1984-06-05

Mr. Speaker:: Before proposing to the House the question on the Opposition motion, since today is the final allotted day, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the Supply Bill. In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the Supply Bill be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the Supply motion today, I have difficulty because there are motions standing in the name of two Hon. Members. Before making a decision, if Hon. Members wish to argue the matter to assist the Chair in making a decision, the Chair would be prepared to hear argument.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, it almost seems to be growing into a tradition that you are put in the unfortunate position of having, on each of the allotted days, to exercise your discretion with respect to which of the two motions on the Order Paper should be selected for debate.
You will recall that last Thursday I put forward a variety of arguments in support of the contention that you exercise your authority under Standing Order 62(4)(c) to select for debate the motion then on the Order Paper standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). As it turned out, the fact that the debate was to conclude in a vote seemed to play the critical role in helping you reach a decision. On this occasion there will be no vote on whichever motion is selected for debate. For that reason I would like briefly to review some of the statistical detail which supports the selection you made last Thursday and militates in favour of a similar decision today. That is to say, to support the discussion of the motion standing in the name of my colleague from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman).
As I mentioned at that time, there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the NDP and the Official Opposition with respect to the manner in which the fair distribution of Opposition days may be calculated. The NDP have argued in this House that the distribution of Opposition days should be calculated on the basis of calendar years. These references
may be found at pages 29059 and 29060 of Hansard for November 22, 1983. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is of the view that Supply and not calendar years be used to determine the proper allocation of Opposition days. This seems only reasonable to us because the whole business of Supply relates to the Government's expenditure plans for the fiscal year. Surely if Opposition days are to relate to Supply, their distribution should also relate to the fiscal year.
Nevertheless, the NDP were successful on November 22 last in convincing the occupant of the chair that the protection of the rights of the minority in the House depended upon selecting the NDP motion. Thus the distribution of days was revised to conform to the calendar year distribution as suggested by the NDP. Since that time we have taken particular care to ensure that the distribution of Opposition days conform not only to the optimal distribution of days by calendar year, but also to the Supply year as well. With those objectives in mind the NDP have been given five of the 18 Opposition days held since the end of the fall semester. This works out to roughly 28 per cent of the Opposition days, although NDP Members-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to check whether it is five or six. Would the Hon. Member have a count to verify this?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that it is five out of the 18 days. If it is six, that just enhances my argument, of course. Using my figures it would be 28 per cent of the Opposition days although NDP members constitute only 25 per cent of all those who sit on this side in opposition in the House of Commons. If you were to select the motion of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West for debate today, the percentage distribution of those days would adjust so that the NDP would have taken 26.3 per cent of the Opposition days since the beginning of the year, or a higher percentage if they have indeed had six Opposition days.
Lest there be any suspicion that the argument with respect to the distribution of days by calendar year is being used to conceal an inequitable distribution of days by Supply year, I would like to point out that over the four Supply years which have taken place since the beginning of this Parliament, the NDP received 26 of the 100 Opposition days which were held in that period. Seven of these motions have come to a vote. In other words, the NDP constitute only 25 per cent of all Opposition members, but have received 26 per cent of the Opposition days and over 29 per cent of the motions filed under Standing Order 62(9).
It is important fully to understand this percentage distribution of days, if only because it seems to be the only point of

