1992-11-27

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last night my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, gave notice of a question of privilege based on misinformation given to the House in connection with Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act.
My colleague and I were prepared to argue this question of privilege today, which by the way is based on nine affidavits that have been made available to the Thble and to the ministers concerned.
I understand that one of those ministers is unavailable today. Because of the serious nature of this question of privilege, my colleague and I are certainly prepared to postpone the presentation of the matter until a convenient time can be offered by Your Honour next week.


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of the question of privilege to which the hon. member refers. The best thing to do would be for the Chair to make some inquiries and then in consultation with all concerned, select a time in the early part of the coming week, Monday or Tuesday, when it is convenient for all parties to be present. I will proceed with it at that time.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, since the government is
unable to proceed and since this bill is under time allocation, I would suggest that we abandon the day to Bill C-26, suspend the sitting of the House until eleven o'clock and we will have to count this as the first day of the debate on Bill C-26 at third reading, if the government is able to find a minister after Question Period to move the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, of course I am always impressed by the puckish impertinence of my friend opposite.
As was demonstrated the other day, our ministers are fleet of foot. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, and the entire House that we will be properly constituted in very short order and will be able to proceed.
The legislation before us needs to be addressed with all seriousness and it will be. The very notion of delaying the business of the House because of what my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands is advocating is mischievous and somewhat impertinent in my view.
What needs to be done is not to dispense, but as the people of Canada would expect us to do, we should proceed with all dispatch so that we are able to deal with the bill before us, Bill C-26, the Public Service reform act, in the appropriate way.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Harvie Andre (for the President of the TVeasury Board) moved: that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada be read the third time and passed.

November 27, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Dingwall:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, before my colleague begins his remarks, I have two points to raise.
First, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands when he rose in his seat earlier was not being mischievous as implied by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Second, out of general courtesy, I would hope that the time which has been lost because ministers could not be here would be added to the time under which we are operating today.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the IVeasury Board and Minister of State
(Finance)): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure that Bill C-26 will be given third and final reading today. It has been almost three years since the Prime Minister announced PS 2000, an initiative to renew the Public Service of Canada from which this legislation has flowed.
Canadians expect and are entitled to a professional and highly qualified Public Service, one which is committed to serving Canadians and recognizing the excellent work of Public Service employees. Nearly every provision in Bill C-26 relates to meeting these goals either directly or indirectly.
These include initiatives to improve the speed with which jobs can be filled and cut the red tape in order to assign more resources toward the primary goal of the federal Public Service serving the Canadian public. This goal, I emphasize, will be reached with no reduction in the level of fairness and transparency in the staffing process.
This bill is the first major piece of Public Service legislation in 25 years. Once passed it will significantly affect the lives of 218,000 employees. Needless to say, it is not a bill that was drafted overnight.
Shortly after the Prime Minister announced Public Service 2000 and before one clause of Bill C-26 was drafted, ten task forces took eight months to closely examine almost every aspect of Public Service management.
Task force members drawn from senior ranks of government consulted extensively with all levels of employees, with unions, with other governments and with interested groups outside the Public Service including the Public Policy Forum and the Conference Board of Canada. They communicated with thousands of employees through workshops, group surveys and discussions.
Many suggestions for improvement came from the employees themselves. Some Public Service unions did not feel a part of the process and they complained, perhaps with some justification, that they had not been adequately consulted. That is why in the fall of 1990 it was decided to delay the introduction of legislation for some months to allow for more consultations. I am pleased to say that those additional consultations did not slow the process of reform.
Major initiatives to streamline systems and improve service are now underway in every government department and agency. More decisions are being made at local levels and employees are playing a greater role in determining how best to do the work. Although there is still a good way to go, progress is being achieved.
Revenue Canada Taxation, for example, with a clientele of 18 million people and one million businesses, has established new performance standards. Callers from anywhere in Canada will now be connected to a taxation agent within three minutes. Clients requesting personal service will not wait more than 20 minutes. Revenue Canada tax managers can now decide on the spot whether a taxpayer has a legitimate reason for filing late. Until this year, taxpayers had to apply formally through the Minister of Revenue to have late filing penalties waived.
Counsellors in the district offices of Veterans Affairs can now handle most low to moderate health risk claims under the Veterans Independence Program on the spot and thereby speed up decisions for their clients.
As promising as these and hundreds of other improvements are, critical reforms in the areas of staffing and staff relations can only go forward once Bill C-26 is passed into law.
It is not my intention to go into the details on the bill at this time. We have already done that in previous sittings. However, I would like to touch on one or two other important reforms contained in Bill C-26.
Deployments or lateral transfers will allow managers more freedom to move employees in order to respond to operational needs and enhance service to the public. These deployments will be under the control of a deputy minister and guided by policies and guidelines approved by Treasury Board.
November 27, 1992

Deployments will not be, as some unions have suggested, a management ploy to exile poor performers or out-of-favour employees into the frozen hinterlands. On the contrary, there will be developmental opportunities to allow employees to take advantage of a move to learn new skills in order to expand their career opportunities while at the same time permitting the public to be better served.
Except where deployments are considered a condition of work, such as in the foreign service, these moves will only be made on a voluntary basis.
The concept of deployment does not, as some unions have suggested, violate the principle of merit. People will continue to be hired and promoted based on a competitive process that awards positions to the best qualified candidate.
Deployments are transfers, not promotions. They are horizontal moves specifically designed to fill gaps in the service to the public. They also encourage learning, provide job opportunities for employment equity groups and result in greater career development.
Employee rights are also carefully protected. Where an employee thinks that there has been an abuse of authority with respect to a deployment, he or she will have the right to seek redress, including a third party investigation.
Bill C-26 recognizes, and in some cases such as apprenticeship and training programs or reclassifications, that merit is best served by measuring an individual's competence against the standard established by the Public Service Commission rather than in a competition against other people. Introducing some flexibility in the way the merit principle is administered will in no way compromise its integrity.
With a Public Service of over 218,000 employees and staffing systems that in the recent past resulted in approximately 100,000 appointments a year, there is never-ending pressure from taxpayers to cut the costs of internal administration. This is particularly so in an age of fiscal restraint, greater global competitiveness, and increasing demands from the public for service.
The issue of deployment and merit as well as other important issues such as employment equity have been
Government Orders
intensely scrutinized over the past several weeks by the legislative committee examining this bill.
Over the past two months 19 witnesses have given testimony before the committee. The President of the Treasury Board appeared before the committee, as did several government officials and representatives from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Professional Institute of the Public Service, the Economists, Sociologists, and Statisticians' Association, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and other public service unions as well. Representations were also made by a number of academics, lawyers, and individuals with specific interest in the bill.
During the first month, committee members listened to presentations, questioned witnesses and examined 11 briefs which were submitted during testimony. This was followed by three weeks of clause-by-clause analysis of the bill in which all 109 clauses were examined in detail, debated, and voted upon. During the process over 100 amendments were examined by committee members.
As a result of this scrutiny, which has significantly strengthened the bill before us today, the government has introduced substantive amendments which would enshrine in law its commitment to employment equity. I am happy to say that these amendments were developed in partnership with committee members and the Liberal critic for the Public Service, the hon. member for Ottawa West.
The government is committed to ensuring the Public Service better reflects the public it serves. Visible minorities, aboriginal people, women, and persons with disabilities must have the same recruitment and advancement opportunities in the Public Service as other Canadians.
As a result, the government through Bill C-26 has proposed to bring its employment equity policy under legislation. This will replace employment equity requirements on Treasury Board comparable to those placed on other federally regulated employers.
Under the proposed provisions, Treasury Board will have a legal obligation to set goals and timetables, and report annually to this House on government progress on employment equity. The Public Service Commission has a strengthened role in implementing equity programs. Spelling out our obligations in law should leave

Government Orders
no doubt as to how seriously this government is committed to employment equity.
The government is equally committed to moving forward with public service reform. As our population grows and diversifies, so do the demands on government for essential services we as Canadians have all come to expect from our Public Service.
If we are to maintain and improve our standards, efficiencies must be brought in to increase productivity. If we cannot hire more people to do the work demanded of us by the public, then we must at least remove those inefficient rules and regulations which impede the fine work our public service employees are committed to doing.
Bill C-26 would do just that. It would also mean more opportunities for employees, more varied work, a more simplified classification system which would allow for more career movement, particularly for women and other employment equity target groups. It is no secret that years of downsizing, of curbs on wages and spending and less than harmonious labour management relations has affected the morale of the Public Service.
Public Service 2000 proposals should improve morale by removing many of the obstacles that are frustrating for everyone, but morale and services can only improve if employees feel they are being fairly treated, their opinion is of some value to the organization and that they are appreciated for the job they are doing.
In Atlantic Canada, for example, Supply and Services Canada found itself facing severe resource constraints and increased client demands. The regional and district offices responded by introducing new management styles, improving internal communications, tackling problems in teams and seeking employee suggestions on how to improve services. Some 500 suggestions were received and many were implemented. In just two weeks the money saved from introducing some of these changes paid for the whole exercise. Productivity and labour relations improved and employee stress levels dropped.
Similar efforts to involve employees in decision-making, delegate more authority to them, and encourage teamwork and a sense of pride and ownership in their jobs are going on all across the country. These reforms
must continue if Canada is to keep its place at the table of the great industrialized nations. They will continue once they are provided a sound legal basis through Bill C-26.
I would like to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation to the chairman, the hon. member for Cambridge, and to all committee members who put so many hours into ensuring that we had before us today a bill which I believe achieves a most important balance between protecting employee's rights, while endorsing common sense and modem management practices. I applaud all members of the committee for their reasoned and clear arguments on so many critical issues. Although our approach has often differed on many of these issues, there is no doubt that the bill has been significantly strengthened through their efforts.
In conclusion, I would like to encourage hon. members of the House to take a moment to reflect on the recent dramatic changes that have taken place at the world level. As we know, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist and the emerging east bloc countries are struggling to develop democratic traditions and a professional and dedicated public service. These are the same democratic traditions and dedicated professional Public Service that Canadians already enjoy.
The Public Service reform act, Bill C-26, would strengthen these traditions by allowing the Public Service to improve, adapt and provide the kind of service that will keep Canada competitive in the 21st century. It is the same kind of service that propelled Canada to first place in the United Nations ranking of human development among 160 nations. Bill C-26 is a key to ensuring that we can continue to build on this tradition of excellence. The key is in the hands of the hon. members here today and I urge them to pass this long overdue bill.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, as countries throughout the world undergo drastic changes in the structures of their social, political and economic institutions, Canada feels the impact of these changes as well. It is therefore important to look carefully at all our national institutions which will have to face the challenges of the 21st century, and at how they can best serve Canadians.
November 27, 1992



The Public Service of Canada is by far our most important institution. It offers us a wide variety of services which affect every aspect of our lives. Yet the food that we consume, the pharmaceutical products that we use, the roads and airports that we build, or the television programs that we watch, we know that a part of the Public Service has played a certain role, if not a major role, in those fields and many more.
Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, it is not all of the departments and not all of the employees of the Public Service that are located in Ottawa. In fact, only 33 per cent of all employees of the federal government are located in the national capital region. Therefore, over 65 per cent of federal public servants in our country are located in places other than the region of Ottawa-Carle-ton and the Outaouais.
When we looked over the work force, we quickly realized that the Public Service of Canada is not just any ordinary employer. Contrary to what our Conservative members of Parliament believe, the Public Service should not be completely managed like a private business. It is true that it is preferable for certain sectors of the federal government to follow characteristics of a commercial enterprise, but it is also true that we cannot fully apply the business philosophy to the whole of our Public Service.
The reason is simple. Our government services are not out to make a profit. As the name Public Service suggests, it is to provide essential services in an innovative fashion while keeping in mind the changing needs of our society.

That being said, I think we all realize that after a quarter of a century, it was time to review the legislation that regulates the operations of our government services. However, after having read and discussed the government's proposals, I think it is clear that any opportunity for positive reform will be lost for another quarter of a century.
The authors of Bill C-26 maintain this legislation will further simplify the administration of the Public Service by reducing the number of employment categories and will give senior officials the flexibility they need to
Government Orders
manage a modem administration as it goes into the 21st century.
The Liberal Party agrees that revitalization of the Public Service to meet the changing circumstances of the future is absolutely essential. However, it should also be understood that changes are not acceptable at any price.

The Liberals consider that change is best managed in an atmosphere of respect, trust, co-operation and genuine consultation with employees and clients. The government promised to consult its employees about this reform, yet this bill was roundly condemned by employee representatives.
The House's most recent consideration of the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act followed a lengthy process of co-operation and consultation in which parliamentarians and the general public, as well as the public servants and managers affected, have taken part.
On August 14, 1984, the Prime Minister had told the Professional Institute of the Public Service that a Conservative government would negotiate directly with the public service unions and associations in order to establish a better collective bargaining system in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Labour Code. Unfortunately the process used by the architects of Public Service 2000 has undermined the government's original objectives.
Furthermore, those architects thought it advisable to ignore the recommendations of the public accounts committee on this subject. This parliamentary committee's report dated November 5,1990, recommended that the government consider tabling a discussion paper before introducing legislative amendments or administrative changes. It then recommended referring the discussion paper to a special committee of the House on reform of the Public Service so that it could hold consultations involving employees, the public service unions and other interested parties.
The public accounts committee, on which I sit, also took responsibility for studying the information found in Part III of the Estimates which is made up of each department's parliamentary budget documents. What we were able to conclude on that committee is that Part III lacked clarity and that utter confusion was commonplace.

Government Orders
Another problem raised by the Auditor General is that sometimes a manager's unbridled initiative had caused serious problems of waste. For example, the Canadian on-line secure information and communications systems, referred to often as COSICS, at the Department of External Affairs proved to be a more complicated business than managers had foreseen.
COSICS is a communications system that links Canadian missions abroad and transmits information in coded and classified form. As it was drawn up in 1986, this project was supposed to be developed in two phases over a five year period at a total cost of $208 million. In the end, this initiative on the part of managers in that department will have cost $316 million and be seriously delayed. In fact, phase one of this project, a communications system in North America was completed two years later. Phase two, now nicknamed SIGNET, the communications system for all the other diplomatic missions is still not completed.
Another good example of waste appears in chapter 7 of the Auditor General's 1992 report which was presented in the House last TUesday. Following the Conservative government's 1985 decision to reduce the size of the Public Service by 15,000 person-years over a five year period, it adopted a program of payments to employees under a workers adjustment policy.
Between 1986 and 1991, the Auditor General found that 64 per cent of these payments were either without foundation or called into question. That percentage equates to a wastage of $166.4 million.
The Auditor General attributed this loss to weaknesses in the management framework and weaknesses in departments. Furthermore, he alludes to a parallel of this incident and the Public Service 2000 program which advocates greater devolution of authority to departments and managers. Here is what he concludes: "We believe there are important lessons to be learned from this experience and significant improvements that need to be made, notably to the management framework".

Interestingly, the Auditor General stresses the fact that the government should be more concerned about doing away with duplication than about downsizing, since
this practice has undesirable consequences such as a reduction in the quality of service to the public.
An excellent example which bears out the Auditor General's concerns about the government's arbitrary cutbacks may be found in a letter dated November 19, 1992, which was sent by the Secretary of the Treasury Board to all departments in the Public Service. The Secretary of the Treasury Board is asking departments to immediately cut an additional 2 per cent from their total budgets, which they may do arbitrarily. He admits that ministers realize that cuts of this size-especially with only four months left until the end of the fiscal year-may in some cases translate into deterioration of the level of service.

Here we are with a bill which institutionalizes the Auditor General's most recent and important preoccupations regarding the Public Service of Canada. In short, always lacking in both of these cases was an appropriate control mechanism that would have ensured that departmental operations and information were transparent.
The Office of the Auditor General presented an organizational plan for Part III that the government could adopt. This plan proposes that the relevant information parliamentarians seek such as departmental objectives, operations and missions be found in future versions of Part III.
The fact that there are management problems now, as pointed out in the Auditor General's annual report, makes me realize that in future with Bill C-26 there will be even more departmental problems to report. There will be as many operational mechanisms as there are departments. That means that the Public Service will be deprived of an over-all cohesiveness.
The foreseeable result is that the work of the Auditor General will only increase and that future Auditor Generals' reports promise to be quite voluminous.
If managers will have more freedom to manage as they see fit, I consider that Part III of the Estimates will have to clearly reflect departmental objectives and operations more than ever. Otherwise, in future the principle of
November 27, 1992

departmental accountability to Parliament will be seriously weakened.
I would now like to read a few comments made by witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-26. Regarding the Public Service Alliance, it was said and I quote: "We fundamentally believe that this approach to the employer-employee relationship is flawed. Moreover, it will inevitably result in an increased level of frustration that can only undermine the already abysmal morale in the Public Service. Such an outcome will adversely affect service to the public".
The Economists, Sociologists and Statisticians Association, ESSA, told us that in fact this legislation if passed in its current form will lead to a further breakdown in labour-management relations, employee alienation and a public perception that patronage and favouritism are alive and well in the federal Public Service.
A third witness, Professor Barbara A. Carroll of McMaster University, stated to the legislative committee that, and I quote: "This proposal has the potential for creating individual department fiefdoms. It places employees at the whim of the individual department deputy head, creating a new form of centralization within the departments without clarity, without accountability or the much vaunted business advantage of economies of scale.

I want to discuss four points of particular concern to me, which are the merit principle, contracting out, deployment and, finally, collective bargaining.
But first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa West on her amendment on employment equity, which was accepted as an amendment to clause 5 of Bill C-26. The government's original proposal was very weak, not to say ineffective. In fact, under the original provision, Treasury Board may provide employment equity programs, thus restricting that possibility. This clause seemed to have been designed more to improve the government's image than to guarantee fair representation of target groups, including women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the disabled.
The Liberal amendment will oblige the government to apply to its own employees the employment equity rules
Government Orders
that have applied to the private sector since 1986. Because of this amendment, Treasury Board will now have to develop a plan for identifying and removing barriers to employment equity for women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the disabled; set a timetable for achieving a degree of representation of these groups that is at least proportionate to the representation within the general population, and to report annually to Parliament on the state of employment equity in the Public Service.
Thanks to this provision drafted by the Liberal Party, minorities need no longer be concerned about waiting for years until amendments are made to the Employment Equity Act. However, there are still a number of shortcomings which the government has decided to ignore. A major issue which is still up in the air is the role and responsibilities of the Public Service Commission in this area.
The Liberal Party proposed an amendment that would have defined the commission's role. The purpose of this amendment was to ensure that the standards and criteria used in competitions and appointments are completely non-discriminatory. In addition, the Liberal Party presented amendments that would have required the commission to investigate any complaint of harassment or abuse of authority. Unfortunately, the government completely ignored these proposals. It will take a Liberal government to properly complete the Liberal Party's initial proposals on employment equity.

On the question of the merit principle, at the moment we have a system based on competitions and appeals that, despite all its shortcomings, prevents abuse and ensures that the best qualified persons are appointed.
When a Public Service competition is held, the qualifications of one candidate are always compared with the skills of the other candidates. Clause 10(2) of Bill C-26 changes this method, thus allowing a candidate to simply be measured against the Public Service Commission's prerequisites.
From now on, the best possible candidate will no longer be selected to fill a position. All that managers will have to do to accommodate their needs is to team up

Government Orders
with a favoured candidate who meets the commission's requirements.
Unfortunately, with this change proposed by the government, we can already justifiably state that the merit principle has been sacrificed to the whim of the managers.
ESSA is quite right to quote that in substance this change to section 10 will revert the Public Service to what we perceive as Public Service 1900, a time when managerial authority was absolute. Despite all the justifications we heard on the subject from the Treasury Board representatives, it is nonetheless true that while studying this bill, the legislative committee's legal adviser noted an ambiguity in the wording of this clause. It is therefore not surprising that several groups are worried about this amendment and the repercussion it will have.
I would like to share the assurances provided to us by Mr. Robert Giroux, chairman of the Public Service Commission, in his letter to ESSA dated May 8, 1992. He states:
Subsection 10(2) has been drafted as an exception to the more general provisions of subsection 10(1). We are currently proposing that the situations will be apprenticeship and occupational training programs approved by the commission. We believe as long as certain conditions are met, the new provision is the fair and sensible approach in these situations.
Frankly, I do not see how these words can reassure anyone. For all practical purposes, we are being asked to believe in the Public Service Commission's goodwill and as long as certain conditions are met, everything will work out for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
If we must trust the commission's goodwill, the fifth report of the joint committee on the scrutiny of regulations will not promote this feeling of trust. This committee made the following comment:
The Public Service Commission is more preoccupied with avoiding the imposition of binding rules of conduct on department administrators and on itself than it is with meeting the need to implement an appeal system that is both fair and seen to be fair by participants and that furthers the commission's duty to uphold the merit principle.
In addition, PIPS concludes that Bill C-26 grants the commission even more discretion not to apply vigorous tests of merit, thus raising the prospect of further
exploitation of the commission by the interest of senior management. Bill C-26 will further erode the ability of the commission to serve as a legitimate third party.
Finally, the Public Service Commission's credibility is very much called into question since the government and the commission admit that clause 10(2) should be subject to certain conditions because of the potential for abuse. Furthermore, they accept no amendment to this clause which would limit its application. Instead, they offer us vague, fuzzy promises.
We must therefore conclude that this government proposal which is supported by the commission is designed so that the courts and Parliament can interpret the meaning of the merit principle differently.
[English}
On the subject of contracting out, Bill C-26 encourages contracting out by allowing deputy heads to lay off professional public servants as a result of the transfer of their work or function outside the Public Service.
Particularly disturbing is the fact that we still do not know the total amount that the government has spent for contracting out. There is no mechanism that provides this figure for Canadians and oddly enough there is also no system that demonstrates the cost effectiveness of this practice.
Furthermore, there are many instances of contracts that are poorly carried out and have duplication of costs. All this is at the expense of jobs.

