Ray Speaker

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend from the Bloc Quebecois I want to say that our philosophies differ completely. There are two ways to approach the economic problems of the country, the major debt, a deficit every year of $40 billion and a growing deficit under the 3 per cent plan of the Liberal government. One is to be fiscally responsible and try to live within our means. The other is to increase taxes.

Since coming to this assembly I have learned that the Bloc Quebecois uses a socialist, NDP approach to resolve economic matters. Those members should be telling Canadians-and I hope Canadians hear this-that they want to increase taxation. They do not want to reduce expenditures in a responsible way. They believe there is some rich person out there who will fill the revenue coffers of the country so the government can spend more. We in the Reform do not believe that; we absolutely do not believe it.

We believe Canadians want more independence. They want to be free to spend their own money. They want to be able to have more capital so they can invest in their own future and their family's future. They want to be rid of government, to have less government. That is the best approach to dealing with our deficit and other economic problems.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as Reformers we do not believe that. The total gross domestic product of Canada is around $750 billion. Out of that gross domestic product we intend to take out in terms of debt reduction or expenditure reduction some $25 billion in total.

That is somewhat of a hiccup in the total overall scene. We do not think it will have a significant effect on any kind of economic growth. We do believe that type of action will create confidence in the economy, more growth in the economy, more job opportunities and certainly it will be better for Canada as a whole on a longer term.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate.

Over the last month dozens of Canadians have come before the finance committee to tell us what their priorities are for the next budget. Just about every conceivable position has been expressed as to what should and should not be done. The prebudget consultations have demonstrated one very important point: that a consensus does exist among Canadians on the need to eliminate the deficit. It is no longer a question of whether, it is a question of how and when.

Last week I and one of my colleagues did something unique. We asked to make a presentation to our own committee. In that presentation we laid out a very clear goal to eliminate the deficit over a three year period. We listed 25 specific examples of expenditure reductions or cuts that could be made in order to move toward our goal.

We did not attempt to hide the truth from Canadians in a political or any other way. We levelled with them and told them this would mean cuts of approximately $25 billion after a revenue growth of some $15 billion to $16 billion to reduce our $40 billion current deficit. That would mean that $12 billion to $16 billion, most likely $15 billion, would have to come from social programs over a three year period, not all in one year but over a three year period.

We did not have to do this. We did not have to use this approach. Politically it would have been a lot easier to say nothing and then criticize the government when it released its budget. This is what most opposition or traditional parties have done over the years in their adversary role. That is the kind of game which is usually played. I am sure the members of the government who were in the last House were the best players in that type of game.

Reform members did not come to Ottawa to play games. Our country's finances are too important. They have become our number one priority in our pursuit and our objective in this House of Commons and in this term of Parliament. We came here to change the way politics are done in this country.

The proposal we made to the committee was not a superficial one. We began working on this project immediately following the government's last budget. Over a period of nine months the critics in the Reform Party have reviewed every government program in their area of responsibility. They have weighed those programs against five basic principles that were articulated in our presentation. This represents our best effort in proposing a constructive alternative to the government's fiscal agenda.

In the 10 minutes I have at this time I would like to look at the government's reaction to this presentation. In particular I want to address two specific criticisms that were levelled against us by government and other members of the finance committee. It is important to talk about these criticisms because they go right to the heart of what distinguishes the Reform Party from the governing party.

First I would like to address the question put to me by the member for St. Paul's who simply asked where I was coming from. That was an easy question. Our proposals and recommendations are driven by our conviction that the government's plan to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by 1997 will not be enough to control or regain the control over our debt. We recognize even in the 3 per cent program the accumulated debt at the end of three years will be far over $600 billion.

What I think he really meant to ask was not so much where the Reform Party was coming from as where it is going. Everyone recognizes that eliminating the deficit in three years is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. What is that end for Reform? What is our vision of Canada?

Surprisingly in comparing what the government said in its grey book to what Reform said in its presentation to the finance committee not much difference will be found in terms of their fiscal and economic analysis. In fact the government's grey book is probably closer to the Reform position than it is to the red book that the Liberals campaigned on in 1993.