June 5, 1984
Supply
agreement between the Parties. It is clear that equity is served if Opposition days are allocated to the Parties in proportion to their relative representation in the House. As I have already stated, the NDP constitute about one-quarter of the total Opposition. Indeed, the NDP House Leader acknowledged time and again last day that for every three Conservative Opposition days they should be entitled to one. By my calculation that makes a 75 to 25 per cent ratio. They are entitled to receive one-quarter of the Opposition days which occur each year. The Standing Orders provide that 25 days will be devoted to the consideration of the business of Supply in each year. When you divide 25 by four, one can see that the NDP's share of Opposition days works out to six and one-quarter days per annum.
Needless to say, we simply cannot divide the days in this manner. For that reason we have attempted to average out the distribution of days in such a manner as to ensure that over the life of the Parliament the NDP would receive their full allocation of days. Thus, in three out of four years the NDP would receive six days and in the fourth year they would receive seven. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP received seven days in the last Supply year. Two of those days concluded in votes.
The Supply year concludes at the end of March in each year. Since that time the NDP have received two Opposition days. It is readily apparent to anyone that they have been under-allocated days in this semester if one judges solely on the basis of the working ratio of one-quarter to three-quarters which I have outlined. However, this under-allocation can be explained when one takes into account the fact that the NDP were successful last November in convincing the Chair that calendar years should be considered when calculating the allocation of Opposition days.
In order to meet both standards, we ensured that the NDP were given more than the number of Opposition days to which they were entitled in the last Supply year by allowing three NDP motions, including one votable motion, to come before the House for debate in the period which ended in March. While that Supply period was the final period in the last Supply year, it was also the first period in the current calendar year. Thus the NDP were over-allocated days by both measures.
This fact left us with a problem in the current period. If we were to give the NDP a sixth day before the end of this period, they would have exhausted their full entitlement of Opposition days for the entire calendar year by the first week in June. We would then have been faced with the problem of whether or not the rights of the minority demanded that the NDP be given a day in the fall semester without regard to the fact that they would have already used their full allotment for this year. If, on the other hand, we were to wait until the fall semester to allocate further days to the NDP, it would be possible to ensure an even distribution of days while offending neither formula.
Is there some iron-clad rule that states that the distribution of Opposition days must be mathematically correct in each Supply period rather than equitable over the full year? The precedents certainly do not support such a contention. Although based upon the one-quarter-three-quarter ratio that we have employed, the NDP would be entitled to precisely 3.25 days in the first semester, 1.25 days in the second semester and 1.75 days in the third semester. The actual allotments have been 2.75 and 2.25 days respectively. Thus it can be seen that the NDP have always been under-allocated days in the first semester, over-allocated days 50 per cent of the time in the second semester and always over-allocated days in the final semester.
In my submission, therefore, it would be perfectly consistent with the general pattern of allocation of Opposition days over the past four years if the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West were to be selected for debate today. Furthermore, that is the only option which allows the distribution of Opposition days to conform to both the Supply year and the calendar year systems of allotting Supply days.
However, there are two other good reasons for not selecting the motion put forward by the NDP. Both of these reasons relate to the procedural regularity of the motion. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) was placed on the Order Paper prior to the last Opposition day. At that time it was filed with the Table pursuant to Standing Order 62(9). Standing Order 62(9) reads as follows:
In each of the periods described in section (5) of this Standing Order, not more than two opposition motions shall be no-confidence motions against the government. The duration of proceedings on any such motion shall be stated in the notice relating to the appointing of an allotted day or days for those proceedings. On the last day appointed for proceedings on a no-confidence motion, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said proceeding.
The Opposition motion that was debated last Thursday was also filed pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 62(9) and was the second and final motion permitted under that rule for the current Supply period. Following that Opposition day, the motion filed by the Hon. Member for Churchill should, in my opinion, have been dropped from the Order Paper because it could not be proceeded with in the Supply period in which it had been filed.
Even if one is of the view that the motion could stay on the Order Paper until such time as a new Supply period was reached and the provisions for motions under Standing Order 62(9) revived, there remains significant doubt as to the procedural regularity of selecting this motion for debate today.
I recognize the fact that the Hon. Member for Churchill wrote to the Table requesting that the motion remain on the Order Paper so that it might be taken up and considered today. Indeed, I have the text of his letter to the Table and I would like to cite it in support of my argument. The letter is to Jim Cooke of English Journals, Room 128N, dated June 4,
June 5, 1984

1984, from Rod Murphy, MP, Churchill. The subject is "Re: Motion on Order Paper" and it reads as follows:
I submitted a motion last week which still remains on the Order Paper under 62(9). Following the decision of the Speaker on Thursday morning, I have decided I would like the motion to remain on the Order Paper. Please have it changed however to a 62(11). Thank you.
It is purportedly signed by the Hon. Member for Churchill. The Hon. Member clearly recognized the distinction between motions filed under Standing Order 62(9) and those filed under Standing Order 62(11), and in order to get around that distinction he attempted to play a shell game. Leave the motion on the Order Paper, states his letter, but change the notation with respect to the filing of the motion. What we have before us today is a hybrid motion. It was laid on the Order Paper on May 30, 1984, with the understanding that the House would be required to divide on it and yet it appears today, suddenly transformed into a motion on which the House cannot under any circumstance vote.
Well, Mr. Speaker, which is it? Is it a motion pursuant to Standing Order 62(9), or is it a motion pursuant to Standing Order 62(11)? There is no doubt that had the Hon. Member filed a new motion with the Table yesterday, it would have been debatable under the provisions of Standing Order 62(11) today. If, on the other hand, the motion were filed pursuant to Standing Order 62(9), no matter how long ago, it cannot be debated today.
Had the Hon. Member for Churchill written to the Table requesting that a motion similar in form to the one that he filed on May 30 be placed on the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), there would be two motions standing on the Order Paper in his name today. Had he asked that the original motion be withdrawn and that one similarly worded be placed on the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), there would be only one motion on the Order Paper today in his name. The Hon. Member could have chosen either of these options. Instead, he wrote to the Table and said: "I have an apple on the Order Paper; please make it an orange". Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, a miracle occurred and the motion changed form, but it did so without going through the proper intervening steps, and I think this sort of short-cut should not be permitted.