All the efforts of Liberal members on the public accounts committee to obtain a total amount ran into government obstruction. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that for the 1991-92 fiscal year, the government spent $5 billion on contracting out. Treasury Board cannot or will not account for the volume of work done outside the Public Service. Neither can it guarantee that this practice is cost effective; now it puts in the law that employees can be laid off when their work is given to an outside agency. From now on, employees will always live in fear of losing their job to an outside contractor. Now
November 27, 1992

that is a good way to continue developing a professional public service.
It is interesting to note a second time how the government defied the public accounts committee's recommendations. In its report of November 5, 1990 to the House, the committee recommended that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Office of the Comptroller General ensure that departments and agencies disclose what they spend on contracts to replace the work done by public servants. Moreover, they should ensure that departments and agencies report on the services of people hired on contract. I find particularly interesting the last words of the public accounts committee on this subject:
It would appear that the government should only use outside contractors to replace public servants where cost-effectiveness has been clearly demonstrated, taking into account the negative effects on public servants' morale.
Unfortunately, the public accounts committee's recommendations were never addressed by the government.

It must be stated that clause 19 of Bill C-26, which permits contracting out, was designed to do no more and no less than nullify the January 30, 1992 court decision which ruled that the government's use of contracting out while laying off its employees was illegal. This new provision is certainly the height of cynicism and shows how little compassion this government has for its employees.
On the question of deployments, the problems to which deployments give rise are found in clause 22 of Bill C-26. From now on deputy heads or directors will have the exclusive right to deploy employees in the sector for which they are responsible.
At present, deployments are subject to the merit principle and may be appealed. Once Bill C-26 has the force of law managers will have the right to deploy employees where they see fit and without taking the merit principle into account. If employees intend to dispute their deployment, they will find the procedure quite complicated since the right to appeal has been seriously limited, if not eliminated.
The legislative committee's clause-by-clause study of the bill clearly shows that it is the deputy head, the same
Government Orders
person who makes a decision to deploy an employee, who has the ultimate authority to settle disputes.
PIPS argues that clause 22 will create an environment in which favouritism and abuses of power will prevail with no possibility of appeal. Employees' careers will depend on managers' goodwill, so much the better for cliques. Under Bill C-26 a deployment will not constitute an appointment and thus will not be subject to the merit principle.
There is no review process and no appeal. Decisions are made quite arbitrarily by public service executives and the employees have no protection.
Here again the history of this issue before the courts is far from reassuring. On January 30, 1992 the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the order allowing ministers to deploy an employee from one department to another was ultra vires because this practice clearly ran counter to the merit principle. The judge who made this ruling stated that accepting the government's position would be defeating the whole purpose and object of the Public Service Employment Act which is to ensure that appointments to the Public Service are made on the basis of merit. Two years ago, when it stated that it could deploy persons as it saw fit, the government had acted illegally by exceeding its authority.
In order to eliminate this minor judicial obstacle, the government is amending the existing legislation so it can deploy its employees at will.

The Liberal Party presented amendments to try to correct some troubling sections in this clause. Above all, we asked the government to ensure that promotions and demotions in the Public Service would not be done through transfers. Thus, the requirements of bilingualism and the merit principle would be respected.
I believe that the government's refusal to accept these reasonable amendments clearly shows the direction in which it wants to take the public service, namely to make it a place where patronage, and even incompetence in some cases could prevail.
As for collective bargaining, Madam Speaker, in 1967, Parliament adopted the principle whereby Canadian public servants, with some exceptions, have the right to collective bargaining. Bill C-26 takes thousands of employees back to the situation that existed before 1967.

It is incomprehensible that the federal government continues to refuse to extend the right to collective bargaining to all its employees, especially when this right is granted to employees of other levels of government, private-sector employees and even temporary employees.

ESSA is right to be indignant that while the Canadian government is a signatory to conventions of the International Labour Organization, whose purpose is to protect employees' collective bargaining rights, it is proposing to limit those very rights where its own employees are concerned.
Last, PIPS maintains that limiting the right to bargain collectively should be subject to a single criterion. Only when there is an actual conflict of interest between being a union member and carrying out duties and responsibilities on behalf of the employer may this right be denied.
I would like to conclude this speech by noting the words of Barbara Wade Carroll, a professor at McMaster University and an expert in the field of public administration: "It is a clear tenet of organization theory and management that the way to achieve organization changes is by changing it not from the top, but at the top. Yet neither Public Service 2000 nor Bill C-26 addressed the need for such change except-"


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he will have time to finish after Question Period and Routine Proceedings.
It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed with Members' Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, UN chief Boutros-Ghali denounced Thrkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash for the lack of progress in the recent round of UN-sponsored Cyprus peace talks in New York and called on the Turkish side to review its position.
In his report he suggested several measures that would contribute greatly to the success of the negotiations. These included a reduction of the Thrkish occupied troops, the handing over of the Thrkish occupied town of Famagusta to the UN, the promotion of contacts between the two communities, less restrictions of foreign visitors, communal co-operation with the UN for the resettlement of Thrkish Cypriots, proposals for bi-communal projects and a Cyprus-wide census.
The report takes a harsh stand against Mr. Denktash, noting that the solutions he is seeking are incompatible with the UN set of ideas to provide a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal Republic of Cyprus with a single sovereignty, citizenship and international personality.
Hopefully, when talks resume again in March, some concrete results will be forthcoming for the betterment of Cyprus and all its people.


CORNWALL CORONARY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, the Cornwall Coronary Health Improvement Project is an innovative community health project which has obtained fascinating results.
During a four week intensive intervention program, 500 participants lost a total of one and a half tons of excess fat. Those with elevated cholesterol levels obtained an average drop of 16 per cent. In addition, 36 smokers quit, the group collectively walked 12,000 miles, and many participants obtained marked reductions in medications for the control of angina, hypertension and diabetes.
November 27, 1992

The projected 62 per cent reduction in coronary risk was accomplished without any government funding. The results obtained by the CHIP program and the potential savings similar programs could have makes this project a very valuable method for improving the health of Canadians while also contributing to reducing the mounting financial burdens being placed upon Canada's health care system.


DIABETES MONTH
Mr. David Bjomson (Selkirk-Red River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that November is diabetes month.
Over one million Canadians have diabetes, with over
60,000	new cases diagnosed each year. In fact, the theme of the diabetes campaign is "One million Canadians have diabetes-half don't know it".
The cost of not knowing is high. Diabetes is a major cause of adult blindness, it doubles the chance of a heart attack or a stroke, and the annual cost of diabetes to the Canadian health care system is in excess of $2.5 billion. The Canadian Diabetes Association, through education, wants to alert those who may already have it and to reach those who may be at risk for the condition.
The discovery of insulin by Canadian researchers Banting, Best and McLeod in 1921 provided new ways of managing diabetes, and has meant a longer and healthier life for those suffering from the condition. But it did not provide a cure. Continued research is necessary.
I would like to commend the efforts of the Canadian Diabetic Association and all those who share their work, and wish them well with their campaign.


EAST TIMOR
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, a week ago today the Indonesian news agency Antara reported that Xanana Gusmao was arrested by Indonesian military forces in Dili, East Timor. He is the leader of East Timor's independence movement and a key player in the negotiations currently under way under the auspices of the United Nations regarding the future of East Timor.
Xanana is currently being held incommunicado in detention and there are fears that he maybe subjected to torture or ill treatment by the Indonesian security forces. They have admitted that Xanana is undergoing intensive questioning and have rejected calls for the Red Cross to be allowed to visit him.
The Canadian government should take steps to ensure that Xanana Gusmao is released immediately; that he is afforded the minimum protection provided under the relevant UN conventions; that the Red Cross is granted immediate access to him; that his lawyer is allowed to be present at all times during questioning; and that he is able to participate in the talks about the future of East Timor with the UN.
As I outlined in a speech at the UN last year-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but your time has expired.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, with the coming into force of the Young Offenders Act, Canada's treatment of criminal activity by youth underwent a marked change. The Young Offenders Act recognizes the special needs and the vulnerability of youth, but also places emphasis on the protection of the public. However, society is changing and unfortunately so are the crimes of our youth. I want our government to re-examine this legislation and make the necessary changes so that the law accurately reflects the reality of our society.
In discussions I have had with chiefs of police, law enforcement officers and members of the public, there was a consensus that changes must be made. First, being 18 years old and falling under the Young Offenders Act is too old. Also, there is a problem with under-12 year olds not being charged under the act.
In addition, youths 15 years old and over who have been convicted of first degree murder should automatically be referred to the adult court for sentencing. Finally, records of violent youth criminality should be made available to principals of schools at which a young offender is in attendance.

If our system of justice is to be fair, equitable and effective-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Your time has expired.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that Chander Grover should have had to enter a complaint against the National Research Council. It is worse that the findings of the Human Rights Commission demonstrated the discrimination at NRC had to be the subject of the strongest indictment measured against anyone in the entire country.
It is worse when another complaint has been brought before the Human Rights Commission because the National Research Council has refused to follow the directions of the Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Perron, who is the president, has refused to recognize his obligations. The minister has refused to ensure that he follow his obligations. Both should be held responsible. Mr. Perron should not be allowed to continue leading NRC and if the minister does not do his job, he should resign as well.


MANPOWER TRAINING
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, this is further to comments I made at the beginning of this week on manpower training.
What is the challenge facing parliamentarians after the constitutional setback? We must show Canadians that federalism is still viable. We must prove we can make changes for the benefit of Canadians, and administrative agreements are one of the ways we can do this.
The first test will be manpower training. At the conference of employment and immigration ministers in January, our colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will make it clear that it is possible to eliminate overlap and duplication in manpower training
and that administrative agreements can and must be used to improve effectiveness for the benefit of users.


OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, had a textile mill for well over 115 years. The branch mill of Dominion Textiles closed its doors last July 31, 1991, putting 350 employees out of work. Approximately 30 people qualified for the Older Workers Adjustment Program. It was my understanding and theirs that when their unemployment ran out the older workers adjustment benefits would be in place.
We are now at the end of November, 16 months after the closure. I have written the minister and spoken to the department. The province of Nova Scotia says it sent this particular matter up months ago. Unfortunately, in order to live some of the people involved have had to go to welfare, some have had to get credit from local grocery stores and some have had to find other sources for funds.
Surely no program that is supposed to help people who have been laid off should take this long to come into force. If this is the way the program-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Your time has expired.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I was relieved to hear this morning that the release of Ray Boudreau, a paedophile who has completed only two-thirds of his sentence, has been delayed while new information is assessed by the National Parole Board.
While I am pleased with this development I am disappointed in the process that seems to have prevented the Solicitor General from taking direct action to overrule the board.
The board still seems confused about the issue of serious harm. As I said yesterday, when a child is sexually molested, serious harm is done. This incident provides a good example of why we need to revise our laws related to child sexual abuse by allowing indefinite incarceration for offenders who cannot be rehabilitated. We also need much better rehabilitation programs.
November 27, 1992

I urge the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to take immediate action on these pressing issues.


ROGERS CABLE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I want to speak about cable rates. The council of the district of Coquitlam, soon to be the city, just passed a resolution on cable rates which states as follows: "that the council write a strong letter of protest to the CRTC regarding the proposed rate increase sought by Rogers Cable and advise them of our displeasure with this monthly 19 per cent increase in their basic monthly rate".
My constituents are angry. They are not just displeased, they are angry. This notice is what you get at your door. This tells you about the increase in your cable rate. However, what does it really tell you? It is called negative option marketing. In fact, cable rates for certain channels are going up about $2.30 and they do not tell you that you do not have to take them.
I say to the people of Canada, say no to Rogers, phone your cable people and say: "You are not going to pick our pockets. We do not have to take these rates and we do not have to take this". If you just phone and tell them you do not have take it you do not have to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Your time has expired.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, Canada's competition laws are inadequate. Our competition laws were unable to prevent the recent predation clearly going on in the airline industry where one airline tried to take over another by engaging in predatory pricing practices.
Our inadequate competition laws have cost Canadians dearly and put at risk the stability of our airline industry. The Director of the Competition Bureau has been powerless to intervene. It is too difficult to prove in a judicial setting that predatory pricing is occurring.
The law should be strengthened to lower the burden of proof. The Director of the Competition Bureau should be able to threaten companies with fines if they appear to be engaging in predatory practices.
I call upon the government to strengthen Canada's competition laws and to enhance the role of the director as an advocate of competition.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, the government in January announced new rules for reviewing foreign takeovers of Canada's book publishing companies. Canadian publishers expressed grave concern opposing any retreat from the government's objective of seeking Canadian control of both book publishing and distribution.
The government denied it had backed down under American pressure and insisted that as a condition of any foreign takeover that the net effect would be beneficial to Canada and the Canadian owned publishing industry in both cultural and industrial terms.
Recent news reports state that after three and a half years, Investment Canada is to allow the sale of Harper-Collins Canadian book distribution business to foreign interests. A letter from Michael Wilson to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation says: "We welcome your decision to invest in Canada".
Questions need answering. Is Investment Canada to allow the sale of a Canadian company to foreigners? Is there a net benefit to Canada and the Canadian-owned publishing sector? Have Canadian publishers been told to zip their lip if they oppose this deal, that they will put $100 million in federal grant money to their industry in jeopardy? Is the government covering up yet another sell-out of Canadian culture?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret the time has expired.


SANTOSH SIRPAUL
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to express on behalf of many members of Parliament a sincere thank you to one of our most senior and distinguished clerks, Ms. Santosh Sirpaul.

November 27, 1992
Oral Questions
As members know, Ms. Sirpaul some years ago came alone to Canada as a young immigrant from India. She has spent her entire professional career serving all members of Parliament on many committees and bills. She worked many years as clerk to the transport committee, including the huge national transportation bill. She clerked the free trade bill and just this week completed the massive C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Thank you, Ms. Sirpaul, for another task very well done.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, the free trade deal requires an end to subsidies. This deal is supported by the Liberals, Conservatives, Reform and Bloc Quebecois.
The Royal Commission on Transportation has tabled a blueprint for full user-pay air, road, rail and ferry travel in Canada. Here is what it will do to travel in my constituency. I drive from Masset to Skidegate and pay $7 at the new road toll booth. I get on the ferry to Prince Rupert and the fare has doubled, thanks to the cancellation of the $19 million federal subsidy. I drive from Prince Rupert to Terrace and pay $11 at the new road toll booth. There is no VIA Rail any more, instead there is a passenger car once a week at the back of a freight train and it is empty. As I leave Terrace I pay $14 at the new road toll booth on the way to Smithers. At Smithers I board a plane and thanks to the new user fees, it is $300 one way to Vancouver. That is a 500 mile flight. In the Vancouver airport I notice that a 2,500 mile flight to Toronto is now only $79.
Yes, removing subsidies might give better and cheaper service between big cities, but this user pay will kill rural Canada.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of one of my constituents, Mr. Harold Bliss.
Mr. Bliss has suffered a great deal both physically and psychologically as a result of his experiences as an employee of Public Works Canada.
Mr. Bliss was attacked and his attacker was found guilty of assault in provincial court. An internal investigation by Public Works Canada dealt with such issues as anti-Semitism and harassment directed at Mr. Bliss.
This assault occurred over two years ago but despite clear indications that Mr. Bliss was the victim in this affair, this case still has not been resolved. Mr. Bliss is under a great deal of physical and emotional stress and he continues to suffer as he waits in vain for settlement.
I have learned recently there has been some movement toward a resolution. I am pleased that some progress is being made but I urge the government to do all in its power to right this terrible injustice.


ETHANOL
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, a recent announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Agriculture to encourage the production and use of the fuel ethanol in Canada could not have come at a better time.
In British Columbia, Dr. Laszlo Paszner has been working on his technology for converting wood waste to ethanol. Hopefully this will lead to a pilot project and, ultimately, to the full scale production of ethanol in British Columbia.
This is a good complement to the forest industry and by using wood waste to create ethanol not only do Canadians benefit from an alternative fuel source but the environment benefits from less harmful automobile
emissions.
The federal government has truly shown leadership and a vision.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance.
ft
November 27, 1992

On October 10,1991, the Minister of Finance said that the recession ended in April 1991. Yesterday in this House the minister said that the recession is over but this time he did not give us a date on which the recession ended.
I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that for the 10,000 employees of CN Rail who are losing their jobs, the recession is not over. For the 2,000 employees of Dofasco in Hamilton who are losing their jobs, the recession is not over. For the 500 employees of Pratt and Whitney in Montreal, the recession is not over. It is just beginning.
When will the minister realize that his policy of fighting inflation at all costs is the wrong policy? When will he introduce a new set of economic policies that will create growth in Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday or the day before, the economy has experienced five consecutive quarters of growth, modest, but not negative growth. The hon. member should recognize that.
There has been job creation. Some 64,000 new jobs have been created. There has been an improvement in the job situation in five of the last six months. Some
83,000	permanent jobs were implemented in September and October. There is an improvement in confidence. There is an improvement in departmental sales. What the hon. member is clearly overlooking-he is a world traveller and he understands global economics-is that we are really going through a major restructuring, a massive restructuring, a transition of the economy, and there are adjustments that have to be made.
What we are trying to do is implement programs and policies to facilitate that transition, to ensure that Canadians who are displaced as a result of the newly emerging economy can train and upgrade their skills so that they can take advantage of these new opportunities.
[Translation}


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it is really incredible the Minister of Finance is so far removed from reality, although we understand that he may try to make a short presentation on economic policy next week in the House.
Oral Questions
Will the Minister of Finance consider what he has refused to consider so far: starting a job creation process by inviting municipalities, provincial governments, and the federal government to invest together in the infrastructures that badly need improving in this country?
Does he intend to give the private sector new incentives to invest in expanding their industries and purchasing equipment, in order to create jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the challenges we face cannot be met by one level of government or the other. It will require the close co-operation of the federal government, the provinces, the municipalities, the private sector, the workers of this country, the unions and the learning institutions.
One of our major thrusts will be to invest in people, to invest in a strategic way in capital investments, to invest in some infrastructure in a way that would be affordable, recognizing that we have very little fiscal room, by working with the provinces and, of course, encouraging those partnerships which the hon. member suggests.
Next week we will have the opportunity to hear what the opposition parties have in mind in terms of their outline for economic policy for the future, how they would build an economic foundation for the 21st century. I will be very interested to hear what they have to offer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the minister has just said that he is ready to do something in the program of infrastructure. It is something we have been talking about for more than a year. We would not be this deep into a recession if the minister had listened to us. I will give him another little bit of advice because he seems to need a lot of it.
One of the biggest problems in our economy today is that small businesses cannot get loans from the banks. The banks are taking the savings of Canadians and buying Canadian bonds with them and they are not investing in businesses any more. The minister for small business said the government would talk to the junior clerks of the banks. That is not what we should do. The Minister of Finance should call in the banks and tell

Oral Questions
them to lend money to the Canadians who want to invest
right now to create jobs.
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses
and Tourism)): Madam Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to really bring himself up to date.
I met with the senior officials of all the banks just two weeks ago and asked them to report to me on the very question that the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about because I had information confirming that credit restrictions were still very strong. I told them that they have to open up their credit still further. We are going to do our part through helping to improve the Small Businesses Loans Act, something else the Leader of the Opposition is also not aware of.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Less than a month before Christmas, 10,000 workers at CN, 2,000 workers at Dofasco, 500 workers at Pratt and Whitney, 1,500 miners in Cape Breton, thousands of fishermen in Atlantic Canada joined 1.6 million Canadians in telling this Minister of Finance that the recession is not over.
Will the minister accept the evidence of this human misery? Will he acknowledge the depth of the recession and will he bring in a budget to fight it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern. He will recognize that there is hardly a sector in our economy that has not been affected, either by the slowing down of the economy or by the global slowdown, by the restructuring and transition period we are going through in adjusting and adapting to a newly emerging economy.
In his own particular area of Atlantic Canada and particularly off the coast of Newfoundland, the depletion of fish stocks is a phenomenon that has to be dealt with. Human misery and suffering are occurring there, but this government has responded.
When de Havilland was in trouble, the government sat down with the workers, with the company, with the provinces and tried to put together a plan of action. In the case of Algoma we did the same thing. We have continued to work with the various sectors and the
provincial governments involved, the workers and the unions to try to deal with these particular issues. They are very difficult issues that have to be faced. The steel industry is undergoing a situation where there are massive stocks in the global market. That is a reality of life and we have to deal with it. We will work with all the interested parties in trying to deal with this very difficult and sensitive issue.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, does the Minister of Finance not realize, in light of everything he has just said, that Canada's unemployed and indeed Canada's employed find it offensive when the minister continues to insist in the face of all that human misery that the recession is over?
They find it bitterly ironic that the only Canadians who have been given reassurances about job security this winter are Tory members of Parliament who have been told that there will be no election until next fall.
Will this Minister of Finance cancel his plans for a mini budget and will he bring in a major change of economic policy and begin the process of putting Canadians back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have always acknowledged that the Canadian economy was not recovering and was weaker than we had hoped for and that we had anticipated, but so is the global economy.
There is such a thing as global interdependence. That is a fact of life. We are part of the global community. We export and we trade with many other countries. When demand is reduced in the global sense, it affects Canada. We cannot be immune from these realities.
I repeat, there has been five consecutive quarters of growth. There has been job creation. There have been indicators that show we have become more competitive. Our productivity has increased, our exports have increased and departmental sales are improving. It is a slow turnaround.
I hope that the statement I make next week will add to the confidence, the hope and the optimism that the hon. member is so anxious to receive. I hope he will be supportive of it.
November 27, 1992


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In answers just given, he has talked about the world global economy. That is the problem as far as he is concerned. However, in the airline industry, in VIA transportation, there are 10,000 people who will lose their jobs. Those are Canadian problems. What are the Canadian solutions?
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been the last few years because what we are seeing in the airline industry is a global rationalization.
Perhaps he should consult with his transportation critic because he would find that there has been a consolidation of carriers, not only in the United States but in Europe. The consolidation and the alliance of carriers has produced economies of scale with a certain amount of job dislocation.
It is a fact of life. It is part of globalization. It is part of the keen competitiveness we are going through. It is part of the transition, adjustment and restructuring that is exacerbating the difficulties in the slowness of the economy and the hon. member should understand that. No one can be immune from global realities.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that the only keen transportation competition were the buy-outs that occurred under deregulation.
We have fewer air companies now than we did when deregulation was started by the Liberals and the Conservatives. We know that. However, in the rail industry,
10,000	jobs being lost at CN alone. What is the government going to do for those workers? What is it going to do for the communities that are affected?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting that we should artificially inflate prices for CN, for CP, for Air Canada and for Canadian Airlines, and price ourselves right out of the world market? What kind of nonsense is that, Madam Speaker.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, my question is again for the Deputy Prime Minister.
He said that exports have increased and new jobs have increased. Is it in fact true that our greatest increase in
Oral Questions
exports are the new jobs we are producing in the United States?
Take, for example, Dofasco, where 2,000 jobs are going to be eliminated while at the same time 600 jobs are going to Kentucky by virtue of state and municipal subsidies and incentives. When will the government act and what is it going to do to protect those jobs, particularly in the steel industry, where it can act?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I cannot imagine why the hon. member would be opposed to the increase in exports that are being delivered to the United States of America.
Exports to the United States under the free trade agreement have increased by 10.5 per cent in the first nine months of this year. There has been an increase of over 16 per cent since the free trade agreement was signed.
Whether it is agricultural products with a 30 per cent increase, whether it is pharmaceuticals, industrial machinery, aerospace machinery, software or clothing, all of our exports to the United States have gone up and that means jobs.


