the July 1 celebrations how few Canadian flags are flying in our town. Hardly any. We have to be more outgoing to tell
February 13, 1992

others that we love our country and to tell our friends in Quebec that they are part of a lovely country and we love them very much. What is wrong with our country right now is that we listen only to minorities. We are a melting pot, but there should be standards which are Canadian. I came to Canada 25 years ago and 20 years later I became a Canadian citizen. When I decided to become a Canadian I also made a decision to be part of the community and fit in. I never thought of imposing some things as a minority to the rest of the country. The Lord's Prayer is no longer said in public schools because it hurts a minority. The Mounties can wear turbans and youths are allowed to wear daggers because of religious beliefs. We give in to all minority rights because of the Charter of Rights. This Charter of Rights clause can be misused and it is misused. It is impossible to please everyone".
That is just one of many comments I have received from my constituents.
Canadians have always been noted as being builders of a country. We go back to Sir John A. Macdonald and the rail system that tied this country together from coast to coast, John Diefenbaker and the Roads to Resources, visions of tying this country together. Today our present Prime Minister has a vision of what the future should be. Whether we are talking about the Constitution, the future of this country or looking at the free trade agreement, some will think today that we may be wrong, but history will certainly indicate that it was the right decision.
Consider how we have been able to build together in the past 30 years. Within the lifetime of most of us in this room tonight, since 1961, we have had the second highest rate of growth among the G-7 nations, the second highest rate of investment growth, the highest rate of job creation in the OECD countries. We never hear about that. We never hear about the positive response that is taking place in this country.
I think as Canadians that one of the biggest problems we face is that we have a tendency to live within our own little area and be ones to complain about, discouraged about but not looking at, the over-all approach of what this country is all about. The fact is that one of the greatest problems we face in this country is we really do not understand and know more about each other, about those of us in northern Ontario who may know more
The Constitution
about those in B.C. or in the province of Quebec or in Newfoundland.
I think that is one of the reasons why this country is having difficulties, a combination within our educational system and a combination that maybe sometimes we should be looking at spending more time in our own country, talking with each other, understanding the differences between urban and rural Canada, between the north and the south and the east and the west.
Last year, in fact on this day, the Prime Minister was in Quebec City. He warned Canadians about the damaging effects the focus of disunity will have if we allow them to dominate the national unity debate. The Prime Minister told us at that point: "Watch out for the dream merchants, those who say it is no problem to destroy a great country and to rebuild it later, those who claim that they alone can change the course of history". Truer words have not been spoken.
No one can question the commitment of this government, the commitment of ensuring that this country remains together, grows together and becomes stronger with a more collective effort. In Toronto last February the Prime Minister made a clear heartfelt statement that all Canadians should be proud.
Let me make it clear, Canada is not up for grabs. Either we have a country or we do not. We cannot have it both ways. My country is Canada and I intend to strengthen it and I intend to keep it.
There are two last comments I would like to make. John Diefenbaker said in 1967: "Canada needs a renewed sense of national purpose. We need to maintain and to strengthen the basic foundations of the Constitution. We need to instil in every Canadian the spirit of Sir George Cartier. Before all, let's be Canadians".
I was born a Canadian and I plan to die a Canadian.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands some 38 photocopies of posters, letters, some of the letters hand written, some printed, all of them with a common theme. They are from a group of grade 5 elementary students at Mountain View Elementary in Nanaimo. They are addressed to any group of grade 5 students in the province of Quebec which believes in the future of Canada, which wants to, as they put it, save Canada.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
I could not help but think as I was reading these letters and waiting for my opportunity to speak that had Canada spent a great deal more money on student exchanges between English speaking communities anywhere in Canada and French speaking communities anywhere in Canada and a lot less money on commissions that travelled this country from one end to the other, perhaps we would not have the problem that we have today. I wish that that program were pushed and that we quit examining ourselves as much as we have done.
I sent the letters on. These are photocopies. I never heard whether they were answered. As I say, they were all written in English because those students on Vancouver Island could not write in our other language, the other official language of Canada.
Those letters were sent to me in May of last year. In June the Nanaimo NDP organization organized a public meeting and invited people to come to talk about the Constitution. It started at ten o'clock on a Saturday morning, adjourned for lunch but the discussion at lunch was all about the morning's agenda, carried on in the afternoon until 5 p.m. There were some 60 people present. There was an MP there. It was not myself. I was there to greet them in the morning, but I had other duties. One of the members of the joint committee, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, was there. He told me afterward what a great meeting it was and how positive the feeling was in my community, at least as represented by the people who attended that meeting on a Saturday. I was encouraged by that.
In October, I believe it was, one of the local newspapers, the Nanaimo Bulletin, printed a ballot on the front page and the paper went to almost everybody in the community. The person who did the ballot, Merv Unger who worked for the paper then, told me how surprised and pleased he was with the volume of the response. I was not so pleased with the content. A lot of negative feelings were expressed.
By that time there were negative feelings being expressed. Whether it was because these people were associated with the Reform Party or not I do not know. They were expressing their concerns that one province in Canada was trying to lead us to destruction and their
attitude was: "Why not let them go?". That feeling was prevalent but was not the majority. The majority of the people in that ballot, at least as quickly as I could determine from going through the ballots, wanted Canada to be saved, wanted us to stay together as one country.
In November my office sent out a householder. It was not a large effort. It took five sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper, including the cover. It talked briefly about the issues before us in considering the Constitution. In each case it raised a couple of questions about each one of these issues. It ended up inviting the people receiving it to write in and ask for a much more extensive paper on the subject of the Constitution and a ballot that they could fill in and mail back to me. Some 45,000 of these went out to the riding. It is a large riding; it took that many to cover all of the households. Some 1,205 wrote in asking for a copy of the background paper that was offered, a 38-page document. They also wanted the 29-page ballot that was offered along with it.
I was encouraged by the response. A high proportion of the people who got the householder did ask for the background paper because they were interested in the subject. They did ask for the ballot because they wanted to let me know how they felt about the issues. Some of them in their letters, expressed concerns wondering whether I would pay any attention to the answers.
It is not too hard because I agree with the majority vote from my constituency as represented by the people who have spoken to me, by the people who have written to me, and by the people who have submitted the ballots. I wish more ballots had come in, but I am pleased with the response as indicated by the ones who did submit the ballots so far, and they are still coming in.
I do not intend to go into any great detail on the content of this. It is one of the things that I will be submitting to the committee this evening. I could read from the conclusion of a six-page document that has been prepared reporting on the ballots that have been received. This will go along with the ballots to the committee. Part of the conclusion states: "The results indicate thoughtfulness and intelligence on the part of the constituents of Nanaimo-Cowichan, along with a very sincere desire to be informed on the issues and to offer a contribution. Perhaps the clearest observation
February 13, 1992