Mr. Fulton:: Who wrote this for you, Ray?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I can only say to the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party that the last time they attempted to dilly-dally with the House Leader for the Official Opposition, their House Leader got mugged in Paris. The same thing may happen to them later on. I will not say that because I know they are a little sensitive.
Would this procedure, for example, be permitted in the opposite direction? Had the second motion under Standing Order 62(9) not already been dealt with in this period, and had the Opposition day fallen on a Friday, would the Hon. Member have been permitted to make his casual change?
Supply
Surely he could argue that notice had been given of his motion pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 62(9) even if it had not been filed under that Standing Order. Why then not change the designation from Standing Order 62(11) to Standing Order 62(9)? It is only incidental that such a change would bring on a vote on a motion that had not previously been votable and would do so within a time frame normally prohibited by the Standing Orders.
For that reason alone, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Hon. Member's motion is not in proper form to be debated today and that there is no reason for you to exercise your authority to select the motion to be debated.
If you do not find that argument sufficiently persuasive, Sir, I would ask you to consider the terms of the motion which the Hon. Member proposes to put to the House today. For the first three and one-half lines the motion is perfectly acceptable. It complains of a lack of Government action in an important area of public policy. This is very much in accord with the general object of the business of Supply. However, in the remainder of the motion the Hon. Member goes on to argue that a lack of Government action has put:
-the health and safety of Canadian workers at the mercy of long-standing Conservative resistance to such improvements in labour legislation.
Here, Mr. Speaker, we get into some pretty rocky procedural ground. As you are aware, Citation 423 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states the following:
A motion should be neither argumentative, nor in the style of a speech, nor contain unnecessary provisions or objectionable words. It is usually expressed in the affirmative, even where its purpose and effect are negative.
It is clear that the motion proposed by the Hon. Member is argumentative; it is in the style of a speech and it contains both unnecessary provisions and objectionable words. Furthermore, its allegations are blatantly false. Once again, Mr. Speaker, it can be seen that the motion is not in order as to form, and I submit that the Chair is, therefore, not obliged to exercise its authority under Standing Order 62(4) (c), but need merely call the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West, which does meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
For all of the reasons I have outlined, Sir, I would ask that you call my hon. colleague's motion for debate this morning.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intent to spend half an hour talking about procedures. I will simply say that we will trust the fairness and the judgment of the Chair to determine that we have followed the proper procedures and that the wording is acceptable, even though the House Leader of the Conservative Party says that the word "Conservative" is negative and objectionable.
I believe the procedures were followed, that we did give proper notification of change, that we are entitled, under the rulings that have been made in the past, to this Opposition day. I would rather spend our time debating the need for changes in the Canada Labour Code than wasting the time of the House in a procedural wrangle which has taken half an hour of the proceedings of this House.

June 5, 1984
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members who have contributed to this discussion. Their advice has been most helpful. However, the responsibility imposed upon the Speaker by Standing Order 62(4)(c) is for the Chair alone. Only last week it fell to the Chair to exercise the same duty and it will be its duty again, as I said the last time, to exercise its power of selection on the basis of fair play and impartiality.
One of the issues which has been raised is how we count Supply periods. Normally the Parties in opposition are in agreement on what they are doing. When they are in agreement, the Chair has no problem. However, when the Parties are not in agreement, the Chair must decide on what basis we will count the allotted days. In these circumstances I propose to count the three Supply periods ending on June 30 this year. That is the Supply period ending December 10, the Supply period ending March 26, and the Supply period ending June 30.
On the basis of this count, six of the allotted days have been awarded to the NDP. Also on the basis of this count, it amounts to 24 per cent of the 25 allotted days. Eighteen of the allotted days have been awarded to the Progressive Conservative Party, or 72 per cent. In terms of the numbers, a little over 76 per cent relate to members of the Conservative Party and a little over 23 per cent to members of the New Democratic Party. On the basis of a mathematical distribution, using this method of counting, I award this day to the Official Opposition. This would give them 19 out of 25 allotted days, or 76 per cent, within the three periods. This reflects very closely the percentage of Opposition seats in the House.
I also point out that the content of the two motions put forward by the Opposition Parties is sufficiently similar to enable both of them to have the debate they are seeking. I am not ruling on the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) concerning the style or the nature of the motion.
I reiterate the point that the Chair has been urging as recently as last week, that the House, perhaps through the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, should clarify its intent with regard to the allocation of allotted days. In the circumstances, I call the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman).