However there are some very fundamental differences in terms of our perspective of Canada. Reformers argue for less government involvement in the economy, for lower taxes, and for giving greater flexibility to local and provincial governments. The Liberals we believe are afraid of these proposals. Why? Where Reformers believe in empowering people, the Liberals still believe in empowering the bureaucrats. Where Reformers place their faith in individuals, the Liberals still place their faith in government. While the Liberals do not seem to think Canadians can take care of themselves, we believe they can.

While it is important to know what Canada's political parties believe in and what their vision is, they should not distract us from the more immediate problem, one which has nothing to do with partisan affiliation or political vision: the problem of our debt. It is a major problem.

The debt is sucking the life out of this country. It is killing jobs. It is killing innovation and entrepreneurship. It is killing our social safety net and our health care system. It does not care about politics. It does not set priorities. It does not discriminate against one problem or favour another. It is an equal opportunity killer and it will kill this country unless we do something to stop it. If we do not deal with the debt before our creditors deal with us, then Canada as we know it will cease to exist.

This brings me to the second criticism of our presentation. This one really upsets me. It was the contention that our 25 deficit cutting recommendations and the $12 billion to $16 billion of social program spending must be cut over the next three years. Committee members and others have said that somehow this is an abdication of our social responsibility to Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reformers did not come to Ottawa to take away the bread from starving children. We did not come here to dismantle social programs and leave the vulnerable and the unfortunate in our society unprotected and uncared for. The debate is over how and when to eliminate the deficit. It is not about which party cares the most for Canadians. We all care. The debate is about doing what has to be done. The Reform Party is not going to apologize for telling Canadians the truth.

The truth is that social programs will have to be cut. The some $67 billion expended in that area will have to be reduced to some $50 billion to $60 billion whether we like it or not. If our social safety net collapses because of the failure of the government to plan for the future and doing what has to be done now, those most vulnerable will be the first to suffer and will suffer the most.

Members of the government say it is Reformers who have abdicated their social responsibilities to Canadians, but who has been in power for over a year and done nothing in that time to deal with the debt that is killing this country? In three years this government will have allowed our stock of debt to grow by another $97 billion. If Canada hits the wall, whose conscience will that be on? When international creditors tell the Canadian government and I say tell, not ask, who will be responsible? When international creditors tell a future Canadian government that they will only lend it money if it slashes every program across the board by 30 to 40 per cent, then who will have abdicated their social responsibility to Canadians?

At the present time we have been given an opportunity to put our fiscal house in order. While I do not pretend in any way that this will be easy, there are promising signs. The economy is expanding and Canadians from coast to coast have been telling us they are ready for the cuts. Some will debate whether or not this is Canada's best opportunity to eliminate the debt. I believe this is the proper time to do it.

We have a very simple choice: Either we decide where and how we will cut or somebody will decide that for us. If the government allows the latter to happen, it will be no consolation for me to point out which party truly abdicated its social responsibility for Canadians.

[The Budget, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party recognizes that Canadians want to solve our economic problems. Would the Minister of Finance admit that solving the problem, bringing confidence back to this country, has a first priority and that first priority is an expenditure reduction that eliminates the deficit in this country?

[The Budget, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if this government spent as much time figuring out how to cut spending as it does trying to devise new ways of raising and borrowing money, we could have been well on our way to balancing the budget.

This past week the Minister of Finance put out a trial balloon to look at what he called victory bonds. Canada already has 10-year bonds, 30-year bonds, 90-day treasury bills and Canada Savings Bonds, just to mention a few.

I ask the Minister of Finance, why do we need more bonds in our country?

[Trade, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate what type of measures the government is planning to put in place in terms of removing some of the protectionist opportunities that the American government may take with regard to GATT or what other measures can be taken that will protect our industry on not only a short term basis but a long term basis as well?

[Trade, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the reason for negotiating international trade deals like the free trade agreement, NAFTA or GATT should be to tear down trade barriers rather than build them up. Yet access to the American market has decreased for the Canadian sugar industry due to protectionist measures. In jeopardy are some 1,700 Canadian jobs at the present time.

My question is to the Minister for International Trade. What will the government do to protect the jobs in the Canadian sugar industry and to improve Canadian access to American sugar markets?

