1992-11-19

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops is rising on a point of order. I may know what it is. Ordinarily we would deal with it at the very end of Routine Proceedings and I am prepared, of course, to do that.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate there is a reason to present this point of order now as opposed to at the end of Routine Proceedings because of a meeting that is scheduled for 11 a.m.
Late yesterday the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader rose in the House and asked for unanimous consent to table the 50th report of the House management committee. One would then assume that if there was going to be a report from the committee that the committee would have met to have a report.
I want to say there is actually one way around this. The practice of the House has been for some time now that when striking the membership of committees, if there was unanimous consent by the Whips, that authority was given to the Whips to agree that the report could be tabled without going to the management committee.
However, yesterday when my friend the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader introduced the tabling initiative I indicated at that time that we had not agreed to the membership of the committee and therefore the request was withdrawn.
Later in the day the same initiative was taken when the parliamentary secretary asked again that the report be tabled. The Whips did not agree. The only way then that that could proceed would be for the House management committee to meet, agree on the membership of the committee, and then the parliamentary secretary or the chair of the committee could ask that the report be tabled. That was not done.
In other words, in one of life's many mysteries, we would table the report of a committee which never met and I do not know how that could be done.
I think we have to watch this practice because if the parliamentary secretary was presenting a report that did not reflect the decision of the committee we are getting into very dangerous territory.
I would ask that you give some thought toward considering the 50th report of the Standing Committee on House Management not receivable at least until the committee has had a chance to meet and decide upon the report.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, the Whip for the New Democratic Party was seeking the floor. Perhaps it would be better to hear what he has to say before I respond, if that is all right.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a call when I was in a committee from the House leader's office indicating that the government had risen to present a report of the striking committee for Bill C-91.
I had submitted the name of our caucus member who was to be our representative on that committee, but it was not until I saw the Votes and Proceedings today that I saw the names of other members who are being appointed to that committee. There was no consultation with me as Whip of the New Democratic Party as to the composition of that committee. There was no meeting.
In fact after the telephone call and after the parliamentary secretary for the government House leader

November 19, 1992
Point of Order
withdrew the report of the House management committee, I spoke directly to him in the House. I advised him that I did not agree with the tabling of the report and I further advised him of the need to call a meeting of the House management committee.
When the House management committee established the procedure to provide the Whips with the ability to present reports directly to the House if a unanimous decision was made, it was done to expedite the mechanics of operating the House of Commons. It was not designed in any way to provide an opportunity for the government to do what it felt was appropriate without ensuring that it had the support of the other two Whips.
I ask that you consider this matter and as my House leader has suggested, set aside the 50th report. In addition to that, the organizational meeting of Bill C-91 has been called for eleven o'clock this morning, the same time the House management committee has been called to meet. I ask that you find a way in which to suspend the organizational meeting of the Bill C-91 committee until such time as the House management committee has been able to receive the recommendation of the membership of that committee and determine whether that is an appropriate group of individuals to be on that committee.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Liberal Whip wishes to be heard.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to say on this matter that it was only yesterday during Question Period that I submitted the names of the Official Opposition members to the committee clerk and I did not have any consultation with the other two Whips. I do not even know who the other members are. I was surprised when I saw on my office television that the striking report was being deposited unanimously.
Usually, even though we hardly ever oppose the chosen names, there is a minimum consultation and discussion so that we can strike a committee. Those are the facts I would like to present to you on this matter.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, now that no one else is rising to speak I will now endeavour to state my understanding of the circumstances.
During Routine Proceedings yesterday afternoon I did indeed table the 50th report of the Standing Committee on House Management which contained names of members from all three parties to become members of the legislative committee on Bill C-91.
This I did as a result of information that was conveyed to me during the course of Question Period that there had been the appropriate consultation among the Whips and that there had never been any difficulty from the perspective of the New Democratic Party. There had been some last minute discussions with the Liberal Party. However, I got the message that those discussions were now concluded and it was appropriate to table the report, which I then proceeded to do.
There was an intervention from the House leader of the New Democratic Party who said that the report was not in order from the perspective of his party. I subsequently had a private discussion with him in which I understood that the name of his representative had been submitted by the Whip and that it appeared to be in order. I then made some further inquiries and came to the conclusion that all was in order, that the report was properly constituted and that there had been a thorough discussion among the three Whips.
Then last evening I sought unanimous consent of the House to revert to Routine Proceedings for the purpose of receiving the motion. That consent was given by the House and I deposited the report, having earlier in the day of course deferred to the word of my friend, the hon. member of the New Democratic Party, having received earlier unanimous consent to withdraw the first deposition.
I think it is important the House understand that the practice is that the Whips never see the names submitted by the other parties. It has been standard practice since April that the Whips do not consult as a group. The report was submitted on behalf of the House management committee as the appropriate vehicle for channeling the names submitted by the Whips.
I would submit, Sir, that the report was properly deposited, that the committee is now properly constituted and ought to begin its work.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an unusual incident. I say unusual for these reasons.
November 19, 1992

Yesterday, my colleague, the House leader for the New Democratic Party and deputy leader, spoke. We have heard him again today and we have heard the Whip for the New Democratic Party. They indicated yesterday very clearly that there were some difficulties surrounding this particular issue as to the unanimous report of the striking committee.
Having said that, I think the signal was clear, the direction was clear that if one were to proceed in a positive manner obviously there would have to be meaningful consultations which would have to take place thereafter. This is the direction that the management committee has given the striking committee. That is the way it operates.
We have heard again this morning from my colleagues, the House leader of the NDP and the Whip from the Official Opposition, that those consultations did not take place. I think the parliamentary secretary is right when he says that names were given by the respective parties, but the second part of the equation in terms of consultations did not take place.
Also, in this particular incident, I do not believe the Whip from the Official Opposition signed the report normally provided by the clerk. I think he did in fact send a letter indicating the names. If one wishes to interpret that as being a form of consultation, I do not think one would be accurate.
I think that is a very clear statement of the facts. The signal was given yesterday. There have not been consultations. It has not been unanimous and I am sure that with some goodwill on the part of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that this report ought not to proceed as tabled yesterday.
One might ask: "How come unanimous consent was given last evening?" That in itself is quite an oddity in view of what the deputy leader and the House leader for the New Democratic Party said yesterday. He was not in the House, the Whip of that party was not in the House, the House leader of the Liberals was not here nor the Whip. I am not trying to impute motive but I suggest that this is an unusual occurrence and I would hope that the parliamentary secretary will relent in his persistence of pursuing with this report in view of the facts and the signals which have been exchanged by the respective parties.
Point of Order


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think I have identified where the problem is. In listening carefully to the words of my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, he indicated that the respective Whips had submitted the names of the representatives of the parties for the committee.
The House management committee has empowered the Whips to report directly to the House when there is unanimous agreement among them on the membership of the committee. In other words, in those many cases where there was agreement among the Whips that the composition-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment, please. The hon. member for Kamloops made a reference. Is the hon. member reading from the motion of the committee passed some time ago with respect to the unanimous consent?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am paraphrasing what the agreement was, and that was that where there is agreement among the Whips on the membership of the committee-that does not mean having submitted a name, but on the membership of the committee-it proceeds automatically to the House and not necessarily through the House management committee process.
The point that we are making this morning is that the membership was not agreed upon by the Whips. Normally it is, but this is one case where it was not. Names were submitted but there was no indication from the Whip of the New Democratic Party-I cannot speak for the Whip of the Liberal Party-that they had agreed to the membership of this important committee. That is the point.
While I respect the views of my hon. friend that, yes, we did submit a name, I want to simply make the case that the composition of the committee was not agreed upon by the Whips, which therefore makes it now necessary to go back to the management committee to receive its report.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, just to support the position made by our House leader and the Whip of the New Democratic Party, I know that we are not supposed to look into the internal operations of a committee, but there was no committee meeting to authorize this report. The parliamentary secretary for the government House leader says, well, the Whips agreed. It is evident that the Whips did not agree. In

November 19, 1992
Point of Order
communications directly with him and with each other, they did not agree on the composition of this committee.
This committee is, therefore, not struck. The House management committee did not meet. Therefore, the House management committee cannot report to this House. It does not have any authorization whatsoever to make a report when the committee itself did not meet.
The only exception to that is if the three Whips unanimously agree on the composition of a committee. Then they can authorize the chair of the House management committee to report to the House. They did not do that.
The only remedy the government had at that time, when the three Whips did not agree unanimously, was to call a meeting of the full committee, where I suspect using their majority they would have got their way. But they rushed that process. We know that they are veiy intent on getting the changes to the Patent Act through the House, but to skip the necessary requirement of having a full House management committee when they knew that there was a dispute among the Whips is unacceptable.
I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that not only do you not allow this report to be received and acted upon, but that instructions be issued for that committee not to start its work in one half hour's time.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we go any further, perhaps hon. members could assist me on facts. It has been asserted, I am sure with complete bona fides, that a committee meeting has been called for eleven o'clock this morning. Now I am told that maybe that assertion is in error. Can hon. members assist the Chair on this?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, there are two committee meetings called for eleven o'clock this morning. My understanding is that there is a meeting of the legislative committee on Bill C-91 called for eleven o'clock this morning. There is also a meeting of the House management committee called for eleven o'clock this morning, of course in separate rooms.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue with his comments.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible because I truly believe that this debate belongs
in the House management committee rather than on the floor of the House, but it is here and we must deal with it here.
On April 29, 1992 the House of Commons concurred in the 28th report of the House management committee and this report dealt with standing order changes regarding legislative committees.
On May 7, 1992 the House management committee passed a report which stated: "That further to the motion adopted by the committee on June 18, 1991, the subcommittee composed of the three Whips be delegated all authority to act as striking committee pursuant to Standing Order 113, and provided that the report recommendations are unanimous it present them directly to the chairman of the committee for presentation to the House on behalf of the committee".
This allowed the striking committee to bypass the House management committee in order to table reports on the membership of legislative committees. The clerks of the House management committee needed to put in place a process whereby they could get consent on membership from the Whips and get the reports into the House.
Up until this point the Whips were able to do the same thing by submitting the names of the members from their own caucus to the clerks who would put together a list. The list would then be circulated among the Whips for their signature and then returned to the clerks. The clerks then put together a report for the chair to table.
This was thought to be a rather cumbersome process and so after the above motion was passed the clerks consulted with the Whips and decided on a new process. Again, briefly, it goes like this. The Whips submit the name of the member to sit on the committee along with the Whips' initials. The clerks can immediately put together a report for the chair of the House management committee to table.
Problems arose with this as well. The office of the New Democratic Party Whip regularly sent over names of members without the initials of the hon. New Democratic Party Whip. The clerks would send the notice back and ask for the initials. Sometimes this would take a few days. The clerks began to submit reports without the New Democratic Party Whip's initials.
November 19, 1992

At least three cases are on file with the clerks' office in which the hon. New Democratic Party Whip did not initial his submission. The reports were tabled and deemed adopted without incident. Those reports were: the 40th report, Bill C-73; the 46th report, Bill C-79; and another report which number I do not have but it was with reference to Bill C-78.
Thble clerks have told us and it is my judgment that if the committee chair feels that the committee report is in order and he or someone on his behalf tables the report it then is in order.
If the opposition raises a point of order on the matter I believe the Chair should not entertain arguments because as far as I am concerned the committee report is before the House. If the Whips are unhappy with that, I submit is a committee problem and must be dealt with within the committee.
I did have an opportunity to consult with the chair of the House management committee yesterday evening and he confirms the facts as I have outlined them. I regret that he is out of the city today and not able to be in the House, but I can assure the House that the view as I have outlined it was confirmed by him in a conversation I had with him yesterday evening.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the next hon. member, but I just want to point out to the House that there seems to be some confusion about the situation at eleven o'clock.
The information that I have is that no formal notice has gone out to hold that meeting.
My concern now is that whether it is at eleven o'clock or whether it may come back a little later, there is a point of order in front of the Chamber and in front of the Chair. I think I am going to have to deal with it unless hon. members can resolve it among themselves, which would be the best solution, but that may not be possible.
I will hear the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan. Unless there is something vital and new that has to be brought in-the hon. member for Saint-Leonard wants to speak-it is probably my responsibility now to reserve and see how quickly I can settle this matter, if it is appropriate for me to do so.
Point of Order


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to add one key point. Yesterday I advised the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, when he was in his seat in the House, that I did not agree to the report of the House management committee to strike Bill C-91. I indicated very clearly that the matter should be referred to the House management committee to be resolved.
Regardless of whether or not there was a signature, regardless of whatever the process was, I told the hon. member that I did not agree with the report.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the striking committee of the subcommittee of the House management committee is composed of three Whips: the government Whip, the opposition Whip and the NDP Whip.
This subcommittee was created and received power delegated from the House management committee to expedite the changes in the formation of the committees so that the subcommittee did not have to go to the House management committee to get approval before presenting the report.
With this delegation of power one thing is very clear. This report has to be unanimous. If it is not unanimous it cannot be presented to the House. It has to go to the House management committee. What is happening this morning has not happened in the past. Once the names were given by the three Whips a report was prepared and the clerk was asked to have the three Whips sign that report before putting it before the House.
As opposition Whip I was not asked to sign that report and I therefore did not sign the report. I do not think, if we look at that report, that my signature or initials are there. I heard that the NDP Whip did the same thing.
There was no meeting. Whether physically or by signature there is no agreement. This matter is to be discussed at eleven o'clock and the striking committee has to report to the House management committee and maybe we could clear it up this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Keeping in mind that if I am to deal with this matter I had better get at it; time is slipping by.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can offer a solution which is fairly straightforward.

Routine Proceedings
I would like to think we made the case strongly that this report ought not to be considered receivable. If the Speaker were simply to rule that the report submitted, the 50th report, is not receivable, at eleven o'clock the management committee could meet and deal with the issue. If the legislative committee meeting for Bill C-91 can be put off until some time later in the day then I think things can proceed as normal.
It is important at this point that the management committee deal with this issue and the report be subsequently tabled in the House. Then the legislative committee could get on with its business.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless somebody has something which is absolutely vital, I have to go and deal with this matter. We cannot talk about it all day.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is showing some concern. I do not want to cut him off.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to give you sufficient time to adjudicate on the matter but, suffice it to say, I concur with my colleagues, the House leader of the NDP and the deputy leader, that in fact the NDP Whip said no in the House of Commons yesterday.
No was said in the House of Commons by the NDP House leader; no has been said today by the opposition Whip. Those facts have to be paramount in Your Honour's decision.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. At 9.30 this morning, the clerk of the legislative committee on Bill C-91 called the office of the member who would be appointed from the New Democratic Party saying that a meeting was set for 11 a.m. today in Room 536 of the Wellington Building.
We just received a call to say that meeting has been cancelled. My only concern is that things seem to be happening very quickly in the last hour. I would like to be assured that no meeting of this committee would be called until Your Honour has had a chance to report back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The issue that I am asked to decide may very well, depending on my considerations if meetings go ahead when the Chair has been asked to determine as a consequence of interventions that have been made, the
appropriateness of the entire procedure, then I have to deal with that issue.
Naturally the better course would be that members co-operate and that there would certainly be no meeting by the legislative committee. The management committee may indeed want to meet and to discuss this matter. If that resolves it all then I would not have to make a ruling.
I must say that I am reluctant to put the Chair into the midst of all this, but I have the matter in front of me and I am going to try to deal with it. In the meantime, while I withdraw and reserve and try to help resolve this hon. members might also see if they can resolve it.
I am going to ask my Deputy Speaker to proceed with Routine Proceedings. I know that there is a question of privilege coming up later. We may ask the hon. member who is busy somewhere else at the moment to adjourn that. His place would be confirmed and the hon. member for Kamloops might want to discuss that with him.
I am going to leave the chair, reserve, and see if I can solve this issue. I would ask other hon. members to see if they can solve it before I have to.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the final report of the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to table, in both official languages, my annual report to Parliament on the state of small business in Canada
November 19, 1992

which this year takes the unique form of a workbook on exporting. It reflects the desire of small business to have useful information.
In keeping with the government's no frills publishing policy and as a recognition of the importance of new technology, I am also tabling, for what I believe is the first time in this House, a computer disk containing the entire report in both languages.


SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
In accordance with Standing Order 123, it is my duty to inform the House that this report contains a resolution to revoke subsection (8)(ii) and section 10.1 of the public works nuisance regulations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 123(1), a copy of the relevant regulations, chapter 1365 of the Consolidated Regulations of Canada, as amended, including the provisions disallowed by the joint committee, is attached as appendix A to the sixth report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CHILD DAY ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-371, an act respecting a national child day.


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


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, the intention of the bill is to ask the House to designate November 20 of every year as a national child day.
Canada very proudly co-chaired the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and was among the first countries to push for children's rights internationally.
Routine Proceedings
I hope that this bill will commend itself strongly to hon. members of all parties, so that we could obtain unanimous consent to pass this measure at all stages without debate in Private Members' Business later this afternoon.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Harb 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.


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-372, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.


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


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to impose mandatory disclosure of members' expenses directly related to their parliamentary duties. Every year, not later than 30 days after October 31 and 30 days after March 31, members would provide a statement of expenses directly related to their parliamentary duties. This bill would come into effect at the beginning of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament.
The proposed legislation follows the recommendations of the sixth report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act, tabled in this House by the hon. member for Vercheres on December 18, 1990.
Finally, the bill follows the recommendations made by the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Denis Desautels, in his report on the audit of the House of Commons Administration, section 6, "members' expenses", submitted to the Speaker of the House in November 1991.
I also want to thank the hon. member for Terrebonne for seconding my motion to introduce this bill.


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


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
Jean Corbeil: that Bill S-8, an Act to regulate the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to reduce the risk of death, injury and damage to property and the environment, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I move:
That pursuant to section 14 of an act respecting the registration of lobbyists, chapter 44, fourth supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the act be referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations and that the committee undertake a comprehensive review of the act and submit a report to the House no later than one year after the review is undertaken.


Mr. Plamondon:: Would the hon. member please repeat the motion? I did not quite get the translation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: May we ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to repeat the motion?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would endeavour to do it in French, but it is a little technical for me, so I will read it again slowly in English. I move:
That pursuant to section 14 of an act respecting the registration of lobbyists, chapter 44, fourth supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the act be referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations and that the committee undertake a comprehensive review of the act and submit a report to the House no later than one year after the review is undertaken.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, the petitioners who signed these petitions request that the CRTC regulate the use of foul and inappropriate language on radio and television.
They believe that parental efforts to raise children are often undermined by what happens on radio and television, particularly with respect to the use of language and violence. They stress that foul language is not necessary to inform or to entertain. They believe foul language is similar to violence, that it is one form of violence.
The petitioners ask for strict rules of conduct.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my second petition is with respect to education. These petitioners stress the importance of quality education in Canada to meet increased productivity and to ensure that we are competitive. They condemn the 3 per cent tax on student loans; they criticize the cuts to education via the transfer payments route; and they want accessible education for everyone.
The National Consortium of Scientific and Educational Societies is in Ottawa at this particular time making these same points.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition from residents of Senneterre and Barraute in Abitibi that says that violent movies on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they incite more violence.
They point out that all toys that incite violent games are unacceptable and should not be made. The freedom of the press to report violent acts should be limited and information on acts of violence which is repeated too often on all television stations and on radio can incite others to commit the same violent acts.
November 19, 1992

Therefore the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to legislate on the above-mentioned points to eliminate violence in our society in order to better protect our children and give all our fellow citizens a better quality of life.
[English)


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions from citizens of my riding and the immediate area. I might add also that I am a bit sad to have to present these petitions because they deal with violence against women and children. More particularly, they deal with the violent deaths of Nina de Villiers of the Burlington area, Kristen French of St. Catharines and Carrie Pinard, a young lady who was gunned down inadvertently by young offenders while she was just minding her own business. We have seen an upsurge of violence and the hundreds of signators of this petition are very much taken aback because of this violence.
I urge the Minister of Justice to look into these petitions and that some consideration be given to them in this House. Further steps should be taken to somehow amend the Young Offenders Act so that our citizens are better protected in Canada.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions I would like to present from citizens across the country. Almost every province is represented. These are in addition to the many thousands of signatures I previously submitted.
The petitioners are deeply concerned about the plight of refugee families in Canada. They urge the minister of immigration to issue ministers' permits for spouses and dependant children of refugee claimants who have been permitted to apply for landing from within Canada and allow them to be reunited in Canada for inland processing.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition has been certified correct as to form and content by the clerk of petitions. The petition contains some 191 signatures,
Routine Proceedings
mostly from my own constituency of Kootenay West- Revelstoke, particularly from the cities of Revelstoke, Trail, Rossland, Castlegar and the villages of Montrose and Perthvale.
The petitioners point out that Canadians are in danger of losing their first class telephone system and that Canada's tradition of universal, affordable service is at risk if long distance competition is approved by the CRTC as proposed by Unitel and B.C. Rail enters the telecommunications market.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to consult with all affected parties, especially rural residents who are at risk of substantially increased costs for local telephone calls.
Finally, they urge the Government of Canada to hold local hearings in rural communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telephone system.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to this House a rather large petition, certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
The petition contains the signatures of over 15,000 Canadians who support Bill C-330. They want Canadians to have a greater say in the disposition of offenders in the judicial process and call upon Parliament to support victim's rights and the protection of the public from violent offenders.
This brings to over 50,000 the number of signatures brought to this House. Tonight Bill C-330 will have its day in the highest court in the land.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of a number of citizens of the province of Quebec to present this petition.
For 50 years there has been illegal traffic of workers between the Haitian Republic and the Dominican Republic. These workers are not well treated and the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take issue with the Dominican Republic to try and rectify the situation relative to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

November 19, 1992
Routine Proceedings LIGHTHOUSES


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in the House on behalf of the people on the coast of British Columbia who depend on the transportation safety system. They point out that the Conservative government's effort to destaff and downgrade the lighthouses on the coast of British Columbia was a dangerous and reckless act.
They ask the House of Commons to call on the Ministry of Transport to immediately implement the upgrading report, called The Future of Lighthouses on the Coast of British Columbia in order that the safety net can be improved and strengthened.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from central British Columbia who express their concern regarding a company that has announced its intention to divert water from the North Thompson River near Valemount and sell the water in the southern California area. This is one of the major river diversion plans.
Consequently the petitioners are urging the Government of Canada to state categorically it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be diverted into the United States and to state Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from across the country. The largest number of them are from Kingston, but there are some from Bolton, Halifax, Amherstview, Windsor and even Toronto.
These people came to Kingston in the summer, went into book stores, and were shocked when they had to pay 7 per cent GST on their purchases of books, magazines and newspapers.
Canada is one of the very few democratic countries in the world where we have such a pernicious tax as this goods and services tax on the printed word. These Canadians are shocked they have to pay this every time they purchase a book. Book sellers are horrified. They have to go through the expense of collecting this tax, which is unfair and unjust.
These petitioners call on Parliament to repeal the goods and services tax in so far as it applies to books, magazines and newspapers.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, Question No. 383 will be answered today.


Mr. Karpoff: Haye any studies been done by or for government departments, bodies or agencies since January 1,1989 regarding the estimated cost of a national child care program, and if so, (a) what are the dates of these studies (b) who are the authors of these studies?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and National Health and Welfare as follows:
The Department of Finance has not undertaken any studies since January 1, 1989, to estimate the cost of a national child care (spaces) program.
It should be noted however that the government provides support to families most in need of assistance and is addressing the problems faced by children at risk-child physical and sexual abuse, poor nutrition and health. That is why the 1992 budget announced an increase of $2.1 billion in federal support for families over the next five years. Furthermore, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has recently announced a $500 million child development initiative aimed at preventing and reducing conditions of risk among children.
Federal expenditures on measures related to child care now total over $1 billion per year. These include the Child Care Expense Deduction, the Child Tax Credit Supplement, the federal share of day care expenditures under the Canada Assistance Plan, and child care allowances for parents participating in federal training programs. In addition, the federal government contrib-
November 19, 1992

Government Orders
utes some $1.4 billion in maternity and parental benefits under the unemployment insurance program.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has not conducted any studies on the estimated cost of a national child care program, nor has it funded any such studies since January 1, 1989.
The Department of National Health and Welfare conducted a great deal of research and policy development in preparation for the national child care bill of the last Parliament (this bill, C-144, did not receive Royal Assent before the 1988 election). This body of research was used in the preparation of a number of estimates of the potential costs of child care programs in 1989 and following years. For example, new estimates for child care spaces creation were prepared by varying the expenditures per space (to account for cost increases) and the numbers of new spaces, and re-estimating the total.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 247 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 247 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Taylor: Since April 1, 1991, has any information been refused under Section 68 and 69 of the Access to Information Act and, if so, (a) how many times (b) what is the number of such exemptions claimed by department or agency (c) what is the percentage of the refusals in relation to total number of requests?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, assuming that Bill C-26 is called as first item under Government Orders this morning, I think you will find a disposition on the part of the House to sit through the lunch hour for the purpose of continuing consideration of the report stage of Bill C-26.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, that request has been made by the Official Opposition. As far as the government's side is concerned, it would be satisfactory.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thesday, June 23, consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 15,16,18,19 and 23.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are resuming debate on Motions Nos. 15,16,18,19 and 23. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor and he has eight minutes remaining on debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I will forgo any further comment on these particular sections and possibly participate in the discussions on another set of amendments later in the day.

Government Orders


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on this important issue today in the House of Commons.
I would like to point out how concerned we in the New Democratic Party are about the treatment of the Public Service of Canada by the present government. There is an enormous effort on the part of the government to brand the Public Service of Canada as having responsibility for many of the things that have gone wrong in terms of the government deficit and government programs, and this is absolutely false.
Canada has one of the finest and most dedicated public services in the world. Instead of attacking, demoralizing and blaming it for all the ills in the world, the government should support it thoroughly.
I will use a couple of quick examples of the kind of demoralisation that has gone on. The first one is the lighthouse services on the coast of British Columbia. The Liberal government attempted to de-staff the lighthouses of British Columbia, and this was then picked up by the Conservative government. It ran study after study and then attempted to implement a program to remove those lighthouse keepers. They are people who have been incredibly dedicated in isolated services and have provided a tremendous service to the people of Canada. Once in power, the government immediately went to the attack. I recall that happening in previous Parliaments when the Liberals were in power. There were enormous community fights on the coast of British Columbia to defend and keep their lighthouse services and transportation safety services. When the Liberals left power, we faced exactly the same thing with the Conservative government.
We have been through this three times, and every time the government attempts to blame these people for inefficiencies, the community rises to their defence.
In the latest round, the Conservative government came out with a proposal to de-staff lighthouse services, automate them and really downgrade their function. We had very large meetings in Prince Rupert with members of the public and members of the marine and aviation transportation communities. They told us we are making
this system far more dangerous than it already is by removing these positions.
There were meetings in Port Hardy and Campbell River. By the time the public meetings hit Campbell River, the government realized the political consequences of continuing in this vein were going to be fatal. It realized those public servants provided enormous service to the people who travel the coast of British Columbia all year round, realizing that it is a dangerous place to function and operate.
At one point, after a previous encounter, the government realized the error of its ways. It realized that to try to remove those public servants and blame them for many cost overruns and problems along that line would not wash, so it indicated it would allow those positions to continue in the Public Service. It then put out The Future Role of Lighthouses report and promised to upgrade the Public Service and those facilities. The report went through to Ottawa, hit the President of the Treasury Board, and died.
It really talked about the kind of service those people could contribute to Canadians. It is a tremendously valued and respected service. It simply asked for some support to keep those public servants on the job, doing what Canadians need the Public Service to do, and in this case it is protect their lives. It just called for some simple support, by means of a communication system, where lighthouse keepers could inform people in the marine and air transportation sectors about the local conditions around the lighthouse. This was often the only effective form of weather communication.
It also talked about adding basic weather reporting facilities so these public servants could enhance the job they do, but to date there has been absolutely nothing. The previous Liberal government and the Conservative government have each tried twice to de-staff this program, but with the public in an absolute uproar about it, it has cancelled its plans.
It is now trying to erode that service through the back door by shutting down the lighthouse at Sand Heads. We would really like to know what the consultant's report says about putting the public service staff back in that lighthouse to provide top quality safety service to the public.
I would like to hear the minister responsible for the Treasury Board stand up in the House and tell us if staff will be put back in that facility. I would like him to
November 19, 1992

guarantee the government will not try to get rid of these public servants out the back door. Public servants cannot do a decent job for Canadians unless they are given basic minimum equipment. Again we see the strangler of the money-bag of the people of Canada here in the House. I think it would be really very productive for the minister responsible for the Treasury Board to tell us very clearly if it will provide the Public Service with the tools to do the job. The public servants need communications equipment. They need weather reporting equipment, some basic weather training and a commitment to provide those services to the public. They need some basic search and rescue equipment, such as a boat and motor. They need a basic telephone. People in the regional office in British Columbia are talking about pulling telephones and just simple basic equipment out of lighthouses.
In many cases it is not just an attempt to save the taxpayers of Canada money. The people of Canada are being placed in serious danger. It just aggravates public servants attempting to do their jobs when you remove these picky little things. It breaks morale to try to discipline people through the back door for what I think are legitimate and important examples of what the Public Service is doing right now.
Quite honestly, if the government is looking at removing or replacing some of the people, there are a few folks in management in the regional and headquarter offices who could be replaced. Ultimately, it is not the public servants who need to be replaced. They are the ones who follow the directions of this government.
This government is enforcing absolutely unacceptable approaches on management for dealing with the Public Service. The government is hauling away the equipment to do the job from the Public Service and breaking the morale of the finest public servants in the world. It is attempting to blame them for the shortcomings of this government, and that will not wash.
Privatization is really causing an enormous break in morale within the Public Service. The Minister of Transport is considering a proposal from the district and regional office of the Pacific region to privatize coast guard helicopter services and coast guard search and rescue services with those helicopters. This is irresponsible and dangerous. It breaks the morale of the Public Service. It demonstrates the government has no understanding, on a day to day basis, of their job and mission
Government Orders
when they are told they can be replaced by Okanagan Helicopter and Canadian Helicopter. The government is going to turn that operation over as a lucrative plum to its friends and may even give them the equipment to boot.
It reminds me of the Bill Vander Zalms of the world who sell the public highway service of British Columbia to the private sector. It has been a complete disaster. The government gave away the land and the equipment. It just gave a great little plum to some friends out there. Public transportation infrastructure was handed over to the private sector. If that is done to the helicopter service on the coast of B.C. it would be absolutely destructive for the Public Service and for the safety of British Columbians.
On Sunday afternoon, November 22, in Campbell River there is going to be an enormous public meeting on the issue of the future of lighthouses. We are satisfied they are not going to be de-staffed at this point, but there must be a commitment to upgrade those lighthouses. We need representation at that meeting from the Ministry of Transport to tell us if it is going to protect the safety of British Columbians by upgrading those lighthouses and keeping those public servants on the job and able to do the job.
We want somebody from the Ministry of Transport at that meeting at the Labour Hall in Campbell River at 2 p.m. on Sunday, November 22, to tell us the government is going to kill this proposal to privatize coast guard helicopter services and keep those public servants behind those controls, saving the lives of British Columbians.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, we had a fairly lengthy debate on this group of motions when we last met in June. As we are resuming debate after a six month absence, I thought it was important to put the rest of today's debate in context and remind the House and the public that we are meeting today to debate this important bill, again under closure. A government which has spent several million dollars developing the report for this legislation now wants debate on it concluded in less than two additional sitting days. Once again the public is denied the right to hear the merits and demerits of the government's actions and to make their own judgment.