ALLOTTED DAY, S O. 62-CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved:: That this House condemns the government for failing to introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code during the first four years of this Parliament, and by so doing, unnecessarily putting at risk the health and safety of Canadian workers, failing to address the concerns of women in the workplace, and inadequately addressing the issue of technological change.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the concerns of workers in Canada have not been met by this Parliament. They have not been met in the entire life of this Parliament. There were promises. From these promises grew some measure of hope. From that hope a large amount of fanfare and legislation was brought
forward. I am confident that in all likelihood, as this legislation is discussed during second reading, the interests of workers of Canada will still not be met, and that it will fall to a new Conservative Government to create a new blueprint in the form of new legislation. Our blueprint will provide justice, equity, safety and productivity in a rapidly changing workforce.
My reaction to the legislation which may come before the House was certainly one of disappointment. It is not what Canadians want. What Canadians want today is jobs. They want almost any kind of job. There is a sense of desperation and fear in the workplace. That desperation and fear are not addressed in the House of Commons through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) or through the many speeches we have heard in the House of Commons. The reality is that there are no jobs. I face that fear every day in my constituency office and in my constituency, as do other Hon. Members. We face it among our children. We face it among our friends. It is real and the Minister knows it. It is not addressed by any anticipated legislation before the House of Commons.
Canadians want jobs. They do not want make-work programs by governments. Canadians want new jobs through the development and creation of new wealth and power in Canada. That is where the jobs have to come from-the creation of new wealth, new opportunity and new power in Canada. They want jobs from an expanding and growing economy which will assure the security of job opportunity in the workplace. That is from where security comes-new jobs, the creation of new and more jobs. The kinds of jobs we must have should provide job security, not six-month security nor a make-work program. They must provide a real security which comes from an expanding and growing economy.
Along with this creation of new jobs and new wealth, we must look at the condition of those jobs. We want those jobs to be in safe places to work. We want the condition of those jobs to be that of justice, equity and sharing. The labourers and workers should share in the fruits of their efforts.
Instead, in Canada today we are faced with more and more workers trying to share less and less jobs at a time when business after business is going bankrupt, from the smallest to the largest. The engine of our productivity is damaged to the point where we wonder whether it can recover. Everyone is starting to fight to share a diminishing labour force or workforce, a diminishing capacity for jobs. This is the tone which we face in 1984. We must remember the human misery which is associated with this. It is the hurt to the mother, to the child and to the weak in society who are crushed by not having jobs. They are being crushed today in a way we have never seen before. This is the concern of Canadians.
What do we have in place? We have the offer of a blueprint or a hope. The blueprint is nothing but the extension of a few more social benefits. There are no real guarantees about a safer workplace. Also it has a definition of sexual harassment which supposedly is innovative but is totally ineffective.

The legislation which will come before the House is a disappointment. When it comes before us, that will be our opportunity to discuss the details of it. However, the failure of the House of Commons to address the needs of workers in the workplace is not dealt with in the legislation. That is of great concern to us on this side of the House.
It is appropriate that this motion has been brought before the House because both Opposition Parties have at least guaranteed that the subjects of labour, the workplace, the rights of our workers and the need of our economy for productivity will be discussed. I am pleased that the members of the New Democratic Party have, as our Party has for so many months, called for a debate on this subject.
It is obvious that the Liberal Government is attempting to play politics with these current amendments just by the way they were introduced. They were introduced late in the session, almost as an afterthought or last-minute election expediency. It attempts to buy labour votes with intention rather than introducing meaningful and substantive legislation. Substantive legislation could still be developed. The Government could take the base of what is provided and allow for debate in the House of Commons.
If the Government sees this labour legislation as a priority, let it bring it before the House of Commons for many days of debate. Let us measure its intent by the number of days it is willing to commit. Let us see how many days it will commit to second reading and how many days to committee.
This legislation is poor, weak and inappropriate. Representatives of labour and business are not satisfied with it. They find it wanting and inadequate. If we are going to add substance to it and make it meaningful, it must be talked about here in the House of Commons and in committee, and delegations must be heard.
The Minister has given a commitment when the legislation moves to committee that at least the major players, those with the major interest, will be heard. I hope that happens in this Parliament. Such a committee should sit. It should listen to the problems of labour, hear about the suffering of our workers and listen to the problems of management. I hope this will be allowed. It is important that it happen.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), called for legislation, amendments and discussion in the House over six months ago. The Government claims that this legislation is the result of extensive consultation, yet many groups indicate they were consulted three years ago. The workplace is different from what it was three years ago. They want to be heard again. If this Government wants, it can commit the time for this matter to be dealt with extensively.
Unfortunately, the amendments seem to be little more than an extension of social benefits. They fall far short of the objectives of the proponents of any part of this question. Will this legislation create new jobs? I do not see any new jobs being created other than possibly in the bureaucracy. It will not create job security or increase productivity. It will not
Supply
create any jobs for labour. If it will not do any of this, what will it create? It certainly is not the answer we are looking for.
This Bill was introduced late in the session in the hope that there would be little or no examination of the legislation. Any examination of it by any element of concern either in this House of Commons or in the country would find it wanting. This Bill was not produced in the interest of the workers but in the interest of the Liberal Party of Canada in its attempt to cling to power. That is what it is all about. That must not be allowed.
I am disappointed with the New Democratic Party. We again see a situation of confrontation in labour relations, and what does the NDP do? Instead of addressing the issue, that Party wants to play politics by throwing a slam at the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party.
The failure of our Parliament to create meaningful legislation that will develop the workplace is to the shame of all of us. Our people in the country are crying out for jobs. They want new creativity, new jobs and a better kind of job security. I do not know why elements of labour look to the New Democratic Party, which wants to play politics even with this motion. The New Democratic Party cannot lead the labour movement out of the wilderness and into the power of government. Everyone around them can see that the horse they are riding is on its last legs. The NDP cannot get into power in government. Even if they knew what to do if they got in, it would not matter.
The Liberals are and have been in power for many years. What is the result? Unemployment, rising interest rates, falling productivity are the result. That is the reality. If Canadians would judge this Government on this issue alone in an election, it would be swept out of power. It is a labour issue. It is an issue of workers in our society who are struggling. They are less and less successful every day. It remains for us to examine this legislation carefully. The hope lies in new legislation that will emerge from a new government with a new mandate.
We must not look at the politics in this issue. That is why I reworded the motion. I had seen the NDP motion and I was disappointed. Clearly the NDP motion forgot not only about the health and safety of Canadian workers, but the concerns of women in the workplace. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) will address the problems of women in the workplace later in this debate. I am pleased for this debate so that she can bring those issues and those concerns forward.
We adapted our motion to recognize the rapidly changing workplace, technological change and the necessity of job retraining. While the rest are arguing politics, we have had a task force come forward with positive recommendations which identify the reality of the workplace today. Of those working today, 90 per cent will require retraining. Where does this legislation address retraining or technological change? It does not address women in the workplace, nor does it address young people entering the workplace. They may never find their place. They are losing hope more and more. Some have gone from a part-time job to welfare, then off welfare and back into