INFRASTRUCTURES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister told us yesterday that we are no longer in a recession. Tbday we hear there will be 500 lay-offs at Pratt & Whitney. We also heard that the vacancy rate in the Montreal area is the lowest it has been in 30 years.
When will the minister introduce an infrastructures program to kick start the economy and create jobs for our workers who need the money? They do not even have enough to pay the rent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I repeat that this country has had five consecutive quarters of growth. It is modest, but we have had five consecutive quarters of growth.

Oral Questions
In August, the composite leading indicator was up. Growth in August was at the rate of one-half of one per cent for the month. That is a very major increase. The help wanted index is up. Employment and jobs have been created.
The hon. member wants an infrastructure program. I would appreciate knowing what kind of an infrastructure program he wants, how much money he is going to borrow or how much he is going to tax. Where is he going to get the money to get it done?


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, we have been discussing this program since January, and if the minister had been listening, people would have been back to work.
According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there are 35,000 housing units vacant in the Montreal area. That many vacancies, would accommodate the entire town of Saint-Leonard. Will the minister give us the assurance that in his economic statement on December 2, he will introduce an infrastructures program, supported by the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government, so that Canadians who need work will be able to get it? Does he realize that in Montreal, unemployment in the construction industry has reached 50 per cent? Is he going to wait until it goes up to 100 per cent?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the government is very much aware of these facts. That is why it wants to concentrate on the real solutions. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, explained a number of facts which the Liberals don't seem to want to understand. Next year in the OECD countries, which are the largest industrialized countries in the world, there will be 42 million unemployed. These people are our customers, and they must be in good shape if we want to sell them our products. The government cannot act as a substitute for the real economy. It must create a climate that is favourable to job creation, the lowest possible interest rates and the lowest possible rate of inflation. That is what the government must do, and that is what we will do.


MINING INDUSTRY
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for small business to whom I have given notice of my question. He will be aware of a very serious water situation at the Lingan colliery. There have been massive lay-offs at the failing colliery and other operations of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
On behalf of the families of the miners of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, will the minister exercise his responsibilities and work with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to see whether or not the provisions of the advance payment system under the Unemployment Insurance Act can be utilized? This would allow those employees to secure some benefits before the Christmas holiday season.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question and advance notice.
The situation is really quite serious. The water pressure on the Lingan colliery remains very strong. It is stable and we are concerned that the failing colliery which is below it could be put at risk as well. We are monitoring this very carefully.
This morning I talked to the management, the board and also the union. They are very pleased that there are thorough briefings going on hourly between union and management. No miner has been injured. No miner is down there. They are not working today.
I would like him to know that multi-seam mining experts are coming from Europe. They are going to look at the safety of the Phalen colliery which is so important for future jobs in Cape Breton.
In terms of the immediate future for the miners, it is very important that nothing be done until it is totally safe for them to go there and therefore we have to look to unemployment insurance. They were registering yesterday and the day before. They will do so again today.
Ordinarily, they would have to wait two weeks, until the middle of December, before they could receive their unemployment insurance benefits, but I have spoken to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He is looking to see if there is a way under the act to have an advance payment.
November 27, 1992


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for that comprehensive answer with regard to that situation.
The minister is well aware that previous governments have made substantial investments in preparing for the opening of a new project, namely, the Donkin coal mine.
As a result of the Lingan situation, is the minister and the Government of Canada prepared to work with the province of Nova Scotia to assist Devco in getting this mine into operation, thereby securing the jobs of the individuals who work there? Will the government allow Devco, a federal Crown corporation, to honour its domestic and international commitments so that it can be known as a reliable coal supplier? Can the minister give us that undertaking?


Thomas Hockin: It is quite true that Devco's performance in the last two years has established itself very strongly as a reliable coal supplier, not just to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation but internationally. There has been good union-management co-operation. We want to see that continue.
It is premature really to talk about Donkin. We have to see whether we can save the 13 east wall in Lingan and whether the international experts can make sure that we can move into Phalen which is below it.
There is some reason for hope. Apparently the water pressure is like a hockey stick. It is going up rather than down. It could be that one could stabilize that pressure permanently and the experts will tell us that. The experts will also tell us about the future of the Phalen colliery and that is our immediate concern.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. As is widely known the residents in my area recently rejected proposals for municipally financed sewage treatment, the high cost being a major factor.
Oral Questions
Victoria is not alone, as the minister knows. More than
1,000	Canadian communities dump raw sewage into our lakes, rivers and other bodies of water.
Will this government show some national leadership to clear up our waters? We will co-operate fully at all levels and on all sides of the House. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue which is important to all Canadians.
Would the government be prepared to institute a national cost-shared program to upgrade our water and sewage treatment facilities in Canada?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member would call on the federal government to show some national leadership in this regard. In fact, on environmental issues and sustainable development issues we have done exactly that through, among other things, Canada's national green plan.
I have been made aware of the issue of sewage treatment in Victoria several times. In fact, it would be important to note that this is a matter which is raised systematically by American representatives. Two successive ambassadors representing the United States have raised this matter with me. I have also raised this matter with the Government of British Columbia several times. I understand the referendum was not successful.
We are having discussions now with the Government of British Columbia. At the end of the day, however, I think the member will also accept that on issues of infrastructure we usually recognize that municipal governments and provincial governments are responsible first in that area. That is also consistent with the polluter-pay principle that this government has adopted.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, the capital regional district and the people of Victoria have contributed an enormous amount to cleaning up many of the problems in the area. The provincial government has been prepared to put up money. The federal government put up nearly $200 million for sewage treatment in Halifax. It would assist enormously if the government would be prepared to come along with a national program and contribute to cleaning up this most important waterway.

Oral Questions
I ask the government again: Will it give some leadership in job creation in cleaning up the environment and cleaning up our international reputation by taking action in this important matter?


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I understand there are ongoing discussions with the government of British Columbia on this matter. We intend to pursue this matter with it. I want to remind the hon. member that from time to time there has been federal participation in certain projects of this nature, but it is the exception rather than the rule.
From an environmental point of view, it is also important to recognize that whatever the issue may be it is the people involved, the people who are in that area who are first and foremost responsible for these types of activities. That is certainly the premise upon which we are operating as we enter into these discussions.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport if, as a condition for the $50 million of financial assistance given to Canadian Airlines, the government had sought from Canadian Airlines a promise that it would not ask for any further financial assistance. The record will show that the minister failed to answer that question.
I would like to ask the government one more time: Has the government forced PWA to promise that no proposal will be put forward which demands financial support from the federal government following completion of the transaction?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Madam Speaker, as the minister responded to that question yesterday, we are doing everything we can to assist PWA to come to a solution for its problems. We will continue to work with it as is necessary.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, next Tuesday the employees of Canadian Airlines International begin to contribute from their own pay cheques in the hope and belief that their government has a two airline policy.
Is it not the case that what the government sought and obtained for its $50 million is a gag order on PWA Corporation?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, the employees certainly have worked very hard in order to help their company survive. This is something that is important to the future of Canada as companies and employees work together. Their contribution toward keeping up survival of the airline is very important and our help toward the airline is also intended to help them survive.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Auditor General has accused the Department of National Health and Welfare of contract splitting in which $5 million worth of contracts were awarded "with repeated disregard for the control and safeguard of public funds".
Quite apart from any other investigation, what is the President of the Treasury Board doing to restore confidence in the government tendering process?


Gilles Loiselle: I would like to tell the hon. member that the case to which he is referring is under investigation. I would rather not comment at this time.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I know about the criminal investigation. That is not what I was asking. I was asking what this minister was doing.

This is the second time in four days that departments are caught circumventing Treasury Board's contract regulations. Why are contracts awarded without tender? Why are contracts shared? Why are bills paid before the work is finished? Why?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, the government has some very specific rules, and I must say the vast majority of managers abide by those rules. The
November 27, 1992

government manages a budget of several hundred billion dollars, and the hon. member is talking about mistakes involving two or three million dollars. Incidentally, these cases are now being investigated.


AIRPORTS
David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
The House knows the leasing arrangements between the Department of Transport and the small tenants at Canadian airports across Canada are archaic and unfair, and I believe border on the edge of theft.
I know the minister, along with myself, has received a number of requests to have these leasing arrangements brought forward and changed so that there would be a true business-like arrangement.
Maybe the minister could tell me if anything has been done to re-evaluate these leasing arrangements.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in this topic. I know he has been working on it, as has the member for Regina-Wascana.
I am pleased to say that as a result of some new factors represented primarily by the recently enacted Federal Real Property Act, the department is currently finalizing proposals for my consideration. A draft paper will be available by the end of the year. It will go out to all interested parties. We will then be able to sit down and get their input and I am sure we will be able to solve this problem.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
The Auditor General reported on search and rescue in Canada this past week and concluded there was a political opportunity to eliminate all search and rescue patrol vessels because they only save people 20 per cent of the time.
Oral Questions
There is a very real danger in having bean counters from Ottawa making policy recommendations on the availability of life saving vehicles.
Does the minister support the Auditor General's analysis and the Coast Guard agreement to recommendation 8.57 to "decommission all search and rescue patrol vessels and discontinue all search and rescue patrols"?


Shirley Martin: am really surprised, Madam Speaker. One day opposition members are accusing us of discrediting the Auditor General and the next day they are saying the Auditor General has made a mistake in this particular recommendation. They cannot have it both ways.
As far as this particular issue is concerned it is a recommendation that has been brought forward, but what is first and foremost with this government is to ensure there is safety when it comes to search and rescue.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. On the northern B.C. coast we have two type 500 cutters, a couple of smaller craft and an F-61 helicopter, all Coast Guard. We have no Department of National Defence vessels or aircraft based north of Vancouver Island.
Will the minister assure the House that before any of our Pacific coast Coast Guard vessels or helicopters are cut from service in any way there will be full formal public consultation with all users in Prince Rupert, in Kitimat, on the Queen Charlotte islands, and in the coastal communities that are affected?


Shirley Martin: It
would be rather nice, Madam Speaker, if we had more helicopters that we could use on search and rescue.


Mr. Bosley:: In his riding.


Shirley Martin: Yes, as my colleague says, in the hon. member's riding.
Certainly we are very conscious of the need for search and rescue on the B.C. coast. We have always been conscious of that within the Coast Guard, and they do an excellent job on the west coast.


FUR INDUSTRY
Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

November 27, 1992
Oral Questions
Callous, uncaring and insensitive mostly foreign financed animal rights campaigns have unfairly targeted what is left of the sealing and trapping livelihood of the Inuit peoples and the people of Newfoundland.
Is the minister prepared to protect the livelihood of these people by launching a counter ad campaign? Will he give financial support to the Indigenous Survival International to provide a public voice for aboriginal people to defend themselves?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, since 1987 the federal government has supported the fur strategy and Indigenous Survival International had been supported, as well as the Aboriginal Trappers Federation in Canada.
We have recently agreed to extend and renew the fur strategy. We are very conscious of the pending moratorium in 1995 in the European Community for countries that have not adopted humane trapping methods.
Trap research and the education of the Canadian trapping community as to how we would comply with these regulations are all devoted to encouraging an increase in opportunities for the marketing of furs, particularly those produced by indigenous peoples, in the European Community. I will be happy to learn of additional proposals such as the one the hon. member has advanced today.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister for International Trade. This has clearly become an international trade issue.
A full year has passed since the European Community passed its fur input regulation in November 1991. For Canadian wild fur exporters to meet the European Community's import requirements which come into effect in 1995, Canadian wildlife regulations must be in place before the 1994 fall trapping season begins.
Will the minister commit to renewed funding for the Fur Industry Defence Program so that Canada can remain in the forefront of international trapping research and technology?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the Minister
for International Hade was present a week ago at a meeting attended by ministers and some members of Parliament with representatives of the Canadian trapping industry, fur processing industry and exporters.
The minister is very well aware of the request the hon. member has made. As part of the federal government's fur strategy, all departments are looking at their financial resources with a view to ensuring that Canada is prepared to comply with those regulations. The Canadian fur industry will be the major beneficiary of our preparation to market furs trapped by humane methods.


VICTIMS OF CRIME
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime held a press conference this week in this building.
Will the Minister of Justice, in the absence of the Solicitor General, tell the House why rank and file police officers across Canada have to fund this centre at $150,000 a year rather than governments? We are now spending about $6 billion a year on the criminal justice system.
While she is doing so, will she tell the House why the victims of violent crime, very often women and children, are the truly forgotten people in our criminal justice system?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, with regard to the hon. member's question about the funding of that particular centre, I am not in a position to answer it and will take it on notice for my colleague the Solicitor General.
However, the hon. member knows well that this government introduced legislation precisely to enhance the status of victims of crime in the trial procedure. My colleague, the Solicitor General, has recently brought in legislation to enhance the rights of victims of crime in the parole procedure.
I think this government has nothing to apologize for in our efforts to balance the process of criminal justice to make sure the interests of those who are the victims, and therefore the raison d'etre for the trial and incarceration, are not forgotten in the process but are remembered as
November 27, 1992

being those who bear with them forever the burden of those offences.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I wish the minister would go out and talk to her constituents. I think she would find that in the lower mainland of B.C. the fear of crime is now the major public issue in that part of Canada. It certainly is in Alberta as a result of some moronic decisions by the parole board and correction officials.


Mr. Hawkes:: Question.


David Kilgour: The new head of the victims centre told the press conference that the Government of Canada in its statement of defence to an action filed by parents of one of Mr. Gingras' murdered victims said that it had no duty of care to the victims.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Question.


David Kilgour: The Whip, Madam Speaker-


Mr. Prud'homme:: You are making them nervous. You are annoying the system.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member please put his question.


David Kilgour: Does the Minister of Justice think that the parole board, the correction service, has a duty of care to the parents of murder victims when offenders are pre-released?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I think that question is an inappropriate one.


Coline M. Campbell: Why? One of your own colleagues asked the same question.


A. Kim Campbell: That hon. member is a lawyer and she should know better as well.
I am sure my colleague, the Solicitor General, will be pleased to address the questions of the hon. member on the workings of those bodies. As to whether there is a duty of care or a legal liability, that is a matter before the courts and not something that I as Minister of Justice would comment on. It would be in fact an abuse of my position to do so.
Oral Questions KEMANO PROJECT


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Recently released Fisheries and Oceans memos and letters point to political interference within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over its decision to allow the controversial Alcan Kemano project to proceed without an environmental review.
The RCMP in British Columbia is now investigating the allegations in one of the memos that expert witness testimony was changed under pressure from supervisors within that department.
I have provided the government with copies of these documents. Will the minister speak to his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and release the over
83,000	pages of information that are in the files of this department on this particular issue? Will he do that so the truth can come out about this particular issue?


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, the member is asking me to convey a question to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I will be happy to do that.
He said he has conveyed the information to the government. I have not received information to that effect, but I will be happy to convey the question to him as he has requested.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I think it is pretty clear to people, certainly in northern British Columbia, that this government's failure to conduct a proper environmental assessment of the Kemano project makes a mockery of this government and this minister's so-called commitment to the environment under the green plan.
The Liberals opposed a public review of this project, and despite the Prime Minister's earlier promise of a review the government has done everything it can to block such an inquiry.
The B.C. government and the B.C. environment minister are currently reviewing its options for a public review of the project. Will the minister join today with the B.C. Minister of the Environment and announce a

Oral Questions
joint federal-provincial environmental assessment of this project?


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, the member refers to the existence of the green plan. The project he is referring to if I remember correctly-I do not have the file in front of me-started in the 1950s. The green plan started two years ago. I would be cautious in trying to make any link between them.
As the member will remember and you will recall, Madam Speaker, there was some court action on the issue of whether there should be an environmental assessment done through this project. The Federal Court of Appeals has recently rendered a decision to the effect that the legal requirements have been met in terms of the government's responsibilities.
The Government of British Columbia, I understand, has made some commitment during the provincial campaign that it would do a review. I imagine that it will be rendering a response on its own commitment soon.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Over the past year, the national capital region has lost hundreds of public servants, especially with the move of the National Energy Board to Calgary and the Farm Credit Corporation to Regina, in western Canada, and the opposition parties in this House concurred in this.
Recently we learned that the Minister of Finance would move some 200 federal public servants from the department of immigration to his home town, in order to restore his image and plummeting credibility-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question?


Gilles Rocheleau: -with western voters.
Madam Speaker, my question is this: I ask the minister to account to the people and explain to the House on what rational economic basis this patronage decision was made by the government, given the huge costs involved in such moves.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, since it is a specific question concerning immigration, I would reassure our colleague and assure the House that the decision was made in the context of Bill C-86, where we decided to make management more efficient. This decision will save us $6.5 million a year and improve the efficiency of our processing.
Would the member object to our developing small towns in Canada?


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
In spite of assurances given to me in the House on June 12, the work force of the Canadian Coast Guard in Prescott has been reduced approximately 20 per cent. That is 20 per cent of the work force of the biggest employer in Prescott.
Can the minister assure me that there will be no further cuts or transfers in such areas as the shops, the helicopter services and all those other services working for the Coast Guard out of the town of Prescott, and can the remaining employees at Prescott feel that their jobs are now secure?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, there have been changes made at Prescott and there has been a lot of discussion with the employees there.
I can assure the hon. member that at the current time there are no plans to remove the manufacturing or the maintenance facility at Prescott.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.
In the last throne speech the government promised to increase the time allotted to Private Members' Business. It also promised to increase the number of votable items allowed. Other than confirming recommendations already in place which were put forward by the privileges
November 27, 1992

and elections committee and tinkering with the draw system, nothing has happened.
Will the government bring forward these reforms?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, virtually the first thing the Prime Minister did after the election in 1984 was appoint the McGrath commission, which brought forward extensive recommendations for changes, most of which have been implemented.
In my first 12 years in opposition there was only one private member's bill ever passed. Since 1984 there have been private members' bills passed on numerous occasions.
Committees have the right to set their own references which they never had prior to 1984. They have extensive budgets. The amount of authority given to private members to pursue interests on behalf of their constituents is orders of magnitude more than it used to be. Of course we are always looking for ways to improve things even further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the
Routine Proceedings
honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report on the activities of the Canadian Section of the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians at the meeting of the board co-ordinating the PARDOC project, held in Paris on October 29, 30 and 31, 1992.


[Stage Direction]
55TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 55th report of the Standing Committee on House Management.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
56TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, I have the honour to present the 56th report of the Standing Committee on House Management.
If the House gives its consent I would intend to move concurrence in that report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-379, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (phosphorus concentrations in laundry detergents).

November 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, among the most serious causes of pollution are laundry detergents containing high levels of phosphate. Most of the detergents sold in Canada are used in the home and detergent rich sewage is a major source of phosphate pollution in our lakes and rivers.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act currently sets the maximum phosphorus content of laundry detergents sold in Canada at 5 per cent expressed as phosphorus pentoxide or 2.2 per cent expressed elemental phosphorus. This level, which is set by cabinet and not laid out in the legislation, is too high and must be reduced.
My private member's bill amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and dramatically lowers limits for phosphate content currently in place.
Based on similar legislation in the state of Ohio, the bill would prohibit the sale of laundry detergents whose phosphate content exceeds 1.14 per cent by weight expressed as phosphorus pentoxide or 0.5 per cent by weight expressed as elemental phosphorus.
The bill is a major step toward the preservation of our fragile environment through the reduction and eventual elimination of excess phosphorus from our inland and coastal waters.