from this survey is that we need not fear the knowledge and opinions of Canadian people".
I heartily endorse that report as well.
In July 1990 Canada Day was on a Sunday. I received a letter. The same letter went to the mayor of Nanaimo and to the MLA. All three of us were asked to come to church, the Evangelical Church, on Sunday and to tell the congregation how we felt about Canada. It is the only organization that I know of that has done something like that, the only church organization. I am sure they all feel that way, but nevertheless that church invited the three of us.
On Canada Day in 1991 the same three people were invited back once again to tell the same stoiy. I was asked to speak first and I told the congregation how I felt about Canada. The member of the legislative assembly told the meeting how he felt and the mayor did as well. Mayor Frank Ney said something in his concluding remarks that I wish I had said. He said that looking at the group reminded him of elementary school students, for there was a preponderance of young people in that church congregation. He said that we have to save Canada, we have to keep Canada together for the sake of the young people in this congregation, in this community, and in this country. I wish I had said something like that.
I am speaking for the majority of my constituents, even the students, when I say that I want Canada to survive. I am prepared to sit down and talk with anyone who comes to me and says that yes, Canada is our home. We are sharing it with some 28 million inhabitants, some of whom are descendants of people who have been here for thousands of years, perhaps. Others have come from all parts of the world more recently. We are sharing it together, the best place in the world, the best home in the world for its 28 million inhabitants.
Those people say that we can make it better, that we should sit down and work together and discuss how we might make it a better place for all of us. With that person I will sit down and talk. I will listen. Together I hope we can work something out for the benefit of all of us.
If someone came to me and said that this home of ours might be good but it could be better if we split it asunder, divided it, and some of us might be better off than we are
The Constitution
right now, I would not be prepared to discuss anything with that person.
There are others who will say that we have to break it apart to make it a better place, that after we have broken it apart perhaps everybody may be better off. I am not prepared to sit down and discuss anything with that person.
Canada is the best place in the world.
A letter was read much earlier this evening that probably went to everyone expressing better than most of us can just how we feel about Canada. It is my home. I was bom here. No one has the right to destroy my home. They have the right to share it. They have the right with me to try to make it better, but they have no right to gamble on destroying it to make it better or to make it better for a few.
That is the voice from my community. We are not prepared to be threatened. We are not prepared to offer ourselves up to the possibility of blackmail, but we are prepared to sit down and talk with anyone who wants to work with us to make it a better place in which we can all live.
That is the kind of Canada I want.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate this evening because it is important that sovereignists from Quebec explain to the rest of Canada what is really going on in our province.
The members of Parliament from Quebec, most of which are Conservatives, have nothing to gain by explaining to Canadians what is going on in Quebec because it would harm their respective parties in the rest of Canada. Therefore, this evening I wish to inform Canada of the opinions of our constituents.
Some members have talked about surveys or have expressed their opinions following discussions in their ridings. I will talk about the best possible survey, which is an election.
I was elected under the Bloc Quebecois banner, whose program is open, frankly and clearly geared toward sovereignty. The results left no doubt in anyone's mind. The Bloc Quebecois got 68 per cent of the votes; the Liberal party 19 per cent; the NDP 8 per cent; and the Conservatives, who form the government, 3.9 per cent. In my opinion, this is very telling. Why did we get those

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
results? I believe it is essentially because Quebec is not a distinct society but a distinct nation which, for decades now, has been defining, organizing and developing itself. The failure of Meech Lake was a turning point in this long process.
Following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, the Government of Quebec set up the Belanger-Campeau commission which, with utmost rigour, towed the province of Quebec and arrived at some conclusions: we must put an end to the political uncertainty because it affects the development of Quebec. The commission proposed the holding of a referendum on sovereignty in 1992, and that recommendation was included in Bill 150 by the Government of Quebec. In this bill, the Government of Quebec specifies that sovereignty simply means that Quebec will be the only jurisdiction to raise taxes, legislate on its territory and sign international treaties.
This project of a sovereign Quebec is both modern and democratic, and it is aimed at creating a society without racism, sexism and violence. A sovereign Quebec will recognize four groups: the francophone majority, of course, but also the anglophone minority, the aboriginal peoples and the ethnic and cultural minorities. The collective rights of each of these groups will be enshrined in the constitution of a sovereign Quebec.
This is a modern project which does not go against history, in spite of what some may say. If you look at the situation in the world right now, you will notice that there are two main trends: one is the birth of countries- that was the case in eastern Europe where nations finally created their countries-and the other is the creation of economic groups, such as the common market in Europe and the free trade agreement between the United States and Canada. Even if that agreement was badly drafted, the fact remains that it follows the current trend. There will be more and more of these economic concentrations.
Mr. Francois Mitterrand, who surely knows about these issues, was quite right when he said that to fully participate in an organization, you must first be yourself.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of relevance. The hon. member, if I follow his remarks, seems to be discussing the history of the evolution of the common market in Europe. I understood the purpose of the debate was to report to the House on the views of each of our constituencies relative to the constitutional debate. Perhaps the member could take that into account.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Although he is a fairly new member, I know that he is going to get to the point. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has drawn that to his attention.


Gilles Duceppe: There is no problem, Mr. Speaker. After all the detours I heard tonight, I suppose I am getting right to the point.
Given these two major trends, we must realize that Canada cannot develop as a country now, nor can Quebec, because each prevents the other from doing so. Canadians want a strong central government, national standards, a country in their image. And Quebecers too want a country in their image.
To take the example that Brian Mulroney and the Liberal leader Jean Chretien often use when they talk to us about the European Economic Community, they should first of all realize that the strength of the common market is that it is made up of sovereign countries which all freely agree to cooperate with one another in the economic sphere. That is realistic.
We must be careful and beware of people who get away from realism. I am thinking of those who talk about violence, about partitioning the territory of Quebec; among them are some university professors. It is strange to see these people hail the birth of countries in eastern Europe and talk about violence here. Those countries were oppressed, their situation was very different from Quebec's, I admit, but is it logical to say that the democratic will of Quebecers could not be recognized unless there were violence beforehand? That seems dishonest and undemocratic to me.
We must also beware of the inconsistency of some arguments. Many people, including Ovide Mercredi, tell us that Quebec is not a people, not a nation. In English, "distinct" means "superior". And yet, I heard all of
February 13, 1992

Canada applaud the agreement made between Premier Rae of Ontario and the First Nations. This agreement says at the beginning:

Whereas the First Nations represented by the Chiefs in Assembly, hereafter, the First Nations exist in Ontario as a distinct nation.

