1992-02-11

[Stage Direction]
41 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 11,1992
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report on behalf of the International Association of French-Speaking Parliamentarians. I was the delegate of its Committee on the Environment assigned last December to participate in drafting an earth charter proposal to be submitted at various levels including the Rio summit.
Therefore, I have the pleasure to present to the House, in both official languages, the report on this proposed earth charter.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H; and the amendment of Mrs. Catterall (p. 6131).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to point out to hon. members that there is a mistake in the Projected Order of Business. It indicates that there would be only 15 minutes remaining out of the five-hour period allocated. On checking we find that there are in fact 66 minutes left or, if you prefer, one hour and six minutes.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 will change the federal labour legislation and will affect most employees. It has been in effect for almost 25 years without any significant change and

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
everyone concerned agrees that it is time for new legislation that will provide for changing times and changing economic conditions as well.
After considerable discussion over the years the Prime Minister announced in 1989 that the government would be bringing this in as a major initiative. It took about a year to get the white paper on PS 2000 tabled. It was supposed to have come out of discussions between Treasury Board on the one side and the employees' organizations on the other. Treasury Board's spokespeo-ple insisted that there had been real communication between the two, real discussions, real consultation, but the representatives of the employees unanimously said that there had not been any real communication, that there had not been any real discussion. They might have been talking one side to the other but no one was really listening. There was no real consultation, no real attempt to arrive at a common ground with respect to the major changes being made. This was perhaps one of the main concerns of the employee organizations.
Anyone who has been in public affairs, in the public eye, anyone who has been a member of Parliament in recent years, knows that there has been increasingly bad blood between the employees and the employers in the civil service. That has been evident. I suppose the hardest evidence we have had of that, of which the whole community became aware, was last year when there was the job action, when there was work stoppage, not total stoppage but significant work stoppage.
The evidence was there that the labour organizations themselves doubted whether they would be able to get their employees out on the picket line. There was real doubt within the labour organizations generally, not just within labour organizations representing government employees.
The government was confident, and I think this was obvious from the way they handled the situation at the time, confident that the labour organizations would fail to get any large number out on the picket lines. There were polls taken, there were votes taken and the votes in some areas were not very strong in favour of the strike, in other areas they were strong. In general, there was this real doubt within the labour movement itself and certainly the government was confident that the organizations could not get their workers out.
The fact is they did get them on the picket lines. Sure there were problems within the organizations but nevertheless there was widespread support for the work action taken. I submit that was excellent evidence there were problems between the employers and the employees, problems that have not been resolved to this time.
From what employee organizations had seen of PS 2000, the white paper, and from the discussions they have had, there was real doubt that any of the changes being suggested were going to improve the situation between workers and management.
That was what it was all about. That is what PS 2000 was supposed to achieve, an improvement in relations between the employees and the managers who were running the government service. The employee organizations doubted whether anything in this would improve employer-employee relations. If we do not do that, there is no point in going through this exercise at all.
There have been discussions since the legislation was introduced and there are still problems, but at least we are now contemplating the bill going to a legislative committee. In that venue, there will be an opportunity for the employer's and employees' representatives to sit down together and to bring to the attention of the public what the real concerns are on both sides. I am sure there are concerns on both sides although not very many on the part of managers since in the opinion of the employees, at least, the managers have achieved everything in this legislation that they could hope to achieve and have given up little to the workers.
If that feeling prevails, if there is not something changed as a result of the discussions or if there are no changes in the bill itself, then it is not going to bode well for the future and relations will not improve. The people who will suffer will not be just the employees but the people receiving the services that the employees are providing.
I said that members of Parliament are very much aware of the bad feeling because they hear constantly from people in their ridings who are having trouble getting what they feel is a reasonable level of service from public servants. The public servants themselves are not happy in what they are doing and some express that in the the way they deal with people who are coming in with their problems.
There are some problems that are dealt with and yet not dealt with in a way that make the employees any happier with what is being proposed. One of the main
February 11, 1992

things is this business of contracting out, where there is no consultation and no co-operation. The amount of contracting out is increasing. The employees suspect that it is increasing in part because the government wants to have control without having any arguments with the people who are involved in it.
In part, they feel that it is just simply being handed out to friends of government as a way of rewarding them for whatever. This is a concern. It is a concern expressed even by the Auditor General who raised the question as to whether or not the government is saving money with its contracting out. Indeed the Auditor General went so far as to say the government is not saving money. It is costing the government more to get the service it is getting by contracting out than it was costing previously, with its own public servants doing the work.
The government has been challenged time after time to produce some evidence of what is being saved. Treasury Board has said yes, it is saving money. There are no figures, nothing at all to go on. There is simply a statement to the effect that the government is saving money by contracting out.
If there was any evidence, one would think that the government would be very happy to table it, to publicize it and show where it is saving money. The fact is that the government has declined to do this. It has ignored every invitation to produce some evidence. It has ignored even the Auditor General's invitation to give evidence that it is saving money. As I say, I think the union's case is well supported by the lack of action from government in proving that contracting out is saving money.
This is continuing. Under the legislation before us, there is nothing to slow down that process at all. Certainly the government has said it will look after the employees. That is in the bill to some extent, and a spokesman from Treasury Board has said that this will be done. The employees will be looked after. They will be given job opportunities in other departments.
I suppose we saw some evidence of that last summer when the bill was in to move the National Energy Board from Ottawa to Calgary. There was quite a bit of negotiation between government and the employees of the energy board to make sure they had some opportunity to move with the board.
Government Orders
In the end, there were some who were not going to have jobs. They were going to be let go, and again the promise was held out that something would come up for them as soon as possible somewhere else.
That is just one small example of the kind of contracting out-that is not contracting out, that is another situation-and it is where the employees were going to be looked after. In the legislation and in the discussions they were told that government would look after those employees whose jobs have been done away with due to some contracting out process.
That is one of the problems that the organizations representing the workers is most concerned about, the fact that contracting out is handled in the total absence of any information as to why the government is doing it from a cost saving point of view, evidence that it is really working. Yet the government is going to proceed with it, pursue it and it is not going to discuss any of its actions with the employees.
That is one of the problems but there is another one. There are some union concerns about job reclassification. Once again, management is taking unto itself the authority to do as it sees fit with respect to reclassification. Once again, the union is having no input. It is not being consulted. The members are simply being told what is going to happen to them, when it is going to happen and that does not make for a happy work environment either.
I had occasion to visit the office of one of our major employers in Canada in the private sector. It is a public company operating in the private sector. They were giving me-I am going to be spending more time with them-a rundown on some of their activities and some of the ways in which they are working.
Right at the top of their list is an endeavour to make employees throughout that organization, over 100,000, feel that they are a part of it, that they are not just something that is used in the same way as materials coming in are being processed, but that they are really part of the team that is going to try to make that company successful.
That is what PS 2000 is supposed to be about. It was supposed to make government employees feel they were part of the process of serving the public. In making them feel they are part of it, in making them feel they are one of the partners in that process, they would be happy at

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
their work and their work would be done better, more efficiently. Of course the public in dealing with those people would also be happier that they were being treated more fairly.
This legislation has failed. Pay equity is something that is still talked about, and we have gone to court over it, but the legislation does not really do anything to say it is going to be any better in the future than it has been in the past.
If the legislation, PS 2000, the whole process, were supposed to make conditions better between workers and management, it has failed. Unless the organizations representing the workers believe that a real attempt is being made to do this, to accomplish this, unless they believe they are really being involved in the process of deciding what is going to happen then it is not going to work.
I fear we may see more of the kind of job action that we saw last summer, which did nothing to improve relations; indeed it made relations that much more difficult.
PS 2000 once again will be a total waste, a waste of effort, a waste on our part of passing the legislation if it is not going to achieve the co-operation and the good will it was supposed to achieve. If the process before the legislative committee does not meet with success-and I sincerely hope that it will for the sake of all concerned- then it would seem to me that it would be better not to make the changes we are contemplating simply because we have gone this far down the road and we should proceed. That is not good enough.
If we do not come out of the legislative committee with an agreement on all parts-that is the members of the committee themselves and the witnesses who have appeared there from Treasury Board and from the various organizations representing workers-if we do not come out of there feeling that we have achieved something worth while, it is better to leave it the way it is and tiy again to see if we can come up with something that is going to serve government and Treasury Board, that will treat the workers fairly and make them believe they really are partners in the process. Then in the end all of us together will have served the public better by having produced something that is going to improve the level of service offered by government employees to members of
the public generally and make them feel that their government is working on their behalf rather than simply taking advantage of the present system where it has the votes, the control, can pass any legislation it wants and do whatever it wants with respect to the workers until such time as there is a change in government, to which I think almost all of us are looking forward.
It could be better. It should be better. Twenty-five years is a long time for the same process to remain in effect. I believe out of this process something good could happen. It will be up to the members of that legislative committee to listen to all the witnesses, to hear what they are really saying, and to come up with something better than the legislation before us, legislation that will be acceptable to Treasury Board but legislation that the worker organizations will believe they have been able to change in the interests of employees and the public generally.
The committee will work. The committee will produce something. It is in its hands whether what it produces is something better than what we have right now or whether the committee has failed.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my question. The member talked about this opting out process or this contracting out process and how it affects the morale of the Public Service.
I would like to suggest to members that it does not work in an economic sense or efficiency sense. In Toronto we have several examples where the constriction of the Public Service has caused an incredible backlog in processing, specifically the refugee cases in our community. What we have experienced is that the service has broken down because public servants just cannot manage the load. The delay in processing refugees has created a backlog of close to 50,000 people. There has been a drain on our social services in the city of Toronto. Health care in the last year, just in the greater metropolitan area of Toronto alone, has cost the treasury close to three billion additional dollars.
All governments are really concerned about deficit and debt. This contracting out process is contradictory to the objective. It is done in the name of streamlining and
February 11, 1992

efficiency but in fact a more bungled situation has been created than one could ever imagine.
There is another thing I would like to suggest to the member. Quite often a lot of this contracting out is not as efficient as the people who do the job within the Public Service. I notice the Minister of Supply and Services is sitting in the House today. He runs an organization that works on revenue dependency. I am sure he would bear witness to the fact that he has within his realm of responsibility public servants who frequently, week in week out, month in month out, do work that is as efficient if not more efficient than contracting out. If it were not that way, why would the minister be in the business of printing? Obviously the Government of Canada must be doing his printing more efficiently.
My question to the member is: Does he not think that the government endangers not only efficiency but is in danger of adding to the national debt because of this motivated gesture of cutting back public servants?


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, in the PS 2000 hearings there were examples given exactly in line with what the member was saying, examples of work that was done by outside contractors. Of course they were not familiar with the work arid the work had to be redone by government employees at greater cost to correct the mess. In fact there was additional cost in that the contractor was involved as well.
One example is weather reports that were being prepared by the government service for the city of Calgary and for the Minister of Transport. The government said: "You cannot provide this service to the city of Calgary. You have to stop it". The city had to employ some outside outfit to do it. The bill was ten times the $600 per month it was originally costing. Then the Ministry of Transport decided to use the same service. I can only suspect that it too is paying ten times what it was paying for the work that was being done within the Public Service.
There are many examples like that represented. The Auditor General himself raised the question and suggested that the government was not getting value for money in contracting out.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Bourassa.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to express my support for Bill C-26, the Public Service Reform Act.
The federal Public Service is one of the cornerstones of our parliamentary democracy. It advises members of Cabinet on policies and programs, offers Canadians a wide range of programs and services, represents the country's interests abroad and protects our sovereignty at home. It is an important national institution. Its operations are critical to the administration of this country and to our ability to settle constitutional matters and meet the challenges of a global economy. In other words, it is indispensable to the kind of country we live in.
The last amendment to the current legislation on the Public Service goes back 25 years. As we all know, things have changed considerably since that time, and we have witnessed a kind of cultural revolution in the management of people. Our concepts of leadership and authority are no longer the same. The level of education of employees has increased, and participatory management, training and development have replaced time and motion studies and what used to be called time cards. Advances in computer science have reduced both geographical and hierarchical distances between employees.
The federal Public Service, like private organizations, has been reacting to these changes for some time. It is restructuring, reducing the number of management levels, downsizing and becoming increasingly result-oriented. Public Service 2000, lauched two years ago, has given new vigour to actions that were already under way. Ten task forces were asked to suggest ways of making specific areas more cost efficient and more effective. Proposals covered over 300 areas in need of reform.
The reports and the feedback they generated were tabled in a white paper in this House more than a year ago by the President of the Treasury Board. Where legislative changes were not required, many administrative reforms have already been put in place.

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
Bill C-26, the Public Service Reform Act before the House today, is one more step towards making the Public Service capable of meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century. The bill provides for amendments to the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Surplus Crown Assets Act and the Financial Administration Act. These amendments will make the Public Service more flexible, more efficient and better equipped to focus its efforts on serving the Canadian public.
These amendments are not intended as a thorough reform of the legislation I just mentioned. They are aimed at simplifying and updating certain provisions which, according to the government, should be changed because they are outdated and no longer serve a useful purpose in productive management of Public Service resources.
Perhaps I might explain very briefly the nature of these amendments. First of all, the proposed amendments to the Public Service Employment Act would simplify staffing while ensuring that measures to protect against abuse as well as measures for effective redress are maintained. In some cases these measures would be enhanced. Bill C-26 would confirm the mandate of the Public Service Commission to uphold the merit principle and provide reliable mechanisms for protecting the staffing system against political and bureaucratic favouritism.
It would contain a new provision on transfers which would make it easier for departments to assign employees to other positions at the same level. This provision would increase opportunities for public servants to acquire new skills and work experience. The proposed amendments would provide protection against abuse and, more specifically, ensure independent review by a third party. Managers would have less trouble filling positions, since the bill would contain provisions concerning probation and security classifications.
The present legislation's provisions for demotion and release would be consolidated and transferred to the Financial Administration Act. A common system of redress would be available under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act would modernize the rules governing collective bargaining, increase the number of dispute settlement
mechanisms and considerably simplify job classification in the Public Service.
Employment equity groups would benefit from the bill's provisions. As a national institution, the federal Public Service must reflect the diversity of the people that it serves. The bill would expressly provide for employment equity programs. It would specify the role of the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board Secretariat in this regard.
The bill would make it easier for departments to meet unexpected workloads and respond to seasonal and short-term fluctuations. It would be easier to hire casual employees for periods up to three months and it would be possible to extend their appointment for three months.
The amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act would recognize the right to free collective bargaining and public servants' right to strike. Reducing the number of occupational groups, which is now 71, could simplify collective bargaining considerably. The number of levels within these groups is also to be reduced.
Bill C-26 temporarily establishes legislative authority to extend this reduction for a six-year period during which union affiliations would be respected. It is estimated that about 100,000 classification actions are taken every year.
The proposal seeks to extend the scope of dispute settlement methods. Arbitration boards are to be selected in the same way as conciliation boards and the parties would be allowed to appoint members to such boards and extend their advisory role so that they can look into a broader range of issues.
Furthermore, the Public Service Staff Relations Board would be given a greater choice of dispute settlement mechanisms. Bargaining units could submit all their outstanding issues to binding arbitration.
Finally, pursuant to the proposed amendments to the Surplus Crown Assets Act, departments could dispose directly of their surplus assets or have Supply and Services Canada do so for them. They would receive the proceeds of the disposal, which they could spend as they saw fit. These amendments should improve the management of surpluses, increase revenue and especially reduce the cost of storing and handling surplus goods.
Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members to support speedy passage of this bill. With these major reforms to the way
February 11, 1992

the Public Service is run, our administration could continue to be considered one of the best in the world.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague for a well delivered speech. She touched on a lot of points that I agree with. One specific thing that she referred to in her speech which I am not concerned about is political patronage. Very few people in this country understand that political patronage is practically non-existent in this country. It is a myth. Most Canadians think it is the politicians who decide who will fill most of the senior positions in the Government of Canada and in the Crown corporations. That is a myth.
My concern is the real patronage that exists in the Government of Canada, the bureaucratic patronage. This is one thing I remember from 1980 to 1984 when I worked across the street in the Langevin Block with Mr. Trudeau. People used to accuse us all the time of political patronage. I could not believe how wrong those accusations were. Really, the bureaucrats had more of a patronage operation than anyone could ever have imagined. In her speech the member said that this bill is going to minimize, improve or reduce a lot of that bureaucratic patronage. I wonder if the member can explain how she feels this bill will do that. If such is the case, it is an aspect of this bill that I would personally support.


Marie Gibeau: I would like to thank my colleague for his question which, as usual, is a very practical question and is not tinged with partisanship.
The objective and the spirit of the reform proposed in this legislation is to give back to bureaucrats and civil servants the power to make decisions and their pride in being public servants. I would almost say that our government, our system, has the best methods in North America, if not the western world, for choosing the most qualified people. We have wonderful tools, tests and procedures for selecting the best person. Unfortunately, some of our administrative policies meant that those qualified people, once they had been selected, were subject to arbitrary processes that kept them from using their skills. Through the more relaxed and simplified
Government Orders
measures that we want to implement with the bill we are presenting today, we want to eliminate the red tape and enable those people to fully use their skills and not be subjected once again to old bureaucratic laws that go back 25 years. Of course, these laws were amended over the years, with new clauses, measures, conditions, et cetera, but they always made it possible for someone to beat the system. The object of this initiative is to give back to people the responsibilities and authority that go with their level. That is the first objective.
The second objective is certainly to make decisions on collective bargaining, the selection process and customer service more open. Once again, as we were saying earlier, the objective is not to satisfy the needs of the government, nor is it to satisfy the needs of the union or the public service. The objective is to make sure that our citizens, our constituents, do not have to go from one department to another and put up with undue frustrations because the system is too cumbersome. I personally experienced those frustrations when I was elected to the House of Commons and saw how cumbersome and hard to penetrate the government administration is, because it is complicated and there are little empires. For instance, in many departments, a small group looks after women, another one looks after native people, and yet another one looks after the disabled. We could certainly together with the Public Service-because there are also bright people there who know how the system could be improved-ensure that our constituents, citizens and the Canadian people are provided with top-quality services.
In some countries, it is an honour to be part of the public service. Unfortunately here in Canada there is too often a tendency, not to ridicule civil servants, but not to give them their due recognition because of the bureaucratic system. That is exactly what Bill C-26, which is tabled today, is about. I thank the member for the question.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I thank the member for that answer. I think she has hit upon something very important here. The principle is correct, but I am not sure that there is a mechanism to check to see whether or not the principle of fairness is going to be implemented.

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
Two months ago when we were dealing with the Bank Act in this House of Commons, someone on the floor of the House, I believe it was a Liberal amendment, put forward an idea.
It put forward the idea that if a consumer did not feel that he or she was being treated fairly by a banker, a complaint could be made to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
If the complaint was found to be worthy, to be true, then that complaint would go on the annual report of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to the House of Commons. This was an accountability measure to make sure that banks were not just treating people within their own power and within their own bureaucracy.
I would like to suggest to the hon. member that as we are refining this bill, maybe there could be some kind of an appeal mechanism not unlike the one we have put into the Bank Act.
For example, suppose I were to apply for a job and I felt I had the competence to get that job. But I did not get the job plainly because of bureaucratic patronage. Obviously I would have substantive reasons to believe that.
Would it not be a good thing to make sure that there were some kind of an appeal court for public servants if they felt the reason they did not get a job was because of bureaucratic patronage?


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question and for this opportunity to provide him with an answer I am sure he will be pleased to hear because it is yes, such a mechanism is indeed provided for.
Some of the proposed amendments to the Public Service Employment Act would offer a measure of protection against abuse, for instance an independent review by a third party. Thus, people who feel they have been wronged would have access to a mechanism which is mentioned in writing, defined and explained in the proposals that have been put forward.
This in no way limits the responsibility and accountability of the employer and the managers. The checks and balances system is still being applied. The spirit in
which this legislation was introduced by government is to let it be known that our civil servants, our managers are competent. Generally speaking, in principle, our people are competent and there is no abuse. However, if someone feels there is abuse, mechanisms are provided to deal with this.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address very briefly this piece of legislation that, in my view, has tremendous implications for how the services of the Government of Canada are delivered and how people interact with their government through the bureaucracy.
Let me say at the very outset, Mr. Speaker, that I totally agree that this bill should be referred to committee, as has been proposed by many speakers to your left.
We believe that the implications, the ramifications of this bill, are such that we understand that many people will want to have some input, including of course people in the Public Service, but most of all I believe people outside of the Public Service.
I have just come from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts where the Government of Canada explains to various departments how more than $100 billion is spent.
The biggest problem that we face in public accounts is the complexity of the material provided to us that is allegedly designed to provide information not only to members of the House of Commons and to Parliament generally, but also to the people of Canada.
If we are going to seriously consider changing the way in which the federal Public Service functions in terms of, for example, accountability, giving more flexibility to managers, being able to deal with issues at various levels, being able to provide more direct service to taxpayers and to clients of various departments, then we are going to have to at the same time address how we are able to account to the people of Canada for the money that is spent. I think we are a long way from that and that is why a special committee of Parliament should be struck to review this entire concept. It would be very simple.
I know a number of colleagues have already addressed the question of morale in the Public Service. We are in a post-strike situation where there are still many, many problems to be resolved within the Public Service, public
February 11, 1992

servants' relationships with senior department officials, with management people, and even among themselves.
I do not want to get into that because we are serious in suggesting that this bill should be referred to a special committee of the House. This would allow people to come before us and express their views on the whole gamut of subjects.
For example, many people are concerned with contracting out. Should there be less? Should there be more? How should efficiency of contracting out be measured? What is the basis on which members of the Public Service should be promoted? Should it be automatic? Should it be just a question of sitting around long enough to qualify for a promotion? Should merit increases be automatic? There are so many questions that should be put.
I believe that part of our problem in this place is that we suggest that there should be consultation and there should be reference, there should be an opportunity for input. Then we go ahead and tell everybody what should be done.
In a bill of this magnitude, with the kind of impact it will have, even the terminology used, the year 2000, all of that lends itself to supporting our position that the bill should be referred to committee.
There should be sufficient opportunity for Canadians. There is a tremendous concern about whether or not Canadian taxpayers are getting the best possible return on their tax dollar.
Is efficiency a priority, not just part of a system of becoming more efficient, but is it the priority? What does efficiency mean in the Public Service? Does it mean turning around letters of enquiry dealing with income tax or GST or Canada Pension Plan or is it dealing with the problem that is raised in the letter?
How are we going to cope with the tremendous changes in technology? What is going to be the impact of having the technology that will allow people all over Canada to work in the Public Service?
I know that my friends in Ottawa rightfully repeat quite often that there are Public Service personnel throughout the country, but there are more in some regions of the country than in others.
Government Orders
In Atlantic Canada, for example, we have public servants but they do not get paid the same as public servants in other parts of the country, in some instances because there is a regional pay system.
There are so many questions. They are legitimate questions and they come from all sectors. Surely members of the Public Service have a right to significant input on changes that will directly affect them and their families, their futures, their careers, their rates of pay and their responsibilities.
Why would we wish to proceed with a bill that has really not garnered very much support from any of the important sectors that are involved on a day-to-day basis with the kinds of situations the bill gives rise to, but also in terms of how the public perceives it?
We are going through a recession. We are dealing with the Constitution. Very few Canadians, other than when the strike occurred, on a day-to-day basis think about what the Public Service is doing in this country unless they have had an experience, good or bad, with someone in the Public Service in trying to get some answers or to get some help and avail themselves of the kinds of facilities available through the Public Service.
I want to take just a couple of moments to address an area that is a specific concern of mine. That is, regardless of how this reform comes out I hope it will be after it has been scrutinized by a special committee that provides for a great amount of latitude from the people who come before it to express their point of view. Regardless of how we arrive at the end result, we have to have enhanced accountability in every sense of the word.
Canadians are frustrated with the system. We as members of Parliament are very often the lightning rod for that frustration. People look at us and suggest that we are not able to perform adequately, that we are not efficient and that we are not getting the kinds of programs in place that are required in this country.
As much as that is valid and as much as we must say mea culpa and that we take our own responsibilities, I think it goes far beyond that. Many Canadians are questioning the system: the role of the member of Parliament, the role of the Senate certainly, the role of provincial politicians, the role of municipal politicians. All of us are suffering from the cynicism and again, as I

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
admit candidly, much of it well deserved, but the system is far greater. Ask any woman or man who has sat in this place and who is now gone from this place. I think Pierre Elliott Trudeau put it veiy well: "Don't get too far off the Hill and you become a nobody. Perhaps when you are back in your constituency a few people may recognize you".
Ask the people who have passed through this place what they have contributed, how they have performed, how efficient they were, what kind of impact they had on policy. Many people are constituency politicians. There are all kinds of ways of assessing them. We go through an assessment, and we like to go through the assessment, I might point out, every four years. I am told that tradition will change and that we might have to wait five years. I will let Canadians address that question.
The cynicism and the frustration that is directed toward the system also includes, and we have to be honest about this, a feeling that the Public Service of Canada perhaps is not as efficient as it should be. There is the question of contracting out, all of the frustration that was generated, for example, during the strike. We all remember how people were responding to situations that had a direct affect on them. Other than that, perhaps people were relatively apathetic. However, when people were in lines, could not get into airports, could not get passports, could not get various programs approved or applications and so forth, there was a high degree of frustration.
We might think that is gone, but I think it is in the best interest of the Public Service to have a thorough look at what we are proposing. That is why I want to emphasize accountability. If we are going to be accountable as politicians and if we are going to pay the price every four or five years, whatever the case might be, that is one thing. In the Public Service there needs to be accountability. That is going to become very difficult if we look at how the proposals in this legislation allow for decisionmaking to take place. Are we going to have a more rapid response to problems? Are we going to deal at regional levels and even local levels with specific problems, or are we going to have a greater attempt to make sure that accountability is taken care of, in other words that we cover any decision we make very thoroughly to make sure no one is left out to swing in the wind. I think that is
a legitimate concern on the part of public servants, to find out what the decision-making process being proposed implies and what kind of responsibility will rest with the person making the decision.
The public servant has a stake in this, but the Canadian people also have a stake in it. Is it going to be more efficient or are we going to have more people trying to make certain that at some point in time they are not found to be responsible for an incorrect, improper decision or a decision that had very bad results?
These are the questions that I believe must be addressed because of the notion of accountability. The accountability aspect of everything we do now in public life is critical. We must understand that Canadians are insisting that politicians and public servants be accountable and that the system of accountability be as transparent as possible. The best example of that is in Public Accounts where people are far more concerned with the expenditure of $100,000, $200,000 or $1 million than they are with the expenditure of a billion dollars, because the system confounds them when they look at the larger issue. They are unable to deal with it adequately.
I was told yesterday by an individual with whom I was discussing this problem that it is common currency in the senior levels of the Public Service to suggest that part III of the Estimates, for example, which deals with a lot of the details as to how money is spent in this country, is not being used by parliamentarians. There is a tremendous expense in generating this information. Departments work for weeks and months at putting together the information that flows through that process and eventually comes out in a series of books that would fill a counter 10 to 12 feet long. The sad fact is that that senior public servant is right. They are not being used.
Are they not being used because parliamentarians and the Canadian public do not want to use them, or are they so complex and difficult to deal with that no one has the expertise or very few people have the expertise to use them?
The question that will have to be asked at some point by parliamentarians is: Is the production of this information by the bureaucracy and by government designed to inform Parliament and the public, or is the exercise designed to fulfil the necessity for disclosure?
February 11, 1992

In my view of the world, disclosure does not equate with information. People can disclose, for example, how to build a nuclear weapon. That does not mean that I can build it. The information is not something that I can digest or transpose into concrete acts.
What we are dealing with in my view is a system that purports to be accountable, that legislatively is supposed to be accountable, but that in fact spends a great deal of its time making decisions that no one can really track down in terms of being able to tag accountability on to an individual.
We all know that our tradition in this place rests on ministerial accountability. If anybody believes that that still holds true today except in the most blatant of cases where ministers are completely out of line, they are being very naive.
The most experienced people in government now make sure that every avenue is covered so that no matter what happens no one individually is accountable.
If we are to look at legislation like this, which is going to put people in a position where they can make decisions at local and regional levels in a very different way from what is being done now, are we going to make the system more useful to Canadians, or are we just going to create a system where a lot more people have to make sure they can cover their tracks?
I hope that accountability of people in the Public Service and transparency in making sure that people understand what is being done will be key points that will be reviewed when this legislation is referred to a special committee.
The stakes are very high. This country has a lot of good men and women in the Public Service. We need to make sure that we reassure them as to exactly what the rules are. What are they going to be expected to do? Is it going to be a pass the buck system? Is it going to be a cover every avenue system? Is it going to be a system where people are given opportunities to make decisions?
We stand behind them when they make the decisions because they know the parameters under which they are functioning when those decisions are made.
The initiative is a laudable one, to move our Public Service into the 21st century. Certainly Canadians want people to be able to make decisions. We have too much government, layer over layer of government from the municipal level to the provincial level to the federal
Government Orders
level. We have all kinds of special agencies, review boards and all the rest of it.
Surely the objective is not to make life more complicated for the public servant or for the public. I do not think the government has gone far enough in making sure it has consulted widely enough, that there has been sufficient opportunity for discussion, debate and input.
That is why I recommend strongly to the government that it accept our recommendation that this bill not be considered at this time, that it be referred to a special committee, and that that committee make every effort to function in a way that will restore confidence in the Public Service on the part of the Canadian public. At a time when morale is suffering in the Public Service, the men and women in our Public Service should be provided with the confidence required to do their jobs properly. They should know what is expected of them and how the system is going to work. They should have had a say in how it is going to evolve and feel relatively comfortable with what is finally proposed.
In closing, may I say that most Canadians have the highest respect for the people who work in our Public Service. In northern New Brunswick we have a government office in Bathurst, in my constituency, that deals with matters across the country. It was decentralized in the 1970s. It has hundreds of public servants who do magnificent work. I know that because I deal with them directly. Northern New Brunswick suffers from very high unemployment. The people in the Canada Employment and Immigration complex in Bathurst exemplify in my view so much of what is good in the Canadian Public Service.
Most of the employees are bilingual. My constituency is bilingual. They function internally in both official languages of Canada. They provide services in both official languages of Canada. They provide services in an area where the client base is oftentimes frustrated and unhappy with its lot, and rightfully so.
I want to emphasize that no one is seeking to delay because we are not sure how we want to deal with the bill. What we are saying is that it is absolutely essential that public servants have their say about working conditions, about responsibility, and about accountability. They should have their say, as I mentioned, in the face of technological advances that are being made month by month, technological advances that will change the way they work, will often change where they work, will

Government Orders
certainly change the way Canadians get information from the Government of Canada.
I do hope, if we are able to bring the government to our point of view, that this bill be referred and that Canadians, some of whom all too often are too quick to criticize, will come forward with constructive suggestions as to how together we can all improve the way taxpayers' dollars are used to employ men and women who provide the services that government is committed to giving to the Canadian people.
My colleagues and I will not be supporting further consideration of this bill. I do hope that we will be able to agree on referring it to a special committee as has been raised by so many of my colleagues during this debate.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my colleague who has been a member not only of this House but of the legislature of the province of New Brunswick for many years and a former minister of fisheries in that legislature.
My question has to do with the process of accountability. I would like to be specific. In Pearson International Airport in Toronto we receive people virtually 16 to 18 hours a day. They come to the city of Toronto and other related cities throughout the Niagara horseshoe area for tourism opportunities. They also come to look for business opportunities, to invest. They come to review opportunities and to hold trade shows which will result in further exposure for people from all over the world.
One of the biggest complaints we receive is at the point of entry where quite often people will wait sometimes as much as an hour to be processed because of the length of queues at the customs entry point. I realize there are other parts of the world a lot worse than Toronto.
In terms of process and accountability it would seem to me that would be an area where the Government of Canada might be a little penny wise and pound foolish. In other words, it might ask: "What does an extra hour wait mean for somebody coming to this city to invest $100 million or to bring a trade show that might bring with it
4,000	or 5,000 tourism delegates?" A lot of people walk away from our city or first enter our city with not quite the right taste. I am talking about Toronto now, but I
believe it happens in other cities throughout Canada as well.
In the process of accountability how does the member think we should address specific problems like that one to make sure they do not continue? We hear enough complaints from our constituents, but sometimes I think we get bogged down in this House in our ability to solve those problems. I would appreciate the hon. member's views.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I think all public servants working in Canada, whether it is at an airport, processing income tax returns or dealing with war veterans problems, only want one thing. They do not want to bear the brunt of decisions beyond their responsibility.
I agree that customs officers throughout this country, not only those dealing with duty and that type of thing, but those working in immigration and those who have a dual responsibility depending on where they work in the country, can face very difficult situations. They are doing what they can.
The decision to staff areas is obviously made somewhere else. All too often the people in the firing line are those who have the least to say about how their particular responsibility is going to be carried out. I sympathize with those public servants who find themselves in very awkward positions through no fault of their own. They are working as efficiently as they can. They are dealing with the problems presented to them by individuals looking to enter the country or people looking to deal with customs requirements. Surely the accountability has to be with senior management, and this is where the transparency aspect comes into it to some extent.
We cannot demand services, and I think taxpayers are aware of this, without knowing what the cost will be and what the benefits will be. I think this is the point my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood was making. It is not just a question of the overhead cost or the fixed cost. It is also a question of what benefits can be gained or lost by efficient, appropriate use of our resources. When we review the proposal put forward by the government in this legislation, we need to be able to devise a scheme and a system where we can much better determine productivity, decide what is in the best inter-
February 11, 1992

est of the public servant, the best interest of the client, and what is best for the country.
It is not an easy task but certainly the accountability level has to be identified. It should not be left to people who have very little input into the decision-making process to bear the burden of whether it is cutbacks, financial restraint, improper staffing, or a lack of capacity to explain exactly why delays take place.
I sympathize with my colleague. I do not think we have as yet understood the need to be conscious of evaluating the benefits of what we do with our human and financial resources.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise with my colleague from Acadie-Bathurst a question concerning accountability in the Public Service. Michael Binder wrote an article for the magazine Optimum, a management magazine published by Supply and Services, in which he said this very interesting quotation:
One is tempted to ask, "What's the problem? Fundamentally, the problem is this: We are overmanaged and underled."
We rely on rules and regulations, systems and procedures, rather than on our people -our managers and leaders.
And, in spite of stacks of volumes of directives and procedures: accountabilities in the system are still confusing (as a look at the responsibilities of any deputy minister quickly shows); we expect our managers to administer millions of dollars, but barely trust them with taxi chits-authorities are not commensurate with responsibilities; our process of allocating resources is still, by and large, incremental, arbitrary, and definitely not based on scientific analysis of needs or effectiveness; and recent surveys by the Auditor General and Dr. David Zussman of the University of Ottawa, revealed a level of frustration on the part of managers, a weakening of the sense of belonging, and a loss of pride. Managers feel profoundly that there is not a great deal of interest in telling them what is really going on, and they are far from where the action is.
In light of a number of recent developments, including the breakdown of the traditions of ministerial responsibility we saw demonstrated most recently in the Al-Ma-shat affair, these comments by Mr. Michael Binder are quite apropos. I wonder whether the member would be willing to comment on that.
Government Orders


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental to our system that the actions of public servants be defended by their superiors where those actions or conducts are compatible and follow the procedures that are put in place. This is the kind of thing that has to be addressed when this legislation is reviewed.
I refer to the quotation that was put forward by my colleague on clarity. People want to know what is expected of them. They want to know what kind of latitude and flexibility is available to them. Flexibility is one of the words being used in promoting PS 2000. This bill reflects that. But what does it mean? Does it mean flexibility to achieve or flexibility to avoid?
Unfortunately there has been a magnification of certain abuses. In any system or in any human activity there are bound to be examples of abuse, waste, or whatever. These are the kinds of things that are highlighted and to which the public responds, whereas, as my colleague has put it, most public servants as well as most employees in the private sector do their jobs and do them as well as they can. We need clarity, transparency and rules. People need to know what is expected of them. When they do what is expected of them and they perform their duties within the parameters set by management they should be defended.
The Al-Mashat affair is just a symptom of people not knowing whether they will be defended. Are they doing the right thing? Should they be covering themselves as opposed to doing something, making a decision and taking risks? It is difficult to define every possibility.
Surely that is the objective, however. We look forward to a special committee of the House dealing with these issues and hearing from the people both in the public and private sectors who will be directly affected by this type of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before giving the floor to the next speaker, it is my duty to inform the House that the first five hours of debate have now expired. The length of the speeches is now 10 minutes, without a question and comment period.

February 11, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, it was almost 25 years ago, in 1967, that federal Public Service employees in Canada received the right to free collective bargaining together with the right to strike in support of that negotiating process.
It is significant that today, 25 years later, we are introducing the PS 2000 initiative which includes a series of steps and actions to modernize the application of our complex system of Public Service staff relations throughout our federal government administration.
I would like to address the dispute resolution improvements which are contained in the Public Service Reform Act, the proposed legislation in the form of Bill C-26 which is now before us.
This legislation has several provisions which will facilitate the resolution of disputes arising during the course of collective bargaining in the Public Service. As well the bill contains expanded provisions for resolving rights disputes. Those are the kinds of disputable obligations which arise out of a collective agreement or out of arbitration awards.
The intent of labour relation recommendations in the PS 2000 white paper has been to improve the government's relationship as an employer with Public Service unions. The main way to achieve this is to create greater flexibility in the dispute resolution process. We believe that the elimination or the modification of overly rigid, inflexible rules and procedures will enable the parties to work out their differences in a much more constructive manner.
Over the years it has become apparent that the current limitations on the scope of arbitration, coupled with the inability of each party to choose its nominee, has made the arbitration route unattractive to some unions. Arbitration awards are currently limited to such matters as rates of pay, hours of work, leave, standards of discipline, and so on. This has acted as a disincentive to choose arbitration over the conciliation or strike route.
The government therefore proposes to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act to increase the scope of arbitration to cover all matters which are now the subject for conciliation.
Another proposed improvement to the current system would permit each party to choose its nominee for an arbitration board. Only where the parties cannot agree will the Public Service Staff Relations Board be authorized to appoint the members of an arbitration board.
Amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act are proposed to provide, where the parties so agree, a single arbiter who can be appointed instead of a full arbitration board. Another avenue has been opened to provide greater flexibility in conflict resolution. In other jurisdictions the parties are permitted to refer bargaining issues to a single conciliator instead of to a full conciliation board. The bill proposes that where the parties jointly nominate a conciliation commissioner, the PSSRB will be required to appoint that person.
There is always room for new approaches to resolve collective bargaining disputes. The PS 2000 white paper proposed the introduction of a new method designed to keep open the possibility of agreement before the positions of the parties became so entrenched that the only recourse would end in a less than perfect solution.
Bill C-26 before us provides for a voluntary choice for the parties to select a fact finder. The fact finder would define the points in dispute and make non-binding recommendations. However these recommendations would be made public early on in the collective bargaining process before the position of either side became too entrenched. After the appointment of the fact finder the parties would continue to negotiate. They would know, however, that a third party's views on certain questions would eventually be made public and they would be disciplined in their negotiations to consider that reality.
Bill C-26 incorporates another method to help in resolving disputes between the government of the day and public servants. As the law now stands, unions that have agreed to take the conciliation-strike route have no choice but to follow this route with respect to the resolution of all issues. Bill C-26 will open up a new option. The parties by mutual agreement will be able to refer any or all issues in dispute to a form of binding arbitration.
This means that outstanding issues could be referred to a third party for decision early on in the negotiation process so that everything is not on the table at the end of the day. This clears the way for the parties to deal with
February 11, 1992

other issues and perhaps to reach agreements on separate elements of the package one at a time. This provision is called an alternative dispute resolution and will provide greater flexibility to find solutions to problems.
I am sure members of this House will be concerned about what is termed "essential employees" who cany out duties that must be continued during a strike because they are necessary, essential and in the interests of the safety or the security of the public.
Bill C-26 gives effect to the white paper recommendations that the Public Service Staff Relations Act be amended to provide an independent mechanism to resolve disputes about the designation of positions. These amendments are modelled after the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada which was signed on August 7, 1990. Both parties found this arrangement to be entirely satisfactory. The process is designed to have designated positions determined in advance of a round of collective bargaining. This removes the contentious nature of issues, particularly of this issue of designation, from the bargaining context and enhances the smooth operation of the dispute resolution mechanisms available to the parties.
The proposed amendments to the PSSRA do not deal only with collective bargaining rules. They also improve the rights of individual employees. Under the current system the predominant practice has been for the Public Service Staff Relations Board to designate its members as adjudicators. Bill C-26 would permit the parties to select adjudicators of their own choosing, providing a greater flexibility to the parties.
Bill C-26 also provides for the consolidation of employee redress with respect to all cases of termination of employment that do not remain under the PSEA. This means that employees will be able to grieve a management decision to terminate their employment through the full grievance process to third party adjudication.
Many unions have demanded that so-called policy grievances be subject to review by the Public Service Staff Relations Board. We are concerned that this could
Government Orders
work to the disadvantage of the effectiveness of the grievance process. Therefore Bill C-26 proposes a compromise. When both parties agree, a matter relating to the interpretation of a collective agreement which could be the subject of an individual employee grievance to the PSSRB can now be referred directly to the board.
Bill C-26 also proposes other amendments which will enhance the smooth operation of the collective bargaining system. Of particular note is the provision which provides for a basis for master bargaining. When the parties agree, negotiations can proceed to conclude a single collective agreement which is binding on more than one bargaining unit. This is not a new provision but is an important one because it supports the current practice which reduces the probability of conflict.
In closing I would like to mention another provision about the collective bargaining process which concerns the period of notice to bargain. Bill C-26 improves this provision by 50 per cent by stretching it from two months to a three-month notice period which will permit the parties to commence the bargaining process earlier and will enhance the deliberate objective and prepared approach to the entire labour negotiation system.
These new provisions to improve the scope and the capacity for both the government and the Public Service to conduct the bargaining process and to resolve disputes are welcome changes in federal government administration. They will help to set new standards of expeditious and efficient collective negotiation and should significantly reduce levels of conflict and occasions of confrontation. Such results will most certainly contribute to improving staff relations and morale and ultimately to improving service to our common constituents, the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It is obvious to all of us, whether parliamentarians, civil servants or government services users, that it is a good idea to review such a legislation that has been in effect for 25 years with a view to improving it for the benefit of us all.