Government Orders
Nonetheless I do not think that is too important. The vast majority of Canadians have already made then-judgments on this government and will be expressing those as soon as they get the opportunity at the ballot box.
I do want to again come back because the last few months have given a meaning to this bill and I think it is important to remind both the House and the public what is fundamental about this bill. It is not an esoteric exercise in internal organization of government. It is a bill that has a very real impact on the service Canadians get every day from their government and on the value they get for the money that goes into the Public Service.
During the referendum we heard one strong theme from Canadians, that they want a national government capable of governing this country in the interests of all Canadians. They want a national vision. They want a clear sense of direction and they want leadership from their national government in planning the future of this country.
That leadership depends on whom we elect to Parliament, but it depends even more on those people that day in and day out serve Canadians from coast to coast. The previous speaker referred to everything from the most remote lighthouse on the west coast of Canada to the most remote harbour on the east coast of Canada to the most remote outpost in northern Canada. It is Public Service employees who provide those services to Canadians and allow us to build our future together.
The other thing Canadians said during the referendum is that they are tired of confrontation. They want more co-operation. You do not get co-operation instead of confrontation with a government that insists on having confrontational relationships with its own employees as opposed to working in partnership with them, as it is encouraging the private sector to do with its employees.
You do not get co-operation instead of confrontation when you have months and months of rumours that the government is planning to cut 10 per cent of its employees at a time when more Canadians than ever before in the history of this country are unemployed and are facing Christmas and the holiday season with some pretty bleak prospects, not only for themselves but for their children's future as well.
The other thing Canadians said during the referendum is that they want leadership. They want government leadership in addressing the urgent economic situation of this country, not only the misery of five million Canadians affected by high unemployment, but the fundamental problems with our economy, the failure of this government to even understand the impact of global trends on Canada and to help Canadians prepare and plan and adjust to those changes. That kind of leadership does not come only from the benches in this House. It has to come from top to bottom in the Public Service of Canada.
We have a prosperity report that says there should be a systematic, thorough examination of governments at all levels where duplication is, where overlap is, and how efficiency can be improved. What do we have the government doing? A totally ad hoc, across the board threat of job cuts, job losses. We all know what that does. It does not save any money for Canadians, it just puts more money into the hands of the friends of the government who want to pick up that work on contract.
We have the release of the report of the International Labour Organization, a tripartite labour-management-govemment organization that is responsible for overseeing international conventions on labour relations, slamming this government for its treatment of its own employees.
It is not surprising to see the bill we have before us and have had before us for some months now from a government that fundamentally does not believe in government. It believes in getting out of government doing anything. I think the referendum showed us clearly that the attitude of government is at odds with what Canadians want. It is probably why we sat through months and months of committee hearings with the elected members of this government having virtually no comment and no discussion on the bill before us. They have sat through hours in this House equally silent, refusing even to debate the dozens of amendments that members of the opposition have put forward, motions and amendments that would improve this bill. We have not even had the courtesy of allowing minor corrections to the bill that are necessary to make it technically correct.

We have a government in power that does not understand the purpose of government. Members opposite in the governing party are not debating the amendments to this bill because they do not understand this bill, they do not understand the purpose of the amendments and they are unable to debate them on their merits.
We have a government that is bereft of ideas, that is tired and that should be replaced. All we can hope to do in the two days of debate remaining is to ensure that a very damaging bill is at least subject to public scrutiny and subject to our best attempts to have improvements made to it.
I want to comment briefly on the particular group of motions before us because they go to the heart of what is wrong with this bill. If we have had the best Public Service in the world, and we have had in this country, it is because for the better part of a century we have been committed to the principle that you do not get a job based on who you know or who your father was or who you have paid off. You get a job because you are the best person to do the job.
These motions go directly to the heart of that issue and this bill presented by the government goes directly to the heart of trying to destroy what is known as the merit principle. That is why these amendments are put forward, to say veiy clearly that you get an appointment because you are the best person for the job, not on some arbitrary standard your manager sets, not on some standard which may be described because your manager happens to like you, but because we have looked at the people who are qualified to serve the people of Canada and we have chosen the best. That is what Motion No. 16 is trying to accomplish. I urge the government to seriously consider supporting it.
A couple of subsequent amendments tried to correct what has been a misapplication of the merit principle for many decades in this country and throughout society. Let us be honest. We all know that when it comes to judging people on their ability to do the job, some people never get quite judged only on ability, but on their gender or on their colour or on the fact that they happen to have a disability. That is why we have not seen throughout society and throughout government women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and people with disabilities moving much below the lowest ranks.
Government Orders
The remaining motions are to ensure that measures in our hiring practices that discriminate against people on the basis of anything but ability are removed.
I urge the government at this last moment to consider supporting those amendments.


Mr. Dan Heap (IHnity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I am not pleased about the bill, but I am pleased to have a chance to speak against it.
This is Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts related to it. I want to speak particularly about the so-called merit principle that the government is bent on bringing in.
This principle would allow the Public Service Commission to appoint people on the basis of what it calls the competence of a person as measured by such standards of competence as the commission may establish. In other words, it will be favouritism. It will be division and the encouragement of mutual suspicion, non co-operation and destruction of morale.
To destroy agreed and objective systems of selection, competition and promotion clearly is done with the intent to destroy the Public Service as a public service. It is to prepare the way for total privatization of the Public Service, yet the government will not come out and openly state its intent. It knows there would be a revolt of the staff.
Revolts of staff are already brewing. My familiarity particularly is with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the staff working in the Ontario region and the Toronto district.
Over the last 11 years, my constituency office has had good working relations with the staff of the Canada immigration centres in Toronto, not that there were not problems. Of course, there were problems. There were problems from the point of view of a constituent, there were problems from the point of view of my office staff and there were problems from the point of view of the immigration staff.
Nobody monopolizes all the problems, nobody is free of responsibility for this or that part of the problems. What I am talking about is that through consistent effort by my staff in the constituency office over these 11 years, they have been able to establish reasonable communica-

Government Orders
tion with their counterparts in the local immigration centres, and on the higher levels as well when necessary.
That is to say until this year. This year things have changed. Staff has been slashed. The government brags about increasing the number of immigrants to Canada. Toronto is the main destination of immigrants, especially of refugees. More than half the refugees come to the Toronto region. Perhaps it is not more than half the immigrants, but certainly a very large percentage of them. However, the government has been slashing the staff in Toronto, especially over this past year.
Immigration staff who used to have a case load of perhaps 30, 40 or 50 now have a case load of 100. One of them at the lower management level confessed to my assistant and said: "When I look at 100 cases sitting on my desk, I say that is 100 families whose life I am messing up and I cannot do anything about it". They are simply overloaded.
Recently there was a big hullabaloo over an expose on television about war criminals having been admitted to Canada from Somalia. I am told that one of those was admitted by one of the Toronto staff because he was so overloaded with work that he did not have time to check properly on that case, to ask the questions he should have asked. The staff is blamed and of course the government uses that gladly as an excuse for saying that we need nastier laws. We need to be able to exclude people on mere suspicion, as the present Bill C-86 provides.
If the officer has reason to believe that the person has done something in another country that is an offence in Canada, then he is inadmissible. "Reason to believe," in other words mere suspicion. Maybe he just does not like the colour of the person's skin and concludes therefore that the person might do something wrong in Canada.
I have had the case of a Canadian citizen from an African country, a landed immigrant, a citizen trying to bring immediate family members, pressing an immigration officer to do his duty in the matter and the immigration officer bursting out and saying: "How the hell did you get here?" The person said: "I'm a Canadian citizen". He said: "You're the ones that are causing the trouble". That person was black.
I do not know the officer who did that. Whether that is a consistent pattern with that officer of racial prejudice, I am not prepared to say. What I am prepared to say is that officers who are under unreasonable pressure of work may do things that are not normally within their character. None of us is so perfect that we can respond to the public as we ought to respond when the pressures of work become unreasonable.
I am told that currently in the staff slashing process they come to an officer and say: "How many reports can you do in a day?" He gives a number. They go to another officer: "How many reports can you do in a day?" She gives a number. After getting these numbers they say: "You are all going to have to do x number," a higher number in a day. It means they can lay off more staff and simply load impossible piles of paper work on the immigration staff.
Until the spring of this year when my office phoned or faxed to the immigration office to get a status report on the request of a constituent, it would take a matter of two or three days, half a week or at the most a week to get an answer. Now it is not unusual to go several months without getting an answer to the simple question, what is the status of this person's request? Repeated phone calls, repeated faxes do not get answers to questions.
The government has been slashing the staff and setting one staff person against another so that everyone is discouraged from co-operating. Each staff member is running scared of being laid off and is working against everyone else as often as he or she is working with everyone else. This was not the case before in the Toronto immigration offices.
Canadian citizens and Canadian permanent residents are being badly served by this change in the staff. The worst news of all is the new system of mail-in. Instead of a Toronto person going to the immigration office and saying: "I would like to sponsor my mother from the old country", or whatever, he is now told to phone in and wait for a package. "We'll mail you a package. You fill out the kit." You mail it in and then you sit and wait for an answer, which is probably to tell you did not fill it in right. Once you could get advice from the immigration officer on how to fill in the forms because the average Canadian is not an expert in immigration technicalities. Now they are shut out. They cannot get advice. They
November 19, 1992

cannot get answers. They cannot get the service of the immigration department.
That is the result of this government's plan to close down most of the immigration offices in Canada and force all people to deal by mail with a system that is incapable of doing this job by mail under the conditions that this government is enforcing. Therefore this bill is a scandal.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, since this is the first time that I speak in this debate, I would first of all like to tell this House about the admiration and respect I have for the Canadian Public Service. I am talking as President of the Treasury Board, of course, but also as a former civil servant who knows first hand whereof he speaks.

The civil service of Canada is miles ahead of the people I have heard on the opposition side in their readiness to face the challenges of the modem world. Bill C-26 does not come from outer space. It comes from vast consultations in the Public Service. Managers are also members of the Public Service. Employees are part of the Public Service. It is together with them that we have prepared this bill which provides additional flexibility to face the changing world.
The hon. member for Ottawa West said that we have to prepare Canadians for change. To do that we have to change ourselves and adapt. Did she visit Expo Innovation, the exhibition that was put together by the Public Service and various departments here in Ottawa to show the new technology they have brought to the management of this country. It was one of the proudest moments of my career as minister. They have been inventive.
All this new technology brings with it concern for their own jobs because with machines and new technology sometimes you can do more with fewer people. However, the purpose of the public service is not to guarantee employment for millions or a hundred thousand people. It is to provide the best possible service to Canadians, and the only sacred principle is to make sure that
Government Orders
Canadians get the best possible service with the resources available. They have to be imaginative and they are. I face these changes with great confidence.
The member for North Island

Powell River indicated that in our decision last year to introduce legislation on wage restraint we were punishing the civil servants. I have repeated in this House time and time again that this is not the case.
I would say that Canadians are being punished by the harsh realities of the modem world. Canadians feel the strain of a very difficult environment and the government also feels it. The government depends on the economy to have access to the resources needed to provide the services. It has had to adjust and take that into account and it has.
One of the great threats to our competitive capacity was the unit labour cost. We decided we had to do something as the manager of the largest organization in Canada to show the way. The member for Ottawa West said we had to show leadership. We have. We have been followed by many provinces and by the private sector. We have been able to reduce our unit labour cost to the extent that we had the lowest inflation rate in the western world at the present time. We are showing the way.
There was some mention that little consultation took place. If there was ever a bill presented in this House of Commons in Ottawa with so much discussion and consultation this is it. We have had 10 task forces made up of hundreds of members taken from all government departments. They had focus groups, workshops and various surveys that involved 7,600 public servants. I could go on. We had nearly one million brochures sent out to discuss our approach. The result is Bill C-26, a modem way of management.
My last remarks will be on the merit principle. Listening to the opposition, Bill C-26 is to achieve something terrible. I disagree totally with them. Merit, that is the selection of the best qualified person, will continue to apply on recruitment and on promotion. One must not forget that merit has never been an absolute concept. It has adapted to the various circumstances and social conditions throughout the years. For example, priority for appointment is given to persons facing lay-off. This is not merit. Preference is given to veterans. This is not merit. Canadian citizens, in certain instances, and local

Government Orders
residents are given preference. This is not merit. Therefore, it has never been an absolute.
Today improved service to Canadians is what the Public Service is all about and it has to be done through an efficient and effective deployment process which is a very important part of this bill. People who are being deployed have already proven themselves to be capable of performing duties at a given level of responsibility. I do not see what is gained by requiring a complete reassessment of their capabilities every time they are moved to similar jobs.
Favouritism has been mentioned. Managers are members of the Public Service. They come from the Public Service and they have to deliver the best possible service. They want to have the best people around them.
Therefore, I believe that this bill and in particular article 10 is very important as we proposed it. I also think that Bill C-26 is an example of its time.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to say a few words after listening to the President of the Treasury Board outline, to quote him, the fact that the unit labour cost of the Public Service should show the way in our society, should lead the private sector. Now he says that we have the lowest inflation rate. That perhaps is what is wrong with the principles behind what the government is doing in this section of the bill and with the Public Service.
How do you judge the value of a worker who is working for the people of Canada and not to make a dollar for the people of Canada? How do you judge that?
While I was listening to the minister, as he said that improved service is the way to go and that is what this bill does, that is what the government has done for the people of Canada, I was thinking about overworked public servants in the unemployment insurance offices of our high unemployment areas in Canada: in Gander, Newfoundland; in Grand Falls, Newfoundland. There are a lot of Ganders and Grand Falls right across this country where people are overworked. They just cannot keep up with the workload.
How do you make a judgment on the fact that today, November 1992, Canada pension disability offices in this country are now taking off of one desk and putting
before the board of appeal the applications that were sent for appeal on March 1, 1992.
Let me get this straight now so that there is no cloudiness about it at all, so there is no doubt about it at all. A person who applies for Canada pension disability under appeal to the Government of Canada today and who wrote his or her appeal on March 1 or before March 1 is now having the appeal dealt with by the Public Service of Canada. March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October and now we are into November. It has been nine months. That is a record.
The minister talks about records. The Government of Canada has set a record today. Somebody who appeals Canada pension disability in this country, somebody who is in a hospital, is having Household Finance, Avco, or the Bank of Nova Scotia threatening to seize his or her property, home or car, such people are in hospital and having everything seized. They will qualify for Canada pension disability. I ask the minister not to get me wrong. They will qualify, but it takes nine months for an application of appeal to be read, to go from one desk to another desk. It is incredible, absolutely incredible.
What happens in the cases of people who are completely disabled and something has been lost like a letter from a doctor? I am not talking about 10 or 20 cases; I am talking about hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases right across Canada.


An hon. member:: Thousands.


George Baker: Thousands, the hon. member says. There are thousands of cases today. In nine months a record has been set. In terms of Canada pension disability a record has been set for the sick, the elderly and the disabled, people who have been injured on the job. They are losing their homes, losing their property, because the banks will not wait for an appeal. When has a bank in Canada or in any other country in the industrialized world waited for a disability insurance appeal? The Government of Canada has set a record today of nine months for that appeal to be heard.
The minister talks about efficiency. Why does it take nine months? It is because the people who had retired in the department were not replaced. Their desks are there. Their telephones are there. However they were
November 19, 1992

not replaced in the department. Now the question is: why not?
I would say it was for two main reasons. First, there has been a freeze on hiring in the Public Service. Second, the government has been attacking the problem in the very way that the minister has outlined today. He asked: "What can we do to bring down the unit labour cost?" He brought in a system whereby managers in the Public Service could not go up any higher in their salary scale. He brought in what was called performance bonuses. If they cut back in their departments they got an extra bonus at the end of the year. Pay offs for lay offs; that is what it was.
That was a part of the problem and the freeze was the other part of the problem. That is why today we have empty seats in the Public Service right across Canada. We have public servants who do not really have the desire to work overtime every day without getting paid for it, and they are drastically overworked.
The minister talks about money. We are going to hear it in the statement of the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. The freezes will be extended and the cuts will be announced.
What did these employees get? If they did not get a salary increase over the past few years, what did they get? The minister says 3 per cent. I will tell him what they got, compared with the friends of the government, also appointed by the minister and cabinet.
They did not get an increase. They did not get an increase of $11,880 as the president of CN looks at in his range. They cannot go up to $407,880 as the chief executive officer of CN can today. They do not qualify for a potential bonus of $101,970 this year, and the minister speaks about 3 per cent. It is not only him.
Let us look at Canada Post. How much did the salary of its head go up this financial year? It went up $9,300 this financial year, with a potential bonus to the head of Canada Post this year of $79,800 just before Christmas. The minister did not talk about that.
Using the merit principle of unit labour cost, by what logic does the minister let the head of Canadian National qualify for a potential bonus? That is over and above his salary which can go up to $407,880 this year. On top of that he can get $101,970 in a bonus. What performance
Government Orders
do they judge for him? Is it the number of railway tracks he closes down?
Mr. Speaker, you are telling me I am running short of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow him one more minute to wind up.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, let me wind up by saying, now that we have looked at the bonus for CN, that we should look at the potential bonus for the head of Canada Post of $78,800 on top of a salary of $319,300. Is it for free stamps? No. It is for the number of post offices he has closed. That is the judgment of the Government of Canada.
I will conclude. Do we know what they gave to the employees of the department of employment this past year? They were given mugs and they were given pins. The mugs they were given said on the side: "We are together. Our reason for being", in French and English, "is to create employment". On the bottom of the mug it said: "Made in Taiwan".
The pins they gave out to hard working public servants in the department of employment said: "We are together" and on the backs of these nice gold pins was printed: "Made in the U.S.A."


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 15. 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 with please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.

Government Orders


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 16. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19.


Ms. Langan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am having trouble keeping up with you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 15, if carried, obviates a vote on Motions Nos. 16 and 18. If negatived, we must vote on Motion No. 16. Is that all right?


Joy Langan: That is fine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for clarification. I do not believe you called Motion No. 18 for a deferred vote. I heard you call Motions Nos. 15, 16, 19 and 23.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Because the division on Motion No. 15 was deferred we do not vote on Motion No. 18 until we have dispensed with Motion No. 15. If it is negatived then we must vote on Motion No. 18. If it is carried it obviates a vote on Motion No. 18.
We are now on Motion No. 25.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, when I rose on a point of order asking you to slow down it was at the point when you were dealing with Motion No. 16. I was not able to hear what you had called on the yeas and nays.
You called for the yeas and nays, said what they were, and then went right on. It was not clear to me what the outcome was or whether we needed to rise from our seats.
November 19, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: An affirmative vote on Motion No. 15 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 16 and 18. This has been deferred until 4.45 p.m. today.
The next question is on Motion No. 25.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 25
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 20 at
page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"made from an eligibility list established for the position or positions of a similar occupational nature and level and where such list is exhausted, the appointment may be made from an eligibility list established for a position or positions of a similar occupational nature at a higher level, in accordance".
She said: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak at length on this single motion. Again it goes to the heart of the merit principle and whether the fundamental process in hiring, promoting and appointing people within the Public Service is based on their qualifications in order of priority or not.
The eligibility lists are established to ensure that where there is a number of positions requiring the same qualifications, the most qualified person gets appointed first. The second most qualified gets appointed next and so on down the line until the positions are filled.
There is another fundamental issue, however. This bill like many others that have come before this House in the last few years establishes a process of regulation instead of legislation. What should clearly be spelled out in legislation to protect people's rights or to allow people to know the law is more and more frequently, we are finding, being left to the discretion of the government to establish regulations. This is another such section.
The legislation right now is very clear on how an eligibility list is established and on how it is to be used. That is in the legislation. The government's bill now proposes to undermine the purpose of the eligibility list and, further, to say that regulations of the Public Service Commission will determine how the lists are made and how they are applied.
This is a further erosion of the merit principle and its protection in the Public Service Employment Act. This amendment reinstates the current definition of an eligi-
Govemment Orders
bility list. It puts it clearly in the legislation and avoids one more thing. It is passed over to the government and to bureaucracies to establish by regulation.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 25. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 16 by striking out lines 37
to 44 at page 8.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I think we have a grouping of Motions Nos. 27, 29 and 31. Motions Nos. 27 and 31 stand in my name and Motion No. 29 stands in the name of the member for Kingston and the Islands. I would ask the consent of the House in the absence of the member for Kingston and the Islands at committee to move Motion No. 29 in his name. He has just arrived. Consent is not necessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member is right. There is the other side of the page which I did not have an opportunity to look at.

Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 29
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 16 by adding immediately after line 28 at page 9 the following:
"21.3 (1) The Commission shall, on request by a candidate or person that is entitled to appeal pursuant to subsection (1), disclose to the candidate or person, the information on which the Commission based its selection, including, in the case of a request by a candidate,
(a)	any report made in respect of the candidate;
(b)	information regarding the status of the candidate in the competition; and
(c)	written reasons for the candidate's non-appointment.
(2)	Where a person is appointed or is about to be appointed under this Act and the selection was made within the Public Service without competition, any person may, within fourteen days after the date of publication of notice of appointment, request the opinion of the Commission referred to in subsection (1).
(3)	Where a person makes a request pursuant to subsection (1), the Commission shall
(a)	where requested, give the person an opportunity to be heard before the Commission renders its opinion;
(b)	give written notice of its opinion within thirty days of the request for an opinion, unless it is unable to do so, in which case it shall notify the person, in writing, of the reasons for its inability to render an opinion and the date by which it will do so; and
(c)	set out in the notice referred to in paragraph (b), the reasons for its opinion.
(4)	A board established by the Commission to conduct an inquiry pursuant to subsection (1) shall give at least fourteen days' notice to the candidate or person appealing and to the deputy head concerned or to their representatives, of the time and place fixed by the board for the conduct of the inquiry.
(5)	No document or information may be used in an inquiry before a board described in subsection (1) unless the candidate or person appealing to the board has prior knowledge of the information or contents of the document.
(6)	A board described in subsection (1) has power to summon and enforce the attendance of any witness it considers necessary to the inquiry and to compel the witness to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce any document or thing that the board considers requisite to a full inquiry."


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 2 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"specified period, except where the person has been appointed for one or more terms totalling one year or more to the position that the person occupied at the time the person was laid off."
She said: Mr. Speaker, just speaking again briefly to my Motions Nos. 27 and 31 and referring briefly to the motion of the member for Kingston and the Islands, one of the things that we in the opposition stressed during the committee hearings and during debate in this House is the issue of accountability.
If managers are to be given more responsibility, they must be given more accountability. Notwithstanding frequent requests to the President of the Treasury Board and to senior officials during the hearings, none of them has been able to point out any section or any wording in the act that increases accountability.
This is a public corporation. It is not a private corporation where accountability is the bottom line. Accountability is to the elected representatives of the people of Canada. It is desperately missing from this bill.
Motion No. 27 is a good example. It deletes the right to appeal against an appointment except where it can be established that an appointment was not made on merit. The ability to appeal, the ability to have some independent review of this new discretion managers are to be given is curtailed at every step of this bill. That means there is no power to oversee whether this new responsibility is being exercised responsibly.
Motion No. 27 simply seeks to delete those sections which limit the right of an employee to appeal an appointment. It ensures that the Public Service Commission, which is the guardian of the merit principle, has not only an opportunity but an obligation to review appointments, to ensure that they have been properly carried out. Without that review, the Canadian public has no assurance that their Public Service is not becoming a hotbed and a nest of appointments by favouritism.
I am not sure why these motions are grouped, frankly, because Motion No. 31 is on quite a distinct subject. However, what Motion No. 31 does is endeavour to ensure that term employees are covered by the work force adjustment policy. Throughout the Public Service there has been an abuse of term employees. The vast majority of those term employees are women or they are people with disabilities who are hired to meet a target. They are on for a few months and then they are extended for a few months, and then they are extended for a few
November 19, 1992

months, and then they are extended for a few months. Many of them have been in the Public Service for periods approaching five years without ever having established any rights as employees or any security.
To me, that is an abuse of a mechanism that should be there to meet short-term needs. It is an abuse of people who are performing a full-time job on an ongoing basis but are not allowed to have any of the benefits of that service.
What this motion does is ensure that where work is contracted out, term employees who have been there for an extended period of time have the same protection as indeterminate employees. They have been working beside each other, doing the same work, performing the same service for Canadians. They should be entitled to the same rights of protection when their work is contracted out.
I am going to refer very briefly to Motion No. 29. Essentially this motion of my colleague is attempting to deal with the situation that has been outstanding for nearly a decade. For nine years the committee on scrutiny of regulations has criticized the appeal procedures, the investigation procedures of the Public Service Commission. In reports to this House, it has recommended regulations that would ensure fairness and due process in appeals held by the Public Service Commission. For nine years the Public Service Commission has stalled on implementing those regulations for whatever reason I do not know, but I have seen horrifying examples of people denied due process to even know the information on which their appeal should be considered to have an opportunity to respond and to have time to prepare their case.
This very comprehensive motion from my colleague is intended to finally get this House to take action if the Public Service Commission will not, despite unanimous reports from an all-party committee to this House on numerous occasions.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a few words to address some of the very legitimate concerns expressed by the member for Ottawa West.
On Motion No. 27 in particular, we have legal counsel which indicated that removal of this section in its entirety could effectively remove any right to appeal. There is
Government Orders
also corrective action and obviously this is not what is being sought.
On the lay-off rights of term employees, it is a fact that the provision in the bill that denies lay-off rights to term employees is intended to protect the continuing employment of career public servants. The term employees by definition are hired for specified periods and should have no expectation of continuing employment in the Public Service. That is what the definition is all about.
They have been excluded from lay-off rights since 1977. For example in some cases, term employees are hired for recurring periods of more than one year in one job. This often occurs precisely because the ongoing nature of the work is in doubt. Term employees are hired specifically in order that no commitment to indeterminate employment be made.
On accountability to Parliament, in particular the Public Service Commission and all its annual reports on all matters related to staffing and other matters within its jurisdiction, the President of the Treasury Board reports specifically on employment equity as required under the Financial Administration Act. The President of the Treasury Board is also answerable to Parliament. The head of the Public Service, the Clerk, reports annually to the Prime Minister on the state of the Public Service and the report is brought to Parliament. The various acts place many obligations on the agencies which are answerable to Parliament.
The accountability is there. The hon. member should find some comfort in that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I got to make my speech after hearing the rather feeble attempts of the minister to explain away these amendments. Frankly, he has ignored the point of the amendments. I urge him to get his legal advisers in the lobby and speak to them again because they are getting him in a position where he is getting himself in difficulty in the House. First of all, he said that Motion No. 27 moved by my colleague will take away a right of appeal. The right of appeal is granted by subsection 21(1) already. It is not taking it away. What it deals with is appeals from decisions of boards appointed under subsection 21(1) which deal with the appeal. They are saying that those boards' appeals can only be appealed on the ground that the measures taken did not