You see, aboriginal people can be nations and no one makes a fuss. They can be distinct nations, but for some reason, Quebec is different. I must say the logic escapes me.
Some more false premises. They say Quebec gets more from the federal government than it pays out. The Belanger-Campeau commission proved that over a long period of time, we receive as much as we give, except that we receive it in the form of unemployment insurance. Ontario gets it in the form of research and development and industrial grants. This produces countries and economies that are totally different.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Quebec gives more. Once Quebec is independent, I don't think its economy would be in any great danger, if we give more than we receive. And assuming that Quebec receives more than it gives, is Quebec so popular that Canadians would be prepared to pay us to stay in Canada? I doubt it Mr. Speaker. I doubt it very much.
Finally, I want to respond to a statement by a member of this House who said there would no more negotiations once Quebec was sovereign. Let's be realistic. I wish members who say that would go to Oshawa and explain to workers in the automobile industry that they will have to go on unemployment insurance out of patriotism, because Canada cannot sell any more cars to those poor Quebecers who will have to make them themselves or buy them in the United States. That doesn't make sense. I would like to see that same member tell western farmers they will have to eat all their beef or watch the carcasses rot, instead of selling them to Quebec. This does not make sense.
I submit there are mutual interests. There are 100,000 jobs in Ontario that depend on the Quebec market. In
The Constitution
Ontario, when workers at de Havilland saw Bombardier would save their jobs, they didn't care whether the money came from Quebec, Taiwan, Japan or Ontario.
I hope we will end this uncertainty. I hope we will stop preventing each other from having the kind of country we want. Build the kind of country you want. Build a great country. We will build the Quebec that Quebecers want, and then we will have the kind of normal relationship that exists between two sovereign, modem and democratic countries that will probably get along better than we do today.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, to preface my remarks, I just listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member preceding me.
I cannot doubt, nor should Canadians doubt, the sincerity of his remarks and his pride in the history of French Canada, its heritage and its feeling of being a nation.
This time slot here has been allocated to permit us time, as MPs, to report to Parliament on the views of our constituents on the subject of constitutional reform.
The means in Scarborough-Rouge River have been the fairly routine; letters, phone calls and discussions held in various parts of the riding and one survey some months ago. That survey was not necessarily the most scientific of surveys but it was indeed a survey. Maybe it is not perfectly representative of everyone's view in the riding-no survey can be-but it was very real. It was very true, and the results will accurately reflect the views of the individuals who reported. The first thing I want to do is report very briefly on the results of that survey.
Relative to the issue of the constitutional statement on the nature of Canada, sometimes called the Canada clause, on attachment to the two official languages, there was substantial majority in favour of that.
On diversity of Canadian heritage, on the role of aboriginals, there were substantial majorities in favour of those two.
On the issue of the distinct character of Quebec's society, there was division.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
On the elimination of provincial barriers to trade and commerce and the movement of capital, there was a substantial majority in favour.
In relation to the election of a Senate, there was a substantial majority in favour. On the actual role, function and powers of a Senate, there was less agreement; in fact, there was division, but there was clearly a tendency among the electors of Scarborough-Rouge River to have a Senate with more oversight powers, oversight over government, review powers and to ensure that the Senate had the effective power to deal with those types of initiatives.
On the role of the provinces or territories, in a decision as to whether or not there would be a new province in a particular territory, there was substantial support for the decision to be made jointly by the federal government and the territory, and there was little support for the role of other provinces in that decision.
On the role of the provinces and territories in the selection or appointment of Supreme Court judges, there was a substantial majority supporting a role for the provinces in that selection or appointment.
Last, on provincial or regional constitutional vetoes on constitutional matters outside of the existing section 41 veto, there was division. There was clear division and uncertainty as to which entity, which region, which provinces should have a veto.
That is a quick summary of the survey.
Scarborough-Rouge River is an urban southern Ontario riding. It contains a balance, and I use the word advisedly, a true balance between new Canadians and not-so-new Canadians. It is clear, with virtually no exceptions, that every single one of us is proud to be a Canadian. We are proud of our history, we are excited by our country's future prospects, even in the middle of this very cruel and damaging recession.
My constituents want a strong Canada with a national government that works. They definitely believe that they are over-governed. As citizens of the city of Scarborough, they feel they are over-governed. We have a city government, we have a metropolitan Toronto government, we have a provincial government and we have our federal government. We know that very well because every nickel that it takes to run and operate each of
those governments is going to come out of our pockets as taxpayers.
There is frustration out there that the reform and the cost efficiencies which they would like to see happen may be eluding them as an electorate, and eluding us as elected. They are frustrated by that and they clearly wish to see more.
The constituents of Scarborough-Rouge River are demanding that all levels of government take up the challenge to limit the growth of government, reduce the cost of government and purge government of duplication and redundancy.
On the constitutional reform agenda, as proposed by the government, there is one school of thought that says: "Stop the nonsense, stop the exercise. We do not want to deal with the Constitution now. The big issue, the only issue is the economy". I suppose if you are out of a job that would be a very natural predisposition.
There is the other school of thought that says: "Legislators please, get right to the task of constitutional reform. Don't delay it. Deal with it quickly and then let us get on to all of the other important issues which we must deal with, including the economy, crime and violence, health care costs, education and training our youth and all of the very many other issues".
To close this perspective on the views of the constituents of Scarborough-Rouge River, to refer to the upcoming national government negotiations with the provincial governments on constitutional reform, including the Quebec government, the residents of Scarborough-Rouge River want a country that is whole. They want a country that has a modem viable constitution. They do not want a constitution at any cost.
We want one that all Canadians can join in confidence and continue to build our futures, a country that is home for our French speaking Canadians and the great French Canadian heritage that is there and a home for all others, each of us with a heritage of which we are proud.
The constituents of Scarborough-Rouge River are ready for the constitutional challenges of the next few months. They challenge all of their elected representatives on the related matters that I have spoken to earlier in my remarks.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I too am absolutely delighted to be able to rise in this House tonight and speak on the Constitution, and with all
February 13, 1992

others in the House of Commons, to speak to the issues that the residents of my constituency, which is Nepean, have presented to me on issues of constitutional matters.
In April of last year, I sent a questionnaire to all of my constituents, asking them for their thoughts, ideas, suggestions and concerns regarding the constitutional debate and the future of Canada. The overwhelming response that I received was compiled into a report entitled "Canada: A Phoenix Rising" and a copy was sent to the Spicer commission and to all members of Parliament and senators.
Since then the residents of Nepean have continued to demonstrate a keen interest and a strong desire to play a role in the constitutional debate. Many have called my office to request copies of the government proposals and summaries of the recent constitutional conferences. They have expressed frustration at the inability of the government to give straight answers about the proposals and they have expressed anger at the seemingly endless string of committees, whether it is the Spicer, Beaudoin-Edwards, Dobbie-Castonguay and now the Beaudoin-Dobbie. They are most anxious to get to the real issues that are facing the country, such as the economy, jobs and unemployment.
Last month I again compiled the views of some constituents and submitted these views as a brief to the special joint committee. Half a year after they had first had an opportunity to air their views, the most marked change that I noticed was in the frustration that they felt. Did all of these committees and forums mean anything? Were their views really being listened to? Or was the special joint committee just another exercise in smoke and mirrors, another attempt by the government to fool the people of Canada into thinking that their opinions really mattered?
Today I once again put forward the opinions of the constituents in the hope that this government will listen to their hopes for this country and will heed their concerns when the final report of the special joint committee for a renewed Canada is submitted.
Perhaps the most frequent comment about the package of proposals as a whole was the vagueness and ambiguity of the wording. The Constitution as a document that will shape Canada into the 21st century must be clear and it must be precise.
The Constitution
A second point which many agreed on was the need for all Canadians to have the last word on whether the final document was acceptable, the need for a referendum where people could give or withhold their consent specifically to the constitutional document.
The economy was foremost in many minds, especially now in these difficult times.
A clear distinction between federal and provincial jurisdiction is needed to ensure that adequate responsibility is taken for matters such as education and health care.
Also, Canadians in all parts of the country should have equal opportunity for prosperity and advancement.
Many Nepean residents were worried that by designating Quebec as a distinct group other equally distinct groups will be neglected. Residents of Nepean for the most part are proud to live in a country that is both multicultural and bilingual.
However, they did feel that a review of how we are implementing both of those concepts should be undertaken and that the Government of Canada must ensure the rights of all Canadians within a multicultural and bilingual framework, the majority as well as the minority.
Although only a very small number of my constituents are aboriginal, many are concerned that the First Nations of this country, people who have contributed so much to making Canada what it is, have been neglected.
In September, my provincial colleagues and I held a forum entitled "Shaping Our Future-Canada's Aboriginals Speak Out".
Interesting questions about a variety of issues were raised including self-government and education. The many people who attended came away with a clear understanding of who the First Nations of Canada are and what it is that they want to gain from the constitutional debate.
The inclusion of a Canada clause was generally approved of and affirmation of the Canadian identity is crucial to growth and prosperity. Identification with Canada as one strong united country should be a priority for all Canadians. However, as with all parts of a package, the wording must be very carefully developed