June 5, 1984
Supply
their homes. At age 19, 20, 25 or 29, they are sitting at home. It is a shame on the Government of Canada and on all of us that we have not been more positive and more creative. That is the challenge which is before us in the election that is to come.
Let us look at some of the areas which need to be addressed. All of us recognize that we must increase productivity and be able to sell our products in international markets. By doing that we will create more jobs and the cycle will be complete. We feel also that productivity is enhanced if the workplace is a healthful workplace. We feel that the legislation which has been brought forward is not adequate to meet the needs of the health and safety of workers. More productivity is lost as a result of industrial accidents than is lost in strikes and work stoppages. We focus on strikes as the problem; however, there is an equal problem in health and safety.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Use the word "we" selectively.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I hear a member of the NDP saying "Use the term 'we' selectively". When I use the word "we", I do not mean "we" in terms of myself and the Conservative Party. I mean "we" in terms of myself, the Liberal Government and the NDP Opposition. All of us bear responsibility in this. We all bear responsibility for identifying the importance of health and safety in strong legislation that will give guarantees to our workers, thereby enhancing productivity and the standards and life-styles of Canadians.
We cannot allow the lives of our workers to be jeopardized by occupational health and safety accidents. After we consider all of the technology in the world, what really counts is the individual; How does he feel about himself, his work, and his opportunity? If he is not healthy and lives in constant danger and fear in the workplace, he will not be a productive worker. That is not the kind of society we want.
The number of person-days lost to occupational accidents and illness in the past ten years is double the days lost to work stoppages. The Auditor General was extremely critical in his 1983 report on Labour Canada management of their occupational health and safety programs. In view of that criticism and the criticism of the Opposition, I wonder why the Government has not been able to do better in the legislation which it has brought forward. In 1981 alone 82,000 workers were injured and 18 workers were killed in on-the-job accidents within the jurisdiction of Labour Canada. That is a very small jurisdiction. Those people were hurt, sent home and suffered because of on-the-job activities just in this jurisdiction. That is not good enough.
There is so much that needs to be said about this Bill. In the debate that follows, other speakers from our side will cover women in the workplace, technological change and other areas which are of concern. These areas must be addressed. That is why the Bill must be brought forward for as full a debate as is possible within the time-frame of this House of Commons. Is the Government ready to give one, two, three or four days of debate to jobs and labour in Canada to discuss the problem?
Or does it just want to shove it under the mat or the election rug? Is it willing to go to committee to hear the concerns of Canadians? I hope so-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired. A ten-minute period is now provided to Members either to ask questions or make comments related to the hon. gentleman's remarks. Are there any questions?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member, who I understand is the labour spokesman for his caucus, a question. I refer him to the proposition which the House Leader of the New Democratic Party put before the House and the Government House Leader on May 31, 1984, and I quote from the remarks of the NDP House Leader on that date, when he asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard):
-I would ask you to seek unanimous consent for leave to introduce the following motion pertaining to the treatment of Bill C-34. If unanimous consent were forthcoming, I would be prepared to mvoe and to support that the Standing Orders be amended by adding immediately following Standing Order 79(1) the following:
79 (la) The purpose of this Standing Order is to provide for the orderly and timely consideration of Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canadian Labour Code, and to be finally disposed of no later than June 30th, 1984;
(b)	When the House is considering the said legislation for second reading, at the end of one day's debate, all questions necessary to dispose shall be put;
(c)	That the said legislation shall be deemed to be returned to the House for report stage and third reading no later than June 28, 1984.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member who has just spoken, as the labour spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party in this House of Commons, whether he and his Party would give unanimous consent to the support of such a motion so that, despite some of its inadequacies-and any legislation put forth by any Party will have some inadequacies-we may have legislation in both Parts III, IV and V of the Canada Labour Code particularly on occupational health and safety. This would be a vast improvement over the regime which exists today. As well, it will ensure that, regardless of whatever government is elected in the next election, hopefully fewer Canadian workers will die. Will he and his Party give support to such a motion to ensure that we have the legislation prior to the end of this Parliament?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, if we could stop playing politics with this issue, from the Minister getting involved, to writing letters beyond the system to the Member proposing amendments to give the kinds of assurances without notice to myself as the official critic or to the House Leader of the Official Opposition or to the Leaders on the other side, if they really meant what they said, they would follow the process of negotiation that is established in this House through our House Leaders. We have honourable and competent House Leaders who are negotiating this process. I would urge them to meet at the first possible opportunity to negotiate among themselves in order that our House Leader can find in good faith if the Government does intend to give one, two, three, four or five days to the House of Commons to debate the
June 5, 1984

