Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls):

I am informed that they do not sit Mondays. They should be sitting Mondays, Saturdays, and around the clock to clean up the backlog of legislation which has been sent to them by this House.

Members of the Opposition do not want to be here and it is good for Canadians to hear that. Members of the Opposition want to be in their ridings across the country. The nonsense that you hear on a day-to-day basis in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, is only equalled by the nonsense, misinformation, and fear they are spreading across the country.

My own riding of Niagara Falls is no exception. Recently the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was in town. I do not know how often he has been to the Niagara Peninsula. He is like some of those self-proclaimed experts on the Niagara Peninsula. They blow in for a cup of coffee, stay for an hour, and say: "I'm an expert on the Niagara Peninsula, I'll tell you that free trade is no good for the area". Every time they open their mouths in that way they show just how little they know about the Niagara Peninsula.

They make comments about the grape and wine industry. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in the House. He is going to bring forward a proposal which will assist that industry. It will be one of the most constructive things that has happened to that industry in years.

The Leader of the Opposition and other Members come to the Niagara Peninsula and say that the free trade agreement is no good, it should be torn up, it is bad for the Niagara area. That is nonsense. They only say that because they never talk to anyone on the Niagara Peninsula. They pretend that the Niagara Peninsula is a one-industry area and base their comments on that single industry.

That is absolutely wrong. The Niagara Peninsula is as diverse as is any other area in Canada. If they spent two hours on the Niagara Peninsula instead of one they could drop by the Ford Motor Corporation. The Ford Motor Corporation has approached me and told me that as their representative I must support the free trade agreement because everything they make in Niagara Falls is shipped across the border into the United States. That is why they need open access to the borders and that is why they support the free trade agreement.

The general manager of General Motors has sent a letter to every single employee of General Motors Canada saying that this agreement is good for General Motors, good for the auto industry, good for Oshawa, good for St. Catharines, and good for Canada. Members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties never refer to that. They forget about that.

Public Service Employment Act

If they spent a little more time in my area they might drop by the TRW plant. I was there and at the Hayes Dana plant. I asked the managers and people who work there whether they can compete in an open market. They said that they will not only compete but will do very well. They do not compete only on a North American basis. The auto parts made on the Niagara Peninsula are world competitive. They tell me that my job is to ensure that the border remains open and they will do very well. That is never referred to by the NDP or the Liberals.

They never stopped in at Brunner Manufacturing, another company with huge exports to the United States. I was at Edsha Corporation two weeks ago. That company is only one year old and at that moment was hiring its one hundred and forty-first and one hundred and forty second employee in the auto parts industry. Their message to me was the same, keep the border open. They are there in order to export into the United States.

Members of the New Democratic Party and Members of the Liberal Party are interested only in spreading fear and misinformation in the Niagara Peninsula. I will not stand by while misinformation and fear is spread by socialists and Members of the Liberal Party. I will not stand by while those who do not know a thing about the Niagara Peninsula blow in and proclaim themselves experts. I will fight that, here in the House of Commons, in my riding, and across Canada.

Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):

Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to enter into this debate. I would like to explain to the Canadian people watching the proceedings of the House on television this afternoon what this debate is really all about. The Government has requested, through a motion, to extend the sitting hours of Parliament in order that Parliament can deal with pieces of legislation which the Government insists it needs.

One of the chief pieces of legislation is the legislation which would put into law the agreement signed between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this country, the Reagan-Mulroney trade deal. The Opposition, both the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, are quite opposed to this piece of legislation, mainly because we believe that the Government has no mandate to proceed with this.

We believe that by extending the hours of Parliament and the number of days that Parliament will sit in the summer, the Government has torn up the rule books by which Parliament governs itself. As opposition Members it is our duty, in the parliamentary system, to try to prevent the Government from proceeding with its plans. We have heard government Members state that the Government needs this legislation to extend the sitting hours because the Government was elected to govern and needs this extended sitting in order to do so.

There is so much in Canadian parliamentary democracy which depends upon consensus. It is true that there are fundamental differences between political Parties in terms of

our outlook on how the country should be governed. However, there is also a general agreement-and that is why Parliament can work-that the Government should be able to govern, that the Opposition does have a role, and that Parliament should be able to function.

Very often this consensus is unstated. We will rise in our place in Parliament and object to particular pieces of legislation, but at some stage we recognize that it is the Government's right to proceed with its legislation and allow the vote to occur. Thus, legislation becomes law.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

The Hon. Member will have 14 minutes for debate after the division is called this evening.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Order! It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should keep its promise to permit public servants to participate in electoral activities by amending the Public Service Employment Act in order to implement recommendations numbered 11.1 through 11.7 of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Hull- Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) for seconding my motion M-149 dealing with the political rights of public servants.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to tell you that this question has been the subject of many Private Members' Bills in the last few years.