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
to ensure that the inherent nature of our country is protected.
Finally, the stronger leadership and more responsive and responsible government topped many agendas. Nepean residents want a House of Commons that is less partisan and a Senate that is elected and effective.
I would like to share with you some specific recommendations that were made by several residents of the city of Nepean.
One is a recommendation for Senate reform that was suggested by Mr. Tony Colven of Nepean. He recommends a Senate that would be elected from the entire national electorate with candidates standing for constituencies that represent concerns rather than places.
Any legitimate group able to assemble a specific minimum membership could put forward a slate of senatorial candidates arranged in order of popularity. All Canadians could then vote according to major concerns.
Although such a process would be unlikely to produce a dominant group, it would be capable of providing a broad base of opinion that would increase the effectiveness and the responsibility of the Senate.
Mr. Malcolm Smith says: "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not protected the English minority in Quebec from the repressive language laws, nor has the Parliament of Canada".
Mr. Jacques Roy says: "Canada must be a global economic power to secure and maintain a good standard of living. All Canadians must identify with Canada first. As long as we will endeavour to cultivate two or more different cultures without the vision of a united and strong Canada, and as long as we continue to ensure that they are different and separate, we will not develop a Canadian identity".
Mr. Jim Rennie says: "Let's try to analyse the reasons why some of the residents of Quebec support separation and let us come up with a strategy to undo all of the adverse rhetoric and get this country pulling together".
Mr. Paul Bender says: "We can and should learn from the native peoples of Canada who identify more with the environment than with possessions and monetary wealth".
I want to thank my constituents who responded. I had in the area of 700 responses. I do not wish to indicate that they are representative of all of the people of Nepean because they certainly are not.
I want to thank them for taking the time and making so many valuable contributions to this debate which is so crucial to Canada's future through "Canada-A Phoenix Rising" and through my more recent report to the special joint committee on a renewed Canada. I have tried to represent these views as accurately as possible here in the House of Commons.
Now I ask the government: Please listen to the voices of the people of Canada. Please consider carefully all viewpoints and perspectives including those of my constituents of Nepean. Please when the final report is tabled make sure that it will help a united Canada to grow and to prosper into the future.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity afforded members in the House to speak on the Constitution and for these special sittings which afford us that opportunity.
Each of us has received letters from our constituents and indeed from people from across the country on their thoughts on the Constitution. I want to read just a couple of paragraphs from one letter that I received.
"For me, Canada is more than a country and more than a nation. Canada, for me, is the idea of the ideal society of the future and an example for the rest of the world to follow. Canada, for me, is tolerance, open channels of communication and peaceful means of solving differences of opinion and disagreements. Canada, for me, is a great open society in which everyone is equal and at the same time can be unique and distinct while an integral part of it. For me, Canada is a ray of hope, shining in the sky of humanity and the greatest country on earth."
I felt that I should include that in my speech tonight because those are words that I perhaps wish I had penned. I want to quote from Sir John A. Macdonald who said: "Let us be English or let us be French, but above all, let us be Canadians."
Being Canadian is infinitely more important than being Liberal, Conservative or NDP, whether we are from the right or from the left, labour or business, or
February 13, 1992

whether we are from the east or the west or from the north.
An excellent speech came across my desk from Mr. Allan Taylor, chairman and chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada. I want to read a part of his speech into the record tonight.
"What Canadians should be asking themselves first and very explicitly is whether disunity is the answer to the challenges we face.
Do we really need to blow Canada apart to meet Quebec's historic concerns? Quebec is a unique cultural island of six million French-speaking people in an ocean of 270 million people working and living in English. Quebec is a distinct society.
Do we really need to destroy Canada to recognize and protect that reality? I say no. Do we really need to blow Canada apart to understand and address the deep alienation in the west where many people believe that our national institutions are dominated by a deaf and unfeeling eastern majority? Do we really need to destroy Canada to recognize and correct that concern? I say no. Do we really need to blow Canada apart to meet the deep felt concerns of people in Atlantic Canada?
Do we have to destroy Canada to solve the very real structural economic problems? I say no.
Do we really need to blow Canada apart to give the First Nations the power to participate directly in determining their own destiny within Canada? Rights they have been denied for too long? Again I say no.
Do we really need to blow Canada apart to address the vital need for greater harmonization of federal and provincial policies and cutting the wasteful duplication of cost?
Do we really need to blow Canada apart to make us understand Canada is already part of a much larger international economic union and so must have a strong domestic economic union to survive? Again I say no.
That separation would be relatively easy and without cost is not just a dangerous delusion. It is a real world impossibility."
I want to take a look at our early history, the Quebec Act. This was an act which was legislated in 1774. It was an act for making more effective provision for the government of the province of Quebec in North
The Constitution
America. It was a British statute which received Royal Assent on June 22, 1774 and became effective May 1, 1775.
Religious freedom was guaranteed for the colony's Roman Catholic majority and a simplified test oath which omitted references to religion enabled them to enter public office conscientiously.
The act established French civil law and British criminal law, and provided for continued use of the seigniorial system. It effectively guaranteed the survival of the ancien regime society in North America.
Territorial expansion was a recognition of Montreal's role in the continental economy and the act returned to the Quebec economy its traditional links with the fisheries and interior fur trade.
Then in the spring of 1791, over 200 years ago, the House of Commons at Westminster passed an act. After being consented to by the House of Lords that act received the assent of King George III on June 10. From that time on, it would be known as the Constitution Act, 1791.
What the act did was it created two provinces, Lower and Upper Canada. It set their boundaries and laid down their powers, privileges and prerogatives. It also authorized the establishment of electoral ridings and the holding of elections to Parliament.
Upper Canada, what we call today Ontario, which is my province, lived its first democratic experiences in 1791. The creation of that province's parliamentary institutions followed the same chronology as Quebec's. Geography then has made us neighbours. Reality on day to day business make us partners.
This may come as a surprise to many of my constituents and people throughout the country, but there have been exchanges between the members of Ontario's Legislative Assembly and those of the Quebec National Assembly.
During the summer of 1991, members of the National Assembly and members from Queen's Park recalled the days of the travelling Parliament and of the first sittings in 1792. They visited the sights of the first sessions in Quebec City, in Montreal, in Kingston, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Toronto.

The Constitution
This, I think, is an excellent example of getting to know our country. The year 1867 brought us the British North America Act and Confederation. But it was three years earlier when the proposition was put forward, that the maritime provinces should form a union.
Prince Edward Island, the smallest, fearful that it could be swallowed up in the union insisted the meetings be held in Charlottetown. The Canadians, that is those people from Ontario and Quebec, their leaders heard about it and asked to be invited.
Discussions were held over the divisions of powers, an upper chamber and the judiciary. Then in 1867, the union was formed and the rest is history.
I suggest that we do not know each other as Canadians.
Sadly, my own example may reflect the experience of others in this Chamber or certainly some of my readers. Before I was elected in 1979, I travelled overseas to 12 countries. I visited the United States many times and travelled through to the south to Florida and had yet to go to the province of Quebec before I was elected in 1979 here in my own country.
People of my generation had travel patterns that were north and south rather than an east and west pattern, south into the United States, including the vacation land of Florida.
Perhaps that, too, has been the pattern of residents in some of our other provinces, for example the Atlantic provinces. Perhaps they have travelled into the New England states rather than visiting the rest of Canada.
People in Ontario and Quebec travelled to Florida. Western Canadians travelled down to the states of Washington and California into Oregon and the Dakotas.
Sadly, we do not know our fellow Canadians and do not have an appreciation for the beautiful country that we live in.
I hope that will change. I hope that will change because of the debates that we are having and the turmoil that we are in at the present time regarding our Constitution, and the fearful thought that Quebec might separate.
I hope that the teachers in our schools will spark the imagination of students with our wonderful Canadian history that we have.
In conclusion, Cartier said of Confederation in 1867: "We sealed our pact without bloodshed and without exploitation of the weak by the strong. All it took was fairness, justice, and some compromises on both sides. I hope that if it must be amended it will not be to the narrow principles of fairness on which it was founded but rather to enlarge them even more".
I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to speak to this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for York South-Weston, followed by the hon. member for St. Catharines, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Madapedia-Matane,.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say how grateful or pleased I am to be able to have the opportunity to speak to this matter this evening, but I have to ask myself whether this Parliament has its priorities straight.
We just came back from a rather extended leave. Most MPs had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in their constituencies, to speak to their constituents, and to ask them what was concerning them, what the important issues are. It is abundantly clear and obvious that as far as the Constitution goes Canadians just are not that concerned about the Constitution in terms of it being a priority.
Here we are having a special sitting of the House and I am probably competing with Murphy Brown, Cheers or the Olympics. This is not the only evening; we have had other evenings set aside to talk about the Constitution.
Here we are talking about the Constitution when 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed, when over 2 million Canadians are on welfare. We have set aside parliamentary time to talk about the Constitution when the most important issues in this country are jobs and the economy. Do not think the unemployed in this country are panting, listening to parliamentarians talking about the Constitution, asymmetrical federalism and a distinct society.
Do you think they are concerned about distinct societies when they do not even know where the next rent cheque is going to come from, when they do not know
February 13, 1992