Government Orders
We must give the public service of Canada an enhanced tool, a legislation in step with our times that will serve us well into the 21st century. We all agree that there is a need for the legislation governing the public service operations to be renewed in order to better serve the people of Canada. However I intend to vote for the six month hoist proposed by the Liberal member so that all parties in this House have a chance to examine the draft legislation and come up with a legislation acceptable to all, that is to say the Canadian people, the civil servants, the unions, the managers as well as all the political parties represented in this House.
The House Committee on Public Accounts, on which I have been sitting since 1988, has looked into the Public Service 2000 issue. In its report tabled November 5,1990, the recommendations made to the government included the presentation of a working document and the establishment of a special committee of the House of Commons on public service reform. This committee would carry out consultations with employees, the public service unions and other interested parties. I want to point out today a few areas where this bill is flawed.

The weakness which I wish to underline today is as follows: deployment, the merit principle, contracting out and the political rights of public servants.
On the subject of deployment, this is a new terminology and a new activity. Simply put, deployment means transfer. In this case the transfer is of an employee from one position to another. The process is definitely not simple and has the potential of becoming one which lends itself to administrative patronage. The problems with deployment are seen in clause 34. The deputy head or the manager has exclusive rights to make deployments within his or her jurisdiction.
Presently transfers are subject to the merit principle and can be appealed. The right of appeal has now been removed. The deputy head makes the decision for deployment and also hears complaints.
The government proposes that it has made the system fair by adding clause 34.2 which states that deployment will not take place without the consent of the employee, "unless an agreement to be deployed is a term or
condition of employment of the employee's current position".
This section is fraught with many problems. First, how much coercion will be put on the employee to consent. There may be harassment and pressure put on the employee to convince him or her that refusal of a deployment will affect future career prospects and even job security. One wonders how soon it will become a permanent condition of employment that an employee sign an agreement to be deployed.
My second point is on the merit principle. The Public Service Employment Act and the present principles under which the Public Service functions are based on the merit principle. Appointments are always made based on selection according to merit after competition is held. Bill C-26 will change this. Clause 10(2) proposes to eliminate competition and allow for appointment as measured against given standards rather than against the competence of other candidates.
Canadians must be guaranteed that their Public Service is non-partisan and employees must be assured that they have the right to advancement based on competence rather than bureaucratic patronage and favouritism.
The role of the Public Service Commission is once again being severely curtailed by this bill. Gone is its power as watch dog and its responsibility to safeguard the merit principle. Managers will now have the right to move employees without regard to merit.
A figure on the total amount spent by the government on contracting out is still not known. The government has no mechanism in place to provide Canadians with this figure nor does it have any system in place to prove the cost effectiveness of this practice. There are many stories of contracts gone wrong and of duplication of costs, all this at the expense of jobs.
The public accounts committee attempted unsuccessfully to get specific details on the issue of contracting out. In its seventh report to the House tabled on November 5, 1990 the committee asked the Auditor General to examine the cost effectiveness and the effect on morale of this practice of going outside of the workplace to have jobs done.
All of our efforts in arriving at a bottom line amount have been were stonewalled by the government. However, it has been estimated that during the current
1991-1992 fiscal year the government will spend $5
February 11, 1992

billion contracting out services. The government cannot or will not account for the amount of work done outside the Public Service. It cannot guarantee that this practice is cost effective and now it enshrines in law the fact that it can lay off employees when their work is transferred to an outside agency. This does little for morale and will do little to assist in the implementation of the changes in Public Service 2000. Employees will always be living in the shadow of having their jobs gone to contracting out.
Finally, political rights of public servants. It is important to note that this issue has been left out of the bill. I repeat, has been left out of the bill. It is definitely time that legislation recognizes the need for clear, common sense rules which will liberalize the restrictions now placed on these employees to take part in political activities at various levels.
I mention clarity because this is a most important issue. When standards and rules are simple and clear there can be no misunderstanding. The rights of individual public servants should be weighed against the need to maintain an efficient, professional and impartial Public Service. Right now, public servants do not know with any certainty what they can or cannot do politically.
In August 1988 the Public Service Commission addressed the issue by telling its employees: "Exercise appropriate judgment and consider your specific circumstances in deciding the nature of your participation in political activities". This did nothing to provide practical guidance.
On June 6, 1991 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the prohibition against public servants working for a candidate or a political party violated their freedom of expression as set out in section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court also stated that legislation should be enacted specifying the limits of political involvement.
I believe that public servants who do not take part in either direct distribution of government funding or in the decisions around the granting of contracts should be able to participate at a particular level of political activity. Those in very public positions should be restricted.
Government Orders
Flowever, the guidelines have to be established and made clear, not left to guesswork.
I intend to propose amendments to those sections of the Public Service Employment Act which the Supreme Court declared contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will also be demonstrating in committee that the 1979 D'Avignon report contains several very interesting suggestions, as do the reports of other countries concerning limitations and definitions of political activity for public servants.
All of this will solve the dilemma our public servants find themselves in today when there is so much confusion and no definition given to the political rights of public servants.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on Bill C-26, which I think is an example of the worst possible way that one could imagine of trying to reorganize the Public Service, by doing it in a way that is completely at odds with the views of the Public Service employees themselves and which only serves to aggravate an already bad situation with respect to morale in the Public Service sector and with respect to the relationship that exists between public servants and the government.
There is a great deal of suspicion, and rightly so, I believe, on the part of public servants about PS 2000 which this bill seeks to implement. The government would be much better advised to re-establish a healthy relationship with their employees and proceed from there rather than trying to impose, by legislative fiat, what cannot be achieved at the bargaining table.
It is part of a trend in Canadian politics, which I think has been aggravated by the current government, and has its origins really in the rhetoric of the Conservative Party, going back to when it was in opposition. They sort of made a career out of attacking the Public Service. You see now, after years in government, that this attitude on their part is coming to fruition in this legislation.
I have a great many public servants in my riding. The Western Canada Taxation Data Centre is in my riding and twice in my parliamentary life I have had occasion to be on the picket line in front of that taxation data centre, back in 1980 I believe it was, when the clerks were on

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
strike and, most recent, during this much larger strike that we all know about that happened last year.
It is unfortunate that Public Service employees have come to situations where they feel that this is their only alternative. If you go out on that picket line, Mr. Speaker, you will see that we are not talking here about a highly politicized group of people who are out to make political trouble, we are talking about a great many people who have not been politically active or involved but who simply feel that an injustice is being done to them in the work place and that they have no choice in the final analysis but to respond in the way that they are responding, by being on that picket line and by supporting the strike.
Even more recently, although it is not in my constituency, I had occasion to join members of the Public Service Alliance who were on strike at the Royal Canadian Mint in St. Boniface. That strike has since been settled but it went on for an awfully long time. It hurt a lot of people and it did not have to be that way.
I firmly believe that where there is a will, there is a way in these kinds of situations. That applies to every situation and I think that the government has taken a kind of attitude to these negotiations which has not permitted negotiated settlements to be reached when they should have been reached. Instead, we had a great many strike actions which could have been avoided.
I want to talk a little bit about the whole notion of contracting out. This is one of the things that really bothers me. I think the evidence, if it were to be accumulated and documented down to the last detail, would show that contracting out is not a way of saving money. Time after time, it is an occasion for people who have no commitment to the particular project, to the particular department or to a particular task that the government is undertaking, to be hired on a short-term basis, to come in and do a particular job, make a buck and get out.
Often, although I am sure this is not true of everyone, the real and only goal is to make that quick buck. Often the public servants have to come along later and clean up the mess left by these private contractors or redo the job that was supposed to have been done by the company to whom the contract was given.
What we are talking about here is a form of long-term commitment to the well-being of a particular project or task, or department or whatever. This whole notion of contracting out, of fragmentation, of commitment is a form of degrading what I would call this whole notion of vocation; that people take their place, particularly public servants, but people might also have this kind of notion about their employment in the private sector.
There is the notion of vocation, that you are here to do a good job, you are here to serve not only your family by earning a living, but you are here to serve your community and your employer by doing a decent job, doing a job in the context of knowing that next year, the year after and the year after that, you are going to be around to answer for the quality of the job that is done.
How well you do your job will have an effect not just on you personally, but on the work place and the goals which you have set for yourself and your fellow workers. That is not the kind of society that we are moving into, Mr. Speaker, with all this contracting out business. People are just sort of random particles in some kind of molecular windstorm where everybody is contracting out here, there and everywhere and doing this job and that job and no one having any sense of cohesion, commitment or community.
It is all just a question of lining up individually isolated, unconnected opportunities to make money. I see this whole debate about contracting out as part of a larger debate about the nature of work and the nature of our relationships with each other.
I deplore it as much for that as I do for the more obvious and I think politically compelling reason, that it does not save the money the government claims it does. In fact, what it becomes is a sort of a boondoggle for people who are connected to the government, who receive these contracts over and above the availability and the ability of the public servants who are there to do that kind of job and who know how to do the job.
I have seen it not just in the Public Service but also in the railway where CN is obsessed in some of its sectors with contracting out. It brings in people who are not railroaders and who do not have the same kind of lifetime commitment to working on the railway. They

come in and do a particular job, and the next day they are working on something else completely different.
Maybe I am just old-fashioned. Maybe I am more conservative than the Conservatives when it comes to this kind of stuff. I think we need to preserve the notion that people are involved in a particular vocation, that people are involved in a particular industry, and that they are not just kind of jumping all over the place wherever there is money to be made, for governments foolish enough to think that contracting out is the way to go.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are on 10-minute speeches at the present time. Therefore I will certainly reduce my 20-minute speech to 10 minutes in accordance with the rules of this House.
I want to say that my party has put forward an amendment to the substance of Bill C-26 at second reading. A good number of Canadians have a certain impression of public servants across this country which in its totality is somewhat incorrect. They are not, I wish to underline for the House and the Chair, individuals who have chosen this particular life because they want to live off the political hide of government. Many have chosen to enter the Public Service because they believe quite substantively that it is a career of serving their country, of serving a particular agency of the Government of Canada, and of serving the people of Canada in that particular endeavour.
It ought to be said clearly that most, if not all, of the public servants I happen to know in my constituency and across this country are men and women who have demonstrated a capacity to work extremely hard and, on some occasions, under less generous working conditions than that of other individuals.
That is not to suggest in any way that members of our Public Service are working in conditions which are akin to other jurisdictions in foreign countries. I do want to place on the record that I have a tremendous respect for those men and women who are serving in the Public Service of Canada.
For instance, I think in my own constituency of those individuals who work so diligently in Employment and Immigration, in National Health and Welfare, in Secretary of State, in the Department of Fisheries and
Government Orders
Oceans, and in all other agencies of the Government of Canada in my constituency and indeed on the island of Cape Breton. There are examples of individual public servants who may from time to time have arguments, confrontations and misunderstandings with individuals including myself. By and large they work very hard. They are extremely dedicated and they have a clear appreciation of their role and its importance for Canadians across this country.
In many respects this government when it comes to our public servants has been seen to create an environment of confrontation thereafter resulting in low morale. I have never seen in my years in Parliament representing constituents and interfacing with government agencies such low morale in the public servants of this country. It is little wonder when we review the treatment they have been given over the last number of years and equally so the sort of spin that is put on the Public Service of this country.
I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the examples we had in this House. We had ministers of the Crown who intervened in debate on back-to-work legislation and left the impression intentionally or otherwise that members of the Public Service were fat cats who had a pretty easy route, were not unemployed, and therefore should be grateful for whatever the Government of Canada would give them in terms of compensation, both monetary as well as non-monetary.
In my view that is the lowest form of politics. It is the politics of envy.
I stand in this Chamber as I have on many occasions to echo the sentiment in my district that unemployment is at an unacceptably high level in this country. But I do not like governments or ministers of the Crown playing one off against the other as we have seen done by the Government of Canada over the last number of years, particularly the last number of months.
It is very easy to criticize someone who has a job because he or she may want better employment equity laws and regulation, someone who wishes to have better health and safety regulations or someone who wishes to have better compensation for the effort, for the hours, and for the dedication given to his or her particular portfolio in whatever capacity, and to interface that with

Government Orders
the unemployed who have no opportunity for meaningful jobs.
I do not like that. I do not think it is needed. I do not think it adds to the level of debate. It certainly produces, as we have seen in the Public Service, a very low morale. It serves only to disunite Canadians as opposed to uniting Canadians on an important issue such as the public sector.
I would have thought that the Government of Canada, through the minister responsible and particularly members of cabinet, would have looked at the Public Service in the way members of the private sector and of non-profit organizations are now pursuing. There is a real desire by some organizations, private and non-private, to try to bring into the fold their employees and to have shared objectives, courses of action and strategies with their employees in order to better service the clientele in the private sector and public sectors across this country.
We have seen the exact opposite with this government. We have seen a government that has run a cabinet like a corporate board. It seemed to forget, or perhaps to a greater extent purposely put aside, the concerns of the rank and file, the workers of the Public Service in terms of what they can do in achieving the goals of the government to improve services to all Canadians. I find that kind of attitude to be disconcerting. If the Government of Canada were to achieve some of the goals it has laid before Parliament, if it were to subscribe to its agenda, it must seek the assistance of public servants. They must be able to interface without fear of retaliation, without fear of additional contracting out of services. What they say and do must in fact be appreciated. I do not think that is the case with this particular government. I think it has done everything, intentionally or otherwise, to alienate the Public Service, thereby resulting in poor morale. One has to question in some instances whether or not the objectives of public servants as it sees them are being achieved.
I would hope the Government of Canada would stop using the public servants of this country as whipping boys and whipping women in a debate over the Canadian economy and over the recession we are in at the present time. It is essential that they be paid reasonable compensation for their efforts and for their dedication, but I also
believe that they should have a meaningful say in terms of the delivery of programs, in terms of the administration of the Public Service not only for their betterment but also in achieving the objectives of the government. Of course the ultimate object is providing top quality service for Canadians from coast to coast.


Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my speech this morning will be relatively brief.
Public Service 2000 is indeed an excellent initiative and will certainly prove worthwhile for all Canadians. All members of this House have great respect for Public Service employees. We need them, and we realize that they are doing an excellent job.
I do not think it is in any way disparaging to Public Service employees if we look for ways to improve efficiency and renew a public service which seems to have been operating on the same principles for the past 25 years.
In my speech this morning I want to express my support for Bill C-26, and I will explain why. Public Service 2000 will achieve the following objectives: Initially, change internal management rules to make them more flexible, more effective and more service oriented. Throughout this initiative, we see there is a very real respect for all public service employees. Our purpose is simply to make certain adjustments to the technological developments that have taken place during the past 25 years, to change the rules and make it easier for the public servant to do the job he has to do as part of his duties.
It is clear that the Public Service must concentrate on providing better service to all Canadians. This also means updating the rules on collective bargaining, staffing and human resource management. The reform will be prepared by a task force created in January 1991, which will be responsible for simplifying the position classification system by abolishing occupational categories, reducing the number of occupational groups from 71 to 23, and simplifying classification standards and reducing the number of classification levels.
I repeat this will make the Public Service far more responsive to all its employees and help it to continue improving services to the public.

Despite all these changes, many groups will continue to exist, such as specialists and technical jobs, but the administrative sector will be consolidated in a single occupational group to be known as general services.
Classification standards will be consolidated through the use of a universal position evaluation plan, which will be instrumental in establishing a system providing for equal pay for work of equal value. This standard in the Public Service, which we find in all private sector bargaining, is certainly one of the standards most appreciated by public servants, and will also be appreciated as such at the functional level.
Consolidating occupational groups will substantially reduce the range of pay scales and thus simplify administration.
As I said before, my speech will be brief, and I am about to conclude. I am sure all parliamentarians will support this initiative because after 25 years, it makes sense to make Public Service operations more effective and more service oriented, for the benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I am not in support but in opposition to the proposed bill.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts made a recommendation to the House of Commons that a special committee of Parliament be empowered to consider the principle of the bill as well as its substance in the total context of PS 2000.
Our caucus and our party support the recommendations of this committee for the reason that we should look at the thrust of PS 2000. The whole idea behind it came from that which the Prime Minister announced on December 12, 1989. He announced PS 2000 which he called: "an initiative to renew the Public Service of Canada". At the time the Prime Minister explained that the purpose of the initiative was, first, to foster and encourage a Public Service that was professional, highly qualified, non-partisan and imbued with a mission of service to the public; second, to recognize that its employees are an asset to be valued and developed; third, to place as much authority as possible in the hands
Government Orders
of front-line employees and managers; and, fourth, to provide the scope for different organizational forms to meet different needs but in the context of a single Public Service.
These are the principles and I think they are generally good. If we are looking for professionalism in the Public Service it is there. Our Public Service is highly qualified, non-partisan and its mission is to serve the public. The first objective is met. I say this with the knowledge that we have one of the finest public services not only in North America but perhaps around the world.
The second point concerned recognizing its employees as an asset to be valued and developed. That is a question mark. The reason I say this is that over and over again we have seen very low morale in the Public Service. While the thrust of 70 per cent of the PS 2000 was to create some attitudinal change in the Public Service, we have seen the morale at an all-time low. Why is the morale so low? It is for a lot of reasons.
First, look at the question of how we treat our public servants and where we are hitting them the most. We are hitting them the most in their pockets. Look at the cost of living in our society. The increase in 1991 was expected to be 6.4 per cent, but what we paid our public servants was 5.2 per cent.
In 1990, 66,000 public servants earned less than $29,000 per year. Compare this to the poverty line which for a family of four is $29,800. When we look at this group of people two-thirds of them are women working in low paying jobs.
The idea of promoting them within the work force has not taken off as we thought it would. Other than morale the public servants are also concerned about the question of downsizing.
At a time when there is tremendous pressure on the Public Service to provide quality service, which in my view it is doing, we have seen since 1983-84 a decrease in the Public Service. In 1983-84 we had approximately
258,000	employees. In 1990-91 we had 221,859 employees. That means that 35,000 to 37,000 employees have been removed from the payroll of the federal government. This is at a time when we have to increase the number of public servants in the work force in order

Government Orders
to guarantee that we are providing quality service to our communities.
Instead of increasing the number of public servants what the 'government has done is contract out. The Public Service Alliance calls it the $5 billion scam. If the government is to respond to this allegation by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, what it should be doing is setting up a task force to look at the value for dollars invested when it comes to contracting out. This is a challenge for the government to respond to or it can accept the allegations of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Second, consider the downside in the Public Service. I have challenged the government in the past and I will repeat it. I believe my colleagues will join me in saying that there should be a study as to whether we have a surplus or a shortfall when it come to public servants. I can assure you we have a shortfall.
I will use examples from Immigration Canada. Nowadays people who are looking for service at Immigration Canada have to line up at 6 or 6.30 a.m. in order to get to the counter. In order to obtain an application form from citizenship courts all across the country one has to wait more than eight months. Health and Welfare is another area the government should look at.
These are some of the areas we are concerned about. More important, the whole question is about reforming the Public Service so we have fully productive, co-operative, non-partisan, happy and easy going public servants. What the federal government should be doing is involving the public servants themselves.
I know in its proposals it has indicated that it approached the Public Service Alliance of Canada which represents a large segment of public servants but did not get its support. Speaking personally as an employer, the federal government has a moral obligation not to proceed with any legislation that is not supported by its employees and their representatives.
The call by my colleague from Ottawa South on the government to set up a special committee prior to dealing with this legislation is a valid one.
The reason I say this is that there are a lot of issues out there that the government has to look at before it implements any kind of legislation.
Nobody could have put the issue before the public as well as the union has done in terms of the various pieces of information that it has put out to its members, in terms of the various studies it has done, and in terms of the various analyses it has done.
Having said that, I think the government has taken an initial good step toward reforming the act. The way it is doing it suggests it is not the proper way. It has to sit down with its workers and with the representatives of the workers to try to get them to buy in.
The reason I say this is that in the 1990s and beyond the year 2000 we must have the support of our workers if we are to come up with any kind of productive good legislation. We will not be able to have a fully productive society if the public servants who are providing those services to our society are not happy and looked after.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate as the representative of the people of Halifax because Halifax, as many in this House are aware, is the third largest Public Service town in the country.
We have many different areas of the Public Service in our city. We have the civilian employees of the Department of National Defence. We have Health and Welfare. We have National Revenue. I could go on and on and on. In the greater Halifax-Dartmouth area there are approximately 20,000 to 30,000 employees of the Government of Canada.
I agree with my colleague, the member for Ottawa- Centre, that the time for reform and legislation relating to the Public Service is long overdue. I am afraid however that the government has laboured and brought forth a mouse. It is a mouse that is not going to do much for either morale or for the sense of pride and accomplishment workers want to have in their work.
We have a tremendous Public Service in this country. It is hard working, committed and there for the public in practically every area of endeavour. These public servants are going through a time which can only be described as extremely difficult. These public servants

are experiencing what can only be called a malaise because of a lack of response to their very real needs.
One example of this malaise is the regional disparity with regard to wages. There is no phrase that can galvanize my constituents faster than the phrase regional rates. Atlantic Canadians enjoy the lowest rates of pay and the greatest disparity with comparable private sector salaries in the country.
I have here in front of me some figures that I received from Halifax. They represent the electrical installing and maintaining subgroups. In other words they are electricians. They make more than $1 less than two of the other five zones of labour, more than $2.50 less than the fourth, and a full $3 less than the fifth.
Over and over again it has been said with regard to regional rates that the cost of living is not lower in Halifax than it is in most of the other centres of the country. Indeed, in a great many respects because of freight rates it is higher than in lots of other places in the country. Private sector electricians are paid comparably to their colleagues in other regions of the country. The public sector is not.
My second example of regional rates of pay is pipefitters. Again they receive $2 to $3 less an hour than the other zones. Woodworkers get $2 to $3 less than other zones. Why should workers in Atlantic Canada be singled out for significantly lower, indeed the lowest regional rates of pay? Is there anything in this to change that situation? No, there is not.
I move on to a second area and that is the lack of equal opportunity for women, visible minorities, aboriginals and disabled persons. In other words, this government is not subject to its own pay equity laws. It would be laughable were it not so serious.
A year ago a group of women in the Public Service at the government's behest came forward with a report that shows us the problems for women in the Public Service of Canada. That report is titled Beneath the Veneer, and from it a new expression became common currency, in English at least. That expression is the glass ceiling. There is not a woman in the work force, Public Service, private sector or Government of Canada who does not know what a glass ceiling is. Every woman who works
Government Orders
outside the home has butted her heat against the glass ceiling at one time or another.
In the Public Service of Canada we are supposed to set an example and lead. We are supposed to show that we are the most equitable, the fairest. We should be the shining light for the private sector, provincial and territorial governments to follow. Our light is pretty grimy at this stage of the game.
The fact most particularly that this government is not subject to the pay equity legislation ought to make us ashamed to show our faces in public. A government that is not subject to its own laws is disgraceful.
The next item I want to refer to is downsizing. There is no question that some downsizing has to take place to make us more competitive. We are all aware of that and know the problems here. Downsizing done in such a manner as to shake the morale of the entire federal Public Service has hardly been handled in a way that one would expect, not just from caring employers but reasonably intelligent employers.
In the six years since this government began its downsizing program, 13,000 positions have been cut and
24,000	workers have been affected by the downsizing with precious little warning and with precious little cushion. This is something else that is foreign to the traditions of the Public Service of Canada. In the past in the Public Service of Canada there was always a sense that if jobs had to go because of changes in the way we do things-whether we are talking technology, downsizing or tight times in the budget-it was done in such a way as to optimize the next set of choices for the worker. It was not just done like some mad axe killer rushing through departments and chopping off people's heads.
There has to be and always has been in this country a sense of caring and concern for workers and the people. I keep coming back to the phrase of Robin MacNeil of the MacNeil-Lehrer report on public broadcasting in the United States. He said when President Bush talked about a kinder and gentler America: "There is one. It is called Canada".
Well, no more. We are losing that reputation. We are losing that edge but, worse of all, we are losing that compassion. When we lose it with regard to the federal Public Service, when we as the representatives of the people do not stand up and defend the federal Public Service, we are cutting our own throats. These are the people who are supposed to put the policies of govern-

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
ment into force. If they have no trust and faith in the policies of government, how well are governmental policies going to be brought to the rest of Canada? Not very well at all.
A final area that I want to talk about is contracting out and laying off those who perform the services. A recent court decision ruled that the government could not legally contract out work and then turn around and lay off those who had been doing that very work. At the very least, it is putting the cart before the horse.
However the government seems determined to go ahead with this bill and ignore the recent decision. It is not sensible. When we look at the approach this bill takes and the history of government policy toward the federal Public Service, it is almost as if the Public Service were in an adversarial position with the government. If that were the case, someone misunderstands the situation.
Those of us on this side of the House do not misunderstand the situation. When I return to Halifax on weekends and during the breaks in the legislative year, I talk to many, many federal public servants. I hear their concerns and their wishes to do a good job and take pride in their work. But their overriding concern is that their jobs are not valued. In the Atlantic provinces they are not paid what they are worth and what other workers doing the same job are considered to be worth. I hear that there is an absolute crisis of confidence of public servants in their government.
While there is a crisis of confidence among public servants toward their own government, the business of Canada cannot be done in a way that benefits all Canadians. We have too many crises in this country right now. This is one that government policy can alleviate. The government should act.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak against this bill. As usual, I have an hour of material and nine minutes and 30 seconds to condense that material into the appropriate timeframe.
As usual I want to quote from our Prime Minister in his infamous book Where I Stand, now appropriately called "Where I Stood". It reads: "Our belief was that the adversary system of labour relations ultimately produces just that, adversaries. It was our intention, and we conveyed repeatedly and emphatically to both our
union leaders and our employees directly to go the extra mile to avoid hurtful confrontations throughout our system that inevitably affect morale, productivity and ultimately profits". Often we agree with what the Prime Minister said at that particular time, but obviously he no longer agrees with what he himself said.
I have an abundance of statements by public servants from across this country. They, better than anyone else, can say exactly how they feel. I wish I had the opportunity to read all of their statements from Newfoundland to British Columbia, but I want to highlight just a few of them before I get into some of the specifics.
Rather than having a lean, efficient machine to move into the 21st century, Canadians may wake up to find that the tune-up done by the mechanics of PS 2000 was really some backyard mechanizing done by Curly, Moe and Larry. A cynical comment you say, but perhaps appropriate.
Claude Parent from Montreal says: "All inspectors will tell you that our work is only a smoke screen now, hiding reality. Now inspection is aimed at companies rather than the Canadian public. American border inspections went from all loads to one out of twenty and finally went up to one out of five because of pressure from technical and professional employees".
Does this have an affect on our daily lives? It has an affect on our economy. May I suggest that foreign manufacturers are continually dumping products into our country and steel is one of those products. We do not have the inspectors to inspect appropriately the shipments of whatever is coming into this country. This has a direct impact on people and a direct impact on the economy of our country.
Karen Fougere from Yellowknife says: "We have UI agents who are asked to work two or three hours of overtime every day and they do not care about your home life or your family".
We in Sault Ste. Marie can appreciate that statement simply because about a year and a half ago our UI people were asked to work overtime every day. They worked all weekend to meet the requirements of 5,000 workers who were registering to apply for UI benefits. They registered these thousands of people twice. The point is that they had no family life whatsoever. I think the downsizing of our work force, along with the downsizing of all the
February 11, 1992

manufacturing outlets in this country, has a negative impact.
This bill is indeed complex and I suspect very few people will get into the intricacies of it. It is a complex bill that impacts 150,000-plus individuals who work for the government, but they work for 26 million Canadians and have an impact everywhere in their daily lives.
We had a labour dispute just a while back. The walk-out affected a wide range of government services. It delayed traffic at airports and harbours. It closed waterways and jammed border crossings. Ships carrying Canadian grain bound for China were halted. Convicts at a B.C. prison complained of strike related hardships and rioted. Industrial production staggered as imported manufacturing components were delayed at border customs posts.
It impacted the whole country. I think the government believed that politically it was not a bad idea and that Canadians would turn on their public servants. Well, it backfired. There was a great deal of sympathy for the people who worked for us and that tide of sentiment really turned around.
As Premier Bob Rae suggested, to legislate a zero per cent increase and ask for co-operation really borders on the ridiculous. The treatment of people in that way is no longer acceptable. We are not going to get into the intricacies of the bill, but we went to a special presentation that suggested what we require above all is a 70 per cent attitudinal change, a 20 per cent mechanical change, and a 10 per cent legislative change.
Our suggestion is that we work on the attitudes first. If we need an attitudinal change of 70 per cent, let us work on that. Do not bring in legislation that is extremely unpopular with the workers of the country. It is going to be very difficult for them to co-operate because it will impact them most directly. Let us deal with the attitudes of the government, the employer. Let us work on those attitudes first. Let us win the confidence of the people who work for us.
In PS 2000 there is an indication that consultation was not carried out the way it should have been to come to a consensus that meets at least with the grudging approval of the workers. There are small areas of positives in this
Government Orders
bill, and I will cite the concept of probation to try to give both sides of the picture. You should undergo a probationary period only one time. Previously if you transferred to another position you would have to undergo another probation for that particular occupation. We accept the concept of one probation. If you are good enough to perform government service in one occupation, I suggest you are good enough to serve in another occupation.
It will also facilitate the placement of people in new positions and shorten the time periods so we will not be left without public servants in appropriate positions.
Of course we have some problem with the concept that merit may be set aside, that more subjective decisions may be made by managers, and that the competency of people may not be the final judgment. We are not here to suggest that anyone would make arbitrary patronizing kinds of decisions, but that potential is there. The fear of public servants is that merit will be set aside and these other considerations will take its place.
I would like to mention contracting out. One of the direct implications of this bill is that if work is taken out of one department and put into another department, the manager has the authority to lay off a person within the confines of his work area. We are suggesting with the bent of this government on contracting out that we are convinced there is a $5 billion scam. It is not saving. It is costing taxpayers money. We should not allow that area to lose its work force. There is no protection whatsoever for the employees.
Another major problem is that we are undertaking to overhaul a system that is indeed antiquated. Rather than tackling the system as a whole, however, we have decided to tinker with it. The tinkering is taking place in a rather simplistic fashion. We will just sort of place these thousands of people into this category. The category will be unwieldy and impossible to deal with.
Rather than overhauling the system, as I think public servants agree should be done, we are going to tinker with the system to the detriment of workers. I think in the end this will be to the detriment of Canadian services. I repeat that I think it is somewhat popular to dump on public servants and to bash them because they are the most visible of all workers. Everybody sees them. They are on the front line serving the people. I think the vast majority of them want to serve and they want to

Government Orders
serve well. However, with morale at the lowest level possible how do we anticipate that things will get better?
We are opposed to the PS 2000 Bill C-26.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments on the legislation we are presently considering before this House. They are items of great importance not only to the Public Service but to all Canadians who on a daily basis utilize the very valuable assistance that only the Public Service of Canada can render to the people of Canada. These are in areas so important that they affect the day-to-day activity of all of us who work for the Government of Canada.
These are areas such as contracting out, the very important area today of employment equity, how we treat our casual employees in our community, and the prospects of doing away with the merit principle which is certainly contrary to the position of the party I represent and speak on behalf of today.
It is an unhappy fact that labour relations in Canada have never been worse in our history. The labour unrest of last September and October revealed a country at odds with itself. Workers were most unhappy. Workers were frustrated and feared for their future. They were dealing with an uncaring government which seemed oblivious to the damage it was creating in the labour relations field.
It is very obvious to everyone that the Public Service is in need of fundamental reform in Canada today. Canada's Public Service totters along backed by legislation enacted in 1967, and before that in 1918. It certainly is time that we took a look at the complete system of negotiating with the employees of the Government of Canada and provided new, forward looking guidelines for the 21st century.
It is essential that in doing so we legislators provide the very best model we can formulate. After all, Canadians in the civil service were once regarded as a model for all other countries in the world to follow.
It is evident that those days are long gone and Canada's Public Service personnel have never been unhappier, never been so demoralized and never been without clear-cut goals. Certainly we all know this
affects the service that is rendered to the average Canadian on a day-to-day basis.
It used to be that the Public Service was expected to work toward the interests of Canada as a whole, but over the last seven years it is evident that the Public Service has become another target for so-called privatization in the questionable attempts at reform. I will return to this later.
As I said a few moments ago, the Public Service is in dire need of reform and revitalization for the years ahead. That brings us to PS 2000.
It is the view of the Official Opposition that PS 2000 has been a spectacular flop. Far from being an exercise in democracy, this legislation provides for an arbitrary list of reforms. No one was consulted. Where was the dialogue? The Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Commons found the document lacking in several respects and recommended the establishment of a special committee of the House of Commons to hold hearings to review PS 2000.
What did this government do? It went ahead with the preparation of legislation, ignored the recommendations of an all-party committee of the House Commons, and announced that the only review would be through a legislative committee.
We on this side of the House should be a little more used to the methods employed in this legislation as it is so apparent that this government has been using its mandate in many other forms and particularly to control the activities of the Public Service of Canada.
The intense dissatisfaction with this government demonstrated so strongly last fall with several weeks of strikes in the public sector points to the pressing need for a complete overhaul of labour relations in this country.
It is essential that an omnibus bill of this sort address the most pressing needs of the Public Service. In some respects we on this side of the House are prepared to countenance certain clauses of the legislation that do in our view strengthen Canada's Public Service.
There are all too many areas where we have serious questions about the bill's suitability with respect to progressive employment practices. As an example, the runaway trend toward contracting out which this govern-
February 11, 1992

merit favours is really a way of privatizing the Public Service in Canada.
Casual workers employed where extra help appears to be needed at any given time do not enjoy the security of the work place or the security of employee benefits. We have grave reservations about the hiring of so many casual employees in Canada.
The government has increased its contracting out budget in the Public Service from $2.7 million annually in 1984 to the present and current $5 million projection today. Public sector workers could provide the services required given a more flexible system and enjoy more harmony within the work place. Why hire outside workers and fail to protect them with the basic benefits we all should enjoy as employees of the Government of Canada?
Therefore, the contracting out, the downsizing, the privatization concepts that are being put in place, and the use of short-term, temporary or contract employees all add to the disharmony we see today in the relationship this government has with its Public Service employees.
For those of us who spent some of our former careers at the bargaining table along with employers, employees and labour lawyers like myself, there is today an enlightened approach and a new vision that we could adopt for the 21st century. At the end of the bargaining process, when we leave the table and the deal is struck, the people who usually negotiated that contract are no longer in the work place. The bargainers have gone elsewhere and are no longer responsible for those for whom they bargained. The labour lawyers have gone to some other labour confrontation or some other endeavour. That only leaves the employer, the employee, the supervisor and so on in the work place who must work in harmony.
It is important that at the time of the bargaining process everyone involved realizes that at the end of the day people must work together. People must work together in harmony. People must understand the terms under which they work and the employers must have the responsibility and the security of knowing what their future holds.
I suspect very much when I analyse what has happened within this country, especially since last October, that
Government Orders
that harmony does not exist. That spirit of co-operation is no longer in place. The labour relations this government has projected for its Public Service is causing further deterioration in the feeling that this country of ours can be a great country. I suggest to this government today that it take that lesson, start to unify and make those areas between Government of Canada employees and the people who administer its contracts much better.
I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity today in making that contribution.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I am of course very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-26, especially because, if you consider for a moment, politicians depend heavily on the public service in running the country. No theme in Public Service 2000 is stronger than improved service to the public. However, this improvement in service will come mainly from administrative measures such as training and professional development, consultation, customer surveys and service standards. That is why the existing legislation, which has become obsolete over a quarter of a century, must be changed.
Almost all the provisions of the bill relate to the objective of improved service. In some cases, the connection is direct, as with faster staffing for example; in others, it is less so. For example, simplified administrative procedures will free managers and employees and give them more time to serve their customers better, which is obviously the basic purpose of the public service.
Reduced paperwork and administrative red tape and fewer management levels will save money and thus make more resources available to improve front-line services to the public.
There are many important connections between the bill and service to the public. In the field of staffing, for example, transfers will be used to rapidly reassign employees to where additional resources are required. This will foster enthusiasm and especially creativity, two characteristics of good service.
Use of casual employees, will also help meet shortterm requirements. Furthermore, the classification system is now being simplified to respond better to work place requirements. In its present form, the system is poorly adapted to the needs of a staff whose abilities are

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
increasingly diverse. It does not make it easier to reassign employees quickly in an ever-changing environment and it creates unnecessary distinctions which are very costly and waste a lot of time.
The present system, needs vast resources-more than
100,000	classification actions a year. Imagine. From now on, the number of occupational groups will be considerably reduced as will the number of levels, we hope. Both initiatives will help smooth the traditional hierarchical structure and make the process more service-oriented.
As for employment equity, we have known for a long time that the quality of service to our different public section depends in part on the representativeness of the public service. The new act specifies that the government will be able to launch employment equity programs without having to go through all the red tape of the past. Once again, the Public Service will benefit from that measure.
Bill C-26 includes several reforms concerning staff relations, all of which are aimed at improving the service to the public and streamlining the present procedures. The scope of the arbitration process is extended, which will encourage people to use that process rather than to go on strike.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the administrative work that is necessary to exempt civil servants from collective bargaining will be reduced. It is the positions that will be exempted, and not the employees that fill those positions; consequently, it will no longer be necessary to reopen a file every time a position is filled by a new incumbent.
Public Service 2000 is essentially an exercise aimed at improving the service to the public by increasing the motivation of employees, giving more freedom to managers and making them more accountable, as well as providing the Public Service with better systems to satisfy the needs of its clients. This exercise must take place with fewer resources, fewer formalities and fewer levels of management; as well, centralized systems that are too rigid will have to be replaced. The savings that will result from this exercise will be used to improve the service to the public.
The bill on the reform of the Public Service enables us to eliminate those obstacles that prevent us from providing a first class service to the public. To sum up, this bill makes the staffing process less rigid by authorizing an increased use of transfers, as well as simplifying the classification process. It also authorizes the hiring of temporary employees more quickly than before, to face short-term needs. Finally this legislation eliminates obsolete provisions concerning eligibility lists, probation periods and dismissals.
Employer-employee relations will be improved, thanks to amendments that will encourage the increased use of arbitration, will facilitate the identification of managers and confidential employees to be exempted, as well as speed that process.
It is very important that the Public Service be more representative of the different clients it serves. That is why this bill provides for employment equity programs. I therefore urge the members of this House to pass this bill as quickly as possible so that its provisions can take effect immediately.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in debate on this very important Bill C-26 I think it is important to remember part of the history of the dealings in which the government has engaged in bringing this bill before the Commons.
In December 1989 the Prime Minister announced that he was launching an in-depth study of the Public Service. As a result of the lengthy study which was called PS 2000 we were to receive a white paper. In fact we did receive it but the white paper was called a policy paper, not a discussion paper.
Notwithstanding the fact that the white paper was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the bill has been introduced without the benefit of further study by that committee as recommended by it.
The recommendation was that the bill be studied by a committee so that the principle of the bill as well as the details could be subject to review before its passage in this House at second reading.
The government has rejected that very wise, very sound advice. Why has it chosen to do so? One can only
February 11, 1992

assume that it is because the government in its actions has displayed a very high-handed approach in its dealings with the Public Service of Canada.
I need not go back over history to prove that point. Members of the public and members of this House will well recall the really shocking treatment the government meted out to its public servants recently in the course of the strike. For the first time in our history, certainly since the Second World War, the government legislated the members of the Public Service back to work without any binding arbitration arrangement. It legislated a zero per cent increase which even its friends in Toronto did not do. A one per cent increase was negotiated in Toronto while this government legislated back at zero per.
I think all Canadians were appalled at the government's callousness and the manifest unfairness it portrayed in the course of proceedings on that bill. It had already given a 4.2 per cent increase to management in the Public Service, and then it legislated the people in the lower echelons of the Public Service back to work at zero per cent.


Mr. Dick:: That is untrue and you know it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Minister of Supply and Services says that is untrue and I know it. I know that in fact it is the opposite and he knows it. He was there. He knows that the 4.2 per cent increase was given in February 1991 before the budget came down. If he has forgotten I suggest he take a look at the budget documents which indicate that was in fact done. It is public knowledge. It is on the public record.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You are misinforming the public. It is untrue.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I challenge the hon. minister to rise and participate in the debate if he disagrees with what I say. He knows a 4.2 per cent increase was given in February 1991 and a zero per cent increase was legislated for the remainder. In fact, I recall he had an opportunity to participate in the debate on that bill. I do not recall that he did.
As my friend from Gloucester says, the Minister of Supply and Services is a great defender of the Ottawa Public Service, except in the case of some of these bills.
Government Orders
I want to turn to the fact that this particular bill is based on a policy paper which was prepared by a group of individuals put together by the government for the purpose. Ten task forces were created to deal with 10 different areas of interest in respect of the development of the Public Service. If you look at the list it all sounds veiy reasonable.
Who sat on the task forces? Thirty-one deputy ministers, twelve assistant deputy ministers and nine heads of personnel sat on the task forces, that is who. There was not a single representative of any of the Public Service unions and no one from the lower echelons of the Public Service. They were all high ranking public officials who sat on these task forces devising ways, in their view, to improve efficiency in operations of the Public Service.
There is no doubt the changes recommended could lead to greater efficiency, but I suggest that fairness and proper treatment of persons employed in the Public Service are liable to be sacrificed by the terms of this bill in favour of political or administrative expediency.
I introduced a private member's bill in this House, Bill C-234, to amend the Public Service Employment Act in part. The purpose of the bill was to ensure that persons appearing before the Public Service Commission for hearings, grievances on promotion, transfer and whatever, got a fair hearing. They would have been able to see the documents that were used by the other side against them. They would have had an opportunity to bring witnesses to the board and cross-examine witnesses presented on the other side.
The new bill does not contain any of those procedural safeguards. It takes away some of the powers the Public Service Commission had in respect of transfer and moves them to the Treasury Board which of course is the employer's own board.
The purpose of the Public Service Commission was to establish an independent body that would deal with the Public Service and keep it as much as possible at arm's length from the government to avoid political interference. This bill goes a long way toward breaking down that arm's length relationship and that aura of independence and responsibility the Public Service Commission has exercised in this country for most of this century.
I see my time has expired. I will continue my remarks after the lunch break.

