Mr. Greenaway:

Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member probably does not know, and it is not his fault, but last night in

May 3, 1988

Vancouver there was a program announced by the Western Diversification Office. It has contributed $171,000 to COFI and the IWA. The plan is to send IWA members to Europe, to Asia and to the United States to look at the lumber markets there and to come back to report what they have seen to the IWA workers right across the province.

The Hon. Member was talking a few moments ago about cooperation and diversification. I thought that he might like to hear something positive. It was announced last night and he probably did not have a chance to see the press release. It is a program involving $171,000, a co-operative effort between COFI and the IWA. It is a bench-mark, a very positive initiative. I am pleased about it. I think everybody is happy with it. It should bring some real benefits to the B.C. industry.

Mr. Greenaway:

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech of the Hon. Member, and it is the same one that he gave the other day.

Is the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) aware that the Western Diversification office in British Columbia is willing to send out officials from that Office to conduct one day seminars on western economic diversification? It may be that the Hon. Member would be interested in arranging for such a seminar to be held in Kamloops.

I had occasion to visit the Thompson Nicola Valley Manufacturers Trade Fair held in Kamloops last fall, and I can readily agree that it is a good organization. I am at a loss as to why the Western Diversification Office has not funded that organization.

I am wondering what the Hon. Member has done to bring about a positive decision on funding. Has he visited the Western Diversification Office in Vancouver to lobby on behalf of that organization; has he talked to the various Ministers involved?

I stand ready to offer any assistance I can provide in terms of getting funding for that organization. Certainly, it is a worth-while organization and should be one which is representative of what is required by the WDO.

Mr. Greenaway:

Why was the request turned down?

Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to enter into this debate on property rights and their future entrenchment in our Constitution. I do not think any one issue has bothered me more, nor have I received more letters on any issue than I have on this one. Almost all of my constituents would like to see property rights entrenched in our Constitution. It amazes them that they are not.

It is a well acknowledged, intrinsic human desire to own property, and one would think that to have ownership protected legally could almost be taken for granted in a democracy such as ours. However, we must not forget that it was not a simple oversight that left property rights out of our Constitution.

The Conservative Party proposed that this fundamental right be included in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1981 during the original drafting of the Charter. For a time, this worthy proposal was accepted by the then Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). However, due to political pressures from

the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Government quickly reversed itself and withdrew the property rights amendment.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party is quoted in Hansard of April 29, 1983 at page 25001, as having said in 1981 the following:

There's no way we can accept the constitutional resolution with that amendment in it.

The NDP fears the amendment could not only prevent provincial legislation restricting foreign owners-but could hinder Governments wishing to nationalize industries ...

The Conservative amendment flies in the face of what we're attempting to do in the resource sector-tightening up management control-

Prime Minister Trudeau and the then Liberal Government, by making a deal with the NDP, sacrificed Canadians' constitutional guarantee of this basic human right. Therefore, when the Constitution of Canada was patriated in 1982, only three of the four basic human rights were entrenched.

The terrible consequences of not adequately protecting our right to property in the Constitution have already been clearly demonstrated. Past Governments have repeatedly and needlessly seized land while offering little or no compensation. In recent years, the Liberals did that twice, with the shameless confiscation of the frontier lands for the National Energy Program and with the expropriation of land for Mirabel airport.

While the Liberals should be embarrassed by these violations of property rights, members of the NDP openly plot to violate these very same rights in order to realize their socialist ambitions. They oppose the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution because it would be a serious impediment to their policy of nationalization and economic intervention.

The American people recently celebrated the two-hundredth anniversary of their Constitution. What struck me about that event was the pride exhibited by the American people and their realization that a Constitution is a living document. It enunciates basic principles which are then, over time, further defined, added to and, most important, put into practice.

We do not want a Canadian Constitution that remains flawed, incomplete and so inextricably mired in the status quo that it loses its effectiveness and relevance. The majority of Canadians want property rights entrenched in our Constitution.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on April 15, 1987, indicated that with the Meech Lake Accord now under way we could begin to look at other constitutional issues such as property rights. He stated then that the successful resolution of the Quebec issue would unlock the constitutional process and allow us to turn our attention to other issues such as property rights in a second round of constitutional discussions.

I would remind Hon. Members that this Government was elected with a mandate for national reconciliation. The Prime Minister stated that a key element of such reconciliation was Quebec's signature on the Constitution. The provincial

April 29, 1988

premiers agreed, and at their Edmonton conference in 1986, stated that Quebec should be the paramount constitutional issue and that other issues, as important as they are, should be dealt with following the resolution of Quebec's concerns.

Given the important and pressing nature of those other constitutional issues such as Senate reform, fisheries, and of course property rights, this decision by the premiers reflected a truly national vision. It was in that spirit that First Ministers succeeded in reaching an agreement with Quebec through the Meech Lake Accord. In recognition of the other constitutional issues, the Accord includes the requirement for an annual conference of First Ministers to examine these matters.

I believe that for the House to proceed with the motion before us at this time would be inconsistent with the Premiers' declaration and the agreed upon process. We must recognize that for this amendment to be adopted consent of a number of provinces will be required, and we should not act in a manner that would make obtaining that support more difficult.