where the next mortgage payment is going to come from? I think we should put this in perspective. This is not the burning issue in the streets of Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, Edmonton, or Saskatoon. The burning issue is the economy. When is this Parliament going to get serious and relevant in terms of what is important to the people of Canada? We should be setting aside parliamentary time to talk about the ways and the ideas we have to put Canadians back to work, to put the country back to work, in order to ensure that we can continue to afford and support medicare, post-secondary education and to ensure a prosperous future for our children and grandchildren.
We should be debating the economy. We should be debating all weekend. This Chamber should be filled with MPs. The Senate should be sitting all weekend to find ways, to talk about ideas or methods to get people back to work. Here we are talking about asymmetric federalism, distinct societies, entrenchment of this, entrenchment of that. Yes, it is important, but Canadians are fed up to here. They are fed up listening to politicians, people in the media, intellectuals, law professors, the elite, the snobs.
When I speak, I speak of the views of my constituents as well. They want this Parliament to deal with the real issues that are of importance to Canadians. Last spring, like many other members of Parliament, I sent out a survey. There were 40 questions in the survey that I sent out in the riding of York South-Weston and question 36 was: Please rank in order of importance how you think the federal government's agenda should be prioritized. This was last spring, last May. I should point out that over 1,500 constituents took the time to respond to this particular survey. It is not a scientific survey-and hundreds of others wrote letters-but 1,500 people took the 15 or 20 or 30 minutes that it took to complete it.
What did they think were the issues of importance? I listed five issues: defence, Constitution, environment, economy and social programs. The number one issue, you are right, the economy. The second issue of concern was the environment; the third, social programs; the fourth, the Constitution and fifth, defence. That is what is of concern to the people of York South-Weston.
The Constitution
I asked them general questions. I asked people how they felt about the future. Remember, this is almost a year ago. A lot has happened in the year, the recession has deepened, more Canadians have become unemployed. The mood out there is not any better; if anything, it has become a little worse. I asked people: "How do you feel about your future?" Seven per cent felt very positive, 27 per cent felt positive, 48 per cent felt uncertain, 11 per cent felt negative and 7 per cent felt very negative. I asked: "How do you feel about the future of your children?" Thirty-three per cent either felt very positive or positive, 53 per cent felt uncertain or negative about the future of their children.
In this particular survey I asked 40 questions on the economy, defence and external affairs, the Constitution, the environment, immigration, police and security and several general questions. I would like to go over the questions on the Constitution because that is what we are supposed to be talking about here tonight, although I would rather talk about ways of employing people. I should point out before I go over the questions that on December 3,1990,1 had a citizens' forum in the riding of York South-Weston at the Nelson A. Boylen Collegiate Institute. It was the York South-Weston citizens' forum on the future of Canada.
Again, on Monday, April 29, 1991 I organized a town hall meeting at Archbishop Romero Secondary School, again to talk about the Constitution and other issues of concern to the people of York South-Weston.
Then, as I indicated, last spring I sent out the survey. Every constituent in the riding had the opportunity to express his or her point of view through this particular survey. I understand I just have a couple of minutes to go. I would like to quickly go over the questions and the results.
"Did you agree with the Meech Lake Accord?" Seventy per cent said no, 9 per cent yes. "Do you believe the Citizens' Forum on the Future of Canada chaired by Keith Spicer is an effective means of gauging public opinion?" Fifty-five per cent said no, 19 per cent said yes. "Do you support the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Constitution?" Sixty-seven per cent said yes, 18 per cent said no.

The Constitution
"In your opinion is the government taking sufficient steps to resolve the underlying causes of native discontent?" Ten per cent said yes, 75 per cent said no.
"Do you believe that the recognition of Canada as a multicultural nation should be entrenched in the Constitution?" Thirty-four per cent said yes, 56 per cent said no.
"Do you support the current policy of bilingualism in Canada?" Thirty-two per cent said yes, 61 per cent said no.
"Is Canada's policy of bilingualism an essential element in maintaining a Canadian identity that is distinct from that of the United States?" Thirty-two per cent said yes, 62 per cent said no.
"Do you believe a sovereign Quebec can survive and prosper economically, socially and politically if it were to separate from Canada?" Seventeen per cent said yes, 69 per cent said no.
Those were the results of the questions that were put in a survey that was sent to the residents of York South-Weston. That was last spring. If one were to resurvey I am sure the views would still be similar.
In closing, I urge the Parliament of Canada to set its priorities straight. Start talking about the economy and jobs and get relevant and come up with ideas, methods and ways of putting Canada back to work.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to present my constituents' concerns with regard to the Constitution. Before that, I have to agree with the previous speaker, the hon. member for York South-Weston and also other people who have taken part in this debate.
In the city of St. Catharines the primary concern is the economic situation. When I asked people about the government's proposals, they would usually answer that they were more concerned about their jobs. The announcement by General Motors prior to Christmas that it was going to be closing 21 plants in North America, with a potential job loss to about 70,000 people, added another devastating impact to my community. Obviously, with General Motors being the major employer and this taking place, this is the matter that is most on peoples' minds.
But where my friend, the previous speaker, indicated that it is a concern and, obviously a primary concern, it cannot help but be linked with the constitutional problem. I think we all realize that without unity in our country and without a united and strong Canada there cannot be any great economic progress made.
We could not do without a quarter of our population if the province of Quebec left Confederation, and what would be left would have a great deal of difficulty as well. Therefore, we are faced with a constitutional problem along with our economic woes at the present time and we have to deal with both those matters.
The people of St. Catharines are interested in the constitutional debate. That was shown this past Monday evening when there was a debate at Brock University in St. Catharines between David Peterson, the former premier of the province of Ontario, and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean of this particular body.
They managed to fill up the theatre at the university as well as an overflow into the gymnasium which watched the debate by closed circuit television. The questions that were asked indicated that people are concerned about the future of our country and they are concerned about the constitutional questions that are before us.
One of the points that Mr. Peterson made was interesting. He indicated that we have been almost cursed with this constitutional question for more than 125 years and that we may be cursed to continue on with this because of the diversity of our country. It is a point that has been made before and I think we have to realize that.
In talking to the people of St. Catharines, they wanted to get back to the basics. The Constitution comes from the people and the basic power rests with them. They are the ones who give us the opportunity to govern, to decide on taxation and the other matters that are in the realms of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. They are the ones who set the parameter of the Constitution. That is something that we have to remember and we have to pay attention to when the Constitution is formed. The people of St. Catharines want to see the country remain united. They are fiercely proud of our country.
February 13, 1992