The purpose of all these bills was to broaden the political rights of federal public servants and to seek a fair balance between the political rights and freedoms granted by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the political neutrality of public servants, i.e. their impartiality and ability to serve the state without political bias.

Many Private Members' Bills and motions over the last ten years at least have always been to the point. It is simply a matter of clarifying Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act, a section that is restrictive and open to interpretation and which in every election causes us problems, in the National Capital anyway, because we are never sure whether or not public servants can participate in politics. I am one of

those who think that it is time for this House, this Parliament, to take an unequivocal position on this issue. First of all, we would settle an important matter once and for all. Second, some 200,000 public servants would know exactly what their rights are in future and to what extent they can take part in the democratic electoral process.

Mr. Speaker, the main reason I am speaking today to debate a motion presented to the House last October 2 is to report where matters stand. We all know in this House that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) has a Bill, C-273, now before a committee and it has been thoroughly studied. I think that it will come back to the House in a few days-at least, I hope so-because the last time we met, we agreed to adopt a somewhat amended Bill, but one which I think represents serious work by Members of the House and their professional advisors, including many witnesses who came to speak to us about this political Bill.

The federal Government has, from time to time, been made aware of the need to expand and clarify political rights. The D'Avignon Report ordered by the previous government followed a thorough study by parliamentarians on labour relations in the Public Service of Canada. It took nearly a year to examine problems relating to the need for changing, and especially updating, regulations and legislation governing employee-employer relations.

The Report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle was published in 1979. The report contained a complete chapter on political participation-Chapter 11. In the introduction to the Special Committee's report, we see on page 9 one of the issues examined by the Committee, and I am referring to political participation. I quote, from page 9:

Employees should generally enjoy greater freedom to participate actively in the political process, unless an indication of an employee's partisan political interests would compromise the reputation of the public service for impartiality or would place the individual in a conflict of interest with effective job performance.

That is very clear and succinct. In his report, d'Avignon makes seven recommendations which I refer to in my motion and which I would like to see Parliament incorporate in a new bill.

I think that with Bill C-273 introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West, the Government now has a Private Member's Bill that has been properly tested and proven in committee and which will come back to us in its amended form. I would like to ask the Government to examine this Bill, after which it could perhaps take the essential part and submit it to the House as a Government Bill. I am asking the Government to do so because I know that as Private Members we only have one hour from time to time, and it is not always easy for backbenchers to get their bills passed.

Luck is of course a factor, because items of Private Member's Business are selected by random draw. That is in fact how my own motion No. 149 was selected, and Bill C-273,

Public Service Employment Act

which is a full-fledged Bill, will have to go through the same process. In other words, it will be a matter of luck, not of necessity. Earlier, on my way here, one of my assistants, Pierre Tremblay, reminded me of an expression used by a famous biologist, Jacques Monod, who says in his book "Le hasard et la necessite" that sometimes chance decides but it is not always easy.

In the case of Bill C-273, the Government should eliminate the chance factor and let necessity cast the deciding vote. It should say: We will make the Bill our responsibility. We will introduce it under Government Orders and Members will be able to consider this Bill in the House very shortly. Otherwise, it will be a matter of luck, and we may not be lucky enough between now and the next election to consider Bill C-273 on third reading, Mr. Speaker. I may remind the House that when the Bill is next called for consideration in the House, it will be for the report stage and third reading.

In fact, the Bill is almost home free. That is why I don't think we should leave the future of this item of Private Members' Business to chance.

As I said earlier, the purpose of my motion is to increase the awareness of Hon. Members and the public listening to us of the political rights of public servants. There are many myths and misconceptions about the rights of federal public servants. In my final comments, I will try to summarize what the situation is to date with respect to the rights of federal public servants.

Mr. Speaker, I will not read to you from the D'Avignon Report. Basically, D'Avignon was in favour of the British system. Public servants are divided into three groups, and the senior group, consisting of those persons who advise the Government, is excluded.

Intermediate groups are allowed to exercise their political rights, subject to approval by the Public Service Commission. The third category, which includes the vast majority of public servants who do not give advice on matters of Government policy, would be entirely free to participate in partisan political activity.