legislation. Is it that important, or is it only important enough for five minutes' debate? How important is the time spent in the House of Commons to the Government? That is what I want to know. As well, I want to know what the Opposition is willing to sacrifice in the name of the workers of Canada in order that this legislation can proceed through second reading. It should have the measure of debate that it so justly deserves. Will it be given enough time in committee in order that we can do as the Minister suggested and hear the major players?
If the commitment from the Government is genuine, then we can meet these kinds of objectives. That is the way it must be met, by the meeting of minds within the structure. Otherwise we will end up with a lot of debate that is meaningless. The meaningfulness will come from debate. I urge that debate to continue at the earliest possible moment among our House Leaders.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to get drawn into this question and answer period, but the naivety and lack of actual background that obviously the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) has with respect to this matter has prompted me to make a brief comment. I would like simply to confirm that we have been attempting to have the legislation come forward. I find it exceedingly curious that a member of the New Democratic Party-


James Ross Fulton: Let us have some order. Is that relevant? Come on, Mr. Speaker!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West mentioned the fact that there was a proposal put forward by his House Leader. They get very excited when I get up and try to give those Hon. Members a little assistance with respect to their perspective, because they get things all wrong. I assure you I am trying to help the New Democratic Party. I am trying to assist them in order to make sure-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Then agree to the motion!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -that its failing place in public politics-


James Ross Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guiibault):: The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am prepared to help them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: Order, please.


James Ross Fulton: There are certain rules in this House, Mr. Speaker, and the House Leader for the Official Opposition obviously does not understand them. This is a question and answer period. If the Hon. Member wants to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), he should do so. If he just has a bunch of butterflies in his mind, I do not believe he should be seen to be in order.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: The point is well taken in that questions or comments must relate to the remarks made by the Hon. Member who had the floor.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know that is the case, but you allowed the question with respect to Bill C-34, which was referred to. The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West has indicated that we want to get on with this legislation, that we want to have the matter brought forward so that the interests of Canadian workers can be considered by the House of Commons. However, the reason we are not able to do that, Mr. Speaker, is that the New Democratic Party is preventing us from getting this matter before the House of Commons. It is that Party which has prevented us, in the negotiations, from getting on with this legislation.


James Ross Fulton: Point of order!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply say, Mr. Speaker, now that-


James Ross Fulton: You are the last one who should say that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the rules of this House is that this is a question period in order to allow Hon. Members of this House to ask questions of the person who has just spoken. It is not to allow someone who does not know what they are talking about to continue blathering on. Everyone in this country knows that it is the Conservatives who are stalling. The question which was put to the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West made that quite clear. The Tories will not get up and say that they will support the passage of this legislation in one day.


Mr. Taylor:: You are out of order!


James Ross Fulton: It is clear that they are the ones who are stalling. And those are the kinds of questions we want to put. If the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West wants to stall the ten minutes, then that is how it should be recorded.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: Order. First of all, the question of who stalled or has not stalled legislation is not a point of order in itself. It is a matter for debate. The Chair will leave Hon. Members to resolve this. Meanwhile, I would just ask Hon. Members to direct either their questions or their comments to the material which was delivered by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have not finished, Mr. Speaker. I was interrupted on a point of order.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I believe I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Point of order!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to redirect my question-

June 5, 1984
Supply


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Point of order!