February 11, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians celebrate Valentine's Day. We remember our loved ones with hearts and flowers, but February is heart month when thousands of volunteers of the Heart and Stroke Foundation work with the public to increase awareness and request assistance to combat Canada's number one killer, heart disease.
Progress against this quiet but devastating disease is being made. Over all, the death rate for Canadians under 65 has dropped by 36 per cent. However, health and welfare reports that cardiovascular disease costs our economy almost $17 billion every year.
Much work still needs to be done and when a volunteer for the Heart and Stroke Foundation comes to your door this month please have a heart. Please help overcome this number one heart killer.


NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Flyer Industries, a bus manufacturer in my riding, is waiting to find out if it will receive a $12 million contract to supply 60 buses to Las Vegas Transit.
Despite a very competitive bid, the third lowest and the lowest one which meets all the needs of Las Vegas Transit, the city of Las Vegas may not award New Flyer the contract simply because it is not an American company.
New Flyer has complied with UMPTA, the American's watchdog, by honouring all of the requirements of "buy American". One of these is that 60 per cent of the content of the vehicle being sold must originate in the United States. New Flyer conforms to this rule to be eligible to compete in the U.S. market. In fact it imports $17 million more from Americans than it exports to them.
What is more frustrating is that to meet another requirement of "buy American" it has had to establish a manufacturing depot in the U.S. for final assembly of vehicles. New Flyer has three facilities in the U.S. to remain eligible to compete in the U.S. market.
But what is the possible return on this investment when the U.S. simply refuses to buy Canadian? That is not free trade; it is extortion. The Canadian government should wake up and smell the coffee.
The Americans are always looking after their interests. Perhaps we should do the same for a change and abrogate the FTA or at least have the Americans respect the spirit of the free trade agreement while it is in place.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are being asked to be part of a solution even though they are not part of the problem.
Our grain and oilseeds producers are being rendered paupers by a subsidy war between the U.S. and Europe.
Our supply management producers are being asked to give up a lifetime of effort and investment to satisfy American demands to enter our markets, this demand from a country which has barred the world's dairy products from access to its market since 1954. Again we dance while the U.S. calls the tune.
Canada has developed a system in dairy which is the envy of the world. A recent American farm publication has stated: "threatened as it might be, the Canadian dairy industry continues to earn the respect and envy of dairymen in the U.S. and elsewhere".
February 11, 1992

Our government must not allow the destruction of this industry. Our dairy industry must not be sacrificed on the altar of conciliation to the big economic powers.
In Atlantic Canada alone 6,250 jobs depend on the dairy, egg, and chicken industries; in central Canada, over 70,000; in the west, over 20,000.
It is time for Canada to say: "No more". Canadian farmers are getting nothing out of this GATT deal. We lose again.


CANADA GAMES
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, I have the pleasure to inform the members of this House that we are celebrating today the 25th anniversary of the Canada Games.
Since the first games held in Quebec City in 1967, some 31,000 young Canadians have taken part in the games per se and 120,000 in the eliminatory heat, thus gaining invaluable competition experience.
The Canada Games tradition will be carried on during the 1993 Canada Summer Games to be held in Kamloops, British Columbia, and the 1995 Canada Winter Games in Grande Prairie, Alberta.
These Games were a springboard for most of the young athletes who are currently representing our country at the Albertville Olympic Games.
I would also like to announce, on this special day, the creation of the Roland Michener Award which will be presented every two years to a promising young athlete participating in the Canada Games.
Mr. Michener, who passed away last year, was renowned as a jogging enthusiast and as a champion of sports and fitness. It seems only fitting to honour him by making sure that future generations of young Canadian athletes keep alive the memory of such a remarkable man.
Let us celebrate together, this anniversary of the Canada Games.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, there are some 225 supply managed farms in my riding of Northumberland.
These farmers are worried about the outcome of the GATT negotiations in the coming weeks. As well, any losses in agriculture negatively impact on many other areas of our economy.
Farming is vital to our economy in terms of trade revenues and its spin-off support to agricultural suppliers, handlers and processing industries. Farming supports the rural lifestyle of many in Northumberland.
Canada's supply management system has provided stable prices for our dairy, poultry and egg producers and secure supplies for Canadians for more than 20 years. A changed system would put at risk the livelihood and rural life-style of thousands of farmers in Northumberland, risk some 70,000 jobs in Ontario and a $10 billion industry.
I urge the federal government to support farmers in my riding of Northumberland and across Canada, and to do everything it can to protect Canada's supply management system from being destroyed at the current GATT negotiations.
Canada's supply management is the best system for Canadian dairy and poultry producers.



Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, we are nearing what we hope will be the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations.
For the first time in GATT's history, agriculture will be included. Canada has presented its position to strengthen and clarify article XI. This is of extreme importance.

February 11, 1992
The federal government together with the provinces and the agriculture community developed this negotiating position and this is the position that Canada maintains.
Canadians benefit from a system of supply management which ensures a secure supply of reasonably priced, quality products. A strengthened and clarified article XI, will ensure the future of supply management and prevent future international challenge.
I wish to assure supply managed farmers of my support for their industry and this position. Producers can be assured that the Canadian government will continue to fight to strengthen and clarify article XI.


PALESTINIAN REFUGEES
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, Kuwait, a country Canadians fought to liberate during the gulf war will impose impossible residency restrictions on its Kuwaiti-Palestinians.
In essence, it will kick them out, but most Palestinians have no homeland and other Arab states have their own refugee problems and refuse to accept them. Without a permit, the only alternatives are paying a fine or going to jail.
About 1,000 Kuwaiti-Palestinians have family in Canada willing to sponsor them, but the Canadian government is doing nothing. Unlike the U.S., Canada has refused to fast track Palestinian applicants and Canada has no immigration or refugee desk in Kuwait.
The Canadian Embassy in Riyadh currently takes two years to process its applications, but these refugees need Canada's help in two days.
When will the minister take action?


MACEDONIA
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's meeting with President Kiro Gligo-rov caused great concern to numerous Canadians of Greek origin until they were informed that this was not an official visit to exchange views on international development.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to assure Canadians of Greek origin that the Government of Canada is responsive to the concerns they have expressed. Mr. Gligorov was in Canada on a private visit and his meeting with the Prime Minister was not considered an official visit.

I would like to assure Canadians of Greek origin that Canada will continue to work toward a peaceful resolution of this crisis. As well I congratulate the Prime Minister on his efforts.


NATIONAL NETWORK FOR RESEARCH INTO TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa has decided that the headquarters of the national network for research into toxic substances will be located in Guelph, Ontario. Montreal, however, is the main centre for research in an area that is also part of the Quebec Government's industrial strategy. Even Minister Landry, who announced the decision in Montreal yesterday, was not able to explain this preference. The explanation is that last year, Ottawa spent 51 per cent of its research and development budget in Ontario and 18 per cent in Quebec. Some people said at the time that Ontario had better facilities, which is hardly the case here.
The federal government's decisions consistently ignore Quebec's development strategies. We saw this last year with Hibernia, and we see it now, to a lesser extent, with this decision. The truth of the matter is not the kind of wishful thinking we hear at constitutional conferences but the decisions that go against the interests of Quebec. Quebecers are fed up with empty words and hypocritical smiles. They realize it is up to them to defend their own interests.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the supply management farmers
February 11, 1992

in my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton in support of our government's continued pursuit of the strengthening and clarification of article XI of GATT.
Our federal government remains firmly committed to maintaining our supply management system and our marketing boards under article XI, as the supply management leaders have told us to do, and that is what we will continue to do.
For years, as a government we have accommodated the position of the supply management leadership. The decision to continue to negotiate for clarification of article XI is in their hands. We have supported their position right up to this date and we will continue to do so.
Our Prime Minister has taken every opportunity to make our position clear to the leaders of GATT member nations, including leaders of the European Community and U.S. President George Bush.
The representatives of our supply management industry and our government have made it very clear that the Government of Canada's negotiators are to stand firm with respect to having article XI strengthened and clarified. Our negotiating team is sticking to that position.
Our federal government has a strategy of consulting our supply management leaders with respect to the development of the GATT negotiations-


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


CANADA POST
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has struck again. It has not been satisfied in closing hundreds of small rural post offices across this country, nor has it learned from its fight last year with the community of Mabou, Nova Scotia.
No siree. Now Canada Post has set its sights upon Petit de Grat, a small, thriving community in Cape Breton. The people there learned two weeks ago that Canada Post has decided that their post office must close. No consultation with community members, no reasons or
discussions; only the most cursory of public meetings to review options after the fact.

The only option the community of Petit-De-Grat wants is to keep its post office open. I also want the post office to stay open, because as a meeting place it provides an excellent service to many customers, especially senior citizens and the handicapped. When will Canada Post and this government realize they are making a big mistake? When will they stop reducing services while raising rates? When will they stop abolishing essential services and start treating Canada's rural population the way it should be treated?


ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, according to an editorial today in La Presse, the kind of solution the opposition parties have in mind to deal with the present state of the economy smacks of outdated State interventionism.
Their solutions are half a century old, and they ought to know they will not work today. In the thirties, some kind of balance could be maintained by creating a deficit to fight the recession and subsequently working up a surplus to pay back the debt. Nowadays we do not start with a dean slate. The Liberal federal deficit is considerable, and we can no longer count on this pendulum action.
That is what appears to be happening in Ontario, where enormous amounts of additional funds have already proved insufficient. The same phenomenon occurred in 1982, when the Liberal government doubled its deficit from $14 billion to $28 billion and was never able to bring it back to its original level.
For the time being, the Leader of the Opposition with his economic recovery strategy, projects the image of a predecessor, not a successor to the Conservatives.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, once again the issue of user fees has taken centre stage.

Oral Questions
Yesterday the first ministers agreed to further consider the idea. I ask: Have the premiers and the Prime Minister forgotten recent history?
User fees in many disguises have been tried before but never worked. They are too expensive to administer and they entangle doctors, nurses and hospital staff in billings. They will shut hospital doors to the poor.
The World Health Organization in its 1990 report finds these fees damaging to over-all efficiency and equity, inefficient as revenue raising devices and do not decrease hospital costs.
The provinces are desperate for money after cuts in transfer payments. User fees are straws to be grasped.
The next step belongs to the federal government: protect the Canada Health Act, rescind Bills C-69 and C-20, renegotiate transfer payments, institute meaningful reform and once and for all end the federal-provincial showdown over medicare, a Canadian right of citizenship.


CANADA GAMES
Mr. John E. Cole (York- Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, today is the 25th anniversary of the Canada Games. The Canada Games have encouraged sport development and provided over 150,000 young athletes with valuable, competitive experience in Canada since the Games' inception in Quebec City in 1967.
Through participation in sport, young people learn many valuable life skills such as overcoming obstacles, remaining humble in victory and resolved in defeat.
Amateur sport is also important for character development requiring discipline, effort and energy to produce pride and a positive self-image. The most valuable lesson learned from participating in a sport is how to be a team player, how to be part of a group who are assembled or organized for a common purpose, and how to contribute your unique and distinct talents for the collective benefit of the team.
It is fitting that the memory of a very distinguished Canadian will be remembered and passed on to future generations of young Canadian athletes. Roland Mi-chener's name will continue to be synonymous with a
vibrant fitness and sport enthusiastic Canada through the Roland Michener Canada Games Award.
As we wish the Canada Games a happy birthday, may we all as Canadians remember you have to be a team player to overcome obstacles and to become victorious.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health. The minister will know that more than one million Canadian women can expect to fall victim to breast cancer. At the moment
150,000	Canadian women have had breast implants that they thought were safe and on occasion after occasion after occasion this minister and his predecessor have stood here in the House and said the Meme implant was safe. We now know that for at least five years that information was known to be false.
I want to ask the minister of health why he failed in his duty to protect Canadian women.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the department do is advise people of the assessments we make on any kind of medical device based on scientific research by experts in the department or elsewhere.
I worry when the member says today that the evidence is that the breast implant, particularly silicone breast implants, are not safe. I would like to ask the member if she has any scientific evidence to support what she said and to provide the evidence.
We are dealing with the health of women, yes, but we need evidence when we make that kind of statement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in and of itself that statement merits the minister's resignation. The fact is when there is any shred of doubt, surely the balance of the responsibility of the government should fall on protecting Canadian women and not selling implants.
February 11, 1992



My second question is for the same minister. We know that 150,000 women in Canada are wondering today whether they are in danger of cancer. For car owners, a federal government system informs them of mechanical problems. Why does a similar system not apply to women about their own breasts?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to tell the hon. member that the government does not sell or fit breast implants, despite what she said at the beginning.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I think that any medical act, particularly implantation of a mammary prosthesis, is done by a physician, who is a responsible professional. The message we have always given is that if women have problems with a breast implant, they should see then-doctor. We give the same message today. I must remind the hon. member for Hamilton East that she should know that the Meme implant was taken off the market in April and that silicone implants have not been available on the market since November.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. This government might not be selling but they are certainly supposed to regulate.
I have spoken on many occasions in this House of Commons on the dangers of implants and silicone gel.
What in the world is going on here? I am not interested in what the minister might do. I am interested in what he and the previous minister have failed to do in this House. Will the minister investigate the product review process within the health and welfare research branch immediately? Will the minister take immediate steps to ensure an effective safety process, even secure reprimands where necessary?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare now has a review process not only for breast implants but for all medical devices. I repeat
Oral Questions
again that all medical devices, in particular those which are implanted in the human body for more than 30 days, are subject to an extremely serious process by the department, in co-operation with the companies, to ensure that the device can be used in a satisfactory manner. That is what we did and that is what we do. I repeat what I said: No silicone mammary implants are available on the market now to anyone.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration a question on behalf of a constituent.
Mrs. Gina Pacciarotti is a 44-year old single mother with three children. Her husband passed away six years ago. After working for Cooper Canada for 23 years she was laid off over a year ago. Her UI benefits have run out and she is in a desperate situation.
What advice does the minister have for Gina Pacciarotti and the hundreds of thousands of other Canadians who are as desperate as she is?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising an individual case in the House. I will be pleased right after Question Period to sit down with him and see how my department can be helpful.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Domtar Paper Mills at Red Rock in Nipigon announced yesterday it will close its paper machine in May. Over 400 workers will be laid off indefinitely. This government has done nothing to save jobs in this vital industry of Canada, the forestry industry.
What specific actions will the minister take to ensure that those 400 jobs will be maintained at Red Rock?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the department's industrial adjustment service consultants have already met with the company and the union to discuss the establishment of a comprehensive assistance program for these workers. An IAS agreement and committee are already in place.

Oral Questions
Further discussions will also take place very shortly to determine what kind of additional help is required.
EIC and the company will be contacting the municipality in the near future to discuss the establishment of a community adjustment committee. We hope these measures will be helpful to the affected workers.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the premiers sent a message to this government and to the Prime Minister that job creation must be a priority. One thing the government can do to create jobs is to change direction with the government's monetary policy.
A study by Informetrica, for example, states that this government's monetary policy since 1989 has added $5.6 billion to the deficit and cost Canadians 139,000 jobs.
The government has an opportunity to lower the deficit and create jobs by lowering the dollar. Will the Prime Minister direct the Bank of Canada to lower the dollar, to stop propping the Canadian dollar up to an unrealistic level?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the monetary policy of the Government of Canada has produced interest rates that are down 7.5 points from their high in May 1990. Interest rates today are at their lowest in almost 20 years. The inflation rate, which ran as high as 12.9 per cent for a period of some years in the early 1980s, in the last six months has been under 2 per cent and appears to be in that general 2 to 3 per cent neighbourhood next year. This is the result of effective monetary policy. These are the fundamentals that one has to get right before all of the job creation prospects can come to pass.
The provinces acknowledged yesterday-and I think, by and large, all of the premiers-that the concept of throwing borrowed government money at make work projects does not work, that restraint is very important and that co-operation among governments is very important. So I thought that yesterday's meeting was very constructive and helpful because it showed the governments of Canada working together to provide the kinds of durable jobs that Canadians need.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the premiers would agree, as would the Prime Minister, that spending $30 billion a year on unemployment does not work either. It certainly does not work for those Canadian families who do not have any hope that there will be a change and that this government will begin, not to just have make work projects-nobody is suggesting that-but to create real jobs and build the infrastructure of this country.

An Informetrica study says that, without a change in policy, the economy will continue to suffer from high unemployment, minimal productivity growth, a high deficit and high taxes.
Will the government change its economic policy and put the country back to work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of monetary policy is to have lower interest rates, lower inflation and a strong currency that is respected throughout the world.
The fact is that we are achieving these goals and it is important to note that as inflation falls the value of the dollar goes down. It has lost 4.5 cents in recent months, I think.
It is generally accepted that the results of the monetary policy pursued by the government and the Bank of Canada are beneficial. We have a serious problem, of course, in job creation. But starting from this base, which is quite strong and impressive, all levels of government are now able, with the private sector, to create lasting employment and that is what we want to do.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The fact remains that 1.5 million Canadians are out of work and that tens of thousands have given up looking for work. That is the reality of this government's monetary policy.
Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated in the House that there were 300,000 jobs available in Canada but that we did not have the skilled workers. My question for the Prime Minister is this: Just where are the 300,000 jobs? If it is the case that they are
February 11, 1992

lacking skills, why has this government cut back on skills training, cut back on education?
Will the government in this next budget show that it is investing in a skills training program so that the laid-off workers can get those 300,000 jobs?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I carefully stated yesterday that this 300,000 figure is our interpretation of the help wanted index.
All the hon. member would have to do is travel across Canada, talk to employers and she would understand. She should also ask herself why she opposed the amendment to Bill C-21 which has seen training money going to unemployed Canadians, rising from $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion this year. That is for Canadian workers.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Northern Ontario has long suffered high rates of unemployment. As a result of this, many have exhausted UI claims and are now on social assistance. They are no less unemployed than those receiving UI benefits and yet no retraining through UI is available to them.
Will the minister consider integrating programs so that all unemployed have equality of access to retraining programs and UI?


Bernard Valcourt: I will not use the word pathetic, but I remember this Liberal Party of Canada opposing the amendment to C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Act, which would have allowed this government to give unemployed workers exactly what the member is now asking for, that is training. We have in place programs worth $1.8 billion that allow for the training of the unemployed this year.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Young people's hopes of finding their first
Oral Questions
job are dimmer every day. Young Canadians such as Anna Nozza of Saint-Leonard want to work in order to contribute fully to our society.
Can the minister ensure this House and young Canadians that a training program to help young people find jobs will be introduced in the next budget?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, being from Quebec, the hon. member surely knows how enthusiastically my provincial counterpart, Mr. Bourbeau, implemented training programs for those young people in that province, which we support with the federal programs.
If the Liberal Party is asking me today whether I will go to Quebec and set up a new training program, the answer is no, I am not prepared to do that. However, I am prepared to continue to have discussions with Mr. Bourbeau in order to see how the Canadian Jobs Strategy can best serve the interests of young Quebecers.


AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, since free trade, Canada has lost 40 auto parts plants and
19,000	auto parts jobs. Given this government's dismal record under its trade deal with the United States, can the government assure us today that it will not give away even more auto parts jobs under the coming deal with the United States and Mexico?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is talking apples and oranges. He is linking the free trade agreement to the auto pact. He knows that the auto pact was not a part of the free trade agreement. There is a problem today with the North American market for automobiles. The production of automobiles is down in the United States because sales are down in the United States. In Canada, where close to 90 per cent of our production goes to the United States, those sales are down because of the lower sales in the United States. That is the problem, not the free trade agreement and not the auto pact.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to get his head out of the sand. We have lost 49 auto parts plants, and they are not coming back.

February 11, 1992
Oral Questions
Let us look at another aspect of this problem. The European Community is now debating whether by the end of this century Japanese automobiles will be either 15 per cent or 17 per cent of that market. Today in Canada, Japanese automobiles account for 36 per cent of our market. What concrete action is this minister prepared to announce today to ensure a fair level of Canadian content and Canadian jobs in our auto parts sector?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. friend that we on this side of the House do not like to see those auto parts manufacturers disappear at all because that costs people jobs.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Well, then act.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend should contain himself and wait for the rest of the answer.
In the negotiations that we are having with the United States, as I said yesterday in the press conference in Washington, one of the key considerations is the status of the auto pact. We are committed to ensuring the maintenance of the auto pact unless there is a better arrangement that we can put in its place that will improve the position of the Canadian automotive workers, whether they are in the parts companies or in the assembly companies. That is the objective we have set out. It is one of the things we held to firmly in our negotiations this weekend.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: would like to follow up on an issue with the minister of health that has been raised many times in this House by my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam and by myself.
Yesterday Dow Coming was forced to release information on the safety of a silicone breast implant, information that it kept secret for over 20 years.
The minister refused today to ban these implants, saying that he wanted solid evidence that they were unsafe. He has received evidence from Dr. Blais of his own department who was dismissed from his own department for raising these concerns.
Dow Coming's own scientists have said that their actions were inexcusable and they made comparisons to the Pinto gas tank disaster and the cover-up around that.
Will the minister today stand up, give assurances to Canadian women, and ban the use of silicone breast implants in this country? Will he do that?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again that there is no silicone gel breast implant sold in Canada today. It is very clear.
Second, the member talked about Dr. Blais. Dr. Blais was invited twice by his peers to make his point in front of experts to prove that what he said was right, and it was dismissed twice. If there is any evidence that Dr. Blais has which would be acceptable to other scientists in Canada, I would be delighted to agree with that.
The information released by Dow Coming yesterday was considered by our department. If there is any possibility that we were misinformed, I will act immediately. In the meantime, I repeat that breast implants are not available in Canada now.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, although there is a moratorium, silicone breast implants are in stock in doctors' offices. The minister does not know that they are not being used.
Will the minister now call for a full and independent inquiry into the approval process that was used by his own health protection branch for silicone breast implants in Canada?
He spoke earlier of an internal audit. That is not good enough. Canadian women deserve to know the process on how these implants were approved for use in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put her question.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare monitors all questions dealing with medical devices.
The hon. member should speak to her colleague from Mission-Coquitlam whom I met with last summer, along with other women. I informed them that the Department of National Health and Welfare would undertake a broad review of the system as it applies to medical devices. She and the others agreed at the time.
February 11, 1992

We are working on that file. As soon as information is available, I will provide it to her and to all Canadians.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that eight provincial ministers of agriculture, representing 88 per cent of dairy production in Canada and 81 per cent of poultry production, and at this point the majority of premiers, have signed a declaration in support of supply management and rejecting tariffication in any form, will the Prime Minister assure this House that he will support the premiers, the provincial ministers, and Canada's poultry and dairy producers in their cause to retain the best marketing systems in the world that have not required subsidies nor contributed to world surpluses?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have been doing this in excess of two years.
In regard to the questions raised we did not need, although we appreciated, the recent support of the provincial premiers. We have been in the forefront of fighting the case at the GATT in respect of article XI, its clarification, its strengthening. There has been no change in the Canadian position.
The minister of trade, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of State for Agriculture and myself have met with world leaders to press our case at the GATT and elsewhere. There has been no change in our position. We stand fully behind the Canadian producers in what we view as a most important, not only political initiative and economic initiative, but a social one inasmuch as it impacts very strongly on their lives. We want to defend them. I will be meeting with the farmers very soon in this regard.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: On that same topic, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Agriculture. The Quebec Minister of Agriculture signed a declaration supporting supply management as an agricultural system and rejecting any form of a tariff system. Can the Minister of State for Agriculture assure this House today that he supports this declaration
Oral Questions
from the Quebec minister and Quebec producers as being the only true means of safeguarding agriculture as it has been built up in the last 20 years within GATT?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that everybody was in agreement at the meeting of agriculture ministers held here in Ottawa last Thursday and Friday. Ministers from every province and the federal minister all agreed on the Canadian position. I should tell my colleague that I personally met Mr. Dunkel on several occasions, as well as the delegates in Europe and here in Canada, to reaffirm the Canadian position.
We are experiencing difficulties; that is a fact and we do not deny it. But the Canadian position was jointly with the Canadian farmers, and it is with them that we will continue to defend it. I urge my colleague not only to support the Quebec Minister of Agriculture but also the Canadian Minister of Agriculture who defends that position, because together we will be able to maintain the Canadian position.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, United States congressmen have had an opportunity to review the consolidated document that represents whatever progress has been made toward an agreed text of the U.S.-Canada-Mexico agreement.
Will the government afford members of Parliament the same opportunity to review the document in response to the all-party call of more than a year ago "for close consultations with Parliament as the North American free trade negotiations proceed"?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, I will be meeting with the standing committee to discuss the NAFTA tomorrow.
I just remind him that there have been six reports tabled by the Government of Canada since July of 1991, up until the middle of last year, which set out a number of aspects of relevance to the free trade negotiations. We have had extensive discussions with the provinces, with the private sector through the International Trade Advi-

February 11, 1992
Oral Questions
soiy Committee, as well as the industry advisory groups on international trade. I will have some further things to discuss with my colleague, as well as other members of the committee, tomorrow to provide them with an opportunity to have confidential briefings, but I stress the word confidential because that is the basis on which the briefings have been provided to both the Americans and the Mexicans by their governments.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the reason why all parties joined in the request for closed consultations is to understand what specifically the national interests are which-and I use the minister's phrase in that regard-this government intends to defend in these negotiations.
Does the government hope, for example, to initiate improvements in the free trade agreement with the United States in such areas as energy, dispute settlement and, as he has just indicated, with regard to automobiles?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said all along, as has my predecessor, that if there are ways by which we can agree with the United States to improve upon the terms of the free trade agreement between the United States and Canada during the NAFTA negotiations, we will do it.
One of the areas that we-


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: So it is up for negotiation.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would encourage my hon. friend from Willowdale to hold himself to his chair again. He is a little excited.


An hon. member:: Or else what?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could complete his answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: With such provocation, it is difficult, Mr. Speaker.
On the question of rules of origin, my hon. friend is very much aware of the difficulties of the interpretation of the rules of origin and the lack of clarity. That is one area that we are expending quite a bit of effort on that
will help the automotive industry as well as other industries that are affected in a similar way.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The mining industry ranks fourth in the Quebec government priorities for regional agreements. It would not even qualify for a Canadian Olympic medal, be it gold, silver or bronze. Will the minister give us the assurance today that the mining industry will take one of the first three positions, thus ensuring help can be provided to the Quebec mining industry as soon as possible?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this has been part of the discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec and principally led by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I understand he is having a meeting with Madam Bacon next week. Hopefully, some progress can be made on that file at that time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As the minister knows, last week Anderson Mutang Urud, an internationally respected spokesperson for the Penan and other indigenous peoples of Sarawak, Malaysia, was arrested. He is currently being detained without charge.
Will the minister tell the House what action she has taken to express the very deep concern of Canadians about Urud's arrest. Specifically, will she send a strong message to the Sarawak and Malaysian governments that this detention of a spokesperson for aboriginal peoples and protection of the Sarawak rain forest is profoundly unacceptable to Canadians, and that Urud should be released forthwith?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certainly, as the hon. member suggests, we are aware of the arrest and the detention at the moment of Mr. Urud.
We are attempting through our high commission in Kuala Lumpur to get to the bottom of what has happened, why he was arrested and what kinds of charges we might expect to be laid. When we have ascertained all the facts, I will determine whether any other action should be taken.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it appears likely that Mutang Urud's arrest was intended to demoralize those Penan Indians with whom I met together with Urud last month who are peacefully maintaining a blockade to protect their rain forests from total destruction.
I want to ask the minister whether she will urge the Sarawak government not to move to violently dismantle this barricade as the government has threatened to do. Will she join the many, many Canadians in supporting the Penan Indian proposal for a biosphere reserve to protect this threatened rain forest?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been veiy active on the subject of the tropical rain forests in Malaysia.
We do believe, of course, in a balance between the ecological and the economic values. We are working very closely with the Malaysian government bilaterally, through our development assistance programs.
We are the third largest bilateral donor and the largest per capita donor to their Tropical Forest Action Plan and we will continue to be very involved on that subject with them.


CANADIAN ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
Oral Questions
It involves the issue of CAEDS, the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy. CAEDS, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, is one of our more successful projects, a virtual unsung hero.
As a matter of fact, it has become so successful that a project backlog has developed. Some of my constituents have spoken to me, expressing some concerns in terms of the ability of aboriginal people to economically develop themselves. As a result, they have asked me to ask the minister what he is prepared to do about this backlog.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for recognizing the importance of this program.
It has in fact generated over 1,000 businesses on and off reserves across Canada. It is extremely successful. The applications were two and a half times greater than the previous program. Because of this, we have had to put in place a number of reforms to speed up the treatment of applications. I would like to tell my hon. friend that we now have a streamlined project approval system through regional boards. We have an expanded network of offices now for this program across the country and, finally, we are allowing some of the aboriginal organizations to work with the clients to speed up the process, all of this to help create jobs and entrepreneurship on and off reserves across this country.


JOHN CRISPO
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. John Crispo, a Tory nominee to the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, spoke recently in an inflammatory and irresponsible way about bilingualism in the Public Service, citing selective figures which he called, and I use his words, "staggering and devastating". Mr. Crispo implied that official bilingualism, and I use his words again, "is working against unilingual English Canadians getting high level federal jobs".
The fact is that 77 per cent of senior management jobs in the Public Service are held by anglophones.


An hon. member:: And not one unilingual French.

February 11, 1992
Oral Questions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Will the Prime Minister call Mr. Crispo, tell him that the impression he left with his comments is wrong, dead wrong, absolutely wrong? Will he ask Mr. Crispo to get his facts straight or keep his mouth shut?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the House that the question may be of significance, but it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It certainly does.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can put his question again and I will listen to it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, he is an appointee of the government. Who the heck am I supposed to ask this question of? I am sure somebody took that decision.
Will the Minister of Communications answer the question since he is responsible for the CBC?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, your first comment of course is absolutely right, but I can say on behalf of the government with assurance that Mr. Crispo does not speak for the Government of Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada expect the commissioner of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a Crown corporation, to take their mandate seriously which is to promote national unity and serve the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. I ask the Prime Minister again: Is he prepared to call his friend, Mr. John Crispo, and tell him to get his facts straight before making statements? Will he tell him that the facts-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday, the Minister for International Trade admitted in this House that he had failed to prepare himself and to do an impact study of the Dunkel GATT proposals.
Will the Prime Minister please tell this House why his minister shows such wanton disregard toward Canadian farmers. Why is he not interested in the 100,000 jobs that could be at stake?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the question that the hon. member puts is similar to a question his colleague from Prince Edward- Hastings put yesterday, but they differ entirely from what the deputy leader of the Liberal Party in the House, the member for Hamilton East, said the government was doing.
We were criticized for seeking the co-operation of the supply managed groups before we even identified what tariff numbers could be found in the Dunkel text. After we had received their approval, we provided them with the numbers and said: "Will you agree with those numbers? Are they appropriate?" So far we have not had a response.
When we do that, the member for Hamilton East says that the government has changed its position. The government has not changed its position. If you wish to have an impact study, then I would like the Liberal Party to present that to the supply managed agency. If they request it of the government, we will work with them.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, no one should have to tell this minister to do his job. He should know on his own to do those kinds of impact studies.

I have a supplementary question for the minister. As he is no doubt aware, Canadian farmers do not want tariffs. On the other hand, they are very curious to know how much damage this government's proposals and Mr. Dunkel's will do. What specific measures will the government take to protect the farmers at the GATT negotiations besides telling us that it has no intention to even consider the damage it is itself causing?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we must be careful not to try and score political points on the backs of our farm producers. I have recently met personally with people from the International Agricultural Trade Office, the UPA president and spokespersons for the milk producers. We have mutually agreed to exchange, at their request, information on the
February 11, 1992

figures that could be involved. However, no formal request for an impact study has been received because the Canadian position is to stay away from tarification, altogether.
We are advocating the strengthening of article XI. That is the Canadian position. It has not changed and it is obvious to me that we do not intend to change it.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The Supreme Court has said that the Minister of Transport was the decision-making authority in the Oldman dam case. The Minister of Transport would also be the decision-making authority with regard to possible changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Given that the Minister of Agriculture has initiated cross-Canada talks relating to possible changes to the WGTA, has the Minister of Transport undertaken his responsibilities and initiated an environmental assessment process as the Supreme Court and the government's own guidelines have said he should?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, the judgment of the Supreme Court was handed down a few days ago. We in the department have started examining the contents and the repercussions of this judgment on the involvement of Transport Canada in these matters.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Oldman dam decision is quite clear. It says that the environmental impact assessment was a planning tool that must be completed during the decision-making phase and it must take into account social economic factors.
Is the Minister of the Environment prepared to exercise his responsibilities for the well-being of the environment and advise the Minister of Transport of the full scale of his responsibilities, or is he prepared to
Oral Questions
immediately initiate an EIA of the proposed changes to the WGTA?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the Oldman dam has far-reaching consequences, as the the hon. member will know. The Supreme Court seemed to say about the present guidelines that there are two elements that would kick in in an environmental assessment process: (a) a federal jurisdiction being involved and (b) an affirmative regulatory power. These conditions are cumulative. After that the federal government would be asked to act upon that.
We are still examining the consequences of this ruling of the Supreme Court. Once again, I think we have to realize that they are far reaching. We will examine the consequences and get back to the member as soon as we have a good idea of what we think our course of action should be.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture. He just told the House that the government would never agree to a tariff system.
Will the government promise not to sign any agreement at GATT that would go towards a tariff system? Is the minister prepared to say the government will never sign any agreement whatsoever that would be a threat to the four pillars of Quebec agriculture?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I realize that members of the Bloc quebecois would like to make some political capital out of all this. However, if they really want to scare Quebec farm producers and the dairy industry, perhaps the members of the Bloc would care to explain to farmers the risks involved in separation. Producers who have 48 per cent of our industrial milk quotas may wonder what happens to Quebec farmers after separation! I think that is a far greater threat, whose consequences are not even known, while at GATT our position is clear: to defend Quebec

February 11, 1992
Privilege
farmerse and the right to maintain marketing boards in Canada. That is Quebec's position, but we do not know the Bloc's position on what I said just now.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State for Agriculture has spent the last two years making a big show of saying there was no risk at all and that he was ready to put his seat on the line. Is the minister prepared to repeat today that he is ready to put his seat on the line if article XI is not reinforced?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, and I say this for the benefit of farm producers who may be listening, I think the issue is far too important for us to get into this kind of debate.
The important thing is for people on all sides of the House, including the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, if they are willing and the government, to rally behind Quebec and Canadian farmers, defend their interests at GATT at this vital moment in the talks and ignore these diversions that might expose farmers to far greater risks.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into this present constitutional fight but thank you for allowing me to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister as a result of the question of the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex.
A week ago the Prime Minister, in answer to a question on supply management said at page 6369 of Hansard, in answer to the same type of question, that Premier Bourassa has full confidence in the Minister for International Trade to negotiate the new GATT agreements, and he thinks that Quebec is better protected by the plan on which we are now working than with the present formula.
My supplementary question is this: In view of the answers from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Agriculture that there has been no change and they are going to defend the present system, could the Prime Minister please
explain the answer he gave a week ago, when he said that "Quebec and Canada is going to be better protected by the plan on which we are now working than with the present formula."


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is very simple. As I remember, it was a statement in le journal La Presse and that it was a direct quote from Premier Bourassa.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take a point of order but I want to tell the House that I have a question of privilege which I have to get to.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow, Wednesday, February 12, an allotted day.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished and rather shocked that I was unable to put my question to the government or at least to the minister responsible for the CBC.
I may refer the Chair to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citation 359, which reads as follows:
359. The Speaker expressed some general principles in order to clarify the regulations-
In other words, the guidelines to be used in asking oral questions in the House.
"A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific Minister to whom it is addressed, is in order".
Further on, at 359 (6), we read:
(6) A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government. The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.
My question concerned an appointment made by this government, I imagine by the minister, to the Board of Governors of the CBC.
February 11, 1992



-Here we have a person who has been named by this government, I take it on the minister's authority, to sit on a board which is responsible for CBC administration, CBC being the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a corporation dedicated to the unity of this country and a corporation dedicated, in my view, to explaining to Canadians the realities and possibly, even the duality of this country.
I received a statement yesterday which had been made by a Mr. John Crispo, a 1991 nominee of the government or of the minister to the Board of Governors of the CBC. I am trying to bring some light to this subject and some truth to these questions by having Mr. Crispo at least look at the facts before he puts out these damaging statements that he has made.
I want to read from the transcript of the Majic 100 radio broadcast-


Albert Glen Cooper: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is important that you understand the facts or do you want to bury them? I heard a person call for order. The Speaker will-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment.

I have some problem with the question of privilege. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier asked a question during Oral Question Period and that question was addressed to the Prime Minister. Unless I am mistaken, I thought that the question did not deal with government administration. Upon reflection, it may be so or it may not, but I still do not have the transcript before me. However, if the hon. member wishes, I can consider his position and I might be able to hear his arguments tomorrow. That being said, I do not believe it would be appropriate now for the hon. member to present arguments concerning all the details relating to the situation. Naturally, since the question is very important, the hon. member might consider it more appropriate to give me the opportunity to examine the precise question. Afterwards, I might be able to make a decision.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to pursue that issue. If you want to take the matter under advise-
Privilege
ment, it is up to you. However, I would like to state clearly that as members of the opposition, we have the right to ask the government questions on issues strictly related to the administration of this government. Again,
I refer you to paragraph 6 of citation 359:
A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government.
I believe that all members of the opposition now ask themselves what criteria apply, since, based on my understanding of it, we no longer have the latitude to ask the government questions. The Prime Minister is the leader of that government and if he sees fit to refer the question to one of his ministers, that is his decision, not mine. However, I do know, that it is not fair to leave a question unanswered today, because tomorrow we will not know if the questions we asked meet the new criteria just stated. With all due respect I find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand your argument.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the point of privilege raised by my friend from Vanier.
The issue, Mr. Speaker, as I understood it, and I agreed with your observation, was whether the question was in order in terms of what is appropriate to be put in Question Period.
Historically this has been a period during which members sought information from the government about government operations. We know that it has expanded to a time period each day where members call the government to account for actions of the government within the competence of government.
What we have here is a statement made by an individual who is a member of the Board of Governors of a Crown corporation. Basically it was asking about the propriety of that question. It opens all kinds of questions, whether it is appropriate to suggest that someone in that capacity has no right to say things which are offensive. They have every right to say whatever they choose. It would be most inappropriate for the government to attempt to censor the comments made by anybody in that position. This on its face would make the representation inappropriate.

February 11, 1992
Privilege
As to the representation whether the Prime Minister would call up a citizen to criticize the comments that he made in respect to this most important and vital issue, I would really question whether it is an appropriate submission or representation to be made in Question Period.
I would hope the House would allow the Speaker to follow his suggestion, that he be allowed to look at the "blues" to see whether it is an appropriate question for Question Period. In the meantime, I would not like the record to indicate in any way, shape or form that this government has identified itself with those comments, that Mr. John Crispo is speaking for the government or even the CBC. He was a citizen expressing a point of view, a point of view with which I do not agree if the quote is accurate. I am not suggesting that it is not, but sometime quotes are not fulsome in giving the full views of individuals.
It is not the position of this government or of any minister of this government. If there is a dispute with Mr. Crispo it should be handled by way of private conversations between the hon. member and Mr. Crispo, who is a private citizen and not a member of the government or someone for whom the government is responsible.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that Mr. Crispo is no ordinary citizen. Mr. Crispo is sitting in a most important place at this time in our country. The statement he made is the kind of statement that got the hon. minister who just spoke in trouble with another party in his province.
Surely someone in this House should at least stand up and say what we think of his views, not privately. I personally feel insulted and I will tell you why. These statements are unacceptable. This country is going through a crisis and here is a man who is repeating exactly what is being said in Alberta. That code word. That is exactly what it going on in western Canada because I go there. These are the code words that are well understood by some people who say French is being shoved down their throats.
This is a very important question. Mr. Speaker, you were so concerned about the future of this country that you made a speech about your concern. We cannot allow
these kinds of statements which are inflammatory and only confirm what individual people may think.
I have never said, as my colleague has said, that 77 per cent of senior public servants are anglophones, whatever anglophone may mean. I have never said how many unilingual French speaking people there are in the 23 per cent left. I could go across the country and say in French: There is not a single unilingual Canadian in the federal hierarchy who speaks French, there is not a single one.

We know there are none. I submit to this House that you will take that under your usual cool consideration and come back because we need an answer. We need an answer because we could talk for hours and ask what percentage of the people work in Agriculture Canada. How many people are working in Energy Canada? If le Commissaire aux langues officielles says 75 per cent, of course it is disastrous for English Canadians. It is terrible, but you have to express yourself in both languages if you want to work in the official languages office. To choose this one and excite people who are easily excitable these days is not in the good interest of Canada.
I think it was a genuine question from someone, somewhere, and you are the highest authority for the House. You will tell us the kind of rule we can use because we would like to know who will deliver that message. It will not be done in a private chitchat saying "Little naughty boy, you should not have said that. I hope next time you will act and behave better". We are not going to be satisfied with that. I am not going to be satisfied with that.