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



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West, that the 55th report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Madam Speaker, I am happy to table the two letters involved. I would counsel my hon. friend opposite to contain his vessel because the response will be forthcoming.']
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West, that the 56th report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
55TH AND 56TH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
['Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West, that the 56th report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.']
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would move:
That, in relation to the 55th and 56th reports on the Standing Committee on House Management presented to the House and concurred in earlier this day, and not withstanding any special or Standing Order of the practice of the House or its standing or standing joint committee, the incumbent chairmen and vicechairmen of the standing and standing joint committees, except for the Standing Committee on Transport, shall continue in office until the committee concerned shall otherwise order;
Provided that those standing or standing joint committees whose chairmen or vice-chairmen cease to be members of the committee as a result of the concurrence in the said report, shall proceed to the election of a new chairman as their first order of business and such vice-chairmen as the committee deems necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by the members of the Kinsmen and the Kinettes Clubs of Sarnia. This petition has been certified correct in form and content by the clerk of petitions.
These constituents give their support for the Proud to be Canadian project. This project is a worthwhile opportunity to nurture a positive lifelong relationship for their heritage and our flag and to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote pride in being Canadian.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I have a petition here to promote pride in being Canadian signed by individuals from communities in Glace Bay Reserve, Dominion, Donkin and throughout Sydney River, Sydney and other parts of Cape Breton.
November 27, 1992

The Kinsmen and Kinettes Clubs of Canada have created an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the Proud to be Canadian project during the celebration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation.
The petitioners hereby support the Proud to be Canadian project as an opportunity to nurture a positive lifelong relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.


Al Johnson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a number of copies of a petition this morning from citizens in my constituency who are concerned that the Department of Transport may amend its present airport policy which has insulated the citizens of Calgary North from the noise generated by the airports since 1986.
They therefore petition and request that Parliament urge the Department of Transport to maintain the present airport policy regarding run number 28 which requires that all departing flights make a 15 degree turn to the north.
I might add that I am aware that the department has been working actively on this file and that the solution to the problem is near.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I have four sets of petitions from my constituents and others to present to Parliament, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first set is a request that Parliament amend or remove from the Criminal Code section 462.2 so that the freedom of Canadians to discuss and consider the possi-
Routine Proceedings
ble beneficial uses of hemp and other substances is in no way inhibited or prevented by the provisions of the code.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, the second set of petitions deals with an issue that was in one form before Parliament earlier; namely, the question of the pension credits splitting for the divorce spouses of federal employees of various kinds.
Some of the issues that the petitioners were concerned about were not fully dealt with in Bill C-55. This petition is therefore helpful and relevant to the House.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, finally I have a set of petitions which is dated but this is the first opportunity I have had to present it to the House. It deals with the infamous referendum.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, poverty among children inhibits learning and preparation for employment constituting a cost to future national productivity. That is why we need sound national financial management that prevents poverty.
I join with my constituents today in introducing this petition in the House of Commons, calling on the government to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions again to present. These petitions come from individuals throughout my riding. In looking through some of the petitions there are signatories all the way from Victoria to Edmonton, Calgary and Red Deer.
These petitioners are very concerned about the proposal by Multinational Resources Limited to divert a portion of the flow of the North Thompson River and to export that water out of Canada and into the California market. They have asked the government to state categorically that it will not permit Canada's freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian waters are not for sale.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to present. One is backdated to June and this is the first opportunity to present it. It is signed by 100 persons from the Nepean-Ottawa area.
They are indicating their concern for the human rights of all people in the world which cannot be ignored. The

Routine Proceedings
carnage continues, they say, in the Punjab, in China and in many other areas of the world.
These petitioners urge the Government of Canada to express its disapproval to the Indian government of the continuing human rights violations in the Punjab.
The second petition is of a similar nature. The petitioners feel that Kashmiri people have a consistent pattern under India's illegal occupation.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to condemn the crimes against humanity in Jammu and the Kashmir and demand that the Red Cross be given access to those two provinces to provide the badly needed food and medicine that they require.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, these petitioners want the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the CRTC controls the use of foul and inappropriate language on radio and television. They believe that some of the things that are broadcast on radio and television really counteract the efforts of the family and they point out that foul language is not necessary to entertain.
The petitioners are also very insightful because they underline that the use of certain language is a form of abuse and there is additional need to be sensitive in our society today with regard to abuse in general.


Ron J. Duhamel: I have some other petitioners who ask how one increases competitiveness, productivity, and how one ensures that more people are involved in the democratic process. They point out that by removing the goods and services tax on books and reading materials we would increase additional literacy, additional productivity, additional competitiveness.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, in keeping with my
undertaking to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, Question No. 284 will be answered today.


Mr. Skelly: With respect to Resolution No. 1992-45 adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on March 3, 1992 concerning the International Year for the World's Indigenous Peoples (a) what activities does the government intend to undertake for this Year (b) what consultations have taken place with indigenous peoples and nongovernmental organizations working with indigenous peoples regarding the activities during this Year (c) who is co-ordinating the activities and (i) what is the process being used for consulting with indigenous peoples (ii) how are the activities being funded (d) has the government provided financial or other resources to assist the work of the United Nations for this Year and/or has it seconded any staff for this purpose?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Insofar as External Affairs and International Trade Canada is concerned, the reply is as follows:
(a)	The department is responsible for negotiating a UN resolution on the International Year at the 47th session of the United Nations General Assembly; it will participate actively in the ceremonies of the Proclamation Day; through its active participation in certain provisions of the resolution, it will promote the achievement of the objectives of the international year and encourage other governments to do the same, it will promote an active communications plan designed to share with other countries, activities and programs in Canada to highlight the international year; embassies, posters celebrating the international year will be sent to all posts abroad to draw attention to the international year and officials will be briefed on the activities in order to encourage others to follow the provisions of the resolution in the United Nations.
(b)	The subject of the international year has been on the agenda of almost every formal and informal consultation between the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the International Organizations Bureau (Department Coordinator of International Aboriginal Affairs). Non-government organizations have been included in some of these consultations and otherwise have been included in the consideration of this matter in the annual consultation.
The international NGO community as well as foreign and other indigenous groups involved in international
November 27, 1992

affairs have been consulted in the formulation of successive resolutions on the International Year.
(c)	(i) The Department of External Affairs co-ordinates all pertinent activities outside of Canada (see b. above).
(ii) From within internal resources.
d)	Financial assistance is under consideration. No staff has been seconded for this purpose.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 304 and 369 could be made Orders for Return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 304 and 369 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Marchi: For (a) the period of November and December 1988 (b) 1989 (c) 1990 (d) 1991 (e) 1992 to date, have any departments or agencies spent money or provided grants in the constituency of York West and, if so, in each case (i) by which department or agency (ii) in what amounts (iii) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.

Question No. 369-Mr. Robinson:
For each year since November 1988, have any departments or agencies spent money or provided grants in the constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway and, if so, (a) by which department or agency (b) in what amounts (c) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary who gave an undertaking yesterday to confer with the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship would be in a position to provide an answer today as to when the minister will live up to the provisions of the Standing Order and submit a comprehensive report after the standing committee had given the minister a number of days to prepare. The parliamentary secretary was kind enough yesterday to suggest that he would get back to the House as soon as possible. A reasonable period of time has now elapsed and I wonder if he could provide us with an answer today.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the assiduousness and the application to duty of my hon. friend.
I did have an opportunity to have a chat with the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and I am informed that he has been in communication with the Clerk of the House in connection with the response to the report. I am prepared to table his letter to the Clerk, if that would be helpful. The gist of the response is that the minister says:
"Let me first emphasize that the government recognizes its duty to respond to this report and certainly shares the committee's objectives. However, as you know, any response must be approved by cabinet and during the referendum period no cabinet committee meetings were held. We have, therefore, been faced with an unavoidable timing problem.
You have my assurances that a response to the standing committee's report will be tabled in the House of Commons as expeditiously as possible.
Thank you for your co-operation in this regard."
Further to that, the minister has been in touch with the chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, the hon. member for Oxford, and has indicated further that the cabinet committee which was seized of the matter, the cabinet committee on human resources, social and legal affairs, held a meeting on November 23. While the response was on the agenda to be dealt with, it was unfortunately deferred to the committee's next meeting

November 27, 1992
Government Orders
which is currently scheduled for Monday next, November 30.
The minister assures me, and I am sure he would want to assure the hon. member opposite, that he is doing his utmost to get the response into the House. I believe that there may be two cabinet committees that need to deal with the response. I can assure my hon. friend that my commitment remains intact; I will stay seized of this brief and report to him on a regular basis, as I am sure he would like to have happen.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I am overwhelmed both by the eloquence and by the comments of the parliamentary secretary. I hope that he will table the letter which he has referred to so that members can see what the minister has written, if he would be kind enough to do that.
However, I still give notice to the Chair that this is a procedure which is very unusual, and to forewarn the Chair that there may be members rising on a point of privilege in due course to debate this.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I am happy to table the two letters involved. I would counsel my hon. friend opposite to contain his vessel because the response will be forthcoming.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be now read a third time.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: We resume debate. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester has nine minutes left to complete his speech.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude my speech on Bill C-26 by noting the words of Barbara Wade Carroll, a professor at McMaster University and an expert in the field of public administration. She states:
It is a clear tenet of organizational theory and management that the way to achieve organizational changes is by changing it not from the top but at the top; yet, neither Public Service 2000 nor Bill C-26 addressed the need for such change except to the degree to which they provide two central agencies, the Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office with greater control over departments.

The best example given by the government of this tops-down approach to change is its contemptuous attitude to the legislative process during the consideration of this bill. On many occasions, the Conservative majority on the legislative committee imposed unrealistic time limits for the consideration of clauses and amendments proposed by the opposition. This combined with the many time limits imposed in the House by the government, turned the debate into a joke. One might even say that this so-called democratic debate turned into a cynical monologue on the part of the Conservatives.
In spite of the marked opposition to Bill C-26 displayed by the vast majority of the 18 witnesses that appeared before the legislative committee, and in spite of the 85 amendments tabled by the Liberal Party, the government thought it better to shut its eyes and its ears and go ahead with this shameful legislation. I must conclude that the Conservative members did not have the courage to face their conscience. This is unfortunate because if the government had shown a better attitude and had taken this bill a little more seriously, we could have restructured our public service in a positive fashion, so that it would have been able to face the great challenges ahead. We need a Liberal government for this change, which everybody has been anxiously waiting for.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-26 on behalf of our party, and in particular in the place of the member for Mission-Coquitlam who is unavoidably absent today. She wished she could have been here. She has fought a strong and good fight on this bill since it was first introduced and will be here to see it through at the end.
I am also pleased to rise because in my constituency and area of Victoria, perhaps to the surprise of many, even in Victoria, the federal government is the largest single employer. We are a provincial capital, yet the federal government number of employees is larger than that employed by the provincial government in Victoria and of any other employer in the area.
November 27, 1992

Bill C-26 purports to deal with the needs and requirements of the Public Service. It is a long bill, 108 clauses, and it amends the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada.
The bill purports to implement Public Service 2000, a project which was bom of the desire to improve the efficiency and operations of the federal Public Service. The project began with high hopes. There was widespread agreement that it was important to try to improve the workings and operation of the Public Service of this country, notwithstanding the fact that we all agree that Canada has an excellent Public Service.
However there were problems, problems of morale, problems of hardening of the arteries in management style and management approaches, a glass ceiling for too many women in the Public Service, a reluctance of public service managers to effectively manage.
Unfortunately the process that has lead to this bill has gone askew. The result is a setback for the objective of efficiency in our Public Service. It is important to understand that this bill is developed in the context of a government that has been seeking as a matter of public policy to destroy the Public Service. Certainly the government must be assumed to intend the consequences of its acts, and the consequences of its administration of the Public Service is sad to behold.
We saw the Public Service strike. We saw the refusal to proceed and the continuing refusal to proceed with pay equity. Most important, we see continuing cutbacks in vital public services that put real pressure on those who are in the front lines of public service in this country.
All of us as members of Parliament deal with federal public servants in our area, and those public servants for most of us are invariably women and men of quality and dedication. Those of us who were just elected in 1988 have seen in just that short period of time the continuing deterioration of public service morale, ultimately at the expense of public service to the people of Canada.
We see that as a deliberate move of this government, capped just the other day by the totally cynical move of
Government Orders
putting the new immigration facility as far away from the centres of population as it could find, Vegreville, Alberta, the home of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is the grotesque pork barrel and a final nail into any conceivable reputation this government had for its caring for the public servants in this country.
Instead of dealing with the puffed up bureaucracy in the Department of National Defence and the visions of grandeur that they have had for helicopters and other equipment, totally outdated already as a result of the end of the cold war, we see the government trying to save money on the backs of the public servants. Even at the upper levels, the government has gone after civil servants rather than take the heat itself for decisions for which it ought to be responsible.
A close examination of this bill reveals the fundamental fact that this government knows nothing about labour relations. It has no concept of the proper approach as an employer, particularly in a large institution such as the Public Service of Canada, to bringing out the best in its public servants, getting the most efficient return for the dollar spent because of a good management style in labour relations.
Just a few weeks ago, the International Labour Organization responded to complaints made by our public sector unions about the collective bargaining tactics of the government. The ILO recommended that this government stop its use of back to work legislation and implement a collective bargaining structure that more closely follows the norm in the private sector.
I submit that this bill, just as the back to work legislation of a year ago, finds the government incapable of understanding the distinction between its responsibilities as an employer and its responsibilities to introduce legislation in this House on behalf of all of the people of Canada.
What it has done is give to itself through its majority in this House, as manager, tools which no other unionized employer in the public or private sector in this countiy has available. Those tools will be used, mark my words, by managers in the Public Service to discriminate against fellow workers, to undermine public efficiency and to destroy morale in the Public Service of Canada further.

November 27, 1992
Government Orders
Let us just look at the key provisions of this bill. First, the bill will give Treasury Board the authority to determine bargaining units unilaterally. Everywhere else an employer who wishes to propose a change in bargaining units has to go to a labour relations board or some other similar body. An independent third party responsible to the legislature or to Parliament for the fair and proper administration of labour relations is given the responsibility to decide, not the employer, on what are the appropriate bargaining units. This bill violates that simple principle.
Second, the bill gives to Treasury Board the unilateral power to define classification, an absolutely unheard of right in any other sector and one which will undermine the continuing morale problems in the Public Service.
Third, the bill gives to managers the right to deploy, or to transfer more precisely at the discretion of the managers, employees at the same level. This has a facile attractiveness, particularly to any business manager who wants to be able to pick and choose who she or he wishes to move around. In any large institution there must be a scheme that ensures merit is at the heart of the principle of shifts and moves, and further that employees have an opportunity through the collective bargaining process to have some say in the classification system that affects them, in particular the system of transference within their work place.
Transfer within the work place is of vital importance to the individuals involved. It affects promotion. It affects a sense of well-being in the work place that is crucial for an efficient employee. This bill opens up the door to managers having the unguarded right to move their favourites into jobs at the expense of those who are best qualified for those jobs, and this can be done without review.
Hugh Winsor in The Globe and Mail earlier this year said that this clause "opens a loophole that will give civil service managers a major new opportunity to play favourites and dispense their own form of patronage". If for some reason they are not fans of Mr. Winsor, how about John Edwards, head of the Public Service 2000 exercise, who said: "Bill C-26 gives managers the authority to appoint and bypass the system"?
Representatives from the vast majority of workers appeared before the committee and condemned this addition as an attack on the merit principle in the Public Service of Canada. Those included the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Professional Institute of the Public Service and the Economists, Sociologists and Statisticians Association, ESSA.
This is not all. The bill further provides the government with the ability to eliminate jobs in the public sector through contracting out. There is already a huge problem in our Public Service through the government's use of contracting out. Through this bill it will be able to do it even more easily. Again there is a superficial sense that this will help us manage. However, as a result of the way the government has operated two things have happened. Billions of dollars have been spent for which there has been no proper accounting. Over $5 billion a year is spent on contracting out and there is no proper accounting for this expenditure. The government has either been unable or unwilling to come forward with any fiscal rationale for contracting out.
We all know that government has not used contracting out to deal with the purchase of very specialized services for short periods of time, a legitimate use of contracting out, but rather as a way of controlling the employees terms and conditions outside the collective agreement and the legislation that afford them rights. For example, this provision is an attack on the fundamental rights of workers of the Government of Canada.
Contracted out employees are completely at the mercy of the government. Most of them have no rights to pension plans or other things. They have no right of security. They have no right to appeal promotions. Yet, more and more the government is reverting to this, I would say, virtually illegal but certainly immoral use of contracting out. With this bill it now wants to extend it.
Finally, the bill excludes Treasury Board staff from the collective bargaining process, again in violation of the legal rights of those employees. The government is going to use its majority in this sovereign Parliament to take away from Treasury Board staff that which the charter purports to give them: the right and freedom of association. That right goes back to the early years of this century. It has been enunciated over and over again that

workers have the right to decide whether or not they wish to be associated together for purposes of collective bargaining. Over the years legislatures and parliaments have provided the systems for achieving that right. It leaves the choice of whether they want a union and want to bargain collectively with the employees.
This bill takes that right away. It does not leave it to the Public Service Staff Relations Board or other similar bodies to decide what is appropriate in the circumstance, to balance the rights of the employer to have some employees excluded from the bargaining units, or for example requirements of confidentiality and so forth, legitimate reasons for exclusion, against the rights of the employees to bargain collectively and to be free from the domination of their employer as to their terms of employment.
This is a fairly bad bill. It has skewed the original promise of Public Service 2000 to make our Public Service more efficient. It has done so at the expense of the rights of those who work for the people of Canada. We have an outstanding Public Service. A vital Public Service is important and vital to the quality of life in our country. The time has come for the government to stop dumping on its servants for political gain and using its power as government to abuse the rights and position of its employees.
This bill should be defeated, not proceeded with. We have to go back to the drawing-board in a process which properly and thoroughly involves consultation with the Public Service to build an even better Public Service in Canada.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his address. I feel as he does that a number of features are potentially very positive but they are outweighed by some of the negative elements.
I would have liked to have seen the whole question of employment equity addressed, appeals processes, merit principle, deployment, term employment and contracting out, as well as people who have been excluded from bargaining. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Government Orders
I feel very badly as well that too often the Public Service is used as a scapegoat by government. It is an appealing target because of the misinformation out there about the excellence of the Public Service. Let us not forget it carries out the orders it is given by elected politicians.
Perhaps my colleague would comment on the following two points. It seems to me there has not been sufficient consultation and perhaps there were some suggestions as to what might have been done. This is a massive set of changes that will have major implications for now and in the future.
Second, it would appear to me as well that the timing of this legislation is not good. We are not without knowing that there is some friction and conflict between government and the Public Service. That is the result, some people would say, of bargaining in bad faith, tough bargaining, or being insensitive to workers, as well as dumping on those workers.
Would my colleague indicate to me what he might like to have seen in terms of additional consultations? Would he care to comment as well on whether or not the timing was as sensitive as it might have been in view of the context within which we find ourselves?


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the question.
My understanding is that there was quite an uneven amount of consultation on this bill, particularly on Public Service 2000. Originally the idea was to have thorough consultation with the employees up and down through the whole system. In some departments that probably happened but in others it did not. Slowly over the process the confidence of the employees and their representatives began ebbing about what were the government's intentions.
My thesis, as I tried to express in my speech, was that what may have been a very valuable and important idea at the outset ran into trouble. It ran into trouble because in the higher echelons particularly in Treasury Board the interest was in giving Treasury Board managers tools to do what they wanted to do, often without regard to the rights, the attitudes and the position of employees.

November 27, 1992
Government Orders
That simply is outdated management. That is not a management that will produce efficiency because it undermines morale. In this day and age morale is the starting point for a highly efficient Public Service.