Bill C-273 in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West reflected the same concept, to a certain extent, but I think it will be amended. In fact, I know it will because the Committee, after hearing a number of important witnesses, intends to simplify the process.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at how this matter has evolved, there have been many items of Private Members' Business here in the House, as I said before. In fact, there was Bill C-231, introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for first reading on October 20, 1986; Bill C-247 was introduced for first reading by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on January 26, 1987; and finally, Bill C-273, introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West for first reading on November 26, 1987 and for second reading on February 9, 1988.

Public Service Employment Act

There are now before the House four bills dealing with the same subject matter, plus several motions including mine, which was intended to provide firm and sustained support for the expansion of political rights.

Mr. Speaker, I think this proves people's is interest in this matter. Actually, Bill C-273 has passed the second reading stage in this House. This is a plus, because as we all know, these Bills are often literally killed by anyone who wants to talk the Bill out, which means the debate ends without a vote and the Bill is dropped.

I am therefore pleased the House agreed to adopt the second reading stage of Bill C-273 and that we have finished consideration of the Bill in committee.

There have also been public servants who appealed to the courts. We remember the decision handed down by Judge Walsh this spring, I believe, in a case where Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act was challenged. Very briefly, I would like to recall that Judge Walsh of the Federal Court said that he did not question the constitutionality of Section 32 but would expand, in his interpretation, the political rights of public servants.

So, as I said earlier, we have had several items of Private Members' Business, as well as representations by the unions and by individuals who went as far as the Federal Court.

I mention Judge Walsh's decision because it compelled the Public Service Commission to clarify its position by issuing a series of instructions to public servants on May 11, a little over a month ago. In a letter which I suppose it sent to all Members- in any case I received one-the Commission indicated that it was essential at this time to inform public servants about the kind of political activities in which they could be involved under the present legislation. Consequently, the Commission was sending a document containing general guidelines that would help to define the limits to political participation by public servants.

Mr. Speaker, the aim of the Public Service Commission, Bill C-273 and my fellow Members of this House is to maintain public trust in the federal Government and also to ensure the freedom of expression and participation that all Canadians have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Public Service Employment Act already authorizes political rights, as we know. I bring it up briefly here, because it seems important to me. Public servants are not deprived of rights; rather, they are limited. Among the acceptable rights, which I think it is worth reminding everyone of, are the right: (1) to sign a candidate's official nomination papers; (2) to express their personal opinions openly, without making partisan public statements that would openly show support for a political Party. Mr. Speaker, I took them from the Commission guidelines that are as recent as May 11.

(3) to speak as a member of the public at meetings where representatives of the political Parties take part and to

question the candidates and assist them; (4) to attend political meetings; (5) to make contributions to a party's election fund; (6) to hold membership in a political Party; (7) to participate in policy-making discussions of a Party; (8) to be a delegate to a political Party's leadership convention; (9) to help a candidate or a Party without attracting attention to themselves, as for example, by addressing correspondence; and (10) to run for nomination or election, provided that unpaid leave has been sought from the Public Service Commission for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, those are the rights that exist today. They are in fact quite broad, but for some of us, they are still too restrictive. I am one of those who think that they could be broadened some more and that is what we here in this region, anyway, who are most affected, wish to do with the help of our colleagues from all parties: to pass Bill C-273, which in our opinion would be much more generous and clearer in the application of political rights. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I shall support Bill C-273 when it comes up for debate in the House soon. With the support of the Government Members, I suppose, we may together be able to convince the Government that it is a necessity and that this most important question should not be left to the luck of the draw.

Mr. Speaker, I received some telephone calls recently on Bill C-273 as amended. I know that it is not customary or proper procedure to speak to Bill C-273 at this stage. But I would just like to point out to the House that some public servants have told me how important it is for the law to protect "whistleblowers."

I would like to end my remarks by saying that I have participated in debate in this House this year, I think twice in January, trying to explain about whistleblowers, those who report publicly on an employer who does things which, in their mind, could threaten the security and safety and health of the country. There may be a need for us to look attentively at this amendment to protect public servants who may report on wrongdoing by the employer.

I would like to just go back to a debate we had in this House in January of this year and state that, indeed, I believe there should be a disposition in the Bill to look after and protect those public servants who honestly believe the employer is asking them to perform duties which would not be, in their view, in the best interest of the country.

