February 25, 1983

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21

PUBLIC SERVICE

LIB

Harold Thomas Herbert

Liberal

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):

Madam Speaker, on February 26, 1976, seven years ago, I tabled in this House the report of the Special Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. This report was the result of 18 months of hard work by a Committee which listened to witnesses from unions, management groups, and other interested parties from all parts of the country.

The Special Committee had a mandate to study a report produced by Mr. Jacob Finkelman who was the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board since the legislation was enacted in 1967, and had presided over employer-employee relations in the Canadian Public Service. Thus, our Special Committee report became popularly known as the Finkelman Report. It contained 72 recommendations, of which recommendation No. 4 reads:

Certain revisions to the Public Service Employment Act be made immediately to allow the Public Service Commission to operate efficiently.

I underline the words "be made immediately".

Recommendation 5 reads:

That Parliament consider the proposed changes to the Public Service Employment Act as soon as possible, bearing in mind their relationship to changes recommended in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

No action whatsoever has been taken on any of the 72 recommendations in the report.

Since then there have been two further studies, one on personnel management and one on accountability in the Public Service, the D'Avignon Report and the Report of the Lambert Commission.

In my over ten years as a Member of Parliament-

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   PUBLIC SERVICE
Sub-subtopic:   SEVENTH ANNIVERSARY OF FINKELMAN REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   PUBLIC SERVICE
Sub-subtopic:   SEVENTH ANNIVERSARY OF FINKELMAN REPORT
Permalink

PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL PROPOSAL

PC

Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):

Madam Speaker, it has been said that the wheels of bureaucracy turn exceedingly slowly.

Nowhere is this saying more true than in the case of the peace officers' memorial proposal, which I initiated on December 14, 1981, as a result of a motion put forward by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

Madam Speaker, this is not a complex proposition. It does not involve the expenditure of great quantities of the taxpayers' dollars. Surely it is a project worthy of consideration. Yet, all I have been getting on this is consideration, no action.

I have written many times on behalf of the Association of Chiefs of Police in the hope of receiving a simple answer such as, "Yes, we are placing the memorial book in such and such a room in the Centre Block today." Instead, I have been getting pat answers, indeed the same pat answers two and three times in succession, such as, "The matter is being brought to the attention of the Executive Committee." I would rather not receive letters indicating that the matter will be dealt with shortly, but a letter indicating action will be taken now.

Last week, I again sent a memo to check on the status of this issue which could have been resolved months ago. It was brought to my attention that a room in the West Block would be considered. Surely this is inadequate. The West Block is not a public area. Therefore, how many people will be viewing the guest book in that obscure location?

I believe that our nation's police forces are among the best in the world. The gallant men who died protecting our society's best interests from those who would-

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL PROPOSAL
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL PROPOSAL
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LIB

Douglas Glenn Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance)

Liberal

Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):

Madam Speaker, it is time for us to get back to work on positive economic issues. Over the past week we have detoured into false issues by demanding the retirement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). That does nothing to help Canadians find greater prosperity or to restore the country's economy.

In today's editorial The Toronto Star has written an important reminder to us about scandalmongering. I want to quote parts of it for our consideration:

February 25, 1983

Lalonde's forced resignation would be more than a personal tragedy. It would deprive Canada of a dynamic, progressive-minded politician at a time when they're in short supply. The budget would be delayed many months-a budget crucial to spurring the economy toward recovery and creating jobs-

The Opposition has made much, throughout this debate, and non-confidence vote, of the need for honor and accountability in government .. . Marc Lalonde abused no fundamental public trust, in breaching the guidelines; there is no compelling public interest in seeing him driven from office.

The Government has brought vital economic issues into the House over the past month for debate. We must continue the debate on the Income Tax Act if we are to get refunds out to low-income people who need the money. We must debate the-

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Sub-subtopic:   NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL ON PROCEEDINGS
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Sub-subtopic:   NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL ON PROCEEDINGS
Permalink

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

PC

Pat Carney

Progressive Conservative

Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):

Madam Speaker, nearly half of all single parent families headed by women in Canada live below the poverty line. An important reason for this economic distress is the lack of enforcement of court ordered maintenance payments for child support. In Ontario, for example, 75 per cent of orders for child maintenance are not paid after two years.

The problem, Madam Speaker, is that the responsibility for collecting the money owed them is left to the mothers who have been abandoned by the fathers of the children. If the father does not pay, the mother must incur legal costs and return to court to request enforcement. If the father has left town, the mother must try to trace him. In many cases the cost of enforcement exceeds the value of the order.

As a solution I urge the federal Government to introduce two amendments to the Divorce Act. The first amendment would empower the courts to enforce and collect child maintenance payments through the issuance of continuing orders. If a parent defaulted, a Crown attorney would be appointed to trace the parent and compel him to pay.

The second amendment would permit the court to use Revenue Canada records and social insurance numbers to trace spouses who default on their child maintenance payments. Appropriate safeguards could be applied to ensure that only the courts had access to this information. This system already operates successfully in the United States.