November 19, 1992
Government Orders
result in the selection for appointment according to merit. In other words, this section that my colleague has moved to be deleted takes away the restriction on the kind of appeals that can be launched. For him to suggest that his legal advisers have told him that this takes away the right of appeal altogether, as I say, his legal advisers are giving him bum advice and I would suggest he replace them quickly.
Second, Motion No. 29 which I have moved is in response to very specific recommendations made by a joint parliamentary committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. I do not have a copy of the report here with me, but the report was made in either 1986 or 1987, and possibly as late as 1988. There was a request for a response from the Public Service Commission and that response was tabled in this House immediately before the election in 1988.1 think it was the last day of the session. That is how responsive the Public Service Commission is to reports and how accountable it is to this House and to the Senate. There was no opportunity for any input by this House on that report before the election was called.
Basically what the Public Service Commission told the standing joint committee to do was "get stuffed". I do not agree with that kind of accountability, and neither should the minister. He should either insist that the Public Service Commission comply with the report of the committee, to whom it is responsible, or get out of office. Its members are obviously unfit to hold office in the Public Service Commission if they think they can continually thumb their nose at a parliamentary committee when they are charged under their act of being responsible to Parliament.
This committee was acting as the agent of this House and of the Senate. It was a joint appointment, it was a unanimous report of that committee, and the Public Service Commission in effect said to the committee: "We don't care what you think, we know better. We know that public servants don't need rights when they launch appeals. We know that we can allow the Public Service Commission, us, to decide what they should see and what they should not see when they launch an appeal. We will decide, for example, that they won't see any reports made in respect of their candidacy. We will
decide whether information regarding the status of the candidate in the competition should be seen by the appellant". That is the position the commission is taking.
No other public body exercises such Draconian jurisdiction over appellants before it. Under our rules of natural justice, an appellant would do better than they do before the Public Service Commission. Appellants are put through the hoops, they are told they are not allowed to see material that in any other public board they would be allowed to see as part of the appeal process. I invite the minister, who really is impartial in this-this is a dispute between the commission and Parliament-to look at these amendments again and ask if these amendments are not acceptable. Why should we not require the Public Service Commission to disclose these facts to appellants so that they can properly prepare themselves for an appeal? That is all this is asking for.
The minister surely has no interest in the outcome of this as long as the thing is conducted fairly. As minister, it is his duty to see that the hearing is conducted in a fair manner for all parties concerned. Surely it is fair that an appellant have access to the books and records that the commission has when he or she is launching an appeal. Surely those records should be made available. This amendment requires that. That is all it requires.
The minister, as the Queen's representative and as the Queen's adviser, must recognize that the Queen as fountainhead of all justice in our country and under our Constitution must be seen to act fairly and justly to all her subjects including those who make an appeal to the Public Service Commission because they feel they have been unfairly treated in the selection process.
I know that the President of the Treasury Board is an eminently fair man. He would not want to see Her Majesty's subjects deprived of any rights they should be able to exercise. This amendment only clarifies those rights, strengthens those rights, and in fact gives them rights which a hard-nosed and frankly irresponsible Public Service Commission refuses to give by regulation to these people. It says we will make the decision on an individual and ad hoc basis. It is not good enough and the minister knows it is not good enough. As a minister who has some interest in justice and fairness on behalf of the Queen and on behalf of all his colleagues in the cabinet,
November 19, 1992

he will want to see that this kind of amendment is put forward.
I see the Minister of Labour is here today. He knows that in appeals to the Canada Labour Relations Board, this kind of manifest unfairness would not be permitted. The rules of the labour board are quite specific. They grant rights to the parties before the board to see the documentation.
He would be shocked, horrified, if he went to the Public Service Commission and found out how much of this information is withheld by the commission. He would be equally shocked if he had read the report of the standing joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which studied the issue and made specific recommendations for amendments exactly along the lines I have included in this amendment. He would be doubly shocked if he had heard the response of the Public Service Commission saying they knew better than the committee and would ignore the committee. He would not tolerate this.
Surely he can implore his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, to come up with something a little fairer and agree to this amendment.
Let us see what it is that is proposed in the amendment.
(3) Where a person makes a request pursuant to subsection (1) the
commission shall
(a)	where requested, give the person an opportunity to be heard before the Commission renders its opinion;
(b)	give written notice of its opinion within thirty days of the request for an opinion,-
Imagine having to give your opinion in writing. The Public Service Commission does not think it has to do that.
- unless it is unable to do so, in which case it shall notify the person, in writing, of the reasons for its inability to render an opinion and the date by which it will do so; and
(c)	set out in the notice referred to in paragraph (b), the reasons for its opinion.
In other words it is only expecting what is fair and reasonable and just, natural justice.
Because the Public Service Commission has been so reluctant to agree to abide by the rules of natural justice, in fact has ignored them in many cases, we have sought, as the standing joint committee did, to spell out those rules in writing in the statute. They will not do it by regulation. We as the House of Commons and Senate
Government Orders
can do it by statute. Because this Public Service is so unresponsive to Parliament and to the requests of its committees I suggest we do it by act of Parliament, that we include this provision in the bill.
The minister would not want to see these people treated unfairly. I know that. I urge him to speak to his legal advisers again and see if they do not agree that this is a fair and reasonable recommendation. Do not speak to the legal advisers for the Public Service Commission. Speak to the people in the Department of Justice that do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this matter. Let us see if this cannot be agreed to as part of the proposition put forward as a reasonable proposition in this bill and agreed to today in this House.
I invite the minister to support this amendment and let us get on with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is group six, Motion No. 27, which will be voted upon separately, Motion No. 29 by Mr. Milliken will be voted upon separately, and Motion No. 31 will be voted upon separately.
The first question is on Motion No. 27. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is the House ready for the question?

November 19, 1992
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 31. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Next is group No. 7. It consists of Motion No. 33, Mr. Riis; Motions Nos. 34, 36, 38, and 40, Mrs. Catterall; Motion No. 42, Mr. Milliken; Motion No., 43 Mrs.
Catterall. Motion No. 33 will be voted on separately. Motion No. 34, if carried, obviates a vote on No. 36, if negatived, it must be voted on. Motion No. 38 is to be voted on separately; Motion No. 40 is to be voted on separately; Motion No. 42 is to be voted on separately; Motion No. 43 is to be voted on separately.


Joy Langan: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 22 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 12 the following:
"(2) In applying subsection (1) Treasury Board shall, in the deployment of an employee, include in its direction the following factors:
(a)	the need to develop the employee through additional work experience;
(b)	the demonstrated need to fill a vacancy on an immediate basis;
(c)	the demonstrated needs of both the employee and management and;
(d)	compassionate grounds."


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 27 to 32 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"such period as the Treasury Board may provide for, complain to the deputy head concerned."
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 32 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"authority, or constituted an appointment under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission."
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 35 and 36 at page 12 and lines 1 and 2 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"who is in the executive group."
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 22 by adding immediately after line 10 at page 13 the following:
"(4) The deputy head shall, within 90 days of the date on which a complaint is made, inform the employee of the decision of the deputy head concerning the complaint."


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 42
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 22
(a) by adding immediately after line 21 at page 13 the following:

"(2) The deputy head shall on request by an employee who lodged a complaint under subsection 34.3(1) disclose to the employee the information on which the deputy head based the deployment in respect of which the complaint was given.";
(b) by adding immediately after line 39 at page 13 the following:
"(5) Subsections 21.3(4) to (6) apply with necessary modifications to an investigator designated pursuant to subsection 34.4(2)."


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 43
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 7 at
page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"11 to 19, 21 and 22, 38, 42 and 43 do not apply in".


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it is important when we are looking at these motions and particularly Motion No. 33 to appreciate the fact that the ability of the department to deploy workers is another central component to Bill C-26. Because the government is seeking the ability to lay-off workers by contracting out their jobs, it has moved yet again to get around a ruling of the courts by changing the powers of managers to deploy or transfer workers.
The government is seeking to add flexibility to the process of moving workers within and through various classifications, but it is doing so in such a way that it violates the merit principle and the rights of the workers.
Again we see in this clause the principle that if you circumvent the law and get caught, you change the law. It is as simple as that. That is the attitude of this government. What it is planning through this clause and the reason we have moved this motion, is the unfettered right to deploy workers as in the instance of the modification of the merit principle. It would allow managers to groom their favourites by appointing them to positions which would give them an advantage not available to other workers.
Combine that with the new classification system envisioned by the PS 2000 task force and this right to deploy means that a great many workers will be seen simply as movable pieces in a huge puzzle, being moved without competition or right of appeal. Just envision a huge chess board with workers in the public sector on that board and being moved strategically at the will of the game player but with no say about where, when or how one is moved.
Government Orders
The assurances of government spokespersons, and I am sure we will hear from the minister following my speech-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Do not count on it.


Joy Langan: I would be just as pleased if he did not respond, but I suspect he does not agree with me on this issue.
The assurances of the government spokespersons before the committee that workers would only be deployed with their agreement rings very hollow. All sorts of means of coercion can be used, and no doubt will be used, to encourage workers to accept deployments.
If anybody is unclear about what deployments are, deployments mean employees are moved from one position to another. It means they could be moving from Quebec to Alberta. It means they could be moving from British Columbia to Ottawa. It means they could be moving from Ottawa to Newfoundland. That is what deployment means. It also means that they could be moving within departments.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Or from the government bench to the opposition bench.


Joy Langan: Yes, there would be quite a shuffle with the government moving to the third party and the New Democrats becoming government and the Liberals remaining where they are.
I do not want to trivialize this very important part of the legislation by getting into an exchange with my colleagues. It is absolutely critical that more than ever the career-passive employees in the government service will be subject to the discretion of managers. The manager will decide who gets deployed where and because of this clause in the legislation the worker will have to accept a deployment.
The minister tells us that is not true. The minister will say that it is up to the employee who has the right to say no. Then what happens? There is no provision in the future for protection for the workers, so the worker says no. Does he or she ever get promoted again? Probably not. When he or she finds a position where the deployment would be useful to his or her career path, does that worker have the opportunity to ask for or move to deployment? The worker may have the opportunity to

Government Orders
ask for it, but will he or she get it? Probably not, depending on the manager.
We have ourselves a situation where it is one more opportunity for there to be disagreement between a worker and the employer and the employee to be penalized.
No one here wants to hinder the effective and efficient functioning of the Public Service, but if the ability of managers to deploy workers in order to enhance the delivery of programs and services is desired, this must be done with appropriate safeguards.
Therefore, this amendment recognizes that a deployment mechanism can assist, not hinder, the effective functioning of the Public Service. However, it must be done within the guidelines explicitly spelled out in the act. Deployments must be made to the benefit of the worker and the demonstrated needs, not the wilful needs, of the department or agency.
I have illustrated how critical it is that the government agree to Motion No. 33.1 am sure the minister, being a reasonable and thoughtful man, having listened to me carefully, will consider the motion as being fair and reasonable.
I would like to touch on another of the motions we are covering in this grouping, and that is Motion No. 34. The motion expands the grounds under which a worker can appeal a deployment. That is very critical, building on what I said before about the ability of managers to have discretion to act upon favouritism, to not like a worker for one reason or another and, because we are all human, let that interfere with his or her operation of a work place. It is very critical we have those expanded grounds upon which a person can appeal a deployment.
There must be a wide-ranging ability to appeal without these restrictions in the legislation. I am not denigrating management in the Public Service, but we have documented instances of managers who have been misguided, for whatever reason. It is absolutely critical to safeguard and even avoid having managers tempted to practise favouritism. All of the amendments in this section should be passed.
I would urge the minister to support both my amendment and the Liberal amendments under the section of deployment. We all know he is a fair and reasonable man and will look at these amendments very carefully.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that not only is the minister fair and reasonable, but so are several of the other members on this side.
I had the privilege, earlier this year, of spending many hours in committee with the hon. member who has just spoken. We did not agree on the process nor on the final result of how we wanted to accomplish something, but we did agree on many things. We agreed we have a good civil service in Canada and we want the best possible people working in it.
There were debates from time to time, and one of my concerns was that when someone goes into management, he automatically loses all of the advantages and strengths he had as an employee. I do not think we can automatically say all employees are good and all managers are bad.
I want to go on the record as saying I know very many people who work for the federal civil service. They are good, hard-working, dedicated people. I know a lot of managers in our civil service who are also good, competent, qualified people.
I can draw an analogy to our position here. I have a teenage son who told me prior to my being elected everyone thought I was the perfect person for the job. I was approachable, hard working and dedicated. Immediately after my election I became a politician. I was associated with politicians and that attributed certain motives to me I did not necessarily have.
We have to be very careful when we are talking about the civil service that we do not ascribe motives to them they do not have. We have to recognize we have good, competent, qualified people working at all levels of our federal civil service. There may be one or two bad apples in the barrel, but we should not paint them all with the same brush.
We are talking about deployment. The hon. member who just spoke asked the minister to be reasonable. I think the bill and what is presented in it is reasonable.
Bill C-26 proposes that deputy heads be given statutory authority to deploy their employees, subject of course
November 19, 1992

to direction from the Treasury Board, to ensure servicewide considerations are taken into account. With the changes in the bill, deputy heads are going to have more flexibility to move employees to new positions with their consent. That is an order to the operational requirements, to encourage career development and provide compassionate grounds. I am sure the hon. member would agree these are all valid and worth while reasons.
Deployment is not a new concept. It is very similar to what most public servants know as lateral transfers. In 1991 alone there were some 25,000 lateral transfers in the Public Service. They amounted to more than 25 per cent of all internal appointments. It is a widely used staffing tool.
However, with the proposals there are some significant differences.
Unlike lateral transfers, deployments will not be appointments made by the Public Service Commission, but will result from decisions made by deputy heads with an employee's agreement.
This will enable deputies to move employees quickly for many reasons, including changing priorities or workloads; employee career interests and aspirations; the future requirements of the department for certain skills which can be developed in-house; the developmental needs of employment equity group members and the need to address unique situations compassionately.
For example, we may have a requirement to move an employee to be near special medical facilities. These are realities Public Service managers face every day, yet under the current legislation it is difficult to address them. The changes in this bill will give them that authority.
With deployment, the government is providing managers with a flexible staffing tool to allow them to move their employees quickly and efficiently as required. At the same time it ensures the very legitimate interests of employees are taken into consideration. Thus there is provision for employees to give consent to a deployment, and there is a recourse process which provides for independent review of the deployment consideration and decision.
Government Orders
Indeed, this balance is a key feature of much of what the government is proposing in Bill C-26 with management flexibility on the one hand balanced with consideration for employee concerns on the other.
During the committee hearings on Bill C-26, there was a good deal of discussion by witnesses and committee members about some of the features of deployment being proposed. I want to take just a few moments to address some of them.
Concerns were expressed that in making deployment, the deputy head will not be required to make a selection according to merit. This does not mean deputy heads can or will deploy incompetent persons as some witnesses suggested.
We must remember, an employee being deployed has already been qualified by the Public Service Commission for that particular level of responsibility. Little is gained by requiring a complete re-examination of the employee's qualifications or requiring him or her to be compared again to all other potential candidates.
In making their selections for deployment, deputy heads will not be required to apply all the prescriptive and procedural rules of the Public Service employment that apply to appointments.
May I remind hon. members we are not speaking here about recruitment or promotional appointments, which will continue to require selection according to merit. What about jobs at the same level with essentially the same or similar salary, benefits, conditions and duties?
We need to remember public service managers are under increasing pressure to improve the quality and volume of services they provide to the public. They are being asked to do this with increasingly tight resources and have up until now responded very well to that challenge. Managers know full well they cannot improve services without competent and well-trained employees.
The deployment provisions of Bill C-26 will allow employees to benefit from new experiences and give them the opportunity to gain new skills and training. This is critical to maintaining the professional and high quality federal Public Service we are striving to maintain.

Government Orders
Another major concern expressed by some of the witnesses was the view that some public service managers will use the deployment authority to arbitrarily move employees, favour friends and harass enemies. Their solution is statutory provisions to regulate the manager's behaviour and decision making.
I cannot support that view, nor would my colleagues I am sure. Public service managers as a group are not arbitrary. They are not unfair and do not lack good judgment. There may be mistakes made, but in an organization as large as ours with 218,000 employees and some 100,000 staffing positions a year, mistakes are inevitable.
That is what the recourse process is designed to find and resolve. That is why the Treasury Board will monitor and audit departmental deployment activities. The solution is not to limit the scope of action and flexibility of all managers for the sake of a relatively few mistakes that will be made.
The solution is not to tie the hands of managers and limit completely their authority to respond to organizational requirements. Rather, we need to ensure managers are well trained and understand the principles and values that should guide deployment decisions. We need to correct errors when they occur, and hold managers accountable for their decisions.
I have mentioned that deployment is not a new concept. It is commonly used in many jurisdictions. For many years in the Public Service, transfers or deployments, as they are now called, were treated as simple, routine, administrative matters. This did not appear to cause any great difficulty or concern.
With this flexibility, Canada managed to build a Public Service acknowledged to be one of the best in the world.
Let us continue to achieve this level of professionalism and competence. It is in the interest of all Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the amendment I moved is part of this group of amendments and is similar to the one I moved before.
I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Red Deer's speech. I listened to it quite closely. I am prepared to concede many of the points in his speech. I am prepared to concede, for the purposes of my arguments today, that what the government is doing by making this transfer of powers to managers in the Public Service may be satisfactory. Let us assume for this purpose it is.
It is still fair, and he must agree it would be fair if there is a problem, if there is an appeal from a decision one of these managers has made, the person hearing the appeal ought to ensure the hearing is conducted in a fair and reasonable way. My amendment seeks to ensure that fact.
My amendment does not interfere with the discretion of the persons making the decisions on transfers and so on. It ensures that when there is an appeal from a decision that has been made, the appeal is conducted in a fair way.
Unfortunately, I suspect my amendment is in trouble. Given the voice vote we had awhile ago, I sense the government is going to vote against my earlier amendment. The new amendment we are debating now, No. 42, is contingent on that earlier one passing. If it gets defeated, the meaning of my subsequent amendment will be lost.
This amendment seeks to import to the appeal process, in the case of deployments, the same rules that should apply in the case of appointments. The rules I have recommended are not ones I thought up myself. I do not claim credit of authorship. These rules were drafted by an all-party committee of both Houses of Parliament on which members opposite had a majority. The members of that committee agreed there were fair and reasonable means of requiring disclosure and conducting a hearing. That is what the committee thought up.
The committee was composed of all parties, but was dominated by Conservatives. In other words, the President of the Treasury Board's own colleagues all agreed these kinds of measures were appropriate and recommended them to the Public Service Commission.
I see he is here and has not yet moved to speak on these rules. My last speech did not even provoke him to any comment. He simply hung behind the comments of his legal advisors. I hoped he was going to stand up and tell us he had fired them already because they clearly have given him bad advice. I would not take their advice on an issue like this if they gave me the advice he cited earlier. Maybe he misrepresented what they said, I do
November 19, 1992

not know. If he did not, it was terrible advice and he should stand up and agree that the amendments proposed here are all in accordance with the rules of natural justice. There is nothing shocking. There is nothing earth shattering in anything that was proposed in that list of amendments the board might reasonably ensure appellants have in their hands when they do an appeal. In fact, all of them have been recommended by a standing joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
I should also say the committee that made this unanimous recommendation did it before the last election in 1988. The representation of the opposition on those committees must have been miniscule, because the government had such a huge majority in this House. Three-quarters of the members of the committee must have been its own backbenchers. I do not understand why it would ignore the wishes of its own party members.
The hon. member for Red Deer says there are lots of reasonable people on his side of the House. Let us see them show their reason and stand up and support these amendments on the vote. Let us see some evidence of reason. It is fine to stand up and make pious speeches that must have been written by somebody working for the minister or in the department of the Treasury Board because it was so one-sided.
Let us assume the member believed every word he uttered. I am quite prepared to believe that. Then let us have them show some reason. The easy way to do that is to support these very reasonable amendments. He could either go to the minister and urge the minister to repent and change his view and support these things, or stand up on his own with his colleagues, the group of them that he says are so reasonable over there, and show their reason and support these amendments. Let us vote them through, fix this bill, and generally treat our public servants fairly.
Surely he would agree that if the deployment is to take place, the person making the decision has to act reasonably. If there is an appeal and it is shown that the person has acted unreasonably, the decision can be overturned. The appeal process is already there. What the amendments seek to do is ensure that the appeal is conducted in a fair and reasonable way. Certainly he must agree that that is a reasonable way to start. Surely he does not
Government Orders
think the person making the decision on the appeal should behave arbitrarily or should deprive the person making the appeal of information that the person reasonably needs to proceed with the appeal. Surely he does not think that.
He, I accept, might be like the minister, fair and reasonable. Yet the minister will not respond to these amendments in a meaningful way. He tells us that his legal advisers think that they are unnecessary, or that they take away rights.
I say to the hon. member: read the amendments. I do not know whether the hon. member is a lawyer or not, but he can read this and I am sure that he would disagree with the advice that the minister has been given. Even a layman can see that these do not take away rights. They give rights, that is what they are here for.
I invite the minister to reconsider, if not fully repent of his position, accept these amendments and let us improve this bill. Let us not sit here and say there is no room for improvement any more, because that is what the minister and his so-called reasonable colleagues at the back are saying.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a basic change in the philosophy of government relative to the Public Service. It is a move from service to the public to something which is maybe closer to no service unless you can find the right place to get that service.
I speak this way because I find, as my colleague from Trinity-Spadina indicated earlier, that in several of the departments across the country action has already been taken to move people to change the structure of the civil service so that those parts of the country which are being most affected will not get the kind of service they had in the past.
The example used by my colleague from Trinity-Spadina was immigration. We have been told that there is going to be a change in the immigration structure, that instead of having people dealing with people, in the future the department of immigration will have a mail-in service for application, a reply by mail, or a 1-800 number which will get you not a person, but an answering service and it will indicate that if you want an application to press number 3 and there are no people so there is no use pressing number 8.

November 19, 1992
Government Orders
In each case what is being attempted is to move the whole of the civil service away from dealing with people and move it closer, as the minister says, to a modem method of management which has no people in it. Service to the public of Canada has been by a civif service that has been well trained and well motivated to provide that service.
What this and the ability of these particular motions do-and I hope they work well and that they accept the amendments-is to give the government the power to deploy people so that they can close down places like Prince Albert which has an immigration centre, Saskatoon which has an immigration centre, Regina which has an immigration centre. These will be closed down. If you want some service you will go to three places: Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. Otherwise the service will not be available under any circumstances.
If you or one of your constituents wants to sponsor an immigrant, they call the 800 number, find out where to get an application, send in the application and then it will be sent back because it was not filled in properly because there was nobody around to help or to indicate how to fill it in.
All of these services which have been part of the great civil service of Canada, the service that has been provided to the Canadian people, are being eliminated gradually and in these particular clauses-let us hope they work well-is an opportunity or a method by which the government can close down certain departments or parts of departments in different parts of the country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Come to Ontario and see what they are doing there.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The further I can stay away from Toronto the better and Ottawa is not so good either.
I believe the member for Gander-Grand Falls indicated it took a long time to get any kind of service in certain areas. If you eliminate the people in these areas it is going to take longer still.
If the member wants a good example he should try the process of getting a pension through veterans affairs. To go through all six stages of the process of getting a veterans affairs pension takes an average of six years. That means some of them take much longer than that
and by that time the veteran has passed on so you do not have to worry about it.
The more we depend upon machines and the less we depend upon people to give us the kind of service we want, the longer it is going to take and the more ineffective-I am not going to say less efficient-but the less effective it is going to be.
The ability in these particular clauses which allow the government to deploy people from one area to another, to move people without necessarily taking into account the wishes of the employee allows it to do things with the civil service which will give less efficient, less effective and less valuable service to the people of Canada.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a bill that greatly affects Canadians and especially residents of the national capital region, in particular my constituents in Carleton-Gloucester.
As we well know, the Public Service has more than 220,000 employees in all throughout Canada. A common misunderstanding, though, is that all public servants live here in the national capital region, although we know very well that maybe 25 to 27 per cent of them are in the national capital region, but most public servants are spread all across the country according to local needs. Their number in any province is generally more or less proportional to that province's share of the total population.
As we say on both sides of this House, our public servants do an outstanding job. Public servants are there to implement the laws of the land. Public servants are there to ensure that the laws passed by the Parliament of Canada are applied and enforced. Public servants are there to serve the community, to serve Canadians, to make our quality of life better all the time.
The last time the laws affecting the federal Public Service were thoroughly examined was in 1967. We now have a new bill. I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board on presenting a very worth while bill to improve the operation of the Public Service. I was pleased and honoured to be on the committee that studied the bill. For weeks and even months, we studied this bill clause by clause. The bill is a good idea. It goes in the right direction. However, at some point one would think that the Public Service should be treated like a private enterprise, according to what the government says.
November 19, 1992

I sincerely believe that public servants are really different from workers in private industry. Government does not operate in the same way as private industry. Private industry must not only provide a service to the public but it must also make a profit. The public service, that is the government, is there to serve the community. We must help the community. Sometimes we also need regulations to ensure that things are done correctly. That is the case, for example, with inspections.
Nevertheless, even with all the esteem I have for the President of the Treasury Board, I believe that he is making a monumental mistake by not listening to the opposition members who proposed some real amendments to the bill.
I was surprised to see that the minister refused or turned a deaf ear to the suggestions and comments of my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, who challenged him, saying that he thinks some laws-and I recognize the member from Kingston and the Islands as a legal authority. We know that he was a lawyer of high standing in Kingston. He challenged the President of the Treasury Board by saying that his bill contained serious legal errors in the amendments it proposed. This does not go against the comments and statements the minister received from lawyers in his own department or from other government departments.
I was surprised to see the President of the Treasury Board, who is usually not at a loss for words, remain silent when challenged by my colleague.
We talk about deployment. In general, it is a good idea. I am sure that some public servants want a deployment. It opens new horizons for them and public servants want to serve the public. They are good public servants in the proper sense of the word who sometimes want transfers so that they can better serve Canadians or perhaps they find new employment opportunities that are interesting and meet their aspirations. [DOT]
We often see managers who are keen on having a terrific team. That is worth while, putting together a team that is effective and efficient in the way it provides services to the public. Managers who always tiy to have a terrific team are to be commended. In fact, most people are like that. I am sure that our Public Service will keep improving, if this attitude or culture is encouraged.
Government Orders
However, if a manager has the right to be authoritarian in the case of deployment and can ignore eligibility criteria and people's qualifications and bilingualism, for instance or merit, there is always a risk of abuse. That is why I deplore the fact that the President of the Treasury Board will not listen to the suggestions made by the Liberal Party.
Our amendments are intended to prevent abuse, favouritism, nepotism and prejudice of a linguistic, racial or even sexual nature. For instance, a male manager might not want any female employees because he is prejudiced against women. Occasionally, married women who have children leave their jobs for a certain period, which may not be well received by certain managers, and I would call this prejudice on their part.
With this mechanism an employee would be able to protest and appeal in the case of unfair deployment arising from favouritism, nepotism or prejudice. We need a mechanism to protect public servants against managers or rather certain managers-fortunately they are a minority-who occasionally tend towards favouritism, nepotism or, as I said before, prejudice of a linguistic, racial or sexual nature.
In concluding, I would ask the President of the Treasury Board to respond to my colleague's challenge.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say to both the member for Carleton-Gloucester and the member for Kingston and the Islands that there is no disagreement on the objectives for equity, fairness and sound management. What I would tell them to begin with on transfers is this: The reason that I was slow to speak up or less spontaneous, perhaps, is that this issue was debated at length, inside and out, I believe, for hours on end in committee meetings and that all those points which were raised were covered in extensive major discussions.
What I have some difficulty with is that since there may be abuses, which I do not deny, we should not, for fear of abuses or improprieties, make the system rigid. We should try to find a way to address the legitimate concerns of my colleagues opposite, but perhaps in a more flexible way. I would say, for example, that Motion No. 33 now being debated would require Treasury Board