I think some way has to be provided. In my speech in January, I spoke of an ombudsman, someone to whom public servants could go to talk about their fears, their concerns, with no danger to themselves. A public servant who in good faith thinks that his employer is asking him to do something contrary to the public interest would at least have somewhere to go and report the actions or instructions or directions that he thinks contrary to public security and therefore the national

interest. I do not think that this is in Bill C-273. I would be happy if there were some way to include it and I think that some public servants would feel much easier.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to say that this issue is of the utmost importance for me. It is a basic question. This is a matter that requires a continuing interest, as Members in this House have found over the last few years, and I believe we are all agreed to proceed. I would ask the Government once more to accept the recommendations made by the Committee of the House that examined Bill C-273, to make it its own and to put it before the House for consideration at the current stage, in other words. I can assure them that the Liberal caucus, for whom I am speaking in my capacity as Public Service critic, will support prompt and quick passage of the measure.

Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on the motion of my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), a motion which states:

That, in the opinion of this House the Government should keep its promise to permit public servants to participate in electoral activities by amending the Public Service Employment Act...

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government does keep its promises. It has kept more than 80 per cent of them so far, with a significant amount of time left in our mandate. With a little more co-operation from the opposition Parties, particularly the Chief Opposition Whip perhaps the rest of those promises could be fulfilled before we go back to the people.

What was our promise in 1984 on the issue before us this afternoon? Let me read briefly from our campaign statement on this important issue:

The Progressive Conservative Party favours a general removal of the restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants covered by collective agreements. These restrictions are unnecessary and may not be justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are some senior public servants whose job responsibilities are very political in nature, and whose rights should be somewhat restricted to prevent conflict of interest, but we are confident that these people could be covered separately, without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.

That was our Party's position in the 1984 general election, and I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and in particular to my colleagues on the government side that our Party and the House is on the threshold of fulfilling that commitment, thanks to the second reading and all-Party committee support for Bill C-273, a Bill that I introduced on November 26, 1987, and which received approval in principle on February 9, 1988. I particularly urge members of my own Party to give this Bill their support when it comes back to the House, hopefully at the earliest possible date.

You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have spoken on this issue a number of times in this Chamber. The first time was in my maiden speech in November, 1984. I have since spoken on a number of occasions both inside and outside the House. I

Public Service Employment Act

wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who, long before I arrived here, spoke on this issue and did his best to ensure a change in the law to improve the situation for his constituents and mine. I congratulate him for introducing the motion today and for his support in the legislative committee on Bill C-273.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for his support and helpful suggestions for amendments, and my Progressive Conservative colleagues on the committee, the chairman, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) who was a consummate chairman, and the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper), the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Ms. Mailly), and the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau

Labelle (Mr. Moore), all of whom worked very hard to improve the Bill that I introduced. The product which is coming out of committee now is a much improved Bill which merits the support of the whole House.

I would also like to thank the many witnesses who appeared before the committee, many of whom had helpful suggestions and ideas, a number of which were incorporated into the amended Bill.

I would like to take a few minutes to explain why I think that Bill C-273 is worthy of support and meets the objectives of the motion before us today. As the quote that I read from our campaign promise indicated, reference was made in particular to those public servants who are covered by collective bargaining rights. That essentially is the approach which the amended Bill C-273 has taken. How has it done that? It has done it by basically adopting the distinctions contained in the Public Service Staff Relations Act in a new definition of politically restricted employee contained in Clause 3 of the Bill. The definition section states that a politically restricted employee means any employee who comes within the meaning of "a person employed in a managerial or confidential capacity" as defined in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

There are a number of references in the PSSRA to other categories which have not been incorporated, but specifically included are employees employed in a position confidential to the Governor General, a Minister of the Crown, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or the Federal Court, the Deputy Head of a Department, or the Chief Executive Officer of any other portion of the public service; and also an employee who has executive duties and responsibilities in relation to the development and administration of government programs; and finally, an employee employed in a position confidential to any person described in subparagraph 2 which is the executive officer.

In addition, there is a designation provision similar to that contained in the Public Service Staff Relations Act which empowers the Treasury Board under certain criteria to

Public Service Employment Act

designate another employee who would otherwise be politically unrestricted.

The power of the Treasury Board is one which we have found in the law and in the administration of the public service for a number of years. In my view, it gives us the balance that as parliamentarians we should be looking for. After all, we are trying to balance two competing principles here, one the individual rights of public servants, and the other the need to maintain an impartial, neutral, and effective public service for the country.

I am pleased to tell the House that those objectives are set out at the outset of the Bill in the purpose clause which states that the purpose of the Act is to extend to deputy heads and employees who are subject to the Public Service Employment Act a fuller measure of political rights while adhering to the principle of the impartiality of the public service.