An Hon. Member:: Sit down, Ray!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order, I was in the middle of making a few comments. I have been interrupted twice by a very sensitive NDP member. I wanted to conclude by asking a question of my colleague, but I have not been able to make any comments or to ask a question because the New Democratic party is preventing me from having my say on the floor of the House of Commons.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, he rose on a point of order. Is that a point of order?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Those Hon. Members refuse to allow me the courtesy to make a comment. I was recognized-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. Can I ask the two Hon. Members who are standing and talking at the same time to sit down, please? The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West who is trying to make a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All I was saying is that, if you will recall, I started off with my comments and was interrupted twice on points of order. I just feel that I should not be prevented from carrying on because someone from Skeena does not believe in free speech on the floor of the House of Commons. I feel I should be entitled to finish my comments-


James Ross Fulton: We just get tired of Tory drivel.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -and ask a question of my colleague. Is that permissible?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West finally going to get to his question? That would certainly help the Chair. The question period is coming to an end as well.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On the comment and question period, I want to simply ask-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Is he on a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -a question in this context. We know that the New Democratic Party has been holding up the presentation of Bill C-34 on the floor of the House of Commons, notwithstanding what those Hon. Members say to the CLC or if they are pretending to come forward with a notice of motion, for which they are unprepared. I simply want to ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West, is it not the position of our Party, which was stated by our Leader and by the labour critic for our Party, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West, that we are prepared to deal with this matter? Is it not the case that the Conservative Party has been pressing to have this matter dealt with so that we can in fact address the
issues in question? Have we not asked on a number of occasions why this Bill has not come forward? Have there not been a number of Conservatives asking on behalf of our Party where the Bill is dealing with the Canada Labour Code? Would the Hon. Member be able to address himself to the question of why we have taken the lead on behalf of the workers of Canada, as opposed to the New Democratic Party which has done everything it can to prevent the legislation coming before the House and is playing petty politics with this particular Bill?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: In answering the question, I will say that I am willing to sit in the committee and hear-in a democratic manner, I might add, Mr. Speaker-those who want to be heard on this debate. I will start any day it is wished to have those hearings. Let us get on with it and hear what the people of Canada have to say about this legislation in a democratic way. Then we can possibly come to a conclusion.
If the Government decides to let the House of Commons go on long enough, if it decides to give enough comitment to the workers of Canada in order to allow for as much debate as possible in the House of Commons-because that is good and in the interests of democracy and the workers of Canada-and if it allows as much time as possible in committee so we can have our hearings, then I say that I am certainly willing to attend those meetings, to speak and participate in those meetings-as many as the Government wishes to have and for as long a period as it wishes. Then when it is brought to a conclusion, it will be brought to a conclusion in the House of Commons through negotiations of our House Leaders and not through motions which are out of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And petty politics.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: And not play petty politics in the House of Commons. Let us get on with the job. Let us talk about the workers of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we presented a motion on this very important matter, not only today but last week, is that we recognize that this is a matter of very strong importance to the working people of Canada. We are not playing political games by bringing this motion forward. As a Party, over four years ago we set up a task force which toured right throughout this country from one end to the other. We went into the work sites and talked with the workers and management. We talked about the problems with the present Canada Labour Code.
The reason we took that route, Mr. Speaker, was that we recognized that the present Canada Labour Code, especially Part IV of that Code, did not provide adequate protection for the workers who come under federal jurisdiction. We also recognized that there were a number of workers who worked for the Government itself; those on the rail lines, those who

