1992-02-21

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 13, 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 Mr. Gauthier (p. 6964).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville has five minutes left.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, this Conservative government simply cannot manage the affairs of this country.
Because of this ineptitude, service to all Canadians is suffering. Its inability to deal fairly with public servants has had a devastating effect on public servant morale. This government has asked the Public Service to do more with less. The reality is that it is doing less with less resources. This must not continue.
As my party's spokesperson for multiculturalism and citizenship, I am particularly, concerned with employment equity. This bill contains a provision on employment equity. Unfortunately it is not enough. It is so vague and discretionary that it will not improve the participation of the four targets groups in the federal
Public Service which is still below acceptable level in spite of the established employment equity policy.
If the Public Service is to be truly reflective of the Canadian population, we must increase the numbers of visible minorities. We must increase the number of women and aboriginal people. We must bring in more people with disabilities.
The Liberal Party believes that all persons are entitled to equal opportunities for entry into the Public Service and will vigorously oppose any attempt to inhibit equality-
Employees must be given assurance that their experience and dedication are valued. Every effort will be made to retrain where necessary to enable them to continue their careers.
The government has failed to achieve in this so-called reform a means of meeting the challenges of the future. We must have public consultations where the interests of the public, of the employees and of the government can be melded into a policy that truly meets the needs of all Canadians.
Using its majority to rush a bill through Parliament is not what Canadians expect of their government. This House should take the time to weigh the consequences of its actions. We are being asked to make a decision that will affect the professional lives of thousands of people. We must have a clear understanding of everything that is at stake here. This cannot be done in a hurry, and that is why we have a duty to postpone this bill, at least for the time being, if we really want to act responsibly in the best interests of those who elected us.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I have already spoken on second reading of this bill. However, on this amendment there are certainly some

February 21, 1992
Government Orders
comments I want to make in response to the statement of the President of the Treasury Board.
He spoke of the process of Public Service 2000, and one of the things he said was that seldom in our history has a program of organizational change been undertaken of the scope and magnitude of Public Service 2000. I agree with him. The scope and magnitude of the impact is on the Public Service, most important on service to the public, on the very effectiveness of this Parliament in making its decisions and having them carried out. They are at stake in this legislation.
I find it therefore reprehensible that the minister, after two years of PS 2000 literally behind closed doors by his own admission, a management driven exercise without the direct involvement of the employees whose lives will be affected, without the direct involvement of the public and without the direct involvement of parliamentarians and after the expenditure of millions of dollars on this exercise, would insist that it be reported back to the House by the end of March. This is the kind of closure on committee that I have seen before during my time in this House. It is the kind of closure that I do not think is conducive to developing and passing good legislation and, more important in this particular case, to a successful revitalization of the Public Service to meet the challenges of the future.
I see also the Minister of Labour in the House. I want to quote from an excellent speech he gave recently called "Working Families Working Solutions" to a conference on partnerships for mutual advantage. He made some excellent points in that speech, which make me wish at this time he were the President of Treasury Board or that the President of Treasury Board shared his views.
I am going to quote extensively, because his points are exactly at the root of why the Standing Committee on Public Accounts said this legislation should not come forward until Parliament had an opportunity to review all of PS 2000 and look at what is appropriate legislation.
What he said is that those of us who care about the work place need to be innovative and caring. "The history of the last 15 to 20 years shows that countries best able to contend with economic change are those that have a tradition and commitment to strong labour management partnerships".
I underline "partnerships" because the bill before us is a contradiction of everything that has to do with labour-management partnerships. It is a refutation of that very principle, and it is a denial of the promise that the previous President of Treasury Board made that no legislation would come forward except what was mutually agreed to. What we have here is a bill that is 90 per cent, at least, not acceptable to those who represent the employees of the Government of Canada.
I am going to quote further from the minister. He said: "In Canada's most important industries, unions and companies are co-operating on issues of mutual concern. I believe the labour minister is entirely in tune with what is necessary to improve labour management relationships in this country, to ensure that we have a work force that is adaptable to change and prepared for the future". The minister knows-and I wish the President of Treasury Board knew it-there are companies in this world where union representatives sit on the board of directors of corporations so that they share mutually in the problems and prospects for the company.
The minister spoke at the same time about the Labour-Management Partnership Program. This is a $1.4 million program that has been put in place to assist unions and employees to work together on initiatives. He has talked about this program as promoting productive, fair work places.
"The commitment of Canadians", and I am still quoting from the Minister of Labour, "to joint action will be a major determinant of the extent to which we are successful in the world economy". I do hope the President of the Treasury Board is listening. "We Canadians", again quoting the Minister of Labour, "are only beginning to see what joint action on the part of labour and management can yield for us. By coming together we can achieve enormously for our workers and for Canadian society as a whole".
That should be the purpose, that should have been the process of PS 2000. In indicating an unreasonably tight time line, less than three weeks, for a legislative committee to report back to this House, the minister asked for non-partisan and constructive co-operation. The minister knows that from the time he took over his portfolio he had the offer of that co-operation on this dossier from me. I think he knows that the offer was genuine. It
February 21, 1992

was based on the public accounts committee's recommendations that it was absolutely essential to have a special parliamentary committee that could hear all parties, that could consider the public interest, that could consider the views of the employees as well as those of management. Unfortunately the actions of the minister since then and of the government have made that impossible. We have a huge bill here.
The last time the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act were brought into this House, it was the result of total process of co-operation, consultation that involved parliamentarians, that involved the public, that involved employees and that involved managers. But they are only one part of the solution to the problems that confront the Public Service today.
There were 118 amendments brought forward in spite of all that long period of consultation because that bill was then and is now dealing with some fundamental issues of vital importance to this country. I tell the minister that offer of co-operation and non-partisanship is still open to him. He only has to do, as has been recommended by the public accounts committee, as has been proposed by this party in this House, set up that committee of parliamentarians. Let us have a thorough review of this bill, bring back to this House legislation that is acceptable to all parties and that can be passed overnight.
This party and this member will not co-operate on a blanket permission to contract out without any process of accountability and without any policy on contracting out. This party and this member will not co-operate on a bill that leaves everything to be done by regulation following the passage of the bill. This party will not co-operate on the undermining of the merit principle which has been at the root of the Public Service of Canada for over 70 years. This party will not co-operate on departing from equity and fairness in employment and promotion in the Public Service nor on accountability to Parliament and accountability to the public for how its human and financial resources are being used.
We will not co-operate on the right of employees to a fair hearing when they feel their rights have been abused and their opportunities in the Public Service jeopardized. We will not co-operate, above all, on the diminution of
Government Orders
service to the public because that is what our Public Service is all about.
We will not co-operate on the politicization of the Public Service and that is what this bill is all about.
This is an important bill. It deserves the attention of parliamentarians. It deserves the attention of a legislative committee that will have ample opportunity to hear views, to consider and to do what Canadians do so well to accommodate, to listen to one another, to balance the various interests and to come up with a bill that will serve Canadians and Parliament well for the next decade and into the next century.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, I spoke on this bill a few days ago. I gave notice at that time that I wanted to speak on the amendment by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier.
What the amendment is asking for is that the bill be withdrawn and the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I know it is not always protocol to say who is here and who is not, but I want to make mention of how very pleased I am that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Labour are both here to listen to and to take part in these debates.
I sat on the committee which studied the Finkelman report in 1976. At that time, we proceeded with great deliberation with the recommendations that were brought forward at the time.
My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier and I spent many hours listening to the witnesses who appeared before the committee. We did bring out very strong recommendations. In all modesty, I believe they were of service not only to our public servants but also to all the people of Canada.
I want to put on record as the critic for labour that the Liberal Party views our public servants as very hardworking and dedicated people.
We malign ourselves as a nation when we say that the people who are administering the programs which we legislate here in Parliament are not doing their work, or when we give any indication that their work is not acceptable. In doing a disservice to them, we do a disservice to ourselves.