November 19, 1992
Government Orders
to include in the act valid reasons for transfers in the directives addressed to deputy heads.
Obviously, when Treasury Board sets personnel policies, it specifies the objectives being pursued. Of course, it will take care to tell managers that they can transfer employees for professional development, for operational reasons or for humanitarian reasons as someone mentioned. I believe that in his question, the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester said that someone might want to move an employee closer to a certain place for health reasons, for example.
These are the same reasons as appear in the amendment. If the circumstances are defined and limited in the law, it could be difficult in future to add other equally legitimate circumstances, even if all parties agree. I believe that it is easier to do that in a policy than in legislation.
For example, in practice, we do not have a very good idea of what such an amendment would do. What does it mean? What does desmonstrated needs of the employee and management mean? How can such needs be demonstrated and to whom does one demonstrate them? Since employees must agree to these transfers, in my opinion, that is the best guarantee that the need is demonstrated.
Personally, I have no quarrel with my colleagues opposite on the objectives being pursued, but I may disagree on the means to reach them, so as not to make the system unnecessarily more cumbersome in an attempt to make it safe from any abuse. I do not want the system to be rigid and prevent the rest of the government apparatus from functioning better.
I believe that both objectives can be reconciled in a more flexible way and that is what we are trying to do in Bill C-26.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to suggest to the minister that we are not trying to be confrontational, we are trying to bring to his attention some of the experiences we are having as members of Parliament when we are dealing on the front lines day to day with people who come to our offices.
Many of the cases or problems we receive in our offices are a result of our constituents not being able to work through or with the various departments or the Public Service itself.
Right now the morale of the Public Service is very low. It is very low for a number of reasons. The relationship between the Public Service and the Government of Canada in the last few years has not been that great.
During a very difficult economic period the resources of the Public Service are called on even more intensely. When our constituents are meeting with public servants whose morale is low, whether it is because they do not have enough man-years or their superiors are not motivating them or treating them properly, it all of a sudden creates a frustration in the way they serve the public. We as members of Parliament are the net beneficiaries of that frustration.
If we are attempting to lift confidence and help those people who are in the most difficulty-that is what the Public Service is there for, to help those who are in most difficulty-then it seems to me that the very asset, the human capital is not showing the kind of goodwill or respect that we could be showing. We must try to motivate its quality of service and its attitude of caring and approachableness because it touches all of the people of Canada in a way that ultimately is a reflection on us.
I do not think it is really an issue of whether one is a Liberal, Conservative or NDP. When people go into a Government of Canada office and they do not feel they are being looked after properly by the bureaucracy or by the public servants, when they come into my office they do not say: "That darned Public Service is PC or Liberal", they hold me as much responsible for poor service by the bureaucracy as they do the Government of Canada.
It is incumbent upon us on this side of the House to suggest that there are things in the government's actions and the way it is restructuring the Public Service that is not lifting the morale of the Public Service. Ultimately this has an effect on the service to the public in every

department and in every region of this country. I cannot imagine a member in this House who does not share this view. It does not matter what department.
In my own community a day does not pass when we do not have people coming to our offices talking about the fact that the department of immigration just does not seem to have the resources to cope with the demands. The department of employment there does not seem to have enough public service support to meet the demand. In the areas related to manpower retraining, public servants with all the goodwill, all the best intentions are pulling out their hair because this government has an attitude.
Did I understand the minister earlier when he mentioned units of labour. Is that the way he quantifies service to the public? A person may come in with a problem and may be there for five or ten minutes. The next person may have a difficulty that takes a public servant an hour or two hours to solve. When we are interacting on problems that are highly personal and we are dealing on a case by case basis, there should not be a clock sitting on the public servant's desk so that he has to think he has to pass so many units through his shop in a particular hour or day.
Our Public Service was the envy of the world for many, many years because of its commitment to caring and quality of service. At one time it was an honour and a privilege to be a member of the Public Service of Canada. When Treasury Board wants to cut the man-years in this section and cut the man-years in another department, it defeats the whole purpose of what our Public Service is supposed to be about because it just takes the heart and soul out of the job.
My message to the government is that it has a very important tool in the public servants of Canada. They are the frontline ambassadors in all the various departments of government. They are the people who on a day to day basis represent the implementation of the legislation that we pass. They can have an effect on the attitudes of people toward the legislation, toward the job we are doing. Right now I think the Government of Canada is not using that instrument to mobilize a positive spirit in this country. I do not think it is respecting the potential for building a new sense of morale in this country. I would urge through you, Mr. Speaker, asking them once
Government Orders
again to go back to their drawing board and try to show a little more spirit of goodwill and appreciation for the quality work they do when they are treated in a fair and equitable way.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to say a few words on this legislation.
Yesterday I received a letter from an archivist who works at the National Research Council. I was amazed at what he said to me. I will get to that. One of the comments he made was that the more we change, the more we stay the same. He sent me a copy of a communique which was put out around 1942. The riding of Ottawa Centre used to be called the Ottawa West Liberal Association. I guess there was a Tory and then there was a Liberal.
This particular householder was put out by the Liberal candidate who at the time was attacking the government record. On one side of the householder they have the record of the government of which Dr. Manion was minister of railways and canals from 1930 to 1935. The other side of it had the Mackenzie King government record from 1935 to 1940, and the householder was comparing those records.
In the government record from 1930 to 1935, first they cut the salaries of the public servants by 10 per cent; second, they stopped promotions and increases; third, they dismissed or retired thousands of civil servants without adequate provision for their maintenance; fourth, they removed from office most of the deputy ministers within a short period; fifth, by such drastic measures they disrupted the morale of the service and created an atmosphere of mistrust and apprehension, which destroyed contentment and impaired efficiencies throughout all departments. This was in 1930 to 1935.
On the other hand, from 1935 to 1940, the householder goes on to state that the Mackenzie King government during those five years, one, restored full salaries; two, once again allowed usual promotions and reclassification for all cases; three, introduced the right of appeal for unsuccessful candidates and promotional competitions; four, re-employed large numbers of civil servants let out by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and the Hon. Dr. Manion; five, brought back to the service the sense of security lost under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and Hon. Dr. Manion and re-established normal morale and efficiencies in government offices.

Government Orders
How true, Mr. Speaker, as my constituent has indicated, that the more we change the more we stay the same.
Basically what was happening between 1930 and 1935 is no different than what has been happening from 1984 to 1992. First, the Public Service has been hit with a salary freeze. We have seen the largest walk-out ever in the history of our Public Service. They walked on Parliament Hill by the thousands. Promotions and increases, as we have seen, to a large extent stopped. There have been massive lay offs. The morale is at an all-time low. As well, in terms of promotions within the Public Service we have not seen many taking place over the past few years.
What needs to be done is for the government to look at all of those issues and try to address one of the most important problems that is now facing our Public Service and that is the issue of morale. The President of the Treasury Board had the chance to visit one of the symposiums at Lansdowne Park. I am sure he would agree with me that if anything he can be very, very proud of the quality of our public servants, the quality of work they do. I am sure he would also agree with me that we have the finest Public Service anywhere in the world.
One thing that was circulating everywhere I went within the Public Service was that there is some element of a morale problem, some element of mistrust, some element of disillusionment, an element of despair. They need leadership at the top which says: "Not only are you doing a good job, but we are going to give you the tools you need in order to continue doing such a good job".
The contracting out, the decentralization which the government has embarked on, the downsizing, as well as a lot of questions when it comes to the partnership between the employee and the employers, all have to be addressed a little more compassionately than the government has done in the past.
To that extent, it is my hope that the government will finally see the light regarding the amendments that my colleague from Ottawa West has put forward before the House of Commons and try to address them in a positive and comprehensive fashion.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motion No. 33 dealing with the amendment to clause 22. I would like to speak to that.
As you know, that concerns the right to deploy. Just to put it in its proper context for people who are watching and listening to us today, I think we should just give a general idea of what this concerns.
When we talk about the right to deploy, we are talking about the right for a department head or anyone who is in a position to do so to send a worker, a public servant, some place else to work in this country. I do not in any way wish to fetter the hands of the government to prevent the government from sending members of the Public Service elsewhere in this country to do their job. I think that is important, that we have to have a work force which is flexible, and the needs change throughout Canada. I think that is a reasonable assumption to make.
However, here it is giving the right to deployment which will affect a worker's entire life, I would say, his surroundings, his environment, when it may be something that may be no more than a whim of the person who has the authority to act.
Whether we are dealing with the Public Service or with any group in this country, I am always concerned when I see power that does not have sufficient constraints, power which can be abused. You have seen I am sure, as I have seen, where things are not specifically excluded, they are included. In fact, it is a rule of law that if something is not excluded, it is included. It can be done if there is not a specific condition that says it cannot be done.
Here, where we are dealing with the deployment of people, of workers, we are dealing with changing their life style, changing their neighbourhoods, changing schools, changing friendships. Many times these types of deployments can be carried out in a way that would have the effect of punishment, perhaps a punishing effect that may be wanted, that may be desired by whomever has this power, or it may be completely unintentional. But it is punishment in any case.

I want to point out that the power the government has under this bill to change a public employee's place of work is quite considerable. This power could be misused. I suggest that this clause we are debating, which deals with that form of abuse of power, does not afford enough protection to the people this legislation applies to. I am
November 19, 1992

referring to the public service employees. Some members opposite will say: "Phillip, there is nothing to worry about. It is no big deal. No way will an individual, a French-speaking employee, be deployed to Saskatchewan for instance, where everybody speaks English, or an English-speaking employee be deployed in Quebec, say in Chibougamau. That is not going to happen." But those things do happen. That is the problem I see with this bill, specifically clause 22, and Motion No. 33 which is designed to improve this provision. There is no protection against that kind of thing happening.
Usually I suggest relying on good old common sense. That is true. Usually we rely on the various directors using common sense so as not to put their subordinates through undue handships. But common sense does not always prevail in government, and I have supporting cases in point. I should pay this government a compliment. I have recently seen a case where good old common sense prevailed. Speaking of the Public Service, you know how the Official Languages Act is being defended, the protection that it is afforded across Canada. The public service employees are in fact at the forefront when it comes to really promoting English and French.
But a little while ago, I have noticed that, using their common sense, some public service employees decided it would serve no useful purpose to translate into French hundreds and hundreds of books like those containing the details on the frigates that were bought and built recently for the Canadian forces. They decided it was not necessary. Unfortunately, it was already done and we paid $100 million for a now useless translation. It is totally useless because when it was finally ready, all the data in these manuals on the frigates were obsolete. Worse still, French-speaking engineers and others who had to use the armed forces books in their work would rather use the English version because they felt more comfortable with the terminology.
After that, the Minister for National Defence appointed several persons-I think there were three from his department, including the much talented Ed Broad-bent-to see if we could use some common sense when applying the Official Languages Act to avoid spending the taxpayers' money on translating everything. Astonishingly enough, a report published two days ago quotes armed forces' personnel as saying that the government could save a lot of money if it stopped translat-
Govemment Orders
ing every thing that moved in the Canadian Armed Forces. We should stick to what is essential.
Just think, Mr. Speaker. Had we done so five years ago, we would have saved $100 million translating technical manuals for the five fregates built in eastern Canada, and that is just one example.
I think common sense is what we need here, and by the way, I want to congratulate the government on its latest report on the use of official languages in the armed forces, because I think that is a good example. Without cutting a single job, without penalizing or punishing anyone, we could have saved $100 million.
That is why when I look at the bill before the House today, I say: Whoa, just a minute. Could we not use our common sense and put some kind of protection in this bill for employees who might be sent elsewhere in Canada on short notice and perhaps even without their consent? Even with their consent, when you work in the Public Service, do you really have a choice when your boss tells you: "Listen Phillip, they need you in Jon-quiere, and you have to move there with your family". I love Jonquiere, and I like Chicoutimi and the Saguenay, but I have made my life in Montreal and my wife works there.
This bill must provide public servants with some protection against this kind of disruption in their lives, which will occur if they can be sent anywhere at all in Canada. If they are willing, there is no problem, but as I said before, do they really have a choice? There is always some pressure involved when people are asked to move, we assume, because of operational considerations.
Since the minister is in the House, I appreciate this opportunity to air this topic, because I know he is aware of my longstanding campaign for bonuses for members of the RCMP, who never received them although they were bilingual. Perhaps we should challenge the use of these bonuses today. I agree this is something that would bear reassessment. However, I think it is really unfortunate that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not get the bonus and received no help at all from the government. The case is now before the courts, so the government could show its goodwill. They already lost once before the Federal Court, which was very clear in its ruling. It said: "Listen, pay those people. You are

Government Orders
wrong and you ought to pay them". Now the case is before the Court of Appeal.
If it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it will cost-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time expired about one minute ago. The hon. member for Halifax.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, growing up in Canada there are constants that some of us believe and put our faith in. I used to say half in jest and wholly in earnest that the three constants in my family were the Catholic church, the Liberal Party and the Montreal Canadiens. There was probably more truth than fiction in that.
On a serious note, and this bill is a very serious note, one of the things I think Canadians have always believed in and have always taken pride in is that we have and have had the best Public Service of any country in the industrialized world. That is not to say it is perfect. That is not to say things cannot go wrong. That is not to say things do not go wrong.
I think most of us, particularly those of us who were interested in the workings of government and the delivery of services to Canadian citizens through the Public Service, always felt that we could be proud of the Public Service of Canada. One of the reasons that we could be proud of the Public Service of Canada was because a happy work force is a productive work force. A very simple statement.
The problem with Bill C-26 is that it is going a fair way toward destroying that. Too many things have obviously happened already in the breakdown of relations between the workers and the governors. The abandonment of the merit principle which is what effectively is happening under Bill C-26 is possibly the most dangerous development, certainly with regard to the Public Service of Canada, that this government has brought forward.
The Federal Court of Canada in 1992 struck down the Order in Council giving the deputy ministers the freedom to transfer any employee because "it departs substantially from the merit principle". The judge said
regarding one of the government's arguments that if he accepted that particular 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".
What happens under Bill C-26? It allows 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 who may be equally or better qualified.
It is interesting that this bill should be up-to-date and that we should be at report stage today. It is interesting we are dealing with these amendments today. Since I became a member of this House four years ago-and I represent Halifax which is the third largest public service town in Canada after Ottawa and Montreal-I have heard a lot of complaints from public servants.
I have particularly heard a lot of complaints from women in the Public Service about a variety of matters. In most cases we were unable to take the matter further because the women out of a fear of reprisal, out of fear of what might happen did not wish to. I would say to them that they would have to allow me to do this if they wanted me to follow the matter up and they would say that no, they were not ready for that. I can understand that. I understand that feeling. It saddens me that that is perceived to be the case in Canada, that it is perceived to be the case in the Public Service of Canada.
As I say, it is particularly interesting that we are discussing the abandonment of the merit principle today because one week ago I met with two young women in my riding of Halifax who have had an exceptionally difficult time over the past year. Their allegations, which will be public before the end of the weekend, were on sexual harassment within the Public Service of Canada. When I asked these young women if they were prepared to go public they said: "Yes, what further can happen to us?"
In doing my job as their representative I have gone further and I have met today with senior officials in the Public Service of Canada. I have to say I was not very happy because there is a mood there, there is a response there in spite of the quite good Treasury Board guide-
November 19, 1992

lines with regard to sexual harassment. I said to one of these senior officials in the department: "Sir, you just do not get it. You just do not understand. There is clearly a gender gap in existence here and you do not see it. We have spoken now for one hour and you still do not understand. There is no point in my walking around this circle any longer".
I use this example because one way or another, the women in the Public Service and the women of Canada are going to ensure that managers, directors and ministers get it. The time when women will sit back and accept this kind of behaviour is over. At the same time, why is the government pandering to this kind of activity by allowing the abandonment of the merit principle? What is going to happen under this regime, under this theory of deployment to women who are being harassed, who are the subject of unfair treatment, whether sexual harassment or another form?
If managers have the right to abandon the merit principle, what recourse are they going to have? Today, in discussing with senior members of the Public Service of Canada the question of what sanctions would be brought forward to a founded charge of sexual harassment I got no response. There was no sanction. No sanction was intended and it was a founded charge.
If today there is no recourse when the merit principle, however tenuously, is still in existence, what in the name of Heaven will happen when the merit principle no longer exists? Where will these people go, whether it is women, minorities, francophones in the famous Trochu or anglophones in Quebec, whether it is Canadians of colour or of a different religious or ethnocultural background? Where will they go if the merit principle has been destroyed?
This is Canada. What are we on about here? What are we doing? How can we stand here in this House and advocate even for one minute this development in what was once a proud Public Service?
In greater Halifax-Dartmouth, there are 30,000 public servants and an awful lot of them are women. An awful lot of them work not in management, not as regional
Government Orders
directors, not as executives within the Public Service but they are ordinary, everyday working people.
Mr. Speaker through you, I am speaking to the minister and beyond the minister, I am speaking to them. I am saying to those public servants in Halifax, in Ottawa and in Montreal, we on this side of the House may have made our mistakes but we believe in the merit principle. We believe that the merit principle is something that you, as the workers in the Public Service of Canada, should be able to hang your hats on.
We deplore a government that would abandon you. We deplore a government so bereft of principle that it throws away this one.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to reassure the hon. member since she makes such a fuss about this that the merit principle is not disappearing. Let her rest assured that the best qualified person will continue to apply on recruitment and promotion. Once somebody has reached a certain level, with their consent they will be moved laterally. That is the flexibility needed in a modem civil service and it will allow women to have wider experience and have access to promotion. I assure the hon. member that she does not need to worry about that. The merit principle is still there for recruitment and promotion.
Apart from that, she seems to consider that managers in the Public Service are all monsters. I assure her that they are competent managers committed to their employees. They come from the civil service. Most of them are from the civil service. Why would they all of a sudden become such monsters? They were raised through the civil service and I do not accept that they are arbitrarily and unfairly lacking in judgment. They are accountable for their actions. I have full confidence that this bill is a great improvement in the modernization of our Public Service.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to follow my colleague from Halifax. The kinds of concerns she expressed are exactly the concerns I have heard from women in the Public Service, from people with disabilities in the Public Service and from visible minorities in the Public Service.

November 19, 1992
Government Orders
The minister is absolutely right. The majority of our managers are responsible, well-intentioned people. No, they are not going to turn into raving monsters wielding power irresponsibly overnight because of new legislation that allows them to do it. Legislation is written and restrictions are applied for those whose own moral principles do not guide them in the right direction. There are a few of those in any organization.
The minister, by his own comments, has refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation the member for Halifax is bringing to the attention of this House. Harassment is a fact in the Public Service. Discrimination is a fact in the Public Service. There is no other explanation for the fact that 50 per cent of those working for the Public Service of Canada are women and only 15 per cent of those in management are women.
It is not because they are less well educated. The fact is they are better educated. The minister's own department did a major report on women in the Public Service. It demonstrated clearly that attitudes place that glass ceiling above our heads and keep us crashing into it but never going beyond it.
Let me talk about deployments. The minister has said that deployments are not an abandonment of the merit principle. The legislation says otherwise. Deployments move somebody from one job to another. It may be up 10 scales; it may be down 10 scales. The minister has refused to accept amendments that would clarify what a deployment is and what it is limited to.
Normally when people move from one position to another they go through a process of being measured against other people qualified for the position to make sure that the best person gets the job. If there is any violation of that, any violation of fairness, they can appeal the decision and have it corrected.
Numerous situations have been highly publicized in this region and in other parts of Canada where that process has worked to unearth the promotion of favourites as opposed to the best qualified person. Let us not pretend a problem does not exist. If we pretend it does not exist we will never even attempt to solve it.
Motion No. 43 in the package we are dealing with specifically goes to the very misinformation that has been provided to the House that it does not violate the merit principle. It specifically exempts deployments from those sections of the act that protect the merit principle. That
is why I have proposed Motion No. 43. It would at least require that the merit principle apply and that bilingualism and the need to provide services in our two official languages apply to deployments.
The minister's legislation now before the House exempts deployments from any requirements of the merit principle and any requirements to consider the need for bilingual services. I draw the attention of the House to clause 22 which specifically says deployments are exempt from these provisions of the act.
When a manager has total control over whether one progresses in the Public Service, moves sideways for other career opportunities or not, no wonder someone who is already vulnerable in employment the concern is: if I am nice to my boss I will get an appointment and if I am not I will not.
That is reason the Motion No. 40. A deputy could not unduly delay dealing with a complaint and would have to tell the employee in 90 days how the complaint had been dealt with and whether sanctions had been taken, as my colleague from Halifax was saying, to correct a misuse of the deployment system.
It goes back to the fundamental principle that if there is an appeal and a complaint procedure people have a right to timely justice. They have a right to know the information on which the complaint was decided. They have a right, which is not spelled out in the government's legislation, to know that it was dealt with and how it was dealt with.
I have dealt with, as my colleague has, numerous harassment complaints in the Public Service and in the military. They can take months and sometimes years to resolve. This is unacceptable. A deputy cannot sit there with the power over somebody's life and refuse to deal with a very serious complaint which inhibits morale in the Public Service.
In Motion No. 38 I have moved that a section be deleted from this clause. The minister has said deployments are voluntary. Well, that is nonsense. This section of clause 22 says that is Treasury Board has the right to deprive anybody of the right to complain against the deployment they feel is not fair, is not just, is not warranted or is based on favouritism. Why is the minister not prepared to consider that amendment?
November 19, 1992

This group of amendments is intended to try to minimize the damage of this whole section on deployment. It puts power in the hands of managers without requiring any accountability, without requiring any independent review of how they are exercising that power.
The minister stood in the House today and said: "Deployment is not an abandonment of the merit principle". Deployments are just another word for transfers. Transfers have already been tested in the Federal Court of Canada. The right to make transfers without competition has been found to be substantially in opposition to the merit principle. The judge in that case said: "I would be defeating the whole purpose of the Public Service Employment Act which is to ensure that appointments to the Public Service are made on the basis of merit", if he accepted this transfer mechanism of the government.
The minister says things will be used responsibly. In fact we know that the Public Service Commission extended to the external affairs department exclusions from the merit principle even when it knew that power at external affairs was being abused.
Is it any wonder my colleague from Kingston and the Islands has moved several amendments to require the Public Service Commission to act in a fair manner consistent with natural justice when it hears appeals and complaints?
These clauses which we are attempting to amend make the Public Service a chequer-board on which anybody can be moved around at the will or whim of a manager. They completely obliterate the distinction between what is a slight sideward move into another office and what is a major promotion.
If the minister believes that power is not going to be abused, that it is not going to be used to coerce and harass people, the minister is too naive to be sitting in this Chamber. I ask him to look again at those amendments, to see the tremendous damage that will be done to the Public Service of Canada, and to look at some reasonable changes to the legislation before it is too late.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this section on deployment is quite shocking. I simply want to review some of what the government is asking us to accept.
Government Orders
On the right to deploy, except as provided in this act or any other act, the deputy head has the exclusive right and authority to make deployment to or within that part of the Public Service over which the deputy has the jurisdiction. This can be for an indeterminate period. Unless some other period is specified, deployment is for an indeterminate period and on conditions. The main condition is that deployment shall be made in such manner as Treasury Board may direct.
In other words, overriding other considerations Treasury Board can simply direct: do this; do that and deploy them. It is this same Treasury Board that brought us the strike last year, the first strike in the history of the Public Service and one of the most massive strikes in Canada because of the absolute stubbornness of Treasury Board in insisting on the most unacceptable conditions being agreed to before anything else would be negotiated. The record is fully worrisome so far as Treasury Board is concerned.
Then it says that no employee shall be deployed without the consent of the employee. That is a joke. Obviously the alternatives offered will ensure consent and the employee will not have a right seriously to object to what is being done. This will mean that people will be moved without competition, without the right to appeal the move, and their careers will be at the whim of the manager.
In the department of immigration in the Public Service with which I am most familiar this is going to mean in the very near future, in weeks or months, massive redeployment of staff from the offices to be closed all across the country. Perhaps they will be lucky to be redeployed and not just laid off. Of course this depends on how many casuals there are.
But what is planned, so I am advised, is to close all except three offices in Canada. All other Canadians will be given a 1-800 number to phone in to try to get some kind of service from one of those three offices. The employees who had been working in those offices will be redeployed. They will be given the choice of being redeployed or starving, I guess. There will be chaos in the department as a large number of employees in the immigration sector are deployed across Canada or dumped.

November 19, 1992
This act is a very serious weapon of intimidation in the hands of Treasury Board and in the hands of the senior management of the Department of Employment and Immigration.
The public should understand not only how the employees are being mistreated under this act, but how the public is going to be badly served by the government's idea of cost cutting. It clearly is a prelude to privatization of the whole service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the hon. member is not finished his speech he will have five minutes remaining when we resume after three o'clock.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You looked so uncomfortable in your seat; you were bouncing up and down. I thought you were trying to tell me it was time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am not uncomfortable. The hon. member will have five minutes remaining after three o'clock.
It being two o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, according to journalist Michel Girard of La Presse, flowthrough shares are still the tax shelters that give the biggest tax savings. Investors will tell you that is as it should be since they are the riskiest investment on the market.
It is much less risky to invest in flow-through shares today than it was in the past. Why? Because the mining promoters who have been able to survive the three-year-old depression in the mining industry offer much better mining exploration projects than before. By better, I mean less risky.
Many newcomers invested in poor mining exploration projects in the past and they lost much of their initial investment. In the boom years, 1986, 1987 and 1988, too many junk peddlers pretended to be mining promoters.
Today, fortunately, the junk peddlers have left the mining sector-at least, we hope so.
Nevertheless, many investors have made a bundle by putting some of their savings in flow-through shares.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, Ontario com and soybean producers are in an unprecedented cash crisis and need urgent action by the federal government.
The Ontario com crop alone is worth $600 million. Dismal harvesting conditions and high moisture levels mean that 95 per cent of that crop and 40 per cent of the Ontario soybeans are still in the field and unable to be harvested. Much of it will remain there until spring, or at least well after freeze-up.
Because most of the crop is still standing in the field producers will not be eligible for advance payments under the Advance Payments for Crops Act. The lack of an advance payment means many producers are facing a cash crunch.
I call on the government to make the necessary adjustments immediately to allow the unharvested crop to be used under that program.


NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, today in Canada our children do matter. UNICEF identified the need to recognize the rights of children around the world. In 1988 the concept of a world summit was identified in its annual report.
November 20, 1989 was the day when the UN adopted a convention on the rights of the child. Canada and five other countries, under the co-chairmanship of our Prime Minister, were instrumental in gamering the support of over 70 countries around the world.
Canada's participation in the world summit for children in 1990, the ratification of the convention on the rights of the child, the announcement of Brighter Futures and the introduction of the child tax benefit have all been important and very substantive efforts on behalf of our children.
November 19, 1992

UNICEF has recognized Canada's Brighter Futures action as one of the world's best in industrialized world.
National child day can be an important opportunity for Canadians to acknowledge the value of children in our families and indeed in our society. It is fitting that national child day be established in Canada.


KAL FLIGHT 007
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have written an open letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs today and I would like to paraphrase some of its contents.
I have written the minister regarding the KAL 007 airline tragedy of September 1, 1983. It is a very sensitive issue, but I would suggest that a final resolution has come its time.
Over the past nine years the matter of the needless deaths of 269 individuals including 10 Canadians has been continually brought forward by the governments of various countries, by various authors and by the affected families.
Each time new speculation and evidence as to the true events surrounding the tragedy have been brought to light, much to the torment of the families. External Affairs has been very forthcoming with information, but it is clear the status quo is not acceptable.
To offer poignant support for this assertion is a recent indication by a Korean politician who alleges that a leaked CIA report refers to currently imprisoned survivors of this tragedy. Certainly these types of assertions must be addressed in the most expedient manner possible.
Just yesterday Mr. Yeltsin presented to the Korean government the black boxes of the KAL airliner. Hopefully these may provide some insight into the events of the disaster.
However, I would encourage the minister to initiate a thorough non-partisan investigation-


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


SUNTHETIC ENERGY
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, Sunthet-ic Energy is proposing to build with private moneys a $700 million petrochemical complex in the Sudbury area.
This megaproject will produce ethers to be used as fuel additives for export to the U.S. and will create thousands of direct and indirect jobs across Ontario.
As Canadians we must do everything in our power to encourage and support new job creating businesses. If the NDP in Ontario does not act quickly this project will be built in the U.S.
The Sunthetic project has been widely endorsed by, among others, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and all Ontario's regional municipalities and their chairmen.
I plead with the NDP in Ontario to practise what it has preached in the past, approve this project and create a new industry and new jobs for Ontario. Actions speak louder than words. Do it now.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, there are excellent indications that our economy is slowly but surely rising.
Let us consider the following. Retail sales averaged an increase of 1.2 per cent in July and August. Housing starts were up to 6.7 per cent and sales of existing homes rose 4.8 per cent in the third quarter. Labour productivity rose 3.3 per cent in the first half of this year and the Statistics Canada leading indicator continues to increase. We saw the largest increase in 11 months in August of this year.
The government has also turned around an operating budget deficit of $16.1 billion that we inherited, to an operating surplus of over $12 billion in 1991.
The good news is going to keep getting better. We are on the right track. This government is making the proper decisions to ensure a better economic future for all Canadians without borrowing from future generations.


FUR INDUSTRY DEFENCE PROGRAM
Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in 1987 the federal government initiated the Fur Industry Defence Program to protect and develop Canada's fur trade and markets and to enhance the aboriginal people's involvement in the fur trade. The program is based upon the fundamental principle of allowing the fur industry to defend itself.
The program has come to the end of its five-year mandate. I urge the government to renew its support for the Fur Industry Defence Program and to provide the money necessary to support an increase of involvement of aboriginal people in all aspects of the fur industry in Canada. As a major stakeholder and as a group which has made significant contributions to the fur industry they deserve more support from the Government of Canada.
We as Canadians all know that fur built this country.