[Grain Export Protection Act, November 24th, 1994]

moved that Bill C-262, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting the export of grain by arbitration and to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of my Bill C-262 respecting the Grain Export Protection Act. The bill deals with an issue that grain farmers in western Canada and in my constituency have been addressing and wanting to address for some time.

For 11 days last January and February a labour dispute at the Vancouver ports disrupted the flow of Canadian grain to export markets. It is estimated that Canada's grain industry incurred losses of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The federal government responded by introducing special back to work legislation, Bill C-10, to end the dispute and resume the flow of grain. Far from being an isolated case, it marked the 13th time that the workers were legislated back to work since the year 1966. Bill C-262 provides a permanent solution to this chronic problem by amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act to prevent labour disputes from disrupting the flow of grain from the farm to export.

In cases where grain transportation is threatened by strikes or lockouts those actions are prevented. To settle such disputes the bill provides for a settlement mechanism known as final offer selection arbitration. The process is only utilized if the parties involved are unable to reach an agreement through the normal collective bargaining process.

For those who are not familiar with final offer selection arbitration, let me quickly mention some of its key features. First, the trade union and the employer are requested to provide the minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend as the arbitrator.

Second, the trade union and employer are required to submit to the arbitrator a list of matters agreed upon and a list of those matters still under dispute. For the disputed issues each party is required to submit a final offer for settlement. The arbitrator

then settles either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer. The arbitrator is not permitted to split the difference. In the event that one party does not submit a final offer the other side is automatically accepted. The arbitrator's decision in these matters is binding on both parties.

Why was the final offer selection chosen? This dispute settlement mechanism used by the federal government in Bill C-10 was chosen to force the negotiating parties to make a greater effort at settling their differences by themselves. By compelling each party to submit a final best offer and by preventing the arbitrator from splitting the difference between the two, the mechanism creates a strong incentive for both parties to submit a credible, constructive and economically realistic offer for settlement. Any party that tables an unreasonable final offer would be taking a huge gamble the arbitrator would choose the other party's proposal. It is hoped that the existence of the process will encourage negotiating parties to reach agreements before it becomes necessary to have the arbitrator choose one offer or the other.

Since 1966, as I have mentioned, the federal government has had to pass special back to work legislation in the areas of longshoring and grain handling 13 times. The cost of such disruptions to grain farmers and the grain industry is tremendous. The Western Wheat Growers Association estimated that the 11-day work stoppage which was ended by Bill C-10 of this year cost the grain industry some $35 million in demurrage, penalties and out of pocket expenses.

When the Minister of Human Resources Development spoke on Bill C-10 he stated that the strike was threatening some $500 million worth of grain sales. That is not acceptable.

The frequency of such work stoppages over the past 20 to 30 years has also made foreign buyers question the reliability of Canada's grain supply. The most recent work stoppage at the west coast ports so concerned Japanese canola importers that they have begun offering Australian farmers minimum pricing contracts to encourage them to grow canola.

Another reason Bill C-262 is necessary is the vulnerability of western grain farmers to work stoppages in these industries. To illustrate just how vulnerable grain farmers are, let us consider this example. In 1988, 30 per cent of the country's grain exports were halted by 69 grain handlers in Prince Rupert. As usual the federal government was compelled to legislate them back to work after a few days.

One source of the problem is that Canada's transportation network has failed western grain farmers by limiting the options available to them in moving their grain to market. This is largely a result of the distorting effects government policies such as the WGTA subsidy, the Crow benefit, have had on the development of the nation's transportation structure.

Another source of grain farmers' vulnerability is the composition and location of Canada's grain markets. Approximately 80 per cent of Canadian grain is exported and most foreign buyers prefer loading out of west coast ports.

Finally there is a combination of legislation, regulations and purely economic considerations that has made it uneconomical or impractical for farmers to ship grain to export markets via such alternate routes as Thunder Bay, Churchill and American west coast ports.

On average the federal government has had to legislate grain handlers and longshoremen back to work, as I have said, about once every two years. Each time it happens grain farmers lose control over their livelihoods and their lives. Why should we not settle the issue once and for all instead of waiting for the next time it becomes necessary to rush through emergency back to work legislation? There is no need to have next times because with Bill C-262 we can resolve the problem once and for all.