Government Orders
I spoke the last time of the Liberal Party view of the Public Service. Today I want to address the merit principle per se.
Our party supports the merit principle. We will oppose the government's efforts to reintroduce what we believe is patronage and favouritism in the Public Service.
I will just set this all in perspective once again. In 1919, the Civil Service Commission, now the Public Service Commission, was established to safeguard the principle that the best qualified person would be selected for appointment, promotion and transfer in the Public Service.
This ideal has not changed. This objective has not changed. We in the Liberal Party intend to pursue this as our goal. This principle was established to stop the rampant political and administrative patronage and to ensure Canadians had a non-partisan Public Service where employment and opportunities were open to all based on competence, not favouritism.
It was not unknown even as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, not necessarily in our Public Service but in some public services in the provinces, that when a government changed, the bureaucrats were changed almost wholesale right across the province. That was not fair.
That was rampant, political patronage and we must not have that happen again here with our public servants.
Incidentally, this principle contributed to the protection of employee rights to fair treatment based on ability by establishing appeal procedures. We set up a system whereby if the employee believed that he was not being treated fairly then he did have an appeal procedure which would guarantee fairness.
As well, it ensures that government services are delivered to all Canadians without political favouritism. Sadly, I have heard it said that some people are more equal than others when it comes to dealing with public servants.
I do not believe this. I do not hold this to be true, but if we are going to continue with a principle that we established, then I suggest to you we not only have to
have the procedures set in place but we have to work in a spirit of mutual trust.
This legislation, in my opinion, seriously undermines the merit principle. It leaves all but original hiring and limited promotions to the discretion of managers, while opening the door to patronage and favouritism and punitive measures based on a manager's personal likes or dislikes, or to the whims of the government of the day.
I am not only talking about this government that is in place now, but also about future governments.
What we are trying to do is to enact legislation which will be fair not only for today but also for all the tomorrows to come so that our civil servants can be treated fairly.
The ability of the Public Service Commission to be the watch-dog of the public interest is very severely curtailed if it feels it is in any way being hampered.
I want to turn now to employment equity as opposed to just equity in general.
Bill C-26 contains a provision on employment equity that is very vague. In fact, it is so vague and discretionary as to be almost meaningless.
Surely the ministers and the members here will admit that this particular provision requires no accountability. Without accountability, I maintain that the bill is flawed.
We support a strong provision in the legislation committing the Public Service to employment equity and to accountability for treating all applicants and employees equally on merit.
We believe that all persons are entitled to equal opportunities to enter and progress in the Public Service.
I and my colleagues will oppose measures that inhibit equality.
The lack of equity in opportunities for employment and advancement in the Public Service is well documented.
There was a report called Beneath the Veneer. This was a report of the Thsk Force on Barriers to the Employment and Promotion of Women in the Public Service. It is the most recent documentation that attitudes are the main barrier to equality of opportunity.

These attitudes, often unconscious, keep women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and aboriginal Canadians lumped in the lower echelons of the Public Service.
Surely we have progressed enough in this day and age that we know that all Canadians are equal under the Constitution. This is our birthright. This belongs to all of us, simply by the fact that we are Canadian citizens.
We must not allow legislation to go through which could in any way be interpreted as somehow disfavouring our visible minorities or weakening our positive attitudes towards women, aboriginal people, and people with either physical or mental disabilities.
The merit principle is not operating equally for these target groups. If selection for promotion were based only on ability I maintain that these groups would be represented at all levels, at least proportionally to the representation in the Public Service.
I maintain from all of the data I have been able to study that they are not. I have some examples to fortify my point.
The first example concerns contracting out, privatization, and this new word that we have, downsizing. That is another word for firing people or letting them go. The use of short-term employees and personnel service contracts have all made it more difficult to correct the inequities of the past. New managerial discretion means the same attitudes identified in the report "Beneath the Veneer" will be unchanged in any way. Thrget groups fear, and I believe rightly so, that favouritism based on outdated images of who is competent and who is not competent will prevail without looking into the background of these people to see what their true abilities are.
Another aside about this type of treatment is, I believe, that potential for harassment, mental harassment and, yes, even sexual harassment is increased when managers have increased control over one's employment opportunities. If you do not please a manager, in effect what you are doing is excluding your chances to advance in the Public Service.
I conclude with this statement. I agree with my colleague, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, who I be-
Govemment Orders
lieve will be chairing this committee. I hope he is chairing the committee so that we can have an impartial person looking into the different processes and the legislation which is proposed.
We are committed to stability and fair treatment in the Public Service of all of the employees. I speak for my party, as the labour critic, when I say we will oppose measures that reduce the commitment to train and continue the employment of those affected by these changing requirements.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate today on the motion to amend the motion for second reading of this bill, an amendment proposed by my very distinguished colleague from Ottawa-Vanier.
As you know, Madam Speaker, he has risen in this House and spoken in this debate a few times now. I recall that on the first day of debate on second reading, he indicated his desire to speak for longer than the allotted time, which I think was 20 minutes, and of course the House denied him the unanimous consent to continue, notwithstanding his great knowledge of matters relating to the Public Service, for reasons that I simply cannot fathom.
Now we have the government squawking that this debate is going on too long and yet it denied the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who knows more about the Public Service than the minister, the opportunity to participate and give the House the benefit of his views, which I may say are much more in accord with the wishes of the public in Canada and the Public Service in particular than are the views of the government and the minister as expressed in this silly bill.
The sad thing is this bill is designed to take away the rights of public servants. That is why we have been objecting to this. The government is unilaterally changing the work conditions for public servants. I must say that from all the indications I have, and I am not an expert in the matter of procedure in dealing with bills of this kind, this method is quite unprecedented.
The minister says he can see that. Of course, I would defer to his authority if he would defer to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and agree with his approach to things. The member for Ottawa-Vanier has been here longer than both the minister and I and knows

February 21, 1992
Government Orders
a great deal more about this than either of us do, I suggest to the minister.
I was hoping that the minister would follow past practice, which has been to send the matters for study to a committee in advance and then have a bill come to the House on matters relating to the Public Service. It is quite unprecedented for the government to act unilaterally in a bulldozing way to force its will on the Public Service of Canada as it is doing by Bill C-26.
As I indicated in my earlier speech, which again was cut off because of this new 10-minute rule, I said that this bill was an unfair attack for various reasons. One of the reasons that I did not get to expand on properly and that I would like to explain is that of a rule that allows for the government to proceed with contracting out. We all know that there is no restriction on the government's ability to contract out. However, public servants objected to the fact that they were laid off after contracting out "because of lack of work or because of the discontinuance of a function". The act currently allows for public servants to be laid off because of lack of work or because of the discontinuance of a function.
The Public Service Staff Relations Board in March 1990 ruled that the government could not contract out services and then lay off public servants because of a lack of work. Obviously there was no lack of work. It simply ended the opportunity to do the work by public servants by the contracting out. The government thought this was a dreadful decision from the Public Service Staff Relations Board and appealed it to the Federal Court.
Mr. Justice Mahoney, a distinguished and capable judge of great experience on the bench, heard the appeal and gave a decision for the majority of the court. He said: "It cannot, in my view, be said that the services of an employee whose job has been contracted out are not required because of lack of work or the discontinuance of a function. That employee is not required only because the job has been contracted out. The work remains to be done and the function continues".
It makes perfect sense. That is what the learned judge said in his decision. The government did not like that. The government was wrong. It did not like being told it was wrong by the Public Service Staff Relations Board and by the Federal Court and so it brought in this bill.
Clause 19 of the bill gives the government the power to lay off following contracting out. In other words, it can say to public servants: "We think the job you are doing costs us too much. We would rather give it to some of our fat cat Tory friends. We will make a contract with the fat cat Tories and then lay you off and let somebody else make the money".
The minister wags his head. He knows that what I am saying is correct. He is laughing at the plight of the Public Service that he is mistreating by this bill.
The second aspect of the bill that I want to talk about is clause 22 which gives deputy heads of departments the right to deploy staff, that is to shift members of staff around within the deputy head's jurisdiction without any competition.
Deployment, as used in this sense, is simply another word for transfer. Under the present act, transfers are considered staffing actions and are subject to the merit principle and therefore may be appealed. In other words, the best person for the job has to be found within the limits of the class that is allowed to apply and then is transferred to the position, but that apparently is no longer the case. Now we are simply taking away the right of public servants to compete for these transfers. The decision will rest only with the deputy head.
The administrative practice of many, many years, I cannot tell you how far back this goes and perhaps the minister could enlighten us in a speech that he might make on this, but I am sure this practice has existed in the Public Service for easily 30 to 40 years. Now it is being changed so that there is no further right of appeal if a public servant is not transferred to a position that he or she wishes to seek.
The Public Service Commission implemented an exclusion approval order removing the right of appeal on any movement of an individual from one position to another identical classification group and level. This order was challenged and last month the Federal Court of Canada struck it down because the order "departs substantially from the merit principle". In other words, the merit principle, which has been the highlight and the test for transfer and promotion in the Public Service, is being abandoned by the government in this bill. Why? Political convenience, what else?
February 21, 1992