The political rights that have been given are set out in clauses 4 and 5. All employees have the right to vote, to make financial contributions to Parties, to be a member of a political Party, to attend and participate in any political meeting and, subject to subsection 6, to express opinions on matters of public interest.

Clause 5 gives to unrestricted employees the additional and central right to work in a campaign for or against and to demonstrate support for or opposition to candidates in federal, provincial, or territorial elections, or federal, provincial, or territorial political Parties; to be a candidate in such an election; to collect funds for a political Party in such an election; and to hold office in a political Party.

There are certain prohibitions on public statements for Deputy Ministers, and for all employees not to make statements that conflict directly with the duties of the employee. The designation provisions found in Clause 14 of the Bill give to the Treasury Board this power to designate as politically restricted an employee who has responsibilities for providing advice directly to senior levels of the public service and the Government on policy and program development. There is a procedure set out with the provisions of natural justice applying, adequate notice, and so on which allows an employee so designated to appeal that designation.

In summary, my view is that this Bill meets the concerns of the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa

Vanier. It should meet the support of all Members of the House because it deals with the essential liberties of Canadians: whether a group of Canadians has the right to free speech, free assembly, and the right to work peacefully and lawfully for democratic change.

The current provisions of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act go too far to be reasonable. The law turns the basic rights of a large number of Canadians over to the

whims of unelected officials. The interpretation and implementation of this law have resulted in unreasonable limitations on even the smallest and most innocuous of political activities for public servants.

Public servants are people. They grow sick. They grow old. They are widowed. They are parents. They are taxpayers. Public servants, like other Canadians, benefit from social programs and pay for them. They have the right like everyone else to participate in the decisions that affect their lives.

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in this debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I think that the motion of the Hon. Member is somewhat irrelevant given the presence before the House of Bill C-273.

Mr. Gauthier:

It was put there before it.

Mr. Harris:

It may well have been there before that. However, I want to talk about the process of this whole issue before Parliament. By now, it seems that there is no disagreement whatsoever among the political Parties about the basic fact that public sector workers in Canada ought to have political rights. It is a position which was advanced by this Party many, many years ago, going back as far as 1970 or 1971, in our conventions. It is a position that we have taken consistently over the years.

In the last Parliament there were two pieces of legislation presented under Private Members' Business by our caucus. That was when the Party of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier was in power. However, they did not get anywhere.

In the election of 1984, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) quite readily pointed out, when asked by the Public Service Alliance of Canada what the position of the Conservative Party was, the Conservative Party said that, yes, it favoured a general removal of restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants governed by collective agreements. Members of the Party said that there are some senior public servants whose job responsibilities are very political in nature and whose rights should be somewhat restricted to prevent conflict of interest. We are confident, they said, that these people could be covered separately without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process. Nobody could disagree with that, the position of the Conservative Party back in 1984.

Why is it, then, that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West who has done very stalwart work over the last number of years on this very issue has to come here today to urge the members of his Party to give support to Bill C-273 when it comes back to the House? Why is that? He brought in a Private Member's Motion. He supported the Private Member's Motions of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who presented two of them in Private Members' Business.

The reason for that is because the Conservative Government has not brought forward such legislation. The legislation had

to be brought forward by individual Members of Parliament. Thus it comes as no surprise that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West has to get up to urge Members of his own Party to give support to it when it comes back to the House. Not only that, he has to bring it in as a Private Members' Bill, Bill C-273, in order to get this legislation debated and, hopefully, put into practice.

The Conservative Government has not kept its promise which it made to the people of Canada in 1984. The Hon. Member for Ottawa West has kept a promise that he made to his constituents when he was seeking election, but the Conservative Government has not.

Again in a period of two weeks we are reminded of the importance of the activities of the committee of this House which was chaired by the former Member for St. John's East which brought about reforms to this House. Those reforms allow the type of initiative taken by the Hon. Members for Ottawa West and Ottawa Centre to come before the House and, hopefully, if Conservative Members of the House support the party policy, to become legislation.

There was an example of that just two weeks ago in the form of a Bill brought forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). She brought forward legislation on a matter of controversy which received the support of the House as a result of the reforms to Parliament that were brought about by the all-Party committee chaired by the former Member for St. John's East.

It is unfortunate that in light of the Conservative Government's unwillingness to include a piece of legislation on political rights for public sector workers as part of its agenda-an agenda about which we heard the Deputy House Leader speak today, so much so that it has to extend the sittings of Parliament over the summer to get some items through-that this Bill was not part of the 204 Bills that the Government brought forward since September of 1984.