Dave Worthy: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in debate on this issue today, especially since in my former life before coming to this place I was very much involved in employee relations, the need for employees and management to work in good faith with each other and on better terms.
Anyone who has been following the real world over the last two decades recognizes that this has become a major factor in all parts of the world, not just in Canada but in the United States, Britain and throughout Europe.
The bill we are looking at today, Bill C-26, represents the first significant change to the Public Service employment legislation in more than 25 years and as such it is long overdue.
I would like to talk today about one of the key features of Bill C-26 that was raised by the previous speaker, that is deployment. Before doing so I would like to spend a few minutes to set the scene to provide the context in which we developed the proposals we are debating today.
Madam Speaker, I do not need to remind you that the world has changed considerably since 1967 when the current Public Service employment legislation was introduced. At that time when the public asked for more services they were generally provided. The Public Service experienced tremendous growth, exponential growth, as new employees were added, but times have changed.
We are no longer able to add these new programs and hire hundreds of new employees to service them. We have had to and we still have to learn to maximize our resources, to get the most value from our dollar, to be more efficient and indeed more productive. To use the oft-repeated phrase, we have do to more with less.
That is the reality that not only our Public Service managers face today, but also all of the employees within the Public Service. We have to give them the tools that will allow them the ability to meet that challenge.
Managers in the Public Service will tell you and so will
many of the employees that the staffing system is complex, cumbersome and time consuming. They will tell you there has been far too much emphasis on process, on faithfully following the prescribed steps on filling in the necessary forms. Managers will tell you, as they have told the Auditor General, that the staffing system as it currently operates is a serious impediment to effective management of the Public Service.
There is another very important factor. That is the need and the aspirations of the Public Service employees themselves. Public servants understand full well that the opportunities for advancement are more limited than in former years. However, they want the opportunities to learn new skills, to try out different functions, to meet new colleagues and clients. They want to be stimulated and motivated by new challenges and ideas.
We need to provide them with the flexibility to access these opportunities. This is not only so the employees can fulfil their own aspirations, but also because we recognize that employees who have a wider range of skills and abilities are more adaptable and more able to meet the challenging needs.
Our employees have tremendous potential, potential that in far too many cases has gone untapped. It will benefit all Canadians to unleash that potential.
In Bill C-26 we have tried to provide a reasonable balance between the need for greater efficiency and flexibility in our systems, to respond better to the needs of the public and to the legitimate aspirations and interests of our employee to develop their knowledge and skills so that they can continue to enjoy challenging careers. This is the context in which we developed our proposals for deployment.
It is important that we all understand just what the term "deployment" means. We are speaking effectively of lateral moves or transfers between jobs at the same level with no promotion, similar terms and conditions of work, and little or no change of salary.
The concept of deployment is not new. Such moves, generally called transfers in the past, have occurred and still occur today. What is being proposed is not then totally new but there are some important distinctions between deployments and transfers and that is where the discussion has taken place.
November 27, 1992

Deployments will be made under the direct authority of deputy ministers rather than as transfers are by the Public Service Commission itself or by managers under delegation from the commission.
This change recognizes that deputy ministers need the ability to deploy their employees to jobs or duties where they are required and when they are required. Let me repeat though that we are not talking about promotion. We are talking about a clerk at level four working in one division being moved to a clerk level four position in another division. It could be because of a challenging situation there or a change in workload.
We are talking about an engineer whose work on one project has been completed and who is now ready to move on to another. We could be talking about a lab technician who is assigned to a new higher priority research project.
Deputy heads need the authority which is available to most managers in most organizations to move employees in that way without going through a time-consuming competitive process.
In all the cases I have mentioned, the employees have been recruited or promoted to their current levels by the Public Service Commission which has found them to be completely qualified. In most cases, they have competed against a number of other candidates and have been found to be the best qualified. Little would be gained by requiring a complete re-examination of their qualifications every time they are moved to similar level jobs.
In our view, the merit principle is not compromised by deployments. Let me assure you that the merit principle will continue to apply on recruitment to and promotion within the Public Service. There is a misconception that this is not the case and I want to lay those fears to rest.
Deployments will require the expressed consent of the employee being deployed. This requirement will not only protect employees from arbitrary and unreasonable moves, but it will also give the employees and their managers the context in which to identify mutually satisfactory career moves.
Government Orders
There will be some instances where employees will be asked when they initially accept a job in the Public Service to accept the possibility that they may be deployed from time to time. I think it can be appreciated that this is required in certain occupations such as in the foreign service where the very nature of the job requires that employees be willing to be deployed.
In the cases which we expect to be exceptional, employees will know up front when they accept a job what the conditions are and what they can accept or reject on that basis.
Because deployments will not be treated as appointments as are recruitment and promotion, many of the procedural requirements of the current Public Service Employment Act will not apply. There will not, for example, be a requirement to conduct competitions to select employees for deployment, to solicit applications, or to establish eligibility lists.
That does not mean that the government in its role as employer will not provide adequate protection to Public Service managers on how deployment is to be managed. Policy directions and guidance will be provided.
Throughout the committee hearings and other discussions on deployment, many parties expressed the fear that managers would use deployment as a way to favour some employees and punish others. Although they profess to believe that the instances of abuse would be minimal, their proposed solution suggests that they have very little regard for Public Service managers.
In fact, the previous speaker tended to make the same implication. Somehow or other some people believe that public servants change after they cease to become employees and enter the management ranks. They do not. They still have the best interests of their colleagues and of the public at large at heart.
Many of the people who have questioned this process have suggested the solution to the anticipated problem they think is there is to provide all sorts of procedural prescriptions in law to tie the hands of all managers. They tie those hands so tightly that in fact they would be worse off today under the new legislation or under the recommendations than they have been in the past.

Government Orders
I have more confidence in the management's judgment and integrity. The Public Service management has had years of credibility behind it and it will not change. It has proven itself time and again to be committed to its employees and to the public which it serves.
Of course, there will be some poor deployment decisions. In an organization where thousands of such decisions are made every year, this is inevitable and we have to accept that. However, the solution is not to punish the vast majority of competent managers for the sins of the few. The solution is to ensure that the managers understand what is expected of them, to give them the tools needed to get the job done and then to hold them accountable. Managers who abuse their authority should be dealt with as needed. This is the approach that has been taken.
We have provided employees with the right of recourse on deployment decisions that affect them. If an employee believes that a deployment was improperly made or constituted an abuse of authority, he or she will seek a review of the deployment decision by their deputy minister. The deputy minister has the authority to review the decision and to take appropriate action to resolve any problem which may have arisen.
If the employee is still not satisfied, he or she may approach the Public Service Commission which will conduct an independent investigation. In the final instance it can require the deputy minister to take appropriate corrective action.
This recourse process is also available to employees who believe that they have been forced to give their consent to deployment.
We believe the approach to deployment that I have described meets the needs of all parties. Managers will have the scope required to meet their needs, but the legitimate interests of the employees will be protected.
In summary, deployment will be an important staffing tool which will enable Public Service managers to respond quickly to changing priorities and the needs of the public. At the same time, it will provide employees with
fresh opportunities to learn new skills, try out different activities and explore career options.
We are confident that deployment will be managed well in the interests of all parties and above all to the benefit of Canadians through improved service delivery.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Cariboo-Chil-cotin for his comments. He addressed one very narrow part of the bill, but an important one. He gave us the government's position vis-a-vis deployment, or what we used to know as lateral transfers or lateral moves.
Bill C-26, if I understand it properly, will allow managers to move employees to any other position within a level to any other location or any other department without regard to merit or other employees' concerns, or for that matter to other employees who may be equally or better qualified on that same classification level.
Employees will have no right to appeal or recourse. The Public Service Commission will have no authority to exercise its responsibility to safeguard the merit principle. Employees fear this managerial discretion will lead to harassment, favouritism and further barriers to employment equity.
We all know the new classification system will group many more layered employees into one level. There will be a kind of homogeneous rearrangement made allowing managers to effectively make promotions and demotions without regard to merit through competition.
Employees will have no recourse to impartial review of deployment decisions. Deployment is theoretically voluntary but the bill contains no safeguards against arguments to be deployed becoming part of the standard conditions of employment.
The deployment measures do not include any provisions for accountability. It was a major concern of the public accounts committee, which I chair. In our report to Parliament we said so.
The Liberal Party, of which I am a member, proposed 13 amendments in committee to address the most serious concerns expressed by public servants over deployment. In our view, those amendments had they been

accepted, would have improved and would have offered redress mechanisms for deployment.
It would have protected the merit principle and, in my view in all honesty and with all due respect to government members, improved accountability.
Why is the government so hard nosed, so difficult on this issue when it knows that these amendments, if they had been at least considered and accepted, would have addressed the issue of deployment and possibly made it a better bill?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think you can see the balancing act that is required whether you are dealing with the Public Service or free enterprise.
When you are attempting to bring a higher motivated work force to the task in this day and age, it requires the need for managers to have more flexibility. It requires that they be able to make decisions. It requires that employees be able to respond to situations without the tedious process that they now have.
There is the other side. There is the balancing, the potential abuse that the member refers to. He mentioned that we have not had a chance to go through a merit exam for each of these lateral moves. That is not necessary. He would have to agree that the employees that have arrived at a certain level have demonstrated their competence. They have shown that they have the merit to be at that level. I do not think that he would suggest that they have to reprove that every time they want to make a minor change in their position.
He indicated that the person could be required to move not only his position but possibly a change of location and even a change of department. My understanding of the bill is that this is correct. I also indicate that it is balanced with the expressed consent of the employee. In many cases it is in the employee's best interest that he be allowed the opportunity to take on a new position within the same level in a new different location or in fact in a different department.
The other point he raised which has to be corrected is that this cannot be done without the employee's consent. Second, the appeal process is there. The employee can appeal through the department. He has an alternate appeal if the answer is not satisfactory.
Government Orders
I maintain that although there is a balancing act being attempted here, and it must be attempted if we are going to deal with this problem realistically, it has been handled well. In fact a good balance will give the advantages to the employee to take advantage of new and motivationally interesting assignments and also for the manager to better deploy the resources within the department to meet the Public Service needs.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to follow up on my discussion with the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilco-tin, I believe his comments are, in a certain context, accurate, except each civil servant must voluntarily-and that is in theory-accept a lateral transfer.

My only concern regarding the member's comments with regard to deployment is that indeed there is a voluntary connotation but it is theoretical up to a certain extent. It only applies to employees who are being deployed, not for others who are being affected. That was the point I was trying to make.
The bill contains absolutely no safeguards against agreements to be deployed becoming part of a standard condition of employment. I also want to remind my hon. friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin that the Federal Court of Canada in January of this year struck down the Order in Council giving deputy ministers the freedom to transfer any employee. In their view, and I quote from the court's decision: "This departs substantially from the merit principle". Is it me, is it the Liberal Party saying this? No, it is a judge. The judge said further regarding one of the government's arguments that to accept that position: "I would be defeating the whole purpose of the Public Service Employment Act, which is to ensure that appointments to the Public Service are made on the basis of merit". Therefore, I rest my case on that point. I was trying to make the point that employees are concerned. I think I have made that case and the argument will rest there for now.

Mr. Speaker, to go back to the legislation under review, namely the third reading of Bill C-26, according to its authors, the very purpose of Public Service 2000 and this bill which flows from, it is to improve the

November 27, 1992
Government Orders
credibility of the government and to give more importance to service to the public.
What this legislation should do is streamline a public service that has become too complex and administratively cumbersome, and that is demoralized by downsizing, privatizing and contracting out policies.
The quality of services and the accuracy of information provided by civil servants play an important role in how Canadians perceive their form of government.
Does Bill C-26 fulfill the expectations of Canadians who want to have an efficient, effective and responsible public service once and for all?

My colleagues and I have some serious concerns about this bill. We said so at second reading, we said so in committee and at this stage of the bill we are going to repeat some of the concerns we have had because we know we are speaking for the majority of public servants and we also know that this process is flawed. If only the government had consulted more widely with public servants, the opposition and, most important, had seriously considered our suggestions, perhaps we would be here today hailing this proposed legislation as progressive, even ground-breaking. We are not. We are going to vote against this bill


An hon. member:: With joy.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am not going to say with joy. I would say with sadness because I was really hoping that after all these years we would come to grips with a reasonably good reform of the Public Service. This government favours confrontation and threats as an effective way to manage the Public Service of Canada while at the same time talking grandly about so-called Public Service reform. It is no surprise that many public servants are sceptical about Public Service 2000.
The need for reform is obvious but it is essential to ensure that reforms are made in the right direction in the right way, taking into consideration the context as well as the impact on employees and on their work. When this bill came before the House for second reading, we found ourselves urging the government to reconsider certain serious flaws. Today I am still deeply
concerned about the undermining of the merit principle which will further lower morale within the Public Service of Canada and will do little, in my view, to improve the image of public servants among Canadians.
When the merit principle is not strictly applied, there is clearly a risk of patronage and favouritism. Furthermore, this bill does not address the urgent issue of accountability. The Conservative government proudly proclaims the extent of its contracting out as a way to save taxpayers' money. Contracting out means that the function within the Public Service is given to the private sector to do. Yet in many cases no accountability mechanisms are in place to determine whether there are any real savings with contracting out. As well, increasing flexibility for managers is not compensated, in our view, with mechanisms for increased accountability.
My hon. colleagues and I have done our best to try to convince the government to adopt certain amendments that we felt would improve and strengthen this legislation and the working conditions of the Public Service, one of the best in the world. The Public Service of Canada is known throughout the world as one of the most efficient public services.
The government did indeed listen to us on a very few points. The Liberal critic on the Public Service was successful in convincing the government to give Treasury Board, the employer, the same obligations as other employers, including the elimination of discriminatory practices, tabling of an annual progress report, and improving job promotion opportunities for the groups designated as the employment equity group or those who fall under the Employment Equity Act.
In virtually every other area that my Liberal colleagues and I proposed changes, and I did propose some changes, the government turned us down, defeated the amendments at every stage of study of the bill.
Amendments proposed by the Liberal caucus and defeated by the Conservative government touched upon the following: We wanted to give Public Service Commission members a clear mandate to investigate complaints of harassment and abuse of authority. We thought this was appropriate. The Public Service Commission should be the watch-dog over this very important field.
November 27, 1992

We wanted to protect the use of the merit principle, the merit principle being very important, which will be virtually destroyed by Bill C-26. We wanted to reinstate the current definition of an eligibility list because Bill C-26 would undermine the purpose of the eligibility list and let regulations used to determine how the lists would be made and applied, once again exposing the system to patronage.
We asked for deletion of clauses in this bill which restrict the right of an employee to appeal an appointment. We wanted to ensure that the Public Service Commission would be obliged to review appointments. We wanted to make sure these appointments were done properly. Without this review, there is no way of knowing that patronage and favouritism have not invaded the Public Service of Canada. I say it again: accountability does not exist at this time.
One amendment of the Liberals addressed the mistreatment of term employees by having them covered by the work force adjustment policy. We believe that many employees are extended continuously, be they term employees or people who are employed to do certain jobs but with restricted time frames. We believe that many of these employees are being extended continuously a few months at a time but ending up after a while, sometimes after many years, having absolutely no rights as employees, including the right to job security. Our amendment was to ensure that term employees would have the same rights as indeterminate employees which are full time.
In the case of deployment, and that was discussed with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin a few minutes ago, we wanted to allow the same appeal process we proposed for appointments. We wanted to ensure that the merit principle as well as the need to provide services in both official languages applies to deployments. Again this was to ensure that managers would be accountable for their deployment decisions, accountable to somebody, accountable to this House and accountable to the people of Canada.
We proposed that complaints be addressed without undue delays, obliging the deputy minister to tell an employee within 90 days how the complaint was ad-
Govemment Orders
dressed and what measures had been taken. It is reasonable and it is good employee-employer relations.
We suggested changes to allow a person launching an appeal to have access to all the information the Public Service Commission uses in evaluating the appeal and that a person be given adequate notice of a hearing affecting their employment. This is only fair.
We proposed giving part-time employees bargaining rights and collective rights under the Public Service Employment Act and allowing unions or a group of employees to launch a grievance on behalf of employees. However, all of these proposals, based on the approach of providing a positive work environment, were flatly rejected by the government.
It is no wonder that during the Ibry regime the Tory government, which has no respect for public servants, has seen the exodus of many talented individuals from the Public Service of Canada.
The Liberal critic on the Public Service, the member for Ottawa West, noted a few days ago in the House that the government had not even had the decency to make minor corrections to the bill which were, in our view, technically needed.
It is clear that the negative attitude and destructive politically expedient policies of this government have done far more damage to the Public Service of Canada than the reform process as currently envisioned could possibly repair.
A sea of change in government Public Service relations will be necessary. This change I submit will come only with the next election. We have had enough years with the current government to make it abundantly clear to public servants and to Canadians that public servants are at the bottom of the Tory priorities. The treatment of public servants during the past eight years has been unacceptable and it has been shameful. It is a time for change.
I submit that we can wake up our bureaucracies, that we can stimulate them by giving them the means to be accountable, by encouraging them to be committed and enthusiastic.
Taxpayers have a right to demand high performances from their government. They have a right to expect also that public servants and public funds be managed pru-

Government Orders
dently, honestly, with integrity and with concern for equity, efficiency and effectiveness.
In my view the key to success is political will. Real political support is indispensable for implementing a new management model in the Canadian federal Public Service. Over the last 30 years there have been numerous attempts to reform the Public Service. If the Public Service were able to respond more effectively and efficiently to the needs of citizens, maybe the taxpayers would see public servants and politicians in a different light. If managers were able to get the best out of their resources while being openly accountable to Parliament and Canadians, I am sure that Canadians would have a less cynical view of government. That is what the challenge of Public Service reform is all about; accountability, efficiency and effectiveness.
However, public servants at this time are caught in a strait-jacket of rules and regulations which sometimes fosters managerial inefficiencies, and inefficiencies hamper bureaucratic innovation.
As chairman of the public accounts committee, I could go on for hours on end giving examples of managerial ineffectiveness. The Auditor General's report is full of them. Read it. It was tabled this week. It makes for heavy reading sometimes, but the case is there.

Public servants must be made accountable, and this must be done by introducing a new Public Service culture.
This new culture must instil concern for administrative efficiency, effectiveness and simplicity. From now on, the abiding concern must be performance, achieving goals and constantly improving services and customer satisfaction, as if it were their own business. Federal Public servants must have the freedom to act as if they were the owners. In fact, we all own these services. And just as the private entrepreneur will try to maximize profits while providing an efficient service to customers, the public servant has an obligation, as we see it, to offer his customers and major stockholders, the Canadian people, the best possible service at the lowest possible cost. To do this successfully, public servants must understand the two basic elements that should guide their performance: the organization's mission and its objectives.
I suggest we leave the responsibility for developing and determining policy objectives up to the politicians, to the members of this House, and that we leave good administration up to our public servants. However, we need certain criteria with respect to hiring policies and financial issues, to guarantee sound management free from any hint of favouritism or fraud. Merely delegating duties and tasks is not enough. However, if public servants are to strive towards optimum organizational performance, they must have the authorities to decide how to do that. We must rely on their judgment and trust their creative thinking.
This cannot be achieved, however, without more tolerance on the part of politicians for the mistakes and failures of public servants. The solution may be a concerted effort by politicians and public servants. It is undoubtedly a matter of mutual support and commitment.
The government proposes to make sweeping changes in human resources management. It intends to deregulate the bureaucracy to a certain extent and, I hope, give public servants the desire to do better.
No one can have any quarrel with these objectives. They are valid and they are praiseworthy. They are entirely in line with what I just said. Perhaps the reform proposed in Bill C-26 does not go far enough. The time has come to stimulate a public service that is demoralized and weighted down by constraints that restrict innovation.

We have had 30 years of discussions. We have a proposal in front of us which, in our view, is not satisfactory, not complete. We are not the only country looking at changes and reform; France, Australia, Great Britain and the United States are doing it.
I can tell the government, I can tell members of this House, that we may have to apprise ourselves of what is going on in other lands. I would hope that we would look around, because God knows we need some inspiration. We can do things better, we can improve the situation, we can get better services from our public servants only if we show confidence in their initiative, in their way of thinking, and we empower them to have this possibility of doing better and surpassing themselves.
November 27, 1992

I hope that we will come back to this subject in the near future, because this bill is flawed. I hope that the government will see its way through to bringing in some valid changes, some good profound changes so that we can reform the Public Service in a way that is constructive, effective, efficient and economical.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. Mind you, I am not extremely excited about Bill C-26. I am not even anxious to see it go through. It is my hope that once it goes on its way to the Senate, the Senate will have some fun with it and try to take it back to where it belongs and that is to the people who are going to be most affected by it.
There are a number of things in this legislation one cannot help but bring to the attention of the public. The legislation by itself does not deal with many of the questions that have been bothering the Public Service of Canada for a long time; these are the questions of job security and morale within the Public Service. I want to focus on those two points.
On the question of morale in the Public Service, never in the history of this country have we seen such a massive walk-out in front of Parliament Hill in which every public servant-it does not matter what his or her rank was-walked on to Parliament Hill in order to tell the employer they were extremely unhappy with the way they were being treated.
I would say that is a cause for alarm. Simply put, when a public servant decides to go on strike, something must be fundamentally wrong. These people are among the finest in our work force. They have picked the job of serving the public because they believed in it and also because they wanted to do something in the best interests of the people. To see them walking out one cannot help but say there has to be something fundamentally wrong in the system.
Why did they walk out? Simply put, it was because of harsh and foolish treatment on the part of the government vis-a-vis these competent people.
The government indirectly was incapable of managing its own employees. It was incapable of managing the consultation process with them to a point at which we
Government Orders
had a breakdown in the communication between the employees and the employer and they walked out.
More and more what we are seeing is this government asking the public servant to do more for less. All one would have to do is look at any one department in the Public Service, for example, the department of immigration. This is a perfect example and fresh in the minds of the people and in the minds of the public servants and the members of the opposition party. The government is planning to centralize, and decentralize at the same time I guess, the processing of immigration applications and it is trying to put the centre somewhere in order to process all applications through that centre with approximately 200 to 300 employees.
The government is not remembering that it would in a way indirectly cause a lot of harm not only to the public servants who are trying to do their job, and they do not have the resources to do it, but also to the public at large. One of the most fundamental and important things in our immigration system is when an applicant wants to bring in his or her family, they would have a chance to sit with an officer to try to have an interview and the officer from time to time would provide the applicant with reasonable, fair and helpful advice. That whole system would be eliminated. As such, one would fill in an application, send it in the mail along with $350 and God knows what will happen after that.
That particular measure by itself was ill-advised. If anything, it is going to hit hard and affect not only the people who are working in that particular department but the public at large.
All one would have to do is go to any employment centre in Canada and see the number of people waiting in line to try to see an official. Immigration centres are no different. The government is sitting back and looking at this whole process collapsing before its eyes and putting more pressure on the public servants in order to produce more without giving them the resources.
I have in the past called on the government to set up a specific and independent task force with one mandate and one objective, to go out in the public domain, have a look at the Public Service and the kind of services it is providing to the public. It should find out whether we have enough public servants to provide services to the public or whether we have a surplus of public servants.