Why would the government seek to take away from Canadians the right to expect that the best person will be appointed for the job? Because it wants to put its own friends in the job, that is why. This is an abuse of the Canadian Public Service which has been the envy of many other countries because of its independence and its impartiality in terms of political matters. The government by this bill is seeking, in my submission, to politicize Canada's Public Service and it is entirely, entirely inappropriate.
The next change that I think is of great significance is the change in the Financial Administration Act. Clause 81 of the bill gives jurisdiction over termination and demotion of employees. It transfers this out of the Public Service Act and out of the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission and gives it to the Treasury Board. That has to be one of the strangest things going. Why would you have an independent body which was an adjudicative body dealing with termination and demotion cases suddenly lose its jurisdiction and have the employer, through the Treasury Board, exercise that jurisdiction?
In other words, if your employer fires you, you appeal to the Treasury Board, which is your employer's board for redress. Why is the independent body being deprived of its ability to make those adjudications? Did the government not like the decisions of the Public Service Commission? Was that the problem? One would suspect so. It appoints the members to it. What happened? Did it not get the right people?
I cannot understand this. It is inconceivable that any other employer would take unto itself the right to hear the appeals, particularly where the employer is a political body, such as the Government of Canada and should be accountable through a much more independent mechanism in its dealings with its public servants. That is what we have had in this country for many, many years, I think since about World War 1.1 may be wrong, but the Public Service Commission is not a new institution in Canada and now the government is undermining its authority in this very important respect.
I see that my time has expired. For all these reasons I urge the House to agree to the amendment proposed by
Government Orders
the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and scupper this bill at second reading.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this particular piece of legislation once again. I have indicated previously and I want to stress again that I consider this an attack on the Public Service.
One might ask why this would be occurring at this particular time. Well, Madam Speaker, you and I both know that the civil service is a handy target. Some people talk about their large salaries, their generous benefits and what have you.
One of the things I find surprising is that people put the blame on the civil servants as opposed to those who have granted those benefits. We all know they have unions that represent them and sit down with government to bargain. It is governments that say yes or no. Therefore, why do the civil servants become the targets?
Obviously in a climate such as exists right now where there is a lot of apprehension, anxiety and concern about one's job today, tomorrow and in the future, they become easy, handy targets and I am really concerned about this. I am concerned about the myths that we allowed to speak about the lack of excellence. It is an excellent civil service, yet we propagate these kinds of myths. I find this unfortunate because I find it extremely divisive.
Some countries undertake military or bold action in order to make themselves more popular in the polls when they are suffering electorally. In this particular case, the government has targeted a number of groups. One of them, I maintain, is the civil service. I really find this very, very unfortunate.
Let us look at the purpose of this particular bill. On paper it looks very good. What we want to do is attempt to deal with a changing situation. Obviously we cannot manage and govern as we did a number of years ago. Obviously we need to change the rules and regulations. Obviously we need to find that right balance between permitting the managers to undertake a number of decisions within their discretion. At the same time we need to protect employees and the rights they have acquired overtime.

February 21, 1992
Government Orders

We need that balance between managers and employees who have acquired certain rights through years of collective bargaining, and I think the two can be combined without denying employees their rights. It would be unfortunate if we were to do that.

As you know, this particular piece of legislation will permit people to hire, fire and transfer employees without the normal protections they now have. The merit principle is in jeopardy. There will be contracting out. I find it interesting that the government claims that contracting out saves money. When I asked on the Order Paper for a record of everything that had been contracted out, I was told that under a certain figure, the figures are not available. Why? What in the world are we trying to hide?
If you are really saving money, you ought to be proud, government, to show it in black and white. Of course the suspicion is that there is no money being saved. These are simply ways in order to permit those who are friendly to government to profit from government. Until I receive a clear, precise answer to the question I have raised, I shall continue to doubt the government's intentions in this particular matter.
I believe I could find a great deal of support for my feeling that there has been inadequate consultation with a number of people. The government will cite the meetings, but ask the employees whether or not they feel comfortable. Ask the employees whether or not there needs to be additional discussions. There does need to be additional discussions. This is major legislation that will affect services throughout Canada.

Another example of a government that is undermining the very foundations of this country is that it has launched attacks on VIA Rail, Air Canada, Canada Post-all institutions that bound this country together, that made it strong and far more united than it is today. And it continues to attack one institution after another in order to destroy this country. The government may not be doing this on purpose, but the result is the same.

The government priorities are privatization, contracting out, the use of short-term employees. I have yet to see proof that this is going to be helpful to us, that this is going to be helpful to Canadians in general and that this is going to improve the climate, the morale in the Public Service, that this will get better performance out of men and women who have committed a major part of their lives to Canada and to serving Canadians.

I ask the government to reconsider this bill and to give serious consideration to the amendments that have been proposed, so that when they proceed with the bill, they are absolutely sure they are doing something that will be good for all Canadians across this country.
I sincerely hope they will reflect on the recommendations they have received and on the advice they have just been given, because I believe that if this government decides to take our advice, Canadians across this country will benefit. However, we Canadians throughout the country will pay for it if they go ahead without the necessary consultation, without protecting the merit principle, without ensuring that this bill does exactly what it should do, namely to strike a fair balance between the rights of supervisors and managers and those of the employees who serve Canadians.
That concludes what I wanted to say this morning.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, for the few minutes remaining in the debate, I shall speak in support of the amendment of my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. We are privileged to have the President of the Treasury Board here with us this morning. He knows the public service well because he was part of it before he entered politics. He distinguished himself in the public service as a civil servant and as a diplomat. So I am sure that he understands this whole issue very well and is sensitive to it.
I would like to deal with this question not from a technical angle but from a practical one. Madam Speaker, you, like me and all our colleagues, probably meet public servants often. One of the most common complaints is that public servants feel that they have to know someone in the system in order to get ahead. This bill confirms that attitude.
February 21, 1992

That is why I support the amendment moved by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. What he is really asking us to do is to set this bill aside and refer the whole matter to the Public Accounts Committee. This committee does outstanding work and I think that it is one of the few committees that is non-partisan and works in a non-partisan way. We should look at the bill objectively and come back with something that could really put some order in the public service. That is very important for our country, so that Canadians can have the services to which they are entitled and which they need. At the same time those who work in that system can feel that they can advance on the basis of merit if they are competent.
I think that the amendment of my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier is reasonable. I would hope that the government and the President of the Treasury Board, who is here in the House, would decide to act along the lines of the kind of parliamentary reform we would like to see and let members consider this matter in committee.
If people feel cynical about Parliament today, they are right. The government is forcing a bill on us. We have no choice in the matter. The only choice we have is to vote for or against the bill. I think it would be a step toward parliamentary reform if the public accounts committee, which has members from all sides of the House, from all recognized political parties, could consider this bill and come back with legislation on Public Service reform that we as Canadians, as the government of this country and as Parliament, could accept as being fair and equitable to all members of our Public Service.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I know that the House order we are operating under allows approximately five minutes more in the debate. I thought that I should take advantage of this opportunity to participate for a few moments and to put a few thoughts on the record.
This bill was, as you know, Madam Speaker, tabled first back in June 1991 so it has been before the House for quite some time now, before the House in the sense that it has been available to members and to the people
Government Orders
in the Public Service. The public has had an opportunity to look at the bill and to express its concerns about it and to make sure that the issue had a profile within the country. Of course, that is something that is extremely crucial in a democracy such as we have.
The bill before us is important. It is a bill that has been discussed in terms of its preparation for a long time. It has received a great deal of consultation and a great deal of input from a number of different people. As a result, I think the bill before us will receive certainly the majority support of this House, and considerable support across the country.
What I have found particularly intriguing is that as I have watched the process unfold, I have watched my good friend from Vanier, who is a very capable and competent individual and also a very skilled parliamentarian, on two separate occasions move amendments to the bill that, although they are couched in very nice language, have essentially had exactly the same impact. That impact has been to derail the bill, to destroy the bill, to prevent the bill from making any progress here in the House of Commons. Even though we as members have had an opportunity to look at the legislation, we will have a further opportunity to debate it and a further-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is getting away with something I know he would not want to get away with. I hope he will accept this correction. He says this bill has been before the House since June of last year. That is correct. It was introduced and given first reading on June 18, but debate-they are talking about debate-started on January 10.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands knows the rules of this place very well and he knows he was entering into debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is misleading Canadians again.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your kind intervention and your wise ruling that what my hon. friend was doing was entering into debate.
I should remind him that I sat here very quietly and listened to him make his remarks, which I thought were totally outrageous. I cannot believe what I heard, and I am looking forward to reading it in Hansard. I cannot believe that my hon. friend would have made such outrageous statements, such unbelievable assertions and

February 21, 1992
yet have his own name attached to them on the public record of this House of Commons.
I have to admit I was startled but, in keeping with the decorum of this fine institution, I sat here quietly, listened and waited until I had an opportunity to take a few moments to participate in this debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have a feeling that today is Friday.