VIOLENCE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the growing movement in Canada regarding the portrayal of violence on television.
Members will recall that in February this Chamber unanimously agreed in calling for a full review of the media's portrayal of violence toward and the abuse of women and children. We must have that review.
Canadians of all ages, from all walks of life, are pushing for someone to do something. From Quebec's young Virginie Lariviere, who is circulating a petition calling for a law against TV violence to the Prime Minister himself who signed her petition, a national consensus is building.
I urge hon. members to tap into the feelings of their constituents and this consensus that is developing across our nation. Please show leadership. For us to say nothing is for us to do nothing.


THE ECONOMY
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, it has become painfully clear to Canadians that the current Progressive Conservative government has destroyed the Canadian economy.
When the Conservatives are finally voted out of office they will have left a legacy of a national debt approaching half a trillion dollars. Yet they perpetually blame the Liberal administration of eight years ago for the financial mess today.
I agree that perhaps the Liberals are no better at balancing a budget than are the Conservatives. I cannot believe that after eight years the Tories refuse to take responsibility for their own dismal management skills and instead blame someone else.
My party, the Reform Party of Canada, would begin to put our fiscal house in order by applying all GST revenues to the national debt. Subsequently, upon balancing the budget, we would remove the GST by reducing it in stages to zero.
If the government were truly serious about improving the Canadian economy and stimulating growth, it would do well to adopt the Reform Party's proposal on this as well as many others that it has adopted.


PARTY CANDIDATES
Mr. Garth TUrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, when I sought the nomination of the Conservative Party in my riding four years ago I did not have to be approved by any elitist selection committee of party insiders or to be sanctioned by the leader.
Instead I brought average Canadians with me to an open and fair nomination meeting where a democratic vote determined who would represent the party. What a difference this direct democracy among Conservatives is from what the Reform and Liberal parties do.
Reform candidates have to be approved by the party elite after filling out questionnaires. Now Liberal candidates do not need to worry about democracy. The Liberal leader, afraid of the dirty details of the democratic process, is simply appointing candidates even over the objections of local party members. Then he has the nerve to discipline his own distraught members of Parliament
November 19, 1992

and wonder what is wrong with fairness and the open voting process.
Thank goodness in Canada there is at least one party, the Conservative Party, which keeps Parliament democratic. It is for the people, by the people, and of the people.


TRANSPORTATION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is currently evaluating a proposal to privatize Canadian Coast Guard helicopters. The Pacific region of Canada's Coast Guard is evaluating the helicopter privatization proposal right now.
This helicopter privatization proposal is reckless, dangerous, and will compromise the safety of British Columbians. The Minister of Transport should stand in this House and announce that this privatization project is dead.
The Minister of Transport, if he has the courage, should also attend a public meeting in the Labour Centre in Campbell River, B.C., on Sunday, November 22, to justify to the people of British Columbia his refusal to upgrade light stations and the government's proposal to privatize coast guard helicopters.
The minister should come to the meeting and let the public tell him exactly what it thinks of this helicopter privatization proposal, and that is no.


FISHERIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of the workers of two fish plants in my constituency which have been closed: Highland Fisheries in Glace Bay and National Sea Products in Louisbourg.
The Government of Canada has closed what has been known as 4V-N fishery for this coming December. This
decision was made without any consultations with the fish plants involved or the workers.
In point of fact this was part of the groundfish management plan last year. As a result companies and workers made strategic decisions with regard to their particular livelihoods, keeping in mind these fish plants would have the fisheries for the month of December.
In Glace Bay over 150 jobs will be affected by this particular announcement. In Louisbourg another fish plant will be closed for the month of December. There are high prospects that it may be closed permanently or at least for an indefinite period of time.
This decision by the Government of Canada without proper consultations among fish plant operators as well as employees directly affects their livelihood and the livelihood of the communities where these individuals reside.
I would call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister responsible for ACOA to take direct intervention in order to help and to assist these workers.


CANADIAN ASTRONAUT STEVE MCLEAN
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that Canadian astronaut Steve McLean is in the national capital today. He recently returned from his mission on the space shuttle Columbia.
Mr. McLean, who is originally from Ottawa, by the way, spent almost 10 days in orbit on board the shuttle last month. While in space, he carried out Canex-2, a series of seven experiments in space science, space technology and the life sciences. Steve was continuing the work done by Marc Gameau on Challenger in 1984 and more recently by Roberta Bondar on Discovery.
We are all very proud of what our Canadian astronauts have done, and today especially of the feats performed by Steve McLean. They are a model for young Canadians and a challenge for future generations to match.

Oral Questions


LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue of fundamental democracy.
In February of this year the National Liberal Convention in Hull gave its leadership permission to side-step regular nominations in this country. Now the Liberal leadership has done that in the case of the Toronto riding of York Centre. The former mayor of Toronto Art Eggleton has been appointed-and I stress appointed- as a candidate in 1992. Local Liberals are objecting to this.
We have had three courageous MPs who have spoken out: the member from Broadview-Greenwood, the member from Eglinton-Lawrence and the member from York South-Weston who, by the way, has now been rebuffed and stripped of his critic duties because he had the courage to speak out against the democratic procedure of the Liberal Party of this country.
I close by saying that when it circumvents a nomination process, when it circumvents democracy in this country, there is something fundamentally wrong with that political party. In this country a political party is judged by how it governs itself. It must be accountable to the people. It must not be afraid to-


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



Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Liberal MP for York South-Weston, said he was stripped of his critic's role last night because he refused to sign a letter of apology to the Liberal Party. He is no longer the critic on employment and immigration because he refused to apologize publicly for criticizing the backroom boys of the Liberal Party.
The Liberal leader recently appointed former Toronto mayor Art Eggleton as the Liberal candidate in the York Centre riding, by-passing the normal open nomination process by bumping a Canadian of Italian origin, Mr. Peter Li Preti who had sold in excess of 3,000 membership cards.
Is this the way the Liberal Party treats Canadians of Italian origin?

It is an affront to democracy and a lack of respect toward my community.

If the process does not work, fix the process. Do not kill it.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the importance of leaving an environmental heritage to our young people.
Clearly, our natural resources are not inexhaustible. That is why we must act for the environment every day. Car pooling, recycling and waste control are only a few examples of what can be done.
We do not have the right to live on our environmental capital, since we are mortgaging the future and can never pay it back.
It is in everyone's interest to live in a healthy environment. We must all act accordingly.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Four years ago this week in his final campaign appearance in Canada's largest city, the Prime Minister promised a group of unemployed Torontonians: "We'll put you back to work". When he said that, there were 65,000 people in Toronto looking for jobs. Today there are
236,000	people in that city alone who do not have work and thousands more who have given up trying.
What fourth anniversary message does the Prime Minister have for those 236,000 Torontonians that have lost hope in his government?
y.v:


November 19, 1992


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the hon. member failed to point out in her question is that we have come through a world-wide recession over that period of time.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: The opposition can disagree with that but the facts and figures show that very plainly.
We now see signs that we are coming out of the recessionary period we have gone through. There are some very hopeful signs that the economy is picking up, including retail sale increases, house sale increases. We are seeing an increase in production and we are seeing a great increase in exports this year of record levels which shows that the free trade agreement is working.
This is very little consolation for those who are unemployed and I admit that. There are signs that the economy is coming around. The unemployment rate has been dropping. Jobs have been created over the last few months. Some 64,000 new full-time jobs have been created and that is an important sign. We are heading in the right direction.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the bank rate today jumped by 98 basis points. The minister claims that the government is the victim of a world-wide recession. The fact is the Minister of Finance admitted in this House that he and his government deliberately induced a made-in-Canada recession to slow down the overheated economy that was identified in the city of Toronto.
No one made them do it. They chose to do it. Now they say: "Let us put you back to work". Where is the government's basic plan to put Canadians back to work? How many jobs will it create and when will it announce details to the 1.6 million Canadians who have given up hope in this government?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the government has announced many projects that create employment. I notice with great interest that the NDP has decided that it would scrap a helicopter purchase that the government has made. It is going to create thousands and thousands of jobs in Ontario and in Halifax, Nova Scotia where I visited a plant that is going to outfit all the helicopters.
Oral Questions
All kinds of projects are going on where money is being spent.
Not only is our dollar under attack, but currencies around the world are under attack at the present time in this unsettling period and are extremely volatile.
The hon. member did not stand up in the House when the interest rate dropped 18 weeks in a row and congratulate the government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, four years ago the Tories won their second election, and what do we see today? Unemployment: out of control; transportation policy; out of control; business bankruptcies: out of control; deficit: out of control; and cities and provinces that are losing their credit rating. Where is the Prime Minister's plan for Canada's economic recovery, or is he just going to tell 1.6 million unemployed in Canada to get out?


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member asked the same question in English and French.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the deficit situation in this particular period is not like the deficit situation that we found in 1981-82 when income dropped for the government. The spending of the government has been maintained at a good solid level, but income is down somewhat which has increased the deficit.
It is interesting that she is complaining about the deficit increasing when her party is advocating spending more and more, throwing more money at the problems rather than getting the basics right, getting interest rates down, holding them down, getting inflation down and holding it down.
I might quote to the hon. member from an article in The Financial Post which says that Canada has the fastest growth of industrial production over the last year among the 13 major countries tracked. Although this is not spectacular by any stretch of the imagination, it is far ahead of the other industrialized countries, including the United States and Japan, which slipped minus 8 per cent and Germany which slipped minus 3 per cent.

November 19, 1992
Oral Questions TRANSPORTATION


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the final report of the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation depicts a cruel, vicious vision for transportation in the 21st century which I am sure even has Sir John A. Macdonald rolling in his grave.
The report urges the government to abandon its responsibility of providing affordable transportation to all regions of Canada, adopting a user-pay system. If you do not have the money, you will not travel.
Will the Minister of Transport reject this $25 million report which will turn the national dream into the national nightmare?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not advocating in his dreamland that we keep transportation vehicles running around the country with nobody in them and the taxpayers of Canada paying for it.
The hon. member is giving a quick evaluation of a report that was presented by a group of very competent, expert people. They spent three years listening to people, examining the situation and coming to conclusions. The hon. member should have enough sense to respect the judgment of people who have spent so much time and effort in trying to examine the transportation framework that should exist in this country over a 30-year period.
This is an excellent report. It is far-reaching.
We have to examine the report very seriously over more than a 24-hour period of time. We should examine all the recommendations and see how they will help us maintain a viable, competitive and efficient transportation industry.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this minister is giving a ringing endorsement to this report.
Surely this minister realizes that a national passenger transportation policy is about serving people. It is about providing them with a safe, affordable and regionally accessible system of transportation.
The report recommends that our national transportation policy not be concerned with regional economic development. It states it very clearly. Is the minister abandoning the regions? Will he condemn the report outright?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the first question of the member was just driven by his predilection to blame the government. I would not have thought he would go so far as interpreting incorrectly what I have just said.
I said that this is a good report that has been put together by a number of people who have worked very seriously on this for three years. They are trying to tell the people of Canada that we have to examine how we operate the transportation system in order that it be affordable, efficient, safe and that people should take into consideration what it costs the taxpayers of Canada who do not travel to keep the system operating.
We are going to examine each of the recommendations very carefully and we will then report to the House of Commons.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to informing Canadians, we know that the government can provide text and documents when it wants to. We have had a recent example of that when Canadians were informed about the political constitution of the country.
Canadians are anxious to know other information. They are well aware of the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost because of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. They are concerned about jobs that will be lost as a result of the Mexico-United States-Canada free trade agreement. They have a right to know.
Yet when Canadians want to get a copy of the publication regarding NAFTA, there are no copies available. There are no copies available for the public of Canada.
My question for the Acting Prime Minister is this. Why is this government in effect banning this publication from the Canadian public?
November 19, 1992

Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. member has a banned document in front of him.


Mr. Andre:: You've got one right there.


Thomas Hockin: It is published by the Government of Canada. It is freely available. He is creating a tempest in the teapot.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to have copies of the North American free trade agreement. Canadians have a right to have copies of the agreement. Yet to get a copy of the agreement today, you have to telephone the United States department of commerce. It will send you a copy.
The Government of Canada will not send you a copy. There are no copies available. There are no copies in the depositories. There are no copies in the libraries. The chambers of commerce of Red Deer and Chicoutimi cannot get copies from this government.
Is this a forerunner of what we can expect? If you want to find out how NAFTA is going to affect your sector of the economy, your business or your community, will you have to telephone Washington, D.C.? Why can you not telephone Ottawa, Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, if you want to find out how an improved trading relationship with the United States will affect the Canadian economy, British Columbia in particular, talk to companies that are expanding and increasing employment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the government is not answering the question.
Why is the document not available to the people of Canada? I understand that the Conservatives and the Liberals have agreed that there will not be hearings in every province of the country. There will not be hearings in the part of Canada, the industrial heartland, that was most adversely affected by the Canada-U.S. trade deal. I understand that if you are lucky enough to have a computer programmed with WordPerfect 5.1, you can have a disk, but for the average Canadian this deal is not available.
I am going to ask the minister to do the right thing today. Will he table this agreement in the House of Commons at least, so that the document section can provide copies to the people of Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows it is going to be tabled in the House and he knows it has to be translated. We will make sure that it is tabled.
As for the committee's travels, the representatives of all three parties and the management committee of the committee that is looking at this has agreed on the six cities they are going to visit. He knows that. It is my understanding that the hon. member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca agreed to this itinerary. He did not want to go to those particular cities that the hon. member mentioned.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. The Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, which was appointed by this government, tells us that substantially the government will no longer play a role in building infrastructures and systems for passenger transportation in this country.
More specifically, I would like to ask the minister: Does he support the Commission's recommendation, yes or no? Or does he agree with me that the government still has an important role to play in building the ties that keep this country together?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the report was submitted by a group of people who worked very hard for three years.
These people have a lot of expertise. They consulted with many people and examined all these questions with great intelligence and care.
Today this group has submitted a very explicit report full of statistics and comments. I think we owe it to the people who prepared this report to make a detailed study of each recommendation, because we must not forget

Oral Questions
that their objective is to establish, over the next 30years, a transportation system that is viable, effective and financially sound. This is not going to happen overnight.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is all very well, but it does not answer my question.
Specifically, my question concerns the following. The report states that it is based on the premise that the market, not governments, should decide who may transport passengers. That is the premise of this report. Does the minister agree, at least with the premise? Or does he reject this premise, as I do? Yes or no?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's response to this recommendation simply proves that these people are not prepared to consider today's situation in relation to the future. They want to make a snap decision, without considering its ramifications for the next 20 or 30 years.
Again, this report is intended as a guide for government decision making during the next 30 years. These are not decisions that are made overnight. Careful consideration of every aspect of these recommendations will be necessary before reporting on them to Parliament.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The airline workers demonstration today on Parliament Hill shows that the government has created another crisis in our transport industry and an extremely serious one.
As a result of the government's continued mismanagement generally, and in particular of the airline industry 800 Gemini workers in Winnipeg and elsewhere who have excellent high-tech jobs could lose that work. What is the government going to do to help these workers?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to have the member of the opposition party tell us exactly in what direction that party is going. A couple of weeks ago the leader of that party said to the government: "You must come to the help of one of the players in this situation". The proposal is to take apart the Gemini system. We have now the
other member saying: "You have to help the Gemini system". I think he must realize that there is a lot of contradiction in what he says in reference to what his own leader said a couple of weeks ago.


Ron J. Duhamel: The party's position has not changed. The minister is unable to understand it and that is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, that is another failure of the government in this whole air transport issue. The government misjudged this situation as it has misjudged many others, and it knows it. It has failed yet again. What will it do to get out of this crisis, to make sure that thousands of jobs are not lost? Does it understand this? Yes or no.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. member opposite that the commercial civil aviation industry is in crisis throughout the world. In every country now, all airlines are in great difficulty and are tiying to get out of it by forming closer relations among several companies. We now have two Canadian carriers in financial difficulty with a very high level of debt. On Tuesday, a few days ago, we received a very specific proposal from the employees and from Canadian Airlines and its employees. We said how impressed we were by the employees' decision to accept wage concessions and to invest their own money. We agreed to look into this very serious proposal with them and to try to find a solution whereby we could save the Canadian civil aviation industry and protect as many jobs as possible in a fiscally responsible way for all Canadians.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The bank rate today has jumped almost 1 per cent because of lack of international confidence in government policies. A 1 per cent increase in the bank rate means a loss of 40,000 jobs. It means an almost $2 billion increase in our deficit. It means $570 more each year for somebody with a $70,000 mortgage.

November 19, 1992

Given an inflation rate which is far below the target the government had even set for itself, how can the government justify such an unheard of dramatic increase in interest rates which will so seriously damage Canadians right across this country?


John Horton McDermid: Again, Mr. Speaker, I repeat to my hon. friend: Where was he when the interest rates dropped 18 or 19 weeks in a row, to levels that we have not seen since the 1970s?
As the hon. member knows, there clearly has been pressure in currency markets over the last several months directed at many of the currencies. It is not only a judgment on the federal government, it is also a judgment on provincial governments, municipal governments in the way they have been controlling their expenditures over the past number of years, the debt load that they are all carrying, and so on. But it is not just Canada. It is other currencies in the world as well.
The interest rates are still-


Mr. Peterson:: It's their fault.


John Horton McDermid: No, I am not blaming them all. We are all in the same boat. Interest rates are still much lower than they have been traditionally over the last number of years. Those people who, for example, in 1990 were paying mortgages at 14 per cent today are at some 8 per cent and are saving themselves over $400 per month, based on a $100,000 mortgage.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact the United States mortgage rates are significantly below those in Canada. Interest rates generally in the United States are significantly below those in Canada. In the United States, despite the fact that it has a bigger deficit in relative terms, interest rates are staying down. The international community is showing confidence in the new Clinton government because it is going to change policies and expand jobs.
Why will this government not escape from the Rea-gan-Thatcher time warp that it is caught in and recognize that it has to change its policies and move ahead with job expansion in this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I debated with my friend for many, many months, in fact a couple of years, on the free trade agreement. I have never heard anyone who
Oral Questions
knocked the United States more than the hon. member. Today he is advocating that we adopt the economic policies of the United States.
The member is also one who says that Canada should have economic sovereignty. He is now telling us that we should follow the economic policies of the United States. The NDP speaks with forked tongue and cannot have it both ways.


TRANSPORTATION
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Pacific's decision to abandon its rail lines in eastern Quebec and the maritimes shatters this government's already tattered commitment to regional development.
From a region devastated by government policy, I ask the Minister of Transport why would he not use his discretionary power under the National Transportation Act and reverse this action today?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, this regulatory process of the NTA was put in place so that when railway companies want to abandon lines they can address themselves to this agency which will hear all sides. The railway companies, the municipalities, the provinces, the ports, individuals, shippers, anybody who wants to be heard will have a chance to put his side of the story. At the end of the day, the NTA is going to come down with a decision either positive or negative. At that time there is another possibility for the government to examine that conclusion and make its best decision.
I would suggest that the most efficient and most democratic way of going about this is to take this request from CP and put it through the NTA process, as they have done, then let the story unfold with input from everybody. Then the government can take its responsibility afterward because the decision that has been taken is not to remove, it is to ask for permission to remove.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, that is a fine answer, but surely the minister is aware-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Not that fine, gentlemen. Surely the minister is aware that his discretionary power under section 23 of the National Transportation Act must be exercised before the hearing takes place. It is not individual groups such as the minister listed that are

November 19, 1992
Oral Questions
going to restore jobs in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec, it is the minister and this government.
Is he going to act and act now? If he is not going to act now why will he not act for the benefit of Canadians?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because it is in the best interest of Canadians to hear what everybody has to say on this matter.
I fully understand the content of the article that the hon. member is referring to, but I say that it is most preferable to let the process run its course. This is the only way that all interested parties will be in a position to tell their side of the story and hear the other sides. At the end of the day it comes back to the government to make a final decision. Until that time nothing is going to happen.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
I was bom in 1960 and my generation grew up with the dream that if we worked hard we would be rewarded with opportunities. That dream has been shattered. The new coalition of unemployed Canadians, factory workers, university graduates, carpenters, technologists, managers and professionals all share in the human misery of this unforgiving recession.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister, when will he restore the dream?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has indicated that he will be coming forward very shortly with an economic statement in the House, to be delivered within the next week or so, which I think will answer a lot of the concerns the hon. member has raised today.
We too are concerned about employment and the facts that we are experiencing right now. However, I do want to remind the hon. member that between 1984 and 1992,
1,320,000	more Canadians are working than in 1985. Those are a lot of jobs that have been created over the last 10 years. It is not enough to fill the ranks of the
unemployed in this country and we admit that. That is something we all have to concentrate on. However, it is a record that no other country in the world can match per capita and we should be proud of that.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this government fails to understand the real problems of real people.
Last Monday, Jonathan Rosen, aged 31, lined up with 350 other people to apply for one of 20 minimum wage jobs at the Eaton Centre. Six months ago Jonathan Rosen worked for the federal government.
Roberto Soarez, age 28, a university graduate who has been out of work for a year, also lined up for one of those minimum wage jobs. Hie dream is slipping away from my generation. Why does the government refuse to provide innovative and effective programs to create jobs for Canadians and restore the dream?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the purchasing the federal government is doing is creating thousands of jobs in the private sector. They are very important high-tech jobs. We just have to look at some of the contracts that have been announced over the last year. They are very important for our work force right across this country. We are doing something in that regard within the budgetary limits of this government.
I can sympathize with those people who are having a tough time finding a job. It is difficult. As I have said, the unemployment rate is dropping. In the past year 64,000 jobs have been created. Signs of growth in the economy are very promising and we are encouraged that Canada is on the way to recovery.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Earlier today over 2,000 Air Canada employees were outside this Chamber. They are very scared. They and their families are worried about whether or not they will have a job tomorrow, which is no different than the worry that Canadian employees have.
November 19, 1992

I want to ask the Minister of Transport if the government has arrived at a solution, not just for the short term, to keep either carrier or both carriers afloat but for the long term of the Canadian aviation industry? Has the government arrived at a solution?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, a formal proposal was put to us by PWA and its employees this Tuesday. We started working on that proposal immediately after we received it. We have met with representatives of the employees of the company and also of the company that is trying to finalize the transaction. We are working on a very tense schedule to arrive at a solution.
When I came out of a meeting last night, I mentioned that we had made enough progress to believe that we will be able to come to a constructive resolution before the end of this week or early next week. We are taking into consideration, of course, the employment of all the employees of the whole airline system in Canada.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the minister answered only in part.
He indicated that the government was working on the short-term crisis but he did not indicate, like the Minister of Finance did on CBC radio this morning, that the government was recognizing that the marketplace had not worked and that the government was examining options. It called them policy options, although in any other language it is some form of reregulation.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the government finally recognizes that bailouts of a carrier by themselves do not guarantee the survival of the Canadian aviation industry, nor does it guarantee the ongoing operation and ownership by Canadians of the Canadian airline industry.
Is the government prepared to move to ensure that regulation will be put in place to make sure that those carriers can survive in the long term?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is putting words into my mouth or at least he is trying to ignore what I have been saying in this House from the very beginning, in response to questions about this matter.
Oral Questions
I repeat that we must seriously consider this offer to ensure it is not a temporary solution. What we want is a permanent solution to create a system that is as viable, effective, and financially and fiscally sound as it can be.


CANADIAN MIDDLE CLASS
Mr. Garth Ttirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents have expressed concern that the Canadian middle class may be dying.
In fact, a national newspaper series this week flatly states that that is the case. My question to the Acting Minister of Finance is this. What measures has the government taken, or does it propose to take, to bolster confidence among middle class Canadians to help them be able to plan a secure future?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing we should look at is the United Nations study that picks Canada as the number one country in the world in which people desire to live.
I think that being judged by our peers as being the number one country in itself says that we are doing well and that the middle class by no stretch of the imagination is dying.
There are many things in our economy to encourage the middle class such as low inflation and the low interest rates that we are experiencing now. I am convinced that with the tax cuts that we are having on January 1 which will put $1.2 billion more into the economy, together with all the other factors, the middle class can be asured that they will always have a very strong and important place in Canadian society.


THE ECONOMY
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
According to Jacques Pelletier, an analyst with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Montreal, residential construction preceded the over-all

Oral Questions
start-up of economic activity during the last economic recovery.
Unfortunately, the government refuses to recognize the important role this industry has to play in getting the economy started again. Why is the government dragging its feet on bringing in an infrastructures program, a program that is directly related to recovery in the construction industry and recovery of the economy in general?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I think the government has shown that it does understand the importance of the residential component of the construction industry.
Measures taken in the last budget to allow people to use money in their RRSPs, and the government's general policy, especially as it has affected inflation and interest rates, are the best kind of government intervention, which benefits all economic sectors in this country. We must realize that the best thing the government can do is provide the right conditions for industries to develop, including cheap capital and low mortgages.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization, has already pointed out the beneficial impact of our policy on inflation and interest rates.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is still directed to the same minister.
The sector worst hit by this recession has been the construction industry, where unemployment is around 50 per cent. There has been a 14 per cent drop in residential construction, as the minister mentioned earlier, in the Montreal area, compared with the previous month alone.
Considering these figures, why won't the government introduce a genuine economic recovery program, such as modernizing infrastructures, in order to give construction and the economy in general a boost? When will we get this program?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, the government said that the economy was overheating, and that because of very high interest and
inflation rates and artificially high prices for homes, the situation was very precarious. The result is that Canadians are now deep in debt. Governments, companies and Canadians are in debt, and their purchasing power has diminished considerably.
As a government we are trying to do our share to create better conditions and free up capital so that people can borrow, instead of using all the capital available to pay off Canada's debt. We are making an effort to boost recovery in all these sectors, including the residential construction sector.


INTEREST RATES
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, today the government raised the interest rate by 98 basis points, for a whopping increase of 29 per cent in the past eight days. Last month Canada lost another 28,000 manufacturing jobs and manufacturing bankruptcies are at a record high.
This government has not been able to deal with the deficit, it has not been able to deal with jobs. This government's legacy is the deindustrialization of Canada.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister: Why does this government continue to batter Canada's manufacturers with its high interest rate policy?


An hon. member:: High interest rate policy, heavens to Betsy. Jim, you were around when it was 22 per cent.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this country has among the lowest interest rates of any country in the industrialized world. The hon. member should really look around the world and see what interest rates are outside of Canada.
The second point is manufacturing. In fact, unit labour costs are improving in a very important way in manufacturing. We are becoming much more competitive. As a matter of fact as a proportion of our exports, manufacturing has increased from 24 per cent to 26 per cent of our exports. Not only that, but shipments were up 4 per cent in August. The gains were broadly based. Seventeen out of 22 major groups recorded increases.
November 19, 1992

We also have manufacturing capacity utilization numbers. That is very important. They have increased for the second consecutive quarter and 17 of 22 industrial groups recorded capacity utilization gains.
So there are signs of health. There are signs of improvement in the manufacturing sector.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if our interest rates are so low, why are they 4 percentage points higher than the United States and in real terms 6.35 per cent higher than U.S. rates? That is where it counts.
If the minister wants to talk about trade, the trade that really counts is in high-tech goods. Our deficit is $15 billion in high-tech goods and growing.
I go back to the question of our manufacturing sector. Since January 1989 Canada has lost 375,000 jobs, 18 per cent of all its manufacturing jobs.
When will the government admit that its policies are not just working or is its position that we do not need to have a strong manufacturing sector in order to have a strong economic future in Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians do not know and the hon. member clearly does not know that while the Canadian manufacturing sector represents a smaller share of our GDP than it used to, it has continued to grow in absolute terms. It has continued to grow in absolute terms. Indeed, its size has nearly doubled over the last two decades. To give the impression that there is no manufacturing reality left in Canada is really quite wrong.
I really want to give my hon. friend an interesting answer on interest rates. In the United States, although it is violated sometimes, a state government or governor is not allowed to send an unbalanced budget to the legislature.
In this country provinces can run big deficits, especially the Peterson government and the NDP government in Ontario.
Oral Questions OLDMAN RIVER DAM


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who answered questions regarding the panel report on the Oldman River dam on the floor of this House on May 2. This is what he said and I quote: "The government responded favourably to 22 of the 23 recommendations contained in the report-.We have accepted that recommendation with the 22 other recommendations contained in this report-.We will ensure that they are implemented".
Could the Minister of Transport tell us why not a single one of those 22 recommendations have been fulfilled now, today, six months later?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I stand by the words I spoke in the House on May 23. Certainly the member will understand that if we want implementation of the recommendations in an orderly fashion, we have to put in place the mechanisms and the process to make sure it will happen so that this thing does not get bottled up.
This is what we are doing at the present time. I stand by what I said in the House of Commons on May 23. We are going to see that these 22 recommendations are implemented but we want to make sure that when it happens we have a process and mechanism in place.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary question.
Eighty per cent of the potential environmental damage will occur if the reservoirs are allowed to fill with next spring's run-off. Will the minister get his feet off the recommendations and tell this House in absolute terms that those 22 recommendations will be fully implemented before next spring's run-off goes into the Oldman dam reservoir?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it would be absolutely irresponsible to make such a commitment. We are committed to making sure the recommendations are implemented. Therefore it is absolutely illogical and irresponsible to say that it will be implemented by that date. I will not fall into that trap.