Government Orders
I call tell you this. I know it first hand because my staff works on a daily basis with constituents. We know there are shortages of manpower within our Public Service. We do not have enough resources. There are not enough people to provide the services that the public needs.
I will give another example. In order to obtain an application from a citizenship office, you may have to wait up to eight months. After you have obtained the form you want to have a little chat with an officer at the desk. Filling in the application, returning it and getting an interview will take you approximately another eight to ten months. The whole process takes in excess of one year and eight months from the time you call in to the time you are approved or rejected.
The reason for all the delay is because our citizenship courts all across the country have a problem with manpower. We have called every citizenship office and we always get the same answer. They need more resources and they just simply cannot deal with the problem at hand.
There are other problems. There is the question of security clearances. A flood of applications are coming into the system, whether from people trying to be hired or from people who are trying to get their security clearance, whether for citizenship or landed immigrants. It takes a long period of time. There is a tremendous waiting list. The reason for that is lack of manpower. There are not enough resources to deal with the problem.
These are three departments that I thought I should use as examples to show that we do not have enough manpower within our Public Service. I do not know how we can convince the government of this fact. Will every member of Parliament in an urban centre have to bring in all of his or her people to Parliament Hill in order to petition the government to take action on the issue of lack of resources within the Public Service?
We are not alone. The public servants are telling the government most directly and indirectly through the public at large, that they need more resources in order to deal with the work at hand.
What does the government do from time to time? It hires casuals for four, five or six months. What happens? Perhaps those people who are hired on the basis of a contract for five or six months are excellent people, but because of the government policy of not hiring anymore,
at the end of six months the government lets these people go and hires somebody else to come in, someone who may or may not be qualified. Those people have to be trained for three months and by the time they are fully trained to do the job, they are let go. It happens over and over again.
What are we doing here? Are we trying to fool the public or are we fooling ourselves? The government is fooling itself. It is not going to solve the problem.
The second way of dealing with this problem is contracting out. I have no objection to contracting out, providing you get value for your dollar. The government has spent millions of dollar over the past few years contracting out work which in some cases could have been done within the Public Service. Perhaps it would have been done a lot better because these people know exactly what they are dealing with.
We put out a contract and company A or individual A will do the work. They bring it back and our public servants are forced to go over the work all over again. In some cases this is costing even more than it would have cost to hire the workers on a permanent basis.
What is the problem? Are we here really reforming the public service work force in order to make it more productive? In fact we are creating more red tape and bureaucratic nightmares for the public servant.
In reality that is exactly what the government is doing. They are complicating the situation, a situation that is super simple. Our public servants are fully equipped, fully aware, they are an intelligent group of people. I would say it is one of the most intelligent work forces anywhere in the world. All one would have to do is go to some of these departments and ask them about the kinds of services they provide, the qualifications they have, the kind of work they do.
I attended a consortium a few weeks back with the President of the Treasury Board. They brought in people from the different departments to share with the public the kind of services they provide. I was absolutely delighted to see the quality of work our public servants do, in terms of the vision for the future, the services they provide, and also the extra effort necessary in order to streamline their services to make it more efficient, more valuable to the public.

As I walked in between these booths one thing could not escape my mind. I asked myself, what is the government mind-set? What things would it like to see done better? Over and over the same problems came up. We have a morale problem. I am not sure the government appreciates what it is doing to the public servants.
It is time for the government to realize that we have an excellent work force. It is time for them to appreciate the quality and the qualifications of these people. It is time for it to reward those people, not by downsizing a department every second week or every third week or by moving them out of the national capital region.
I cannot believe why our government would-I would say probably politics-try to terrorize the Public Service. It moves one department to Winnipeg, another department to Saskatchewan, a third department here, a fourth department to Alberta. It is absolutely deplorable.
There are more people coming into the capital of Canada to work with the Government of Canada, not to get out of the capital of Canada. The government is doing it all wrong because some of these people who they move to the boonies still have to come here in order to co-ordinate their work with other departments. There is no cost saving.


John F. Brewin: Is that what you think of Victoria?


Mac Harb: The Minister of Supply and Services on the other side is a very fine individual. I know what he will do. At the next cabinet meeting he will stand up and defend the interests of the public servants in the national capital region and all across Canada as being one of the finest public services anywhere in the world.
I know somebody is going to ask what the Liberals would do. I will tell you what the Liberals will do.


John F. Brewin: Same as the Conservatives, only worse.


Mac Harb: Why does the NDP even bother attacking the Liberals at this time. It is beyond me. All we have to do is look at what happened yesterday in the province of Ontario, with the biggest ever assault on our youth in the history of Canada. The whole country is ashamed of what is happening in Ontario. They have attacked our youth by trying to cut student grants, the most important thing for a youth-


An hon. member:: You sound like an NDPer.
Government Orders


Mac Harb: God bless you, my friend. We should continue to appreciate that we have a work force that is efficient, that is productive, that is dedicated, that is loyal. We have to take the next step and continue to support the revitalization of our Public Service from within. Let them tell us what are the kinds of things they want us to do in order to help them.
The worst manager in the world is a politician. We were elected not to be managers, we were elected to be trustees of the Public Service. The government is turning everything around and switching from being a trustee of the Public Service and of the people of Canada to trying to manage these things. Over the past eight years it has mismanaged the economy, it has mismanaged the Public Service, it has mismanaged everything it has done. This is further proof to my theory that if you do not know something, listen to the experts.
Look at the track record of the Liberal Party since Confederation up until now. We always supported the public servants. We always stood up for them, we always provided them with the tools they needed in order to do the job they have done so well in the past and will continue to do in the future.
I do not know why my colleague from the NDP has to defend the record of the government. I do not know why he would want to do that, but then again nowadays you just cannot see the difference. Can you see the difference? I cannot see the difference.
Pay equity is another problem within the Public Service. Day after day-and the Minister of Supply and Services would agree with me, he would be receiving the same kind of information that my office is receiving-we receive the yellow slips that are a notice to us as members of Parliament that the pay equity legislation has to be put in place as quickly as possible.
When is the government going to get cracking on those issues and deal with them in an effective manner? I do not know when the government is going to deal with those issues and I do not even think it really cares about them. I mean, when you think of the NDP Government of Ontario, you think of its past associations with pay equity. I just learned yesterday that it is not proceeding with pay equity within the province of Ontario.

Government Orders
In closing, Mr. Speaker, as Liberals we are committed to the partnership between the public sector and the private sector. Also, there is a partnership between the government and its own employees on whom we rely for policy advice, to carry out program services and regulations as mandated by the Parliament of Canada.
I know my colleague from Nepean has a question for me and I am willing to listen to it.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that some of the comments that have just been made are likely to be quoted fairly widely as a result of this speech. In order that we do that fairly, I think we want to be quite clear as to what it is the hon. member has actually said. I just want to be sure, because he said a couple of things and I want to make sure that I got them right.
I take it that politicians are the worst managers in the world. He puts himself in that class as one of the worst managers in the world, and therefore we should take his advice about management because he is one of the worst managers in the world-if I understood what he is saying.
Second, is it now the policy of the Liberal Party-I take it that is the extension of the member's comments- that all services should in fact be centralized in Ottawa where they can be best delivered?
I am sure this has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the constituents of the member's riding are federal public servants; it is a policy view of the member and of the party. However I want to be clear that he thinks services should in fact be centralized in Ottawa and that, to quote him, "Winnipeg and Victoria" and I take it by extension Toronto and Montreal "are the boonies of Canada".


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I want to make perfectly clear that when I made reference to politicians being the worst managers, I meant politicians on that side of the House; certainly I did not mean our side of the House.
Second, when I mentioned the boonies, I was referring specifically to one decision of this government to move the department of immigration to the riding of the Minister of Finance.


An hon. member:: Vegreville.


Mac Harb: Vegreville. I have every bit of respect for every public servant everywhere in Canada. I am not saying that we should bring them all here. I am saying that for political expediency and political reasons we should not be moving public servants out of this region to other parts of the country without any proper analyses and reasons.
With those analyses and reasons I am sure they would come to the conclusion that public servants in the capital of Canada can serve Canada anywhere. They can serve the Canadian population no matter where they are.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the member was given an opportunity by the previous member to withdraw his suggestion on behalf of the Liberal Party that its view of Canada is that Ottawa is the heartland and everywhere else is the boonies. He did not take the opportunity to withdraw that.
I quite look forward to somebody from the Liberal caucus getting up and saying that is not its view. My constituents of Victoria will be interested in hearing that is the Liberal view of the rest of Canada.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, no part of Canada is the boonies. If that is what my colleagues understood, that is not what I meant.
I want to ask the member a question. Can he tell me if moving the centre of immigration to Hagarville is the right thing to do? That is the case in point I am trying to make. Is it Hagarville?


An hon. member:: Vegreville.


Mac Harb: Vegreville. That is the point I am trying to make. If that is what he understood, that is not what I meant. There are no boonies in Canada. Canada is a great land from coast to coast and from comer to comer.
I want to ask the hon. member on the opposition side, the NDP side, if he agrees with the decision of the government to move a centre to Hagarville. Is he in agreement with that? That is what I was referring to.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen such fast backtracking in my whole life, but we have now established that Toronto is not in the boonies and that Victoria is not in the boonies.
November 27, 1992

I want to know, on behalf of all the federal public servants in the riding of Lethbridge, whether or not it qualifies as the boonies. Remember, it is Lethbridge. I would appreciate the member pronouncing it correctly, because he certainly got Vegreville wrong.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, any public servant who works in any part of the country is a great public servant. Public servants are efficient, productive and magnificent. The case in point again-


An hon. member:: Is that what your point is?


Mac Harb: I can see it is Friday afternoon and my colleagues are having fun. We may as well have some fun. What is the name of the riding?


Some hon. members:: Vegreville.


Mac Harb: Vegreville. The move of the public servants to Vegreville, the riding of the Minister of Finance, is the wrong move and that is the whole case in point.
There is not a single public servant anywhere in the country who would like to see unfair treatment, the kind of thing that has taken place over the past four years.


Mr. Mills:: That is abusing the Public Service.


Mac Harb: Absolutely. My colleague from Broadview agrees with me.
My colleague has given me the word Vegreville. I am absolutely sorry for mispronouncing it about three or four times. Just to sum up this discussion, it does not matter where our public servants are. They continue to provide high quality, excellent, fascinating services to the public. There is no part anywhere in this land that is a boonie land. This land is a great land. This land is a magnificent land.
Just to go on record-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Minister of Supply and Services and then the hon. member for Nepean.


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Ottawa Centre is quite right. People in the House are having a bit of fun today. It is at his expense, but it is all meant in good fellowship.
Since he was talking about moving people out of Ottawa to other localities in Canada, which he originally described as boonies if they were outside Ottawa-he has withdrawn that now so there are no more boonies-
Government Orders
is he saying that is a very bad move and should never happen? If so, does he disagree with the Liberal government of 1979 when it ordered 15 sections of the government to 15 different constituencies, 14 of which were constituencies of Liberal cabinet ministers? Does he disagree with that?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, one thing I want to keep clear in the mind of the minister is that had I been here in 19791 would have given him a much better answer than I will give him now.
I deplore actions that are not based on fact, actions that are not based on reason. I am not in a position to defend actions of previous governments. I do not think it is fair for us to stand up here and bash the governments of Diefenbaker and Mackenzie King. Those are governments from the past and we have to focus on the future. We have to talk about the future. We have to talk about the present.
Day after day in the House we see members on both sides of the House accusing one another in terms of what happened 10 years ago or what happened 15 years ago. In the meantime there are line-ups of people out there looking for jobs, looking for opportunities, looking for assistance.
If anything we have to stop talking about the past. We have to take an example from the past and keep it in mind so that we do not make the same mistake when it comes to the future. The past if anything is just a passing memory, to remember it so that we do not do the same thing.
I want to ask the minister a question, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible. It may not be possible-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, it is not
possible. The hon. member's time has now expired.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I know it is silly time and it is Friday afternoon. I hope that my comments will add some levity to the very seriousness of this situation and the seriousness of Bill C-26, the Public Service reform act. We keep talking about boonies this afternoon. Is it any wonder the public thinks that we are a bunch of loonies?
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-26 once again, 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.

November 27, 1992
Government Orders
My colleagues and I on this side of the House continue to oppose this bill because if passed it will essentially change for worse some of the fundamental precepts on which our non-partisan and highly respected Public Service is based.
I have consulted with many public servants who happen to live in my city of Nepean. It was the general belief that the federal Public Service does need to be reformed. Today the Public Service is operating according to legislation developed in the 1960s. Surely the need to adapt to changing times is a must in order to adjust to the substantial developments which have occurred in the business environment over the last 25 years. Principles taken for granted in the 1960s are no longer applicable today in the 1990s and into the next century. However Bill C-26 as it now stands is definitely not the answer.
While Bill C-26 does have some positive elements, there are a number of reasons why we in the opposition party oppose this legislation. Among the most serious flaws are the following. Clause 10 as an example replaces the fundamental principle of hiring the best person for the job. It allows for a qualified person to be hired without having to compete against other candidates.
This could close the door on those most suitable and best able to perform the particular job. While clause 10 could close the door on the best candidate for the job, clause 19 opens the door to increase contracting out by this government, which in turn would decrease government accountability to Canadians.
If this bill is passed this clause will grant deputy heads the power to lay off employees if their work or function is transferred outside the Public Service.
A number of clauses in this legislation will permit decisions to be reached by regulation or policy effectively removing the right of Parliament to determine fairness and impartiality in employment in the Public Service.
Clause 23 allows the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board to create regulations regarding appointments without, among other things, competition and priority right of appointment. Clause 26 makes the Clerk of the Privy Council the head of the Public Service. This
significantly clouds the separation between political control and a supposedly non-partisan Public Service.
Clause 22 allows deputy heads to transfer staff to other jobs without competition. This new system may make it possible to promote or demote under the guise of deployment thus increasing flexibility for management while not offsetting this with protection for the merit principle, safeguards against arbitrary exercise on new staffing authority and accountability.
Because the work force adjustment policy will not apply to lost jobs as a result of devolution of the functions to provinces, devolution may be used as a means of downsizing the Public Service.
Clause 16 adds a 90-day casual employee category. This clause could create a whole new subclass of public servants, those without rights or benefits. Furthermore, these casuals can be hired without any consideration given to qualifications.
Clause 48 allows for the appointment of a fact finder at the request of either party in dispute. But the fact finder's report is not binding. This would allow the employer to use the fact finder as a delaying tactic during negotiations.
Throughout the two and one-half months of the committee hearings on Bill C-26, witnesses outlined how the bill could be improved. A number of convincing and substantial arguments were put forward by many respected academics, unions and interest groups. Unfortunately the Conservative government majority ignored their views and voted down all but a handful of opposition amendments.
Indeed the Liberal Party put forward amendments which addressed the problems outlined above. We put forward an amendment which would impose obligations and define the responsibilities of the Public Service Commission. Another would have ensured full disclosure of information and adequate notice of appeal hearings.
We also introduced an amendment to reinstate the best qualified as the main consideration in appointments. We proposed expanding the grounds for complaint and investigation, protecting term employees in case of lay-offs and providing the bargaining agent with the opportunity to submit a grievance.
November 27, 1992

Recognizing that amendments shot down in committee by Conservative members not interested in improving the bill cannot be reintroduced here in the House of Commons, we on this side of the House have a number of new amendments that should be addressed and should be addressed here today. It is my hope that this time the Conservative members on the opposite side of the House will listen and decide that the interests of the Canadian people and their public servants deserve to be heard and acted upon.
I continue to oppose Bill C-26 at this third reading and I continue to support clauses of the bill that contribute to strenghthening the Public Service and its ability to serve the public and improve labour relations. I continue to oppose clauses of the bill that undermine the merit principle without adequate safeguards that destabilize the Public Service, that discourage the hiring and retention of highly qualified individuals and that reduce accountability.
I draw the attention of the House to the government's recent actions with respect to proposed budget cuts, the remarks of the Auditor General regarding the inappropriate use of the work force adjustment policy, which will be exacerbated by the provisions of Bill C-26, and the blatant attempts by the government to muzzle any opposition to the bill throughout the legislative process.
This government with regard to our public servants has been one of mismanagement. This government cannot govern or manage and service to the country is suffering. It caused the first ever massive walkout of public servants in the history of this country and I say shame on it. The morale of the public servants is at an all-time low. Its harsh arbitrary treatment is causing the loss of competent people within the Public Service. This government cannot be trusted. It does not listen to the Public Service. It promised employees consultation on reform of the Public Service and instead it has shut them out and ignored their advice.
This government has acted in a high-handed and dictatorial manner-"my way or the highway". Public Service 2000 has proceeded on the basis of top down, heavy-handed dictates that are out dated and do not work.
Let the managers manage is a 1962 theme from the Glassco commission and this is 1992. This government is dismantling another of the institutions of Canada's
Government Orders
nationhood. Just as VIA Rail, Air Canada, mail service and the CBC have helped build Canada, the Public Service has provided services to Canadians wherever they are and carried out the will of Parliament in all comers of Canada.
We on this side of the House believe that Canadians deserve accessible quality services, delivered efficiently by a professional non-partisan Public Service that treats all employees with respect and fairness and is responsive to the needs of Canadians.
On employment equity, the original draft of Bill C-26 contained a provision on employment equity that was so vague and discretionary as to be meaningless, requiring no accountability.
I support strong provision in the legislation committing the Public Service to employment equity and to accountability for treating all applicants and employees equally on merit.
I have spoken at quite some length on the importance of the Public Service and I know that probably most members in this House of Commons do not have the same interests as I do when it comes to defending the Public Service. Public servants are not just here in the nation's capital. They represent Canadians right across this country in small towns and in big cities. Wherever they are serving, be it here in the nation's capital, Victoria, B.C. or Vegreville, Alberta, Halifax or St. John's, Newfoundland, those public servants are providing a valuable service to Canadians and we should be proud of them and we should be protecting them because those same servants are there protecting our rights in their duties to us as Canadians in this country. I do not believe that Bill C-26 adequately serves the public servants in this country.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken a very straightforward question because there has been some discussion about where the public servants are located in this country.
Would the member agree with me that about 30 per cent of Canada's public servants are located in the national capital region and that the other 70 per cent are actually located in all the small towns and villages, in rural areas and in other cities spread right across the country? There are actually only 30 per cent located in

Government Orders
the national capital region and the rest are in Halifax, Victoria and everywhere else in between.
Would that be about the right ratio?


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his
question.
I am not sure of the exact ratio but I believe it is in that percentage range. We can speak about the importance of some aspects of public servants remaining here in Ottawa. There is a reason why they are here. It is because whatever particular department they are with it is obviously pertinent that they are serving a larger group of people in this particular area, just as it makes sense that somebody connected with the oceans branch should be connected to the oceans. Someone connected to the wheat branch should probably be close to where the wheat farmers are. I certainly recognize that.
I am not too sure about this latest one on immigration. I cannot for the life of me see a move-and the previous speaker spoke to this-to Vegreville, Alberta when many new immigrants who are coming to this country are settling in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. This is where we have to serve those people. They want to come to these two provinces, most of the jobs I suppose are here.
In defending public servants, I am defending public servants right across the country to the minister. I think we should all be considering that when speaking on this bill.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, first of all I did not have an opportunity earlier to make it clear to the member for Ottawa Centre who asked me a question in a circumstance under which I could not answer that I spoke earlier in the debate and strongly opposed the idea of establishing the particular immigration centre in Vegreville. As much as I have a great deal of respect for the citizens of Vegreville, it seems to me a backward decision and one that is clearly political.
My question for the member is simply what does she think of the contracting-out provisions of the legislation and the exclusionary provisions, especially applied to Treasury Board staff?