David Charles Dingwall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, while you are reflecting on the question of privilege raised by my colleague, and I certainly want to take an opportunity to check the record and review it very carefully, I do want to say something in support of the points which have been raised. The government House leader has alluded to the fact that the comments in question were made by a private citizen.
Not only is the member a private citizen, he is well beyond that. He occupies a position of some seniority in a very major and important Crown corporation in this country. He exercises responsibilities of both an adminis-
February 11, 1992

trative nature, as well as a quasi-judicial nature on the Board of CBC. I believe that, so it is just not-


Mr. Beatty:: It was in order.


David Charles Dingwall: The minister will have an opportunity to stand in his place. He could have done it at Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment, just a moment. I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the hon. member for Saint-Denis and the government House leader. I am now hearing the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
The point is whether or not the question put, which I do not have in front of me yet in "blues" form, is seeking an answer which is within the administrative competence of the government. At the time I thought it was not. I have told the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier very clearly that I would look at it and I would consider the situation. I may ask the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier to address the Chair further, but we are now getting into another debate which goes way beyond the question that has been raised.
There are two issues here. Was the question within the orders? There is another question. As a Canadian I am as aware of the other question as anybody in this Chamber. I have my own views which of course I am not going to say here. We are all aware of the other question, but it is not the place to debate the other question.
I said in my remarks to the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier that it was clear to the Chair that the question raised was serious and in fact very important.

However, I would ask all members to give the Chair time to consult the blues, and subsequently, perhaps it would be appropriate to come back to the House. For the time being, however, I don't think it would be appropriate to pursue the second question. The hon. member has the floor.


David Charles Dingwall: Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker. In determining whether or not the question was in order, it
Privilege
would seem to me that the Chair must determine whether or not the individual was a private citizen. I submit-


Mr. Speaker:: Quite so. I am well aware of the position of this particular individual.
[English\
I know perfectly well who this gentleman is and probably so does every member of the House. I am going to be guided by the question as it was put because that is where I made my decision. That is my responsibility.
I would ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and allow me to come back to the Chamber and perhaps assist all hon. members.
Again I say to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond the importance of the second issue is not lost on the Chair.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the comments which have been referred to by my hon. colleague directly affect the workings of the Government of Canada. Specifics have been made with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, specifics have been made with regard to the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office which I would think come under the direct administration of the Government of Canada, namely the Prime Minister and/or the responsible minister.
Second, we are not asking that Canadians not have freedom of speech. The question was asked today to give the Government of Canada an opportunity to clarify a situation which those of us on this side of the House, and I would presume others, have some real difficulty in understanding the perceived and actual de facto linkages between the individual in question and the Government of Canada. That was the purpose behind the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to do my duty. This is getting into a whole debate about the second question which I just described. There are a lot of members here this afternoon so that could go on all day. It is not appropriate for me to permit that.
I am going to do the very best I can and I think the very best is all that a Speaker can do under the circumstances.

Government Orders


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the point that you raised because the essential question before the House is whether or not the question put by the hon. member was in order.
The government is held to account each day in Question Period for matters within its administrative competence and I come here every day prepared to respond to any question which is addressed to me relating to matters under my ministerial competence.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the decision you made was the correct one. What we had today was not a question but a representation that the Prime Minister should take such and such an action.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental question which you raised correctly is whether or not the issue that was raised relates to the administrative competence of the government itself. The answer to that is very clearly that it does not. The government is not responsible for-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty we are getting back into- and I appreciate that everybody is trying to help-is the very debate that I do not think ought to proceed this afternoon.
I have a question which is on the record. As soon as I see it I will take a look at it. I may have been in error, but I will take a look at it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, before making adjudication will we have an opportunity to make further argument?


Mr. Speaker:: I made it very clear that I will take a look at the matter and if I think it is appropriate that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who is the person who raised the question, should address the Chair further I will invite him to do so.
I thank the hon. member. We may have had enough for the moment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H; and the amendment of Mrs. Catterall (p. 6631).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands as two minutes left.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be able to conclude my remarks in two minutes but perhaps after the amendment has been voted on I will get another opportunity to speak on the main motion and could complete my remarks.
The bill we have before us, as I indicated this morning, is unsatisfactory. Perhaps in the two minutes I could mention four of the particular problems that it creates.
Clause 10 states that job applicants may be evaluated according to a set of standards rather than to a ranking system in which one candidate is compared to another. In other words, we are abandoning the principle where we hired the best qualified person and replaced it with the principle of hiring a qualified person. In other words, you meet the standards, you get hired and it does not matter whether you are the best candidate or not. That used to be the test for hiring in the Public Service. The government is abandoning that. They are lowering the standards. That is not correct. That should not be done.
Clause 16 of the bill states that the commission may appoint someone to the Public Service for a period of up to 90 days and there is a further provision for an extension up to 125 days. In other words, there will be no examination, no tests and no benefits payable to these employees during this 90 day period. It is a carte blanche for the government to hire people and then rotate them around through various government departments without having them meet the normal qualifications or pay
February 11, 1992

the normal benefits under the act. That should not be the case either.
Clause 18 of the bill states that a deputy head of a department may decide on his or her own that an employee has abandoned his or her post and therefore is no longer employed. Previously when that determination was made the Public Service Commission had to hear evidence and make a finding. That is no longer the case. In other words, dismissals can happen if an employee is away for a period of time. The head of the department can decide that the employee has abandoned his or her post and dismis that person. There is no apparent dealings with the Public Service Commission in respect of that. Again the government is proposing unfairness, high-handedness and improper rules.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and I see my time is about to expire, in clause 19 the government has provided that increased contracting out can take place notwithstanding a decision of the Federal Court of Canada which said that contracting out would not result in the discontinuance of a function. The government is now saying it is. It is circumventing the decisions of the court that were placed there in order to safeguard employees in the Public Service.
This bill is bad. The minister should withdraw it at once.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues on this side of the House, I want to speak against this bill and indicate, as others have done, that the Liberal Party opposes it. It has the usual fancy and provocative and apparently substantial title, PS 2000, but on examination we find that it is an unacceptable bill.
The government has departed from a long tradition of moving forward changes in the law affecting the Public Service by some measure of consensus, some types of parliamentary hearings, and has failed. We recommend in this case that it return to that procedure and that a special committee of Parliament be established to consider the principle of the bill, as well as its substance in the total context of the so-called PS 2000 program.
If such a project were undertaken by the government it would be following the recommendation of the public
Government Orders
accounts committee which was a recommendation made by the committee including its own members.
We want to indicate that we support the clauses of the bill that contribute to strengthening the Public Service and its ability to serve the public and improve labour relations. I was proud to see that my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, emphasized this particularly in his closing remarks. We oppose the clauses of the bill which undermine the merit principle. He explained in some detail how this principle was undermined without adequate safeguards that destabilized the Public Service and discouraged the hiring and retention of highly qualified individuals. We also oppose the clauses of the bill that reduce accountability. We have substantial amendments to propose to the bill which we will do at the right time.
There are many problems in this country and so many of the causes can be put down to simple mismanagement by this government. In one file after the other, government mismanagement has taken a country with so much going for it, with such a determination to stay together, and virtually brought it to the verge of destruction.
This government's mismanagement of the Public Service has caused the first ever massive walkout of public servants in the history of Canada. It has brought the morale of the Public Service to an all time low.
The harsh and arbitrary treatment is causing a loss of competent people. The management of its own employees is incompetent in a time of change. If it cannot manage the Public Service we should not be surprised to see that the larger issues-the constitutional issue, the tax issue, the federal-provincial relations issue the survival of the health care of Canada issue or the university issue -are mismanaged.
It has asked the Public Service to do more with less but now the message is clear, to do less with less, and the Canadian public is suffering as a result.
We not only encourage the government to abandon this procedure and establish an all-party committee to examine the reform of the Public Service, but we also ask it to listen to members of the opposition and to public servants themselves on the reform of the Public Service.

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
This has not been done. The Public Service as a source of advice and opinion has been shut out and whatever advice has been forthcoming has been ignored, just as the views of Canadians on the GST were ignored, just as the views of the poor in tough economic times when the cap was put on the Canada Assistance Program were ignored. Just as senior citizens were betrayed by this government so were the public servants.
The approach has been high-handed and dictatorial. PS 2000 has proceeded on the basis of top down, heavy-handed dictates that are outdated and do not work. The idea of the old theme, "let the managers manage" is a 1962 theme from the Glassco commission. We are now living in 1992. We are seeing the dismantling of another of the institutions of our nationhood. Just as VIA Rail, Air Canada, mail service, the CBC, Petro-Canada have helped build Canada from coast to coast, the Public Service has provided services to Canadians wherever they are and carried out the will of Parliament in all comers of Canada.
The enormous increase in the use of contracting out, a form of privatization of the Public Service and the use of short-term employees have all contributed to diminishing services and the weakening of the Public Service as an instrument of public policy.
Our party believes that Canadians deserve to have accessible, quality services delivered efficiently by a professional, non-partisan Public Service that treats all employees with respect and fairness and is responsive to the needs of Canadians.
The 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 and should rely for policy advice to carry out the programs, services and regulations mandated by Parliament.
The Liberal Party supports the revitalization of the Public Service to better allow it to adapt to rapid change, to create an environment in which employees can be creative, innovative and adaptable to changing needs of its clients and the nation and to attract and retain competent, dedicated employees.
We believe that change can best be managed in a climate of mutual trust, co-operation and consultation
with its employees, including respect for basic collective bargaining rights.
We are committed to the accountability to Parliament and to the public for both the use of human and financial resources.

Today we have seen an example of the government's disastrous approach to problems in the Public Service. During Oral Question Period-Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I do not intend to discuss a ruling the Chair has yet to make, but it so happens to be what we are discussing today-there was a reference to the appointment of Mr. John Crispo to the Board of Governors of the CBC. In his comments Mr. Crispo attacked an aspect of the Public Service and more specifically the aspect of being subject to the Official Languages Act.
The government, did not answer right away. It knew what Mr. Crispo said since it has the same access to the media that we do I would have expected the government to respond during Question Period. If that is against the rules of the House, it could at least tell Canadians what it has done to counter Mr. Crispo's comments and tell the truth about the Official Languages Act and the impact it has within the Public Service. But, no, it tried to avoid a response. Maybe it has a right to do that. The Chair will rule at the appropriate time. However, even if it cannot give an answer here, it can at least tell Canadians.
I see I am running out of time, but I must say, this is a perfect example of the government failing to protect our national institutions and the Public Service against remarks that are not true and that attack the government's policy, a policy it even defended in the answers it gave. I hope whatever the Chair's ruling will be, that the ministers will find a way, either here or outside the House, to correct the position taken by their appointee, Mr. John Crispo.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the motion that Bill C-26, the Public Service Reform Act, receive second reading.

The Public Service exists to serve Canadians by delivering to them the programs of the Government of Canada and to assist ministers in devising effective policies and programs necessary for the good government of Canada.
I am sure that members of all parties support the fundamental principles for renewal of the Public Service set out in the 1990 report entitled Public Service 2000, The Renewal of the Public Service of Canada.
Seldom in our history has a program of organizational change been undertaken of the scope and magnitude of PS 2000.
Bill C-26 would provide a necessary underpinning for many of the PS 2000 reforms. It is a valid and reasonable package of amendments which deserves, in my view, our support.
I trust that we can debate this measure in a constructive and non-partisan manner that will help build a better foundation for Canada's Public Service.

The legislation by which the Public Service is currently governed goes back 25 years, and a review was necessary. Over the years there have been several proposals to reform the Public Service. There was an exhaustive review of employer-employee relations by Jacob Finkel-man, in the mid-seventies. We had the d'Avignon committee in 1977. There was the Lambert committee in 1979, and recently several Auditor General reports made reference to the need for reform.
In his latest report the Auditor General sounds very favourable to this initiative. In spite of some reservations about the accountability framework, I think he can easily be reassured on that.

In addition, members will be familiar with the 1990 report Beneath the Veneer which recommended that government should place more effort on achieving more equitable opportunities for employment in the Public Service.
The proposals of Bill C-26 reflect many of the recommendations made in these previous reports and, in
Government Orders
particular, proposals specifically addressing employment equity issues.
In my view, it is now time to get on with enacting the necessary legislative base to implement the PS 2000 reforms required for the renewal of the Public Service of Canada.

I think that we sometimes take for granted the role of national institution played by the Public Service of Canada, which represents the country as a whole and is represented in every region of the country. As a matter of fact, 67.5 per cent of its employees work outside the national capital region, all over the country and the world.
The Public Service also reflects the linguistic duality of Canada as well as how important justice and tolerance are for the Canadian people. Moreover, it is pivotal to our parliamentary democracy. There is even a body, the Public Service Commission, created by Parliament to ensure that appointments and promotions are non-partisan and to prevent both political and administrative patronage.
Canada is not the only country in the world where the need for renewal is recognized. Others have already started to improve their public service in an effort to enhance their national and international competitiveness. Australia for instance has just gone through the gigantic task of simplifying classification, thereby reducing the number of occupational groups. In Great-Bri-tain, the Prime Minister has announced the implementation of the citizens' charter which will make it possible to establish standards of service and to make civil servants more accountable.
In Canada, the renewal process undertaken by the Quebec government results from the amendments to the legislation governing the Quebec civil service since 1983. A legislative committee of the Quebec National Assembly has recently set out to assess progress up to now, and this should give a boost to this renewal attempt based essentially on the same principles as PS 2000. As for British Columbia, it has embarked upon an initiative to provide the public with better quality services.

Government Orders

Canada's future prosperity depends on competing successfully at home and abroad. The president of the Public Policy Forum, an organization that brings together business, labour, the academic community and government, has recently stated that the quality of the Public Service is a major factor in Canada's international competitiveness.
Canadian enterprises must be adequately supported by an outward looking, innovative and results oriented Public Service. Research has taught us much about what encourages high performance in human organizations, such as maintaining a client centred focus, involvement of employees at all levels in decision making, instituting a continuous learning culture, exploiting new technologies and striving for improved management skills.
For the Public Service this will mean many changes. There will be more delegation of authority to front line units, dismantling of unnecessary central controls and enhanced accountability. Above all, there must be a rededication to service to the public.

But not only the Public Service is in favour of the reforms contained in Public Service 2000, Laurent Thi-bault, president and director general of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, said that he fully subscribed to this important exercise involving many issues. He said that the goals we had set of simplifying procedures, decentralizing authority and responsibility and increasing efficiency are exactly what major corporations do to take their place in world markets in the 1990s.
I would like to point out to hon. members that the idea of this public service reform came from within. Instead of the traditional inquiry presided over by an eminent person who considered the changes to be made, the Public Service itself decided to renew itself. Many public servants, at all levels, had a deep desire for change. They wanted a new management philosophy, not only new planning systems imposed by central agencies. In other words, what they wanted was a change of mentality in the organization.
One of the most important reforms of Public Service 2000, will be to reduce the number of occupational groups by about two thirds. Bill C-26 will amend the
Public Service Staff Relations Act so as to spread this restructuring over several years. In particular, there will be a job evaluation plan that will be the same throughout the Public Service. This plan will be free of gender bias and be based on the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act concerning equal pay for work of equal value. Union representatives will of course participate in developing this plan.
In conclusion, this reform has been too long coming. It is now time to join our efforts so that the federal Public Service can help Canada achieve its national objectives, at least in the next decade.

It is my earnest desire that the bill receive third reading as soon as possible. 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.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the content of the legislation before us, I am still pleased to have an opportunity to address 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 and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party oppose the bill before us, I think for very good reason. We are also pleased, however, to support the hoist motion put forward by my colleagues in the Official Opposition.
On June 18 of last year the Conservative government introduced this bill in the House of Commons. Known as the Public Service Reform Act, the bill proposes changes to a number of existing acts, including the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Auditor General Act, the Canada Lands Surveys Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Surplus Crown Assets Act.
The majority of changes proposed by Bill C-26 affect the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act. This bill represents the first major revision to PSSRA and the PSEA since these acts first came into effect in 1967.
February 11, 1992

Many of the bill's proposed changes flow from the recommendations of the Public Service 2000 task forces and the subsequent report entitled Public Service 2000, The Renewal of the Public Service of Canada issued in December 1990. Very glowing terminology-the renewal of the Public Service of Canada.
It is therefore not surprising that Bill C-26 falls considerably short of its objective of reforming the federal Public Service. The PS 2000 exercise was notorious for its lack of meaningful consultation with federal Public Service workers and their bargaining agents. Hence the so-called reform of the Public Service is based almost exclusively on the beliefs, perceptions and objectives of senior government officials.
I have taken the opportunity over the last year, certainly the last few months, of discussing the entire PS 2000 initiative and its so-called consultative processes with a wide cross-section of federal public employees within my own constituency and other areas of British Columbia. The comments I made a few moments ago are based in large part on the comments I received directly from those employees, whether they be bargaining unit employees at the so-called lower levels, whether they are middle management or some of the senior management in that region. I stand by those comments in light of those conversations and in light of listening to a great many people who are among those most directly affected.
The bill sets out the government's agenda for the so-called reform of the Public Service. It follows on the recommendations made in PS 2000 last year. What this bill does, very briefly, is allow the government to continue to contract work out.
The government now spends in excess of $5 billion on contracting out. There is no accounting for this expenditure and no study of the cost effectiveness of contracting out despite appeals from many quarters to introduce that kind of financial and managerial responsibility and accountability.
For a government that has a budget the size of the annual expenditures of the Government of Canada to refuse to follow some kind of financially responsible policy before embarking on a major so-called reform of all the legislation affecting the delivery of public services
Government Orders
by the federal government and its agencies is the height of irresponsibility.
For a government that claims to be fiscally conservative and financially responsible, it more than makes us wonder about the credibility of its claims.
The bill increases the unilateral discretion of managers in the deployment of staff. It provides mechanisms for increased evolution of managerial responsibility and accountability.
Finally the bill attacks the job security of public sector workers.
Just as important, the bill does not address the serious problem of low morale in the Public Service. It does not take a lot of wisdom to be able to detect in conversations with public employees from one coast to another the fact that there is a serious deterioration of morale in the federal Public Service in the last while. That stems not only from the inadequacies of the so-called reform process that has given rise to this bill, but many of the other policies that simply do not make sense. For instance, the long waiting lists for what used to be services such as UI that were carried forward with some efficiency, nowadays if you get one little hitch you are lucky to get your claim processed within two months.
Offices of members of Parliament from coast to coast, certainly in the province of British Columbia and most certainly in the interior where we have seen some juggling and centralization of some UI functions, have seen that deterioration of the morale not only of workers but the total collapse of confidence among the people being serviced and the ability of this government and its agencies to carry on anything with any modicum of efficiency whatsoever.
The bill does not do anything to modernize the collective bargaining process. The Public Service Alliance for instance will still not be able to bargain the issues of classification and staffing levels.
I have no direct experience as an employee within the Public Service of Canada, but as a long-time employee I do in the forest industry in British Columbia.
We devised a jointly negotiated and administered evaluation program covering some 50,000 people in the western most part of Canada a number of years ago.

Government Orders
When you have the very difficult task of evaluating job categories and job content, weighing and grading, and everything that is involved in any sophisticated process of evaluation of job categories and classifications, it is the height of lunacy not to attempt to carry that through on a jointly negotiated and administered basis.
Anyone who knows anything about anything in the labour force must realize that what causes problems in workers' minds is not so much how much they get, but how much they get for their labours in relation to what somebody working alongside them gets. The pecking order is what is important when it comes to people's feelings in industry, and it does not matter whether it is the private sector or the public sector. This government is absolutely nuts if it does not realize that and give up on any process that has to be as complex as this one in trying to do it unilaterally. It simply will not work and it will create one headache and one storm after another.
Some of the employees want to make staffing classification and deployment of staff bargainable. They want an adjudication process to hear grievances on the above and they want an end to contracting out of work.
Finally, in terms of the contracting out issue, in the forest industry of British Columbia we do not have major strikes very often. The two we have had in the last 10 years have been of two and four months' duration. It is interesting to note that both of them were over this exact issue of contracting out.
If the federal government wants a fight on its hands, a total breakdown in the efficient operation of the Public Service and ill will on the part of the population and its own employees, there is nothing better designed to provoke that kind of confrontation and breakdown than to insist on contracting out through some philosophy of sheer doctrine and sheer dogma.
The most dangerous kind of politician is the one who believes his own b.s., if you will pardon the expression. I for one am very afraid that is the kind of government we have. That is why it is dangerous and why this bill has to go. That is why this government has to go.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, as the representative to this House of a great number of public servants in Nepean, I am glad to add my support to the
motion 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 the second time but be read a second time this day six months hence.
Nobody in this House will question the need for reform of the federal Public Service, and I think the minister has just said that. At present, Canada's Public Service operates according to legislation developed in the 1960s. Since that time, the business environment has changed substantially. Principles that were taken for granted 25 years ago no longer apply today. New words have replaced the old. Privatization and globalization, unheard of in the 1960s, are now on everyone's lips.
Certainly our Public Service needs a thorough overhaul to help Canada meet the needs of a new century.
Bill C-26, as it now reads, is not the answer. As the Liberal critic for human rights, I cannot help but notice how severely Bill C-26 treads on the basic employee rights that most people across Canada have come to expect in this day and age, the last decade of the 20th century.
Over five years ago, in 1986, this House implemented the Employment Equity Act. This legislation was enacted to ensure that no individual would be denied employment opportunities and benefits for reasons unrelated to ability.
In enacting employment equity legislation, the federal government realized that discrimination on the basis of sex, colour or religion would not stop unless laws were implemented to ensure that merit was the main guiding principle for hiring and advancement.
The government felt so strongly about this that by law it became a watch-dog to ensure that employment equity programs were put in place in all federally regulated businesses.
It is too bad this government sees no need to apply this basic right to its own hiring and advancement processes. There is an employment equity clause in Bill C-26, but it is so vague and weak that it is meaningless.
February 11, 1992

Bill C-26 states that the Treasury Board may request the Public Service Commission to implement employment equity programs. The Employment Equity Act is in place because for other organizations may is not good enough. What if the Treasury Board does not feel like implementing this kind of program? What if it decides that anti-discriminatory legislation is not cost effective?
The government insists that other employers must not discriminate. I insist that they must place the same responsibility on themselves.
This bill increases opportunities for discriminatory practices even further by absolutely removing the merit principle as the basic precept of hiring and advancement. According to the bill jobs will now go to a qualified candidate instead of the most qualified candidate.
Try as I might, I cannot think of a rationale for this clause other than a blatant opportunity to facilitate political patronage. What private sector employee would interview a number of candidates for a job and then choose the second or third best because that person was capable of doing adequate, if not very good, work.
The merit principle is already severely eroded despite legislation that demands it. What kind of Public Service will we have and what kind of morale will there be when all our government employees are second best?
At the moment some of the discriminatory practices allowed for in the bill would be controlled by the Public Service Commission. It was established in 1919 as the Civil Service Commission, to prevent management abuse and ensure fair treatment to employees, particularly concerning hiring.
The Public Service Commission will be transformed by this bill from a watch-dog to a lap-dog. Many of its personnel functions will be weakened or removed. According to the bill, the PSC will no longer have any role in the demotion or termination of employees.
That task will be in the hands of deputy ministers and the Treasury Board. Bill C-26 will deprive the PSC of any strength and independence that it now has. When Public Service Commission powers decrease the powers of the individual managers will increase.
I am sure that most managers in the Public Service perform to the best of their ability and do their jobs with
Government Orders
integrity, but what of the ones who do not? The bill will give managers sole responsibility for so many personnel practices. Deputy ministers will hire and fire. They will deploy people as they see fit. There will be no means of redress.
The government has proudly asserted that deployment, although regulated by managers, will be voluntary. How voluntary will it be when deployment can be included as a term of employment?
By leaving the primary personnel responsibilities in the hands of individual managers, the bill will pave the way to favouritism on the one hand and harassment on the other.
The stated rationale by this government for this change in hiring policies within the Public Service is that simplification is needed. At the moment, it often takes as long as six months to fill a Public Service position.
The government claims that competitions are costly and time consuming. Yet only 12 per cent of the government's operating budget is devoted to personnel. There is no question that government hiring processes need simplification, but removal of the merit principle is not the way to achieve that result.
To fully ensure that Public Service employees will have absolutely no power, the government is also using the bill to enfeeble the unions.
Bill C-26 will deny the unions the right to negotiate such issues as classification and promotion. Perhaps even more dangerous, the government has appropriated for itself the right to eliminate the right to strike for certain people in certain positions.
Initially this action may indeed weaken the unions so that they cannot speak out against abuses within the system. However, in the long run it will create a monster. By designating significant numbers of employees as ineligible to strike, the government will place union control firmly in the hands of young, inexperienced and probably more radical employees. At the lowest rungs of the government ladder, with nothing to lose, these new leaders will have no reason to compromise with the government that put them in such an unfortunate position.
The bill will also severely damage job security. Contracting out has become commonplace. The bill would

Government Orders
allow managers to lay off employees because their jobs were being contracted out. A1989 Supreme Court ruling stated that such lay-offs infringe on the rights of Public Service employees for fair opportunity for advancement. It looks like once again this government is saying: "Don't break the law, change it".
Over the past five years the number of term employees in the Public Service has risen dramatically. The bill would facilitate the hiring of casual employees without competition. This again would be a blow to the merit system. At the same time, these casual employees would receive absolutely no job security or benefits.
Finally Bill C-26 offers no protection to whistleblowers. In 1967 such a provision may not have been necessary, but it most certainly is now. In fact it was probably necessary then too but just not commonplace. A number of states in the United States have recognized the need for such a provision and this government has been given ample opportunity to understand what whistleblower protection is all about. Only last week a private member's bill was put before this House concerning whistleblowing. Only one member of this government could be bothered to speak to that bill, and he spoke out in opposition.
For the past few minutes I have indicated some of the many reasons the bill is not yet ready for second reading. I am sorry now to have to add that I am not surprised at the remarkable inadequacy of the bill.
If I were to make a pair of shoes I would most certainly have to consult a shoemaker and someone who sold leather. If the shoes were to be good ones, comfortable to wear and able to fulfil the needs of the wearer, would it not be worth my time to consult someone who wears shoes? From the outset of the creation of Public Service 2000, the government has excluded those people who will be most affected by this bill.
The unions were called as witnesses but they were given no role in the final creation of the bill. Both the Auditor General's report and the public accounts committee recommended the bill needed more work and should be studied. The government has chosen to ignore them. By excluding the unions and the public, the government has once again acted in bad faith.
There is one statistic that I must commend the government on. The government has proudly asserted
that Public Service 2000 and Public Service reform is only 10 per cent about legislation. It says that 20 per cent is machinery, but the lion's share of 70 per cent is about attitudinal change.
I ask this government not to blast this atrocity into law. Let us roll up our sleeves and take this bill back to the table, to a special committee of Parliament. Let us consult thoroughly with those who will be affected by this bill, instead of destroying what could be a great institution. The Public Service could lead Canada into the 21st century with pride.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, since there is only one Tory here and it is too late for him to learn, I want to call for a quorum count.

And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is a quorum. We will resume debate.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Etobicoke-Lakeshore is raring to go these days. He wants to go to another party. We have a party in mind for him and are willing at any time to entertain his ideas. He should restrain himself for the minute, although I suppose if he is that anxious to come over I could forgo speaking. If he wants a few minutes to think about it, that is fine. I want to thank my friend from Regina-Lumsden for drawing a crowd for me. I owe him one.


Mr. Siddon:: Get on with it.


Roger Simmons: The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs says: Get on with it. He has been talking to somebody. Oh, if he had only got on with it when he was in fisheries, we would be in much better shape these days in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada.
My friend and colleague from Ottawa West has the solution to this bill. Give it the six-month hoist. Get it out of here until it is ready to come in here.
First of all, let us go to the motherhood issue in this bill. Do we need some renewing of the Public Service? Do we need to recraft legislation that has been in use for

30 years? The answer is yes. That is pure motherhood. Nobody on either side of the House argues that issue, that there is need for some updating of the mandate under which the Public Service operates. That is not at issue at all. It is characteristic of the way this government operates.
For example, when it was going to bring in the goods and services tax, it couched it in terms of replacing an admittedly bad manufacturers' tax. It gave the undertaking at that time that it would be revenue neutral. Therefore, all across this country, people in this House and elsewhere said: "Well, you cannot argue with that. That is pure motherhood. They are going to get rid of a bad tax and they are going to bring in a good tax in its place and they are not going to collect any more money". Well, you could not be against that or you would not be normal, would you? That is motherhood.
What went wrong along the way? What always goes wrong with this government? It says one thing and proceeds to do the exact opposite.
Take the free trade issue as a second example. There it came with the motherhood approach. "Canadians, would you like to trade more freely with your friends the Americans?" Well, the answer to that question is yes, because we have been trading about 85 per cent of our commodities for many, many years without a free trade agreement. Who could be against more trade which means more jobs and so on? That is the way it was put to us. Of course that is not what came out the other end of the pipe. It knew from the beginning that it was about to sell the shop.
I give those two examples in terms of tax and in terms of free trade where the government said one thing and did something very different.
There are many other examples, but in terms of my debate this afternoon, since I only have a few minutes, the third example in tandem with the tax issue which I have mentioned and the free trade issue is this particular bill, the so-called Public Service Reform Act.
The rhetoric on this says that everything is going to be sweetness and light if we could only get this bill through. That is what the President of the Treasury Board said a few minutes ago. They say that their goal is to eliminate a good part of internal red tape. Who could be against that, if that is what they are going to do?
Government Orders
Let us look at what the court said they are doing, because the court, fortunately, thanks to the union, has had an opportunity to have a look at the government's nicely stated objectives. Here is what the court had to say fairly recently, indeed within the last 12 days or so. On January 30, the Federal Court said that this proposal "departs substantially from the merit principle". Anybody who did not have a brass face, who did not have an absolutely brazen face would have withdrawn the bill as soon as the court said that and would have said: "Court, you are right. Court, we respect your finding", and they would have gone back to the drawing board.
This government has had many opportunities to do the right thing here. It has had lots of advice to do the right thing. The public accounts committee, an all-party committee of this House, told it last spring. Before proceeding with the idea of reforming the Public Service in such a massive way, however well intentioned that reform may be, the public accounts committee said: "Before you do that, before you take on this massive reorganization and restructuring of the Public Service, why do you not have a special committee of the House?"
Is this such a far-fetched idea, coming as it does from members of all parties, including Conservatives, who sit on that public accounts committee?
As if that were not enough, along comes the Federal Court in the last couple of weeks and tells the government that its proposal "departs substantially from the merit principle". The judge who made the ruling did not stop there. He went on to say: "It would be defeating the whole purpose of the Public Service Employment Act which is to ensure that appointments to the Public Service are made on the basis of merit".
Particularly since 1919 with the establishment of a Public Service Commission, over the last 73 years we happened to have in this country-and it is no accident-one of the best public services in the world. Why fix it if it is not broke? If we have a system that has served us so well, why tamper with it?
We only have to see how this government operates to see why. It is never comfortable with anything it cannot control. That is why it has taken offices that over the years have been above the fray like the secretaryship of the Privy Council, the most senior public servant, and it has made an effort to politicize the holder of that office. We have seen people like Paul Tellier, Derek Burney and

February 11, 1992
Government Orders
Norm Spectre being forced to be the apologist for this crowd.
One of the hallmarks of our bureaucracy, before this government took office, was that people such as those I have named and others were always above the fray. They gave advice to the government but they did not speak for the government.
We have seen that change, change for the worse. We have seen the public servant become politicized. Now we see the heavy hand of the government trying to institutionalize that politicization. We see it now say "it is not enough". It will not be required from now on that the individual applying for a job be the best qualified. He will just be one of the qualified people.
This opens the door. This opens Pandora's box to all kinds of abuse, to appointments on anything but merit, to flagrant patronage. It is not something we have had in our Public Service over the years and it is not something we should allow right now.
There are some good things in this bill. My colleagues, in particular my friend from Ottawa West, have already made reference to these.
We will oppose the principle of the bill at second reading because of the reasons I and other colleagues have stated. We do not oppose a reform of the Public Service. What we do oppose is this rating of the merit principle and a number of other issues that my colleagues will mention in debate. That is why we have been saying: "Let's not throw the whole thing out. Let's put it to a special committee".
My friend from Ottawa West in her wisdom has moved the motion which does not throw out as such, but buys time for this government on the heels of the court's decision, on the heels of the advice of the public accounts committee, on the heels of the advice by many dozens of members in this House, that this government come to its senses and push this issue to committee in order to get some advice and come back with a better crafted bill that will serve this country and serve the people who are part of a very magnificent Public Service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa Centre-Immigration; the hon. member for Haldi-mand-Norfolk-Pork Industry; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Metro Toronto; the hon. member for St. Boniface-Education.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wish somebody would get up and organize a crowd for me because they do not seem to last long on the government side, with two exceptions.
I want to begin by saying that I have heard speakers from all sides of the House on this bill saying nobody is against reform of the Public Service. That may be motherhood to old members, but it is not to me unless and until the reform contains the maximum participation and involvement of representatives of the Public Service employees. If they do not have any say in that reform, they do not have much of a union.
There is an old saying by a very famous Welsh politician, made when he was inaugurating the National Health Services in Great Britain in 1945-46. All the Liberals, all the Tories, all the editorial writers, and all the experts predicted it would not work. It would be disastrous. All the people would be rushing to the doctors' offices and to the hospitals and abusing the plan, et cetera, et cetera. There were predictions of a public which would destroy the National Health Service before it got off the ground.
That famous Welsh politician, bless his Labour Party heart, made a statement in the House of Commons and in a little book called In Place of Fear. That was: "If you want to get the best behaviour out of people, the first thing you have to do is give them a chance to behave". If you want to get the best behaviour and the best service out of your Public Service, you give them a chance to behave. You give them the fullest opportunity to take part in any so-called reform of the Public Service.
I want to say something about contracting out because it has become a real growth industry in Ottawa and some provincial capitals. We have thousands of extremely competent people in our Public Service, both federally and provincially, who have such a variety of expertise and
February 11, 1992

training and learning and experience that they could take on almost any task one could imagine that a government, federal or provincial, could conceive it wanted to look into.
Since about the middle seventies, this growth industry has been really operating. If you were a middle or senior level civil servant or a senior official in a Crown corporation, you put in a minimum number of years to get your pension or get a nice fat buy-out on your contract. Then you started a consulting firm and you bid on all kinds of contracting out contracts. With the kind of contacts you have built up in the Public Service, in the government, former, present and future hopeful cabinet ministers and so forth, you are in there like a burglar. Contracting out is hitting $5 billion a year. The government will not give us any details. It will not even give details to the Auditor General.
There are some instances when you have to contract out, or you should. If, on the rare occasion there is no expertise or facility anywhere in the federal government service to look into a certain matter in which the government is contemplating legislation, one would have no choice but to contract out.
If your public servants, with their best expertise, come up with a report that you have some doubts about or you would like to have double-checked, you might put out a contract either to verify or dispel what your public servants came up with. That is another instance where it would make some sense to contract out.
The overwhelming majority of contracting out cases that have gone on could have been done just as well, I suspect, for less money; certainly not any more money than was being spent.
On the whole matter of getting the best behaviour out of people, you have to give them a chance to behave. When the government brings in legislation that flies in the face of other labour legislation, you are denying that principle about giving them a chance to behave. There is another world famous, internationally recognized, historical figure who made a statement well over a hundred years ago. He was questioned about activities of certain labour unions, and he was requested to take part in that dispute on the side of the employers. He refused on the
Government Orders
following grounds: "You have to remember labour is prior and superior to capital and without labour capital cannot function". Stupid employers and stupid governments do not learn that at their peril, if they have not learned it.
Regarding arbitrarily defining job classifications, there is a mechanism in place already to do it with representation from government and employees' representations under the Canada Labour Code or before the Public Service Staff Relations Board. The mechanism is already there. If agreement cannot be reached between the government and the employees, the mechanism is in place.
We should not arbitrarily remove the ability of representatives of the employees to have a say, to negotiate job classifications and to define them. They should have a say in what the appropriate units would be for collective bargaining. If anyone knows quite a bit about an appropriate union for collective bargaining, it is a labour unionist. He would know just as much or more about it than the employer would.
On the whole matter of eliminating jobs in the public sector, some of that has gone on through contracting out. The government is not giving us all the facts, figures and details on the $5 billion it spent. It will not even give them to the Auditor General. One must be pardoned for being a little suspicious. The government can claim that it has frozen the Public Service, that there is a net reduction, or that the Public Service is no larger than it was a certain number of years ago. It has not told us how many people were involved in the contracting out, and who got paid fat fees. That is why it is such a nice growth industry in the Ottawa Valley.
This is part of collective bargaining. It is part of the kinds of rights that working people have earned. The bill is improper and inappropriate. I hope the government members will have some second thoughts about it, the three who are here, and withdraw the damned thing.
Let us not even bother having a vote on a six-month hoist. Just pull it off the table, send it over to a committee, ask it to look at it and report back.