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it could be Friday, February 21, but nevertheless, the member is trying to insinuate-I cannot use the word mislead-to Canadians that this bill has been before this House for more than two or three weeks at best. It is not true. He knows because he was there. He is part of the government.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, because of these rude interruptions, I have not had an opportunity to express what I wanted to say.
I want to say, and I have said it very clearly, this bill was tabled June 18, 1991. That is some six months ago. The House has then-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately now I must interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.
It being 10.55 a.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 19, 1992, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of second reading stage of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Order adopted Wednesday, February 19, 1992, the recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, February 24,
1992.	The sitting of the House is now suspended until 11 a.m.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I realize that it is just two minutes before statements start. I think some members are in the House who are prepared to commence their statements. Perhaps we could start two minutes early for a change.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, as long as members who are prepared to participate are here and are ready to proceed, I think that is a wise idea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We shall call it eleven o'clock. Since it is eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed with Members' Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, as I walked to the House today, I saw the bright sky reflecting the beauty of this country which we too often take for granted.
I thought, what a pity so great an artist and a Canadian as Alfred Joseph Casson will no longer be here to interpret such glory for us.
February 21, 1992

I am proud to say that he was bom in Toronto in the closing years of the last century, 1898, and was soon recognized as one of this country's great talents by the members of the Group of Seven who admitted him to their ranks in 1926.
From his colleagues, notably Lawren Harris, he developed a style based on simplification and the elimination of non-essentials.
He went on to contribute even more than his paintings by giving his full support to environmental causes.
Joining the ranks of the Order of Canada as an officer in 1978, he exposed this country to us in ways that did credit to all other members of that order and to the country itself.
There are those individuals who are given the talent to contribute something special to society. A. J. Casson was such a Canadian. Fortunately many of his works remain preserved in the public.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian negotiating team for GATT agricultural talks is in Geneva. Almost 30,000 Canadian farmers are in Ottawa demonstrating their support for supply management.
The message is very clear. Do not let supply management be sacrificed at the GATT talks.
If government lets supply management die, over 500 family farms in the dairy sector in Prince Edward Island will be destroyed. Hundreds of other Islanders could lose their jobs over the next few years if government gives in to foreign pressure.
Weakness at the GATT would be an economic disaster for Prince Edward Island. Supply management is the safest and most reliable food distribution system in the world.
The Prime Minister and Canada's GATT negotiators must persuade GATT to continue to strengthen article XI.


GASPE PENINSULA
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, tourism plays a predominant role in Quebec's economy and brings in more than $4 billion annually in revenue. Eastern Quebec, especially the Gaspe Peninsula, is among the most popular tourist destinations. Thanks to local entrepreneurship, a new company in Perce, Set-Ha Inc., will offer excursions for tourists starting next season.
This project, which represents an investment of $1,650,000, was assisted by the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, which contributed $495,000. Construction will be carried out by Kata-Marine International, a shipyard in Paspebiac, in the Gaspe. The project, in addition to generating several dozen jobs, will help diversify tourist attractions in Perce and should encourage the 300,000 visitors that come to this part of the country every year to stay a little longer next time. People in the Gaspe are often told to start doing things for themselves. This project is only one example among many of the energy and entrepreneurship of the people of the Gaspe. The Gaspe lives.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, thousands of farmers have gathered today on Parliament Hill to show the government their deep concern over the future of agriculture in Canada if supply management is not preserved at the GATT.
The GATT deal is near and much is at stake for our producers.
Supply management has been the cornerstone of Canadian agriculture. It has provided Canadians with an abundant supply of quality and reasonably priced food.
Our producers have asked our government to stand firm in Geneva and fight to have article XI of the GATT clarified and strengthened.

I was very happy to witness in this House on February 12 the unanimous support given to a motion which sought the protection and continuation of supply management.
We all realize that Canadian agriculture is much more than producers, processors and consumers. It is a part of our heritage and when a Canadian farm dies, a part of Canada dies too.
I join with the farmers from my riding of Stormont- Dundas who are outside this building today with fellow producers in calling upon the government to fight tooth and nail at GATT for the preservation of supply management.


LAVAL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTRE
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, I want to tell you about some initiatives put forward by our government to support research and development in Quebec. R and D plays a leading role in the growth of our companies and of the whole country. Unfortunately research institutions sometimes face financial problems. To meet this need, we set up a program to increase scientific research and technological development activities.
Through this program we were able to contribute $5 million to the Laval University Hospital Research Centre in Ste.-Foy to help it expand and modernize.
This project involves investments totaling more than $35 million and will create and consolidate more than 400 high-tech jobs.
In conclusion, this assistance program is an excellent way to give a new impetus to research establishments so that they in turn can contribute to economic development-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member because unfortunately her time has expired. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, the GATT negotiations going on right now are crucial for Canada.
They are important for producers because our system of supply management is good for them. They know how much product they are going to be able to produce and dispose of. They know that they will get the reasonable price that they have negotiated. It is good for them.
It is good for the people working in the processing industry. As long as we are producing our own product those processing plants will have an opportunity to dispose of the small surplus that is calculated to satisfy just the process market.
It is good for communities in many parts of Canada where they are totally dependent upon the agricultural input into those communities.
It is good for Canada as a whole. It is a system unique to Canada, better than anything else anywhere in the world to produce the required amount of product.
The government has an opportunity and a responsibility to stand up not just for producers, not just for consumers, but for the whole of Canada and to say: "We are a sovereign nation. We will do this because it is good for Canada. We want you to work with us, but we are going to do it".


WOMEN'S SPEED SKATING TEAM
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to draw the attention of my colleagues in this House to two marvelous award winning performances by our Canadian athletes yesterday in Albertville.
I would point out that for the first time in Olympic history, the short track speed skating competition qualifies for medals. The Canadian women's team in the 3,000-metre relay won the gold medal for this event.
February 21, 1992

I wish to congratulate our speed skating veteran, Sylvie Daigle of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Nathalie Lambert of Montreal and two newcomers to the team, Angela Cutrone of Saint-Leonard, Quebec and Annie Perreault of Windsor. I have nothing but admiration for them.
I would also like to make particular mention of Miss Perreault's contribution. She is from my riding of Richmond-Wolfe. She must be very proud of herself today. Her family and her coach must be very proud of her too, and so are all Canadians, including me.


FARMERS' RALLY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, today on Parliament Hill tens of thousands of angry, frustrated and scared farmers are rallying to bring to the attention of this government their concern over the government's weak-kneed attempt to save supply management.
Our system of marketing ensures that the supply of a product does not exceed the demand for it. It provides producers with a reasonable return for their hard work while guaranteeing consumers across Canada high quality food at reasonable prices.
These farmers want the Prime Minister to personally meet President Bush and demand an American commitment to article XI.
They also want the Prime Minister to personally meet with them today to explain his actions in getting this commitment from the Americans.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, the federal government has consistently supported those Canadian agricultural producers who have requested that their sector be supply managed.
In fact the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency was established as late as 1986.
It is clear that the existing article XI of GATT is inadequate.
Therefore, with the support of Canadian dairy, egg and poultry producers, Canada has sought as part of its negotiating strategy at the current GATT round a strengthened article XI which would guarantee the import quota protection that is required by the supply managed sectors.
The problem is that the Canadian position on the import quotas has been declared unacceptable by all but a tiny handful of other countries.
I hope the delegation of farm leaders presently in Europe will be able to make the European Community better understand the Canadian position.
This calls for substantial reductions to all trade-distorting subsidies, increased access to international markets, a strengthened article XI, and clearer trade rules that equally apply to all nations.



Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, just outside the halls of Parliament today we have thousands of farmers gathered, fighting to save their jobs, their livelihood.
They are dairy farmers and poultry farmers. They are fighting against what is happening at the GATT talks.
I make an appeal to the Prime Minister of this country to fly to Washington to talk to George Bush directly and personally.
George Bush and the American administration are the main obstacles in fighting against our dairy farmers and our poultry farmers.
There are tens of thousands of farmers out there. It affects not only them, but also their families, their livelihood.
It affects thousands of jobs across this country in the food-processing industry from one coast of this country right to the other.
This is a Canadian issue. We have to stand up for our Canadian farmers, our Canadian people.
If this Prime Minister does not fly to Washington in the next few days to talk to George Bush, he is derelict in his duties as Prime Minister of Canada.

February 21, 1992


ATLANTIC ECONOMY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, the Atlantic economy has supported a disproportionate share of this government's economic assault on the Canadian economy.
There has been record-high unemployment in the region, record-high bankruptcies and a fishery which has been mismanaged by this government into utter collapse.
Now we here mutterings that in Tuesday's budget the government plans to take aim at the Canadian military once again. The military has already been savaged by indiscriminate cuts that border on lunacy.
These further cuts may also seriously damage the shipbuilding industry in Atlantic Canada, if indeed the government downsizes or cancels contracts for the frigate program or the coastal patrol vessel program.
These contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, are not only vital for the efficient functioning of the Canadian navy but also are absolutely essential for the survival of the shipbuilding industry in Halifax and Dartmouth; Saint John, New Brunswick; and Georgetown, P.E.I.
I warn this government that the thousands of employees in the military and shipbuilding industry in Atlantic Canada will simply not tolerate another frontal assault by this government.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, the farmers from Abitibi-Temiscamingue must not see their supply management system taken away from them at the GATT negotiations.


ANGELA CUTRONE
Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the great pleasure of rising in this House today to congratulate, on behalf of all my constituents, Angela Cutrone from Saint-Leonard for her splendid achievement at the Albertville Olympic Games.
Angela Cutrone, Sylvie Daigle, Annie Perreault and Natalie Lambert left for Albertville to represent Canada
with determination and with the confidence of their country. They are coming back as champions of the 3,000 meter short track speed skating relay. All Canadians savour this victory with them. Their performance was impeccable. The people of Saint-Leonard are especially proud of one of their own.
Angela, I congratulate you for your courage and for your winning performance. I thank you for winning this gold medal and having so proudly represented Saint-Leonard as well as the rest of Canada.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, more than 1,00 farmers from my riding are demonstrating on Parliament Hill today, and I want to let them know I support their action regarding the GATT negotiations. I would like to mention the participation of the President of the UPA Nicolet Federation, Mr. Rejean St-Pierre, and of the administrators and farm producers from Drummond, namely Messrs. Alain Desilets, Auguste Boily, Armand Courchesne, Ghislain Grondin, Michel Lambert, Edouard Oberli, Daniel Zuchoski, Rosaire Baril, Constant Cardinal, Jacques Corriveau, Mrs. Ginette Duff and Messrs. Jean-Claude Paradis and Guy Lefebvre.
The government said many times that it wanted to protect and maintain the four pillars of agriculture in Quebec, at the same time as it sought to strenghten article XI. I want to reassure farmers that, from the very beginning, the government's position on Article XI and marketing boards has not changed and it intends to defend those policies to the end.
In fact, Madam Speaker, all members of the House of Commons, both on the government side and in the opposition, support this position.


PORCUPINE CARIBOU HERD
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of another important victory for the Gwich'in peoples of Alaska, Yukon and Northwest Territories in their fight to preserve an arctic way of life.

After intense lobbying by Gwich'in peoples and others, an amendment to the U.S. energy bill that would have opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas development was withdrawn from the United States Senate earlier this week.
This is just one victory, for there will be other attempts to open up this fragile wilderness area to development. This development would threaten the very survival of a national treasure, the porcupine caribou herd upon which the Gwich'in have depended for thousands of years.
I therefore call on the federal government to again urge the American government to honour its agreement to Canada to protect the caribou for now and for future generations.


AEROPLANE INDUSTRY
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, as you know, I have on several occasions risen in this House to make a plea that this government give a very high priority to the development and expansion of the aeroplane industry in this country.
I call upon it to do that because this is an industry that I think could be hugely beneficial by creating a tremendous number of job opportunities and a great deal of investment in this country. It can do so without need of taxpayers' money. It is simply a matter of regulatory changes both in terms of licensing of pilots and in terms of creating a recreational category of aeroplanes.
The argument I face in pushing this industry is that we must as Canadians wait for other countries to develop regulations that would be consistent with ours, thus providing us with a market.
I argue that we led on the advanced ultra-light regulations. We can also lead on this. We can create a market in Canada and the rest of the world will follow us.
Oral Questions PINK SLIPS


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, plant and store closings have unfortunately become a daily occurrence in Canada.
In common parlance, a notice of work lay-off is known as receiving the pink slip. I have received 1,106 pink slips, similar to the one I hold in my hand, from the members of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of Welland.
The pink slip is intended as a discharge paper to the Prime Minister and this government. It also represents the concerns, worries and despair of my constituents who find themselves unemployed due to government policies such as the free trade agreement, implementation of the GST, and many others.
As it says on this pink slip, enough is enough.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, the former Minister of Agriculture.
On Wednesday the Liberal member for Parliament for Gatineau-La Lievre asked whether the Prime Minister would be attending the farm rally today. The Prime Minister refused to answer.
Yesterday the member for Haldimand-Norfolk asked whether the Prime Minister would be attending the farm rally. The Prime Minister refused to answer.
It is not a hard question. The government has had 48 hours to think about it.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will join with the Prime Minister today to meet with the tens of thousands of Canadian farmers who have a right to hear directly from their Prime Minister?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Yes, Madam Speaker, it is my

February 21, 1992
Oral Questions
intention not only to meet but to address the group of concerned farmers.
The Prime Minister, as the House very well knows, has been working on this issue very hard. He has spoken to Chancellor Kohl and Mr. Delors. He has spoken to Mr. Major. He has communicated today with the Prime Minister of Japan and with Italy. He will be meeting with the Prime Minister of Italy, Mr. Andreotti, in Toronto some time later next week. As well he intends to meet with Mr. Bush on this as soon as arrangements can be made.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question was very specific. Will the Prime Minister meet today with the farmers? He has a right and a responsibility as Prime Minister to tell Canadian farmers where he and his government stand not only in public but in private on the specific issue of article XI.
Every political party in this country, except the Reform Party, says it supports marketing boards. In fact the Prime Minister has been unsuccessful in convincing his great friend, George Bush, that the Americans should allow the Canadian farmers to survive.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: Will the Prime Minister tell farmers today what specific action he will take with his good friend, George Bush, to let him understand that the Canadian farm family's survival is critical to the survival of our country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member does not have to lecture me on the position of the government with respect to article XI.
I was the Minister of Agriculture when this position was developed. It was developed in a very methodical way, in close consultation with all the producers across the country and with all the provincial governments. It is a balanced position that has been defended from the time it was developed, has been defended in the interim and is being defended today by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of State for Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade, all cabinet colleagues and all the caucus of this government.
In so far as what the Prime Minister is doing, I just outlined to the hon. member what the Prime Minister was doing. He has met with farm leaders and farm
representatives on two occasions this week. He has communicated in public. I indicated to the hon. member that I will be there representing the Prime Minister today, on his behalf and on behalf of the government, as a former Minister of Agriculture and as the current Minister of Finance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The truth, Madam Speaker, is that in spite of all those fine words and gestures, the Prime Minister and his team have so far failed on this issue. I would like to ask two questions. Why is the Prime Minister so afraid to meet directly with the thousands of farmers who have come here today? Why does he continue to hide behind closed doors instead of stating publicly today his position on article XI of GATT?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I indicate to the hon. member and to other hon. members of the House what the Prime Minister was doing, how he has stoutly defended the position of the government, and is using his good offices to convey that message to all the world leaders with whom he has close personal relationships.
I might ask the hon. member how come she has become so interested in article XI. I never heard a peep from her in bygone days. Just because there is a protest out there, she wants to cash in on it.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I would just say that the deputy leader of our party made a great speech last week. I did not see the Deputy Prime Minister make a speech in the emergency debate.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Tens of thousands of farmers from British Columbia to Newfoundland are rallying on Parliament Hill to protest the lack of progress this government has made in the GATT negotiations to save our supply managed sectors of the agriculture community.
The government has been negotiating for five years and Secretary General Arthur Dunkel in his report on the GATT a couple of months ago does not even mention the strengthening and clarifying of article XI. Why has the government failed Canadian farmers so grievously in those negotiations?
February 21, 1992


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, what the members of the farm community are doing today, I believe, is supporting the position of the government. The hon. member laughs.