The economic situation of single parent families today is so desperate that immediate Government action is imperative.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Sub-subtopic:   ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD MAINTENANCE ORDERS
Permalink

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):

Madam Speaker, yesterday the administration of the United States cancelled seat sale air fares offered by Air Canada, affecting 56,000 Canadians who planned to travel to the United States. Obviously that administration wants to collapse the convention on air travel arrangements with our country, because Canada had given approval to United States airlines to charge similar fares on travel to Canada. What the U.S. administration really wants to do is put Canadian airlines out of business hauling Canadians to Pacific Rim destinations, by allowing U.S. carriers to funnel our travel around the Pacific via California. Canada must take immediate action to counter this blatant interference in our affairs.

This is nothing more than another action in a series where the United States has broken faith with Canada: obstruction to the showing of National Film Board films, one of which is nominated for an Oscar award; stonewalling solutions to acid rain problems; refusal to ratify a fisheries treaty; failure to meet commitments on the Northern Alaska pipeline; attempts to emasculate FIRA; blackmail to force us to test U.S weapons systems.

Canada must be firm and forthright in its dealings with the United States and stop its supine acquiesence. We must stop acting like mendicants on our hands and knees in our dealings with that country.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   UNITED STATES REACTION TO LOWER CANADIAN AIR FARES AND OTHER MEASURES
Permalink

CORRECTION OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS

LIB

David P. Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):

Madam Speaker, yesterday both the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), as reported at page 23188 of Hansard, called for the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on the grounds he had misled the House. Clearly these Hon. Members are demonstrating rank hypocrisy by failing to distinguish between an honest mistake and a deliberate misleading of the House. No one on the opposite side suggested that the Minister of Finance intentionally misled the House. They know his reputation, and they know that such a suggestion would be unthinkable.

On October 15, 1979, the Minister of State for International Trade in the Tory Government, the current Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), rose to correct an answer given by him in the House three days earlier. He said:

Since making that statement, my officials have made me aware of three contracts which have been cancelled, one in the amount of $4.2 million and two other smaller ones, one contract for approximately $350,000 and the other one for approximately $60,000.

February 25, 1983

Obviously that Tory Minister clearly misled the House in regard to deals worth over $4 million. If we are to apply the logic of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, he should have demanded the resignation of his Minister for misleading the House. Did he? Of course not. Why? Because it was unintentional. Did Liberal Members demand the Minister's resignation? No, because we know the basic and fundamental difference between an honest mistake and a deception.

I would suggest that Members opposite should stop this hypocrisy, stop applying double standards, and show some consistent application of parliamentary principles for a change.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   CORRECTION OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS
Permalink

NATIONAL FILM BOARD

PC

Walter Franklin McLean

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):

Madam Speaker, Canadians are proud of the independence and international reputation of the National Film Board. Its documentaries have won acclaim in film festivals around the world.

The decision of the United States Justice Department to declare three recent documentaries offensive and brand them as political propaganda, is unacceptable. Those in the United States who show National Film Board films "Acid From Heaven", "Acid Rain: Requiem or Recovery", and "If You Love This Planet", must record their names with the Justice Department as if they were taking part in a subversive activity. Incidentally, the latter film which warns of dangers in the nuclear arms build-up, has been nominated for an Oscar.

It is not enough for officials to make statements across the border about this unfortunate incident. It is imperative that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) make a clear statement to the American administration that the treatment of these films is unacceptable to the people of Canada and the Government of Canada.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   UNITED STATES RULING ON CANADIAN DOCUMENTARY FILMS
Permalink

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

NDP

James Ross Fulton

New Democratic Party

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):

Madam Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast have been following the Gillespie-Lalonde affair with jaundiced eyes. There are too many deals, patronage, and appearances of pay-offs by Liberals to their friends.

For three years now, on behalf of all Canadians I have attempted to reveal the truth about the Amax affair. These same frontbench Liberals have fought every move, have sought to hide material from the public view. Documents delivered in an unmarked envelope this week add one more chapter to the book on why Liberals are unfit to govern.

Oral Questions

The documents reveal that two Liberal Cabinet Ministers met together with Amax officials and their respective lawyers before the Government's own environmental review was complete. The results of the meeting are now clear-Amax's own lawyers participated in the drafting of marine disposal regulations, which were ultimately signed by the then Minister of Fisheries, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc), in the middle of the 1979 federal election. The two Cabinet Ministers, Len Marchand and Iona Campagnola, can take credit for circumventing the Government's own review process, for saving Amax $23 million, for allowing dumping 8,000 times above the Government's own regulations, and for lowering the level of trust the average Canadian can put in the political and legislative process in Canada.

Can we forget, Madam Speaker, that four out of five on the Government's scientific review panel opposed the marine dumping proposal by Amax? The Gillespie affair is shameful. The Amax affair is political corruption at its apex.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   AMAX CORPORATION'S DUMPING OF TOXIC WASTE-MEETING WITH MINISTERS
Permalink

February 25, 1983