February 11, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say today that I have had first-hand experience in dealing with the President of the Treasury Board on the item of Public Service 2000, having chaired the public accounts committee for three years.
I have a number of letters here that were sent to me by the minister at that time. I want to say that the Liberal Party opposes clauses of the bill that undermine the merit principle without any safeguards, that destabilize the Public Service, that discourage the hiring and retention of highly qualified individuals-and I do mean discourage them-and that reduce accountability, which is probably one of the worst of all. Everyone must be accountable.
We oppose the bill on that basis and we also oppose it on the basis that the President of the Treasury Board did not keep faith with the public accounts committee of this House of Commons. I will point out at what stage this happened.
On November 8, 1990 I tabled this recommendation and many more in this House from the public accounts committee. Item 17 of that report says:
Your committee considers that there is a need to pause once the
task force recommendations have been put in final form -
That is the task force recommendations, not the legislation. It continues:
-before proceeding with the introduction of legislative amendments in the House. The process of Public Service 2000 must be changed to allow for meaningful and open consultation with greater involvement of front-line employees.
Our recommendation 18 was:
Your Committee recommends that the Government give
consideration to:
(a)	tabling a discussion paper prior to proceeding with the introduction of legislative amendments and/or administrative changes and that this discussion paper set out the principal conclusions and recommendations arising from Public Service 2000;
(b)	referring the aforementioned discussion paper to a Special Committee of the House on Reform of the Public Service and that the Special Committee conduct a consultation process involving employees, the Public Service unions and other interested parties and report back to the House within a reasonable period;
We wanted an answer from the government on this and other recommendations by November 30, 1990. On December 10 the President of the Treasury Board, with
whom we dealt a great deal in the public accounts committee, sent me this letter which said in part:
I am pleased to inform you that the Government will shortly be issuing a White Paper setting out its policy for the future of the Public Service. This will afford an opportunity for consultations with Public Service unions and other interested groups on this important subject, following which the Government would intend to introduce appropriate legislation.
He went on to say about the public accounts committee:
I agree with you and your colleagues that it would be desirable for the Government's legislative proposals for renewal of the Public Service to be considered by a special House committee-
I repeat, by a special House committee. That was very clear indeed, and he says it right here in his own letter to me:
I would intend to table a motion to that effect.
The reason I said the minister did not deal in good faith with the public accounts committee was that no special committee of this House was set up. The government simply barged through and did its own consultations and then turned around and put its own ideas in legislative form and brought in this bill, which we have before us today. He did not keep faith with what he put in writing in his own letter.
On January 25, 1991 1 wrote to the minister about this very matter: "I am writing you regarding your response of December 10, 1990 which, by the way, I read to the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts". We were delighted that he was going to set up a special committee. "In particular, I would single out again the recommendation in our seventh report that a discussion paper be referred to a special committee of the House on reform of the Public Service. You clearly state in your letter of December 10 that: 'I agree with you and your colleagues that it would be desirable for the government's legislative proposals for the renewal of the Public Service to be considered by a special House committee, and I would intend to table a motion to that effect' ". I went on to say: "lb my knowledge no such motion has been tabled".
On March 15, 1991 the President of the Treasury Board wrote this letter to me which said: "Thank you for your letter of January 25,1991"-this came in almost two months later; it is the urgency he gave to the letter of January 25 that I appreciate-"on Public Service reform in which you asked if it was my intention to pursue a reference of this important matter to a special commit-
February 11, 1992

tee if the House leader's agreement is forthcoming. In my letter to you of December 11,19901 indicated that we would establish a special committee of the House to deal with the legislative aspects of Public Service 2000". There is a little catch word in here. It says: "to deal with the legislative aspects of Public Service 2000, the government's Public Service reform initiative".
We did not ask to deal with the legislative proposals. We as a public accounts committee asked to deal with a paper in which the government laid out its views and that the paper should be discussed by an all-party special committee of the House of Commons. That was not done. He is throwing in this legislative proposal here instead of keeping faith with his original letter.
The minister says: "I am pleased to confirm that it remains the government's intention to do so once we are satisfied that adequate consultations have taken place with interested parties on the legislative proposals required". What he is saying is again that it is the legislative proposals which he is going to bring forward to the House, not his original commitment that he was going to bring a paper before the House which could be studied by an all-party committee and in which all elements of the Public Service of Canada could have a hearing.
The government is dealing in high-handed ways with its public servants. That is why it had a massive walkout not veiy long ago; it dealt with the public servants as if they were secondary citizens.
We have a tremendous Public Service in this country and once you start destroying the morale, destroying the quality, destroying the invitation of bright, young people of this country to go into the Public Service because there is a challenge there, the Public Service of this country is going to suffer.
I have another one where the President of the Treasury Board wrote me a letter suggesting under what conditions his officials from Treasury Board should appear before the public accounts committee. The committees of this House have the power to demand that public servants and other agencies appear before them. Here we have the President of the Treasury Board, who is supposed to be in charge of government expenditures,
Government Orders
saying that only under certain conditions should his officials appear before the public accounts committee.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are giving me the high sign, but I just want to put these facts on the record. The minister has not kept faith with the parliamentary committee. He has rammed his legislative proposals into this House. He has still retained the capacity to contract work out. We were told by the public accounts committee that it had no records of how they were going to save money or how much money they saved by contracting out.
If you do not have any statistics to show how you are going to save money by contracting out then why are you standing in this House and saying that we save money by laying off public servants and contracting the work out? You have failed to prove that. In fact you say you have no statistics to prove it and you are still saying that you are saving money.
Bring back decency in the treatment of public servants. Treat them with decency. Give us an honest-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member for Malpeque.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this legislation, Bill C-26, the Public Service Reform Act. I must say at the beginning that I too will be voting against this bill on second reading. I feel it will have a negative effect on the whole Public Service and the way services are delivered to the Canadian people.
I am sure everyone in this House agrees that reform is necessary. The legislation under which the Public Service operates at the moment was passed in the 1960s. Certainly times have changed since then and we do need reform and new legislation. This bill before us today is certainly not the answer.
I am opposed to the legislation for several reasons. I know today my time is limited. In the time I have I want to try to outline some of the reasons why I will be voting against this legislation at second reading.
As our critic for this legislation has suggested, and I certainly support the suggestion, this bill should be sent to a special committee of Parliament and studied there in detail. During the study the groups affected by this

Government Orders
legislation should be consulted with a view to amending the legislation so it will better serve all Canadians.
The vast majority of public servants live in Ottawa, but in my province of Prince Edward Island we have the Department of Veterans Affairs which employs approximately 500 Islanders. Before too long we hope to have the GST processing centre in Summerside which will employ 300 to 400 people. As well as those two major government departments, we also have other federal public servants in my province.
Many of these federal government officials live in my riding. I have talked to many of them. I know they are really concerned about the legislation we have before us today.
Before I explain my objections to this legislation, I want to set out how we in the Liberal Party see the Public Service.
We believe that Canadians deserve a public service that delivers accessible quality services, is professional and non-partisan, treats all employees with respect and fairness, and is responsive to the needs of Canadians. That is how we in the Liberal Party see the Public Service. I must say that our party also supports the revitalization of the Public Service and we want to help public servants adapt to the rapid change.
As I said, the legislation it is operating under is old legislation. It is from the 1960s, and certainly there have been many changes in our country since then. We do need new legislation, but, as I said, the legislation we have before us today is certainly not the answer.
To sum up, we support a Public Service that is professional and non-partisan, that can provide Canadians with the high level of service they deserve for their tax dollars.
I am opposed to Bill C-26 because many parts of this legislation go against the principles I have just read. This legislation jeopardizes the merit principle in the hiring process because it does away with the competition process.
Right now, when an opening occurs, a competition is held and the person who gets the job is the person who finishes number one in the competition. This is as it should be, if we are going to get the best qualified people in our Public Service.
Under Bill C-26, when an opening occurs managers would only have to establish minimum qualifications for the position. In other words there is no competition. They can hire anyone who has the minimum qualifications. The best qualified candidate would not necessarily get the job.
It really disturbs me that we are talking here about legislation which could mean that in hiring for positions in the Public Service the best qualified person would not get the job.
For example, in my own province of Prince Edward Island, if the manager in one of the departments wanted to hire a lawyer who was a member of the Prince Edward Island bar, then he could hire any lawyer who is a member of the Prince Edward Island bar. It would not necessarily have to be the person best qualified. If being a member of the bar was the only qualification then the manager would have the leeway to do that. Indeed the manager could simply hire a friend of his.
I am against this legislation because I think it will open up the hiring process to abuse and favouritism. This legislation also jeopardizes the merit principle by changing the way employees are transferred within departments.
Right now competitions are held so that we get the best qualified person for the position. Under this proposed legislation that would no longer be the case. Managers would be able to move employees to any other position without regard to merit or other employees who may be equally or maybe better qualified.
If that were the case, what would happen to the morale of the Public Service if managers decided to favour their friends?
I have real problems with the government doing away with competitions for Public Service jobs. This is certainly not the type of system we want. I believe it will open the way in the hiring process to abuse and favouritism.
I know you have indicated that I only have a minute left, so I simply want to wrap up by saying that I will vote against this legislation at second reading for the reasons I have just outlined. I have a lot of other reasons which I do not have time to speak about today. Certainly, even
February 11, 1992

with the two I have raised, there has not been ample time to go into them in any depth.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, it is important to debate Bill C-26, because of the implications it will have on the Public Service. It is important to discuss it from a number of points of view.
One point of view is what it does not do, and the other is what it does do. This bill does not address the real problems within the Public Service of Canada but addresses some concerns the government believes it has because of its inability to treat employees properly in the operation of government service.
We have heard a good deal today about the discretion this bill will provide to managers. That sort of discretion will permit and even encourage favouritism to be used rather than merit in the operation of the Public Service. It is no wonder that the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the other unions and professional associations that represent workers in the Public Service are very concerned about the operation of this bill. They are very concerned about the rationale and motives the government brings to the introduction of a bill of this sort.
There are at least three major problems within the Public Service which this bill does not even attempt to address. If the government were serious about improving the Public Service and the lives of those employees within it, it would do something to address these concerns.
There is a serious problem of morale within the Public Service, as we have seen from the events of last summer and as all members of Parliament see when we meet members of the Public Service. This bill does not attempt to address the problem of low morale.
There is also concern out there among the employees and the public at large that the service rendered to the public has deteriorated considerably over the last few years. Those of us who deal with a large number of unemployment insurance claims in our offices, or with Revenue Canada, know that the period of time to deal with these issues has grown. In that period of time the lives of Canadians are affected in an adverse manner. We have problems with the deterioration of service to
Government Orders
the public, not as a result of problems with the employees who are doing the best job they can, but because of continual cutbacks and pressure on the resources within the Public Service.
There are problems, as we have seen so vividly recently with the collective bargaining process within the Public Service. There are many issues which the Public Service Alliance of Canada is unable to bargain which would be the subject of collective bargaining were they not in the Public Service. They are reasonable matters such as job classification and staffing levels. Again Bill C-26 omits to do anything about this particular problem. Instead the bill encourages and allows the government to continue to contract out work, to continue to undermine the full-time employees in the Public Service.
The government now spends in excess of $5 billion on contracting out. There is no effective accounting for this expenditure and no cost study available to the members of the House on the effectiveness of this contracting out. It would appear to be more of a philosophical issue than a practical economic issue.
This bill does nothing to address this concern. Indeed, it allows the government to contract out even more, which is not in the interests of the employees in the Public Service or of the consumers of services provided by civil servants.
It also increases the discretion of managers in the deployment of staff. One big problem with giving managers extra discretion in the way in which they treat employees is that they will use favouritism rather than merit to address their concerns. One of the advantages of having firm rules with regard to promotion and allocation of jobs is that it cuts down on the opportunity for managers to pick and choose who will get merit, who will be deployed to certain tasks, and so on, on the basis of who they like rather than who will do the best job.
The discretion of managers, if administered fairly, is desirable. Within the Public Service at the moment, as we all know, there is an increasing distrust by the rank and file members of their managers and part of that is the frustration that gave rise to the events of last summer.

Private Members' Business
Rather than make sure that these decisions are made fairly and on the basis of clear rules, what this bill wants to do is enable them to be made even more unfairly and with more discretion.
Also this bill provides mechanisms for increased devolution of managerial responsibility and accountability. Rather than make those mechanisms more effective, it attacks the job security of public sector workers. One thing that causes more concern among workers, more concern in terms of their ability to do their job and their effectiveness and their sense of commitment to the work place and to their job, is uncertainty. To create more uncertainty in the Public Service is to do a disservice to the employees and their families and also to the Public Service itself and to those Canadians who receive those services. It does not help to make the lives of civil servants more insecure.
The employees within the Public Service who after all know their jobs better than anyone else, who know what is required within their frame of activity in order to effectively and properly service the public, have asked for very modest changes on the whole. They do not want this bill, they want to have the real concerns of the Public Service addressed. They want to be able, as they should, to bargain in the same way as they might in the private sector over such things as staffing, classification and deployment of staff, perfectly reasonable expectations that this government should respond to positively rather than throw out.
They also want an adjudication process which will appropriately hear their grievances on such issues as staffing, classification and deployment. Again, a reasonable request. Surely it is appropriate that their positions should not be changed, that their place of employment should not be changed arbitrarily, and that there should be some procedure for making sure that that was fair.
They want an end to contracting out for two reasons: first, it adversely affects their jobs, their opportunities for promotion and their security, not an unreasonable concern for an employee; and second, and more importantly, as they have voiced so often, contracting out has given rise to a deterioration in the service rendered to the public and very often sees duplication of costs, which has not given rise to savings. If the rationale behind the government's response for contracting out is that it saves
money, it clearly has not done that and the government is not even prepared to prove the economic benefits or detriments of the scheme one way or the other.
We can only be concerned about the lack of openness on the results of any study the government might have made about the economic effectiveness of contracting out.
Once again this government is going after workers in the Public Service rather than trying to nuture their ability to do their jobs effectively. I think we would see clear support across this country, not only within the Public Service but outside, for opposition to this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed in today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Constitution Act to recognize the right of every person in Canada to a safe and healthy environment.
[He said: Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase the words of Saint Exupery, we do not inherit the environment from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. We have a responsibility, each and every single Canadian, to act as good stewards of our environment for future generations. This responsibility falls on us as individuals, how we act in our consumptive patterns, the choices we make on a day to day basis. This responsibility falls to us also at the community level, how we work together to promote a way of living and growing that maintains and enhances our environment.
This responsibility also falls on the shoulders of government, municipal, regional, provincial and federal.
February 11, 1992

No matter how we draw our political boundaries, the environment encompasses and transcends those boundaries. The responsibility of the federal government is more than the sum of its parts, the parts being mere historical, political creations. This includes federal ridings, cities, regions and provinces.
The air in my home riding of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake does not heed provincial boundaries. Poisons and toxins, if they are in the air, move from community to community, from province to province. CFCs spewed in the air from other provinces and even other countries impact on radiation levels and climate changes which affect all of us.
Effluents released into the water table and pesticides which are brought into the water table do not honour the provincial boundary, for example, between Saskatchewan and Alberta, which forms much of the western boundary of my riding. The water table was there before the creation of the provinces and will remain, we hope, long after. It is how we choose to act or not act which will determine just how we leave it for future generations. Mammals, birds, fish and plant life pay no heed to these boundaries. Disease and genetic damage impact inter-provincially and internationally.
This environment, these biosystems we borrow from our grandchildren, require the federal government to play a strong role. As Chief Seattle stated in 1893: "Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself".
The motion before us today asks the House to recognize that the Constitution should be amended to recognize the right of every person in Canada to a safe and healthy environment. All Canadians are aware that our environment is suffering irrevocably in many ways. Families know that our children are inheriting a land that is diseased and weak compared to the one we inherited. We have not done a good job as stewards.
Governments continue to turn a blind eye to environmental damage in order to please and placate the efforts of big business to continue to drive down the costs, often made more expensive in the short term by environmental regulation and protection. The Mexican trade deal threatens to push our various levels of government even further in reducing environmental laws in order to
Private Members' Business
compete with the joke that is Mexican environment enforcement.
Tracts of forests, one-third the size of Japan, are sold to Japanese industry. While our government joins the chorus criticizing the destruction of the Amazon rain forests, it assists the continued destruction of our country's own lungs, our rain forests and our boreal forests. The ozone layer smack dab above our own country has thinned to the extent that the environment minister has urged young children to stay out of the sun. What have we come to? Has the minister also decided that in the future he will urge young plants, animals and fish to protect themselves from the dangerous radiation levels caused through CFC production? Clearly this is a timely motion.
The federal government in its constitutional proposals has at the same time recognized the need to address the environment and put forward proposals which serve to further threaten the environment, belying our trust as stewards for future generations.
The Canadian Council of Ministers on the Environment says Canadians are making unprecedented demands on their government to preserve, protect and repair all aspects of the environment. The council also commissioned a study by Resources Future International, an institute for research on public policy, which found that almost nine in ten Canadians feel that their longterm health already has been affected by pollution levels in their area. Three-quarters of our population feels that pollution is a major cause of cancer. Perhaps most alarmingly, 85 per cent of the population considers pollution problems already serious enough to threaten the very survival of the human race.
In introducing the green plan, the Prime Minister stated: "Canada's natural development has shaped the development of our character and spirit. The challenge we now face is to build upon our economic strength in harmony with our environment, the basis of our health and our prosperity".
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Oldman dam further underscores the federal responsibility in environmental matters. The Supreme Court's decision stresses the federal role and takes a view of the environment which extends to include a community's livelihood, health and other social matters.

Private Members' Business
This motion, therefore, is most urgent as it provides an opportunity for the government to alter its current course as outlined in the federal government constitutional proposals. The current proposals would not only prevent us from moving forward as a country but would in fact be toxic to the growth of a mature and responsible attitude toward the environment.
While it is true that there is a proposal to recognize the environment in the Canada clause with a commitment to sustainable development, it is only a symbolic gesture which is empty in law and meaning. Put simply, it is unenforceable.
Proposal 22 would transfer to the provinces the authority for non-national matters which are not specifically assigned under the Constitution, hence the environment. This would further shoulder the provinces with the mantle of being pollution havens. Industry would be able to continue to offer up shop with the attractive spin-offs of job creation and related economic growth to the province most willing to ignore or reduce environmental standards. This would pose the same threat to the environment that the current free trade talks with Mexico pose, that of pollution havens.
Proposal 24 would transfer powers relating to forestry and much of energy, mines and resources to the provinces. The federal government has also set out in its constitutional proposals recognition of the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in the following areas and to withdraw from these fields in a manner appropriate to each sector. It outlines tourism, forestry, mining, recreation and housing.
The government also proposes to discuss with the provinces for the purpose of administrative and/or legislative delegation wildlife conservation and protection, transportation of dangerous goods, soil and water conservation. The proposal to guarantee property rights in the Constitution stands in stark opposition to the intent of my motion today, to recognize the right of every person in Canada to a clean and healthful environment.
It does not take a fortune teller to see big business dumping toxins no matter how foul into any water or land on its property, pointing to property rights as a defence for doing whatever it wants on its own property. Environment and communities be damned in a case like this. Further erosion of the federal government's power
not only ignores the inherent transboundary nature of the environment, but it would severely restrict the ability of the government to participate in international treaties concerning the environment as well.
As my colleague, the member for Skeena, has stated: "This is a bottom line vision for the boardroom, not a survivor's manifest".
The constitutional proposal package offers a symbolic and unenforceable reference to the environment proposed for the Canada clause. It is nothing more than a cheap political effort to mislead Canadians into believing that the environment is a Conservative constitutional priority.
In fact the January 1992 all-party House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment found many locations where the package undermines or handicaps avenues to protect or enhance the environment.
According to the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Canada may be the only country to have adopted or amended a Constitution since 1975 which did not include recognition of the right to a clean environment. More than 20 countries now have environmental rights entrenched in their constitutions.
We missed an opportunity in 1981-82 when the Constitution was patriated and before Parliament. We neglected the environment in the ill-fated Meech Lake Accord. We missed an opportunity just last fall when I proposed that this Parliament draft a bill of rights guaranteeing the environmental rights of all Canadians.
The federal government attempts to bypass serious environmental protection in the Constitution during these talks and it comes at a particularly bad time with the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development slated for Rio de Janeiro in only four months' time.
The government's constitutional proposals would hinder our ability to play any significant role, much less a leadership role, in such areas as global warming, forestry, biodiversity, biotechnology, marine pollution, and fisheries.
To sum up, the current big business-federal government constitutional proposals stand to gut the federal
February 11, 1992

declaratory power; cut the federal role in wildlife conservation and protection; cut the federal role in soil and water conservation; cut the federal role in forestry; cut the federal role in mining; and frustrate any ability to play a leadership role in international environmental protection.
During times of economic recession, like those we now face due to federal economic and political mismanagement, levels of government are pressured even more to reduce environmental protection for its citizens in order to compete with these big business interests.
During the environmental Olympics, when levels of government are inclined to compete to cut corners on the environment and leap high for business investment, we must remember it is the people of Canada and the wildlife, plant and animal, for which we are stewards. That is really what this discussion is all about.
Entrenching in the Constitution the right to a healthy and safe environment is more than just words during constitutional talks. It is essential, absolutely essential for maintaining the integrity of the planet we are leaving to our children.
Ensuring every Canadian's right to a safe and healthy environment would realize a very, very substantial step forward. There are several leads which could be followed in this regard.
Just six days ago the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Yukon, announced a proposal for a social charter which would place in section 36(1) of the Constitution the responsibility of the government to ensure a clean environment.
The government of Ontario has recently initiated a task force on an Ontario environmental bill of rights which sets out to examine the public's right to a healthy environment; improvement to protection through improved court access; the escalation of public participation; whistleblowing protection; government responsibility and accountability for the environment.
The governments of Yukon and the Northwest Territories both have provisions to protect the environment.
Private Members' Business
The Northwest Territories adopted the Environmental Rights Act in 1990, providing environmental rights and allowing individuals to sue other individuals for contaminating the environment.
In 1991 the Yukon government enacted its Environment Act which provides that the people of Yukon have the right to a healthful natural environment allowing individuals to sue the government and other individuals if this right is infringed.
Support for my motion is support only for that which surely each and every member of this Parliament and every Canadian should expect, that the environment we all share should be safe and healthy. Implicit in this is a number of implications and assumptions.
We as individuals and as government have the responsibility to act to protect the environment. The Western Canadian Law Association in its October 22, 1991 brief to the Standing Committee on the Environment calls for a Canadian Constitution which acknowledges that Canadians bear a personal and collective responsibility to protect the local, national and global environment.
Ensuring the right to a safe and healthy environment involves recognition of what the West Coast Environmental Law Association calls the precautionary principle of environmental protection.
Gro Brundtland, chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development, stated: "I will add my strong support to those who say that we cannot delay action until all scientific facts are on the table. We already know enough to start to act and to act more forcefully. We know the time it takes from decision to implementation through practical effects. We know that it costs more to repair environmental damage than to prevent it. If we err in our decisions affecting the future of our children and our planet, let us err on the side of caution".
I also support the principle of polluter pays. Assigning financial responsibility for actions that have adverse environmental consequences is a principle of obvious importance in our market based society.

February 11, 1992
Private Members' Business
The federal government's current proposals for dealing with the environment in the Constitution are based on the veiy same principles that come into play in the free trade agreement, privatization, and deregulation.
These proposals are based upon the lowest possible wages, the lowest possible job protection and the lowest possible ecological standards. Carte blanche for developers and the short-term interests of big business bottom lines are the winners in the constitutional proposals, and not the environment that we are borrowing from our children.
As the Assembly of First Nations' brief to the Standing Committee on the Environment reminds us, the earth and its biosystems existed as a whole before humankind. European economic and political development commenced the true partitioning of land with various enclosure acts. Our way of looking at the environment to date is to try to package it into contrived political boundaries and play political football with issues too important to consider a game.
If we are to survive we must mimic the natural life systems of the earth. A Constitution must serve to divide responsibilities for the environment as the environment exists crossing politically created and redefined borders.
In order to recognize every Canadian's right to a healthy and safe environment, we need a strong federal role in international issues. Catastrophes such as deterioration of the ozone and global warming need concerted federal attention.
The federal government's proposals would lead us exactly the wrong way down a one-way street. The trend to provincial pollution havens implicit in these dangerous proposals must be reversed.
There is good reason for a strong federal role in the environment. The West Coast Environmental Law Association stated: "The environment is Canada's national heritage. Every Canadian has a right to have that heritage protected. It follows that every Canadian has a right to reasonable protection of all of the Canadian environment, and not merely the environment of the province in which he or she lives. It is important that the federal government set minimum environmental standards so that the provinces are not tempted to compete
among themselves to attract industry by cutting environmental standards".
This call to recognize the right of every person in Canada to a safe and healthy environment is the first step in protecting that heritage, in honouring the trust of borrowing our environment from our children.
I ask the House for its support.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I welcome this opportunity to discuss the hon. member's proposal. Indeed it is an important one.
It is an important one, particularly in light of the fact that the goals which the hon. member is seeking to achieve are indeed the same goals that the federal government is seeking to achieve.
Where we differ is with respect to the question of how best to achieve those goals. The hon. member, as you know, is proposing that we should establish and entrench an environmental bill of rights.
In our mind that is not the best approach for the preservation of the environment in Canada. We agree with him and I am sure all members of the House would join with me in saying that we share a common goal of striving to ensure that the environment be protected not only for this generation but for future generations.
We believe that his approach, and I know it is a view shared by others, would in fact fragment the environment because it would be based upon the assumption that the environment could be managed in isolation of its social and economic context.
I am of the opinion, and I believe it is an opinion shared by many in this House, that the best way in Canada both in the past and in the present for us to resolve our differences with others, to resolve the problems which are common to all of us is through a process of dialogue and co-operation.
In our minds the process of dialogue and co-operation first of all must include working in concert with other levels of government because it is very clear that they indeed have important roles of responsibility.
I think the judgment on the Oldman reaffirms the fact that the provincial government indeed has certain areas of responsibility. I might say in passing that I was pleased to see the Oldman decision reaffirming the philosophy of the government as practised in the implementation of
February 11, 1992

Private Members' Business
the EARP guidelines and certainly as proposed under there is room for public participation. Indeed there is Bill C-13 which will be coming back before this House in	encouragement for public participation as outlined in
the near future.	Bill C-13.
We believe if we are to work towards the attainment of our common goals we must do so in co-operation with those same provincial governments, with their municipal governments, with business, with the employees of business, with environmental groups, and with the public at large.
We believe that the key to the achievement of sustainable development is indeed the establishment of important environment and economic links and partnerships.
We fear that an entrenched environmental bill of rights would have the result of undermining that proposed partnership between all sectors of society which we feel is required to meet the challenges posed by environmental degradation.
We fear that that would occur because we fear that it would lead to a confrontational approach to the resolution of problems rather than to a co-operative approach.
I accept and I understand that on occasion there must be recourse to the courts. I think that is an inevitable by-product of our legislative process and the manner in which we have accepted responsibility under the federal system for the various areas of governmental duty.
I firmly believe as well that if we can wherever possible avoid that recourse to the courts which sometimes leads to a confrontational approach, it is in our collective interest to do so.
We do not believe that we should in any way limit the flexibility of legislatures. We believe that in some cases the very high cost of litigation can actually serve to deter the rights of individuals to be a part of the process.
Speaking philosophically, I very much prefer a system of co-operation and partnership which accepts the fact that no single level of government, no single player in the process, has the sole responsibility for development and for the protection of our heritage now and in the future.
This government has begun working in the right direction as we have tried to establish a system whereby
We have begun to move in the right direction in establishing these partnerships and linkages. In doing that I accept the fact that the Canadian people, as demonstrated during the consultations to the green plan, are asking us as a federal government to accept the very significant role of leadership in that process.
I for one believe that we have a responsibility to act as Canadians have told us to do and to accept the responsibility of providing leadership and perhaps even a greater degree of responsibility in certain areas and other levels of government. But I am firmly of the mind that if we are going to succeed in the long run, it will not be because one level of government has attempted or achieved a greater degree of superiority over others. It will be because we will have worked out a philosophy in Canada whereby Canadians, irrespective of where they live or of which part of society they may be a part of, have come to the conclusion that it is in our common collective best interests to work together toward a common goal.
As a federal government, I am proud of the leadership which we have provided to date. I am proud of the green plan, the six year long-term strategy, the first of its kind in this country. I am proud of the financial commitment of $3 billion that has been made available for the implementation of that plan. I am proud of the fact that that green plan to a very significant degree is a direct result of a fairly extensive and, in the minds of some, perhaps somewhat laborious process of consultation with others. I am proud of the fact that the green plan represents, according to my calculations, a recognition of approximately 80 per cent of the plans and goals identified, proposals put forth by Canadians in this proposal.
I am pleased that prior to accepting my present responsibilities, the federal government put forth the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has put into place a system of clearly defined responsibilities, a holistic approach on the part of the government, an approach that accepts the need for nationally consistent standards of environmental quality.

Private Members' Business
I am pleased that with the presentation of Bill C-13 to the House, which will hopefully be coming before us for debate in the next weeks if not days, there is a system put in place where the public has a clearly defined role to play. We accept the fact that we are in a very real sense simply stewards on occasion acting on their behalf.
Some of the success of the strategy we have put in place is evident in the work of the Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment, of which the federal minister happens to be the chairman at the moment. Here I think you have good evidence of the ability of governments to work together, to put together national plans to prevent and reduce urban smog, to put together strategies to reduce packaging materials by some 50 per cent by the year 2000.
What I see operative in the activities of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment is a common determination to address the problems at hand without worrying too much about who is responsible for what part of the process.
I would look as well to the unity proposal which is before us and to note that for the first time there will be reference in our Constitution to the area of the environment and to the concept of sustainable development, but indeed it will be part of a new section too, the very important Canada clause.
All of these steps in my mind are being achieved because we accept the fact that governments at all levels must work now and in the future, as we have begun to do in the past, with their counterparts elsewhere, and with all those players who are part of society.
I would note in closing that the problems which we face as Canadians are not necessarily unique to us as Canadians, and that has been very evident in the House these last few days with the attention being given to the question of the ozone layer.
I would say in closing that the type of co-operation and partnerships which I envisage being required are required of international partners as well. I simply close by alluding to the Montreal protocol, one of the best examples of the international community coming together. Initially there were some 25 nations that signed. I think the number is over twice that now, understanding as they do that internationally as well as domestically the solution to sustainable development is not necessarily
found in constitutions or on pieces of paper, but in a desire and a strategy of working together by forming partnerships and linkages throughout Canada and throughout the world.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the hon. member for The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake for submitting such an interesting and very important motion to us. He has always shown great interest in the environment and with this motion today he is presenting a subject of the utmost importance because the whole country is interested in making Canada's Constitution the best for present and future generations.
I really want to thank the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his initiative.

The intervention to which I just listened by the parliamentary secretary unfortunately was not very focused because of the fact that he used half of his time to elaborate on the government record, thus engaging in a neat and clever propaganda exercise.
He did, in all fairness, devote part of his time to the motion, but in his critique I wonder whether he really read the motion by the member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake. The parliamentary secretary said that if such a motion were to be adopted, it would isolate the environment. It would undermine the partnership to achieve sustainable development. He said it would lead to a confrontational approach. Imagine, he envisages a confrontational approach from this motion. It will limit the flexibility of legislators who prefer a system of co-operation and partnership. I am paraphrasing the parliamentary secretary, of course, but I am pretty close to what he said.
He said that he wants to work toward a common goal. Then he elaborated as to why he is proud of the green plan and the government record. Well, we will leave that for another occasion.
The motion by the member for the Battlefords- Meadow Lake wants an amendment in the Constitution to recognize the right of every person in Canada to a safe and healthy environment. Mr. Speaker, I ask you wheth-
February 11, 1992

er a clause, a phrase of this nature in the Constitution, would have the effect of undermining partnerships to achieve sustainable development. That is absurd. I ask whether it would limit the flexibility of legislators. If anything, it would give legislators increased incentives, a goal to move toward because it is in the Constitution. What on earth is the parliamentary secretary trying to get across in rejecting this motion?
It would impede a system or a culture of co-operation and partnership. For heaven's sake, if such a right were in the Constitution, and since members of the business community, the labour community, government, and the political sector are all persons who have the right to a healthy and safe environment, you have here a cohesive, bonding reason for moving in that direction.
It seems to me that the more one thinks about it, this motion would actually help enormously to achieve the major strategic goals that the parliamentary secretary has in mind. I wish the parliamentary secretary had told us why he would not like to have such a proposal in the Constitution from a constitutional point of view. It may be because he has some well-reasoned arguments. To argue that sustainable development is in the proposal of the government for the Constitution is a fine and interesting exercise in public relations, but the way it is phrased in the proposals-and I am referring to Shaping Canada's Future Together- one must conclude that it has very little value in enhancing or protecting the environment. This is what the member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake is trying to get across to us. His motive is to protect the environment.
What can we do and what can we say in this limited time? The notion of entrenching environmental rights probably dates back to discussions in the early seventies at the time of the Stockholm conference, that there are many ways of accomplishing this goal, that it can be done through an environmental bill of rights as many parliamentarians have attempted to do, including the Speaker of this House in the late seventies by way of amending the Constitution, as the member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake is proposing, by amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if you like, or by rigorous enforcement of good legislation-he did not say, but that is where the parliamentary secretary comes from and I have to agree with that approach definitely-or by the
Private Members' Business
integration of the environment into economic decisionmaking. You could achieve it that way.
There are some who would like to amend section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so as to make it read, and I quote: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, and a healthful environment, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principle of fundamental justice". This insertion has been recommended by a number of constitutionally interested parties.
One also ought to recognize the work done by the Canadian Environmental Law Association when it appeared before the Ontario committee on the Constitution. They laid out a convincing argument in favour of a constitutional guarantee for a healthful environment as well, and also provided a clear definition of shared responsibilities that both the federal and the provincial governments have in relation to environmental methods. In their presentation they supported the proposal by Professor Gibson to amend the charter by creating a new section 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3, which for the lack of time I will not be able to read into the record.
The government proposals are really not filling the vacuum that exists around us. If you look at them, you find a commitment or a proposal in the preamble to the objective of sustainable development. We dealt with that a few minutes ago, which however is of very little value.
Then there is a proposal for the entrenchment of property rights in the charter, a measure which has been actually rejected by many organizations and individuals because it poses a threat to the environment, for years actually. Then there is a proposal to abandon to the provinces certain administrative legislative responsibilities in wildlife conservation, in transportation of dangerous goods, in soil and water conservation, which are counterproductive one must say.
As to the economic union that is proposed by the government, no mention is made of integrating the environment and the economy as part of their concept.
One must conclude that the true meaning of sustainable development has not really reached the level of the policy makers in Ottawa.

Private Members' Business
It is against this vacuum that the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake comes forward with his proposal, a novel idea which urges the government to do something about the situation.
When it comes to substance in an initiative of this kind, I find it very regrettable that the government, instead of being supportive and co-operative, finds it necessary to defend itself on record and use arguments which really do not stand up to close scrutiny.


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the mover of the motion, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, and to the Liberal member for Davenport, who both invited us to support a motion which I find most interesting, and which reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Constitution Act to recognize the right of every person in Canada to a safe and healthy environment. One could only wish that this would apply every day and every second, especially when we consider the damage suffered by the environment and this planet throughout our history.
This motion deals with an issue that concerns us as Canadians. It also refers to a commitment we made, as a government, to help protect and preserve our natural environment, for ourselves and for our children. It is a responsibility that our government takes seriously, and I will give a few examples later on.
I believe that our current constitutional debate and our commitment to protect the environment reflect a concern to leave our children a country and a planet where they can lead a good life. I believe that through co-operation and dialogue, we will be able to meet the challenges facing us, both on the Constitution and the environment, as we are about to enter the 21st century.
I admit I support the lofty principles in this motion. And who would not? However, I must say it is not the best time in the world nor the best attitude one could take in the circumstances. What I mean is, Mr. Speaker, that adopting immediately a motion that urges us to enshrine this right in the Constitution would be putting the cart before the horse. After all, we have a constitutional committee that is about to suggest what to do and how to do it in the circumstances, among other things. I think we would do better to wait for the committee's
report before we commit ourselves. In fact, I would prefer to mention the successful action taken by governments at various levels and by agencies and private citizens, who will make certain actions part of their daily lives. I am not sure this motion should be adopted, in the circumstances. Once again, I would prefer us to concentrate on concrete action such as government legislation.
So, I suggest that the best guarantee the Canadian people can be given as regards a clean and healthy environment is to direct our efforts toward sustainable development. The idea is to take into account the environmental considerations relating to each of our decisions and to account fully to the public for each of our actions.
Economic growth entails some environmental hazards-no one can deny it-because it draws heavily upon all our natural resources. On the other hand, we know that the growth of the economy depends on wise environmental decisions. As mentioned in the green plan, the environmental aspects have to be considered on a day-to-day basis and not in retrospect.
On December 11, 1990, we released our environmental action plan, namely the green plan in which we reiterated unhesitatingly our commitment to sustainable development because we firmly believe that a healthy environment is our surest guarantee for a strong economy. After all, we tend to manage our resources wisely in times when our economy is thriving. Economic growth also enables us to protect the quality of our environment by investing in the required pollution control and prevention infrastructures and technologies.
The green plan therefore challenges all Canadians- men and women, individuals and governments, First Nations and NGOs-to work together toward achieving our environmental goals.
This reminds me of the collective effort the green plan calls for, as illustrated by the following example. The finest of names can appear on the door of a restaurant or a business or on a sign, but however enticing the name, it does not tell much about what you will find inside. Personally I prefer going in and checking for myself what the food is like without paying too much attention to the sign. However great the merits exhibited and the wishes formulated in public, so long as we do not suit the action

Private Members' Business
to the word and do no follow through, we will not necessarily foster this kind of co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, sustainable development cannot be achieved unless government leads the way, all the way down the administrative ladder. Sustainable development must be an integral part of our daily lives and sustainability must guide all our decisions. For that, we must involve people at the grass roots and bring these virtues and values into principles. The government is determined to fully consider the environment in evaluating projects and policies. This is the idea behind the reform of the federal environmental assessment review process.
You see two things that this government has done: the green plan and the proposed legislation on the table, Bill C-13. They call for action and show this government's convictions and virtues.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that our government has given much greater importance to the role of environment minister, so that environmental issues take the high priority they deserve in federal decision making. Furthermore, our government has set up a Cabinet Committee on the Environment, whose mission is to carry out our ambitious environmental program and to ensure that the government's policies and programs fully comply with our environmental objectives. The Minister of the Environment is also on the very important Priorities and Planning Committee of cabinet.
All this is to tell you again, Mr. Speaker, that the actions, regulations and responsibilities assigned to the various decision-making levels in the federal government attest to these convictions. The ministers and legislation like C-13 are a good illustration of it.
In conclusion, I want to say that this is the position taken by the government, to make the environment minister an influential member of Cabinet and to give him the instruments he needs to carry out his mission and allow Canadians to judge whether or not the government is doing a good job of meeting its objectives.
That is what I wanted to say to you, Mr. Speaker. I see that my time is up.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words about the motion of the hon. member. I know he is a sincere member of this House and I think his motion is put forward in all sincerity. It is useful to review it:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider amending the Constitution Act to recognize the right of
every person in Canada to a safe and healthy environment.
On the surface I do not think there are too many Canadians who would say the hon. member was off base in putting forward a resolution like this one. It has a lot of merit to it. I think it has a lot of depth to it and I think it should be reviewed seriously.
I guess if I might make a criticism of my colleague I would say the temptation is large right now for Canadians to make the Constitution into some kind of a shopping list for all the good things we might want to have in our society.
We saw this in the last few weeks in the constitutional conferences. This last weekend in Toronto we heard aboriginal leaders say that they would like the Constitution to say that they are a distinct society. We have certainly heard Bob Rae, the premier of Ontario, arguing that the Constitution should contain a social charter. We have heard the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and Judy Rebick say that the Senate should be restructured so that it is gender specific, that there are certain seats set aside for women, for example.
I have been advocating that the Canadian Constitution should contain property rights: the right of an individual to own property. I have argued that the Constitution should give more rights to Canadian citizens. If I had my way I would like to see a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget in this country. I would like to see the government's proposals for a stronger economic union as part of it.
Basically a lot of us are looking at constitutional change now in a way that is quite divorced from the fundamentals that got us into this. We have a country that is in jeopardy of falling apart because of a fundamental misunderstanding between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Maybe it is time we resisted some of these temptations.
I wanted to say that because although I think the constitutional amendment proposed by the member is a good, sound and sincere one we are may be falling victim

February 11, 1992
Private Members' Business
to the temptation to put everything on the constitutional table.
As far as constitutional rights or environmental rights in the Constitution per se go, I would make a couple of basic comments. I believe we do not need more words on paper. I do not think that is going to help the environment. Changing words in the Constitution is not really going to help the environment, but I think changing attitudes will.
The problem is not so much with Them, with a capital t, and by that I mean governments or institutions or constitutions.
I do not think it is right for us as individual Canadians to sort of institutionalize our environmental problems, to put them off into something where we do not need to worry about them every day because some court, some institution, some level of government or some body of politicians is looking after them. I think that may tend to blind us to the reality that we are all polluters in our daily lives. That is what we really need to address.
I am not sure that the hon. member's motion, if adopted, would not really give people false assurances that the problem is looked after because it is stuck away in the Constitution somewhere. I do not for a minute want any of us, by doing so, to try and absolve ourselves of the personal responsibility we all have for environmental protection and maintenance. Instead, I think it would be useful if we were all concentrating on helping people know what they could be doing in their individual and daily lives in order to help the environment of Canada.
Too often in this place we pretend that government is going to be able to solve problems. What is government? Government is a representation of all of us, our country, our society. All of Canada is represented here in the House of Commons. We are all trying our best to represent what our constituents want, but if we allow our constituents to think that we can solve all these problems without them I think we are making our problems even worse. The Constitution is nothing but the rule book of this society and no rule book can really help the environment; it is people who have to do that.
I think we need to change the way people think and act and not change the rules that govern our society. That brings us right back down to the basics.
I do not want to diminish the hon. member's attempt to do something for the environment but, with respect, I think all of us have those tools within our own grasp. I do not want to be hokey about it, but we can all reduce, recycle, re-use and rethink. We can all attack our own environmental problems in our own households. It starts in the kitchen. It starts in the garage. It starts cutting the lawn. It starts with all those little things we do daily. Maybe we ought to be putting more energy into communicating those kinds of things rather than constitutional change.
All of us can conserve energy. You get in your car and you start driving. There are things you can do to conserve energy while you are doing that. When it comes to heating our homes and all of these little daily chores, there are things we can do to help the environment. We can protect water. We can take care of hazardous wastes. We can stop putting that fertilizer junk on our lawns. We can do a lot of things that will help.
In terms of protecting the air quality in individual households, we do not need to use CFCs. We can make sure our cars are tuned up. For goodness sake, there are basic common sense, fundamental things we can do every day to achieve the objective the hon. member is trying to achieve through legislation, constitutions, institutions and bodies of politicians.
We are talking about actions, not words. I think they go way beyond what any constitutional change could do.
A few moments ago the hon. member across the way from Toronto took a little shot at property rights and the environment. Lest anyone who is listening to these debates gets the wrong impression, I think it ought to be spelled out pretty clearly here that the entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian Constitution in no way abrogates the rights of society to protect, maintain and promote a healthy environment.
Putting property rights in the Canadian Constitution is simply giving back to Canadians a right they had historically until 1982 when the Canadian Constitution was changed. I know there have been environmental activists who have been attempting to scare Canadians by saying if you give people the right to own property, surely you

are giving them the right to abuse that property, in other words to pollute that property.
I want to make it clear that our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Canadian Constitution now say societal rights abrogate individual rights, and that is the way the courts have interpreted it. Our right as a society to protect the environment and the common good in no way gives individuals the right to abrogate that.
I will conclude on that note. Again I would like to thank my hon. colleague for putting forward this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now 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 is deemed to have been moved.

Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, when I filed to raise this question, at the time Mr. Jerez's family was still in Canada. The latest information we have is that it has unfortunately been deported to its home country.
In my supplementary question to the minister I had raised the question of the cost of the refugee cases presently in the system. At that time I indicated to the minister that according to his own figures we have so far spent in excess of $300 million on refugee cases.
According to the latest information we have been able to obtain, only 4,000 people have unfortunately been deported out of this whole system. Of 100,000 refugees in Canada, at a cost of $300 million, if you work it out per refugee who has been deported it would be approximately $75,000 for every refugee.
Adjournment Debate
At that time I called on the government to review this whole process and to look at the amount of money we are spending. The United Nations High Commission is spending around the world approximately $400 million. I call on the government to explain to us on this side of the House and to Canadians why it does not step up its efforts and perhaps consider the question of amnesty as one of the options or to speed up the process and take into consideration that there are many families out there that are hurting.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Tirade):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I am pleased to provide additional information on the questions raised by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre on October 10, 1991 concerning the case of Guillermo Jerez.
The minister maintains what he said on this subject. Mr. Jerez's case went through all the steps of the refugee-determination process, including a complete review of his request by an independent tribunal.
The minister is convinced that this case received the full treatment under the process, which is recognized as the most generous and most equitable in the world, Mr. Speaker, a process that is both firm and fair. Canada can be proud of its record in respecting human rights and recognizing refugees.