November 19, 1992
Point of Order


INTERNAL ECONOMY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the representative of the Board of Internal Economy in the House of Commons, namely the hon. member for Saint-Leonard.
In 1990, the House of Commons bought a colour offset press for $800,000. In 1991, the Auditor General of Canada recommended that Parliament thoroughly investigate the purchase of this press.
Can the hon. member tell us today whether the Board of Internal Economy has decided after a study was done whether this press should be kept or not?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy, I am pleased to answer my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi.
Further to the Auditor General's report and a very detailed study ordered by House of Commons officials from a consulting firm, Mr. Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy approved the sale of the press in question. It was exchanged for a smaller press and a credit to buy other pieces of equipment.
The press obtained in exchange better meets the needs of the Printing Division of the House in terms of cost benefit, productivity improvements and flexibility for future technology. If my colleague needs more detailed information, I am prepared to ask the officials to provide him with the necessary details.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Steve McLean, Canadian astronaut.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise with regard to a point of order raised this morning by the hon. member for Kamloops.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the subject was the composition of the legislative committee for Bill C-91 and the report of the House management committee in connection therewith.
Sir, when you left the Chair I am sure you are aware that the House leaders had agreed to tiy to resolve this matter within the bosom of the House management committee.
I can report to you, Sir, and to the House that the committee met at 11 o'clock this morning and dealt with the generic issue of how committees are constituted and I believe has put together an improved mechanism in that regard.
However, on the specific point of the constitution of the committee on Bill C-91 there is now clearly agreement among the Whips and the committee is in fact constituted by motion of the House management committee.
Therefore I would submit, with all respect, that the point of order is no longer valid or relevant.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has explained the process that was followed accurately. We look forward to receiving the report tomorrow and it will be adopted upon its submission at the appropriate time, during Routine Proceedings.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the government House leader about the business of the House. While I am on my feet I want to indicate I hope that the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship could remain in the Chamber for a brief moment. Perhaps the government House leader could indicate to the House the business for the rest of the day-


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me. I wonder if the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond wishes to rise on the matter that was raised by the parliamentary secretary.
I have listened carefully to the response of the hon. member for Kamloops. The issue before the House and before the Chair is whether or not, as a consequence of these discussions earlier today, there is now that unanimous consent which was asked for as a consequence of


November 19, 1992
the reference to the motion of the committee some time ago when it established a subcommittee.
What I have to know is there unanimous consent? The effect of unanimous consent is that the introduction of the matter will stand but I think we must be absolutely sure what we are agreeing to. I wonder if the hon. member for Kamloops could assist the Chair.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I can assist the Chair. The concern we had this morning, and I think this is the point being made by myself and my hon. friend the opposition party House leader, was that the appropriate procedures had not been followed.
It was suggested it should go to the management committee and then after it has a chance to meet, a report would be drafted and submitted to the House of Commons. That is the appropriate procedure and that is what is being done. Tomorrow during Routine Proceedings I expect the report will be tabled and will be adopted on the tabling.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, you referred to unanimous consent. I think the unanimous consent issue before us, if indeed a unanimous consent issue is before us, is whether or not consent was given to interrupting Government Orders yesterday evening in order revert to motions to table a particular committee report. I think that is the focus of the unanimous consent issue.
The position the government takes is that we do not believe there were any improprieties at all. We believe the constitution of the committee on Bill C-91 was perfectly in order. Now that the House management committee has reviewed it and has in fact constituted that committee with the participation and consent of the Whips, that committee is now established.


Mr. Speaker:: We have spent a lot of time on this today and I am going to come back to the difficulty the Chair may be having.
It seems to me that as a consequence of the extra meeting that was held today there is now agreement by the Whips. There is no need for another presentation to the House of Commons. The matter has been resolved.


An hon. member:: No.
Point of Order


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says no. I will hear an argument on it but I am having great difficulty following a suggestion that despite the meeting that was arranged today, despite the fact that there is unanimous consent, this whole procedure has to be gone through again. That is the difficulty I am having.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty. The management committee was convened today because there was not agreement among the Whips. Therefore the matter had to be referred to the management committee.
It was referred to the management committee and therefore the committee rendered a decision. That decision will now be represented in a committee report which will be tabled at the appropriate time. That is the procedure we follow.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that was the procedure that we reconfirmed in the committee session earlier today. In other words, if the Whips cannot come to an agreement it must go to the management committee for a decision. That is what we did. The Whips could not come to an agreement and it was then placed before the management committee. It was on the agenda, it was dealt with.
That committee presumably will submit a report during Routine Proceedings tomorrow and then that report will be deemed to have been adopted. That is the procedure that we accepted in the committee today and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is the process we should follow now.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the events is that names were submitted yesterday, or prior to yesterday, by the Whips of all three parties to participate in the legislative committee for Bill C-91.
There was some challenge subsequent to that report being received by the House as to whether the report was properly constituted. There were some discussions this morning in the House management committee about how to establish greater certainty that the Whips had, in fact, put names in for legislative committees, in a generic sense.
There was also some discussion and disagreement about precisely what happens after the Whips submit names for legislative committees. There was never any dispute that the Whips of the three parties had submitted names for this legislative committee. The names are as they were tabled yesterday in the House by me on

November 19, 1992
Point of Order
behalf of the chairman of the House management committee.
I take the position, Sir, that that committee report has been received and that any dispute surrounding its reception has now been cleared up.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify one thing. The parliamentary secretary for the government House leader said that yesterday the report was properly constituted. We had a long debate about it here in the House. We decided in the House management committee that the report was not properly constituted because there was no meeting.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the House management committee had to pass a resolution to adopt the report about a quarter to twelve. Therefore, I want to make it clear that yesterday's report was not properly constituted because there was no quorum, the meeting did not take place, and there was no unanimous consent.
I want to make the record clear, that consent was given through a House management committee vote in the committee room at a quarter to twelve today and not yesterday.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, what my friend, certainly inadvertently, left out of the true statement that he just made is the fact that the House management committee has been operating for over a year now, I believe, under a system whereby if the Whips submit names for a committee that that authority is then delegated to the Whips to present that report through the clerk without a formal meeting of the House management committee taking place.
The discussion that took place in the House management committee today was how to achieve greater certainty that the Whips had in fact submitted the names. It was agreed that certainty could be achieved through requiring the signatures of the Whips to be attached, and that is the process that has been agreed will be followed in future cases.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty that the Chair is having is this: The first thing I have to be sure of is, do the Whips agree as to the content of the report? If there is agreement, and remember it has already been presented to the House and was accepted unanimously-


Alfonso Gagliano: Which report?


Mr. Speaker:: A subcommittee. If there was unanimous consent, I am having very great difficulty in understanding why procedurally we need another submission of the report to the House.
It seems to me if there is now unanimous consent, the matter is over with and it stands. If I could find some rationale for coming to any other conclusion, I might be able to follow it but I am having difficulty.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Perhaps I can be helpful by suggesting the report tabled yesterday was an illegitimate report.
It was a report of a meeting that never occurred. How can you table a report of a committee that never took place? That was the argument we made.
I gave notice last night that we would raise it today. We said for the Chair to accept a report of a committee that never occurred seemed to be ludicrous, quite frankly. It seemed to be unreasonable.
In your judgment, Mr. Speaker, you suggested we attempt to resolve this in the management committee, and we did.
My friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said, as an item of business, the Whips have not been able to come to an agreement on the composition of the committee to receive witnesses to consider Bill C-91.
The question was then put to the committee. The motion was: "I recommend the following composition". There was some comment and I participated in it. Then there was a vote and it passed. In other words, the committee dealt with this very specific issue as it should have.
I therefore submit that since the committee has now held a meeting and dealt with the impasse successfully, it is now able to draft a report and submit it to the House. Upon submission, it will be considered adopted.
The appropriate time to do that is during Routine Proceedings, and we would expect to see it then.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the obvious point.

For well over a year the procedure on legislative committees has been that each of the Whips submits the names of his representatives. That is deemed to constitute a meeting of the committee for the purposes of establishing a committee. That has been used for over a year with no difficulties.
On that basis, my parliamentary secretary tabled the report yesterday. The House leader of the New Democratic Party stood up and said: "Whoops, tilt". His Whip had not put in the right name. We subsequently found out his Whip had put in the name.
The names of the members on the committee are now known and there is no question as to who the people are. Yesterday the House unanimously agreed to the establishment of the committee with the same names that were known yesterday.
Do we now have to wait until tomorrow? I know one should not ascribe motives, but the net effect of this alteration of one year and one-half or more procedures has been to delay the start-up of this committee.
The purpose the New Democratic Party had in mind by misinforming the House as to what its Whip had done or not done is apparently part of the games around here. The public should know the reality is the committee is established by unanimous consent. The membership is known. Perhaps it is necessary to keep delaying for the purpose of delaying, but I wonder if the people of Canada think they are getting good value from their parliamentarians who are using these tactics.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been trying to find a way to resolve this difficulty without having to make hard rulings.
I cannot make any further decisions until I know if there is consent to the substance of the report as a consequence of the discussion that took place this morning. If there is no consent, let the Chair know because then we are no further ahead than we were this morning. If there is consent, then I have to decide whether it is necessary to submit it again or whether the submission that went in yesterday stands as a consequence of the information I have been given and the undertakings I have heard.
Point of Order


David Charles Dingwall: I would hope the government House leader has read discussions we had this morning. I am sure it is very clear to the viewing audience and people who watch our proceedings that there is clear consensus and agreement on substance in the second report.
There has been no agreement on the first report, as my colleague, the House leader for the New Democratic Party has said and as my Whip from Saint-Leonard has indicated. That is the reason why it went back to the management committee for further deliberations.
Coming out of those deliberations there is now a consensus. I believe, quite rightly, this will tabled at the appropriate time, which will probably be tomorrow, and we will proceed.
To answer the Chair's question, yes, there is consensus on the second report because the first report was not submitted properly under the rules of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be losing track of this, but I thought there were two situations yesterday when the hon. parliamentary House leader proposed the report to the House and there was objection taken to the first. The parliamentary House leader gave it consideration, as I remember from the information given to me this morning. I do not know exactly what happened and it is not for me to consider, but when I came back to the House later it unanimously accepted the report. The opposition has made it very clear in a succinct and courteous manner that consent was not given on the substance of the report.
I thought we were trying to see whether it was agreed the substance of the report put in by the parliamentary secretary would stand as submitted. That position seems to make sense procedurally.
If I take the position put forward by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the hon. member for Kamloops and perhaps others, there is now disagreement on the floor of the House, not over the substance of the unanimous consent, but as to whether or not it is appropriate procedurally to have the parliamentary House leader, on behalf of the government, submit the report again tomorrow. It seems to me that is the question I now have to answer, if I have correctly understood everybody.

Business of the House
I will give that some consideration and report back to the House. I do not think I need any further argument. If there is something I have missed, I will need further argument, but I do not think I have.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There is one additional piece of information that might be helpful. The Chair accepted the report tabled yesterday of a meeting that did not occur. I think it is a very dangerous precedent if the Chair accepts a report submitted by a committee chair of a meeting that did not occur. It provides additional power now to the parliamentary secretary if this is accepted.
It provides additional power to the chair of the management committee, if that person is allowed to table reports of committee meetings that never occurred. I think that is a very dangerous precedent.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: In this place and in our committees, much of the lubricant to make things flow comes from goodwill, good faith, character and integrity.
Often we can agree with each other's suggestions, respond to each other and communicate with each other without a formal meeting actually taking place. I think my friend from Kamloops would acknowledge there have been a number of instances in the past year and beyond when committees have been constituted by consultation among the Whips, without a meeting ever actually taking place and through the delegated authority from the House management committee being deposited with the clerk.
I do not want that mis-impression to stay on the record. In this case I want to take just a minute or so to read from the "blues" of this morning's committee meeting because they respond to something my friend said earlier.
My friend suggested I said in the committee this morning that the committee, as deposited last night, was not properly constituted. I did not say that. This is what I said: "In the tabling of the report on Bill C-91 it was my sincere belief that all Whips had assented to the total composition of the committee. My subsequent investigation confirmed that and that is why I retabled it after having withdrawn it at Mr. Riis's request. I can give a very formal undertaking that the government would never proceed to put forward a list of names as chair or acting chair of the Standing Committee on House Management unless there had been proper submission of names by the opposition parties of their lists and the
appropriate consultation. It was my belief that the consultation had taken place".
Finally, on the same pertinent point, I moved this morning in the committee the following: "That this committee accept that list as the legislative committee for Bill C-91". The committee accepted that particular motion which, in my view, confirmed the action of yesterday.
I submit that the agreement today and the consent you have obtained from the House leaders confirms the names as submitted in the report of the House management committee last night are the appropriate names and that committee now stands properly constituted, since the House has received the report.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to consider my position. I have been assisted a great deal with that argument and I will report back as quickly as I can.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. WEEKLY STATEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary. Can he indicate to the House what the business will be for the remainder of today, Friday, Monday, Tbesday and Wednesday of next week? Perhaps he can indicate when a minister of the Crown will move that tomorrow is designated as a supply day.
I have a few other short questions on House business I would like to put to the parliamentary secretary.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, in response to my friend's question today, we will be completing report stage of Bill C-26 on PS 2000.
Since my friend has guided me to that point, I will ask a minister of the Crown, namely my friend the hon. Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, to formally designate tomorrow, Friday, November 20, as the first of three allotted days remaining for this supply period.
On Monday we will continue with report stage of Bill C-86, respecting the Immigration Act. On Tbesday, we will again continue with Bill C-86 and one hopes we will be able to finish it next week. Discussions will continue
November 19, 1992

with colleagues from the opposition on the business for the rest of the week.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, two further points to the parliamentary secretary. I wish to inform him and members of the House since it is our supply day we will be moving a motion of non-confidence tomorrow. I do want to alert members of the government, although there will be a vote taken on that motion on Monday of next week.
My second comment to the parliamentary secretary is that he will know the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship has had a report, Paying Too Dearly, which came from the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons some time ago. The minister has written to the chairman of the committee outlining why he could not give a written comprehensive response in the time provided by the Standing Orders. The rationale which was indicated in the letter was that because of the referendum, cabinet meetings were not taking place and it could not be given at this time.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary and/or the minister could indicate as to when we will receive a comprehensive response to that particular committee report and if he could indicate to the House whether or not that will be soon or later because he is in breach of the Standing Orders of the House.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Madam Speaker, consistent with the policy of the government and the House I am now waiting to consult my cabinet colleagues. The appropriate appearance will be taking place before a cabinet committee at a very early opportunity. I am now waiting for that appearance to take place. As soon as I have received the consent and agreement of my colleagues, you can be assured that I will bring forward the response I have prepared for Paying too Dearly.
While I am on my feet, I would like to formally designate tomorrow, Friday, November 20, as the first of three allotted days remaining for this supply period.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my final question to the parliamentary secretary relates to the comments which were made today by the Minister of Transport in
Business of the House
terms of a decision which will be reached, as he indicated, later this week or very early next week concerning the situation with the airlines. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could reflect upon my request to convene some discussions with the Minister of Transport as to whether there will be a ministerial statement accompanying the announcement by the Government of Canada so that we would have sufficient time for our critics and the critics of the New Democratic Party to participate in that statement.
If there is no ministerial statement, in view of the seriousness of the subject matter, namely the airline industry, perhaps the parliamentary secretary would give some consideration to having all-party agreement for the purposes of an emergency debate at that time when the minister has made his decision. Would he give some consideration to that request?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first point of my hon. friend, I would say yes. I would take it as given that the normal courtesy surrounding a ministerial statement would be extended to the opposition so that they would have advance notice of that taking place if, in fact, it is going to take place.
On the second point, the question of an emergency debate by agreement on the airline situation following upon the minister's and cabinet's decision in the matter, I will take the representation of my hon. friend and make sure it is well-known.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have two specific questions and one general one for my hon. friend. If he cannot indicate today, perhaps he could get back to the House and tell us when the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act to deal with marine oil spills will be brought before the House. We have waited some time now. There was some anticipation that they would be introduced before the Christmas recess.
Second, will the parliamentary secretary indicate when the new environmental assessment act will be given Royal Assent? Again, we have been waiting some time for that Royal Assent.
Last, this is more of a general question. Does the parliamentary secretary expect to be introducing any bills before Christmas that would actually create employment in the country?

November 19, 1992
Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: To give a very direct and specific answer to my hon. friend, no the parliamentary secretary does not intend to introduce any such bill. With reference to the other questions, I will have to make inquiries and get back to my hon. friend.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 and 43 (p. 13624-13625).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: There were five minutes remaining in the intervention by the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I want to express my thanks for the consideration of the hon. Speaker who was in the Chair an hour and a half ago in reminding me that I have these five minutes.
Before Question Period I described what I think is wrong about the government's proposed policy of deployment of public servants. I will not repeat that now. I want to use these few minutes to suggest what I think is a better way.
I am referring to Motion No. 33 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops. I will read the motion because this concerns a great deal of the public:
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 22 by adding immediately
after line 14 at page 12 the following:
"(2) In applying subsection (1) Treasury Board shall, in the deployment of an employee, include in its direction the following factors:
(a)	the need to develop the employee through additional work
experience;
(b)	the demonstrated need to fill a vacancy on an immediate
basis;
(c)	the demonstrated needs of both the employee and management and;
(d)	compassionate grounds."
I think that this is a very reasonable and preferable alternative to what the government has proposed that I criticized before.
In my 18 years as a labourer on a factory floor in a unionized plant we had many disputes. I was involved in some of them as an employee; I was involved in some of them as an officer of the union. Generally speaking, we resolved those disputes not to perfect satisfaction but to workable relations. I might add, and I do not take all the credit for this, during the time I was working there and during the time I was an officer, there was no work stoppage. There was no strike. I credit in part the management of that enterprise which was a local branch of a large multinational corporation. I credit it in recognizing the necessity of considering the employees' needs when it expects the employee to consider the necessity of the employer's needs.
These are four very simple matters to recognize, not easy, but clear enough. One is the need to develop the employee through additional work experience, so if there is an improved job to be done, a better job through more experience, the employee, all employees, should have the same chance through the provisions for competition, through the provisions for appeal which appear to be denied by the government's new proposal.
Second, there should be a demonstrated need to fill the vacancy on an immediate basis. We had occasions when somebody had to fill in on a temporary basis because of an absence or an extra workload, but that did not create a permanent position. That should be observed here in the much greater matter of deployment, that maybe arrangements need to be made temporarily but it is different from using them as the grounds to do it permanently.
Third, the demonstrated needs of both the employee and management should be observed. This is not reflected in the company's proposal. It does say that no employee shall be deployed without the consent of the employee, but it does not give the employee any ground to stand on. If he or she feels that the deployment would be disadvantageous, he or she is not given by the government's proposal any ground to stand on to make that point, any ground by which to justify refusal.
November 19, 1992

Finally, on compassionate grounds, the employee is expected from time to time to recognize the employer's unusual need. I ask that the same be written in, that the employee may have an unusual need to reject the deployment.
Those are grounds for approving this very good amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I thank the hon. members for their indulgence in co-operating with the Chair twice today on adjournments on this particular issue. I am now in a position where I am going to have to make a ruling and I will probably file some careful reasons for it later. However it is in the interests of the House that a decision be made.
In my view, what happened today when the committee met is that the three Whips clearly agreed as to the substance of the report. It happens that what they agreed to today was the same as in the report that was put forward at the end of yesterday afternoon by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government.
I am satisfied, though, on what I have heard that for whatever reason, no matter what anybody may have personally felt or thought, there was not unanimous consent to the report that was filed in front of the House yesterday afternoon.
I felt this morning that it would be possible, if all hon. members involved were given a chance to meet together, that the report filed last night could be deemed to be accepted. But that also would require consent. That consent is not there.
So I am ruling the report of yesterday afternoon is null and void, and it is up to hon. members as to what they wish to do with the discussions that took place today.
If I feel it is appropriate, it may well be I will file more detailed reasons later because I know there is some concern by hon. members about the procedure we have been following. I am sorry that as your Speaker I cannot
Government Orders
resolve it any better than that, but this is what I think we have to do.


PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 and 43 (p. 13624-13625).
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to intervene here for a few minutes with regard to some of the remarks made by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. He certainly has mentioned some important issues such as workable relations, employees' needs and deployment.
I wanted to remind the House that the merit principle does remain for recruitment to and promotion within the Public Service. This is very important and is one thing that we discussed at committee level for quite some time.
Also, deployment requires consent, consent of the employee who is being moved. There is recourse in this process and the recourse does include an independent investigation that is under the arm of the Public Service Commission. We recognize that sometimes there could be problems, but we have looked at both sides of it and provided the process for investigation in case there is some sort of coercion. If you take those two things in conjunction, the merit principle is not compromised by moving employees when you have their consent.
In our meetings we heard from many witnesses who said deployment is extremely necessary. It is going on in private enterprise, in all our provinces in Canada, and throughout the world.
When there is no need for a position in one location and that person could be utilized in another, it is extremely advantageous to both the employee and the employer to move the best person with his or her consent. This gives both sides flexibility, which is something we need in the government and the Public Service to become more efficient and respond to the needs of the public.

November 19, 1992
Government Orders
I have heard throughout my community, and I think some of my colleagues have as well, that private enterprise has moved toward efficiency and better management of its funding and people. I think if we really look carefully, the merit principle remains and we will certainly be taking the consent of the employees on deployment.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 34. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 38. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

The next question is on Motion No. 40. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

The next question is on Motion No. 42. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
November 19, 1992


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 43. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 45
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 23 by adding immediately
after line 19 at page 14 the following:
"(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the
Commission shall, in respect of an appeal under subsection 21(1),
make regulations
(a)	requiring the disclosure of any document or information of which the appellant has no knowledge or that has not been communicated to the appellant and on which the deputy head might rely;
(b)	prescribing a notice period of not less than two weeks in respect of the time and place of any hearing held for purposes of the appeal."
Government Orders
She said: Madam Speaker, the intent of this motion has been more fully dealt with by a couple of amendments proposed by my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands.
As he mentioned in discussing those amendments, we are endeavouring to correct the situation that is nearly a decade old, whereby a joint committee of both chambers of this Parliament and of all parties has repeatedly recommended the Public Service Commission have regulations as to how it conducts its hearings.
It has failed in the past to conduct its hearings with due regard for fair process and natural justice.
The amendment I have moved would require the Public Service Commission to make regulations. For nearly a decade it has persistently resisted the expressed views of reports to this Parliament from its own committees.
It has delayed responding to those reports. It has come close to expressing contempt for the opinions of parliamentarians as put forward in the reports of that committee to this Chamber and to the other place.
The commission is now saying it is going to conduct an inquiry to see what kind of regulations it should have.
After nine years of resisting the views of this Parliament as to fair process for employees appealing a decision, I think it is time for this Parliament to tell the commission it must have regulations and this is its opportunity to do so.
It is really quite simple but there is nothing in place, believe it or not, that now requires somebody who brings an appeal to the Public Service Commission to have access to all the information that will be used in considering that appeal.
It is impossible for an appellant to have fair justice, if he or she has objected to a decision and walks into a hearing not even knowing what information will be used in that hearing. Yet that is what happens consistently and that is why the joint parliamentary committee on the scrutiny of regulations has twice recommended regulations to ensure information is available to people whose livelihoods depend on the decisions made by the commission.
The other thing that can and does happen is people are not given adequate notice of a hearing that affects the very continuance of their employment in some cases. It affects whether they are dealt with fairly in promotions. The second part of this amendment requires the commission to have regulations saying people must have

November 19, 1992
Government Orders
at least two weeks' notice of the time and place when their own appeal will be heard.
It is only fair to allow a person to consider the information to be used in the hearing and consult counsel or a union representative. Yet there is no requirement and no body I am aware of that operates without regulations with respect to notice and the information to be provided to the person whose very future depends on the decision of that tribunal.
That is the sole purpose of this amendment. I ask, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands did, that the government consider why it is willing to let the commission continue to stonewall the expressed wish of Parliament.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I want to speak to this particular motion and add a few comments.
I want to support the motion and the basic principle that we need to ensure the Public Service Commission will implement regulations to ensure due process and appeals. Surely that is a basic, fundamental principle upon which our labour relations are based.
My party, the Liberal Party of Canada, stands for a professional civil service that is non-partisan in nature and treats all employees with respect and fairness. It should be a model of labour relations in Canada. It should be a model in terms of the treatment of its employees as well.
The Public Service should be responsive to the needs of Canadians, draw the finest and the best and be able to keep them as well. We unequivocally support the merit principle. My colleagues and I denounce patronage and favouritism in the civil service.
We also believe deployments and re-deployments without consideration of the merit principle flaunt that principle. They counteract it and are inappropriate.
I note here that casual employees have virtually no rights, and I find that most unfortunate and inappropriate I might add. I think the whole concept of hiring any qualified person available is not necessarily a fair one. It could disregard the merit principle and we have to be on guard for that kind of possible violation.
I have noted on a number of occasions in this House that contracting out can cost more. While there have
been deep cuts to the civil service and at times, the government has bragged about those, it has been unable and/or unwilling to show how many dollars have been spent on contracting out, and whether or not that contracting out has been more expensive for Canadians if one looks at the over-all total.
That is a question I placed on the Order Paper to which I failed to receive an appropriate, adequate or precise answer.
I note the bill does not deal with pension reform, and that is unfortunate. It was a golden opportunity to do so, and it could have addressed the whole notion of de-indexing pensions, which people are very nervous about and my party opposes.
I believe, as a former senior civil servant, there is an excessive use of regulations in some certain instances. There are too many exclusions from the collective bargaining process, and the increased flexibility for managers is not counterbalanced by increased accountability.
To sum up, I would say that the main thrust of this bill, and a veiy sound one at that, is to try and come up with a policy, a somewhat different one if you want, ensuring that our Public Service will be able to meet today's and tomorrow's needs, to retain the best men and women to answer the call of the Canadian people and provide them with top quality services.
My fear is that, if we get overly concerned with flexibility-as desirable as it may be at times-we will unwillingly end up missing out on the merits we were looking for, that is, the principles we wanted to be applied, and that would be unfortunate.
I noted in several instances, as you probably did as well, Madam Speaker, that many organizations besides the unions and the employees involved are concerned about these changes. Why? Certainly there are broadminded people in these organizations, men and women who understand what the Public Service is about and share the principles I just mentioned, men and women who want to make sure that our Public Service is the best there is. If these people are concerned-and several are both against and concerned-why go ahead at this time?

Why not stop and reconsider, and try to come up with sound proposals that would address their worst fears.

I think it is important to ensure that our civil service remains at all times at the service of Canadians, staffed with the very best possible and, I stress again, with a code of conduct and labour relations that are the model for the country. If we, as the highest court of the land, are unable to give the example to other employers then why should we expect other employers to do what is right for their employees.