One question asked is: Does Bill C-262 not violate the right to bargain collectively? I want to say very clearly that Reform is not anti-labour. That is not the intent of the bill. It is not a bill about union busting. We fully support the principle of collective bargaining. As a member of the legislature in the province of Alberta I have spoken a number of times in support of the process. However we also support the right of farmers to earn a living. We believe that governments have a responsibility to protect western grain farmers from ever again having to incur the costs they incurred during past strikes and lockouts.

In the sectors affected by the bill, that is the grain industry itself, the right to bargain collectively and to strike or to lock out employees is presently somewhat of a fiction. All the parties involved realize this very fact. Why do I say that? It is fiction because the federal government is always compelled-and the history is there-to intervene to end such work stoppages within a matter of days. The proof for this statement, as I have said more than once already in my remarks, is that the federal government has had to legislate the workers back to work some 13 times since 1966.

In a properly functioning labour environment with employers and employees they both have to take into account costs in the form of lost wages or in the form of sales. Then the question about strike action becomes something different. Normally this is a powerful incentive for both sides to reach an agreement at the bargaining table.

However this normal safeguard does not apply in the case of longshoring and grain handling. The knowledge that any work stoppage in these areas will not be permitted to last for any length of time has been factored into the negotiation process for the parties. They do not fear a strike nor a lockout knowing it

will not last too long. They know the victims in the process will not be the employers or the employees but western Canadian grain farmers because in the end they pay the bills.

When I look at legislation such as this I wonder whether or not it should be permanent legislation. I do not believe it should be permanent. We in the Reform Party hope that at some point we could take the legislation off the books. Such legislation is presently necessary due to a number factors. Western grain farmers have no choice but to export their grain via one transportation route. If they had the option of shipping their grain via route a or via route b when there is work stoppage there would be no need for Bill C-262.

This is one reason a Reform government would work to create a more flexible and efficient transportation network. Transportation reform is one of a series of measures which Reformers believe would empower farmers by giving them greater flexibility and control over their own livelihood. When such reforms are put in place there would be no need for legislation such as the private member's bill before us today. At such a time the legislation could be repealed with no harm to grain farmers. Until such reforms are made Reformers believe the government's priority should be to protect the western grain farmer.

If in the future after Bill C-262 has been repealed and there is some combination of events that threatens western grain farmers again, we would not hesitate to bring back into effect that kind of legislation.

I look at Bill C-262 as a private member and as a farmer from western Canada. I was involved in each work stoppage that occurred over the past 13 years either as a member of the legislature or as a farmer who wanted to ship grain to meet my expenses and commitments as a farmer. I was always frustrated.

I remember in the legislature moving resolutions that the provincial government should go to the federal government and get the work stoppage stopped so that farmers could start shipping their grain and getting out of some of the financial stress they were facing. The provincial government said it was a federal matter. Often it stayed that type of thing even though members of the legislature in Alberta agreed that something should be done.

I remember as a farmer saying: "I know I am paying the bill but I cannot sit at the table. I have no place at the table as a farmer even though I am paying the bill in order to make my case. There is no one at the table representing me". The grain companies did not have the vested interest of the farmer. We could not say anything to the grain companies. We could not say anything to the longshoremen. They were not responsible to the farmer. It had been and still is a very frustrating and difficult problem.

I always said that if I had the opportunity something should be done where the farmer is represented at the table. The bill empowers the federal government to be at the table and to say to the 23 or 25 unions between the farm gate and the hold of the boat that if they move to a point where they can negotiate no further at the table they must move to arbitration. You present your case at the table the best you can. If you win you get that settlement; if the employer or the shipping companies win then that is the settlement. That is the way it is. We would be a little more involved as a farmer in an indirect sense, the federal government would represent us there.

What happens now under the circumstances? What happened in January and February 1994? Again we had work stoppage. Farmers were in difficulty. The government was being pressured to bring in a bill to put these people back to work.

Then it becomes a political item. Should we force labour back to work or not? Should we get involved or not? What are the politics of it? Are the farmers stressed or are they not? Do we want to represent the union? We do not want to lose their vote out there.

All of a sudden here is the farmer of western Canada in terms of his financial circumstances and his marketing capabilities being involved in a political process. He should not be involved in this type of circumstance. As far as I am concerned, that is wrong and it should stop.