Accordingly I am proposing an amendment to the motion that will send a strong signal of support by the House of Commons for the principle of entrenched property rights but will leave formal adoption until the First Ministers have dealt with the issue. I believe that a demonstration of support for the principle by the House of Commons would provide a strong impetus to those discussions while respecting the process agreed upon by First Ministers.

I would also remind Hon. Members that there are ongoing federal-provincial discussions with respect to this issue. That work will continue and, I hope, will build a consensus for First Ministers to act. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey):

That Motion M-8 be amended by deleting all of the words after "amended", and substituting the following:

"In order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, after an assessment of the continuing federal-provincial work on entrenchment of property rights and a future discussion by First Ministers at the Constitutional Conference."

I would like to inform Hon. Members that this amendment is available in both official languages.

Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment both Hon. Members who have just spoken on this Bill. I think there is very little we can find to say that would not be in favour of what the Hon. Member is proposing. The substance of the Hon. Member's Bill is good. He did mention, however, that there could be some technicalities that might make it difficult. My job is to point out several of these technicalities that would make it difficult for the Government.

Bill C-238 proposes in substance to amend the Canada Labour Code in order to change the name of Boxing Day to International Peace and Goodwill Day. However, I doubt if such a gesture would make any concrete or substantive contribution to international peace and goodwill. Should Canada alone speak for the world community? Would not this laudable effort be best directed to the United Nations?

1 realize that the cause of world peace is not a trivial one. However, with all due respect to the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Van-koughnet), I am afraid that the proposed change is unlikely to achieve the goal it espouses. Even if by passing the Bill we would be promoting world peace, I fear the whole exercise would be beyond the scope of the Canada Labour Code. The Code deals with the rights, safety and well-being of Canadian workers, an issue distinct from the precise matter at hand.

We must also remember that not all workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code. Roughly 90 per cent of Canadian workers are regulated by provincial labour laws and none of the provincial statutes recognize Boxing Day as a paid holiday.

The federal Government and all the provinces and territories have legislation of broad application dealing with paid general holidays. However, the list of holidays and details concerning employees' rights to these holidays vary from one jurisdiction to the next.

Under the Canada Labour Code, Part III, Division 4, nine general holidays in a year are to be observed as paid holidays. These are New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

The Code also provides that under certain conditions, an alternative holiday may be substituted for any of the nine holidays specified. Should a holiday occur on a day on which an employee does not normally work, he or she must be granted a day off with pay in lieu of the holiday either at a time convenient to the employer and employee or by the addition of a day to the annual vacation leave.

If Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Canada Day or Remembrance Day fall on a Saturday or Sunday that is a nonworking day for an employee, the employee must be given a holiday with pay on the working day immediately before or after the general holiday. These provisions regarding alternative days off do not apply, however, to employees covered by a

December 18, 1987

collective agreement that entitles them to at least nine paid holidays a year.

The Code lays down the general principle that an employee in a federal undertaking who does not work on a holiday is entitled to regular pay for the day. If the employee is paid by the week or month, wages must not be reduced by reason of his or her not working on a holiday. If the employee is paid on any other basis, he or she must receive the equivalent of the regular wages for a normal working day.

The regular rate of wages for an employee whose hours of work vary from day to day or who is paid other than on an hourly or daily basis is the average of daily earnings exclusive of overtime for the 20 days worked immediately preceding the holiday. An employee in a federal undertaking required to work on a general holiday is entitled to regular wages for the day and, in addition, to time and one-half the regular rate for all time worked. In other words, the employee is paid two and a half times the usual rate.

Different provisions apply to those employed in continuous operations who are required to work on a holiday. A continuous operation is defined to include any industrial establishment in which, during a seven-day period, operations normally continue without cessation until the end of that period. For example, the operation of trains, planes, ships, trucks and other vehicles, telephone, radio, television, telegraph or other communication or broadcasting services, or any other operation normally carried on without regard to weekends or holidays. An employee who works on a holiday must be paid regular wages for the day and must, in addition, be paid one and a half times the regular rate for the time worked, or must be granted holiday with pay at some other time. This may involve either a day added to annual vacation or another day off where convenient to the employee and employer. Or, where a collective agreement so provides, the employee must be paid for the holiday on his or next non-working day. However, an employee not entitled to wages for at least 15 days during the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the holiday is entitled to one-twentieth of the wages earned during those 30 days.

There are some situations in which an employee is not entitled to holiday pay. An employee is not entitled to pay for a general holiday that occurs in his or her first 30 days of employment with an employer, but if required to work on a holiday he or she must be paid time and one-half the regular rate. If employed in a continuous operation, he or she may be paid at the regular rate for work done on a holiday.

At the provincial level, as I mentioned, none of the labour laws recognize Boxing Day as a paid holiday. Obviously, some collective agreements may provide such a holiday, and in most provinces, provincial or municipal laws oblige retail establishments to close on Boxing Day, although this does not entitle employees to a paid holiday. Therefore, the change proposed

Peace and Goodwill Day

by this Bill would not only be purely symbolic, it would also affect a very small proportion of Canadian workers.

Therefore, I urge Hon. Members not to support this Bill.