It is interesting that there is this linkage between the economy and the constitutional question. In that regard, the people would like to see a true economic union across the country. The original intent of the British North America Act was to form a common market in British North America. Now, we have the proposal in front of us that indicates there will be a free flow of goods, services, people and capital across the country. This can only help our country. Artificial trade barriers have to be brought down. I know that the First Ministers have tried to do that and they must continue to do it.
The Senate is a matter that you will not get too much comment on. People realize that there are regional differences and that regional alienation must be dealt with. If the Senate is the correct way to deal with that regional alienation, that is what they would like to see happen.
I think they are concerned about the parliamentary system. Giving the Senate equal powers, an elected Senate, and possibly as was indicated an equal Senate, may cause some withering of our parliamentary system if we have another body that will compete with the House of Commons and possibly replicate it. That is something that we have to avoid.
It is interesting that one group of high school students in my riding, a combined class of Denis Morris High School and Holy Cross High School in St. Catharines, a grade nine enriched program, studied the 28 proposals and came up with a report that they presented to me before Christmas. It is called Shared Citizenship and Diversity: A Student Response. They dealt with three of the beginning proposals of their government. They looked at the Canadian identity and said: "We, the students of Lincoln County Catholic School Board in St. Catharines, believe that the most important qualities of a Canadian are equality and fair play. We believe that a Canadian is someone who is willing to include everyone, regardless of ethnic, cultural, religious or racial background, as friends and neighbours in the Canadian story".
They went on to look at the various proposals that have been made. Along with what people who have discussed this with me would say, they indicate that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is something
The Constitution
that should be reaffirmed and strengthened. They felt that the proposal to increase the override provision or the notwithstanding clause to 60 per cent of the House of Commons was good. They also felt that in addition to including it for 60 per cent for this body and for the provincial legislatures in order to invoke the notwithstanding clause that an elected Senate should deal with it as well, that there should be approval by 50 per cent of that body, and that the override provision should only last for three years.
I thought that was an interesting concept, coming from a group of grade nine high school students.
They also went on to deal with aboriginal matters. They felt that aboriginal peoples should also be considered as a founding people along with the people from Quebec, that we should treat them in the same manner and that we should remember that they were the founding peoples along with the French and the English as well.
One other matter that I would like to speak to in the time remaining to me is the concept in the proposals that training has to be given exclusively to the provinces. I believe in training. I know that the training programs that go on in my community are most important at this time. With the restructuring that is going on in the Canadian economy and the world economy, we have to realize that this is a matter that is going to go on, that people are going to retrain and retrain maybe three and four and five times during their lifetimes.
The people I talked to indicated that they want federal funds to remain in these training programs. They want a federal presence. It may be that the provinces would take the lead. We have difficulty now in the province of Ontario. We have labour training boards that have been established for the entire country and we also have them for the provinces. There is an agreement that has been reached between the federal government and the Ontario government.
The Ontario government is currently pulling out its training and skills development from about 10 different departments. That is going to take them time and there are going to be inevitable turf wars that go along with that. In the meantime, the Canada Employment Centres seem to be standing by, not being allowed to participate in this process that is going on.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
If this is what is going to happen, I see dire consequences. Individual communities need to priorize their various training programs and they need to do it in a manner where they all get together. It seems to take the province a great deal of time in order to get into the training. The federal government is already there. Why are we going to lose that particular aspect? That is something that I definitely want to see worked on.
It may mean that there is a shared jurisdiction between the provincial and the federal government with perhaps provincial paramountcy. Training, and this has been told to me by many of the people who are involved in the training area, many of the people are my constituents, that they do not want to see training exclusively go to the province. That is something that I hope will be looked at and taken into consideration in the report of the special joint committee.
One other matter was property rights. The indication of the students was that property rights should be included. They felt that it would be taken into account by section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, clearly demonstrated in a free and democratic society.
Having said that, I think that we can look forward to the coming time to the report of the joint committee. I look forward to participating in what I am sure will be a debate in this Chamber.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise this evening and present here in the House of Commons a report from the citizens of Edmonton-Strathcona.
Over the past months many people in my riding have expressed to me their views on Canada's Constitution. I have spent hours reading surveys, responding to letters, talking to people on the street and in my office. I have listened to people who have attended my town hall meetings. I hold one town hall meeting a month as I have done for three years and we have been talking at these town hall meetings about the Constitution for at least a year, if not more.
My constituents have told me that it is time for a change. They told me that regions must be better represented in our Constitution. They told me our House of Commons and our Senate must be reformed. They told me that it is time that governments consult more with Canadians. They told me our Constitution
must also protect our environment. They have told me that our Constitution should be modified to allow Canada to remain prosperous into the next century.
From the people who have contacted me I have learned many things. What has impressed me the most was that the people in my riding are proud to live in Edmonton, Alberta. They have told me that they will always be Canadians first and Albertans second.
The people of Edmonton-Strathcona are proud of their citizenship. They feel they want to keep the country that they love united and strong. But they have told me it is time for change.
In the summer of 1991 I mailed a questionnaire to every household in my riding, to 40,000 homes representing 80,000 constituents in Edmonton-Strathcona. The response was impressive. I received over 1,000 replies. I want to thank those who responded to my questionnaire. I also want to thank the many people who have written and telephoned me on this very issue.
In many different ways my constituents told me that they want equality for all people, all provinces and all regions in Canada. My constituents do not feel equal to Ontario or Quebec in our present system of representation by population. Eighty-three per cent of my constituents told me that it is important to them that we reform our Constitution so that regional representation can be increased.
Seventy-six per cent of my constituents said that they would like regional representation to be increased through Senate reform. I must emphasize that the strong demand for Senate reform in Edmonton-Strathcona cannot and must not be ignored.
However, interestingly enough, only 32 per cent of my constituents demanded that all provinces be equally represented in the Senate. This means that while the people in my riding demand and expect Senate reform, they do not demand and expect a Triple-E Senate.
Sixty-one per cent of my constituents feel that to increase the regional representation in our Constitution, we must also reform the House of Commons. They want a House of Commons which is less partisan so that members will be free to speak on behalf of the regions