It is incumbent upon this government to look seriously at this proposal and take some action. I know that western farmers would shout hurrah and be excited about it. They would want this type of action from the government. They are getting tired of being pawns of these few longshoremen who are paid very high hourly wages, exorbitant wages, for the jobs they are doing out on the coast.

I have said this in the Alberta legislature and I have said it publicly to the media and in a variety of other places. We as farmers were so disgusted with the circumstances out there. I said that I could train 25 to 40 of the young farmers from my constituency in two weeks or less and move them out there. We could take over those jobs and we could continue to get our grain on the boats and move it forward.

I can tell you a lot of young farmers were so upset because of this strike, with people getting paid high wages out there and having no consideration. Living on the coast at Vancouver, sitting out on the port where the water never freezes over, or sitting up at Prince Rupert where there is not any kind of agricultural environment, there is no loyalty, no communica-

tion, no concern for that farmer. That farmer is out on the flat prairie trying to survive under not only very adverse climatic conditions but economic conditions as well.

This bill should not be taken lightly by government. The normal practice for this kind of thing is that if a private member introduces and presents a bill on the floor of the House of Commons or in a legislative environment, just because it comes from a private member of Parliament from the opposition the first knee-jerk reaction is for government members to come up with one reason or 10 reasons to reject the bill.

Government members do not think about the merits of the bill and whether it will it work. They often think about who is going to get the credit. Well, I could not care less who gets the credit, but we should think about the idea behind the bill and consider it sincerely so that we can solve this problem once and for all for the farmers of western Canada.

That is my case. I leave it with this House of Commons. I am certain that western Canadian farmers, the agriculture industry, are very interested in these kinds of changes. I urge my colleagues to give it their utmost support and consideration.

[Government Expenditures, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister waved around the red ink book and told Canadians that he had the plan. It is in fact the Reform Party that has the plan to deal with the country's deficit and debt.

In the presentation to the finance committee today, the Reform Party outlined $10 billion in specific expenditure reductions. This is the first phase of an updated zero in three plan to eliminate the deficit in three years. The presentation pointed out the absolute necessity of going beyond the government's 3 per cent target if we are to preserve Canada's fiscal integrity.

Unlike the government, whose fiscal plan will add $100 billion to the debt bringing the total to an astronomical figure of over $611 billion, the Reform Party's plan tackles the economic problems of the country in a responsible manner.

We have set out a clear time frame for eliminating the deficit and we challenge the government to do the same.

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, members recognize that this bill is very straightforward and very important. Not only does it deal with a circumstance that was created by a court decision, it deals with a matter that could be very costly to the government and to Canadians. On that basis the matter is very timely.

I find two issues of interest in this legislative change. First is the matter of the bilingual bonuses which are the base purpose of the bill. Second is the autonomy of the RCMP. That both these purposes can be achieved is to be commended.

I would like to give some background which I believe we all recognize is important to our discussion. Certainly the purpose of the bill should be discussed. As I understand it, the bill removes RCMP officers from the definition of employee and in so doing it removes them from the public service as defined under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

How will they be governed? They will now be governed under the RCMP act. That is where the item of autonomy is discussed. It all seems very simple at first glance.

However when the background of the bill is examined some significant consequences are shown. First, let us talk about the matter of bilingualism. RCMP officers would be able to opt out of bilingualism. Reform Party policy states very clearly that it supports the removal of bilingual bonuses to civil servants as a federal cost reduction measure. We support individual bilingualism but oppose institutional bilingualism as dictated by the Official Languages Act. We feel the bill is in line with that policy.

Why do we believe there are reasons for the RCMP to be able to opt out of bilingual bonuses? First, we can talk about the very basic matter of fiscal constraints. We all recognize that the decision of March 10, 1994 with regard to Gingras v. The Queen in right of Canada that bonuses that were not paid in the past can now be collected by the RCMP. It will cost millions and millions of dollars. The question is whether a person should legitimately have it or not. I say he or she should not.

It was the policy of government under the Public Service Staff Relations Act that was wrong in the first place. We should be able to stick to that very basic principle which we hear often, that of equal pay for equal work. Not only should that happen in the public service but it should happen in the private sector. It is very important, as I examine this matter.