PORK INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I stood in the House on October 9, 1991 to bring attention to the problems facing Canadian pork producers. On that date I asked the Prime Minister if and when he was going to stand up to the Americans and demand that they honour the free trade agreement.
U.S. trade officials have now slapped a $22 per hog duty on live hogs being shipped to the United States from Canada. That is a 300 and some per cent increase. Once again we are seeing a steady erosion of our trade relationship with the United States. It has become increasingly protectionist and as a result violates the spirit and the letter of the free trade agreement. We are seeing this now in the negotiations at the GATT.
I am not the only one who realizes that Canadian interests are being threatened. Canada's two chief nego-
February 11, 1992

Adjournment Debate
tiators of the free trade agreement have warned, and we saw this a few weeks ago in the papers, that Canada may have to terminate the deal unless the U.S. violations of these rights stop.
I am mad because all along we have said that this is a bad deal for Canada. The fact is that the government did negotiate the deal, and unfortunately it favoured American interests over Canadian. The fact is that we have an agreement. We are going to have to live with it and we are going to have to stand up more to the Americans as they violate this agreement.
While we try to make the best of a bad deal, on the infrequent occasions when the deal actually benefits some Canadian companies the Americans try to undermine any advantage we have. The point is that we do not have to let them get away with it. The Prime Minister has said that he has a very good relationship with the President of the United States. I asked on that date that the Prime Minister use that relationship to tell the American president to live by the spirit of the free trade agreement.
We have to challenge the Americans and let them know that they cannot push us around in the trade area. We must act now and stand up to them. I do not mean by carefully phrased warnings by the Prime Minister. I mean by a tough unequivocal position so that the Americans will realize that good relations between two countries are not a given and that they should not be taken for granted.
Remember that the longer we allow the Americans to renege on their commitment to free trade, the more vulnerable Canadian outputs and jobs will be to American competition. In respect to the pork producers, they have been continuously harassed by unfair American countervailing duties which are a blatant violation of the free trade agreement. Just when our pork producers thought that their trade problems were over, considering that two trade tribunals ruled against the American countervailing duty, they have once again been harassed by the Americans. I am wondering if this is ever going to stop.
I call again upon the Prime Minister to let the Americans know that Canada will not roll over and play dead on this issue.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
have the opportunity to respond this evening and to talk a little bit about the trade agreement and the countervailing duty on hogs. We have to point out to the hon. member that countervailing duties have been taking place since 1984, which was well before the free trade agreement was established. The only process to go through at that time was the GATT, and we know how prolonged that was.
The free trade agreement has at least allowed us a timeframe that is more acceptable to live with these actions that have been brought against our Canadian pork. On swine and pork imported from Canada in 1984 and in 1985 there was a countervailing duty of 4.39 cents Canadian per pound.
On live swine, again it is true that since October 1991 the countervailing duty for 1989-90 has been raised to Canadian 9.32 cents per pound, a 107 per cent increase from the last review.
The government is reacting to those actions along with the industry. We have stood consistently with the industry in all these actions that have been taken, and we will continue to do that.
Following an investigation on pork, the U.S. imposed a countervailing duty of 3.6 cents Canadian per pound on imports of fresh chilled and frozen pork from Canada in September 1989. This action has led to a three-panel request from Canada. A free trade chapter 19 panel on the subsidy finding led to a reduction of the duty from 3.6 cents Canadian a pound to 1.4 cents Canadian a pound. If we had had to work without the free trade agreement we would have had a lot of difficulty and we would still have been with the original figures rather than that reduction.
The chapter 19 panel on the question of injury to the U.S. pork processing industry reversed the U.S. International Trade Commission finding that Canadian pork exports to the U.S. were causing injury to the U.S. industry. As a result of these successful challenges under the review mechanism established by the free trade agreement, the countervailing duty on pork was removed and all duties refunded. I think that has been very successful. We have a mechanism in place to look after these challenges.
In addition, the GATT panel request by the federal government found that the U.S. did not act consistently with its obligations under the GATT in deeming that

subsidies to hog producers were automatically and fully passed through to pork processors.
In conclusion, the mechanics in place under the free trade agreement proved to be of benefit to the industry and the Government of Canada.
The hog producers of this country have acknowledged this fact and are satisfied at the outcome of these demarches. It is our objective that the trading rules be respected. We will challenge any action that is unfair to Canada.


METRO TORONTO
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the intersection of Eglinton Avenue East and Don Mills Road in my constituency is considered to be the geographic centre of metropolitan Toronto.
In fact, there is more motor vehicle traffic at that intersection than at any other intersection in all of Canada. In addition, there are more jobs in that immediate area than in any other part of metropolitan Toronto with the exception of the downtown core.
There used to be more jobs because there has been a great change in the job situation in recent weeks and months. IBM on the northwest comer of the intersection is laying off some 10 per cent of its 2,000 employees. Imperial Oil on the northeast comer of that intersection is laying off employees as well. In the nearby East York, North York, O'Connor, Bermondsey industrial area one-third of all of the plants are now vacant.
That is just the tip of the iceberg because in May 1990 the unemployment rate in metropolitan Toronto was 4.7 per cent.
In January 1991 it was 7.3 per cent and today it is up to
10.1	per cent. The problem is not just in metropolitan Toronto as you well know, Mr. Speaker. The problem is right across our entire country, right across Canada. We have the highest unemployment rate of the 17 largest advanced industrial countries in the world. That is clearly unacceptable.
How are we going to turn that around? How are we going to get the economy moving again? Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, I have written to the Prime Minister and suggested five initiatives.
Adjournment Debate
One is the 5 per cent down payment. The other is the use of the Registered Retirement Savings Plans as down payments for home purchases. The third is getting the value of the Canadian dollar down. The fourth is a one-year reduction in personal income taxes, and fifth is a $14 billion municipal public works program.
Last week the government announced it was moving on the 5 per cent down payment and that is great. Clearly we need more if we are going to get our country moving again. If we are going to increase the spending power of the people who are unemployed and out of work-we have over 10 per cent of the country in that category-we really need a public works program in the neighbourhood of about $14 billion to be spent on municipal works such as transit, roads, sewers and environmental projects.
Where are we going to get that money? That is an awful lot of money. We have a debt and a deficit problem. According to the calculations that have been done by Professor Pierre Fortin of the University of Quebec in Montreal, if we could get the unemployment rate down from 10 per cent to 7 per cent we would generate some $14 billion in savings on an annual basis.
That is based on the finance department's own calculations and figures. That is just by reducing the amount we pay out now for unemployment insurance and welfare and increasing the tax revenues.
We cannot wait for some medium or long term recovery in this country or a recovery in the United States. We need action now and we need it from the minister.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to tell my good friend from Don Valley East how much significant ongoing aid the present government is giving to the Toronto region. The key role of the federal government in Bombardier's acquisition of de Havilland is an example.
Industry, Science and Technology delivers programs and provides services continuously. The regional office in downtown Toronto is responsible for delivering these programs. The Biotechnology Development Program is a good example of an initiative that directly benefits the Toronto region.

February 11, 1992
Adjournment Debate
ISTC played an important role in implementing this program which led to the formation of a non-profit organization under private sector control, with over 100 members from all parts of the biotechnology community in metro Toronto. This program is meant to promote the trade and research position of this leading edge centre in Toronto with the biotechnology industry.
Also, the Federal Business Development Bank is participating actively in some local business development initiatives in this region involving training courses and advisory services adapted to companies' needs. The FBDB, in co-operation with Employment and Immigration, also offers a training program for some unemployment insurance recipients in the Toronto area to help them set up businesses.
The government is also active in the Toronto area in a co-operative venture with the Ontario Department of Industry, Trade and Technology and the FBDB through a program for women entrepreneurs in the region.
I am sure that Toronto's considerable advantages in terms of development, together with this government's programs and services, will help lay the foundation for lasting prosperity in metro Toronto.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to address the questions that were raised in the House of Commons on October 11, which is just a bit more than four months ago. On that particular day I raised two points.
The first one was a reference to the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education which had reported a need to place greater importance on distance education, continuing education and the internationalization of education. It pointed out as well that there was a need to attract students from aboriginal backgrounds and less affluent families, as well as handicapped Canadians and women. My question to the Secretary of State on that particular day was:
How and when will this government act so that we can regain
Canada's competitiveness?
I am just going to refer to a brief part of the answer and I want to quote the minister:
I will be reporting back to the House as soon as that review is completed and that should be very shortly.
What does very shortly mean? It is now over four months since I raised that question and received that particular answer.
My supplementary question dealt with the student loans program to help these people that I just identified in getting a post-secondary education. I referred to people with low incomes, to women, to disabled Canadians, and to our aboriginal peoples. I asked why something had not already been done, when it was going to be done, and so on.
The minister, to his credit, indicated that I had already asked the question before and was patient enough to answer again, but he did not say a whole lot more in his other answer than he had previously. He did say, though:
Madam Speaker, I have already answered the hon. member's question more than once. I have told him on many occasions that the Student Loans Program is already 27 years old, has never been changed and needs a thorough going over.
He did say as well that he was very close to tabling a review of the Canada Student Loans Program.
Yet today absolutely nothing has been reported. Why the delay? We are in a country, we all know, that has roughly five million people who are poor and living either at or below the poverty level. Most of them are women and over one million are children. As we speak right now, two million people are receiving social assistance. Almost two million people will be fed at food banks this year. Right now, almost 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed.
This kind of inquiry, this kind of review or study is needed. It addressed a number of important questions. I am still waiting to hear what the government is going to do with it, as well as what it is going to do with the Student Loans Program. I am waiting with bated breath.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question raised by my colleague from St. Boniface on October 11 concerning post-secondaiy education in Canada.
February 11, 1992

First, I would like to remind you that the government is committed to support post-secondary education based on excellence and equal access. We all recognize the importance of education to build a country, as well as the essential evolution of the system, based on new requirements.
It is in this perspective that the Secretary of State supported the commission of inquiry on university education in Canada that was set up by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have paid approximately one third of the costs, that is $250,000, incurred by the commission chaired by Mr. Stuart Smith.
The commission tabled its report in October 1991, and since, the AUCC has formed a task force to study the report of the commission.
The group, headed by Mr. Brian Segal, rector of the University of Guelph, is composed of university rectors, as well as representatives from the private sector. This group will recommend, by June 1992, specific measures to be taken as regards the themes and the problems raised in the report of the commission.
Distance teaching meets the needs of those who find it difficult to go through the traditional education system, namely the students in remote areas. Canada is a world leader in that field. Several provinces have undertaken innovative projects. For instance, the Tele-Universite du Quebec, TVOntario or the Knowledge Network in British Columbia, illustrate the efforts made by universities and colleges to facilitate accessibility to post-secondary education.
There is an increasing demand for post-secondary education. In fact, Canada and the United States have the highest participation rates in the world as regards post-secondary education. Moreover, one of the main trends right now shows that the number of adults, and even relatively old people, participating in these post-secondary education programs is constantly increasing. That is why adult education is another option that the government is taking a close look at.
The Constitution


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.
I would like to recognize at this time the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. Then I will recognize the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, followed by the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the very important subject of the renewal of Canada's Constitution, where we are going and what my constituents have been telling me about Canada.
We are fortunate to live in the most favoured nation in the world, but all too often we have a tendency to think, as we listen to news reports or sometimes pessimists, that Canada is a lost cause. Let me say I do not believe this pessimistic view.
Generally speaking I have been close to my constituents over the past decade and beyond and I believe that today there is a tremendous frustration with our political system, petty partisan politics, our confrontational system, and the parliamentary system which dominates the media.
As Canadians we are overgovemed by existing bodies such as municipal, provincial and federal government agencies, boards, commissions, and it goes on. We should consider a reformed House of Commons that would better represent the regional interests of our nation. A more effective and representative House of Commons would eliminate the need for a Senate, either appointed or elected.
Under our present system of voting in the House of Commons there is a great deal of pressure and even intimidation on members of Parliament. The only free vote is a secret vote, as was the case in the selection of our present Speaker of this democratic Chamber. MPs

The Constitution
must be more responsive to their constituents. This would lessen the need for the daily adversarial tone of this House and hopefully improve the decorum of MPs.
Today almost every individual I talk to, young or old, tells me they are repulsed by the petty and childish actions of elected officials playing to the media, and particularly to the TV cameras in this House.
At this point my constituents, as I believe most Canadians, are very concerned about our economy. The public debt load and economic downturn have forced governments at all levels to make the tough decisions of raising taxes, cutting services or increasing deficits in order to continue to provide programs and services which all Canadians have come to enjoy and expect.
The harsh reality is that while municipal governments blame provincial governments for the lack of funding and provincial governments blame the federal government for the same woe, there exists only one taxpayer from whom to reap the revenue.
Governments of every level are realizing, albeit some more slowly than others, that responsible fiscal management is absolutely essential. It is most refreshing to hear the premier of British Columbia say: "You can't spend your way out of a recession".
Certainly there is much more to being a Canadian than economic considerations. However, we are failing Canadians who find it necessary to stay on social assistance generation after generation and many aboriginal people who live in Third World standards amid alcoholism and poverty. Our system must encourage and not discourage individual initiative.
Canadians who have fallen into the cycle of social assistance have had their work ethic destroyed by welfare just as socialism has destroyed communist ideology throughout the world.
The working poor of Canada are becoming more and more frustrated with the ever-diminishing fruits of their hard labour and business investments. Canadians are concerned with the economy, but in the end economic prosperity depends on national unity.
A divided country creates a climate of uncertainty, and political uncertainty leads to economic and social stagnation.
If we are wise as well as bold, we have an opportunity here at this moment to create a modem, efficient and dynamic Canada for a new century and beyond. As we debate and discuss the renewal of Canada's constitution, I feel that now more than ever it is important that we remember and consider the legacy left to Canada by the monarchy and the debt which we owe this part of our past for its contribution to Canada's distinctness in North America.
Unlike the United States and many other countries, Canada has been fortunate enough not to have to endure a civil war, largely thanks to our monarchy. The United Empire Loyalists who supported the monarchy permitted and encouraged the development of representative institutions to serve Canadians well.
It is certainly not my constituents' suggestion that we return to our past but I would urge all Canadians to appreciate and perhaps be guided by our heritage.
For over 200 years the Crown has given Canadians a common purpose. Today as we search to redefine that purpose we must not forget that legacy.
I have no hesitation in supporting Quebec's right to its culture, system of civil law, religion, language and traditions which were guaranteed in the Quebec Act of 1774. Any constitution should go a long way toward these definitions by simply recognizing what has been a reality since being provided by the Crown over 200 years ago.
Canada is graced with not one, but several distinct societies. The first is the native people, the original inhabitants of Canada who have participated in Canada's development through their efforts supporting the Crown in its resistance to countries such as the United States.
The second is the French inhabitants who brought to Canada their own system of culture and language and who have made an enormous contribution to Canada's unique identity in North America.
A third distinct group in Canada are the United Empire Loyalists who have also put their own stamp on the Canadian landscape, playing major roles in the founding heritage of Ontario and Nova Scotia and by bringing the system of law and government institutions which have endured to this very day.

Fourth, many cultures from around the world have made and are making Canada the best place in the world to live.
Hyphenated Canadianism is divisive. My own heritage is that of a United Empire Loyalist. My ancestors came from all over Europe, yet I am a Canadian, not a Dutch or German Canadian, or even a European Canadian, but a Canadian of European descent.
Canadians want a country that reflects the diversity of the regions and upholds the integrity of the whole.


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


William John Vankoughnet: All Canadians are very distinct in that they live in a society like no other certainly in North America, nor for that matter in the world.
However, the defining of what might make and what we might do separately, the respect for human rights, the freedom of speech, social solidarity, the harmony and the right of the individual to satisfy his or her basic needs, an attack on any part is destruction of what we know as a whole. We must not be a nation of navel gazers but we must offer objective assessments of what changes will be and a strong assessment of what changes should take place in a united Canada that are necessary in what is certainly a changing world.
Bilingualism in Canada should not mean all Canadians or all regions of Canada should speak two languages.
However, small post offices for example in my riding just this past week have been told that they cannot have their income tax forms because they do not happen to have the French forms because of printing delays. People in my riding feel that this is an aggravation and was not the intention of this regulation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member can file the balance of his speech with the Clerk.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to participate in this debate on constitutional renewal. The purpose is an agreement reached among the respective House Leaders of the different political parties in this House.
The Constitution
Over the last number of months, since the issue has been seized with the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, I have met with many of my constituents who have voiced real concerns to me about the constitutional process and, more importantly, the substance with which we are dealing.
Many of my constituents believe that a number of the 28 proposals just ought not to be on the table for discussion. I would say a vast majority of my constituents with whom I have spoken believe it to be important that we as parliamentarians resolve the issue of constitutional renewal as expeditiously as possible. That is not to suggest that we expedite the process for the mere sake of expediting the process. It means that we do so with prudence. It means that we do so with sincerity. In the end, members of my constituency want to have this matter resolved and resolved forthwith.
When I travel the streets, when I go to the shopping malls, to Tim Horton's for a coffee, to the Legion to speak or at any of the functions which I attend, I have yet to have a constituent come up to me and say: "You know, I do not like that distinct society". I have yet to have a constituent come up to me and say: "You know, the declaratory power is kind of vague" or "I do not fully appreciate the consequential effect of the meaning of the inherent self-right of our aboriginal peoples". I have never received representations. I have never been questioned by my constituents on such specifics. I have been asked repeatedly where we are going with regard to the Constitution. We want Quebec. More importantly, we want the people of Quebec to remain members of the Canadian family.
I say this to my colleague opposite and I say so sincerely. The majority of my constituents want to see the people of Quebec remain in a renewed and united Canada. What they have been telling me about constitutional renewal is to get on with the task at hand.
I have in the past differed with Quebec governments and that may continue in the future, as it should, on whatever the issue may be. Surely as Canadians we can come to appreciate our differences, whatever they may be, wherever they may be in this country. The fellowship and the understanding that we as anglophone Canadians

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
ought to have for francophone Canadians should be at the highest level.
Perhaps I say so because I am biased. I have family members who are of a francophone nature and I say so with great sincerity. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that my constituents, both on the issue of constitutional renewal and on expediting the process that we now have before us, have repeatedly on each and every occasion that I have met with them said: "What about the Canadian economy? When are you going to give to the people of Canada some real action with regard to the Canadian economy?"
As I said, I am not stopped in the coffee shops, at the Kinsman Club or at the various breakfasts or the dinners that I go to as their elected representative and asked specific legal questions, whether it be on the residual power, whether it be on the Council of the Federation. I am certainly asked about high unemployment. I am certainly asked about the medicare problems in this country. I am asked about the mobility of Canadians from coast to coast. That is what Canadians in my constituency are talking about.
That is not to suggest that constitutional renewal is not important. It is important and we must underline that. Equally so is the disunity within our country for a variety of reasons, one of which is the poor economic situation that Canadians find themselves in today.
I urge members from all political parties who are on the special joint committee to continue the process, to continue to do it with this maxim, which is in the best interest of all Canadians from coast to coast. Upon completion of that process, Quebecers, Newfoundlanders, people from out west, people from Ontario, people from all across this country, want us as members of Parliament, as representatives, to put the same time, the same energy, the same resources into resolving some of the most fundamental economic questions that this country has had to face in well over 100 years.
We must in the best interest of the country and also because of the people we serve have the same kind of enthusiasm and energy to provide action plans for resolving those problems that we have, as I have mentioned earlier, in medicare, to resolve some of the real underlying problems with regional inequalities, regional opportunities. That is what Canadians in my constituency
have been telling me and telling me in very plain language.
Whether it be the unemployed steel worker, the displaced coal miner, the individual who is seeking to become part and parcel of an older workers' adjustment program, whether it be students who are seeking financial assistance to pursue their post-secondary education or better still seeking summer employment, they want the Parliament of Canada to work on their behalf.
I close with this, Mr. Speaker. I know governments when elected with a majority believe in their hearts that they have a mandate to implement measures which they believe to be important. I suggest to members opposite that one should be prudent about moving on matters which do not enjoy the support of Canadians from coast to coast.
I say that not because it is not prudent to do those kinds of things. I use as an example the GST. I talk about free trade. There are all sorts of other issues, but there is a limit to what Canadians will accept no matter what the government is.
I urge all my colleagues to keep the best interests of the country at heart so that we can come together as a nation and renew our federation by keeping Quebec within the Canadian family. Keeping the people of Quebec is more important than the Quebec government, just as the people of Nova Scotia are much more important than the government in Nova Scotia.
I am confident that with goodwill, prudent judgment and the willingness to compromise on behalf of us all that we can resolve our constitutional dilemma and get on with building a strong economy which I believe Canadians are equally concerned about and on which they want some concrete and specific action.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to rise and participate in this debate on the historic crossroads at which we now find ourselves in attempting to draft a new Constitution for Canada.
I represent the constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway in British Columbia. I will be holding a public forum in my constituency this spring following the tabling of the parliamentary committee's proposals on the Constitution. At that time I hope to have an opportunity both to listen to my constituents and also to share with my
February 11, 1992

constituents some of their concerns and my concerns with respect to the future of this country.
This evening I want to take the opportunity to speak not as the member of Parliament for Burnaby-Kings-way but to speak on behalf, if I may, of another constituency in this country, perhaps a broader national constituency which I have both the honour and the privilege of speaking on behalf of as the only openly gay member of this House.
In the years that I have had the privilege of representing Burnaby-Kingsway in this House, I have tried to give effect to the concerns and the aspirations of my constituents.
Tonight, I want to speak on behalf of the community of lesbians, of gay men and bisexuals in Canada who have deep concerns about our exclusion from the Constitution of Canada, our exclusion from a very fundamental element of the Constitution of Canada, the Canada clause.

I speak on behalf of the gay and lesbian community in Canada which represents about 10 per cent of the population: our children, brothers, sisters, parents, employees, friends and neighbours. We are everywhere in Canadian society. We have made a tremendous contribution which, sad to say, has gained recognition only now, during the AIDS epidemic. Many Canadians appreciated that contribution after hearing about artists, dancers, actors, musicians, choreographers and so many other men and women who died as a result of this epidemic.

I say on behalf of this community that I remember all too vividly what I proposed back in 1981 as a member of the Constitution committee, the inclusion of the words "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground of discrimination in article 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was told by members of the committee at that time-I will never forget these words-that we cannot include every barnacle and eavestrough in the Constitution of Canada. My amendment was defeated by a vote of 23 to 2.
I am not a barnacle, I am not an eavestrough and fortunately, in the intervening years, the courts of
The Constitution
Canada have ruled that section 15 of the charter of rights must be implicitly read to include sexual orientation.
We are still waiting for the Government of Canada to finally show some leadership, to keep the promise that it made in 1986 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to similarly include a prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I want to take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House and through the House to the members of the special joint committee on the Constitution of Canada a profound and glaring weakness in the proposals which are before that committee. I speak of the proposals with respect to the Canada clause. In the Canada clause proposals the government has stated that the purpose of the Canada clause is to "affirm the identity and aspirations of the people of Canada".
In its present form, the Canada clause refers to a commitment to fairness, openness and full participation in Canada's citizenship by all people without regard to race, colour, creed, physical or mental disability or cultural background. Those are all very important grounds which should be included in the Canada clause. Those grounds exclude sexual orientation. They exclude my community and they exclude hundreds of thousands of Canadians who happen to be lesbian, gay or bisexual.
By excluding us, by rendering us once again invisible, we are denied our role in the formation of Canadian identity. As Professor Cynthia Petersen of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa has pointed out in her brief, which I will be tabling shortly: "The proposed Canada clause does not constitute a full description of Canadians as a people because it ignores the participation of an important segment of the country's population".
I would urge the committee to recognize this injustice, to recognize what I hope is an oversight and to amend the Canada clause to include the words "sexual orientation". There have been many similar representations which have been made to the committee.
I am going to be tabling briefs which have been submitted by the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, by the Association of Lesbians and Gays of Ottawa, by the group Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, the AIDS Committee of Ottawa, a school trustee in Toronto,

The Constitution
Catholic priests in Ottawa, the British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre and many others.
I know that at the most recent constitutional conference in Toronto there was strong support for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canada clause and a number of workshops adopted that proposal unanimously-
The B.C. Council of Churches has urged the government and the committee to move forward on this.
The group, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, submitted a very eloquent brief to the parliamentary committee in which they pointed out that social permission that already exists in our society to regard homosexuality in a derogatory light is further reinforced by the silence of the Canada clause on sexual orientation.
Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays point out that we are excluding their children and all the other homosexuals who make up about 10 per cent of the population.
One of the more eloquent letters that I received came from a woman in Halifax, Nova Scotia who wrote to the committee and said:
It has come to my attention that I have been left out of the draft Canada clause. My families, on both sides, have resided in Canada for seven generations, but this clause, proposed in order "to affirm the identity and aspirations of the people of Canada" has ignored me-I hope the committee will reconsider the Canada clause and add sexual orientation to the list.
After seven generations of roots in Canada, and my own life of contribution to the country, please don't leave me out just because my life partner is a woman. Our love for each other harms no one, and should not be the basis for exclusion from our country's citizenship.
At this critical time in our nation's history, when we are seeking to bring in as many Canadians as possible, I would hope that the committee would recognize it is important, indeed essential, that we include those Canadians who happen to be lesbian, gay or bisexual as well in this statement which reflects all of Canada.
I say this at a time when there is too much hatred, too much violence directed at lesbians and gay men. As the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays have pointed out, the most hateful lie of all is the lie that somehow deals with homosexuals as being child abusers. It is a lie,
a despicable lie which has been broadcast by a member of this House, the hon. member for Scarborough West, in a letter that he sent to all members of this House, an example of hate literature in which he urges members of the House not to include sexual orientation either in the Constitution or in the human rights code because he said this will lead to the recognition of paedophilia.
I would hope that his colleagues in the Liberal caucus and indeed the leader of the Liberal Party would speak out and make it clear that this man does not speak on behalf of the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party and that he will be removed from any responsible position within that caucus.
In closing, I want to pay tribute to the men and women from across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, who have written to the parliamentary committee urging it and the government to recognize that we as lesbians, gay men and bisexuals will not be excluded from the Constitution. We urge the government and the committee to ensure that the Canada clause does in fact include sexual orientation.
I have the honour of tabling, pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Order, a number of briefs and letters which have been submitted to both me and the committee urging the committee to ensure that this injustice is remedied.


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak this evening during the special debate on the Constitution, to inform hon. members of the views of my constituents in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
"Shaping Canada's Future Together". We tend to see the government as a static institution, as a machine that was built and put into service a long time ago. Our democratic system exists thanks to its citizens and, like them, keeps growing and developing.
Today's Canada is not like the Canada of 1867, any more than its constituent legislation, which has been amended many times by the citizens of this country. The way we govern ourselves depends on how the courts interpret the Constitution, on our customs and on agreements between provincial legislatures and the fed-
February 11, 1992

eral government on the exercise of their respective powers.
These elements, which allowed our country to develop, continue to do so, providing a great deal of flexibility, and, under the present Constitution, make it possible to conclude a host of agreements with certain provinces and regions, without the risk of being bound by one special agreement that might not have worked.
Many other changes will probably occur. The process is already under way. In the case of the distinct society, it has slowly evolved throughout the first hundred years of Confederation, or, as in the case of the social charter concept and an equitable Senate, it is merely a glimmer on the horizon. As in all parliamentary systems, these changes will not be the work of a single government and will probably give rise to stormy debate, but I hope that finally, the majority will agree to these changes.
We are concerned about relations between French Canadians and English Canadians and the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. These issues have always been on the agenda, and the search for common ground and a way to adjust to the current situation have been constant in this process. The recognition of the French Fact, limited at first in 1867, now affects Canada at various degrees.
Is Quebec a distinct society? This question many of you are asking yourselves deserves an answer. There are people who wonder why the government insists on entrenching in the Constitution the recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec society, while others are convinced that such recognition will give Canadians an inferior status. We must demystify this proposal, the intent of which is simply to acknowledge a sociological and political reality.
First of all, it must be pointed out that it is only one among the 28 proposals the government has put forward. The recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness was proposed in an attempt to meet the expressed needs of that province for recognition and respect, while at the same time preserving the fundamental equality of all provinces and all citizens.
The idea is to reaffirm that we approve and respect Quebec's distinctiveness. The preservation and promo-
The Constitution
tion of the French language in Quebec and the distinctiveness of our culture cannot be taken for granted by Canadians whose mother tongue is not threatened.
Canadians should be reminded of the institutional refuge provided by Quebec for six million of my fellow French-Speaking citizens and of its powers as first line of defence against the power of assimilation exercised by the 300 million other North Americans around us. In this context, by recognizing the distinct character of Quebec society in the Constitution, we are not granting Quebecers anything that other Canadians do not already have. This acknowledgement only ensures fairness.
Should we opt for the Canadian solution or a sovereign Quebec? In the end, Quebecers and Canadians will have to choose between a Canada in which Quebec can find a suitable place and a sovereign Quebec, which would mean the end of Canada as we know it. There are people who are in a hurry to push Quebec out of Canada and tell Quebecers things like: "Move out of there quick, but bring the furniture along". Indeed it would seem that illusion mongers have made a strange discovery, they have realized that Quebecers want to keep their Canadian citizenship, their Canadian passports, that they are quite happy with the economic and political system that has provided them with one of the best standards of living in the world, second to only one other country, that they are confident in their currency and are proud of their history.
Well, our country makers thought of a clever plan. Let's separate, they say, and keep from Canada whatever we like, whatever serves our own interest. Very original! How can we take seriously those who want independence for Quebec, but who say: Canada is unacceptable, however we want to keep the Canadian dollar; Canada is unacceptable, however we want to keep the Canadian passport and the Canadian citizenship.
Quebec's future within our federation must concern all Canadians. Our problem is that one quarter of our population, living in the strategic center of the country, wonders if we want them there, if they should leave. Therefore we are challenged to react to this possibility and find a way to allow Quebec to preserve and promote its own distinct society. However, those who believe that

The Constitution
to ask the question that way is a form of blackmail, those who think this is all a bluff are dangerously mistaken.
The economic unity of Canada concerns not only big companies, merchants and bankers. We all suffer when commercial barriers between the provinces are higher than those between European countries. This goes way beyond profits, it affects employment and consumer prices. Our potential is that of our descendants.
They challenge us to find solutions to this problem, and to find them together. According to polls, the Canadian people want the constitutional review to take a back step to the economic issue because of the exceptional seriousness of the recession and its consequences. If this was a brand new issue, nobody would object to this way of thinking. Unfortunately, the constitutional issue has been around for so long that it is now closely linked to the future of our economy. There cannot be of course the necessary confidence for a real economic recovery as long as the political uncertainty resulting from the constitutional deadlock prevails. It would be a mistake to believe that investment decisions can be taken when, because of the incertainty about the future, the rules of the game remain unknown. In Quebec, our economy had already suffered enough before the 1980 referendum and since the failure of the Meech Lake accord for us to consider putting off the question once again.
I now ask all Canadian men and women to think about all that we have accomplished together and to all that we risk losing with the splitting up of this country. Citizenship does not offer only advantages, it also brings some responsibility. How could we tell our parents, who have passed on to us with pride and confidence one of the most beautiful country in the world: "I have not been able to pass on your inheritance to your grand-children. Because of negligence, weariness and apprehension, our generation has turned its back on a glorious past and has given up a brilliant future."
To love Canada, to want to make it better is not a denial of our Quebec origin nor of our pride in our roots. On the contrary. Who are the people today who serve
best the interests of their fellow countrymen? Are those the men and women who want to build an even better and more prosperous Canada for their children to enjoy, a Canada within which Quebec may continue to develop safely and freely? Are they the ones who want to split up and weaken Canad, those who want to isolate Quebec and shake its economy, those who build or those who sulk?
In Canada, we always go for the peaceful solutions. Peoples of the world admire us for that quality that our ancestors valued. We have to build a better country with a better solution to save this great country. It is our blessing, our present to the people around us, our duty towards ourselves and the future generations.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this special debate in the House of Commons tonight.
As a member of Parliament I like to keep my ear close to the ground. I like to be listening to what my constituents of Winnipeg-St. James are saying. In the next few minutes I want to offer what I have been hearing from my constituents.
First of all, I would say that within my constituency on this issue of constitutional remaking and the renewal of Canada, there is a lot of good will and a lot of generosity.
My constituents of Winnipeg-St. James feel a bit more comfortable with the constitutional process now than they did with the process during the Meech Lake debate. I think it is mainly because this process is a bit more open. They feel that there is an opportunity for Canadians to provide input, as opposed to Meech Lake where most of it was done behind closed doors. There is that improvement. I am glad to report that.
I can tell you from what I have heard from my constituents in Winnipeg-St. James. They do not want Canada to break up. They do not.
I hear very little of the phrase: "Well, let Quebec go".
I heard quite a bit of that a couple of years ago out of frustration and out of concern about where the country was going. I do not hear a lot of it now.
February 11, 1992

They do not want the country to break up. Canadians really love their country. They really do. They are not very flashy about it. They are not very demonstrative about it, but if you scratch them a little they will show they indeed love this country.
With respect to this constitutional crisis-and that is what it is when the future of the country hangs in the balance, we have a crisis-my constituents are telling me: "Let us get this thing settled. Let us get this work done. Let us get on with the job because it is dragging us down as a country. It is dragging us down as a people." This wrangling, this constant talking about the Constitution is hurting all aspects of Canadian life. So they are saying: "Settle it. Settle it quickly and let us get on to other things, for example the economy".
When I take a stroll down Portage Avenue, a major artery that goes through my constituency, I can assure you that if I am stopped by 20 constituents and those 20 constituents have some political issues on their minds, 19 out of the 20 will be talking about the economy. They see the unravelling of the economy. They do not like the direction it has taken in the last several years. They want us politicians, especially the politicians on the other side of the House belonging to the government, to seriously tackle the economic issues facing this country. That is the number one issue.
However, my constituents understand you can do wonders with the Canadian economy, but at the end of the day if you do not have a country, all is for naught. We have wasted our time.
So we do have to deal with the constitutional issue. Unfortunately, we have had this terrible convergence of two crises, a constitutional crisis on one side and an economic crisis on the other. Usually one crisis is enough for any country. Canada is in this terrible situation of having two crises coming together at the same time. It makes for an unbelievable burden.
I have faith in the country. I have faith in the people that somehow we will make it. It is going to be a close call, but we will make it. That is what I hear from my constituents.
One of the other things that my constituents tell me is that they see this as a top-down crisis. This is not a crisis in Canada that is percolating up from the masses, from the working people. This has been created largely by a
The Constitution
group of elite in this country, academics, politicians, media people, who have made an industry or a business out of the Constitution. I sometimes wonder whether any fiddling and any changes in the Constitution will satisfy these people.
A lot of people, especially in my constituency, are very frustrated with these people who constantly badger us about the Constitution. That does not in any way detract from some of the real problems. I am not advocating status quo insofar as the Constitution is concerned. There is a limit to what can be done with the Constitution.
My constituents in Winnipeg-St. James are saying that they do not expect all 28 elements in the current package to survive this current round of negotiations or debate. They expect a package with fewer elements, something in the line of four or five. Let me touch on these elements.
There is no doubt about it that from my end of the country they want Senate reform and that has to be in the package. They want Senate reform to give the west a larger voice at the centre. I do not think the people in the west are interested in building up their capitals. They want a strong central government, but they want to be a major player in that central government in this reshaped Parliament. That is why they want an elected Senate, that is why they want an effective Senate, that is why they want an equitable Senate. If we do not get Senate reform, I do not think we are going to get a deal.
The distinct society is so important to our friends in Quebec. There is no doubt that some time ago, particularly when the term distinct society came on the scene, there were a number of western Canadians and constituents in my riding who felt a little uncomfortable because they interpreted it as being a declaration that Quebec was special. With the focus now on distinct society, I think the people now realize that what it is in the main is a recognition of difference.
Quebec is different. It has its civil code, it has its culture and it has its language. There is a difference. That is what the distinct society more or less is all about; it is about recognizing that difference and helping Quebec to preserve that difference or distinctiveness.

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
There are still concerns out there that it is possible the distinct society clause could be misused by some future Quebec government. So there are still concerns about how it would fit into the charter and how it would fit into the Constitution.
Most western Canadians have enough generosity that if they feel that it will be used in a positive way to preserve the difference of Quebec, the culture, the civil code and the language, and will not be used against certain people in the province of Quebec, they can accept it. I think generosity and good will will accept it.
Western Canadians accept the inherent right of aboriginal people to self-government. They accept that in broad general terms, but they certainly want to know a lot more about it.
With respect to the division of powers, my constituents in Winnipeg-St. James, if I understand what they are telling me, are saying: "Yes, we will look at a new arrangement of powers as long as it does not come at the expense of a strong national government". They want a strong national government, but they will look at some re-arrangements of powers. After all, what they want is whichever government can do the best job. Sometimes it will be the provincial government or sometimes the federal government, but they do not want the powers of a strong national government diminished.
In conclusion, just let me say that my constituents are saying that if we get through this crisis, and I think we will and they think that as well, let us not allow it to happen again.
We have to start selling Confederation and federalism in this country called Canada to ourselves in a better way. To a great extent federalism is in trouble because we have never sold it. A lot of people do not understand it or we have just taken it for granted that it would be there forever.
Let us learn some lessons from this debate.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this tremendous and special opportunity to address the Chamber and Canadians in all four directions of this great land.
If I may, I would do this first as one who represents Wetaskiwin, which in Cree means hills of peace in ka
kanadak, our clean land. At the outset I want to thank our Prime Minister and our minister for national unity for allowing me to serve with 29 other outstanding Canadians on the special joint committee on a renewed Canada. Our hearings and the recent conferences have allowed us an opportunity to listen to many, many views from concerned leaders and citizens who all want to build a stronger and more united Canada.
The views of my constituents on all of the 28 government proposals have been presented to me both personally and by correspondence. A questionnaire was circulated in my riding at the beginning of January. In it I asked my constituents to respond to the government's initiative by expressing their agreement-strong agreement, disagreement, strong disagreement or indecision-with the proposals and providing personal comments. At the present time we have received over 250 responses to the questionnaire and I am hoping we will continue to receive further input. Several of my constituents have expressed how pleased they have been to have the opportunity to respond to the proposals directly and to make their views known.
If I may, I would now like to report by way of summary the percentage of those constituents who agree with the federal proposals.
Proposal No. 1, 73 per cent; 3, 81 per cent; 4, 50 per cent; 6, 64 per cent, 7, 52 per cent; 8, 86 per cent; 9, 70 per cent; 10, 72 per cent; 11, 75 per cent; 12, 82 per cent; 14, 79 per cent; proposal 15, 56 per cent; 16, 73 per cent; 17, 84 per cent; 19, 60 per cent; 20,63 per cent; 21, 74 per cent; 22, 79 per cent; 24, 86 per cent; 25, 65 per cent; 26, 83 per cent; 74 per cent for proposal 27; and 28, 64 per cent.
I concluded my questionnaire with a 29th question, which read: "If the proposals that I agree with are achieved, then I will accept the proposals I disagree with". 148 respondents disagreed with this statement, 63 agreed and another 30 were undecided.
As is evidenced by the preceding statistics, the majority of people who responded to the questionnaire supported almost all of the proposals in part 1 of the package. Notably, one of my constituents made the helpful suggestion that the word "tolerance" in the Canada clause phrase "the importance of tolerance for individuals,
February 11, 1992

groups and communities" be replaced with the word "respect".
There was again a majority of support for the proposals outlined in both part 2 and part 3 of the federal package. There was significant agreement with both House of Commons and Senate reform. There were also a substantial number of comments made on the need to provide the west with greater political power and on the issue of transfer of power to the provinces.
After mentioning the general support that exists in my riding for many of the proposals, I feel it is important to acknowledge the strong disagreement that was expressed with regard to proposal No. 2, recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness and Canada's linguistic duality. The sentiment of equality of the provinces and the view that no province should receive special status was repeatedly expressed. Proposal 5 regarding aboriginal constitutional process was the other proposal which did not receive a majority of support.
Since the Four Nations of Hobbema are in my riding, I sought several meetings with the chiefs and councils to listen to their views. Unfortunately for me, they decided to reject all the proposals, preferring instead to support the Assembly of First Nations' position.
In a recent letter, one of my constituents wrote that if he disagrees with something it has to be proven to him that his position is wrong, that I should not just expect him to accept it. Thus, I would like to try and briefly respond to some of the concerns my constituents have expressed. I speak only as an individual member of Parliament who is also a treaty Indian when I share different quotes which express what I would like to say.
I recall the first meeting the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs had with the National Chiefs when an elder, Chief Peter O'Chiese, said: "We have to lift each other up". That to me has since been of great significance during all our hearings, as have the four great values of honesty, kindness, sharing and strength. These values could perhaps be reflected in our Canada clause along with reference to the Great Spirit. [DOT]
Perhaps too our preamble could state, as Lord Denning said in the 1970s in a court case in London, that no
The Constitution
government can break the treaties as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow. My own dad, a World War II veteran, used to say that these are the three principles on which our great country was built.
Mr. Speaker, I know you and my rodeo colleagues in the gallery tonight will agree with what I am about to say. The sport community in Canada also has a tremendous contribution to make to the issue of national unity. What is that fantastic feeling and positive spirit we have all experienced when we succeed as an athlete? That feeling is being Canadian. Coincidentally, we will all share that positive winner's feeling again during the next two weeks in Albertville when an athlete wins a medal or does their personal best on our behalf.
I am reminded of an outstanding brief I received from Margaret Barber of the Sports Federation of Canada. In her paper entitled "National Unity Through Sport", Barber writes that: "Canada identifies with its athletes, with its sports. Canada as a nation has been fortunate to count among its members some of the world's finest athletes both past and present. Those athletes came from a melting pot of cultures and backgrounds. They are by virtue of their diversity truly Canadian. The power of sport is real". She said: "There are a multitude of lessons to be learned as a nation from sports; understanding, tolerance, acceptance, respect, cultural identity, the ability to experience and share without losing that which makes each of us unique and individual. Perhaps it is time in light of the present problems facing the nation and our concerns on national unity to make better use of sport to understand ourselves as a nation and indeed to help keep us together".
A couple of days ago athlete Sylvie Daigle was selected to be a flag bearer in Albertville. She was quoted as saying: "I came here for Canada. Yes, it is hard but at the same time, we are all one country here. And if you win a medal it is for Canada".
Earlier at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles Alwyn Morris, the only indigenous athlete to win an Olympic Gold, held high an eagle feather.
Barber's brief echoes the sentiment that this image of success evokes: "If you have it in you to dream, you have it in you to succeed". She continues: "If you have enough dreamers left in Canada, perhaps we have enough left in us as a nation to succeed in our efforts to retain and

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
strengthen our own national unity and identity. Perhaps sport can help us turn these dreams into reality".
In conclusion, I want to declare my belief that this constitutional process will succeed. In the words of a citizen from Leduc: "I cannot express to you how important the successful conclusion of this endeavour is to myself, my family, my country".
At a time when our country looks at itself to determine what make us uniquely Canadian, my daughter, Teddi, wrote the following words to help me in a poem called "The Rainbow":
Long before Columbus
Our grandfathers spoke of
The white from the north
The black from the south
The yellow from the east
The red from the west
Hundreds of years later
We live together
but not in harmony
Why can't we be like the rainbow?
Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet All one in peace with its own identity No conflict, no war, no prejudice Like the rainbow.
I believe we will come through 1992 and into the future as winners by dreaming of success, by focusing on our common strengths and by recalling positive feelings of sharing kindness and respect.
As a young person, Mr. Speaker, we have all probably tried to walk on one rail along the railway tracks. It is difficult. Yet if a friend walks along the parallel track and you hold hands together you find you can walk for miles together. Perhaps it is because you truly help each other by lifting each other up.
In this Canada round I believe just as when an athlete wins, when Quebec wins, when an Indian wins, all of Canada wins.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to bring to the House of Commons the views of my constituents as they have expressed them to me in a number of forms and forums over the last year and more. I want to begin by saying that, as with the debate in this House, the debate
in Ottawa West is optimistic and pessimistic, full of hope and full of despair, but marked by a great will to keep Canada together.
The views on how we can do that differ as much as they would among any of us in this Chamber, but the will to keep Canada together is the strong and binding thread through all the submissions I have heard in person, in meetings, by phone, by letter.
My first couple of opportunities to discuss the Constitution in a concerted way with constituents was in two visits to schools. I thank those young people particularly for taking the initiative to organize the kinds of sessions where they were focusing on what they wanted the country to be for their future. They felt strongly that the diversity of this country, whether it is French and English, different cultures, different races from different places, the different geography of our country, the different regions of our country, are all something that is part of their Canadianism. They do not identify being Canadian with being somebody who happens to live in this particular region. The message I got very clearly from them was that all of Canada is part of their own identity.
They, too, like everybody else I have heard from had very differing views and I am sure it will come as no surprise to anybody in this House who has been talking to and listening to their constituents that aboriginal concerns and environmental concerns are at the top of the agenda for young people as they are for other Canadians.
We developed questionnaires that were distributed twice in the constituency, once to a group by mail and second, made available to everybody in Ottawa West through the means of my householder. We have had over 700 responses to that householder questionnaire. We have done an analysis of both groups of questionnaires.
What was a little more difficult to analyse was the time that hundreds of people took to write down their own thoughts, sometimes in a brief note, a brief comment on the questionnaire, sometimes in a letter of many pages, sometimes in a full brief, which a number of them have submitted to the committee. I think this level of response indicated a community that has been always very conscious of its role as the nation's capital. Yes, it is a community distinct from its federal role. I know it is hard for people outside the national capital region to realize
February 11, 1992

that, that there really is a community of three-quarters of a million people here, the vast majority of whom have very little to do with the federal government and certainly nothing to do with the vision that the word "Ottawa" creates anywhere east of the Ottawa River or west of the Ottawa River, outside this region.
As someone who has grown up in this community, I can tell you that the sense of responsibility as the nation's capital and the sense of pride as the nation's capital is strong in this region. We have been proud to develop in our community the ability to deliver services in both official languages long before many communities across this country.
We have been proud to promote the diversity of cultures that are represented in our community and to give them means and vehicles to communicate with one another and with the community at large and to respect those diversities in the delivery of public services.
We have also recognized that we have a role to play in Canada. We have a role to demonstrate that here in the nation's capital many different groups from many different backgrounds, from the two founding language groups of this country and including our aboriginal people, can live in peace and in harmony and can make this a stronger and better community as a result.
Those feelings were all reflected in the responses we received to over 700 questionnaires. We asked people what was important to recognize about the nature of Canada. Almost without exception the rights and freedoms of individuals as recognized in the charter were important to people.
Second most important was the role of aboriginal peoples in Canada.
We drop down a bit then to the importance of recognizing the equalization of economic opportunities among regions; again a great commitment to the diversity of Canada, to our differences, but to our right to share equally in the wealth of the country.
Recognition of two official languages was important. The diversity of cultural heritage was important. The distinctiveness of our regions was less important. I think
The Constitution
that reflects a very strong bias in this community to the wholeness of Canada. Our diversity is important but less important than our wholeness.
People were asked how important they thought it was for the federal government to be able to set national policies and standards on certain issues. The environment was inevitably number one, with virtually 100 per cent saying that the federal government has got to be responsible for the environment.
We set up a special constitutional discussion in Ottawa West on the environment and the Constitution because people were seriously concerned that the constitutional proposals virtually ignored the environment. They were concerned about the impact of property rights, the federal government's ability and the ability of all of us to work together as individuals and as governments at all levels to protect our environment.
They were concerned that the proposal for the economic union ignored the whole concept of sustainable development, of integrating whatever we do economically with the protection of our environment and the preservation of our resources for future generations.
In only a few moments I cannot possibly do justice to the wealth of concern for our country and love for our country that I have heard expressed from the people in Ottawa West in the last year and more. What they are looking for is leadership. They are looking for us to put aside the differences that they feel are superficial to the continuity of Canada. They want us to make that our number one goal. They want that because Canada is important to them. They also want it because we have other issues we must get on with-and they want us to get on with them-such as child poverty, unemployment, developing Canada's scientific basis to create more and better economic opportunities in the future.
I know time is short, and so I simply want to conclude by saying that I share the view I have heard from the vast majority of my constituents. Certainly there have been diverging opinions and there have been some unpleasant opinions expressed, but they are all important and they all have to be taken into consideration.
For me, my country is not Canada without Quebec, and I am not a Canadian in a country without Quebec.