That is why I rose in this House today to share with you my thoughts about what should be done.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I want to make a few comments with regard to Motion No. 45. As my colleague from St. Boniface has indicated, I too am very much in favour of having a professional Public Service. By and large I think we do, but some of the rules and regulations which they, as employees, have to engage in from time to time leaves one wanting to ask a number of questions. Motion No. 45 addresses a very important aspect of the appeal process that an employee of the Public Service of Canada would have at his or her disposal should that be necessary.
The whole question on the issue of due process is something which has been a major study, if you will, in administrative law on a variety of different subjects. I would think that the parliamentary secretary, who is in the Chamber today, would want to concur that the rules of natural justice ought to apply to individuals who may be seeking an appeal based upon a particular complaint and/or an unfair action which may have been taken against them.
I want to indicate to the House regarding disclosure, the motion in part reads:
(a) requiring the disclosure of any document or information of
which the appellant has no knowledge
You do not have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that when you go before a commission which is going to
Government Orders
make a decision which affects you personally and how you will interface with other employees, and may have dire consequences as to whether or not your position will remain in effect, it is essential in 1992 and certainly for years to come that germane information be made readily available to the person in question.
Canadians would find it rather repugnant if many of them were aware that under this particular procedure, documents would not necessarily be included and verbal information, files of that nature, were not fully disclosed to the appellant in question.
That is wrong. It is terribly wrong. People might want to argue that this is not a court of law. I suggest through the Chair to members opposite that we are talking about a quasi body which has particular functions. In this day and age when employment opportunities are so scarce as a result of government policy which I know Madam Speaker does not agree with, it is even all the more important to make sure that our regulations pursuant to appeals certainly follow a due process in the rules of natural justice.
We are not asking for the moon. We are asking for such basic things as requiring the disclosure of any document or information of which the appellant has no knowledge or, in another incident, that has not been communicated to the appellant and on which the deputy head might rely.
It would be terribly, terribly unfair. If you are going to a civil proceeding or a civil trial and information is sprung at one side, whether it be the appellant in a particular case, if that information is not made readily available it makes it very difficult if not next to impossible to prepare a proper case in order to respond to some of the allegations and to some of the suggestions which may be forthcoming.
The second part of it is very very simple. It is obvious. Perhaps it needs to be underlined. The second part of Motion No. 45 reads:
(b) prescribing a notice period of not less than two weeks in
respect of the time and place of any hearing held for the purposes of
the appeal.
Two weeks is basically 10 working days, if that is what we determine under the purposes of the regulations. Surely an individual who has been aggrieved and wishes

November 19, 1992
Government Orders
to appeal that decision can have 10 working days or the equivalent of two weeks in order to prepare that appeal.
Those of us who have never been in situations or have had to go before a board which may adjudicate on our futures or how we interface with others workers in the work place might not find this to be overly important. I suggest to the Chair that when an appellant, an individual who has been aggrieved, has lost that and wishes to appeal that to a higher body, that individual may want to take, not an unreasonable period of time, but some time to reflect upon the decision in order to prepare a case which is reasonable, which is understandable and which they are comfortable with in presenting on appeal.
Therefore, it would seem to me that two weeks is not an inordinate amount of time to give to an individual who is aggrieved, has not been successful with that particular grievance and is now appealing that particular decision.
I want to share with the Chair that I would hope the rules of natural justice give the right to a hearing. It also implies that a fair hearing is a right. It would be similar if you, Madam Speaker, were to hear a point of order which was complicated in its nature and said to the House when 15 or 25 members wish to stand to make an intervention: "Well, I am not going to listen to anyone. I am going to make my decision". I think the regulations in part under this particular Motion No. 45 give the individual and the system a greater assurance that things will not be done in an arbitrary way. Notice and information will be provided so that proper and fair decisions can be made. After all, governments at the national level as well as at the provincial and municipal levels have to provide an example for the private sector and for the non-profit organizations throughout this country.
We are not asking for something which is totally unreasonable, out of line or unfair. I think it meets the test of being very reasonable and appropriate and also meets the test of rules of natural justice. I hope that members across the way will give careful consideration to the contents of Motion No. 45, keeping in mind that all of us from all political parties are interested in making certain that the professionalism of the Public Service is of a standard that cannot be questioned at any time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent for the following motion:
That seven members and eight staff persons of the subcommittee
on International Hade be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Calgary,
Winnipeg, Halifax and Quebec City to hold hearings on the North
American free trade agreement from November 29 to December 8,
1992.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and on Motion No. 45.
Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I am going to be very brief on this particular amendment. It is important to say that this amendment is attempting to ensure, as previous speakers have said, that natural justice is done. Everywhere else in Canada we believe in the basic principle of natural justice. To put this into plain language, what this amendment calls for is that the employee must be told what the employer is going to use against him or her and you be told in
November 19, 1992

sufficient time, two weeks, in order to prepare a response. It is as simple as that.
Both opposition parties would not feel so strongly in favour of this particular amendment and probably would have been satisfied with the government's clause on this had we not had a situation where three times out of the last nine years, in fact since the Liberals were in government, the agency responsible for the implementation of this act has been advised in reports that natural justice was not being served and they were failing very seriously in this regard. Three times in nine years they were failing and refused to protect in the most basic way the right of workers to a fair and open hearing.
I believe that clarifies why people on this side of the House are not satisfied to hear the government say: "We will protect the workers". We are asking for natural justice here, the right of a worker to have basic information about what he or she is being accused of and two weeks in which to prepare a response.
In our Canada that is not an outrageous or extreme thing to ask for, particularly with the track record of the commission.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, just before we take the question, I listened very carefully to my colleague from British Columbia. She served on the legislative committee and certainly contributed a great deal.
I just want to remind her and indeed all of us that the commission has committed itself to make regulations to this particular effect once Bill C-26 is through the House or is passed. It informed its members as of last April, so I think we have heeded some of this advice and some of the concerns that are there and indeed, this will be looked into and addressed.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


An hon. member:: Nay.


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


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


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 47
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 31 by striking out line 42 at
page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
""Chair" for the word "Chairman" wher-".
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-26 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at
page 17 the following new clause:
"31.1 The French version of the said Act is further amended by substituting the words "la presidence" for "le president" wherever the latter occurs in the said Act."
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 78
(a)	by striking out line 37 at page 49 and substituting the following therefor:
"78.(1) The English version of the said Act is"; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 4 at page 50 the following:
"(2) The French version of the said Act is further amended by substituting the word "presidence" for the word "president", the word "vice-presidence" for the word "vice-president" and the words "suppleance de la presidence" for the words "president suppleant"."
She said: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to speak long on any of these amendments, but simply indicate the purpose of them. I have sat through a number of legislative committees and I have certainly spent enough hours, in fact months, on this particular legislation.
A good part of our discussion has been about equity and fairness and in regarding all people as equal, based on their ability to do a job. Until the legislation passed by this House reflects an equal treatment of men and women and reflects in its language that we do not discriminate on the basis of gender, it will be very

Government Orders
difficult to change attitudes out there in society and in the work place about where women fit in society.
We have been very ad hoc in this Chamber about gender neutral language in our legislation. I am merely proposing language that is consistent with other bills that we have done. In fact, with respect to the French reference to la Presidence, that was a rare and welcome result of co-operation between government and nongovernment members on a previous legislative committee to come up with language that is equally gender neutral in French and in English. I would hope that notwithstanding the fate of these particular amendments, Madam Speaker, that you, and through you the Speaker, will take very seriously this issue of how legislation comes before the House so that it is consistently gender neutral.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 47. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The same also applies to motions 49 and 75.


IMMIGRATION ACT
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to report stage and third reading of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof. Under the provision of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings of the said stages.


PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, as reported with amendments from a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 51 and 53 are grouped for debate.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 51
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 32 by striking out lines 7 to 9
at page 19.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 32 by striking out line 21 at
page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
'basis, unless the person has been so employed for a period of six months or more,"
She said: Madam Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this and again on the issue of fair and equal treatment.
What this clause that I am proposing to amend does is define who an employee is for purposes of bargaining rights and any collective rights under the Public Service Employment Act.

One of the things it does is exclude part-time employees. Part-time employees and their access to full rights as workers is an important issue for women. It is an important issue for people with disabilities. Increasingly it is an important issue for all workers who are concerned about blending their work environment with their personal responsibilities. I think the government is well aware that in the private sector, as in the public sector, that is becoming a key issue on how one attracts and retains qualified productive employees. To exclude parttime employees from any collective rights whatsoever is archaic, to say the least. The government has taken one progressive step in giving part-time employees access to pension rights. It is also time to give them access to other rights as employees.
Motion No. 53 is a similar motion. In the legislation that is before us, "casual employees" are excluded from any rights. We previously debated casuals in the federal government. This legislation sets up a whole new group of employees that can be hired or fired on a moment's notice or on a whim. They have no rights. Nonetheless the legislation is set up so that they can continually, year after year, be working as casuals for the Government of Canada.
It is wrong to have casuals who may be with you year after year with absolutely no rights as employees. These would be full-time people who would have no benefits, no rights to grieve, no rights to complain if they have been dismissed, no matter how long they have been with the government. They have no right to appeal any action taken against them.
This leaves us open again to full arbitrary action by those who have control over their lives. In both these cases, a humane, fair and just work place requires that these employees have access to rights.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, once again I would like to say thank you to my colleague from Ottawa West. I do recognize some of her concerns.
Today, part-time employees who work more than 12.5 hours per week have collective rights. They have had them since 1967. That is not going to change under the bill.
Government Orders
We did make some extensions with regard to 3,000 and
4,000	employees who were previously excluded on confidential grounds unrelated to labour relation confidentialities. We have made some rights in that area.
We are speaking of casual labour. I know and understand the concerns that the people have, but the amendments with regard to casual labour in clause 16 of the bill provides that casual employees may be appointed for a period of up to 90 days. That can be extended, but in no case can they work more than 125 days.
This is consistent with many of the labour relations acts right across the country. We are being extremely consistent and we have recognized the concerns of our people.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for the government side of the House is absolutely right. The government is consistent. It is consistently mean-spirited and determined to take away every right that a public sector worker under its jurisdiction has, wants or should have under what we, as Canadians, believe are basic rights of working people.
It is quite misleading for the hon. member to say that part-time workers have had the right after so many hours for an indefinite period of time. Yes, that is true, but casual workers do not. There are casual workers right here in this building who have been working for the government for 20 years and are still casual workers.
They have no rights to vacation, they have no rights to collective bargaining protection, they have no rights to union protection and they have no rights to grieve. They have no rights, period. They have worked here for 20 years, and I can parade them out for this government any time it wants to know who they are.
The problem is that they are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to say anything because they have no rights. I am sorry if I sound a little bit uptight about this but it is a very important issue. It is time that workers who work for this government and this country get the protection that all workers should enjoy. They should not be treated as a different class of worker for endless years.
We are not talking about casual workers when it is 20 years. There is nothing casual about that. That is a lifetime commitment to this country and to this government.

Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 51. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
gram; the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revels-toke-Westray	Mine; the hon. member for
Saint-Leonard-Montreal's Economy; the hon. member for South West Nova-Fisheries.


Joy Langan: Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 32 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 19 the following:
"(2.1) That the definition of "grievance", other than paragraphs (a) and (b), in section 2 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted:
"grievance" means a complaint in writing presented in accordance with this Act by an employee on his or her own behalf or on behalf of the employee and one or more other employees or by a bargaining agent acting on its own behalf or on behalf of one or more employees, except that".


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 56
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 32 by striking out lines 42 to 45 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville-Court Challenges Pro-
"(3) The definition of "grievance" in section 2 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted:
"grievance" means a complaint in writing presented in accordance with this Act by an employee on behalf of the employee or on behalf of the employee and one or more other employees or a complaint in writing presented in accordance with this Act by a bargaining agent acting on its own behalf or on behalf of one or more employees, except that".


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, it is really important that we start to see the pattern emerging here. We are starting to see a pattern of amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act that include things like endless terms for casuals, with no willingness to take a look at the unfairness of that, and clauses such as those we have just had motions on that take away workers' rights and allow the government to transfer people with impunity. All the way through the discussions on this in the community hearings, in the committee meetings following that, in the clause by clause debate in committee, and now in the House we consistently see that paternalistic big brother attitude of trust us, trust the Public Service Commission. It said it would do it years ago and it still is not doing it.
It is important that we start to view this document for what it is, and that is a mean-spirited, nasty document that is designed to take away rights. It is designed to set the pace because what happens in the federal government service sets the attitude and the pace for federal

November 19, 1992

jurisdiction collective bargaining and federal jurisdiction corporate attitudes.
It is important too when we address the amendment regarding grievances to be very clear on what this motion is about. It would bring the rights of public sector workers into line with the rights of private sector workers. It is not a lot to ask, not an unreasonable request. That is in the area with regard to grievances.
As it currently stands, the Public Service Staff Relations Act without this amendment does not allow unions to have policy grievances. This motion would remedy that omission in the act. If the representatives of the worker are truly to be regarded as partners in the work place, as we have heard so vociferously from the government in the past couple of years about the partnership in the work place, the unions then must have the right to pursue work place issues which affect their membership and even in the absence of an individual griever.
Why would the union have to have the right to pursue a grievance in the absence of an individual griever, one might ask. Because in many instances a worker is too intimidated because of threat or fear, it may be unfounded fear, of reprisals if he or she grieves against the employer.
This amendment allows the union, on behalf of that worker who is afraid to grieve, the right to grieve on his or her behalf. That is all this amendment does. The government has decided in its wisdom this is another right that we are not prepared to allow our workers to have.
This is not a new concept in the labour relations field. It is something that private sector workers enjoy under labour codes across this country, including the Canada Labour Code. If you work for the government, you do not have the rights that a worker in the private sector under the Canada Labour Code has.
Given the restrictions on collective bargaining already faced by the unions in the federal public sector, this motion is a very small step toward the recognition that the workers and their representatives have the right to seek and receive a determination of their rights. It is about protecting an individual worker and ensuring that
Government Orders
every opportunity is there so that an aggrieved worker with no fear of repercussion can grieve.
It is not a frivolous motion. It is not intended to open the door to a flood of silly grievances or bum beefs. It is a serious amendment that would ensure a worker has the right without fear of recrimination to grieve that he or she is protected. It is also a motion that would provide the union with the right to a policy grievance if the worker did not like the working conditions but it was contrary to what has been agreed to in the collective agreement.
I would ask again that the government take this particular motion into account as being a fair-minded one and when we vote on these motions on Monday would support this amendment.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat what has already been said by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam. However, it is time for the Public Service Employment Act to come a little closer, for its own employees, to rights enjoyed by every other worker across this country. The issue of the individuals who are afraid of reprisals if they stand up for their rights is a very real one. It is becoming even more crucial because of the amendments in this piece of legislation before us.
We have talked earlier about casual employees who will have no rights. A whole new classification of employees is being created in Bill C-26. We have talked about deployment, which is going to apply, ultimately, to virtually any appointment within the Public Service except the initial hiring. There will be virtually no right to appeal or complain against deployments which can move one from here to Halifax, from Halifax to Vancouver, from one department to the other, up the scale or down the scale of salaries. Because of those deployments, opportunities to advance and fear of being demoted will depend on the goodwill of the supervisor, there is going to be even more reluctance than there is now to complain in an informal way or launch a formal grievance.
It becomes even more important then that public service employees have the ability to complain or launch

Government Orders
a grievance on behalf of a group of employees who are all affected, rather than each of them having to individually launch a grievance and be subject to reprisals.
One may say that does not happen. We have wonderful managers and that simply does not happen. The whole grievance procedure ensures it happens. The whole hierarchy in the Public Service ensures it happens. I have seen complaints from people about harassment that drag on month after month after month, going up the line from a supervisor who is responsible to a supervisor above him or her. Each one simply reaffirms the decision taken at the previous level. That is the way it works, let us be honest.
People stop making complaints, accept unjust treatment and are subject to reprisals when they do complain or grieve. If any of us are listening to our constituents who are Public Service employees, we know it happens. That is why this ability to take a collective agreement is essential if we truly want a public service where harassment and reprisals against people for standing up for their rights are not the rule but the exception. Then these amendments to the grievance procedure are absolutely essential.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 55. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division of the proposed motion stands deferred. There is no necessity then to put the question on Motion No. 56.
It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Tbesday, June 23, 1992, in accordance with Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and proceed to the putting of the question on all remaining motions at the report stage of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada.


Joy Langan: Motion No. 58
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 32 by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"in the executive group,".
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 32 by striking out lines 1 and 2 at page 21.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 60
That Bill C-26 be amended in the English version of Clause 33 by striking out line 42 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"the determination of any".
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 33 by striking out line 47 at page 21 and lines 1 to 4 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"sibilities and authority over employees;".
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 33 by striking out line 13 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"conflict of interest by reason of the".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 58. 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
nays have it.
November 19, 1992

And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 59. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 60. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 62. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The final question in this grouping is on Motion No.
64.	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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. We will now proceed to the next grouping.


Joy Langan: Motion No. 66
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out line 21 at
page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"unit with respect to their rights under the collective agreement that is applicable to them."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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.

Government Orders


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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Joy Langan: Motion No. 67
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out line 28 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"regard to, but not be limited by, the plan of classification, including".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Joy Langan: Motion No. 68
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out line 36 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"included in it or would not represent a community of interest amongst the employees and, for such reasons would not".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Marlene Catterall: moved:
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 32 at
page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"ment, the Board, if it is of the opinion that a fact finder could assist in reaching an agreement, after the Chairperson has".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 72 and 73 have been grouped together.


Joy Langan: Motion No. 72
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 68(1)
November 19, 1992

(a)	by striking out line 14 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"amended by striking the first line of the paragraph and substituting the following therefor: "Where an employee or a bargaining agent has presented a" and by striking out the word "or" at the";
(b)	by striking out lines 21 to 31 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"or designated pursuant to subsection (3),
(i)	disciplinary action or,
(ii)	termination of employment.
(c)	In the case of an employee not described in paragraph (b) and the grievance has not been dealt with to the satisfaction of the employee or bargaining agent, the employee or bargaining agent may, subject to subsection (2), refer the grievance to adjudication.
(i) An employee is not entitled to refer a grievance to adjudication unless the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit, to which the collective agreement or arbitral award referred to signifies in the prescribed manner its approval of the reference of the grievance to adjudication and its willingness to represent the employee in the adjudication proceedings.";
(c) by striking out lines 35 to 39 at page 44.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 73
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 68 by striking out lines 29 to 31 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"described in paragraph (b), demotion, termination of employment, or disciplinary action,".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 72. 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
nays have it.
Government Orders
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. Motion No. 73 will not be voted upon at this time.
Motion No. 77 will be voted upon separately.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 77
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 81 by striking out lines 36 to
39 at page 50 and lines 1 to 6 at page 51.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 79
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 81 by striking out lines 11
to 15 at page 53.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 nays have it.

Private Members' Business
And more than five members having risen:


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


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 81
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 101 by adding immediately
after line 14 at page 61 the following:
"(3) Groups of employees shall be specified and defined according to a system of classification that does not discriminate on the basis of gender."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House. However, pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 18, all recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill are deferred until Monday, November 23, at six o'clock p.m.
May we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: that Bill C-330, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Parole Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Hamilton, the victims of crimes and their families, the
55,000	Canadians who have signed the petition in support of Bill C-330, and on behalf of the regional municipality of Waterloo, the corporation of the city of Cambridge, the corporation of the city of Kitchener, the corporation of the city of Hamilton, the Canadian Police Association, the Ontario Police Association, and the Ontario Police Chiefs, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in this House to debate second reading of Bill C-330.
As many of us watch and participate in the House today and as many of the Canadians who have written to me are watching and are aware of this debate, the bill rose out of concerns of victims of violence. It arises from the multitude of tragedies and unspeakable anguish of victims of violent crimes, be they the victims of an assault or the parents or spouse of a deceased victim who have lost faith in our system of justice and want change.
Let me be clear at this point on their aspirations. These victims of violent crimes do not want to get even. They are not looking for any kind of revenge. They want a system of justice to take into consideration; first, the views of the victim of a violent offence as it relates to the sentencing of the individual charged with an offence, and second, the protection of the public from violent offenders.
It is truly amazing from the many, many town hall meetings I attended with members of families who are themselves victims of violence that these families are not out for money. They are not out for revenge. They just plain and simple do not want to be victimized again. They do not want others to go through the same tragic circumstances they have had to live through.

November 19, 1992

Victims of violent crimes and hundreds of thousands of Canadians know that despite the changes made to date on parole legislation through Bill C-36 and the codification of existing legal practices and conventions through Bill C-90, this is just the first step. So much more can be done to address the concerns of victims of violence.
Back in March 1991 I met with members of the Edwards family in my Hamilton constituency office. The Edwards family are the victims of a most brutal crime. Sitting across from me was Michelle Edwards who watched as her parents were murdered in their home. With her was her brother-in-law, Terry Smith, who has been a valuable friend and confidant and someone who has helped me construct this bill from that very first visit back in March 1991.
They were in my office just a week after Michelle's parents were murdered. Their fear at that point, a week after that murder, was that there was a good possibility they had heard that the murderer of Michelle's parents, if convicted of the crime, would be released from prison in as little as 15 years. In fact, their fear was that if convicted the individual would be eligible for escorted day passes. There were questions as to how the murderer was out on bail. He was charged with a violent offence at the time and was out on bail. The very woman sitting across from me in my Hamilton constituency office had watched this individual murder her parents while out on bail.
Upon completion of the six week trial the individual in question was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder. As it was described to me the Edwards family truly believed that the individual would serve the rest of his life in prison for these crimes.
In fact, when they came out of the court room after having sat through all that trial and having watched the individual be convicted of his crimes, people were coming up to them and saying: "Congratulations. You will not have to worry about him anymore; he is in jail for the rest of his life with no chance of parole". To their horror and in fact disgust they painfully learned that not only would this individual serve just one sentence for all three convictions, or as Michelle put it to me: "He killed my mother. The death of my father and the attempted murder of me were freebies". He would be eligible for full parole in just 15 years. In fact, under the current law he is eligible for an escorted temporaiy absence today.
If that crime had happened to any of us sitting in the
Private Members' Business
House today, how do you think we would respond? From the beginning Bill C-330 was a response not only to this personal and tragic case but it also became a focus of bitterness and sorrow following the murders of Nina de Villiers, Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffey and Kayla Klaudusz. All these shook southern Ontario specifically in 1991.
Before explaining the details of Bill C-330 to this House I want to explain the government's legislative initiatives for the public. This is all necessary in order to highlight the fact that even the most recent amendments to our laws fall very short of the types of amendments victims of crime and the cause of public protection deserve.
Bill C-36 introduced by the Solicitor General in October 1991 and proclaimed in June of this year is in essence a reshuffling of the deck of parole and the related provisions of the Criminal Code. What I mean by this is that the bill was heralded by the Solicitor General in the following way: "The act contains significant measures to reform the legislation. Above all, these measures assert that the primary duty of the corrections system is protection of the public". In fact, Bill C-36 did attempt to comfort the victims of violence but what it did not do was assure those victims of violence. What it did do is create more laws but not enough justice.
How about those dangerous offenders, offenders who are convicted and sentenced to federal prisons for offences such as sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, assault with a weapon and murder? Violent offences. The changes to legislation with respect to these offenders were not the types of changes that would benefit public protection.
For offences other than murder, offenders are eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence. If the National Parole Board considers an offender fit for parole they can be paroled. However, under a provision of Bill C-36 called statutory release at two-thirds of their sentence, offenders must be released from prison.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if certain offenders have not been released at the one-third point of their sentences because the National Parole Board considers them unfit for full parole does this legislation meet the test of public protection if they must be allowed full parole after serving just two-thirds of their sentence? No.

Private Members' Business
The government's bill fails the test of public protection. It is nothing short of a farce. It has been allowed to trumpet this bill as representing the paramountcy of public protection. Nothing could be further from the truth.
At the time of passage of Bill C-36 we in the official opposition called on the government to simultaneously provide sentencing legislation because we cannot have one without the other. Finally it produced Bill C-90 which we on this side of the House believe also fails the test of public protection.
What does this House know about our system of justice and parole? The House recalls the case of Daniel Gingras, an inmate at the Edmonton institution who escaped while on escorted temporary absence to the West Edmonton Mall. It was deemed to be for rehabilitative reasons. He was allowed to go to the mall because it was his birthday.
Daniel Gingras was able to convince the warden of the penitentiary to allow him to go with an escort smaller than the larger burly escort who was scheduled to take him. He escaped his guardian's custody and while at large from prison murdered two people and later was convicted on two counts of first degree murder.
There are so many other examples, all violent criminals, all individuals who are convicted of murder or rape. Daniel Gingras as we mentioned on escorted temporary absence in the province of Alberta, went on to murder two more people. Alan Legere on medical temporary absence in New Brunswick went on to murder four people. Patrick Mailloux on day parole in New Brunswick went on to murder one more person. Joseph Fredricks under mandatory supervision in Ontario went on to murder one person. Melvin Stanton on day parole in Ontario went on to murder one person. David Rose, out on day parole in Alberta went on to murder one person.
How about the latest? I have 18 names here, Mr. Speaker. My time is short. How about Dean Cyr? That is a name we have all read in the papers just recently. While out on parole in the province of Alberta he murdered two more people.
A man who gunned down nine members of a Saskatchewan family and sentenced as Canada's first mass murderer has been released from Penetanguishene hospital although the public was not informed. Is this protection of the public?
Again I ask my colleagues in this House to put yourselves in the shoes of the victims of violence. Are these not frightening examples of how the justice system has failed victims of violence? These situations which I have outlined are only the thin edge of the wedge. They represent only a fraction of the cases where violent offenders are released from prison on day parole or temporary escorted and unescorted absences, who have committed violent crimes and Canadians feel powerless to do anything about it.
As a former Alberta crown prosecutor, Scott Newark, has noted, a list of offenders he recently compiled shows that in the last five years 19 offenders were found to have been responsible for 22 murders while on some form of parole. As Scott Newark noted, Canadians should be made aware of these incidents because he wants them to know that they are not the exception to the rule. They occur much more frequently. He wants Canadians to know that these are not cases of offenders falling through the cracks because if they were, these cracks are as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Under Bill C-330 I believe that Canadians can feel secure. Unlike Bill C-36 and Bill C-90, Bill C-330 does protect the public. It provides public protection and the rights of victims as its paramount objectives. Under my bill, victims of violence will have rights, rights not considerations.
The victims of violent crimes or their families or their spouses, if the person is deceased, must be consulted throughout the judicial process. It is not much to ask. When an offender is arrested, the victims must be notified of his or her release on bail. If the offender commits an act while out on bail, he or she will be incarcerated pending trial.
Victims of crime will be consulted all the way through the trial. They will be present at pre-trial hearings, where so often the plea bargaining process that Canadians hear about will be curtailed because the victim's statements must be taken into consideration and lesser charges will not be traded off to dispense with the case.
November 19, 1992

When the offenders are convicted, victims of crime must be notified of any change in incarceration of that inmate. Victims would be notified of the day on which an inmate was scheduled for parole, the days on which the inmate would be absent on escorted absence for rehabilitative reasons, and any escape of the offender.
With respect to unescorted or escorted temporary absences, for violent offenders convicted of sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and murder, Bill C-330 would deny day passes and escorted or unescorted absences. Bill C-330 would keep those violent offenders in jail until they were eligible for full parole. If they wanted to be released on a day parole or on an escorted or unescorted temporary absence for humanitarian or rehabilitative or medical reasons, they could get it. But that decision would have to come directly from cabinet.
This is what we are talking about. We are talking about public protection and accountability. Members of the National Parole Board are seen as somehow isolated from the concerns of Canadians, and perhaps they are in many respects. Certainly we have many examples of that. This bill would make our elected cabinet responsible for releasing offenders and make the system accountable. Is that not what Canadians are crying out for today? They want accountability.
Bill C-330 would deny parole to offenders convicted of first degree murder. The law currently states that the remedy for persons convicted of first degree murder is life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. This bill would remove eligibility for parole. Life would mean life. For the thousands of victims in Canada who want real protection, life means life.
That may be harsh, and I know some members in this House would find that too tough. I have spoken to the Edwards family. I have consulted with them and I said, look, there may be members in the House of Commons who might not agree with you, and in fact may not allow

if you can imagine for a moment-this bill to go on to committee stage for a full and frank discussion, because of that particular motion. The Edwards family said fine, then tell them.
Private Members' Business
We go to committee stage and just maybe we can discuss it, and if it is too harsh then what we can do is not have life mean life, but maybe we can put forward the position that if an individual is convicted of three murders then that individual gets a 25 year sentence for each of the murders. In our current system, if I go out and murder someone, then another one, and another one, as happened to the Edwards family, I go to jail for one term of 25 years if convicted. So it was a freebie for me that I murdered her father. It was a freebie for me that I almost murdered Michelle. All these are freebies, because I will only go in for 25 years. Then I will be eligible for a reduction by parole to 15 years. I can apply.
Is there anyone among us here tonight who would say that we are not even prepared to discuss this issue at committee stage? I would like to seek the unanimous consent of this House that at the conclusion of this debate, at one minute to six, to move Bill C-330 to a legislative committee in the departmental envelope.
I thank you for that consideration, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues in the House of Commons for then-attention. I know they have received mail and petitions. I thank the victims of violence who participated in the process of this bill: the Edwards family and the Smith family who consulted with me and helped me structure this bill. I also thank the legal clerk of the House who helped me put this bill together. I thank all those people who took pen in hand, in all the communities across this country, not just Ontario, and put their signature to a petition that said: "Please, at least give us the opportunity to have the open discussion at committee stage".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to read that to the House and get consent.
The member seeks the unanimous consent of this House to move Bill C-330 to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope. Is there unanimous consent?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking for is that you move that motion at the conclusion of the frank and open discussion in my private members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So you want the unanimous consent at the conclusion of the debate.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Yes, thank you.