February 13, 1992

that they represent. A little bit later on, I will touch more on House of Commons reform.
I have also asked my constituents how they feel about giving one province the right to a constitutional veto that is not shared by other provinces. Not surprisingly, 76 per cent of my constituents say no to this idea. Once again, my constituents have told me that they want all provinces to be equal partners in a strong and united Canada.
I have received a strong message that my constituents expect to play a more involved role in amending our Constitution than they have in the past. I have asked my constituents their opinion on constituent assemblies, national referenda and public hearings as methods to involve citizens in constitutional reform.
My constituents have made it clear to me that they would like to have the right to be involved in national referenda or constituent assemblies if the government decides to amend the Constitution. I very much support the idea of a national referendum.
However, I would like to note that the most popular response was that people wished to be involved in constitutional hearings on proposed constitutional amendments. There is 66 per cent of my riding that would like to have a constituent assembly to propose or to review constitutional amendments.
Sixty-three per cent of my riding would like a national referendum to approve constitutional amendments. Yet, 82 per cent feel that it is very important to have constitutional hearings on proposed constitutional amendments.
I applaud the government for consulting Canadians as extensively as it has through the Beaudoin-Edwards commission, the Spicer commission and the recent Dobbie commission.
Constitutional hearings will ensure that in future, Canadians will have the right to participate in amending our Constitution as they did with these other committees.
I have also asked my constituents how they feel about involving aboriginal people in the constitutional process. Seventy-two per cent felt it was very important for aboriginal people to be involved in the process. In fact, quite consistent with my constituents' demands for
The Constitution
equality, I was reprimanded by one constituent who told me that this was indeed a silly question as everyone in Canada has the right and should be involved in the constitutional process.
On the issue of our Constitution reflecting Canada's multicultural and bilingual nature, 49 per cent of my constituents feel that this is important, that our Constitution reflect multiculturalism as a strong principle of Canadian society.
On the subject of giving the provinces control over language, only 22 per cent favoured giving the provinces more control and 46 per cent were strongly opposed to this idea.
My constituents also told me that they considered environmental protection to be a critical issue. Eighty-six per cent felt that each level of government should have the power it needs to protect the environment. Fifty-eight per cent of my constituents felt it was important that they had an environmental charter that would acknowledge the rights of Canadians to environmental protection and that this would allow them to go to court when these rights were not protected.
Edmonton-Strathcona is divided on the issue of our Constitution reflecting the unique cultural characteristics of Quebec. Forty-three per cent felt that it is important that the Constitution recognize Quebec as a distinct society and 39 per cent were opposed to this idea.
Many of my constituents have said that if the government does acknowledge Quebec as a distinct society, they would like to be informed on how this would be defined. My constituents would like to know what distinct society is, what it means and if it provides Quebec with extra rights.
My constituents told me that they want our Constitution to be able to enhance our ability to remain competitive in world markets and to direct national economic policies.
Seventy-five per cent feel it is very important that the federal government should provide the direction for our country on the major economic policies as opposed to this being a provincial responsibility. Seventy-seven per cent feel that it is important that the government set national standards so all Canadians can work together for excellence.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution
In conclusion, the people of Edmonton-Strathcona are asking for change. They want a new Constitution that will reflect the needs of Canadians in the 1990s. However, they did not tell me that our government should throw out the baby with the bath water. Most of my constituents want a Constitution that is basically like the one we have today, yet increasing the influence and powers of the regions.
The constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona believe in a strong, united and prosperous Canada. I am very grateful for having this opportunity to share with you the views expressed by my constituents and I hope that all members will carefully consider these views.


Jean-Luc Joncas: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege in this House to represent the wonderful riding of Matapedia-Matane, where people worked and still work very hard to build a heritage with which they can identify for themselves and their children.
I urge those who have never visited this region to go and see it. They will be surprised when they get there by its rich and diverse natural and man-made environment, with a 120-kilometre shoreline along the majestic St. Lawrence and extending 150 kilometres into the Matapedia Valley. Human activities have developed sometimes along opposite lines, sometimes along complementary ones.
What a fisherman needs for his living is not the same as what a farmer or a forester needs. Nevertheless, the feeling of belonging to their region arises from this diversity. What would seem at first glance to disunite them in fact brings them together, since they complement one another and raise their common standard of living. What is true for a region like mine is also true for a country like Canada.
We all agree, I believe, that the unity and prosperity of Canada are both essential for its survival. One does not go without the other. Our prosperity and our prestige throughout the world come from Canada's unity. In today's world, political stability is essential to a country's economic health; it is far too precious to be simply dismissed out of hand.
Yet this is what we are preparing to do if we let Canada disappear. For many, the last recession hurt a lot and continues to hurt. At home, in my own riding, we experienced closings that we are not about to forget, whether it was Donohue-Matane, Radio-Canada or VIA Rail. There were very few ridings, in Canada and in Quebec, that were able to escape the negative effects of that recession.
That being said, it is pretty easy to see that the scenarios on the break-up of our country, even the most reassuring ones, anticipate a serious deterioration of that economic context. Common sense tells us that the break-up of a country, combined with an already fragile economy, will result in a dramatic drop of our standard of living, which is presently the second highest in the world, just after Japan. Many obstacles looming up on the horizon threaten our quality of life, and it is not by dividing the country that we will overcome those.
One of the first such obstacles is our accumulated debt of more than $400 billion; that amount represents $15,000 for each man, woman and child in this country, and it does not include provincial, municipal and personal debts. In spite of that, thanks to our sound budget policies, we enjoy a top triple A credit rating. That rating guarantees the solvency of each province, as well as each public and commercial business in the country.
What happens when that credit rating goes down? The lenders simply demand higher interest rates. Given our present debt, an increase of 1 per cent translates into costs of over $2,500 million, which means less money for services, regional development and social programs.
Competition is another obstacle. We cannot escape the constraints of a world economy. We need to trade with other countries. Canada now exports 25 per cent of its production and, in the last five years, its share of the international trade has dropped from 5 to 4 per cent, which is one of the biggest drops among the Group of Seven members. In that context, we must, in my opinion, remain strong and united to make up the lost ground, rather than divide our country.
Despite all of this, we are told that once Canada has broken up, it would be easy for the two smaller and less
February 13, 1992

viable countries that would result to negotiate the economic structures that made our prosperity in the past. Some people say that could be achieved in a spirit of generosity and serenity and that it would be easy to convince other provinces, the United States and other countries to kindly take our new needs into account. That is what they would have us believe. Quite frankly, would it be easier for an independent Quebec of six million to negotiate a new GATT agreement, for example? Would Quebec or a new fragmented Canada be in a better position to deal with giants like the United States or the European Community? The answer is quite obvious.
We should understand that those simplistic arguments and that reassuring nonsense are part of that senseless logic that often destroys nations. At the risk of not sounding too original, let me say that if we fail to learn from the past, we will always repeat the same mistakes. And what can we learn from history? We learn that the break-up of a country is both costly and painful, that it may have serious consequences in the short term and in the longer run and that it can leave deep economic and social scars.
We find evidence of that everywhere around us. You just have to brush up on your history and look at what is happening in the world. You will soon realize that in the hopeless number of countries falling apart, the people are on the verge of losing peace, stability and prosperity, if that is not already the case.
If our country breaks up, what will happen to our education system with less money? What will happen to our labour training program, our health program, and our currency? The uncertainty created by this whole debate is already hurting us a lot. The fact that we have to compete with other countries requires that we settle, as soon as possible, this issue which has been lingering for more than 30 years so that we can proceed with what all Canadians expect from us, that is to create jobs, to create wealth and to guarantee our social programs.
Mr. Taylor, chairman of the board at the Royal Bank, said on January 23, and I quote: "I have to travel all over the world to meet with business people who have billions of dollars to invest and, whether they are from London, Tokyo or Stockholm, they all ask me what is happening in Canada and if our country is safe enough for them to come and invest their clients' savings. I reassure them and I keep faith that we stay together as a country".
The Constitution
Closer to home, our investors postpone their decision to invest, which delays the economic recovery, and that is nothing compared to the permanent costs that await us if our country were to break up.
Some people say that an independent Quebec could share the Canadian dollar without having any official influence on decisions made by the Bank of Canada.
It would mean then that Quebec, as a minor partner in this monetary union, would have much less of a say than it does now in the development of monetary policies. Many factors affect currency, and no self-respecting country can tolerate for any length of time that someone else be in charge of such major policies. No sovereign nation can and will tolerate this form of neocolonialism for very long. That is basic common sense. As for the European monetary union, I can assure you it will pull off this amazing feat when the necessary elements, which are already present in Canada, will exist in Europe, namely a single central bank as well as integrated tax systems and national financial policies.
Why then would we relinquish what the Europeans want so much to get and as soon as possible? Our Constitution is 125 years old. A constitution is a bit like a mirror. When you look at it, or read it, you must be able to recognize yourself in it and be proud of what you see. As our mirror, the Canadian Constitution needs to be updated so as to be a reflection of the Canadian people as they are today, for the future generations to see.
Granted, this is no small task, but none is too big for men and women who like to take up a challenge and who genuinely want to keep this nation united, a nation which is the envy of so many others around the world.
Some people will say that the separation of Quebecers from the rest of Canada is a response to the challenges we face, but is it really necessary to break up Canada in order to satisfy Quebec's historical aspirations, the aspirations of the west, the Atlantic provinces and aboriginal peoples? My answer is no. Do we really have to break-up Canada to further harmonize federal and provincial policies and avoid wasteful duplication? The answer is, again, no. To prevent this break up, we must be guided by reason and a sense of equity. As Cartier said in 1867, to seal the federal pact did not require bloodshed or domination by the strong over the weak. It took equity, justice and a few mutual concessions.