Mr. Simmons:: They are laughing at you too.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He says that they are laughing. Jack Wilkinson, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture who is over in Europe with my cabinet colleague, said: "Our main goal is to show that we support the position that there is uniform support from the farm community. It is a critical matter to us to have a successful conclusion to the GATT. We are here to do our part, to explain as best we can and to offer support to the Canadian position". I say amen to that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, 25,000 farmers are rallying on the Hill today to protest the lack of progress in those GATT negotiations. They are terrified of tariffication. They think the government is going to sell them out.
This House passed a unanimous resolution asking the Prime Minister to get involved in these negotiations, to meet with the presidents of Europe and of the United States.
When the Prime Minister has been asked by the House of Commons to get involved in these negotiations, why does he refuse to meet with farmers who have spent thousands of dollars of their own money to come here to protest the lack of action? Why does the Prime Minister refuse to meet with them, speak with them and learn of the concerns they are facing today? Why?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, why does the hon. member refuse to listen to the answers? I just indicated that the Prime Minister has met on two occasions with representatives of the farm community.


An hon. member:: This week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This week. He has dispatched three senior ministers of the government, along with farm leaders, to Europe to demonstrate the solidarity and to reaffirm and continue to explain our position. Meetings have taken place with Mr. Dunkel and the GATT negotiating committee. Meetings have taken place in Bonn and in Brussels.
Oral Questions
I have just spoken to the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture. The Prime Minister, as I indicated, has been touch with Chancellor Kohl and with Mr. Major, the Prime Minister of the U.K. He has also spoken to Mr. Delors. He has sent a communication to the Prime Minister of Japan and to the Prime Minister of Italy. He will be meeting with the Prime Minister of Italy next week. He is setting up a meeting with George Bush.
The Prime Minister is very actively involved in this. He has the support of the farmers and he has the support of members on this side of the House. I would hope that he would have the support of hon. members on the other side of the House as well.


THE ECONOMY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The casualties of the government's war on inflation mount every day: a severe and prolonged recession, decreasing exports from this country and a decreased retail trade as we heard today. Of course there is decreased retail trade; people have no money to buy anything and they do not have confidence that they will have a job tomorrow. The only growth industry this government has created is the welfare industry.
Will the Minister of Finance put the same kind of zeal or energy he has put into zero inflation into having zero unemployment in this country? Can workers expect to see some hope in the next budget?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I find it passing strange that the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would take issue with the government's war against inflation. If there is anything that is debilitating against low income workers, against senior citizens, against people on fixed income, it is the deterioration of their income as a result of inflation, particularly inflation that is unabated.
For example, I am sure the member would be interested in knowing that with 9 per cent inflation-and that was the average rate of inflation between 1974 and 1984-a person on a pension or on a fixed income would see his or her income cut in half in just eight years. On the contrary, with inflation at 2 per cent per year it would be cut in half in 35 years. That demonstrates the

Oral Questions
magnitude of the impact of runaway inflation. The hon. member, I would think, would have appreciated that.
Second, to contain the cost of inflation reduces the cost of doing business and improves Canada's productivity. That has been at the core of the problem. If we can get the fundamentals right, as we are so close to achieving right now, we will be in a position to take advantage of the opportunities that are before us.
I hope the hon. member will join with the federal government in its attempt to deal with the basics and the fundamentals because she has some colleagues in government-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. minister may want to continue with the next question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I am sure those 1.5 million unemployed and the other almost 2 million who are on some form of social assistance do not feel that a lecture will provide them hope, a meal on the table, or a job tomorrow.
The devastation, as we see, is from coast to coast in this country. Nowhere are the effects of bad government policies more evident than on the Atlantic coast where thousands more people are looking at the possibility of losing their jobs.
My question for the Acting Prime Minister is simply: Will the government commit today to review on the east coast every foreign fishing licence it has issued, with a view to terminating those which have contributed to the economic and human disaster? Will the government give notice of intention to extend jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, on the question of extending the 200-mile limit, the hon. member should be aware that Canada at the UN is pressing this issue for extension. We could go at it the way she proposes, and that is probably for Canada to become an outlaw in the world. We can, but we respect international law.
On the question of the fisheries and of those fishing licences to foreigners, she should come and visit Atlantic Canada. She should come and see who is fishing there and she will find out that foreign nations have a right to fish sometimes. It is only after Canadian fishermen have
indicated they have no interest in that stock. For the rest of it, we just respect our international obligations.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, it does not matter what industry, it seems, we are discussing. Whether it is disputes related to the trade deal, this government's talks fail, whether it is disputes on the Atlantic fisheries, this government's talks fail. Whether it is disputes at GATT, this government's talks fail.
I want to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. There are tens of thousands of farmers who are going to be demonstrating today. They represent only a small percentage of those 100,000 people who could lose their jobs and their family's income.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister urge the Prime Minister to speak to these farmers today and to speak to the Canadian public about the commitment of Canadians to farming industry. Will he urge the Prime Minister not simply to send communiques, but to meet with his counterparts personally in Europe to put forward the Canadian case, to stand up for Canadians and for once to say to Canadian farmers, Canadian fishers, Canadian manufacturing industry that we will stand up-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question has been put.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has met with farmers on many occasions. I would say that this Prime Minister has met with farmers more often than any other Prime Minister in the history of Canada.


An hon. member:: Trudeau didn't know what a farmer looked like.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He meets with them on an ongoing basis. He met with them on two occasions this week. He has taken action with regard to this difficult situation, in communicating and talking directly to the major players involved in this issue. I will be there to speak on behalf of the Prime Minister and I will certainly convey any message that I pick up.
But my understanding is that this demonstration is in support of the government position. It is to reaffirm the unity and the support for the Canadian position that was developed with care, taking into consideration all the aspects of Canadian agriculture.
February 21, 1992

The hon. member laughs and giggles over there. He is not taking this seriously. He thinks that this is a time to score a few political points. Well, we take this very seriously and I will be there speaking to the farmers.


GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who knows that any new GATT agreement could have a major impact on Canada's western grain transportation policy.
The current method of paying grain transport assistance directly to the railways is under review. But the Minister of Agriculture has already said that these payments are "an enhancing subsidy under the proposed GATT conditions set down in the Dunkel report''.
My question for the minister is this. Has the government decided to change the method of payment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the government has not made a decision on whether there would be a change in the method of payment. Consultations are ongoing, and in so far as the Dunkel proposals are concerned, Canada's response will be tabled I believe some time after March.
The hon. member understands, I am sure, that if there is to be any modification in the Western Grain Transportation Act, it will require legislation. He is clearly aware of the fact that a review is ongoing, which is required by the legislation itself, so that process is taking its own course.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns GATT as well. The thousands of farmers demonstrating today in front of Parliament are worried about the potential loss of 100,000 jobs and $10 billion to the Canadian economy. After negotiating for five years, how can the Deputy Prime Minister explain his government's inability so far to protect and improve article XI of GATT? How can he explain that?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the position of the Canadian government is very clear. The ongoing negotiations are still taking place and no one knows for sure whether there will ever be a conclusion to the GATT talks.
There is certainly a lot involved in this process. There are 108 countries. Canada's position has been defined very clearly. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of State for Agriculture are over in Europe right now trying to explain Canada's position so that it will be clearly understood. They are talking to other farm groups and the farm leaders are talking to other farm groups.
A number of countries support the Canadian position. We are attempting to rally more support for the Canadian position because we believe that the supply managed system, the marketing board system, is something that is very unique to Canadian agriculture. It does not contribute to surpluses in the international marketplace, it is a very unique and fundamental part of Canadian agriculture, and that is why the position that we defined is being fought for so intensely.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, farmers from all over Canada are right now showing their support for supply management to a government that has not been able to protect them, first under free trade and now in the GATT negotiations. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister how, after five years of failure, can the farmers gathered here trust a Prime Minister who already let them down in the free trade negotiations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that is a most unfair comment.
The hon. member should really reconsider that fact. In most cases, we would say that that is a cheap shot. There is no one who has more stoutly defended Canadian agriculture, whether it is the export side or the supply management side, than the current Prime Minister of Canada.

Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When the hon. member says: "When are we going to protect supply management from the free trade agreement", I do not know where he has been for the last number of years.
The free trade agreement carved out supply managed systems. They were carved out and grandfathered, and the supply management systems remain. That is one of the advantages of the free trade agreement and that is one of the advantages of the bilateral negotiations that took place.
We were able to ensure that the supply management systems were protected and held in place. We were able to ensure that article XI was retained, which is the fundamental pillar to sustaining the supply management systems in Canada.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
One of the stumbling blocks to Canada's attempts to strengthen article XI has been the opposition of the American government.
Will the Prime Minister take advantage of his close personal relationship with the President of the United States by personally leading a delegation of his ministers and Canadian farmers to Washington within the next couple of weeks to gain American government support for the Canadian position?
Will he get off the phone and leave his office? Will he get together with the farmers and lead such a delegation within the next couple of weeks?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I simply remind the hon. member that when the free trade agreement was negotiated, supply management systems were not affected.
They were grandfathered, and that was the agreement with the United States.


Don Boudria: Remember ice cream and yoghurt.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The ice cream and yogurt decision is one that was taken under GATT and not under the free trade agreement. It had nothing to do with the free trade agreement.
The fact of the matter is that in the negotiations on a bilateral basis, the supply management systems were
saved. I indicated in response to an earlier question that the Prime Minister was, indeed, setting up a meeting with President Bush to talk about this matter.
Some say: "Why does he not meet people personally?" He is going to meet the Prime Minister of Italy, Mr. Andreotti. He is going to meet Mr. Bush. He has talked to Mr. Major.
It is very difficult for him to be meeting farmers and travel around the world at the same time. The hon. members cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House on February 5 that he has fought for the cause of farmers for six or seven years.
This is a copy of the government's initial proposal to GATT submitted in 1987. The document strategy is toward tariffication and toward the removal of marketing boards. Now the minister is saying: "We do not want tariffication. We support marketing boards". You cannot have it both ways.
I want to ask whoever is speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister how the Prime Minister can continue to say that his government supports Canada's marketing boards when its opening bid at the GATT negotiations in 1987 was, in fact, to dismantle supply management? Does he support marketing boards? Does he support supply management? Will the real prime minister please stand up?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. I will send the hon. member a documented copy of the Canadian position that was taken with respect to our negotiating position at GATT which includes very clearly the strengthening and clarification of article XI.
I should know because I was the one who was presiding-


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: It's your document and it doesn't say that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I was the Minister of Agriculture when that position was developed and I will tell the hon. member that a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 1987.
February 21, 1992


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, the government's bottom line at the GATT negotiations was revealed last month in a letter from the Minister for International Trade to the Tory members of Parliament. In the letter the minister states that Canada will not withdraw from negotiations even if it loses supply management.
I want to ask whoever is speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, what kind of negotiation tactic is this? You have been showing your hand before you even play your cards. The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have been playing two tunes off the same fiddle and now Canada's farmers may have to play their swan song-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member please put his question. It has been a very long preamble.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I did pose my question. I asked what kind of negotiation tactic this was. The government has essentially played all its cards before the negotiations have proceeded. What are you going to do now, now that you have shown your cards, now that you have shown your bottom line, now that the farmers are up against the wall-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question has been put.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the tactics that are employed by the New Democratic Party of excessive partisanship are certainly not the most appropriate way, in my view, of displaying a position of solidarity.
I thought all members of this House of Commons, with the exception of the Reform representative, supported generally the position that the Government of Canada defined in consultation with the producers of Canada and with other provincial governments; that is, the balanced position which says we call for the strengthening and clarification of article XI.
That is the position that I represented and that the former Minister for International Trade represented. That is the position that the current Minister for International Trade represents and the current Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister represents.
I do not know how much more clearer we can be. All the hon. member is doing is trying to engage in excessive
Oral Questions
partisanship, which I repeat does not play well across the country and indeed around the world.


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Liberal, NDP and Conservative members have unanimously adopted a motion asking the Prime Minister to continue his active of support of Canada's position at the GATT talks on agricultural policy by meeting with the President of the United States and other heads of state. Could the minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister is prepared to go and meet President Bush with a delegation of Canadian and Quebec farmers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in response to an earlier question, the Prime Minister has been in touch with Chancellor Kohl, with Mr. Delors of the European Community, with Prime Minister Major. He has sent a communication to Mr. Mitterrand and to the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Miyazawa. He has also sent a communication to the Prime Minister of Italy, Mr. Andreotti and he will be meeting with him in the next week or so.
He is in the process of arranging for a meeting with President Bush at an appropriate time, all of which is to say that the Prime Minister takes this issue very seriously. He recognizes the difficulties and the concerns that are being expressed by the farmers of Canada and he is prepared to act.
All I would hope is that on this occasion, at least for one time, that we act in a unified way, that we act with a display of solidarity. I think that that is what most of the producers out there are here to support, the position of the Canadian government in its difficult fight in achieving a fair deal for Canadian agriculture at the GATT.
 * *


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, 20 Newfoundland fishing captains were arrested last year. Their crime was fishing. At the same time, European boats took 164,000 metric tons of fish in the same general area in direct violation of the NAFO

February 21, 1992
Oral Questions
moratorium, enough fish to save every closed fish plant in Atlantic Canada.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, as the acting head of government here today: Why the double standard? Why is it we are harassing, putting the blocks to Newfoundland fishermen whose only sin is they want to put some bread and butter on the table and at the same time he is letting off the Europeans scot-free?


Bernard Valcourt: The hon. member knows that this is not a double standard. He knows better. If he does not, the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador do. The question of foreign overfishing is one that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is working hard on. It is not easy, and we have acknowledged this. We are pursuing the issue on several fronts; at the UN in trying to extend the zone to protect the entire Canadian shelf, and in Europe, the government, with the help of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, is making public the impact that this has on the ecosystem in the Atlantic.
These are measures that are being pursued all the time and we intend to intensify them.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration knows, today, in fact in a few hours, the FPI processing plant in Port Union-Catalina will shut its doors. Eight hundred and fifty plant workers and 155 trawlermen will be without work. It is estimated that 120 of those will not have qualified for unemployment insurance. As their member of Parliament, I would like to seek the assurance of the Minister of Employment and Immigration that there will be put in place for those people a compensation package and that it will be adequate and immediate.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, in 1991, in addition to the safety net of unemployment insurance benefits, this government assisted fishermen and plant workers in Atlantic Canada with the $584 million Fisheries Adjustment Program and we developed a compensation program of $39.5 million. Literally hundreds of millions have been spent to help those people. If his concern is about this government caring about the situation of those displaced workers, I think we have demonstrated many times that we are ready to help and do what is
possible to alleviate the problem, and we will keep on doing this.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A few minutes ago, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in reply to the question posed by the member from the Yukon said: "We cannot". The minister's knowledge of history needs to be strengthened.
It is a fact that the Government of Canada 20 years ago had the courage to extend its jurisdiction to protect Arctic waters from pollution. This government must now find the courage to conserve the fishery. The key is to claim the responsibility for the fish no matter where they swim.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Will the Government of Canada find the courage to extend unilaterally Canada's jurisdiction to the outer limits of the Grand Banks?


Bernard Valcourt: This is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. Go out and tell the world. Go out. The Liberals in Canada want Canada to disrespect international law. It makes sense. Let us become an outlaw in the world. That may be what the Liberals want for Canadians, but this government will never do that.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, it is not this side of the House. It is the Prime Minister of Canada who, at home and abroad, has made immense and forceful declarations about the fact of his support for sustainable management, for the sustainability of natural resources.
Now the Prime Minister has to implement his words. Therefore the question is: Will this government find the courage that is needed to extend jurisdiction to the entire Grand Banks to ensure a sustainable fishery? Now is the time of truth.