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about contracting out. We have difficulty getting the figures to back this up, but from people I speak with in the Public
Service, people are losing their jobs because their department head is telling them that their job is no longer necessary. The government, in turn, is turning around and contracting out that same position that was done in house by that certain government employee.
We have every reason to believe that it is costing the people of Canada far more money in contracting out and at the same time the people of Canada are not being served nearly as well. I am hearing this time and time again. We heard recently in the Auditor General's report that federal public servants were being given a pay-out and then were either being brought back into their job or they were being contracted out at great cost to the people of Canada.
Contracting out has its place, to the member for Victoria in answer to his question. In many instances it is not a cost-saving measure, it is at great cost to the Canadian people.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the speech by my colleague from Nepean and especially interested in the question that the Minister of Supply and Services asked the member for Nepean.
I would tell the member for Nepean that the figures given to her by the Minister of Supply and Services of 30:70 ratio were wrong. The ratio is not 30:70,30 being in the capital and 70 being in the country, but rather it is 33 percent in the national capital region which is the Ottawa-Carleton area and the Outaouais area. This would be straddling on two provinces. The rest is not 70 per cent but rather 65 per cent. This is elsewhere in Canada, everywhere else in Canada. Also there are 2 per cent of employees working overseas in various aspects, for a total of 100 per cent.
He should also have told you that in each province, depending on its population, the Public Service has been divided proportionately. For example, P.E.I., which represents 2.5 per cent, has approximately 2.5 per cent of the Public Service employees.
The Liberal philosophy, and it has tried to follow that somewhat by the way it maltreats women in employment, has not looked yet at the aspect of improving the women/men ratio so that there is equality and pay equity. That is other information that he has not given you.
November 27, 1992


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise this afternoon and address Bill C-26.
I want to say first of all that there is a myth across the country, and the country operates under all sorts of mythologies, that Ottawa is the fat cat city in that everybody in Ottawa is rich and they are all in the federal Public Service. We know that is not correct. It is roughly 30 per cent here and 70 per cent out across the country. That means probably 60,000 or 65,000 federal public servants in this whole Ottawa, Hull, Gatineau region, including Gloucester and Nepean, et cetera. The rest of them are out across the country.
It is also true that the number of public servants here in the Ottawa region is only about 15 to 19 per cent of the total work force here. The national capital region is becoming very much a high-tech silicon valley private industry place. That is quite encouraging. I am forever having to say to people in my own riding that Ottawa is not what they believe it is, there are very hard working and dedicated federal public servants we all deal with daily when we are pushing bills through the House.
Nonetheless, I want to also put on the record how very significant and important it is to have federal public servants in the small towns and smaller cities across the country. In the city of Lethbridge, for example, where I am from, there are 62,000 people. If we can get 25 or 30 additional employees, that means an enormous amount to the city and the stability of it. Federal public servants are paid well, whether you start at the secretarial level or the clerk level and you work up, compared with what equivalent people would make in private enterprise.
That is not true when you get to the very high levels of assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers. They are underpaid compared with equivalent responsibilities in private enterprise. For example, take somebody in Shell Canada operating at a senior level. They make more money than an assistant deputy minister would here. For the most part, most public servants are paid better.
I am forever having constituents coming to me, whether they are doctors or lawyers or people in private industry, saying they cannot afford to pay a secretary because she can make so much more in the federal public service. What they do is act in a sense as a redistribution network as well where we tax everybody
Government Orders
across the country and then the money flows back out through some federal public servant salaries.
Those 23 jobs in the city of Lethbridge are very important because those people are usually better trained than other people and they therefore get involved in a Kiwanis Club or a Rotary Club or a Lion's Club; they become part of the music festival, they become part of the theatre groups in the town or village or city and they add an enormous richness to our communities.
That, as much as anything else, is one of the impulses for taking federal public servants out of Ottawa. As my friend pointed out it has been done for years and years. Indeed the Liberals had a massive program of decentralization where some 15 sections were moved out, 14 of which went to the ridings of cabinet ministers of the previous Liberal government.
With respect to the immigration change to Vegreville, I must say Vegreville is a very nice town. The towns and villages on the prairies are under enormous stress because of the enormous move to microchip technology and bigger and better tractors and combines.
One option would have been to continue the past policies of the previous administration and just let them go out of existence. We have made a real effort to try and save some of the bigger regional centres. We know that just because there used to be a town every nine miles along the railway track to provide water and coal to the steam-engines that that can no longer prevail. Virtually hundreds and thousands of little towns and villages are disappearing. They simply have to disappear given the context of the economics and the way our system works today. We do not have steam-engines anymore and trains can go a long way.
We build these massive super highways and then we are surprised that people use them, getting in their big cars and driving to larger centres.
We are trying to move some civil servants to the larger regional towns across the prairies and indeed other parts of the country. That is why Vegreville was chosen. It will add an immense amount of economic stability to the region as well as some real skills. Whether it is in the arts or the sciences, it will help the school system. It will help

Government Orders
the churches. It will help every aspect of Vegreville to become a much more enriched part of this country.
Remember that it is the young men and women from many of these small towns and villages who go on to achieve great things in this country. It is because they have a school system which is large enough to give them a concentration of studies on science and technology and that is what we really need.
That is the argument for the decentralization. I have absolutely no criticism at all about the immigration department being concentrated in Vegreville. For the most part, those applications are paper applications in any event. A few years ago we moved the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island because most of those transactions are paper transactions. People looking at a piece of paper can analyse the case just as well, whether it is in Charlottetown, Vegreville or Toronto.
That is the way the country should work and that is the way it has to work if we want it to stay together.
That is not to deride what Ottawa had, but an enormous number of our national agencies were created and set up in Ottawa because it was the easiest thing to do. It was felt that people had to be near government. That is not true today with the absolutely incredible sophistication of satellites, telephones, fax machines and all of that. We do not have to have everybody in Ottawa.
Indeed, within the next 10 to 15 years probably as high as 30 to 40 per cent of the work force will be in their own homes using fancy connections into a head office somewhere by way of faxes and telephones and interactive television.
A lot of the high-rises in the big cities will become absolutely redundant. They will not be needed because we will all network through the towns and villages and that will make this country a much richer place too. Again a lot of the very talented, highly paid officials will be moved across the country and we will all be a much happier family when that occurs.
This bill is long overdue. The Public Service cannot be isolated from the massive changes which are flowing over us. The little microchip is the equivalent of the internal gas combustion engine which in its day replaced and displaced an entire economy. It is exactly the same
as the steam engine in its day. It totally displaced an entire economy and way of life in favour of a new way.
Our brains and our whole thought processes change. We become different people when we move into that new paradigm. We are not there yet but we are in the process of changing. It is a very difficult and traumatic process of change for many people.
The fact of the matter is that a whole bunch of us in our age group find it very difficult to make that transition. Therefore that causes us uncertainty. It causes us concern.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I could hear the conversation over on this side, but I cannot hear the speaker. Thank you.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot attack the opposition over that because it was one of my own buddies over there. So I will be quiet about that.
As I said, the microchip is exactly like the internal gas engine in its day and the steam-engine in its day. It is causing the dislocation of many thousands of workers.
This past summer I toured through the maritime provinces. In New Brunswick I went through an old museum where it showed the number of people who were involved in a lumber mill operation in a town. It took 400 or 500 people to work that one little sawmill operation.
Then it showed as the technology came in first with the handsaw, then the buzz saw, then up into more complex pieces of equipment, and how the number of people required in that area dropped and dropped and dropped. The ultimate was one machine sitting across the highway. It would move in, grab a tree, cut it off at the bottom, saw all the branches off and cut it into 10 or 14-foot lengths, whatever it happened to be. Therefore the 400 people were not necessary.
That has happened all over. The problem is that the types of skills needed for this new economy are types which you and I do not readily have. In fact next week I am going to take three days to try and learn how to handle computers and word processors. I am scared to death about it because my brain does not work in the way it needs to work to handle that type of technology. Whereas my daughter and son having been raised with it, take to it like a duck to water.
November 27, 1992

Government Orders
The point I am making is that we need to have policies. I think we are working toward this albeit not as fast as some people would want to, but with very limited budgets federal and provincial governments are moving toward transition policies so that people can move from the old economy into the new.
For those who cannot make that transition, we need to have legitimate, decent and proper policies so they can live the rest of their days with respect and not have to go on to the dole.
Just as everybody else is having to move to that economy, so does the federal civil service. That is really what Bill C-26 is trying to achieve and in fact it will move some substantial distance toward it.
The federal civil servants I know, some in the senior management ranks and some below, when talking to them individually are pleased it is coming. They can see that they cannot be isolated from this broad wave that is moving in and indeed they want to play a role.
The ones I have talked to have always expressed regret that they came in with very good educations and were then put into narrow compartments where they could just move a little bit. They had no responsibility, no chance to be creative, and no chance or opportunity to take the consequences. They were prepared to be accountable. They wanted to have the responsibility and for that they would be accountable. This bill moves toward that in a substantial way.
I would like to end by simply reiterating how important these jobs are to the smaller towns and villages across the country. I hope we do not get into the situation of big city versus small town, Ottawa versus the rest of the country.
I have always stood up in my riding and defended the very high quality of federal civil servants we have. If we trust them and give them the responsibility, they will respond in kind. They will accept the accountability that has to come with this type of a system but at the same time they will deliver a much better product, much faster, much more efficiently, and much more professionally at a lower cost.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for standing up for his constituency and his community. Obviously, he knows quite a bit about what needs to be done in certain ways.
We do not support the approach of moving public servants from the national capital region to other parts of the country for political reasons. Nor do we support the fact that we just decentralize for the sake of decentralizing. In other words, you rob Peter to pay Paul.
We believe that we should be focusing on creating more opportunities all across the country. We do not have to take from one part of the country in order to satisfy another. We do not have to pit regions against regions. What we are interested in seeing is a creation of wealth and not a redistribution of wealth.
I want to ask the hon. member something along those lines. This is a non-partisan call on the government and on the hon. member to respond. Would he support the creation of an independent task force to look at the Public Service to find out whether we have a surplus or a deficiency in the Public Service?
The people I have spoken to are probably not the same people the hon. member has spoken to. All the public servants with whom I have spoken have told me over and over again that they need more resources. In other words, to lay off employees just for the sake of the bottom line is not helping. It is not helping. It is decreasing the efficiency and productivity of the Public Service. It is demoralizing the Public Service and it is not helping the public as a whole.
In many ways we may not have a different vision in terms of providing quality service to the public. I guess where we differ is when we say that we have a problem. We do not have enough public servants as it is. To hit them again and again with a two-by-four by decentralizing, downsizing and contracting out work that otherwise public servants could have done is not the right way.
Would he support such a task force? Would he call on his colleagues, for instance, to set up such a task force to look at the whole aspect of the size of the Public Service?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that I do not know enough about the topic to be able to answer that question. I am not a member of that

November 27, 1992
Government Orders
standing committee nor have I ever been on the standing committee that would develop some expertise. I trust my colleagues including members opposite who sit on that committee to make those types of judgment calls.
I would like to expand on his point about the creation of wealth. He was pointing out that our parties probably are not that different and I agree. It is probably a question of degree because if he were talking about the Liberal Party of the 1940s, 1950s and the 1960s we would be ad idem because our party was exactly like that. We believed there needed to be the creation of wealth and that creation of wealth had to be done by the private sector.
It was quite legitimate then, for government to tax a portion of that wealth back and redistribute it in terms of old age security, family allowance and people on social assistance. That was the proper role for government as well as to have some programs to direct industry and give it incentives to go into the have not regions of the country, if that is the proper phrase.
I fear, unfortunately, that the Liberal Party fell out of that. It got into an enormous taxing business but it was not creating the wealth. In fact, it was playing down the creation of wealth. Just for my friends opposite, if it were not for the national debt, we could actually have reduced taxes by $12 billion. Imagine what a $12 billion tax reduction would have done to this country.
Then we get back to the question: Why do we have the national debt? It was just that governments in the past spent more on people than they took away. We have not done that. For eight years we have taxed away $25 billion more than people have received by way of federal programs.
The $25 billion surplus normally would have been built up and used for diversification. Unfortunately, because of the huge national debt we were left with, it was all sucked up to pay interest on the national debt, plus more. If we could somehow get rid of this national debt, we could actually reduce taxes by $12 billion. It is an absolutely amazing thing. We cannot do it because of what we inherited.
We cannot be complaining about that forever. If my friend were to ask for a task force to take a look at this national debt, I think that is what we really need to put our brains to. Maybe it should have people from outside
here, perhaps a royal commission even, to just look at the national debt and how we can handle it.
I know $22 billion is owing to the Bank of Canada. Maybe the Bank of Canada should write that off. There are many billions of dollars, which is a paper entry, owed to existing and future federal civil servants for their pensions. Maybe that should be handled in a different way. Maybe the national debt should be put into the hands of a Crown corporation or some corporation with outside boards of directors so that more than the GST could be directed to it.
I am sure with all of the brain power in this room that we could come up with some very creative ideas as to how to handle that national debt. Then we would have the operating budget on the side and we could honestly say to people: "We have got a surplus operating budget".


Paul Wyatt Dick: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that only one aspect of this bill talks about locating in smaller communities portions of the Public Service. As a form of a comment I must say that I support the fact that we have the Emergency Measures College of Canada in Amprior, that the Cheque Redemption Centre was moved to Matane, Quebec, the former riding of Minister De Bane, the Minister of Regional Development, in the late 70s, that the Superannuation Branch was moved to Shediac, New Brunswick, which was the then constituency of Romeo LeBlanc, the minister of fisheries. I want to say that they are working very well in those areas.
I also want to say that for your social insurance number, you have to go to Moncton, New Brunswick. Of course, we moved the GST into Summerside.
Those are examples of how I think it is very well that other parts of the country have shared in Canada's public service. Those are good examples of sharing across the country. I am sure that Vegreville will fit in with those small communities and be an excellent centre providing excellent service.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, when we were presented with Bill C-26, of course we had many concerns. Hon. members opposite seem to be saying that their way of managing the Public Service will do nothing to hurt morale among public servants. That is far from true. I believe that their attempts to move
November 27, 1992

departments blindly throughout the country are motivated only by political reasons.
I will stick to Bill C-26 and summarize the most important concerns not only of federal public servants but especially of those in the national capital region who have been established here for a long time and are making their careers here.
Essentially, the Liberal Party has always maintained the merit principle. It opposes any effort by the present government-and I will give it the benefit of the doubt- that would lead to favouritism and patronage, which have existed and still exist. That is the danger.
My colleague from Carleton-Gloucester pointed out the most blatant features of Bill C-26 when he said that the Public Service Commission's credibility is very much called into question, since the government and the commission itself admitted that clause 10(2) should be subject to certain conditions because of the potential for abuse. That is where the danger lies, because the risk still exists.
I find that the risk in the proposed changes is very great.
The bill lets managers select the candidate and examine his qualifications instead of judging among the candidates. But that is not what they do. Essentially, they say to themselves, for example, that five out of seven candidates qualify under the new public service regulations. So it is still up to the manager to decide who should fill the position. Of course that opens the door to abuse. Now if there is one organization that should ensure that there is no danger of favouritism and abuse and eliminate this danger beyond any doubt in employees' or public servants' minds, it is the federal government.
How do you expect employee morale, which is extremely vital for the administration and operation of government, to be good? Basically, of all institutions in the country, whether they are in the private sector or not, the government should set an example. This bill should rule out favouritism and patronage, as much as humanly possible, but we do not find any such measure in Bill C-26. That worries us tremendously.
Government Orders
The Public Service Alliance and the Professional Institute of the Public Service are right to be concerned. That is why I fear that the laudable efforts of the opposition, the Liberal Party in particular, will come to naught with these future changes, because the risks are too great with this bill and there will be difficulties.
I just wanted to take these few minutes to say that if they do not want to accept the opposition's amendments, we are inclined to believe that they are acting for reasons we do not like. Government employees have reason to be concerned and it is not surprising that these employees' morale has been affected.
It is never too late and I hope that the government will realize that what it is doing here will create problems rather than solve them. And if there is a time when we could do without problems, it is now.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague as he was addressing the whole question of merit principle and how one would approach the temptation that is put in front of us for the potential for cronyism and for the potential-I was going to use the word nepotism; it is not nepotism in the true sense of the word-opportunity to misuse one's office and one's ability to choose and to make selection because the temptation has been put before you because there is not a project, a bill that specifically frames the kind of principles that you would need to assure that where that temptation is put before you, abuse will not occur and the perception of misuse does not occur as well.
This is what I wanted to ask the member. What we are trying to do is to effect the cultural change in the mechanism in which the Public Service would operate. I would hope that like most people, the appreciation for the role and the function of the Public Service is equally important for Canadians as is VIA Rail and air transportation and all the other things that have been damaged by the Conservative government.
Is it your view that there was permanent damage done that (a) led to the first real major strike and (b) by the Al-Mashat affair that you now have the civil servants being the butt and the catch-all for problems out there when really the problem is the conduct of our political people rather than the civil servants themselves?

Private Members' Business
First of all, you have a lack of trust that has-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre, I will let you finish your question.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the risk of abuse rises spectacularly if the temptation is there. I believe that is what has happened in the past. That is what contributed to a drop in confidence within the Public Service and morale was affected. We could talk about it for a long time because so much has happened to show the weakness and the danger in all that. Yes, that has contributed to it and that is what we must try to eliminate as much as possible. We do not say that everything can be eliminated, right down to the smallest suspicion, but perception is important and we must show that it is humanly possible to reduce the risks to the lowest level possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 2.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 23, 1992, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock Monday, November 30, 1992.
May I call it three o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Beryl Gaffney: that:
in the opinion of this House, the government should restore funding at least to the 1989 level to all government youth employment programs and spread the funding in a fair and equitable manner to all federal ridings.
She said: Mr. Speaker, many different segments of the Canadian population have been adversely affected by the policies of this present government. Indeed, with the exception of the wealthiest Canadians and the personal friends of the Prime Minister, and those who are part of the latter group always seem to be part of the former, it is difficult to find a group which has benefited from eight years of Conservative government.
I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to discuss a group of Canadians who have certainly not benefited from this government and who are so often forgotten yet are so vital to the future of this country. In fact, they are the future of this country. They are our young people.
The motion I have put forward and which we are debating today states, and I quote:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should restore funding at least to the 1989 level to all government youth employment programs and spread the funding in a fair and equitable manner to all federal ridings.
Education is the cornerstone of our country. As Benjamin Disraeli wrote in 1874: "Upon the education
November 27, 1992

different today than they did in 1874 and I do not think anyone in this House will refute this claim. Yet, this present Conservative government has spent the better part of eight years hacking away at the programs set in place to help our young people attain an education which will in turn enable them to get into the work force and make a valuable impact on Canadian society. The link between education and employment has long been demonstrated. Nearly two-thirds of all new jobs created between 1992 and the year 2000 will require at least 12 years of education and training, and 40 per cent will require more than 16 years of education.
Despite the evidence of the link between education and employment, the government has maintained policies which foster unemployment and increase the cost of getting an education. This makes education increasingly inaccessible and compounds the long-term crisis in both youth and adult unemployment.
Despite the aforementioned correlation between education and employment, the Conservative government has reduced its contribution to education funding on a number of occasions and in a number of areas. By cutting the rate of growth in transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education under the Established Programs Financing, the Conservative government will cause a cumulative loss of $9 billion between 1986 and 1994.
We heard this morning from the province of Ontario, which had the highest rate of youth unemployment in this country this past summer, that it can no longer afford to grant moneys to students or to increase funding to hospitals, educational institutions and municipalities. The two main reasons are that there is an NDP government that does not know how to govern and this federal government has not seen fit to provide the necessary funding to the province.
The negative effects of youth employment are compounded by the increased costs of education, which include higher tuition fees. The higher costs are due in part to cutbacks in federal support for education and the application of GST on books which is absolutely shameful. As a result an increasing number of students must now work while still in school. Between 1980 and 1990
Private Members' Business
the proportion of full-time students who were employed increased from 29 per cent to 41 per cent. These were students who had to be employed in order to complete their education. This has an adverse effect on the quantity and quality of time these students have to devote to their studies.
While many young Canadians are reeling from the effects of the higher costs of education and high unemployment due to the recession, the Conservative government continues to cut back on student employment programs.
Between 1985 and 1991 funding for the Summer Employment Experience Development, SEED, component of the Challenge program was nearly cut in half, going from $149.5 million to $80 million. The SEED program was implemented to provide career and study related work experience while enabling students to cover some of the costs of their education.
If I could be more specific I would like particularly to speak about the city of Nepean briefly. I was elected to this prestigious place in 1988. In 1989 the government allocated $123,000 in SEED funding to the riding of Nepean which I represent. In the following two years it was cut from $123,000 down to $21,000. How many students can be hired for $21,000? I am only talking about one riding out of 295 ridings in this country.
The budget of SEED was increased slightly by $3 million this year, yet in the national capital region-and I move away from Nepean to talk about the whole of the national capital region-according to the government's own figures the budget for SEED was reduced from a 1989 level of $1.4 million to $425,000 in 1990 and 1991. If we look at certain ridings in this country we see that one riding may receive $425,000. I am talking about all the national capital region, both sides of the river. We are probably talking of between 15 to 18 ridings: $425,000. If one thinks Ottawa-Carleton, the nation's capital, is not being penalized, I say we are. This amounts to a 70 per cent reduction.
The total Challenge budget fell from $205 million in 1985 to $143 million last year. The total numbers of jobs created under SEED fell from 94,115 in 1985 to 53,806 in
1991.	As a result this program has failed to fulfil its original mandate. Growing student debt loads illustrate this point.

Private Members' Business
As a result of the cutbacks to SEED my office was inundated with calls and letters from students desperately searching for summer employment. Unfortunately, as the chairman of the Ontario Students Federation said this past September, many university students will have to drop out because of near-record student unemployment. Statistics Canada said 254,000 students were unemployed this past July, almost half of them Ontario residents.
This past summer's unemployment rate for students aged 15 to 24 averaged 17.9 per cent. That is the nation's average, 17.9 per cent and the province of Ontario's average was 20.3 per cent. Almost 97,000 students-11,000 more in this past summer-applied for assistance from the Ontario Students Assistance Program.
Unfortunately the attack on students by the Conservative government is, like most actions it undertakes, short-sighted. Spending money on our young people is an investment in the future.
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada stated that Canada's foremost assets in the future will be its human rather than its natural resources. Lack of support for students as well as lack of support for knowledge intensive industries may very well prove to be the most damaging effect of the Mulroney government's preoccupation with allowing market forces and market forces only to dictate Canadian economic policy.
When we talk of Canadian economic policy we must insist on talking about competitiveness. My colleagues on the other side of the House use this word at every opportunity: competitive this and competitive that. Unfortunately once again their rhetoric is only surpassed by their inaction'. The World Economic Forum reported last year that of the 23 OECD countries Canada ranks 17th in over-all research and development efforts. This is a drop from 10th place in 1986. In future orientation which heavily reflects research and development performances Canada fell from 9th spot in 1986 to an abysmal 16th place ranking.
These statistics clearly underline the fact that the Conservative commitment to the principle of competitiveness they claim to be their trademark is unfortunately a sad joke.
Canada's research and development has deteriorated under this Conservative government. I do not know how
much longer Canada can take that kind of competitiveness. Economic competitiveness is not like the Olympics and maybe the government thinks it is. Baron De Coubertin, founder of the modem day Olympics, used to say that it is not the winning that matters but the competing. Fine words but they do not encompass world economics.
The government must wake up to the fact that it is not just about competing and finishing wherever; an effort has to be made to finish first and that is competing. This government seems to be content with being in the arena to watch the real players go at it but we need to get involved.
If we are to make Canada more competitive with the U.S. and the global marketplace we must support our colleges, our universities and our young people. We must make a firm commitment to extra financial support for research and development activities within our colleges and universities. These are surely the cornerstone of a competitive society.
It takes commitment: commitment to our colleges and universities, commitment to our students. If this government is not ready to make a commitment to these things then it should commit itself to calling an election and let Liberals implement the policies. Canadians are truly committed to principles of education, of employment and of opportunity.
I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to present this motion in the House today.


Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, according to a motion from the opposition: "-the government should restore funding at least to the 1989 level to all government youth employment programs and spread the funding in a fair and equitable manner to all federal ridings."
Such a motion is far from the reality and I would like to take this opportunity to show that, on the contrary, since the implementation of the Labour Force Development Strategy, this government has never stopped adjusting its programs, based on the changes that occur among young people as well as among the national and international working communities.
November 27, 1992

During the fiscal year 1991-92, we spent $216 million on various programs for young people. This amount is in addition to the other funds allocated to the Canadian Jobs Strategy, of which half the beneficiaries are also young people. We do our very best to help those young people improve their chances of finding a job and prepare themselves to enter a learning culture in which they will have to continue, throughout their career, to renew their knowledge and their skills.
In 1991, the government allocated $80 million to the Summer Employment Experience Development component of the Challenge '92 Program, which is a summer employment program for students. In August 1992, this amount was increased to $85 million. I should point out here that when allocating these funds, we take into account the unemployment rate of the various regions of the country. The Challenge Program was developed to encourage employers to create jobs and help students gain practical experience. The goal of this program is to help young students gain professional experience and develop their knowledge, especially during the summer months. The program is particularly targeted to high school students, since they have more difficulties finding summer jobs than post-secondary students.
The Summer Employment Experience Development Program provides subsidies to employers who create summer jobs that enable students gain useful experience and be better prepared for their permanent job.
In 1992, we have encouraged, through the SEED program, the creation of jobs that are directly related to the interest shown by the government in issues such as drugs, alcohol and illiteracy, as well as information on AIDS, the environment and urban crime. We have also paid particular attention to the young people who belong to visible minorities or are members of aboriginal or handicapped groups.
We must also mention the Student Business Loans Program, which enables students who have original and innovative ideas and projects to create their own summer jobs. In 1991-92, the budget for this program reached $800,000, and it was the same for 1992-93.
Private Members' Business
On October 29,1991, the Minister of Employment and Immigration tabled in the House a document entitled: "Learning Well. . . Living Well". This document presents some of the challenges that await Canada in the nineties, regarding learning. It puts the accent on a learning culture for the Canadian society as a whole, especially in the work place.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Canadians and especially young Canadians, need to acquire the specialized skills necessary for numerous career changes, because they will have to make such changes several times during their life.
The document tabled by the Minister of Employment and Immigration is geared to the development of a learning culture. Our learning activities must be planned as seriously as our vacation. We must invest as much in the constant updating of our knowledge as in the maintenance of our homes. Employers must spend as much time on the development of their human resources as they do on the development of a new product. We must create at home an environment that is conducive to learning.
Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 1991, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology tabled a document entitled: "The Prosperity Initiative". What are the objectives of that initiative? They are to cut illiteracy rates in half; to ensure that 90 percent of Canadians attain high school diplomas or the equivalent; to double the number of post-secondary graduates in mathematics, the sciences and engineering; and to quadruple the training provided by employers to their employees, new and old.
To achieve these goals in an effective and realistic manner, we must bring about sound consultations and an efficient standardization of our work processes and evaluation criteria. We must set practical goals for the education and vocational training system in Canada.
If we are to develop a learning culture that will last for a lifetime, a correlation must be established between learning and school and on-the-job training.
If we want our children to be able to compete abroad as well as at home, we must better prepare them to enter the labour market. Finally, to ensure our prosperity, we

Private Members' Business
must find incentives for our children to get into maths and science.
As part of this Prosperity Initiative, we are proceeding to nation-wide consultations on knowledge and training.
Education officials will participate in these consultations which will foster honest and open discussions on national goals to be achieved. By the time all these meetings have taken place, between 150 and 200 communities will have been consulted across the country on the issue of education and job readiness training. If we can see all sectors work together in new strong and efficient partnerships, it is thanks to co-operative education.
This action plan calls upon all levels of government, the private sector, labour, teachers as well as the general public. A number of themes are already emerging from the consultations I just mentioned, such as the search of excellence and results; a collective commitment for ongoing training; continued efforts to provide access to learning to every one; a better choice of study periods, teaching methods and educational tools; sharing new responsibilities and creating new partnerships.
The first thing we must do is to convince school-going Canadian children, especially those in high school, to stay the course at least and even to go further, particularly in the fields I mentioned earlier. That is what the Stay-in-School initiative is about, to encourage them to stay the course.
Launched in 1990, the Stay-in-School initiative is designed to reduce the drop-out rate and encourage students to remain in school. It is administered by Employment and Immigration Canada. In Quebec only, $3.2 million will be spent. The national budget was over $46 million for 1991-92, and over $73 million for 1992-93.
Some 140 projects in Quebec only were submitted in
1991-92, and government is constantly stepping up efforts to get the industry and academic sector to get into new youth training partnerships across the country.
Stay-in-School is a five-year program with three parts or main objectives. First, to provide financial support for a number of initiatives designed to encourage students to stay in school.
Second, the program seeks to involve the labour movement, business people, educators, parents and students alike in helping to find better solutions. The workers, their employers and other stakeholders have
new agreements that allow the workers to upgrade their skills and to contribute more directly to the success of their firms.
Third, Stay-in-School is to create public awareness on the social and economic impact of dropping-out. In that area as in others, information is the key.
Government also reviewed the Labour Force Development Strategy. By modernizing its approach, it has refreshed its workers' programs. There are interesting prospects for young people with training problems in the Strategy.
All those concerned must take the steps required to ensure that the Canadian labour force adapts without further delay to modem requirements. Schools must unavoidably be involved, given the future of the next generation is at stake.
We have also expanded our programs and services to young Canadians yet further. We are allocating new resources to mobilizing business, labour, educators and provinces. We promote dialogue and urge all stakeholders to help us develop the most relevant and consistent solutions nation-wide.
We have developed an information program in order to heighten public awareness of the school drop-out problem. One of the main purposes of that program is to make people understand that we cannot put aside the economic realities of our world. Like it or not, we are now part of a global economy and we are going through a phase of technical and social turmoil that affects us all.
The individual, the company or the country that would refuse to adapt itself to this changing environment would be irremediably lost. Our way of life and our growth are closely linked not only with our working capacity, but also with our capacity to constantly keep up to date.
As we approach the 21st century and try to take our place in the economy, our government acknowledges the importance of education, professional training and retraining.
In that perspective, we have formed new partnerships with industry and labour, with the education and social services sectors because we want all Canadians to be aware of the greatest challenge of these times, that is the necessity to develop our human resources according to the rules of modernity and for the benefit of modernity.
November 27, 1992

Those countries which are successful today, those that will be tomorrow, share one common characteristic: they value knowledge. They also value continuing education, that is a learning and training that goes on for all your life.
Departments must also publish, in various shapes and forms, the information and data that young people need to stay in school and to choose a career. The government is striving to make sure that the sums allocated to the training and employment of young Canadians be distributed according to the decisions and priorities expressed by the people themselves simply because it must answer these very fundemental needs.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Nepean for putting this motion forward. When we see what is happening in our country today with our youth and the desperate situation in terms of employment opportunities, she is to be congratulated. The only problem we have with this motion, such a good motion, is the fact we only have a short time to debate it.
This is the kind of motion on which, I am sure, all members would agree we could cany on a productive, constructive debate for hours and hours.
I want to begin my remarks by referring to a report that was produced by my colleague, the hon. member for York North, who wrote a report on youth issues, "Background Information", in August 1992.
I want to refer to section 4 in this report because it deals specifically with literacy training. I am quoting from his report: "In February 1988 the Canadian Business Thsk Force on Literacy reported that the annual cost of illiteracy in the work place is roughly $4 billion. This is due to lost productivity, accidents and the necessity of increased supervision. The total social cost of illiteracy is estimated at $10 billion annually."
I refer to that specific part of the report because in my city, Toronto, close to 20 per cent of the youth are unemployed right now. I do not think we have ever had a situation like that in the city of Toronto. I realize that the national average, 17.2 or 17.3, is very high. However, in
Private Members' Business
the city of Toronto when we talk about 20 per cent youth unemployment, we are talking about a real crisis.
The desperate situation that develops when we have that high a number of youth unemployed is so important to focus on, because it affects stress in families, it affects our crime statistics, it affects our statistics relating to the drug problem that we have in our city.
I listened quite carefully to the member opposite. I would not criticize any of her remarks. I think all of the programs of government that we heard the member put forward today are good programs. It is a good effort but it is just not good enough.
The point of the motion of my colleague from Nepean is that we have to restore the funding levels that we had in 1989 to this specific area of the budget. We are not putting money into a black hole when we put money into youth programs. We are putting money into an investment that is going to pay incredible returns over the long haul.
Again, I want to refer back to illiteracy. There is an organization in our city called Frontier College. By the way it is a Canada-wide institution. It is a volunteer organization based in Toronto. It is a literacy organization. It teaches people how to read and write. It has an outreach program.
This is an instrument that the Government of Canada could be supporting, that could put tens of thousands of our young people to work. It could put them in literacy courses, helping to train others to learn to read and write. This type of action is not only a productive and positive experience for our young people but it also addresses support and assistance for those older people in our community who are still able to serve in the work force.
The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology talks about his competitive strategy. Here is a terrific opportunity. He could take the energy of the young people of our country and target it into a very specific exercise that not only puts these young people to work, but also gives them a productive exercise in terms of helping to train the others in our society that are illiterate. It will serve all of us as a nation once they are brought back into the work force.

November 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
This government, and it is consistent on this, sees the deficit and debt and does not realize that as it cuts, it is actually exacerbating the situation. In the area of youth unemployment, it has good programs in place, there are good instruments out there, but it is not putting up the necessary funding.
The Minister of Finance said earlier today during Question Period that he was preparing for a debate on the economy next week.
He challenged us on this side of the House to put forward ideas where Canadians would support a constructive use of tax dollars. I am absolutely convinced that the Government of Canada next week should put large sums of resources targeting specifically the youth unemployment sector of our nation; not just throwing money at them, but giving them a very specific function.
I can remember back in late 1969, the early 1970s when Senator Hebert did the Katimavik project, a solid project where young Canadians interacted and did great work all across the country. They were not only productive in terms of their own self-fulfilment but they made a contribution to the community.
I would appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government to come out strong on this and put money in support of the youth of our country. Restore those funding levels that my colleague for Nepean has talked about in her motion today and within that spectrum of youth support, put a very special focus on literacy.
I am sure if that is done that this side of the House will applaud that initiative.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Nepean actually put this motion to the House. I believe it is a sincere motion. The substance of it dealing with the young people of this country is critical to all of us.
As the previous speaker indicated, it is not one that is limited to one party or the other. It is one that all of us not only would like to debate, but one that all of us would like to find some answers to. It is a terribly serious problem. To show the diversity of it, the mover of the motion is from Nepean. She represents these people basically and she talked a lot about Ottawa centre. The previous speaker talked about Toronto, the biggest
metropolis we have in Canada. We had a speaker from Quebec indicating some of the unique situations there.
My riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin is unlike any of them. It is a huge area, 60,000 square miles of beautiful land that is sparsely settled, two and one-half square miles per family. Some constituencies in Canada are less than two and one-half square miles. This is what I have for each family in my constituency.
If there is a common theme from all of the ridings represented so far in this debate, it is that of our young people and the need for their education and to ensure that they do have a meaningful future through education.
I have a terrible concern. I have expressed it a number of times. The problem of not having sufficient work for the young people has gone beyond being an economic problem, it is quickly becoming a social problem. We as the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces have to address that situation and find solutions.
The motion indicates that we should restore funding to at least the 1989 levels. That in itself I do not think is sufficient. That was the intent that she intended. She argued that there should be increases in certain areas.
When I compare the expenditures and take all of the programs for the young people and pull them together, the levels of 1989 and the levels of last year and in fact this year have gone up. There has been nearly a 15 per cent increase over those years. Some have gone down and the hon. member has addressed those. Others have gone up. Some of those which have gone up are extremely important. The key element that the government has had to face is that of finding a balance between the resources that we have as a nation and the needs of the young people of this country, the future of our country. One of the areas that has taken the greatest increase, a huge increase, and I argue a very necessary increase, is that of addressing the young people that have dropped out of the school system. Our efforts are necessary efforts to get them to stay in school or to get back in school.
When I look at those numbers briefly, as a country we are in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent of our students dropping out before they have completed secondary school. There are some provinces that are better than 30 per cent, others are poorer than that, and a few in fact,
November 27, 1992

the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, up to 60 per cent. In the riding I represent it is a very high number.
In my opinion the emphasis that has been taken by the government has been a very appropriate one. It is absolutely essentially, not only for the young people but actually in terms of if you spend your dollars wisely, that is where they will go.
We had a group testifying in front of one of our committees last week which made the point that some of the people in poverty now that were not able to get their education when they were young require not months of retraining to enter the work force, but years of training. The cost to young people later in life to try to get them back into the work force is a quantum difference between the cost of trying to keep them in now. If we can do anything to keep them in now, it is worth while.
The Conference Board of Canada recently did a study of the drop outs in 1989. There were 137,000 young people that dropped out in 1989. The cost to Canada over their lifetime will be in excess of $4 billion.
The Minister of State for Youth in a statement recently put it as well as you can: "Education has a higher rate of return than almost any other alternative investment both for young people and for society".
There is an interesting number in terms of the need for these young people for training. Two-thirds of jobs created in Canada during this decade will require workers to have more than 12 years of education and training and 40 per cent of those jobs will require at least an additional five years of education beyond that.
If these numbers were not enough to convince me of the need to address it, as a drop-out I say to the students across Canada that are contemplating leaving school, do not do it. I was one of those that left school with just grade eight education. I did make out. I wandered around for several years and had several different jobs. I was terribly fortunate. I found my way back into school and subsequently completed university and ended up in this esteemed House with my colleagues. I was lucky.
I see some of my associates who in those days quit school at the same time and they did not make it. I can tell you that their life is not good. I can honestly say
Private Members' Business
when I see people that are in a drop-out situation I think there but for the grace of God go I.
One of the programs, and it will be the last one I talk about before I close, is one of those that has been used to address the problem with our drop-outs in our society. It is the WOW program leading to SEED. It has in fact achieved significant increases in budget over the years.
Yes, we put the money there but does it work. I can tell you it is working in my area. I have a letter from a co-ordinator of a program addressed to me recently that is indicating the results of the WOW pilot project evaluation are complete. The response has been overwhelming in favour of continuing the program.
They go on to indicate that the pilot project program has been very successful in achieving its goals and objectives.
Of the employers surveyed, 87 per cent rated the program as good or excellent; parents, 93 per cent; students, 96 per cent rated the program as excellent. They go on to say: "I can assure you that all the results indicate that the program has been exceedingly worth while in motivating and redirecting the risk and drop-out students to continue their education".
A student from this program wrote to me: "It has taught me how to get a job and why school is important. The real world is not as easy a place to be in as I thought it was, but the WOW program sort of gives you a few extra bars to climb up the ladder. Right now I am going to go back to school and finish my education".
Another one wrote: "I was sitting at home doing nothing but partying a lot because I did not know what I was going to do with my life. I was scared, but the WOW program opened new and different doors for me and taught me that life was not a big party. I believe this program has helped me".
It is these that indicate to me that as a government, as a people of Canada, in spite of the fact that we have extremely tight restraint limitations on us now, the onus on us is to spend those dollars wisely, to allocate the resources that we have for the training of youth. There is a huge need. The funds are limited. We have to use them wisely and pray to God that we can find more we can

November 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
allocate to this cause. If anyone deserves more dollars if we can find them it is the young people of Canada.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to congratulate the member for Nepean for having taken the leadership role in bringing about this motion to the House of Commons. She obviously understands and has an appreciation for the crisis that young people in this country are facing.
I had the privilege in the past year to travel throughout Canada as the co-chair of the Senate/House of Commons committee on youth. I can tell you that as I travelled across Canada, going to every province and the Northwest Territories meeting hundreds of Canadians, both young people and also those individuals in this country who are concerned with youth issues, I saw a sad reality, the marginalization of young people that is taking place in this country.
It is dangerous. We met with teachers, students, fishermen, farmers, police officers, people who run drop-in centres, representatives of aboriginal groups, multicultural groups. Through those meetings we learned a great deal about the state of youth in Canada. It is quite bleak.
Everywhere we went, whether it was to Moncton, Quebec City or Edmonton, the message was always the same: young Canadians have no confidence in their future. Young Canadians, their parents, their teachers and people in youth serving organizations all look to government for leadership.
Unfortunately this government has turned a deaf ear to their concerns. In the past two years our youth have struggled alongside other Canadians through the worst economic recession in memory, while the government cannot shake off its obsession on inflation and in the past on the constitutional deal.
When we speak about the future, when we speak about the concept of global competitiveness, getting Canada ready for the 21st century, it cannot end just with the rhetoric. What we need are programs that are going to address the specific concerns faced by young people. What is amazing about our country is that we set goals to achieve greater economic heights and social justice. We always strive toward building a fair and just society. Unfortunately, this particular government is not providing the tools, the vehicles of opportunities for young people to achieve those ends.
We in this country today face a severe crisis. Thirty per cent of our young people do not finish high school. They are high school drop-outs; 100,000 every year and one million in a decade. This should sound an alarm bell to this government to clearly understand that if it is serious about restructuring the economy, about meeting the challenges of the global market, then it must also be serious about developing the type of human resources required to bring about the positive changes in the structure of this economy that will result in prosperity for Canadians.
This past summer I met with many students that wanted to continue their post-secondary education but were denied that vehicle of opportunity by this government. In the past eight years it has literally taken away thousands upon thousands of summer jobs that would give ability to these young people to continue their education.
Once and for all the Conservative government must understand that the pillars to global competitiveness, to restructure our economy and bring prosperity to this country are education, training and research and development. Closely tied to these three issues is our ability to enhance our human resources. Young people are sick and tired of listening to this government's rhetoric about how young people are the future of this country and how this generation of Canadians depends greatly on their ability to carry the torch in the future.
I am telling you, that is not going to be possible unless this government really takes its responsibilities seriously and realizes that we must look at alternative ways of training our young people. We do not hear anything from that side about a serious approach to a national apprenticeship training program. We do not hear anything from the other side about a serious approach to co-operative education. We do not hear anything about youth programs, such as we had in the past, like Katimavik, a program that gave hope to so many young Canadians. That has been scrapped in the name of fiscal restraint.
There is also going to be a time when Canada will have to address not only the financial deficit but the human deficit this particular government has created. Perhaps programs, not necessarily like Katimavik, but programs that will relate to the present reality we now face have to
November 27, 1992

be looked at. That is the only way we will bring about the positive change Canadians and particularly young people are asking for. From that side of the House we have heard: "We have to cut the SEED program. We have to deny young people jobs in the summer to continue with their education. We have to cut federal transfer payments that go toward post-secondary education and also deny them that opportunity".
I do not understand how the government thinks we are going to build a prosperous future if we do not invest in people. It is about time that we as the House of Commons start dealing with the real problems of real people. It is about time that this government realizes it must start putting people first and abandoning some of the agenda that has driven this country into one of the worst economic recessions in modem times.
Perhaps I can briefly summarize. I have travelled throughout Canada to listen to what young people had to say. The common theme was that they were discouraged and demoralized about the prospects for their future. They felt that this government had not given them the proper vehicles of opportunity and they want change. This change will be brought about either through some progressive measures that the present government must undertake, or I promise young Canadians that when we form the government positive change will occur for them.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, what surprises me in that motion is that the government has done a lot more than what this motion is asking for.
During the few minutes that are left, let me put this debate in context and describe for those who seem to know nothing about them, the many concrete and practical measures taken by this government to deal with this global issue of training young Canadians and putting them to work.
The nation is increasingly concerned about school drop-outs and wants to know what is being done to slow down this process. At the national level, 30 per cent of high school students drop out for various reasons ranging from lack of interest or success to the urge to earn money as quickly as possible.
Private Members' Business
In the province of Quebec, rates are even more alarming at around 36 per cent for the general population and 42 per cent for male students.
The school drop-out is often a child or a teenager who feels lonely or isolated from society. He does not talk about his problems with his parents or his teachers. One day they realize that he has dropped out and it is already too late. Deprived of support, our youth often become the victims of a society unable to provide the climate necessary to acquire the skills required for a bright future.
It seems to me that we should do the opposite with our human resources. Given the changes which are occurring in the technological world and in the industrial sector, we need more and more highly skilled workers. In an increasingly global economy, Canada will have to compete harder for the next few decades and must prepare for that.
The best way to prepare for a prosperous future is to make sure that our labour force will be able to meet all the challenges facing us. It is therefore by staying in school that our youth will best learn how to prepare for their future obligations.
We are well aware that at the end of this century and into the next, Canadian workers will have to have at least a grade 12 education to hope to find a job to their liking; and sometimes they may even have to stay in school for 17 years. We also know that they will have to retrain more than once throughout their careers in order to satisfy the new market requirements. Their jobs will be increasingly technical and will require not only some general knowledge, but also certain specialized skills. The federal government is well aware of its responsibilities in the matter and has implemented a series of measures to encourage young people to at least finish high school.
The government launched the Stay-in-School initiative in February 1990 in order to try to bring the drop-out rate down and to encourage youngsters to stay in school. Created by Employment and Immigration, this program will have spent more than $46 million in 1991-92 and the figure should be well above $73 million for 1992-93.
Quebec submitted almost 140 projects for 1991-92 and our government is increasingly trying to establish partnerships with industry and the education sector in order to achieve better training for our young people. Labour will also have to be involved. We can already see the day when training will be a priority in our culture and when

Private Members' Business
our labour force will be on an equal footing with the other developed countries of the world.
It is a challenge; that is the key word in this issue and we have put it at the very heart of our initiatives. The sums allocated by government for the training programs, the work orientation programs, the bridging programs, the employment and labour force re-entry programs form a varied and tightly strung network which we modify according to need. It will always be a priority.
The funds spent by government in that area are distributed in such a way that both objectives, that is that our youth stay in school and that we have a highly
qualified work force, will be reached in the short and long term. It is vital for our social stability and for our economic prosperity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 3.47 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 30, 1992