November 19, 1992
Private Members' Business


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me speak today in the debate on Private Member's Bill C-330. It seems that the criminal justice system has held a place of prominence in the House in recent months. The Minister of Justice has sponsored legislative reform in the areas of sexual assault, gun control, young offenders, extradition, mental disorder, and sentencing. The Solicitor General has done his share in legislative reform with amendments to the Criminal Records Act and sweeping reform, indeed the complete replacement, of the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act through Bill C-36 which has created a new Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Far be it from me to say that any legislation, no matter how newly minted, is perfect for all situations. It is our duty as legislators to remain vigilant for changing circumstances that may require the reform of existing laws and we must be alert to inconsistencies and anomalies in our laws that may give rise to injustices. The private member's bill is a mechanism by which reparative measures can be suggested-and sometimes enacted. I need not remind hon. members that the persistence of the hon. member for Mississauga South in the matter of pardons had much influence on the recent initiative which revised the Criminal Records Act. I am a great believer in the importance of those items debated under Private Members' Business.
The bill before us, standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West, seems to fit right in with the recent government reforms in the area of criminal justice.
I fear however that Bill C-330, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Parole Act, asks us to reconsider items that could have been included in Bill C-36. Indeed, many of these points were reviewed extensively by witnesses and parliamentarians in the process of passing Bill C-36.
As all hon. members probably know, Bill C-330 was referred to the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, where all parties are represented. Upon review, it was determined that since this bill did not have
unanimous support in the House of Commons, it would not be put to a vote at second reading.
I know that some tragic events in and around the constituency of Hamilton West have put tremendous pressure on the hon. member and on us all to find solutions to problems in the field of criminal justice.
The public reaction to recent deplorable and senseless crimes is quite understandable. Canadians' efforts to urge the government to make changes are commendable. However, I think that several of the amendments proposed in the bill are already in the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act, while some of the other proposed measures do less for victims than this legislation.
In the limited time available to me, I would like to show you how the government has already addressed many of the key issues in Bill C-330. I think that hon. members will then see that the bill before us as it is does not reflect the best interests of the Canadian public.
The new Corrections and Conditional Release Act came into force on November 1, 1992. It provides a comprehensive set of rules governing how a prison sentence is to be served and when and how release will take place.
This legislation makes it clear that public safety is the paramount consideration in all correctional decisionmaking and provides explicit criteria for correctional and conditional release decisions. The legislation provides authority and direction to correctional staff and officials and informs offenders of the nature of their obligations and rights, as well as the limitations on those rights.
It promotes more effective exchange of information concerning offenders between correctional authorities, the courts, the police and officials responsible for release. Of great importance is the specific authority it provides for the release of pertinent information about offenders to victims of crime. This is also a key feature of Bill C-330.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the new law provides better protection to victims and involves them more in the correctional and conditional release process. Its provisions for use of victims' statements and for sharing information are not restricted to certain categories of offences or to certain decisions. Bill C-330 is restricted
November 19, 1992

in these respects, and would exclude certain victims from participating in these ways.
The new act allows for victim input at all points in the correctional process. Similarly, it allows victims of any criminal act, not just the few crimes listed in Bill C-330, to request specific information on offenders.
The CCRA goes even further, in that it permits the National Parole Board to increase public access to parole hearings by giving it the authority to decide who may attend them as an observer.
This will allow more members of the public, including victims, to attend hearings and will help open up the parole process, demystify it and promote accountability in parole decisions.
A number of elements in Bill C-330 are not compatible with the new act and therefore should not be supported. For example, Bill C-330 would restrict certain types of conditional release for certain violent offenders. Of course the government endorses the principle that violent offenders should be more closely scrutinized and more stringently dealt with than nonviolent offenders. That is at the heart of the CCRA. However, the government also recognizes that gradual, structured, controlled release of offenders is in the community's best interest. Eliminating certain types of conditional release for those offenders who most need a structured, controlled return to the community makes no sense to me.
We must remember that not only full-time release to the community is involved. We are also talking about short-term releases whereby offenders can obtain therapeutic treatment in the community when such treatment is not available in the institution.
Surely that type of release, where the offender does not pose a risk, is in the best interests of both the public and the offenders. Yet Bill C-330 would abolish that type of release for those offenders who need it most.
The bill also proposes that certain temporary absence passes be approved by cabinet rather than by the National Parole Board. The Solicitor General commissioned a comprehensive outside review of the temporary absence program as part of the reform of the correctional system. Nowhere in the report, which was written by a panel consisting of a lawyer, a former member of Parliament and a former police chief and which endorsed the temporary absence program subject to a number of
Private Members' Business
recommendations, did they recommend that authority for temporary absences be turned over to cabinet.
If a temporary absence program is to be effective, it must have decision-makers who are familiar with the individual offender's case, and it must be able to respond to situations where, for example, an offender requests a pass to attend the funeral of a family member being held within a day or two. Requiring such requests to go to cabinet would be extraordinarily cumbersome and completely counterproductive to the aims of the temporary absence program. If accountability for decision-making is the issue, I would suggest that there are better ways of achieving it.
The central objective of the CCRA is increased public protection and restoration of public confidence in the system. The problem of crime will always be with us, and the debate will continue as to how best to deal with convicted offenders, especially those convicted of violent offences. We must at all times remain attentive to public concerns about crime and criminal justice.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this afternoon to make my contribution to this debate on Bill C-330, standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West.
For a long time we have been dealing with a very serious and tragic problem in our society, and that is the increase in the number of violent crimes being committed day by day across this country. There is a very real fear that unless we adopt the appropriate measures, the criminal element within our society and our society itself will become more and more like our neighbours to the south.
At the outset of my brief remarks I want to remind the House that the Americans have gone the route that Bill C-330 to some extent wishes to go, the turn the lock and throw the key away approach to violent offenders.
If longer sentences or lifetime sentences would bring greater security to our neighbourhoods, I would support it. Also the United States would probably be the safest country in the world in which to live. Unfortunately, that is not what happens. There is no correlation between longer sentences and diminution in the number of violent crimes in society. Surely we have to look elsewhere for some of the solutions. I am suggesting that there are no solutions to this problem that will totally

November 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
eradicate violent crime. I know the hon. member appreciates that as well.
For example, this bill would completely eliminate parole for offenders convicted of first degree murder.
I know that many of these murders, in fact most of them, are heinous crimes, they are horrible crimes. The member knows that some of the perpetrators will never be let out. I am quite certain that Clifford Olson is there for the rest of his life. There are others like him in there.
Take for example the 12 who are out right now as a result of the 15-year judicial review. Not one of them has reoffended. We have people in this country today who were convicted of capital murder under the old system who have never reoffended. Indeed, if you take all the convicted murderers as a group in our prison population, when they are released they have the lowest recidivism rate of any group in our prison system.
I know that it almost sounds cruel to use these statistics and figures if we are dealing with an individual personal tragedy. Words, arguments, debate or laws cannot bring back loved ones. They cannot erase the horrible memory of that terrible, heinous crime and I am not suggesting for a moment that anything we do in this Chamber can accomplish that. I am asking and pleading for a reasonable objective approach when it comes to altering the laws with respect to violent criminals. I am convinced that violent criminals should be kept in jail much longer than they presently are. The one-third can now be increased to one-half of sentence.
I told the Solicitor General in the justice and solicitor general's committee that if he wanted to raise that to 75 per cent of the sentence, I would support him, provided that the government was prepared to improve the programs for these offenders when they were behind bars and provided the programs were made adequate for all of them.
You know what happens now. They get thrown into prison, they sit there and vegetate for about one-half, two-thirds or three-quarters of their sentence and then in the year before they are to be released they are zipped
through a program and out the door they go, not fully prepared for the street.
One of the basic tenets in our criminal justice system and in our prison system today is that history has proven it is safer for society to gradually release violent offenders and even some sexual offenders. They should gradually be released into society rather than keeping them there for five, eight or ten years and then throwing them out cold turkey on to the street without any preparation, without any training or rehabilitation programs and without any supervision.
When the warrant expires, they have done their time and they are out the door. Some of them are cunning enough to know that they do not want early parole. They would rather wait until termination of sentence so that they could go out without any supervision. That is the time to make sure you gate them and bring them back in. That is where I would like to see this bill become operative.
I am supporting this bill at second reading because I want it to go to a committee. I want it fully discussed because there are a lot of things wrong with our criminal justice system today and there are a lot of things wrong with our present parole system which Bill C-36 incidentally, does not address. I sat through all those hearings and as far as I am concerned, it was largely a sham.
Let us take a look at some of the statistics on temporary escorted and unescorted leaves. The successful completion rate in this country of unescorted temporary absences is 99.28 per cent. This is not an exact science. We know that if we are going to have a system where they are gradually released into society, unfortunately and tragically, someone is going to reoffend.
It is not an exact science. We do not have a 100 per cent guarantee, but when the unescorted temporary absence success rate is 99.28 per cent that is pretty good. In fact, it is one of the best in the world.
Escorted temporary absences are 99.97 per cent successful. It takes only one to rape, murder, strangle and kill an innocent girl, a loved one, a mother or a father. It sickens the whole community, but I do not know how we square that with keeping them all behind bars for the entire sentence so they come on to the street totally unprepared. I suggest to you it could be worse. I
November 19, 1992

am not saying that it would be. I am saying it could be worse than these statistics would otherwise suggest.
There should be "no ETA for humanitarian or medical reasons unless approved by Governor in Council". Between 1975 and 1986, the National Parole Board released 52,484 inmates. I really do not know how a cabinet could handle that kind of workload. They would end up taking the advice of the National Parole Board anyway. As a practical measure I do not think it would work. It would be rubber stamped through the cabinet and they would be on parole anyway.
While I use that figure of 52,484 inmates who were paroled in those 11 or 12 years, only 63 of them where serving a sentence for capital murder, which would be similar to murder one today. Of those 63 who were serving a sentence for capital murder that were sentenced before 1976, only two were sent back because they had committed an offence against a person.
If we try to look at this as dispassionately as we can, we come to several conclusions. First, the system is not perfect. Second, the parole system is extremely effective and very successful when compared to other jurisdictions, for example in the United States or in Europe. It is not perfect but it is extremely good. Third, how do we get around the issue of gradual release into society if we are going to throw the key away and keep people in jail for the rest of their lives, particularly in the case of those convicted of first degree murder.
Sometimes even the worst human wretch in society is capable of reformation and rehabilitation. We have living examples of them today in our society, where they have been rehabilitated and have come back to live useful lives.
Could you imagine what prisons would be like if we had lifers in there with no hope of release ever? Could you imagine what life would be like for prison guards, for other inmates and for other people working in the prison environment? It would be an intolerable situation.
Private Members' Business
I look forward to further discussions on Bill C-330. I thank the member for Hamilton West for presenting this bill. I hope it will go to a committee so that we can give it a thorough airing.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to comment briefly on Bill C-330.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West who introduced this private member's bill in the House. As you know, I seconded the motion for second reading, which does not mean I agree with all the provisions the bill contains. In fact, if that were the case, we could rid of the process we have here in Parliament-second reading, study in committee and third reading-and just fine tune the changes made in various bills during consideration in committee.
My point is that although a member may disagree with one or two sections of a bill, this is not sufficient reason to reject the entire text, at least not at the second reading stage.
At third reading, if members of this House are still convinced the bill was not satisfactorily improved in committee, the process will take its course.

That is not what is before us today. This is discussion in principle. This is second reading. The discussion in principle is on the topic whether or not violent crime victims and their families should be allowed a greater say. That is the fundamental principle behind it.
Yes, some provisions of the bill are perhaps harsh. I will get to those later. With this bill there would be an automatic provision for victims to provide an impact statement for their families. That is something we badly need.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg told us earlier that it was now possible in some cases for victims to provide this kind of impact statement. That may be true, but it is not automatic. It is optional, as a result of recent amendments to Bill C-36. With Bill C-330, if I am not

Private Members' Business
mistaken, this privilege would become a right. I think that symbolically this is very important.

The member for Brant spoke of the lock the door and throw away the key approach. I know he did not suggest that was exactly the purpose of the bill, but that concern does exist. Nowhere in this bill does it say criminals are not to be rehabilitated while they are incarcerated.
There is nothing in the bill which precludes that from happening, nor is there anything that precludes the rehabilitation of criminals right now, even though it is not done sufficiently in my view. Tb that extent, I share the view of the member for Brant that criminals are not adequately rehabilitated at the present time.
We do not have a bad record as a nation in that regard, but that does not mean to say it cannot be improved. We should do more.
On the other hand, the rights of the victim and the rights of the convicted criminal are on a pendulum and I believe at the present time that pendulum has swung quite a bit too far in the direction of those who have committed the crimes. The victims are neglected, or at least not being treated as they should.

That is why I welcome the opportunity to support this bill. I hope that later on all members will vote for the bill at second reading, not so that it can be rushed through the House and get Royal Assent and come into effect tomorrow morning-members opposite know better than that-but so that it can be referred to a parliamentary committee that will give the proposed legislation thorough consideration, amend the bill and improve it as all bills should be, especially government bills, which often need improving. It is certainly not unusual for a bill to require some changes at the committee stage.
Personally I think the section that says someone who has committed murder should never be allowed to leave prison is too harsh. However, I believe the present legislation is not strict enough. Of course there will be adjustments in committee, as the hon. member for Brant mentioned. By referring the bill to a parliamentary committee, we will have a chance to talk to a number of people who advise us and make recommendations.

In terms of whether or not cabinet approval should be sought for releases, I find it unusual that some would say cabinet approval would be a form of rubber stamp. Perhaps that is so, to a degree, but the accountability is still there.
I remind the House that right now, for instance, thousands upon thousands of people in this country are landed immigrants through the same process of Order in Council approvals. You see stacks of them in the Canada Gazette all the time. Why is that not just left to administration? Because there is a form of accountability there. When the system goes wrong we can ultimately, as the custodians of the rights of the people of this country, ask questions in this House. That is one of the reasons why that is there. The fact that cabinet ministers' staff advise them to make recommendations does not particularly bother me. I do not expect the minister to physically enter the penitentiary and start interviewing all the candidates before they can go to their mother-in-law's funeral or something. Obviously that is not going to happen.
I do think the level of accountability has to be increased, notwithstanding the fact ministers will likely have staff to assist them. That staff will probably end up being either the Parole Board or a similar instrument, but the accountability will be there and nowhere will people be able to say: "It is not my fault, the Parole Board acts independently".

I also wish to see prisoners gradually released into society and I think that the member for Hamilton West feels the same. In other words, those who are released must be better prepared when they come out of prison.
We also want the victims' rights and those of their families to be respected. I feel we have neglected the victims' rights over the last few years and even the last decades, and in saying this, I want in no way to put the blame on one minister or one person in particular. I just feel it is time we did something for the victims.
I ask all my colleagues here today to allow this bill to proceed, at least up to the committee stage, at which time we shall give our verdict.
November 19, 1992


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak this evening on Bill C-330, a private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Parole Act that was moved by the member for Hamilton West.
Numerous petitions were distributed around the country and here a Conservative member of Parliament is allowing a petition to go into his office that was forwarded to a Liberal member of Parliament. I can assure you that has only happened once, that I can think of, in my office.
Though we often disagree on many issues, when the member for Hamilton West first mentioned this issue to me there was an initial amount of support. The member has explained the benefits he sees in the legislation and there are many principles I can support in this bill.
I think this bill represents the many discussions that take place in this country in barber shops, coffee shops and variety stores when people are buying their newspapers. This is one of the issues they do talk about.
This bill does have some weaknesses. Regarding crimes of violence, for example, I think there is a need for a more comprehensive list of violent offences. I also think there is a need to more stringently define those measures rather than those that apply to non-violent offenders. We have to make that distinction.
I do not think the member for Hamilton West would object to having this discussion take place in a parliamentary committee. When it comes to victims' statements, I congratulate the member for clearly putting in the bill that the definition of a victim includes: "any relative of that person".
We should go further with the section relating to impact statements. It is important to expand the categories of offences for which victims' statements can be used. It is also important to expand when victim impact statements can be used for detention reviews. I think we should go even further and ensure that victims are given the right to attend the parole hearings. Those are the ways I think this particular provision can be strengthened. The member for Hamilton West may disagree with some of these views, but I think he would welcome an open discussion in a committee where not only other
Private Members' Business
MPs but witnesses can come forward, discuss their concerns and get victims' statements from those who are victims of violence offences.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talked about the releasing authority and the fact that it may require cabinet approval. I think that might be too restrictive, but again it is something that can and should be discussed in committee where we can discuss the views of the Parole Board or whoever makes the decisions to ensure that there is public safety. In many ways I think I would like to keep the politics out of those subjective decisions.
In the city of Cambridge, like the member for Hamilton West has indicated, there are many instances. I have a series of newspaper clippings that relate to a couple in Cambridge that are well respected in the community, Doug and Margaret Pollington. This is a Cambridge couple that have been battling their own life sentence since the day their son-in-law killed their 29-year-old daughter and two children aged five and six in 1976.
Since August 1, they have been playing a waiting game because the son-in-law becomes eligible to apply for a judicial review after serving only 15 years of his life sentence. The concern that the Pollingtons have is that there is no time limit for when the review must be applied for. Although the victims cannot currently make a statement or express their feelings about the review board, they must wait around for the prisoner to apply for a review.
That statement was recorded in the press before the passage of Bill C-36. Bill C-36 does allow victim impact statements. That legislation is too new to really make a valid comment on its effectiveness. The Pollingtons did recognize that indeed Bill C-36 could help them. After the passage of Bill C-36 there is a belief that maybe Bill C-36 could have gone further.
In this particular case Mr. Pollington admits that his main reason for getting involved with a petition on this legislation is because he wants to make sure that his own family is protected from the man who has already killed three members of his family. As he presented the petition around the city, he did not hide the fact that the clause stating that a life sentence for a person convicted of first degree murder should mean life and that for

November 19, 1992
Adjournment Debate
people convicted of first degree murder no day passes, escorted or unescorted, should be issued. He did not hide that particular fact.
Mr. Pollington and his wife appeared before Cambridge city council and received support for his petition. He went to Kitchener city council and also received the support of the council. Subsequently, he went to the regional council of Waterloo and also received the support of that council.
There were a few members of the regional council and city council who voted against it. Their reasons were the same reasons I would like to see it go to committee, so that there would be frank discussion. The people of Correctional Services for example could come forward would then explain and have an educated debate. Both sides would then understand where everyone is coming from. Councillors that did vote against it said they were hoping that when it comes forward there can be debate and we can hear from all sides on the issue.
Doug Pollington has also gone out to the high schools, not to solicit signatures for his petition but to discuss the Parole Act and specifically the victims' role, victims' statements and their importance. He has gone out to the schools. Hopefully the information that the kids are getting in their law classes will make them consider changing the law in the future. Again, he is not trying to recruit students into joining him or becoming involved with this petition, but he thinks it is important that they have an understanding of the effects the system does has on victims of crime.
He started out hoping to gather some 8,000 or optimistically 10,000 signatures on his petition. In the Cambridge area, 18,000 have signed his petition supporting Bill C-330.
What is happening here is that Mr. Pollington's petition is speaking for the people because he realizes how much the Cambridge community, like every other community, is upset and has concerns about the Canadian justice system.
I respect the role of the Standing Committee on House Management. I am tempted to stand here and say that I respect its judgment. However, I am suggesting that I disagree with its decision because it limits debate today.
I believe this is an issue that deserves discussion in committee because the general public want to have an
open discussion on this. I think the bill can be improved, but more important, the principles must be discussed. There is a need to openly discuss why the rules should be tightened up for allowing temporary absence from prison.
I hope the next time I have a chance to speak on this bill it will be in a parliamentary committee.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, given the reason we are elected is to serve our constituents, to provide for them the opportunity of a full and frank discussion and given the support I have from my colleagues in the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and my colleagues in the Conservative Party, I seek unanimous consent for the second reading motion on Bill C-330 to be put to a vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I find it indeed unfortunate that the member for Charlesbourg would not give consent to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to expand a little bit on the question I posed to the minister of fisheries on the permanent quota transfer which I am not sure has commenced yet, but I have certainly seen an application for permanent quota transfers sent to people in my riding. At the time the minister answered that he was not
November 19, 1992

aware this was going on and said that he would ask his department to look into it.
A lot of people in my constituency would say that this is what the policy of this government has led to and that there were no alternatives for the fishermen and the fish processing companies in the area than to go to a permanent quota transfer.
What it does in my estimation is that where we had temporary transfer of quota between the fishermen and companies in the last two years we will now, in other words, have a permanent transfer. I have not been able to find out who actually controls the fish for 1991 or
1992.	That is just one area of concern I have. Do the companies control it now or do the fishermen control it?
It used to be that if a fishermen could go out to fish, the companies locally would be able to process that fish, sell it and the local economy would be very good. As you transfer the fish from the fishermen over to the companies, you are now going to have some companies that cannot pay so they will probably not be able to purchase that quota. Other companies will be able to pay or banks will be involved in purchasing that quota.
Basically, I can guarantee that most of the fishermen will not be able to individually purchase a share of that quota. It will have to be a company. A bank will recognize that companies have assets and this will become one of its assets.
Where is the fish going to be processed and where is the company going to end up if it gets into difficulty? Will it end up a company in Newfoundland catching fish in the southwestern part of Nova Scotia, or a company coming and catching the fish in a part of southwestern Nova Scotia and bringing it back to Quebec to be processed if our companies get into trouble in the future. It has happened repeatedly on the east coast that companies have got into trouble. Look at National Sea, Nickerson's, and the companies in Newfoundland.
I also want to say there is another aspect to this. I do not think the government or the department of fisheries will ever be able to manage or control stocks. As most of
Adjournment Debate
the people in this House know, since 1988 one of the first things I asked was to have an in depth evaluation of the stocks in Scotia-Fundy, particularly in the Bay of Fundy, 4VWX, evaluated so we knew the condition of the stocks. They have ndf'done that, they continue not to do it, and yet now, with these individual transferable quotas to fishermen and to companies, we have a fishery that goes on year round. As long as you can prove you have access to some quota you are entitled to be out there.
The fishery is going to be fished out by somebody. I know some fishermen who cannot afford the penalties and who will only fish four months. They see a boat out there that has less individual quota than they do and is fishing year round. Where is the management? Where is the enforcement? There has to be a very real concern.
I hope tonight I am going to have an answer from the parliamentary secretary as to why the minister is going that way and why he is allowing the fishery to leave. I see it happening in the future. I see it happening even now, companies not processing groundfish. It will just be processed in certain areas and maybe even leave our area.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House the other day when the hon. member raised her question with regard to permanent transfers of individual transferable quotas and maybe I can clear up some of the confusion, or try to.
The operating guidelines developed for the Scotia-Fundy ITQ program permits the transfer of ITQ between fishermen and companies. These guidelines were developed in consultation with the industry and implemented by the department at the industry's request.
The possibility for the Scotia-Fundy ITQs to be caught by fishermen from other provinces was raised on the 17th. I wish to clarify that the ITQs can only be transferred between the 450 participants in the program, all of which are fishermen from the Scotia-Fundy region. You must remember this region includes the southern part of New Brunswick and that ITQs could be transferred from Nova Scotia fishermen to New Brunswick fishermen.

November 19, 1992
Adjournment Debate
The reverse is true as well. It is also believed that these new guidelines are going to be quite favourable to the southwest Nova Scotia fishermen because throughout Atlantic Canada they are recognized on an average as being the most prosperous and truly the most entrepreneurial.
It would be expected that the fishermen from the west Nova Scotia area could get more fish and more jobs and over-all the ITQ program does not discriminate. Indeed, it was implemented by the industry in consultation with the people involved.


WESTRAY MINE
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to refresh the House's memory on the question, and what I believe were the inadequate answers given to my questions regarding the Westray mining disaster.
The questions were raised last May 22, and the disaster of course took place on May 9 of this year.
I just preface my remarks by quoting the last verse of a miner's lament, a rather well-known one called Dark as a Dungeon.
I think when I die and the ages do roll My body will harden and turn into coal. As I look through the door of my heavenly home I will pity the miner adigging my bone.
A lot of miners in Nova Scotia, around Pictou County and throughout the country are simply not satisfied and their bones will not rest until they get some clear answers from this government.
Why did the federal government, which does not normally make major investments in mining operations, take a risk not only with public money but with the lives of Nova Scotia miners in this operation? The government suggested it had every reason to believe and understand it would be a very high risk operation. Why did it not take extra measures to ensure that the Government of Nova Scotia and the agencies directly responsible for mine safety were doing more than the normal routine run of the mill job to ensure the safety of the people who would be working in that operation. This mine likely would not have opened without the major intervention of the Prime Minister and ministers of the Crown, and would not have happened without the federal money that was later expended.
In my question on May 221 pointed out that according to the engineering consultants for the Bank of Nova Scotia, the construction of the Westray coal mine was one of the most rapid they had ever seen. It is extremely fast to achieve an underground mine in 10 months; normally you are talking years instead of months.
That information was available to the government. Other information as explained by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was available to the government. In spite of that, the construction of the mine went ahead.
Since then we have had the Nova Scotia inquiries cancelled; we have had charges laid. It is possible still for the federal government to answer the legitimate needs of these miners and their families and launch their own federal inquiry quite in keeping with the ruling given by the Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in dealing with why this operation was allowed to go ahead with massive infusions of federal money, in spite of the warnings.
That is what those mining families want to know. That is what this House has a right to know. Whether it is a public inquiry or a committee of this House, those families deserve answers and we intend to keep pursuing this government until those answers are forthcoming.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the Westray mine disaster was a sad day, not just for the people in that particular area of Nova Scotia but for all Canadians. The hon. member knows the federal government does not have jurisdiction in the area of occupational health and safety. This is truly the responsibility of the provincial government.
Notwithstanding this fact, the Government of Canada took a variety of measures consistent with our role as financial guarantors to ensure that the project was technically viable.
The initial environmental assessment, the Acres report, pointed out the key health and safety concerns associated with coal mines and the methods that the company was putting into place to overcome these concerns. All concerns, including those pointed out by the Associated Mining Consultants Inc., were deemed to be correctable with known technology. The CANMET review spoke briefly of mine ventilation and spontaneous combustion risk and concluded that in spite of these
November 19, 1992

technical uncertainties, the proposal had no major technical barriers.
Westray was required to comply with all appropriate coal mining regulations in Nova Scotia, including those dealing with mine ventilation and spontaneous combustion matters and regular provincial mine inspections were carried out.
We put in place steps to ensure the company was in full compliance with the provincial regulatory standards on health and safety. This was monitored on a monthly basis by an independent mining consultant. All of these facts were taken into consideration before the federal government made the decision to fund the project.

MONTREAL^ ECONOMY


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions since May 8, 1992, I have raised in this House the issue of the economy of Montreal and its unacceptably high level of unemployment.
I asked the government to explain why it continually refuses to participate in an infrastructure repair program to stimulate job creation in the greater Montreal area.
The idea of this program was put forward by the Liberal leader and supported by the mayor of Montreal and by the Quebec government. The only thing missing is the federal government's participation.
We Liberals believe that a job creation program of this magnitude is necessary for Montreal. When I asked my question on May 8, the unemployment rate stood at 12.9 per cent. Since then there has been no improvement. In fact, the situation has worsened.
Let us just look at the past year. According to Statistics Canada, there were 186,000 officially unemployed people in greater Montreal. That figure does not take into account those who have simply given up looking for a job because they are completely demoralized. Today there are over 204,000 unemployed people in the region. This, in my opinion, is far from an improvement.
Adjournment Debate
According to a report prepared by the economic studies service of the Mouvement Desjardins, the Montreal region has lost no less than 60,000 jobs since the fall of 1990. During that period, 17,000 workers lost their jobs in manufacturing, 10,000 in retailing, 9,000 in the financial sector, and the list goes on and on.
The President of the Treasury Board would have us believe that his government does a lot more for the Montreal region. If that is the case, why is the region economy deteriorating so much? The average rate of unemployment now stands at 16 per cent, and in the east end of the city it is as high as 25 per cent.
The minister refers to the aeronautical and pharmaceutical industries. I recognize that these are important and make a great contribution to the economy of Canada and of Montreal, but they do nothing for those workers who have lost their jobs in construction or manufacturing.
According to the Commission de la construction du Quebec, the unemployment rate in that industry is almost 50 per cent for the province, and more than half of the workers affected are in the Montreal area.
We Liberals believe that a program to modernize our infrastructure would greatly help get the construction industry and the economy in general back on track. So even if the aeronautical industry benefits some sectors of the economy, it would be irresponsible to think that it is the solution to all our unemployment problems. As well, it would be irresponsible to neglect those individuals who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or construction. An infrastructure program would help those people directly.
On May 8 and again today I asked the government to explain why it continues to refuse to immediately implement this infrastructure program that would get the economy going. We are well aware that if you get the construction industry going, the rest of the economy will follow. We could put people to work and these people will spend and pay taxes. Thus, the government will also get some return on these important investments for the economy and the social fabric of our country.

November 19, 1992
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that, in spite of the particularly gloomy picture he has just drawn of that area, Montreal can nevertheless rely today on a very modem manufacturing sector. This sector has progressed markedly, especially over the past decade.
Take for instance the aircraft industry, where 40,000 jobs were created in the Montreal area during that period. There is also the electrical and electronic products sector and that of machinery, chemical products, plastics and rubber, as well as the petroleum and printing industries. All these sectors have been extremely productive in the Montreal area.
All these sectors are growing rapidly and provide secure, well-paid, new jobs in the metropolitan area as well as new technologies.
However, it is obvious that what we need most in Montreal right now is to broaden this modern and promising manufacturing base and to broaden it at least enough to offset the job losses up until now as well as those anticipated in waning traditional industries.
Therefore, our role in government is to support this manufacturing base as part of a concerted effort, with a
consistent development strategy relying on the Montreal's strengths.
As we know, two programs have been implemented in Montreal recently, the IRPEEM and the IRPSWM, that the hon. member is very familiar with. These have helped support major investments as well as creating thousands of jobs in the area.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member for Saint-Leonard that government has indeed taken the action he is requesting concerning the Montreal area. Also, government is planning further action, in consultation with the business community, the municipalities and the provincial governments, to ensure that Montreal remains a major player not only in the economic development of Quebec but also in that of the whole country. I am convinced that his party will support the Montreal area development initiatives we will be putting forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In accordance with Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 20,1992