Why did it take the Hon. Member for Ottawa West and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to bring forward Private Members' legislation to try to get through this House policy and legislation which reflects, apparently, the policy of the Conservative Party, apparently the policy of the Liberal Party, but certainly the policy of this Party? This is something for which we have fought consistently since 1970 at least.

In the last Parliament New Democrats brought forward legislation in the form of Private Members' Bills to gain political rights for public servants in Canada. In that session of Parliament, and because there is a one-hour time limit on Private Members' Business, the person who talked it out on that occasion was a former Liberal Member of Parliament who represented Ottawa Centre. He talked the matter out beyond the hour so that the legislation died. We now apparently have support from some Members of the Liberal caucus, most notably the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who supports this legislation as a result of his motion today.

Public Service Employment Act

There are other Members from the Ottawa area who vigorously support the idea of political rights for public sector workers. However, it is time that the Government made a commitment to bring forward Bill C-273. I understand that in the all-Party committee there appears to be a general agreement. Some details remain to be worked out. However, it appears that that legislation will be ready to be brought back to the House very soon.

If we are looking for legislation that this Party is prepared to co-operate with the Government on, if the Government is prepared to bring it forward, and if the Government is prepared to instruct Members of the Cabinet to vote in favour of it and to follow up on what is said in black and white as Conservative Party policy, then we should see that legislation very quickly. We should see support from Members of the Government, not just from diligent back-benchers of the Government.

It is an important right. If the Conservative Party was willing to admit back in 1984 that the restrictions on the rights of public servants may not be justifiable under the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why has it not brought forward legislation to put an end to that discrimination? Why has it left it to private Members to do this type of work?

I wish to commend all those private Members, especially the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre who has done yeoman's service on this issue, in that he brought forward two Private Members' Bills and has taken a court case on it. I also commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Hon. Member for Ottawa West. I hope that this legislation, Bill C-273, gets through the committee quickly and back to the House to be passed before the next election.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

I recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) ... or rather the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).

Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, I love my constituency . . . and I would not feel inclined to represent the constituency of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).

I would like indeed to commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for introducing in October 1987 that motion inviting the Government to allow public servants to participate in electoral activities by amending the Public Service Employment Act.

I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) who just rose that it is indeed because of the parliamentary reform initiated by his predecessor Mr. James McGrath, the then Hon. Member for St. John's East, that the Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) very soon will be before the House for enactment.

Public Service Employment Act

This is because the Government really believed in parliamentary reform, and I must remind the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Mulroney) appointed Mr. McGrath, knowing him as a person really commited to parliamentary reform, someone also who had a lot to contribute to parliamentary reform, a very independent-minded man, with very progressive ideas on the role of MP's. This is why the Prime Minister appointed him to establish a Committee with colleagues from the House in order to examine parliamentary reform.

During that exercise, we looked at the role of Hon. Members during the hour provided for Private Members' Business and we concluded that in order to enhance the role of Members during this hour, the hour itself should be enhanced to bring much more direct and specific results. We had to make sure that more bills would be referred to legislative committees, for at the time bills were considered by the standing committees of the House. So it was important that these bills be referred to legislative committees, and it was precisely to enhance the role of Members that the Government, having already begun studying a bill to extend the political rights of public employees, examined the measure sponsored by my collegaue from Ottawa West and decided to promote his bill to increase the standing of Private Members' hour and speed up parliamentary reform.

Therefore I fail to see why the Hon. Member for St. John's East would want to suggest that the Government did not live up to its promise, while in fact it killed two birds with one stone.

We have a bill which is very well drafted and meets the standards set forth by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, a bill which indeed will give ... I should not say give because we are talking about rights, but give back or acknowledge that public employees are properly entitled to wide-ranging political rights while at the same time respecting what we have always advocated, namely the professional objectivity of public employees.

Mr. Speaker, you know that federal employees serve the public, so their professional attributes must be protected if they are to do a good job. This is why it was not easy, it was not black and white as the Hon. Member for St. John's East is suggesting, we had to state that one day we would eventually do the proper thing and acknowledge their political rights, that it could be done right away to show respect for professional attributes and for the public at large because it is entitled to objective services from federal employees.