Bernard Valcourt: As my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, indicated yesterday, the Prime Minister has put this issue very high on his agenda for the Earth Summit that will be sponsored by the United Nations in June 1992 in Rio de Janiero.
February 21, 1992

Maybe through the route of countries acknowledging the impact that this overfishing has on the ecosystem we can achieve protection of those fish that, yes indeed, swim outside of the 200-mile limit. We are at the same time pursuing at the United Nations the legal way, that is extending beyond 200 miles, but according to law. I know the Liberals do not like it, but I am sure Canadians do.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
If I may, through a question, I will make a suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister. When he speaks to farmers in a few minutes out front, I wonder if he would consider inviting a delegation of farm leaders to accompany the Prime Minister when he goes to see President Bush in Washington, and as well, inviting a delegation of MPs from all three parties to go with the Prime Minister in order to show the farmers of this country that there is solidarity in this country. We must protect their marketing boards. It is a way of life for the farmers. It means jobs not only for the farmers but for the workers in this country. An all-party delegation, including the farm leadership of Canada, with the Prime Minister might make an impact on the President, on the American media and on the American political leadership.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, certainly I will take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration, but I simply remind him that it was the Prime Minister who decided that his senior ministers, accompanied by leaders of the farm community, should travel to Europe. I think that what the hon. member is suggesting is somewhat consistent with what the Prime Minister has already acted upon.
I spoke with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for International Trade this morning. They have had very useful discussions. I think there were discussions with countries that were aligned with the Canadian position and also countries that were not aligned with the Canadian position. Obviously there are strong views held on both sides.
Oral Questions
Obviously the effect of it is that the Canadian position is more broadly understood and provides some potential for improving the situation if and when a GATT deal can be concluded. The Prime Minister has been very open in terms of dealing with the agriculture community. I will make that suggestion to him and I thank the hon. member for it.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the government does not understand sufficiently the degree to which Ontario farmers and farmers from across the country are scared and worried as they gather here in Ottawa today. The government says that farmers support the Prime Minister. In that case, why will the Prime Minister not meet with these farmers today and speak to them, not just with farm leaders, so as to show his commitment and so as to speak to that sense of fear and worry that is out there across the country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, of course I understand the concern that farmers feel. I have understood it for quite some time because I was the Minister of Agriculture who was speaking on their behalf when the position that Canada has developed and still maintains was undertaken.
We, together with all producer groups across the country in a solidified position, developed a balanced position that we took to the GATT. We had generated a fair amount of support. Of that support, some of it is still there, some of it is waning. It is important to note that all provincial governments supported the Canadian position. The hon. member may not be aware, but the Prime Minister has met with the farmers. He met with about 500 this week.
I will be there speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and I will convey the Prime Minister's message to them. The Prime Minister cannot be there today, but he has never refused to meet with farm leaders and farm groups. He does it when he travels around the country, he does it in Ottawa and he will continue to do so.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, today there are tens of thousands of farmers on Parliament Hill and in other centres across Canada protesting this government's lack of leadership and progress in guaranteeing the continued stability of the Canadian dairy and poultry industries.

Oral Questions
Several hundred of these fanners are from the United States. I have a letter here signed by 64 United States senators to President Bush demanding a continuation of section XXII of the GATT. It is a GATT waiver protecting their dairy industry.
In light of these mounting pressures within the United States, what action has this government taken to bring the government on side on this issue at the GATT?


An hon. member:: A unanimous resolution from Parliament.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex has been grinning and snickering throughout the whole Question Period. As a former Minister of Agriculture, I would have expected something better than that.
The hon. member knows very well that we are doing everything we possibly can and will continue to do everything we possibly can to convince the contracting parties that, indeed, the position Canada has adopted is a balanced, realistic position and a fair position.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I have always been a supporter of a strengthened and enhanced article XI.


An hon. member:: We know where we stand.


Ralph Ferguson: In view of the fact that these increasing pressures are taking place within the United States to retain their protection under section XXII of the GATT, protection for their dairy industry, their sugar industry and for peanuts and cotton, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure this House today that when they go to Washington that they will meet with these 64 senators who wish to retain section XXII and with the United States dairy farmers to form a common front against those interests that are threatening our Canadian dairy and poultry industry here in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am delighted and pleased that the hon. member supports the position of the Canadian government. I welcome that and thank him very much for it.


INFLATION
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister give us the latest figures on the rate of inflation in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I can, Madam Speaker. It is 1.6 per cent and it is one of the lowest in 20 years. I think it is a remarkable achievement because it is very fundamental to reducing our costs and preserving the lifestyle and the standard of living for Canadians and providing the groundwork for sustainable growth with price stability.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. During a recent study trip to India, information provided to members of this Parliament revealed human rights abuses by authorities in India's Punjab state.
Given that Amnesty International and other human rights agencies have been denied access to India, can the minister acknowledge today in this House that such human rights abuses are taking place in India and should be noted by Canada?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Madam Speaker, our position on human rights is quite clear. Whether we are talking about our aid programs or the government's policy in general, we have an abiding concern for protecting human rights.
The Prime Minister himself, at the last two summits, the Commonwealth Summit in Harare and the Franco-phonie Summit in Chaillot, demonstrated Canada's commitment to protecting human rights, and that is what we are doing.
February 21, 1992


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, last year at a meeting of the Commonwealth heads of state, the Prime Minister stated that we will be increasingly channelling our development assistance to those countries that show respect for fundamental rights and individual freedoms.
Will the minister responsible agree to have this issue of human rights abuses in Punjab state immediately reviewed by the external affairs subcommittee on development and human rights so that Canada may update its position on foreign aid to India?


Monique Landry: Madam Speaker, the human rights policy was implemented several years ago and it is being applied. It is not a new concept. We are already applying it; we review and evaluate it regularly, as circumstances require and also on a continuing basis. I take my colleague's remarks into consideration and we will continue to apply those principles.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. Each farmer invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to buy quotas. They did so, Madam Speaker, because they believed what the government said to them. Today, it seems more and more obvious that this government met with a dismal failure and that quotas will disappear. Did the government consider the possibility to pay back to farmers their quotas at today's market value? Is it ready to make this commitment and to assure farmers this afternoon that they will incur no loss because of this government's inefficiency?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead is another victim of the Bloc Quebecois sickness. Just like his leader, he is ready to give up before the negotiations are over. Negotiations
Oral Questions
are not over. We know what the Bloc Quebecois wants. We know they are ready to give up before the end of the negotiation process.


MIDDLE EAST
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
We are all deeply troubled by the escalation of violence in the Middle East.
We have reports this morning that a shipload of Scud missiles are on their way from North Korea to Syria. We have heard that serious bombings are taking place.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Why is Canada so silent and passive on this issue?
As a country that is chairing the conference on refugees as part of the peace process, is it not the case that Canada must speak out to stop the violence and to try to stop the escalation and particularly to support the sanctity of the United Nations in this area?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, I think yesterday in this House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs very eloquently put forward her position. Indeed, she has spoken out to condemn violence on all sides in the situation in the Middle East.
It has been this government's position to work supportively towards a peace process. Again, we call on all parties to enable that to happen successfully as those talks recommence next week.


AIR CANADA
Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Yesterday, Air Canada decided to do a bit of its own out-shopping and went to the United States to find a chief executive officer and president.

February 21, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I want to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration if Air Canada has applied to bring this individual to Canada.
If so, what proof has it offered the Government of Canada that there is no single qualified Canadian able to operate Air Canada?
If it has not applied, will the minister make sure that there is a fair and thorough review of such application and no quick approval?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the question of the admission into Canada of workers from foreign countries is regulated, as the hon. member knows. Air Canada, just like any other corporate citizen, has to go through the process.
The individual in question has been granted a temporary work permit. Air Canada will have to provide the department with all the information which the hon. member has raised. Once that is processed, whatever can be made public will be.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Paavo Vayrynen, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
25TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 25th report of the Standing Committee on House Management.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Commons dated February 14, 1992 this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
26TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 26th report of the Standing Committee on House Management.
Pursuant to Standing Order 104, and if the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CONCURRENCE IN 26TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 26th report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from citizens of New Westminster who call upon this Parliament to look at postal services in my community.
The petitioners state that closing the New Westminster post office and changing it into a commercial service centre for businesses only establishes two classes of citizens in Canada, and that this arbitrary decision was made without any consultation with the residents of New Westminster or with the New Westminster city council.
Therefore, they call on this Parliament to halt the plans to close the New Westminster post office on Columbia Street and replace it with a commercial service centre that does not serve the needs of all the public.
February 21, 1992


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made Wednesday, February 19, 1992, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.07 p.m..
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 24, 1992