February 11, 1992
The Constitution


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to acquaint this House with the opinions of my constituents from Saint-Hubert and their analysis of the future of Quebec in general and the proposals of the federal government in particular.
I must say at the outset that to a number of my constituents the refusal of English Canada to sign the Meech Lake Accord was interpreted as a clear and simple rejection of the distinct society in one of the two founding nations of this country. My constituents cannot accept the status quo, nor offers which would be inferior to those of the Meech Lake Accord. When they look at the constitutional future of Quebec, they do not focus solely on economic considerations. They have a clear and broad understanding of the issues, and are conscious of the differences of opinion, but they are also tired of the continuous misunderstanding in English Canada.
Mr. Speaker, for the Quebecers in my riding of Saint-Hubert, the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, the tabling of the federal proposals and the comments heard during the various conferences and consultations confirm an unreconcilable evidence. We are faced with a totally different view of the territory on which two nations co-exist, against their will, for historical reasons. For my constituents, this unreconcilable difference is evident in many respects.
First of all, English Canadians want a strong central government in Ottawa. Quebecers want a strong government in Quebec City; English Canadians want to centralise powers in Ottawa, Quebecers want to centralize them in Quebec City; English Canadians want a country where everybody uses English as the language of communications; Quebecers want to live, work and create in French.
English Canadians have their culture, their theatre, their cinema and their television. Quebecers also have their culture, their theatre, their cinema and their television. English Canadians have a deep affection for the Queen and her family, for the British monarchy, which they consider very important. Quebecers have no interest whatsoever for that institution, particularly when the Governor General is unilingual English. English Canadians are proud to be Canadians. Quebecers identify themselves with Quebec and are proud to be
Quebecers. English Canadians consider that Labrador is part of Newfoundland. Quebecers still consider that territory as belonging to Quebec.
The list is long, Mr. Speaker, and could go on and on. This exercise may seem tedious to you, but it is important and necessary if we want to fully understand what my constituents say, particularly when they claim that the existing proposals of the federal government are meaningless, that they are not formal proposals and that we should not even waste our time dealing with them.
In fact, these proposals which Ottawa made in September, are another blatant example of what is irreconcilable. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard, was the first to sound the alarm, to point out the Machiavellian power grabbing by the central government which led Quebecers to believe its proposals were fabulous.
When the president of Sun Life of Canada considers the federal proposals reasonable and attractive, any good Quebecer must not only be puzzled, but very, very suspicious, and he or she must look twice at these proposals. Indeed, John Gardner, president of the Sun Life Insurance of Canada stated, last November 8, that the federal proposals were, and I quote: "a reasonable and attractive initiative".
Quebecers in my riding, like all Quebecers in general, cannot be fooled. For them, Ottawa's proposals represent a considerable retreat from Meech, for three reasons. First, the distinct society clause is now entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a constructive rule applicable only to the Charter, while in Meech it was applicable to the entire Constitution.
Second, the Canada clause, section 2 of the Constitution, lists several characteristics including, in sixth place, a basic responsibility for Quebec to preserve and promote its distinct society. This section is being diluted and will virtually have no effect, except a vague constructive effect, like that of a preamble.
Third, a limitative definition of the concept of a distinct society is given-language, culture and civil law-which of course restricts its scope.

When I talked with my constituents, I clearly received the following message: Put forward some demands for Quebec, we want more powers. That is essentially what they told me.
Thus, when we examine the federal proposals concerning the distribution of powers, we see that in general no new power is given to Quebec, contrary to the recommendations of the Allaire and Belanger-Campeau reports, except labour force training, which will be subject to federal standards which will be established pursuant to the new powers to manage the economic union.
In its proposal No. 24, the federal government only recognizes provincial authority in areas in which the provinces already have exclusive jurisdiction, namely tourism, forestry, mining, recreation, housing and muni-cipal/urban affairs. Furthermore, within this framework, the federal government even says it is committed to research and development in Canada and to its constitutional obligations towards international and native affairs.
In conclusion, the federal proposals are less than Meech. Meech already was a minimum, as everyone said, including Robert Bourassa and Gil Remillard. It amounts to a reduction of the distinct society clause, and a limitation of its interpretation in the Charter. There is no more constitutional guarantee that Quebec will have three judges on the Supreme Court's bench. There is no more veto for Quebec. In short, as was so well put by one of my constituents: "We have been had since the very beginning of our history, that is since 125 years, and history repeats itself. We are given candies in exchange for meat."
For my constituents the solution to this constitutional debate is clear: Quebec wants its independence, its sovereignty. Quebecers want control over their own destiny and their own values. They want to exercise exclusive control not only over their cultural affairs but also over their social, political and economic affairs. The citizens of my constituency have understood that they need a sovereign state in order to have respect for their differences, their distinct character and their culture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next four speakers will be the hon. member for Edmonton East,
The Constitution
the hon. member for Red Deer, the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst, and the hon. member for St. Albert.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I left Vancouver with my family at the age of eight. We moved south into the United States. My dad took us down there because he had a job there. We did not move far, only about 100 miles maybe, down to a town call Everett, about 25 miles north of Seattle. That is where Boeing 747s are made.
I entered grade three there and was immediately confronted with new classmates urging me to speak some Canadian for them. I jabbered glossolaliacally, as best my eight-year old imagination would allow, and that seemed to satisfy them. I made some friends and some of them became very good friends.
I lived in the United States for a total of six years. During that time I saw many things, not all of which I understood with my young mind. The things that I saw included tremendous acts of generosity by individual Americans toward their fellows. I watched on the television screen as that nation slowly descended into the black dementia of the imperial war in Vietnam. I watched on the television screen as elements within that society shot and killed some of its finest. I watched some of the friends I made in school growing up anticipating entry into the American Armed Forces and cultivating, therefore, a series of attitudes that they thought appropriate to that fate, attitudes that ran the gamut from personal courage and self-reliance on the one hand to the most appalling forms of racism and ethnic hatred on the other.
For me, those six years were a period of intense learning and reflection because I never lost the feeling that I, although being among these people, was not of them, that I was something different. Being a Canadian set me apart in the United States.
When my family came back to Canada, to Edmonton, on December 1,19661 remember to this day crossing the border for what was to be a long time and the tremendous sense of relief and well-being that I felt as the car crossed the little border point in southern Alberta. We proceeded up roads I had never travelled before through winter far deeper and colder than anything I had experienced before to what was to be our new home.

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
That experience as a child has indelibly marked me. It has left me with a passion for the preservation of that which preserved me as a youth, which is to say that Canadian identity, whatever it may be, served almost as my cocoon in those six years I lived in the United States.
One of the reasons I sought election as a New Democrat was seeing what is being done to my Canada, the future that is being shaped for it by those who now rule in this country and seeing what I still believe is the pursuit of a course that can only end in catastrophe for this country.
I do not believe that the majority of Canadians, given the choice to express themselves, would willingly go down the road that this government and other provincial governments in this country have mapped. I believe that given the time to reflect thoughtfully on the problems confronting the country, Canadians will come to reasonable, workable solutions.
It is on the basis of that belief that I mounted a two-day constituent assembly in Edmonton East.
After several invitations had been sent out, invitations to every person in the riding through the vehicle of the householder, 21 persons and five organization representatives filled in the ballots, out of the 36 persons and 15 organizations that attended. In addition, of the 84 ballots mailed 16 had been returned by January 7, which is the deadline I had to set in order to get the report ready to present to the standing committee.
I will not read the entire report because I do not have time and because quite frankly hon. members can read it for themselves, but I would like to convey some highlights. First, of those 42 who turned back ballots, 76 per cent want a reformed Senate. There is no surprise there. Fifty-five per cent favour the Triple-E model, but 40 per cent opted for a Senate elected by proportional representation. Sixty-two per cent said any reformed Senate should have the same powers it has now.
With regard to aboriginal peoples, 76 per cent said amendments to the Constitution affecting aboriginal peoples should only happen with the consent of those peoples. There was strong agreement, 71 per cent, that
there should be a commitment to the entrenchment of aboriginal peoples' inherent right to self-government in the Constitution.
Almost two-thirds of all respondents thought sexual equality guarantees in the charter should be extended to cover the entire Constitution, and only 26 per cent wanted to ditch the so-called notwithstanding clause. Fifty-eight per cent wanted to keep it in some form or other.
Half rejected the federal government's plan to grant itself new powers to ensure the efficient functioning of the economic union, but the proposal to narrow the Bank of Canada's mandate to strictly that of fighting inflation was rejected by 60 per cent.
The idea of guarantees of collective rights of the sort found in the so-called social charter was endorsed by 60 per cent of the respondents, with only 26 per cent opposed. The endorsement per cent of these guarantees is as follows: clean air and water, 62 per cent; minimum standard of living, 60 per cent; decent health care, 60 per cent; a right to an education and a job, 60 per cent.
Almost the same level of support, 57 per cent, was expressed for the use of referenda and again 57 per cent of the respondents liked the idea of recall.
Sixty-four per cent opposed property rights for corporations and although 52 per cent thought property rights for individuals was a good idea, 72 per cent agreed that even if such rights were enshrined they should be subject to being overridden in cases of expropriation for socially necessary purposes.
Alberta has been in the news a great deal of late because of the remarks of our premier regarding bilingualism and multiculturalism. The majority, 53 per cent, thought bilingualism should be reviewed. However, only 29 per cent thought it should be eliminated and 34 per cent thought it should be kept as is or expanded.
Similarly with multiculturalism, 38 per cent said eliminate it, but 19 per cent said it should be kept with restrictions, and 28 per cent said it should be kept or expanded. A total of 47 per cent said keep it in some form.
In this regard, the premier of Alberta does not speak for my constituents.
February 11, 1992

Last, I should note that almost two-thirds of the respondents rejected the contention that Quebec should have a different constitutional relationship with the rest of Canada.
I do not agree with that. However, it is my duty to present that to this House. It is my duty to present it to the constitutional committee, which I have done. I would like to table the full report of our constituent assembly and I will cheerfully provide individual copies to any member who would request one.
Let me close by saying the Canada that served me so well in my youth continues to serve me and my family, my friends and loved ones. It is a Canada that I believe must change to survive and grow. I believe that survival, that growth, is of fundamental importance to those who will come after us. I believe that they too have every right to enjoy the security that being a Canadian affords us all and that has served me so well.
I pray we in this House, we in this country, have the wisdom to find the path to that new growth.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and report the views of Canadians in my riding of Red Deer.
What we are doing tonight is something that should happen in this Chamber far more often. A common concern expressed very strongly to me when I go home is the question: "Why do individuals members of Parliament not better represent people like me? Why aren't my views expressed on the floor of the House of Commons?" This debate allows that. Individual members of Parliament are reflecting and reporting the views of their constituents on the Constitution.
The issue of the Constitution tends to be dominated by those who report it, being major players. The media constantly reports politicians' views, academics' views and views of special interest groups. In this debate, we are reporting the views of our constituents, the ordinary Canadians, our friends and our neighbours, the many people who came out to share their ideas, their thoughts and their love for this nation.
It is the people we represent who make these short reports so important. For a constitution to work, in order
The Constitution
for it to be the basis for a nation to grow in unity and strength, it has to reflect the values and the commitments of the people it serves. Constitutions are not for politicians and academics. Constitutions must be for people.
When the joint committee cancelled its scheduled meetings in my riding in November, I went ahead and held these meetings. I am glad I did. The people who attended the November meetings in Sylvan Lake, Innis-fail and Red Deer told me repeatedly that this was the way the issue should have been addressed in the first place. I was told we did not need high-priced commissions, or even special joint committees. Members of Parliament should be the ones who listen and should be given the opportunity to debate, to reflect and to represent the views of their constituents. I quote one of the more blunt contributors: "I am glad to see you are finally doing what we elected you for".
Coming out of this first series of meetings, I was told that the economy was every bit as important as the Constitution. Building on that demand, I held a second series of public meetings in January in which we discussed both the economy and the Constitution.
I also held a constituent assembly of high school students. Every high school in the riding was invited to select three students. The group met at Red Deer College and spent a full day debating the 28 proposals in the constitutional package.
The summary of my constitutional meetings and the student constituent assembly has been shared with both the minister and a special joint committee. Yesterday, two participants from the high school assembly, Barb Ellingson from Innisfail and Paul Abbott from Red Deer, had the opportunity to meet with the joint committee and elaborate on the recommendations made by their constituent assembly of high school students. They did an excellent job of representing their constituents and communicating their positions. Most of my comments will be based on the other series of meetings we had.
This last weekend the minister said that this is not the time for inflammatory rhetoric or phrases. Debate, according to him, has moved beyond that. I would hope that he and the rest of you who are listening would note

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
that some of the comments I have collected were made prior to the recent conferences. People and positions might have changed, matured if you will, but there is still a strong sense of frustration, in some cases alienation, and it would not be fair to the people I represent if I left those comments out.
Many of the people who talked to me at my public forums are absolutely and completely frustrated with the apparent never-ending constitutional discussions. Almost every meeting concluded that the economy was equally important but that it does not seem to attract the same attention. We know we cannot go back in time, but questions raised more than once were: "What was wrong with the way things were? Why did we not leave the Constitution until all Canadians were committed and agreeable to the terms of repatriation?"
It is obvious to me, listening to the national debate and especially listening to my constituents, that there are serious questions facing us and differing views on how they should be answered. I have had representations on the need for strong central powers and others equally strong appealing for more provincial powers.
There was agreement, though, that we need to clarify the areas of jurisdiction and that those who claim responsibility for programs must have the legal responsibility to fund them. There are far too many areas in which people see a duplication of services and expenditures.
Institutional reform is one of the key recommendations in the government's proposals on constitutional renewal. The main focus in my province on institutional reform is the upper chamber. The very strong feeling from Albertans is that the Senate needs a major overhaul to better protect regional interests. That is the reason for Alberta's demand for a Triple-E Senate-elected, effective and equal. Senate reform is a major issue to the people of Alberta and we cannot overstate our feelings about the need to change the Senate. There is impetus to change the House of Commons as well, to make it more representative of the views of our constituents. Strong feelings surfaced about the behaviour in this place. The daily Question Period was referred to as a circus. Heckling, catcalls and general conduct was described as childish. Opposition for the sake of opposition without offering alternatives and blind obedience to
party polity and block voting were both considered and called mindless.
People expect more of us as lawmakers and leaders than they see. We need to clean up our act and set an example. We need to show Canadians that we are working for them and for Canada.
I cannot state strongly enough or often enough that the overwhelming feeling that came out of each and every one of my meetings is that we are committed to Canada and that our Canada includes Quebec. We want this nation to be unified but there is some resentment over what is being perceived as Quebec's demands.
The phrase, distinct society, has been mentioned by other people. There is a growing acceptance of the distinct society proposal from the recent workshops. At the time of my meetings there was still concern because people were uncertain and unclear about what was meant by a distinct society. Almost everyone who attended our meetings recognizes and accepts the historical reality of Quebec's place in Canada. We know Quebec is distinct. We accept the historical rights of Quebecers to the French language, culture and the use of the Napoleonic law. No one had a problem with that.
The concern expressed was extensions and applications in other areas that might diminish the rights of others. In almost every meeting the question of bill 178 came up and the use of the notwithstanding clause to enforce it.
The sign law does not affect anyone in the province of Alberta. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution but it does have a lot to do with the attitude and concern about the application of the distinct society clause.
The point I must emphasize to accurately reflect the expressed views is found in a quote from my meeting at Sylvan Lake where it was said: "We are concerned about the word 'distinct'. No one should be given a special label. When all is said and done, we have to be equals. We are all Canadians. I do not mind the way it is worded in the proposals as long it is not used for something else".
Someone else said to summarize and end the meeting: "Quebec must stay. We all lose if they go. Your job is to keep the country united but not at an outrageous cost".

The essence of all the meetings is that if we do truly want to keep this country united we have do more than come up with a Constitution that we can all accept, we need to understand each other better. We have to get to know the regions and other Canadians and understand their needs, their wants and their aspirations. There were many suggestions given on ways that we could accomplish this. It was pointed out that the cost of air flights in Canada is prohibitive. It is cheaper to head south and visit the United States than it is to travel east or west in Canada. It has been suggested there should be travel incentives developed to encourage Canadians to visit other areas. There should be student exchanges to develop understanding among the young. Our educational system has to be expanded. We must put pressure on the powers that be in the educational system to ensure that students learn the history and geography of this great nation and learn to better appreciate it.
An immigrant who has taken up Canadian citizenship ended up telling the rest of us at our meetings that to truly appreciate Canada, it seems one must back away and look at it from another nation.
At the Rocky Mountain House and Red Deer meetings the environment emerged as a very hot topic. The message was that the environment is important to all of us. Also that there is one level of taxpayer in this country and that taxpayer wants rights protected but resents two layers of government doing the same thing and apparently being in conflict with each other.
From my meeting in Nordegg, I quote: "We need strong guidelines and we need one level of government to enforce them". From Rocky Mountain House another quote: "We need strong environmental guidelines but they should be there to help and guide industry, not to kill it".
Concerns were raised about the aboriginal people. The Innisfail group said that 10 years is too long to take to resolve these problems, that we need a commitment to fast track the program. The general consensus was that we need to redress the valid concerns of the aboriginal people. As one person said: "Let us be careful we do not entrench apartheid". There is great support to get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs and allow the aboriginal people the right to self-government.
The Constitution
This was done with a limited understanding of the term self-government. It is awkward to approve or disapprove of something that has not been properly defined. The position taken is that we need to develop a country where a Canadian is a Canadian. We should not be French, English, Indian or whatever. We should be first and foremost Canadian with the same rights and responsibilities.
To my groups, economic union is an issue that is so basic and makes so much good sense that no one could understand why it is not a given. We have to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers and broaden the common market within Canada.
To quote one of my meetings: "It is ridiculous to watch other countries work to develop trading blocs when we have not even developed free trade within our own country". The overwhelming message I received was that people in this country want a nation, a nation that stands free and stands for something.
They do not want a splintered nation of isolated regions. They want a nation of proud, unified Canadians. We in Alberta are proud of our province and its place in Confederation. To quote one of my participants: "Of course, we are proud Albertans. We are Canadians first".
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of frustration out there. There is still a large degree of irritation and anger. There is also a lot of misunderstanding and questions but there is also a lot of patriotism and a tremendous amount of love and appreciation for this huge, sprawling country of ours.
Canadians love this land. We want to preserve our national heritage of clear skies, clean water, productive soil and most importantly, our heritage of tolerance and understanding.
A friend in Red Deer challenged me and though what he said might be a little simplistic it was sincere. He said: "It is time for Canadians to stand back from their obsession with their own problems and appreciate what we have. It is time that we recognize that Canada is more than two founding nations". He said it was time for me, as an MP to stand up in Red Deer with a French speaking Canadian, the president of the Native Friendship Centre, representatives of the language and cultural groups of our city and proclaim, "We are all Canadians,

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
and we are all proud of it". I am proud of it and I am glad to represent the people of Red Deer.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me today to act as the spokesman in this House for the Acadian men and women of New Brunswick who met to discuss about the Constitution.
Of course, everybody is asking for the protection and promotion of their rights, the recognition of their specificity and, for some, a distinct status. With full knowledge of the facts, we would be ill advised to question the expectations put forward by many organizations and communities. However, if there was ever a group whose claims deserved to be heard and to whom we should pay particular attention in this debate, it is the francophones living across Eastern Canada, including Newfoundland and Labrador. They are a minority in every Atlantic provinces, but their history, not to say the history of their survival, is an eloquent testimony of a people's will to be recognized and to take the place they deserve and which is theirs.
In 1849, in a speech he was delivering in Montreal, Louis-Joseph Papineau spoke of the Acadian as a vanished people. He was one of those who believed that the 1755 deportation had achieved its goal, that is to wipe out forever the presence of the descendants of the first French settlers in America. The former Quebec Premier, Rene Levesque, also talked about francophones outside Quebec as "dead ducks" In 1991, a Quebec writer stated before the Belanger-Campeau commission that francophones outside Quebec were only "warm corpses". These statements reflect the lack of knowledge of many persons on Acadia and its people; but mainly they underestimate the determination shown by this people.
Stirred by their will to survive as a people, despite their dissemination on a wide territory and the fact they had almost no rights in the last century, New Brunswick Acadians managed to maintain their culture, language and specificity. The institutional infrastructure they gave themselves is just as good as the infrastructure of any other linguistic minority in this country. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of their fight to get education in their own language and religion, a fight that began with the
Caraquet riot in 1875 where Louis Mailloux died, becoming a symbol of those fierce battles.
What about the collective will they showed on the political front by succeeding in 1960 to elect as New Brunswick Premier one of their own, the hon. Louis J. Robichaud, whose program on equal opportunities allowed Acadians, men and women, to get at last their share of responsibilities in the daily management of provincial affairs and to get the benefits of a system that they did not before have access to?
The year 1963 marks the foundation of Moncton University, a university responsible for educating a very active and increasingly professional Acadian youth. The Mouvement cooperatif acadien is also an example of collective success, with over 215,000 members and more than one billion dollars in assets.
In January 1992, the president, Mr. Raymond Gionet, said and I quote: "The Mouvement cooperatif acadien wants Acadian men and women to achieve economic and social self-sufficiency by enhancing their quality of life and preserving their linguistic and cultural identity". A view I share, Mr. Speaker.
To stay in the business field, Assomption Vie has now become a pillar of an important financial group, the Groupe Assomption. Established in 1903 by Acadians deported to the United States, the Societe Mutuelle l'Assomption always tends to promote the economic, social, and cultural development of Acadian communities. Several other groups play a key role in the development of Acadians, such as the Societe des Acadiens et Acadiennes de Nouveau-Brunswick, the Federation des Dames d'Acadie, the Societe nationale des Acadiens, the Conseil economique du Nouveau-Brunswick, and so on.
So, you see, Acadian men and women in New Brunswick and throughout Atlantic Canada are far from being "dead ducks" or "cadavres chauds". They are dynamic Canadians who are willing and able to take part in the renewal of Canada. As they have showed in the past, they can significantly help the Canadian nation to develop and flourish.
However, I would like to add that the Acadian people I represent recognize the fact that the distribution of powers is severely unbalanced and that the structure and powers of some of our federal institutions are seriously
February 11, 1992

flawed. They are convinced that it is imperative to bring Quebec back into the Constitution and to recognize that province as a distinct society. In short, they are in favour of these changes, while being aware of the fact that it cannot be done without a great deal of openness, flexibility and generosity from both sides.
Acadians are also aware of the fact that they have benefited from the federal official languages policy which has helped their culture flourish since the 1960's and which has helped them obtain, in 1969, the promulgation of the act that made New Brunswick the only Canadian province that is officially bilingual.
In 1981, Bill 88, an act recognizing the equality of the two official linguistic communities in New Brunswick, was passed unanimously by the provincial legislature. If we cannot agree on what is required to promote and protect what Acadians have acquired, I insist that Bill 88 must be entrenched in the Constitution because, as I said to Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier McKenna in February 1991, and I quote: "In this time of uncertainty and at the dawn of profound and dramatic changes that will forever transform the face of Canada, the entrenchment of Bill 88 represents a concrete and positive measure for the most dynamic francophone minority in the country, the Acadian community of New Brunswick".
The unrelenting efforts of those men and women who contributed to the development of Acadia for more than two centuries must be used as an example and a source of inspiration to help us ensure the future of our children as francophones in this new Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when you read Shaping Canada's Future Together where federal proposals are listed, you notice the concept of preservation of linguistic minorities outside Quebec. I think Acadians in New Brunswick are far beyond that stage. Our Constitution should entrench the promotion of minority groups in Canada as opposed to mere preservation. In that regard I share the following recommendation by Victor Goldbloom, our Official Languages Commissioner: "We recommend the inclusion in the charter of the goal of promoting French and English speaking minorities in Canada and support their development".
The Constitution
The constitutional reform Acadians want cannot be negotiated without taking into account a number of basic principles such as national unity, primacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognition of fundamental linguistic rights.
Other principles are necessary such as the stated role of the federal government in equalization, regional development and support for essential ingredients of national identity, including the protection of official language minorities. Linguistic duality cannot be restricted to a Quebec-Canada relationship and to the recognition of a few linguistic rights in the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, linguistic duality should include recognition of linguistic communities which have a legal status and are endowed with the means to assert their cultural sovereignty and representativeness. That is why I support the following recommendation found in the report of the New Brunswick committee on Canadian federalism. I quote:
That the Constitution be amended to include a clause recognizing the equal status, rights and privileges of the English and French communities in New Brunswick and that this equality include namely the right to have different educational and cultural institutions necessary to protect and promote both communities.
As the years went by, the Acadian community succeeded in setting up homogeneous linguistic institutions in the fields of education and culture as well as in the social and economic fields. Acadians are proud of this success which enabled them to progress at all levels and to stop the plague of assimilation.
Acadians have a future full of promise and it should be even more brilliant if their institutions are protected from hazardous political decisions.
If the federal government takes into account the claims of New Brunswick Acadians, both men and women, Acadian communities in the other Atlantic provinces could benefit from it.
The leadership shown by New Brunswick Acadians regarding constitutional matters is not an isolated initiative within the big Acadian family, but a well-considered strategy that 230,000 Acadians in New Brunswick chose so that their brothers and sisters in other provinces can benefit from their eventual gains.

The Constitution
I conclude, by quoting the first speech ever given by Senator Louis J. Robichaud almost 40 years ago, at the beginning of his political career in the New Brunswick legislature. He said:
Our province is some kind of miniature Canada by the mix and the
mentality of its ethnic elements. Let's tty and profit from that
situation by bringing the two groups and the two cultures to enrich
one another. Let's be united forever.

I understand that we are allowed to table documents that are consistent with our presentation in the House. In that light, I would like to table this document that reflects many other views from the province of New Brunswick with respect to the propositions put forward by the federal government on the Constitution.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this constitutional debate in the House of Commons this evening. It is an opportunity for me as member of Parliament for the federal constituency of St. Albert to communicate the opinions of the citizens of my riding.
I am grateful to all the constituents who communicated with me. It is obvious they are proud to live in a country that is free and peaceful. There is no doubt that my constituents are Canadians first. I am proud to represent the constituents of St. Albert.
A Canada united and strong is precious to me for what it is and what it will be. We are a young country, building on the northern half of this continent a society which is just and free, peaceful and prosperous, a society which cares for its people. I am proud to be part of this country.
My parents emigrated from Belgium. To them Canada was the land of opportunity and to me it remains so. I am the son of immigrants. I am proud to be a Canadian.
Many of my constituents are experiencing alienation, a feeling that our political system and our institutions have failed them. Many feel that the west must have a stronger voice in the decision-making process. Many hold strong views on constitutional reform. The Fathers of Confederation in 1867 united four provinces together into a federal system. Other provinces were to join later. Responsibilities were shared between the federal government and the provincial governments. The face of Canadian society has changed dramatically in the last 125
years yet the division of powers and responsibilities has remained the same.
It is evident that the people of St. Albert desire change. They want to be involved in the process. They want to see a more equitable balance between national objectives and regional aspirations. Many of my constituents are concerned about the future of Canada. They are frustrated with the apparent slow process or slow mechanism to bring about change. So many different voices are calling, requesting to be heard and understood, a consensus among Canadians must be found. I believe Canadians working together can find a way.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister has appointed, a native Albertan, but first and foremost a great Canadian, as Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. My constituents say without hesitation that he is the best man for the task of ensuring that Canadians remain united.
Constitutional discussions by Canadians have been held from coast to coast to coast. The members of the all-party constitutional committee are listening and will be reporting to the House of Commons by the end of February. On behalf of the residents of my constituency, may I express our appreciation to the members of the committee. May the Lord bless its deliberations.
On the road to constitutional reform, there are many issues to address. In the limited time available to me, Mr. Speaker, I will touch on a number of key issues which my constituents consider important in the ongoing discussions. There is support in my riding for Senate reform. My constituents are of the opinion that the appointed Senate has failed to protect regional interests. The Triple-E Senate, elected, effective and equitable, along with proportional representation, received strong endor-sation.
The distinct society is a Canadian historical reality. In the Quebec Act of 1774, the British Parliament recognized the distinct society by allowing Quebec to retain its French language, its cultural and civil law. In the British North America Act of 1867, it was restated by the Fathers of Confederation. Quebec has always been distinct. I know there are some people who have difficulty with the word distinct. In French, distinct means
February 11, 1992

different. In English, there are many interpretations from not identical to superior. Quebecers are different, but then many would say that Albertans are different. We are all Canadians, we are equal.
As knowledge of our Canadian history grows and the intent of this clause is better understood, the support for distinct society is growing.

Canada is a bilingual country. In 1969, the Canadian government passed the Official Languages Act. The majority of people in my riding accepted that legislation. The former Prime Minister of Alberta, the hon. Peter Lougheed, said: "Bilingualism is the essence of our country". I am pleased to have the option of speaking in English and in French.

My electors want a strong central government that will deal with the unity question, the economy and the environment. There is strong support for aboriginal self-government and for full movement of people, goods, services and capital across Canada.
Canadians are anxious to settle the constitutional question and to move on to the economic issues of the day. In a letter I received recently, a Grade 6 student writes: "Canada is my country. I love my country." and she asks "Don't Canadians care about Canada?". An 80-year-old gentlemen tells me: "We don't need the Council of the Federation. We have too much government as it is.". A woman in my riding said: "If we are to save the country, the media better stop dramatizing our differences and focus on what Canadians have in common.".
I share my constituents' concerns about the decorum of MPs in the House of Commons, the constraints of party discipline and the need for more free votes.
Canadians working together have built a nation that is respected and admired around the world for its high level of freedom and opportunity. Unfortunately too many Canadians take Canada's successes for granted.
Today there are forces at work in Canada that would divide this country. They want to destroy our Canada.
The Constitution
The constituents of the federal riding of St. Albert want a united Canada redesigned to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee was right about Canada's future when he said: "Each generation of Canadians has left the country more prosperous, more self-aware, more respected in the world".


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say in beginning my remarks that, like many Canadians, I think it is difficult to concentrate on constitutional matters when we know there are so many people across this country who are suffering job losses and really have very deep fears about the future for themselves and for their children.
In Vancouver East this is the view of many of my constituents. Yet at the same time they care very much about the future of Canada.
Tonight I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record the conclusions of two organizations that met and are meeting in Vancouver and particularly in Vancouver East. They are very concerned about a special constitutional issue, that issue being the protection for minorities which is so important in our Constitution.
I would like to table one report which is entitled Rule of Law Betrayed, a Charter with an Expedient Override. This report was prepared by members of Coalition 33, most of whom are Chinese Canadians and it is a Vancouver group.
The second report I will refer to was prepared by my own Vancouver East federal riding association following a series of meetings we had over the summer months. We also concentrated on the protection of minority rights so that will be the topic of my presentation tonight.
Minority groups in British Columbia and across Canada have experienced racism and discrimination in the past which must never again be tolerated. We must remind ourselves of our history. The racist Chinese head tax, an exclusion act, the internment of Japanese Canadians, the denial of the vote to Asians and aboriginal people, the discrimination against black Canadians and persons of colour in all regions of Canada, and the rights of women and persons with disabilities continue to be ignored.

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
When the charter was first approved in the early 1980s, section 15 was passed in Parliament and these groups thought their rights would be protected under the law. Section 15(1) reads:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
Section 15(2) allows for affirmative action programs to be developed.
Minorities soon learned that equality rights were not as well protected as they thought because section 33, which is known as the notwithstanding clause of the charter, allows federal or provincial governments to override the equality rights which they thought were guaranteed.
Both of the organizations which I referred to in Vancouver have studied this dilemma very carefully and they have concluded that section 33 should be repealed. It should be repealed because it can be used by provincial or federal governments to override the rights of minorities. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council and its many affiliated organizations across the country also support the repeal of section 33. New Vision Canada, an organization dedicated to providing non-partisan political education to racial and ethnic minorities, also has begun a national campaign to amend the Constitution to ensure that equalities which are guaranteed in section 15 are not suspended by the application of section 33, the override clause of the charter.
We have a lot of concern, growing concern, as minority groups are studying these matters and becoming much more aware that indeed rights they thought were enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms really are at risk because of the override clause.
In my riding of Vancouver East, in meetings on this subject of equality rights, we considered several alternatives, all with the goal of protecting section 15 and the equality rights section from the override by section 33.1 would like to just very quickly present the conclusions and the recommendations which we came to, which have both the ideal solution-which is, of course, the repeal of section 33-and also some of the interim things that
could be done because it may be difficult to get consensus on complete repeal during this round.
The first proposal we would make is that the override clause in its present form is unacceptable. The purpose of enshrining basic rights in the Constitution is to prevent government expediency from implementing policies that discriminate against minorities and also disem-powered groups. We agreed with Coalition 33 and also the B.C. Coalition of Persons with Disabilities that section 33 is a very frightening clause, especially for minorities.
On the other hand, we also recognized the concerns of many of our own members that judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada are often very regressive. We have seen this in some of the decisions that have been made already in charter cases. Also governments that are concerned with collective rights feel the need for more flexibility, and therefore are in favour of an override clause of some type.
However, it was our opinion in Vancouver East that any override clause must never override equality rights with the loss of protections for minorities.
Our second option was that while we prefer the repeal of section 33 from the Constitution, we recognize that political realities may make this difficult to achieve. Therefore, we recommend that any override clause must be difficult to invoke. Specifically, we propose that a special two-thirds majority of government and Official Opposition members of Parliament should be required. This would allow the override to be invoked in emergencies but would prevent it from being used as a simple political expedient by governments. It is interesting that our recommendation is much tougher than the 60 per cent majority which was proposed in the government proposals.
The third option that we suggested was a final alternative which we hope will be achievable in this constitutional round. This proposal is that at the very least the override clause should never apply to section 15 of the charter. This would require an amendment to section 33 which would read "notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or section 7 to 14 of this charter". You notice that we changed the number from section 15 to section 14. This amendment removes application of the override clause to equality rights.

Minority groups and Canadians concerned with protection of equality rights have deep concerns that their rights may be overridden in the present Constitution. Experience has shown that they are valid concerns and fears, that there is a great risk with section 33 still in our Constitution.
We appeal to the parliamentary committee on the Constitution and to the government decision-makers, both provincial and federal, to amend or repeal section 33 so that this can never happen.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that, like most Canadians, we hope that constitutional renewal will be completed expeditiously with recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec and aboriginal Canadians and the inclusion and protection of the rights of all Canadians in a multicultural Canada.
I say once again that I would like to table the report that I referred to earlier in my remarks so that it will be available to the constitution committee.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak here this evening on behalf of my constituents and try to represent the views that they have expressed to me in regard to their feelings toward the current constitutional debate that is going on our country.
I would like to begin by quoting Edward Blake some half a dozen years after the beginning of Confederation when he said: "The future of Canada depends very largely upon the cultivation of a national spirit. We must find some common ground on which to unite, some common aspiration to be shared and I think it can be found alone in the cultivation of that national spirit to which I have referred".
That has been the driving guideline by which most of my constituents have approached their national government. My constituents believe that it is absolutely essential for a national spirit to have a strong national government. We cannot galvanize the will of this country unless the national government is in a position to manage national programs. It is, after all, from national programs, whether they be health care, educational standards, economic standards, environmental standards, and only when we have the approach of national standards that we can create this spirit.
The Constitution
My constituents are telling to me that right now there is too much decentralization going on in this country, that there is too much of the national fabric being dismantled. They are concerned that in this process of Constitution, in the effort of the national government to try and accommodate the various requirements or the various demands of the provinces, that spirit might be weakened to the point where the will to want to hold it together will no longer be there in some regions of our country.
On behalf of my constituents, we want to reaffirm the position that we took in 1984. We were a community that had some concerns about the Meech Lake Accord. We had a very strong campaign on amendments to Meech Lake and we were concerned about Meech Lake for two very specific reasons. First, we were concerned about minority rights. To be specific, the distinct society clause was a very controversial issue in the last campaign that I participated in and to this day. Quite frankly the mood has not changed that much.
If distinct society means that no culture is less than or greater than another culture, my constituents have no problem with the distinct society clause, but if distinct society means that there is a preferential status given to a particular group then my constituents were opposed in 1984 and they are opposed today.
That is essentially the clear message that I am getting on that very controversial clause. It would be fundamental to my constituents that a clarification on what distinct society means be laid out clearly in the current constitutional debate.
There is another area that we talked about during 1984 and we continue to talk about. You must remember in an urban centre like downtown Toronto we have people coming from all over the nation. For example, I have over 5,000 people in my riding from the province of Newfoundland. The people in my community are concerned about those regions that do not have the same resources as Ontario or even Quebec. They want a strong national government so that on economic matters the strong can help look after those regions that need help. They need help in terms of quality of life, the standard of life, resources to universities, resources for making sure that environmental standards and programs can be maintained.