As the Government measure was progressing, our colleague from Ottawa West introduced a Bill which was very much along the lines of the work we as Government Members of the National Capital Commission, had been doing as a group. So we contacted our colleague and told him: "David, if you were to change certain things, if you were to amend your Bill this way or that way, if you agreed to that perhaps we migh concentrate all our efforts on your Bill, precisely because we

want to enhance the role of the individual Member". And that is why we did that. We were very consistent and, as I said, we killed two birds with one stone.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, in January 1984, I had the honour to be appointed Executive Director to our National Advisory Committee on Policies which prepared the so-call "Bible" for the election which was to be held in 1984. This committee was chaired by Senator Arthur Tremblay. It was made up of Canadian men and women involved in and committed to public life and it prepared our party platform. One of its main elements was to recognize the political rights of civil servants in addition to suggesting a Parliamentary reform. Because Mr. McGrath was at the time a Member of the Opposition, he made a very worthwhile contribution to our National Advisory Committee on Policies. Again, I repeat, consistency. This dates back to January 1984.

When we assumed power, we immediately took action to recognize these political rights, as we had promised we would. I personally drafted a private bill, because I wanted to make sure that in line with the work we had done-for as you know, Mr. Speaker, a newly elected Government has a lot of work to do to finalize a great many Bills left over by the previous administration ... I just could not see how the new Government could introduce a Bill dealing with this issue before at least a year or two. So, I said to myself, I am not going to wait.

1 had drafted a Bill, but I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary in September 1986, and as you know, the practice in the House does not allow Parliamentary Secretaries to use Private Members' Hour to introduce private bills. So, I withdrew this Bill together with a number of others which I had introduced. Then, the Government started to work on its own.

When the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) introduced his Bill in November 1987, we worked on this Bill which, I think, will meet the needs of our civil servants while respecting the public's right to their professional attributes.

I should like to emphasize once more the efforts made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in this area, because, contrary to what the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) said, I do not think it is for lack of trying that he failed to convince the Government of the importance of all his efforts. It was due to a combination of circumstances. The House is called upon to address a great many issues. Public life itself suggests priorities. The fact that some bills must wait their turn does not reflect on their value, because emergencies occur, and budgetary legislation must be dealt with. The House must deal with supply, Mr. Speaker, irrespective of the schedule.

For this reason, I find it unfortunate that the Hon. Member for St. John's East, who replaces a man whom the House held in such high esteem, who was appreciated for his open mindedness and great generosity and who would never have looked down on the efforts of his colleagues, because I feel he would learn something by reading everything the former

Member for St. John's East said in this House, and by listening to our colleagues who had the pleasure to work with him, for he would realize that the spirit of the House does not allow this kind of small-minded remarks, when today, thanks to the efforts of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West, we are going to achieve an objective of the Progressive Conservative Party who wanted to recognize the political rights of civil servants as well as the wishes which have been expressed before by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, to recognize the political rights of civil servants. It is a great day, Mr. Speaker, which we should not be marred with petty remarks.

Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak tonight but given the importance of this issue for the National Capital Region and given the fine speeches made by my colleague, I have decided to also take part in the discussion and offer my comments on this subject. Indeed, I must tell my colleague from Ottawa-West (Mr. Daubney), who 1 take this opportunity to congratulate for his Bill C-273, that I hope he will be successful, but until everything is wrapped up, Mr. Speaker, one can hardly trust in victory. The issue is not a new one, it is in fact quite old, almost as old, I believe, as the Public Service itself. And there is a simple reason for that. Those who have stood up for civil servants in this House, are for the most part the federal members or representatives of the two or three Parties who live in the National Capital Region.

I can remember that we fought vigorously some years ago for civil servants. Whether in the case of retired civil servants or past and present civil servants, we have always been at their side and this is normal since most people in the National Capital Area are civil servants. In the final analysis, we must defend our constituents and since they are federal civil servants, we are at their side and always will be.

I do not think that this should be made a political issue as such. Issues dealing with federal civil servants should be dealt with in non partisan fashion, and all the more so when the issue concerns political activity.

Attempts have been made to change the situation for I don't know how long. Jolly well if it works and I don't care one bit if it is an election promise, just as long as the majority of our civil servants get what they want.

And this is why I submit that we are in an awkward position as members representing their constituents, simply because we are always caught up in a partisan issue when we have a regional interest to protect, and I say regional, not local. The National Capital Region is after all a region of some importance and how can we be blamed for representing people who happen to be civil servants.

We have already had severe problems with Section 32, mainly concerning the referendum issue in 1980. I remember asking the Solicitor General of the day several questions. He would have been willing to do something but had his hands tied by the vagueness of the term "political activity". The word

Public Service Employment Act

"refedendum" was not included in the Public Service Employment Act. What does "political activity" actually mean? Does that mean that it only happens during an election? I think so, in accordance with section 32. Then again, is applauding the Hon. Member for Gatineau in a political meeting a political activity which warrants a suspension? I know that gesture could also be interpreted in all its glory, so to speak.