I refer to a comment by R. H. Simmonds who was the commissioner of the RCMP in 1977. He was at that time putting together a rationale for not paying the bilingual bonus. He came to the conclusion that the payment of the bonus was seen as a divisive element in a cohesive organization, as situations would be created whereby members of equal rank and responsibility, working side by side, could receive differing remunerations because of different advantages toward learning a second language, perhaps even at public expense. That was a major concern and on that basis there was a resistance to paying the bilingual bonus.

That principle is very important to the RCMP, which as an organization and as individuals, whether male or female, must be very objective and fair in how the law is applied in a variety of situations. In no way can there be discrimination that is based on either linguistic, racial, religious or any other characteristic of the RCMP officer when the law is applied.

In certain circumstances there may be a need for a limited number of bilingual positions. We need bilingual members of the force. Those people already receive certain rewards. However, it should not be the reward of a special pay bonus. They receive a reward because they can take advantage of certain promotions within the public service. They can receive assignments which require special skills in providing service to the public in law enforcement.

When looking at this matter of an extra bonus because one has special skills in a language, I can think of a variety of analogies which are appropriate. For example, if a person comes to the RCMP with a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science degree, should a clause in the bill say that person should receive an extra bonus to perform a duty? Should they receive a bonus? I do not think so.

I look at another analogy of Elizabeth Manley, for example, a professional figure skater, who if she became an RCMP officer would bring that special skill, a very special skill that we in Canada certainly admire and respect. Should there be an extra bonus because this person is physically fit, able to do the job and may be a little bit more nimble in applying the law in a variety of circumstances? I do not think so.

The Globe and Mail this morning made a statement with regard to the abilities of males versus females. It stated that studies show that females have better verbal skills to bring to the job market. Does that mean we should pay an extra bonus? Should we really do that or not? Do those skills assist the person to get a job or to compete in the marketplace? Yes, I think it does. Does it mean that females should get paid more than males under those circumstances? I do not think so.

We have to look at the responsibilities of that job. We hire based on qualifications to meet the requirements of the job. We maintain the basic principle that there is equal pay for equal work in whatever job confronts the individual whether male or female. That is the only logical way we can look at a circumstance such as this.

The second consequence of the bill is the matter of more autonomy for the RCMP. It takes members of the RCMP and places them under the RCMP act. That is the way it should be. They should have more autonomy and more control with regard to their members and employment. As Reform policy we state very clearly in our manual that the Reform Party supports the traditional role of the RCMP as a police force, representative of and responsive to the population it serves in Canada's regions. It means it has to have its own autonomy and its own ability to apply the law equally to all citizens in the country, without some RCMP officers having special pay with regard to applying those services whatever they may be.

I believe that bringing the other members of the RCMP under the RCMP act will make it possible for them to be more responsible to the public rather than being responsible to the broad federal bureaucracy under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It is important that this law enforcement organization maintain its independence.

I conclude my remarks by saying it is good that the RCMP have the opportunity to opt out of the bilingual bonus program. I certainly would urge them to do so when we finalize this

legislation. Second, greater autonomy for that organization is good and it is most important.

If I had to say anything negative with regard to the government's bill and its presentation here, I would say that it has not gone quite far enough. If we examine the bill we will see that something is missing. The civilian personnel working for the RCMP, as I understand it, can still claim the bilingual bonus. The bilingual bonus should be eliminated across the board and we should deal with the whole public service in the same way. We should have a complete change rather than this somewhat piecemeal change, even though it is good as presented.

The government is playing a bit of catch-up. I know some of these policies and legislative changes are brought in by governments under different circumstances. We have to recognize that circumstances have changed, not only fiscally but in the attitudes of Canadians. They are saying: "We are all Canadians no matter where we live. We should have equal opportunity, not only in the job place but equal opportunity in terms of cultural and other social aspirations".

This law as it was put in place some time ago created inequality not equality. I believe it is good that we are trying to tackle that problem.

I certainly support my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan who said we should tackle this problem in a very comprehensive way. As Reformers we are certainly united on that front.

We support this bill. We feel it is a small step in the right direction. We certainly urge the government to continue this pursuit and make sure that equality is brought to the public service.