February 13, 1992
The Constitution


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, from my office I listened to the words said in this House on this subject by the hon. member for York South- Weston. My constituents feel the same as his.
Really they cannot understand why we are spending this time in the House on the Constitution when the number one issue facing the country is the state and crisis of our economy.
I am sure if you canvassed most of the 295 members in this House, they are probably getting the same feedback from their ridings. Let us address the economy.
I also believe that as leaders in this country we have a duty to address the constitutional issues because if we do not preserve this country, Canada as we know it today, then debates on the economy will fall on deaf ears.
Like the other members who spoke over these three evenings, I too did an extensive survey sending through my householder a questionnaire to every household in the riding of Parkdale-High Park.
The results that came back were very revealing. They gave me a reading of how my constituents think on amendments to the Constitution.
To sum it all up, I can safely say that my constituents feel that we as Canadians want a united Canada with a strong central government. That is the bottom line.
I was very pleased that over 80 per cent of my constituents felt that the aboriginal people have an inherent right to self-government.
I was also pleased from the survey to see that there is a change in attitude from Meech Lake days to the present. During the Meech Lake debate, I would say the majority of my constituents were against any distinct society clause in the Constitution.
Now over 60 per cent are accepting the distinct society clause as long as it does not give Quebec additional powers over other provinces. The way it is being interpreted now, most of my constituents feel that Quebec should be designated as a distinct society. They have no problems with that.
I would like to take the remainder of the time to present in this House for historical record the submissions made to the Constitution committee by the Canadian Polish Congress. The Canadian Polish Congress represents 240 different organizations across Canada. They represent the Canadians of Polish origin residing coast to coast in this country. The congress represents the thoughts and aspirations of the majority of the Canadian Polish community. The well-being, the future and the unity of Canada are matters of foremost importance to the congress. The congress has always taken a stand on issues of importance to Canada including unity, constitutional reform, multiculturalism, tolerance, cooperation and understanding among all citizens of our country regardless of their background, race or religion.
I am quoting from the introduction to their brief. The Canadian Polish Congress-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member knows he can table the brief after along with his notes.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that advice. I shall do that because these are two very important documents.
I was very impressed with the way the congress presented it in a non-partisan fashion. They came before Christmas to Ottawa. They met with the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. They presented the brief to the Conservative Party with explanations. Then they met with the Leader of the Official Opposition and they went to meet with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and made the same presentation there. It was presented in a truly Canadian fashion in a non-partisan way.
To go through all of it would take me about two hours.
I will just quote a few things that might be of interest to the members of this House and to Canadians at large. I would like to share with you what they said under the section: Freedoms, Rights and Responsibilities of Canadians. "We must realize that we cannot emphasize our rights without addressing the corresponding responsibilities. Even a cursory look at our society reveals the fact that increasingly Canadians are asking not what they can do for their country, but rather what their country can do
February 13, 1992

for them. The prevalent attitude seems to be 'to get more for less' and 'to look after No. T.
Trade unions demand more pay for fewer hours of work claiming that their members have the right to earn such inflated wages. In addition job security appears to be a well entrenched right. Artists create obscene art in the name of the right of self-expression and artistic freedom. Our insatiable propensity for instant gratification leads to rampant consumerism with its egotistical implications.
In the name of freedom of speech, untrue and falsified history is circulated with sad and unpleasant results.
In view of these, we the Canadian Polish Congress believe that the time has come to address the other side of the individual rights and freedom equation, namely the individual duties and responsibilities."
Mr. Speaker, you have heard me speak on that issue in this House many times. I am pleased that an organization the size of the Canadian Polish Congress is backing many members who believe that this should be entrenched in the Constitution.
The other section which I would like to share, and again it affects the members directly, is the section under: Response of Institutions for a Modem Canada. The brief says they "agree with the proposals that the government has made under part II, proposal 8, the House of Commons". They want to share this comment with us. "It appears that at the present time the deciding factor in the law making is the party vote and not the individual vote of the member who is representing the will and aspirations of his constituents. It is proper to give individual members as much of free votes as possible so that they could reflect the aspirations of their electors more closely". This is something we have been talking about, but we are not implementing.
Another proposal is: "We would also suggest that the decorum of the discussions in the House be improved, especially during the Question Period. Also the participation of members at other times in the House should be improved". I see, Mr. Speaker, you nodding with that proposal also.
The third proposal to make under that section is that representation in the House of Commons should reflect more closely the actual distribution of the population in the provinces. The present disparities between urban
The Constitution
and rural ridings are too great, they say. The urban vote is consequently less valuable than that of the rural elector. Also some form of proportional representation should be considered and they suggest here the French model.
I was very pleased that they made these recommendations. On the title page of their presentation they quote from Thomas Carlyle who said: "Men's hearts ought not be set against one another, but set with one another".
I think we can maybe bring that up to date to 1992 and say that Canadians' hearts ought not to be set against one another, but set with one another. Canadian minds ought not be set against one another but set with one another. The hon. minister has been given this heavy responsibility to monitor the constitutional debates across this country. If everyone remembers that saying and helps that hon. minister, I am sure that we will come up with a document that all Canadians will be proud of.
I want to take this opportunity to say the government could not have chosen a better minister to try to put this constitutional package together.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will file that with the Clerk. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to take part in this very special debate this evening.
I have just returned within the hour from my home province of New Brunswick. Time is veiy short and as you have told me, I only have about four minutes. Hopefully we will continue this special debate or this process next week and I will have time to finish my remarks. In the short time that I do have, I want to point out a number of things that have happened in my riding in the past number of months.
It really began on September 29, 1991 when the Prime Minister unveiled the government's proposals for a renewed Confederation. I took those 28 proposals, which were quite complicated, quite long and involved and boiled them down, if you will, to a citizen's guide to the proposals. It was a four pager, back to back. I mailed that to all of my constituents in the hope that they would read it and after reading it would respond with the mail-in on that citizen's guide. Many of my constituents did that.

The Constitution
Aside from doing that, we also set in process a series of meetings throughout my riding. As you know, my riding is a very large rural riding, in fact the largest riding in maritime Canada. We had a series of 20 constitutional meetings throughout my riding over the course of those few months. I also had 20 speaking engagements at service clubs, schools and other interested organizations.
It was a very healthy process. It was a learning process not only for my constituents but for myself. I had a chance to hear them and get a sense of what they wanted from this country of ours.
To sum up, I am going to have to quote the Mexican ambassador to Canada. He says it best: "Canada is a success looking for a problem". What he means by that is almost what my constituents were telling me. We have a great country here, the second largest country in the world in terms of geography, the seventh largest economy in the world, a country that has been recognized by
the United Nations as having the second best standard of living across the social scale of any country in the world, only exceeded by Japan. Those are the types of things my constituents are telling me. They are also telling me: "Let's not throw it away". Indeed we have problems, but we are a sophisticated country. We are an educated country. We are a thoughtful country, a reflective country, and we have it within our grasp to make it better. That is what this process is all about.
I know you are signalling me, Mr. Speaker. I guess I have less than 60 seconds left. Hopefully we can continue at least my portion of the debate next week. I thank you for your courtesy, for allowing me to get on at this late date, and hopefully we will continue this next week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being ten o'clock p.m., pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, February 5, 1992, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 14, 1992