Some people interpret words. That's why I say that political activities should be clearly defined, because there have been abuses and there will be more. Is this legislation or the proposed reform going to allow political activities across the board? I don't think so. I think we should get down to business, like the committee did, and determine whether all activities should be permitted or not within the Public Service.

I know some people will always try to exercise their right to democracy in all its magnificence, which is also quite normal, but we will have to put some restrictions in certain cases. I recall when the federal Liberal association of my very own and very lovely constituency of Hull-Aylmer had in fact elected, I would not say inadvertently, but enthusiastically, someone thought to have political activities simply because he was active in union matters within the civil service. So, he received threats, he was told he would have to resign, that Section 32 did not allow such things, and so on. The point I want to make is that civil servants, as someone else mentionned it earlier, are people too. People who live in the National Capital Region, and who work for the federal Government. And that is very evident during an election. Those people do not talk much, they are very reserved, they don't want to be identified with any political Party in particular, and rightly so. They should therefore be able to exercise their rights to democracy just like any other citizen of this Region.

I know it's an old chestnut. People always say: "When you were in power, you didn't do it". Others say: "When you're in power, you don't do it". The reason is simple. It might prove also that, if we were to change the system with a view of strengthening it, backbenchers from a particular region would be able to influence the Government so that legislation beneficial to a region, whatever its politic allegiance can be adopted.

That is my opinion. I think we should seek ways to amend Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. I would add that this should not be valid only during elections, but all the time. Civil servants should be able to participate in the democratic life of their community, their riding or their region just as any other citizen. Many have gone into municipal politics, and I think that they make excellent politicians even if they work for the Public Service. Again, certain restrictions should be imposed. Their activities should not give rise to conflict of interests. There is a long list of activities which are out of bounds to them.

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent motion in my view. I thank my friend from Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for giving me

Immigration Act, 1976

this opportunity to make a few comments on that very important subject. I know he has been promoting this for a long time, as all other Members from the area. I can even suggest to the Hon. Members for Ottawa West, for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) and for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), and even for Ottawa Carleton (Mr. Turner) that when we were in power, some Liberal Members from the area voted against the Government, along with some Conservative Members at the time. We did this generously and sincerely, but it was hard for us and it was hard also for the then Government. It would be just as hard today if this were to be repeated. But I think that one must have the will to defend one's own ideas, one's own philosophy, and above all else to be a good representative of the people. If we do not do that, we fail in our duty as Members of Parliament, we fail in our oath of office because we no longer defend the interests of the people we are representing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

I am sorry, but the period provided for Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

It being 6 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed

to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) in relation to the message of the Senate on Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.

Call in the Members.

The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap), which was

negatived on the following division: {Division No. 393)

YEAS Members

Althouse Gagliano McCurdy Angus Gauthier Mitchell Axworthy Guilbault Orlikow Benjamin (Saint-Jacques) Parry Blaikie Harris Penner Boudria Hopkins Prud'homme Caccia Isabelle Riis de Jong Dewar Jewett Keeper Rodriguez-29 Foster MacLellan Fulton Manly

NAYS Members Andre Grise Nicholson ikBelsher Guilbault (Niagara Falls) .Bernier (Drummond) Nickerson Bertrand Gustafson Nowlan Blenkarn Halliday Oostrom Bourgault Hamilton Ricard Caldwell Hardey Schellcnberg Champagne Hawkes (Nanaimo Albcrni) (Champlain) Hudon Schcllenberger Chartrand Jardine (Wetaskiwin) Clark Joncas Scott (Brandon-Souris) Kelleher (Hamilton-Wentworth) Cooper Kilgour Shields Cossitt King Sparrow Crofton Ladouceur Stackhouse Crouse Lanthier Stewart Daubney Lawrence Taylor de Cotret Leblanc Towers , :***Desjardins Lesick Tremblay ip-Desrosiers Lewis (Quebec-Est) Domm Mailly Turner fpDuplessis Marin (Ottawa-Carleton) Fennell Mazankowski Valcourt Fontaine McCrossan Vezina Fraleigh McCuish Vincent Gottselig McDermid Winegard Gray (Bonaventure-I les-de- McKinnon Minaker Wise-75 la-Madeleine) GreenawayMoore

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I declare the amendment lost.

Pursuant to the agreement reached Friday, June 17, 1988,

the next question is on the amendment of Mr. Marchi. 1

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.