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
Where they may not have the resources in their own province, their own region, they count on the national government to say to Ontario: "Listen here, you must share with those disadvantaged regions". That is part of the process of building a national spirit.
I hear repeatedly that we are in very tough shape economically right now in Toronto. We have very tough unemployment problems. We are losing industry, manufacturing specifically, because of the world conditions, some say partial free trade problems and a whole mixture of things. I am not going to pit it at any particular issue.
We know in our community, and I hear this repeatedly, that our best way of working this out is by making sure that this government, this room that I am speaking in right now, this nation's boardroom, not only speaks for Toronto and not only speaks for Ontario, but speaks for every region of the country so that the standards that my children enjoy can be the same standards that the children enjoy in every other region of the country.
We cannot do that, Mr. Speaker, if we so decentralize the national government that it basically becomes almost like a maitre d' to the 10 provincial premiers. My constituents do not want that to happen.
Right now the Government of Canada is supervising probably the loosest federation anywhere in the world. Its powers have been so diminished that when we do get into deep problems economically. It is very tough to manage our way out of them. My constituents are begging me to take the message that this Government of Canada must be strong.
It is not only in terms of domestic issues. Quite frankly, we have to be concerned about who speaks for Canada internationally. Right now we have provinces that have trading houses or consul houses in 20 or 30 different countries in the world. For example, you can go to Italy right now and you will have an Ontario House there, a Quebec House there and a New Brunswick House there alongside the embassy.
The same exists in Japan, Hong Kong, Paris, and England for people who are looking at Canada for investment opportunity, for joint ventures or for trade.
I have talked to some of these people and they want to know who speaks for Canada internationally. Is it the province of Alberta? Is it the province of Ontario? There can be no mistake that internationally there should be
one voice speaking for Canada and it should be the Embassy of Canada, representing all of the provinces. How can a province that does not have the resources of Ontario compete in international affairs? It cannot. It counts on a national embassy to represent all regions properly.
In summary, my constituents are saying to me that we must have a strong national government. We must have national programs and national standards because that is where we create national will.
If we are to have a distinct society, it must be defined in a way where no culture is less than or greater than any other culture. If we can use those things as our guiding principles, then they will create values of caring and approachability and an action oriented community that can be the envy of the world.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this evening on the future of our country.
I have the pleasure and the honour to represent the riding of Chateauguay, which has a population of approximately 100,000 people, of which some 20,000 are English-speaking and 80,000 are French-speaking. The francophones and the anglophones, as well as other ethnic minorities in my riding, are all proud to be Canadians.
I truly regret that some dream merchants try to capitalize on certain aspects that could divide us as Canadians. Our country has a lot more in common, a lot more things that unite us than that divide us. Unfortunately, some people derive great pleasure from denigrating it and to showing only the things that divide us, while dismissing everything that unites us and makes us envied by the whole world.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, there are millions and millions of people throughout the world who have one dream, and that is to become Canadians. Some Canadians say that it is unbearable in our country and they find all kinds of metaphors to describe our country as bad and mean. It seems to me that those people should realize that there is nothing to be gained by destroying but there is everything to be gained if we can set aside some differences-and those differences do exist-and work together to make this country even greater, even better than it is now.

Today, I call upon the common sense of Canadians who have always shown great generosity, flexibility and understanding. Proof of that is the attitude they displayed by accepting me as a Canadian and electing me to the House of Commons. I believe there is clear evidence that Canadians can be flexible, generous, understanding, and that they can live together.
I represent a riding in the province of Quebec where some bitterness and after-effects still linger following the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, when Quebec was excluded. These after-effects are serious, among francophones as well as among anglophones. I hope that this time around we will take that into account and be able to give to Quebec, as well as to the rest of Canada, their place in our great and beautiful country.
What do Quebecers want? I do not think their objectives are to diminish in any way the greatness or the wealth of Canada.
On the contrary, I think Canada will come out of this enriched and even more beautiful. The fact that Quebec wants to be recognized as a distinct society does not mean that it will consider itself as superior or have any more privileges than the rest of Canada, not at all. Quebecers are only asking to be recognized for who they are. Whether we like it or not, Quebec is a distinct society-a fact acknowledged in the British North America Act-with a different culture and language and its own Civil Code. Many arguments support the notion that Quebec is indeed a distinct society. It seems to me that wanting for all of this to be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution is not such a big deal.
Quebec is valuable to the rest of Canada and vice versa. The fact that we speak French, that we have two main languages and cultures-I say main because there are many cultures in Canada, but two main languages and cultures-only makes Canada richer. Everyone's dream is to come to Canada. Wherever I go and talk to the people-as you know, I have travelled around the world twice and lived in 35 countries, so I have met quite a few people-all they can think of is: how can you become a Canadian? It is hard to understand that while all those people dream of becoming Canadians people already here who take it for granted try to malign them.
The Constitution
It is completely baffling. There are people who say that Canada is harmful to Quebec's interests, but how do we reconcile that with the fact that Quebecers were able to develop their full potential with the rest of the country's citizens, without any restrictions, and that they even have the right to come to the House of Commons and denigrate them when they feel like it? It seems to me they have never in any way been oppressed or deprived of their freedom.
Since Quebec is an asset near and dear to us all, we should all try to understand Quebec's point of view. Quebec has been hurting since 1982. Let's try and understand this and try and bring Quebecers back to join the rest of Canada so they will feel truly Canadian and be proud to carry a Canadian passport. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if we manage to reconcile and recognize the existence of these two founding peoples of our country, both the anglophone majority and francophones, especially in the province of Quebec, I don't think the going will be quite as rough as people would have us believe.
I am sure that many of Quebec's claims could be satisfied without even touching the Constitution. As the previous speaker pointed out earlier, there is a certain amount of duplication by the federal government and the provinces. In the first place, this duplication costs us a lot of money, and in the second place, it creates a certain amount of rivalry between the provinces. I think that in the interests of all concerned we should start eliminating these areas of duplication as much as possible. We could do the same thing about federal employees in quite a few departments. If we could conduct this exercise in good faith, I am sure that many of Quebec's demands could be met. And as far as the distinct society clause and perhaps the division of powers is concerned, Canada is not going to stop breathing just because of that. Canada is a great country, but with Quebec it is even greater. Quebec is very rich as part of Canada. It seems to me we could bring this commonality of interests together, Mr. Speaker, and it would be in the interests of all Canadians.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I have had many conversations with constituents of Fraser Valley East about the future of our country.

The Constitution
It is not news to say that they distrust politicians, myself being excluded from that group. They wonder if we are listening. They are sceptical and are looking for action. They are concerned about the future of Canada. They do not want to see the country tom apart. They question the sincerity of the governments resolving the present problems.
They say that having more free votes in the House of Commons is a very popular initiative. For too long members have been seen as being Ottawa's representatives in the ridings, rather than being the ridings' representatives in Ottawa. I am told by many that this change will go a long way to improving people's confidence in elected members.
There is a feeling of alienation. People feel that even when they have their say it does not make a difference. They feel alienated from their own government and they feel alienated from other parts of Canada.
I can tell you that the people of Fraser Valley East are just like many other Canadians. They are tired of feeling left out. This is their country. They work hard and are proud of their contribution. They want to feel included in their country. Sometimes they feel, as do many other British Columbians, that being on the other side of the Rocky Mountains is like being in Siberia.
Like many Canadians, residents of Fraser Valley East want to be clearly represented in Parliament and they say more freedom from party discipline is an important first step toward that end.
The people of Fraser Valley East are concerned about what goes on in Canada. They are concerned for a united Canada, yet there are many national policies they question. They wonder about the official languages policy and multiculturalism. They question the approach being taken to resolve the issue of aboriginal rights. They see these policies in a negative light because they find them to be driving people apart rather than bringing them together. They see these policies as building walls instead of bridges. What they want to see is cohesion and a real sense of nationhood.
They do not want to see a broken Canada. They want to see a united Canada, where all individuals have the opportunity to go wherever they want in Canada and to be whatever they want. They want to see their government committed to fairness. The people of Fraser Valley
like other Canadians are very concerned about the future of Canada.
Because they have felt left out for such a long time, when my constituents read the 28 proposals they wondered why it seemed that there was so much for Quebec. Why are we left out? From where they stand, they see this as unfair and this gets their backs up.
The issue of the distinct society is a sore point to many. They acknowledge that Quebecers are different; they speak a different language and have a different culture. They say to me: "Fine, distinct in fact is one thing; distinct in law is another". From where they stand, they distrust the concept of distinct society. They are wary of too much power for the provinces. They see this as divisive and they see the concept of distinct society as contributing to further divisions.
Constituents of Fraser Valley East want to see a strong federal government that will work to keep Canada together. Until they see the historical background on how Canada was put together, there is that great question mark. All and all, people do not understand enough about Canada's history.
The people of Fraser Valley East want to see a strong united Canada. Many people have written to me over the seven years that I have been a member of Parliament and national unity has been a concern.
In recent years, the concern about the future of Canada has increased. I read the letters and listened to what people had to say and after they were done with airing their complaints they told me that they believe in this country and wonder why we are having so many problems when we have it so good.
My constituents say: "Look at other countries. We have so much going for us and we seem to have such problems just getting along with each other". The bottom line is that they do not want to see us throw away such a great country.
Rosedale is a small community in Fraser Valley East. The Canada Day committee, which normally organizes festivities on Canada Day, got together and went over the 28 proposals. The chairman, Fred Brian, and the secretary, Mary Sash, worked with 16 other concerned citizens of Rosedale to come up with a comprehensive brief that they submitted to the Minister Responsible for

February 11, 1992

Constitutional Affairs. Several other individuals have contacted me directly with their views on the proposals.
Although I have given the House a taste of what Fraser Valley residents are thinking, I must make a few qualifying statements about some of the comments that stand out from the rest.
People who have been to Quebec generally hold views that are different from the majority of those constituents who have not. These people found Quebecers to be warm and generous. They found that the hospitality was overwhelming and that in reality, the people of Quebec were not much different from any other people they had met.
Sure, they spoke a different language, but they were hard-working people who, much like British Columbians, felt a little left out of the goings on of their government. It seemed that the feelings of alienation were shared.
The British Columbians with whom I spoke and who have visited Quebec often tell me about the history of Quebec and the fact that Quebec is a culture of six million francophones surrounded by a sea of some 20 million anglophones. So maybe they are right to feel a little paranoid about their culture and language.
These British Columbians still do not like the fact that Quebec has a sign law which limits English on outdoor signs. What people are telling me is that we need more understanding. British Columbians feel left out. So do many other Canadians, including Quebecers. In many ways they are not left out at all, but if they feel left out, they are.
The perception often denies the fact. People want to believe they are involved. They want to be part of the larger whole. They want to be heard. They want to see their views acted upon. The perception has to change.
People have to feel that they are included. They have to feel that they are on the same footing with Canadians in other provinces. The only way to do this is to ensure that Canadians understand one another. In the heat of anger many say that this group or that group should go their own way, but when they keep talking and they explore all sides of the issue, they admit that they are simply frustrated and that they really want a united Canada where all people feel included.
The Constitution
My parents came from Shawville, Quebec. They moved to the prairies and I was bom in southern Saskatchewan. I live in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia and I am proud to serve my country in this House of Commons.
I am a Canadian and I can tell you that I have a lot in common with my constituents. We are proud Canadians who care deeply about our country. We believe in fairness and we believe in justice. Compromise is fine if the trade-off is mutually beneficial.
We know there are certain costs involved with keeping the country together, especially a country as broad and diverse as Canada. We in the Fraser Valley, much like Canadians from other parts of Canada, want to be understood. We want to be included.
In closing, I would like to share with you a quote from a letter I recently received, simply signed "John". This constituent writes: "My deepest hope is that our country will be able to elect some leaders who can distinguish between good and bad proposals and act accordingly, leaders who stand for what they see to be right. I trust that after we have finished this round of consultations, we will be that group of leaders who can indeed distinguish between good and bad proposals and act accordingly and may each of us reach a mutual understanding for our country".


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that members of Parliament were given the opportunity such as we have this evening to speak in the House to what the constituents in our ridings have to say on the current constitutional issues before us.
All of the constituents in my riding of Northumberland have indicated to me that as far as they are concerned, the major issue today in this country is the economy. They wish to see our economic circumstances turned around so that we are able to find jobs for all of those who are unemployed, training for those who need new skills, and literacy for those who are unable to cope with reading and writing skills in our society.
On the other hand, although that was recognized as the most important issue, there are many people who spoke to me in my constituency of Northumberland about the issue of the Constitution and how strongly they felt about that.

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
There were many people in Northumberland who recognized that, although the economy is the major issue today in our country, they understand the linkage between us finding a resolution to our constitutional impasse and the well-being of our economy.
Before the present 28 proposals were put before the House of Commons and the Canadian public in general, last June in my householder, which all members of Parliament are able to send out to constituents, I included a questionnaire on providing the opportunity to respond to some questions which seemed likely to be the subject matter of proposals put forward to the Canadian nation with regard to constitutional issues.
By October, when I sent out another householder, I had a total of 941 responses.
At that time, before we had the government's 28 proposals, I had a sense of where people in my riding were coming from. For example, when asked about our attachment to two official languages in this country, our bilingual policy, I had 45 per cent of people respond in the affirmative and 46 respond in the negative as to whether our Constitution should recognize our attachment to two official languages. We had a situation in which there was almost an even split on that issue.
A larger percentage of people showed support for our multicultural characteristics as a nation, 56 in the affirmative versus 31 not supporting that.
The distinct character of Quebec did not have as much support. It was two to one against recognizing Quebec's distinct society, but certainly since that time and with the proposals that were put before the people of Canada and in my riding of Northumberland there has been increased support for recognition of the distinctive characteristics of Quebec.
The largest support expressed was by the people of Northumberland for the recognition of the historical role of aboriginal people within Canada.
There was overwhelming support for the notion that we must have unrestricted trade barriers among the provinces. There was overwhelming support for a reformed and elected Senate. There was also support for the idea of the Senate approving appointments to federal agencies and institutions. There was support for the idea
that the federal government and the population of Yukon and the Territories should decide when a new province is to be created.
Subsequent to the government having tabled its 28 proposals, I have had several meetings with constituents in the riding of Northumberland, a total of over 12 meetings. By the time I had presented a report to the joint House of Commons-Senate constitutional committee, I had 12 meetings. I have had additional meetings in my riding. I have had over 500 people attend these various meetings and discuss with me their views of the 28 proposals.
I would like to share this evening the response of my constituents to the government's 28 proposals. The meetings should be described as well.
I had advertised in my householder and in local newspapers that I would be holding four public forums throughout my riding. I held those forums in Hope township, Hamilton township, Warkworth and Trenton. Besides that, my other meetings have been held in private homes, in schools and in churches by different groups at their request throughout my riding. As I said, over 500 people have attended these various meetings and they have represented populations from across the whole of my riding, people in Port Hope, Hope township, Cobourg, Hamilton township, Brighton, Warkworth, Trenton, et cetera.
With the exception of one public forum held in Trenton, the general consensus at my meetings was that those present were very concerned about the uncertainty of Canada's future and wished, above all, to maintain a united Canada with a strong federal government.
However, all those who attended my forums did express the view that there were limits beyond which achieving the above desired result would not be worth while, and it is important to note that.
The one public forum I had that expressed a diverse opinion from the others expressed the view quite strongly that our present bilingual and multicultural policies should be scrapped in favour of an English only official language policy, and basically a commitment to Anglo-Saxon Christian values as the basis of the Canadian cultural identity.

Other meetings, happily for me, were all much more accepting of our country's official bilingual policy and multicultural policies as long as they applied equally to every province. There was great concern expressed about the English only law as it exists at present in Quebec. Although the majority of people supported our bilingual policy, they felt that it must apply to all languages equally.
There was mild acceptance of the idea of a reformed Senate and Supreme Court appointment process. There was strong acceptance of native peoples acquiring selfgovernment and recognition of their inherent rights.
There was mild response, both negative and positive, to the issue of entrenching property rights and there was mild acceptance of the idea that Canada needed free trade in persons, goods, services and capital.
I have presented the findings of Northumberland to the joint committee and it has the document from which I was reading. As a follow-up, I would like to read a letter which I received from the Corporation of the Town of Port Hope which I feel in general expressed the views of my constituency. It was informing me of a resolution passed by the Port Hope Municipal Council on November 25, 1991 which states: "Whereas we are first and foremost Canadians and, whereas our country is in grave danger due to the constitutional crisis and, whereas our forefathers and our citizens have fought and given their lives to preserve this great country as one nation, therefore be it resolved that Council of the Town of Port Hope contact the leaders of the major political parties to urge them to set aside their political agendas and differences and work together as Canadians to resolve this crisis and develop a Constitution acceptable to all of our citizens, and furthermore, that the only acceptable solution to this issue will result in an undivided nation from east to west called Canada."
I would like to say that I concur with the majority of my constituents who hold the same view.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the hon. member has anything else she would like to file with the Clerk she may do so as far as her notes are concerned.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be brief in my commentary due to the fact that I know there are a number of members of this House who want to participate in this particular
The Constitution
debate. I think it is important that we all have the opportunity to stand in this House and discuss our opinions or points of view on the future of our country. Like many others who have spoken this evening in the debate and in other parts of this discussion, I had the opportunity to bring together a community committee which took a long, very deliberate look at the proposals that were brought forward.
The process the committee went through was twofold. Along with discussing and explaining to the members of my constituency, they also took the time to listen to the concerns and opinions of the people who live within the constituency. As a result, they drafted quite a significant report.
I was very fortunate in the fact that they, along with many other community groups, had the opportunity to come before the joint House and Senate special committee to make their presentation. I truly believe they delivered a very significant message on behalf of the constituents of Selkirk-Red River.
I do not particularly agree with all the points that were brought forward, but I do know that the work of the committee truly reflected what they received as well as the information they brought together and their own discussions.
I would like to commend the work of what has been called the Schreyer committee in Selkirk-Red River for its efforts. I truly hope that in the future when we go to the next stage that the opportunity to once again participate in whatever manner the discussions of the legislation proposed by the government.
It is my opinion that as we talk about the efforts of the past, it is more important that we endorse the efforts that will actually start this evening because the joint special committee has now set aside its public hearings and now goes into the process of writing a report. It is important that all members of the House endorse their efforts.
In my mind and with the time I have spent with the committee, I think there is a real effort to come up with a proposal that the government and the provinces will be able to work with so that in the very near future we will be able to resolve probably, the most important issue in the country today.

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
It is important that all Canadians understand that. I use a personal experience: "You never win an argument but I have always been able to negotiate a good arrangement". I truly believe that is the basis of whatever we will be able to resolve.
I believe that the future of my country is not only in the hands of the joint committee, it is in the hands of the government, members of this House, the premiers in the legislatures and all Canadians. It is my sincere hope that all Canadians will take the time to understand and respect how the other citizens of our great country feel about themselves and about each other.
I look forward to standing in this House in the very near future to debate the legislation that will come forward on behalf of the government.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to speak tonight in the House of Commons on behalf of the York-Simcoe Constituents Committee for Constitution Change.
These people from the riding of York-Simcoe have dedicated virtually every Saturday morning since the end of September to study, to understand, to question, to challenge the proposals brought forward by the Prime Minister and the government on September 29 last.
These people began this with the dedication and the belief that their contribution to this country, a few hours a day spoiling virtually all their weekends for other activities, would make a difference. They were prepared to make these kinds of sacrifices. They believe very strongly in a united Canada.
Seventeen people started the end of September on this particular committee. They took the challenge to focus the debate that was out there in the country on the various proposals that the government had put forward. They took as part of their objective a need to foster a broad discussion among various groups in the community. In addition to those Saturday morning meetings they had five or six public meetings spread throughout the riding.
As part of their objective they were going to attempt to facilitate the achievement of consensus. They were going to try to get an understanding among people as it related to those particular proposals. They were going to make changes. They were going to propose changes and
refinements and alternatives to the proposals that had been presented.
Of course, they were going to concentrate their efforts on the three main areas, defining Canadian identity, change and more responsible government and economic reforms to encourage growth and prosperity, all very laudable objectives.
Who are these people in my riding? They are people from throughout the riding of York-Simcoe. They are from Bradford, Georgina, Tecumseh, Newmarket, just a wide selection of people. They are teachers, students, business people, municipal leaders and representatives from minority groups. There are even a couple of lawyers. They all get along. They had their differences, they argued and debated, and debated very strongly and were able to come up with proposals and recommendations on virtually every one of the proposals the government brought forward. I am very pleased to be able to present this document to the House tonight on behalf of these people.
I want to talk a little bit about some of their comments concerning the process and what they went through. I am going to quote a few things from their report. One of the things they said was that during the course of these hours of work-reading, researching-, preparing for the public forums, preparing to hear neighbours' opinions- these members became more-aware of what Canada means to all of us. "We came to appreciate the richness of our French-English heritage, the cultural diversity new arrivals contribute to our national fabric, the things we share in common as well as our differences". Most of all, this group of people in York-Simcoe believe that they are representative of the people from Halifax to Victoria, they are Canadians who are very proud to be Canadians and they want to make Canada work.
The committee felt that its mandate was to consider a Constitution which must serve Canada for many years to come and so requires a long-term view. They were not looking for quick fixes. The committee endorsed the recognition of the French speaking society of Quebec as distinct from the rest of Canada. They felt very strongly about the provision for self-government for our aboriginal peoples because they felt it was long overdue. These Canadians felt that this constitutional debate and the wrangling and everything else that has gone on, whether it be in the media or in this House even, has long focused
February 11, 1992

too much energy on what divides us. Maybe it is time now, Mr. Speaker, as they report: "Canadians now need things of a positive nature, things that we can reflect on with pride and identify with as symbols of our Canadian-ism, things that are Canadian". That is what these people talked about.
The Canada clause which identifies many of the values associated with being Canadian is an essential ingredient of our new Constitution. That is what this committee felt. They said: "Canada, geographically one of the largest nations on earth, is beautiful and diverse, abundantly endowed by nature, with a fascinating history, a rich multicultural fabric, a democratic history and a caring social tradition that we are proud to call our home".
They went on to discuss a number of other things. I do not have time tonight to get into all the details, but they brought in a report that suggested the Senate should have equal representation from the provinces as well as the territories. They felt that could be balanced out by including in the votes that take place in the Senate the rule that the votes must represent 50 per cent of the population. They felt that was a way of balancing out the difficulty with the Senate. I think that has a lot of merit.
They also mentioned another interesting aspect. Through their debates and discussions toward the end of the process they recognized that when they talked about the provinces they were really including the territories. They felt that this was a good time to bring the territories closer to provincial status in this country.
There was obviously much concern about the aboriginal situation and their right to self-government. Because of our affiliation with the aboriginal people in Georgina Island there was a lot of love and respect for what this group of Canadians has done. My committee group felt that self-government should be addressed on an individual basis, on a band-by-band basis, but at a much quicker pace. They do not want to wait for 10 years, they want to do something now if the band is ready and able to do so. They really felt it should be the responsibility of the band to do that.
There are a number of suggestions that they made, as I said, relating to virtually all the proposals. I am sorry that I am not going to be able to get into all the details of
The Constitution
them tonight in the time allowed me. But I do want to say that these people worked very hard and were very honoured and privileged to appear before the joint parliamentary committee yesterday. They really feel that they have been part of the process.
I want to conclude with a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Sergeant of Bradford. This is what he says:
Am I going to sit back and let someone take a piece of my country away from me? Or am I going to fight for it like they do in other countries? I think it is time we all stood up for Canada. I have had enough; I think it is time to put an end to this Quebec separation once and for all. I am a man of English heritage. I married a girl of French heritage. We were both bom and raised in Toronto and together we raised seven children. Would we not represent both sides in thought, heritage and country?
He asked me if it would help for him to get involved because, he said, "We are prepared to go to Quebec and talk to those people in Quebec and convince them of the need to keep one united, strong country together".
Mr. Speaker, the people of York-Simcoe have been heard and I am very proud to be able to represent them tonight. I will table their report.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, "Canada is a society of freedom, tolerance and compassion". This is the message in the opening of the new federal government constitutional proposals entitled Shaping Canada's Future Together.
I would like to say at the outset that my party, under my leader Mr. Jean Chretien, has earlier stated the framework upon which we will examine the final package to be presented in this House.
Let me just mention a few of them. We would like a Canada that will set out the will of Canadians to live together in a federal state, the principles of which we would like to be sharing together.
We would like a Canada committed to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to preserve and strengthen fundamental rights and freedoms.
We would like a Canada with a strengthened economic union where barriers between provinces would be removed. We would like a Canada where the division of powers exists which best serves the needs of people, not governments or bureaucrats or politicians, and a system

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
that will provide the flexibility to meet the changing demands and challenges of the future.
It is because of these constitutional proposals and the future of this country that we are here tonight in this place to speak to all who will hear in the hope that they will listen.
I believe Canada can be many things. It is a beautiful nation that sweeps north to south and west to east with wonderful people who have hearts as large as the country itself.
Above all, Canada is what you make it. It is a place where caring individuals and likewise a caring government can make a difference. It is like a lovingly sewn patchwork quilt, with each square of a different design. Today the quilt is worn around the edges and is beginning to fray, but my own square of Winnipeg North still has hope that this quilt may yet keep us warm even in these troubled times.
The economy has made my people afraid for this coming year. They are afraid that they may lose their jobs or never be able to find one. It is their foremost concern. I am pleased to say that my leader has announced on behalf of the Liberal caucus a five-point proposal on emergency economic reform to bring Canada back to work.
I am equally pleased to say that this government has already agreed to adopt one of our economic proposals. These proposals are timely for my constituents who fear for their families and their futures.
To them, for the most part the constitutional talks are like a conversation on the other side of a door. Bits and pieces reach your ear, but the whole escapes you.
They find the 28 proposals too large, unwieldy and time consuming to compete with their everyday thoughts of living. Yet they do indicate to me that there are three or four key issues which warrant federal attention.
First, the distinct society. They want this issue front and centre of the constitutional debate. They want it settled. Most have only kind words for Quebec and they want a united Canada.
"Lay this issue to rest," they say, "mend the tear."
Second, a reformed Senate. My constituents feel the west is underrepresented in Ottawa and we want an elected, effective and equal Senate.
Third, aboriginal self-government. The future health and viability of our native people also concerns the people of Winnipeg North. Many of my constituents come from other countries and now call this country home, but they do not believe it is right to displace one people for another, one race for another and one culture for another. All can live in this country in harmony, independent and with dignity.
Fourth, they would like a strong and caring central government.
I have had more time to study the proposals. That is part of my job. I believe the things I will say might also be the feelings of my constituents.
I look at my colleagues. I know most of them personally through our years of working for the communities of Canada. I feel with them a communion. I trust that I can speak freely with you about my feelings for our future in the country we call home-for most, their country of birth; for me and others, our country of choice.
What will the future hold for our country? Where will we be when the ink has dried on our new constitution, further behind or further ahead? That is up to you and me.
Here in Canada many things were taken for granted for many years. People believed they would have jobs, a home for their families, enough money for retirement, a bright future for their children. These are some of the things we take for granted as our due, but just being Canadian is not a guarantee we will have all these things. We have to fight for them.
There is one statement in particular in the new constitutional proposals that should spark a revolution. The government said: "In response to criticism-the Government of Canada commits itself not to introduce new Canada-wide shared-cost programs and conditional transfers in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the approval of at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population".
What does this mean? To me it means no day care. What about our children? Seven years ago the government promised the mothers and the fathers of this country that they would have universal day care, univer-

sal child care. Now the government is using the Constitution to leave by the back door.
We need a strong and caring central government to protect the social interests of our people and all Canadians.
A few short months ago we passed the 20th anniversary of the multiculturalism policy in this country. Would a bill like that be passed without a strong federal government? Would a bill like that mean anything? How could the policy be enforced without a strong central government? Multiculturalism means equality for all.
Who would defend the environment, the Rafferty-Alameda dam, James Bay, Carmanah, aluminum in the St. Lawrence, Great Lakes poisons, ozone depletion? The federal government may not do enough, but I guarantee the provincial governments would do less to fight big business for habitat, wildlife and humanity.
Without a strong central government, what weight would Canada carry on international issues? How would Canada fare in international trade where the game is quickly changing? Words like "globalization", "free trade", "automation" and "subsidy wars" conjure up images of a marketplace that is on shifting sands, where small business is squeezed out and large businesses lay off thousands or jump the border.
Only a strong caring government backed by a constitution of conscience can face the world and represent all Canadians on these issues; not just the east, not just the west but all Canadians.
In my experience, Canada is a living, breathing thing, always changing. If the government is suggesting the provinces be allowed to perhaps set their own goals and their own agendas, for example immigration quotas, and this is written into the Constitution, how would it change as Canada changes? It is very very difficult to amend the Constitution, as we are witnessing today.
It is also very difficult to write a constitution. For example, many of our social programs are crumbling under our feet. Medicare is being attacked from all sides. The Canada Health Act without protection may be a mere mention in a history book, not a working piece of legislation, unless free medical care is guaranteed a right of citizenship. The same is true of our educational system. Family allowances, social assistance, pensions,
The Constitution
income security, there is merit to entrenching all these values in the Constitution. These rights are our rights, but for how long?
Perhaps the people who have rights are the ones who fight for them. I do not mean through violence. I mean people voicing their concerns loudly and clearly to the government. This is how we carve a place for ourselves in the new Constitution.
Just last week I joined a round table discussion of Canada's top scientists, members of the Canadian Institute of Academic Medicine who were concerned about the adverse impact of national disunity on our national institutions. The scientists provide us a model of how harmony can be achieved among people of diverse cultures, languages and areas of expertise.
They have continued to spontaneously converge to harvest mutual benefits from their work. They continue to discover new vistas, useful in diagnosis and treatment of humankind's diseases. The reason, I believe, is that they work for a common good. This force drives them to overlook geographic and ethnic origins or other tongues.
We could all learn from our academics and scientists. We must learn if Canada is to remain one country.
Following our debate tonight, the joint committee for a renewed Canada should take to heart our views and those of our constituents for whom we speak before finalizing its report later this month.
In the final analysis, the constitutional package must be submitted to a national referendum. Only a constitution of the people by the people and for the people will bind us together as Canadians.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to be able to speak on the constitutional proposals as presented by the government.
In my riding of Delta we recently had two meetings on two evenings in two areas of the electoral district to discuss these proposals and to find out just what the people of Delta had in mind and what they thought of the government's proposals.
At the time I promised that I would bring the report of the meeting to my colleague, the right hon. Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, and to the co-

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
chairs of the special joint committee on a renewed Canada.
I found that both of these meeting were very productive. I found that the people of Delta also appreciated very much the opportunity to present their views on the Canada we will be looking at in the future.
I do appreciate the fact that these meetings were both hosted by local community organizations, one by the Scott Road Business Association and the other by the Delta Chamber of Commerce, and by two very capable chairmen, Mr. Peter Podovinikoff and Mr. Sean Hogan. They did an excellent job. They brought focus to the meetings and helped to speed it along to keep the consensus and played a great part in the success of both of those evenings.
These events were designed to give the residents of my riding the opportunity to make known their views and concerns. My function was just to present the proposals with overhead projection and to listen and to see what the people felt and thought.
Out of the 150 people who attended the two meetings, approximately 35 had the opportunity to express their views. Their statements lasted anywhere from two minutes to fifteen minutes, but they all were thoughtful and sincere and obviously from the heart. I really appreciated the attitude and the atmosphere of the meetings as the people sought to seek a consensus and to understand the points of view of other people.
The general comments ran from veiy supportive to staunchly opposed to certain sections of the package. There was certainly no consensus. When the meetings were concluded those who attended at least left with a better understanding of the proposals and also what their neighbours and their community thought about the whole proposal.
Since it was not possible for the joint committee to meet in the Delta area, it was felt that this type of representation gave the people of Delta the opportunity to be heard. As I said, these conceptions have already been presented to the committee and to the right hon. Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
On the specific concerns that were mentioned at the meetings, we went through the various proposals. On reaffirming the rights and freedoms of citizens and on
the issue of property rights the vast majority was strongly in favour of property rights. Many people commented that it was a mistake not to have included these rights when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982.
The point was made on many occasions that all of the other constitutionalized countries of the world guarantee the right to property and that it was high time that Canada caught up with the rest of the world. Others pointed to it as a fact that was necessary to restrict the power of government over the people.
With regard to the notwithstanding clause, raising the majority to 60 per cent from 50 per cent, all of the participants who spoke on this item were unanimous that if it had to exist then strengthening it was a good change.
However, several speakers called for the total removal of the distinct society clause from the Constitution. Most cited the controversial Quebec sign law as a significant irritant to the rest of Canada and therefore justification for striking the clause.
It was pointed out at the meetings, again by the participants, that it was the western provinces that insisted on being a part of the charter in the first place and therefore it must play an important role for all the provinces.
On the matter of the distinct society clause, this was probably the most widely debated of all the issues in the meetings and people were very passionate on both sides. Those who spoke against the inclusion of this clause considered that it gave to one province a more significant role than the other nine.
One individual, for example, asked if a distinct society will be a sleeper clause that will be used to justify more powers for Quebec down the road. It was recommended that a limiting clause be added to it.
Another participant argued that Quebec's distinctiveness is an issue that was dreamed up in the minds of politicians. It was said that the official recognition of distinctiveness would further compound the problems that were created by the English and the French.
The criticism of culture being included in the distinct society clause was that Canada's many cultures have continued to flourish without official protection. The oriental population of B.C. was given as an example of a group of people whose language and culture has contin-
February 11, 1992

ued to flourish without the use of constitutional protection.
However, 14 out of the 22 people who spoke on the issue were in favour of the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness. Several cited history to prove that Quebec's distinctive language, culture and civil code have always been a fact in Canada. One observer said that we should walk a mile in a Quebecer's shoes and realize that if the situation were reversed, we would also fight for the preservation of English culture and language if we were surrounded by a population of 250 million French.
It was even said that the rest of Canada should learn from the pride that the people of Quebec have in their heritage and culture. Over all, people on this side of the issue said that they could not imagine Canada without a distinct Quebec.
On the matter of aboriginal self-government, again the opinions were divided. Some felt that it was a positive step and called for a shortening of the ten-year timeframe. Others however said that we should all just be Canadians and not further subdivide into groups. These individuals questioned the effects on the environment and on our nation's resources. Others were unclear as to how self-government would affect the Indian land claims process.
As far as the House of Commons and more free votes was concerned, it was unanimous that if not all House votes could be free, then at least there should be more of them.
Several people called for a change in the rules governing votes of non-confidence to free up the control of caucus. They emphasized that the member's primary responsibility was to represent the will of his constituents and that must come before the role of the party.
The matter of Senate reform is also a hotly debated item. Many called for the abolition of the Senate; others called for the Triple-E Senate. On the matter of election, all but one individual agreed that it must be elected. There were various views on the timing of these elections. It should be effective.
Some argued that the Senate should have the same powers of the House on all issues and not merely a suspensive veto on important issues. Others claimed that
The Constitution
this was just a duplication of the House and would be futile.
As far as equality was concerned, most people felt that it should be fully equal, that is that P.E.I. should have the same number of senators as Ontario and that this would be no more odd than the present situation where we have gross misrepresentation in the country. There was no consensus of the numbers of senators needed.
As far as the economic union was concerned, the majority of speakers were in favour of the economic union proposal and social benefits to all regions of Canada. However, they did raise concern over the opting out clause and complained that it lacked clarity and was going to be a point of real contention down the road.
One gentlemen also pointed to the language of a common market as being too divisive and making Canada sound like a collection of separate states. For the Council of Federation, nearly everybody felt that it was just one more level of government and we did not require it.
I see that my time is just about gone, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the remainder of my speech so that it can be on the record. It deals with the general themes.
I would like to conclude by saying that although there was a diversity of opinions and a diversity of thought that was represented in the meetings, there was a consensus that we wanted to hold Canada together, that we needed to have meaningful dialogue between the various factions. There was a general sense of good will and a desire to understand those with different and opposing viewpoints.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will accept all those documents from the hon. member.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say thank you to my hon. colleague from Delta for the remarks he has given. Surely we have been listening to many of the same people in our constituencies over the recess at Christmas time.
Before I begin to express the feelings and ideas that the constituents of Beaver River have impressed upon me, I would like to first of all thank all the members of this House for allowing this debate to take place. It is a

February 11, 1992
The Constitution
refreshing and welcome change to see this place used as it should be, and that is as an instrument for democratic representation.
By various means, a constituency-wide questionnaire and a series of public meetings over the recent recess, the constituents of Beaver River have voiced their opinions on every one of the 28 constitutional proposals put forward by the government. Many have suggested, however, that while they agree this round should in fact be a Canada round which attempts to satisfy all Canadians, the bulk of proposals are simply too large to deal with. The majority with whom I spoke in Beaver River feel that a constitutional agreement can never be reached with so many proposals on the table. I will therefore attempt to narrow the issues down to those that seem to be most prevalent in the minds of the constituents in Beaver River.
One of the most contentious and certainly the most salient proposal is that dealing with distinct society status for Quebec. In a special constitutional questionnaire I sent from my office to every household in Beaver River, I asked the question: "Should Quebec be recognized as a distinct society in the Constitution as defined by its French-speaking majority, unique culture and its civil law tradition?". The vast majority, 79 per cent, said no to recognition while only 21 per cent said yes.
Beaver Riverites, however, are not adverse to acknowledging that Quebec is really a distinct society. What they are adverse to is enshrining this principle in the Constitution. They worry that by doing so in the Constitution, Quebec will be granted not just a special status within Confederation, but in the final analysis, a superior status as well. Those in Beaver River agree and believe in equality. They believe in the equality of all provinces. They believe that their province is as equally distinct in terms of culture as is Quebec. Distinct society status for Quebec is therefore unacceptable to the people of Beaver River.
That is the symbolic part. The mechanical part is this. Although a distinct society has been defined since Meech Lake, it remains all-inclusive. Many commentators in the constituency have expressed concern over the aspect of culture as outlined in the new proposal. How would the word culture be interpreted in the courts? Leon Dion, a respected Laval political scientist, has expressed the opinion that in Quebec "one cannot separate culture and the economy". Thus, it seems to those people in Beaver River that this new definition
would be deficient in limiting the power a distinct society clause would have when applied to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Only by restricting the definition rather than making it inclusive might the people of Beaver River accept such a proposal.
Proposal 4 of the government's package deals with aboriginal self-government. This item is especially pertinent to my constituency as approximately 9 per cent of those residing in Beaver River are aboriginal peoples. At present, there appears to be a polarization of attitudes on this question. In my household survey, 49 per cent agree that the aboriginal population of Canada should have the right to self-government while 51 per cent disagreed. This close result seems to be the product of the absence of a concrete definition of what self-government is. As with the definition of distinct society, Beaver Riverites are weary of the broad parameters of the rights and jurisdictions that aboriginal governments might exercise.
One would surely not want to entrench the simple words self-government, leaving it entirely to judges to fill in its practical meaning. It is therefore difficult for the average citizen to comment on the substance of self-government until some actual details of the plan emerge.
Constituents through their letters to me have also expressed a reluctance to say yes to self-government without some prior agreement on taxation and spending measures. Many in Beaver River recognize the plight of the aboriginal peoples of Canada in their struggle for self-determination. They also recognize, however, that the politics of embedding specified cultural, ethnic or racial groups in the fabric of the Constitution is a dangerous game. It may inevitably lead to a competitive, antagonistic relationship between these different groups.
In perpetually exacerbating the differences among Canadians rather than outlining the similarities, many in Beaver River feel that the spiral of ethnic based politics will surely lead further down the road to disunity.
Of all the 28 proposals set down by the government, Senate reform is by far the most important to the people of Beaver River. Time and time again my constituents have implored that this country be given an equal, effective and elected Senate. Nothing short of the Triple-E model is acceptable. Eighty per cent of those who responded to my constitutional questionnaire indicated that elected and effective are not enough. Neither is a two and a half-E Senate enough, or a so-called

equitable Senate. The constituents of Beaver River have waited a very long time, in fact decades, to have this basic democratic principle enshrined in the Constitution. They have watched as senates the world over have balanced representation of the majority with representation by region. This basic democratic right can no longer be denied. The citizens of Beaver River ask for a Triple-E Senate and nothing less.
Finally, part III of the government's document: "Preparing for a more prosperous future" received a generally warm reception in my riding. Constituents are, for example, overwhelmingly in favour of broadening section 121, the Common Market clause. Most believe that the provincial and federal governments should work more closely to create an economic union which would facilitate the elimination of trade barriers between the provinces. Still, some questioned the efficacy of such an amendment, in that it seems to clarify an existing power and then proceeds to add restrictions to that exercise. Nevertheless the principle of free trade between the provinces is in accord with the attitude of Beaver River.
Other proposals in this section, however, are not acceptable. A good number of constituents tend to disagree that the mandate of the Bank of Canada should be to achieve and preserve price stability only. The concern is that the proposal here is too narrowly defined. Future monetary authorities may wish to address themselves to interest rates, exchange rates or growth rates, not simply the rate of inflation. Writing this proposal into the Constitution would effectively handcuff policymak-
The Constitution
ers in dealing with unforeseen events to come. This is the feeling of the constituents of Beaver River.
These then are some of the fundamental concerns and ideas voiced in my constituency which I heard time and time again over our five or six week recess. These are not the concerns of constitutional experts, lawyers or professional politicians. These are the concerns and ideas of ordinary Canadians, people who care about this country from sea to sea. These are the concerns and ideas that we, as members of Parliament, must listen to and act upon if Canada is to remain truly strong and free.
I would like to finish by saying that I am conducting a contest in my constituency right now for all high school students called the New Canada contest. It gives young people an opportunity to respond to what kind of new Canada they want to be part of in the 21st century. The contest closes in March. We are going to celebrate with a couple of winners of that contest having a chance to come to Ottawa and spend a couple of days here to see the hub of Canada working. I am excited and want to continue to promote the fact that young people really do care about this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being ten o'clock, pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, February 5, 1992, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 12,1992