worked under Atomic Energy of Canada and others, who were excluded from the protection of the Canada Labour Code.
With that in mind, we went right across this country. We came up with recommendations which we presented in a report called "Graveyard Shifts: Life and Death on the Job in Canada". It was a report of the New Democratic Party special task force on occupational health and safety in the federal workplace. We presented that report to the House of Commons and to the various Ministers of Labour who have held that portfolio over the last number of years. We talked, as I said earlier, with both management and with labour.
I believe we have an agreement in this country that the law as it presently stands is very inadequate. That is the purpose of our intervention, because we believe that those inadequacies must be addressed. Even though the proposals made by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) through Bill C-34 are still not perfect, for the sake of the workers who come under the present federal jurisdiction, and those workers who will come under federal jurisdiction if Bill C-34 passes, we believe that the proposals presented by the Minister of Labour must be passed before this House has its summer recess, and must be passed before a federal election occurs.
There are a number of reasons why we believe that is necessary. Labour legislation always seems to be passed prior to a general election. The last time that happened was in 1978. What that means is that if this legislation is not passed now, and it does not matter whether there is a Liberal or Conservative Government after the next election, this legislation or its equivalent will not be introduced into this House of Commons.
Last week we proposed to the Government and the Official Opposition that we agree to a one-day debate on second reading, and then send it to committee for study, but we want to know that by June 29 the legislation will be brought back to this House and dealt with prior to our summer recess. As the occupational health and safety of our Party, I can guarantee that we sill sit morning, afternoon and night to make sure that as many representatives as possible of industry and labour can make their presentations before the committee.
We also agree that there should be amendments made during the committee process. There are areas of the legislation which need some improvement. But for God's sake, Mr. Speaker, let us not let any more people die. Let us not let any more people be unprotected by the Canada Labour Code. Let us not leave unprotected by the Canada Labour Code those hundreds of thousands of federal Government employees. Let us not ignore the people who work on the rails and on drilling rigs similar to the Ocean Ranger. Let us not ignore their concerns. Let us make sure before we leave that all three Parties in this House stop playing political games and pass legislation which, despite its inadequacies, is certainly an improvement over the legislation that many people in this country have to work under today.
We can give examples of the problems which exist currently. We can talk about federal Government employees across the
Supply
river in Hull who work in places where the ventilation is imperfect. We can talk about the problems of people who work on video display terminals and their increased absenteeism from work, which is documented. We can talk about the people who have died in grain elevators because there are not enough federal Government inspectors. We can talk about my home communities of Flin Flon and Snow Lake, mining communities, which fall under federal jurisdiction and do not even know that there federal labour people should be up there inspecting their work sites. We can bring up all those things in debate.
What I would really like to bring up at this time, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to emphasize, is that the only way those people will have any chance of improving their health and safety is if we in this House commit ourselves to passing this legislation prior to our summer adjournment. We can do it. Just last Friday we passed three pieces of legislation in one afternoon. When it comes to our own raises, this House has been known to act very quickly. When it comes to legislation which is near and dear to the hearts of some people in this House, we act quickly.
Bill C-34, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, is very dear to the health and safety of workers and we would like to see that legislation passed as soon as possible. We are committed to meeting with the House Leaders of the two other Parties. We are committed to dealing in the House or behind the curtains to make sure this legislation passes. Again I call on both Parties to make that same commitment this afternoon during debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in this debate, following comments by the representatives of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, both of whom appear to acknowledge the importance of this legislation, Bill C-34, whose purpose is to amend the Canada Labour Code.
I do not want to get involved in a partisan discussion, nor do I want to try to establish that one or the other party is to blame for the fact that these long awaited amendments to the Canada Labour Code have not yet been passed in the House. I must say I was very sorry to see the two motions of non-confidence proposed today, one by the Progressive Conservative Party and one by the New Democratic Party. It is not terribly important to know what we should or should not have done in the past, or whether we are one, two, three or four years late in amending the Canada Labour Code. The important thing is not to look back but to look at what we have before us today, a number of long awaited amendments that will considerably improve the Canada Labour Code-that I am sure-amendments that will help Canadian workers in their job environment, amendments wished for by all the major labour organi-

June 5, 1984
Supply
zations in Canada. These amendments, because they are not excessive and strike a balance in the vast range of labour legislation in Canada, have been accepted by both labour and management.
Mr. Speaker, I am therefore prepared to assume that the Progressive Conservative Party labour relations critic is acting in good faith and I am also prepared to believe in the good faith and good intentions of the labour relations critic for the New Democratic Party. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary House Leaders, both on the Government and the Opposition sides, will be able to reach an agreement within the next few days so that Bill C-34 can be adopted as soon as possible.
I have received copies of some correspondence which I would like to quote. These are public documents, since these telegrams were sent to the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Nevertheless, for the purposes of our debate today, I would like to have them read into the record.
I shall first recall, if I may, a letter sent a few days ago to the Leader of the Government in the House (Mr. Pinard) by the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, Dennis McDermott, who said, and I quote:
I am writing to express my support for Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act.
While no piece of legislation is perfect, the proposals contained within this Bill are on balance most welcome. The task of consolidating health and safety within the federal jurisdiction is a large one and Cabinet is to be congratulated on bringing the process this far.
My concern is that these amendments may remain simply proposals and not be enacted into law. Both the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party have publicly expressed support for Bill C-34. I urge you to give the health and safety of Canadians working within the federal jurisdiction the highest priority and pass this Bill before the summer recess.
I can think of no more fitting conclusion to this session of Parliament and era of Government.
Yours sincerely,
Dennis McDermott President
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, after reading this letter, I wrote to the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, urging them to tell their respective House Leaders to consult with the Government House Leader, in order to expedite the passage of this Bill through the House. I am waiting for a reply from the two Opposition leaders. I do not expect to receive a reply personally, but I hope that the Government House Leader will receive a positive answer from the Opposition House Leaders.
Another letter was sent to us recently by the Director of the Rehabilitation Institute of Ottawa, and I quote:

As an association working with disabled citizens in Ottawa Carleton, we are very pleased that our Government is proposing to change the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that any handicapped person employed in an occupation under the Federal Government will receive at least the minimum wage.
This amendment is long overdue and we encourage all members to pass this agreement as speedily as humanly possible. Thank you very much for your efforts to do this.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Anne van Gaal Director of Services

This is a statement by a very important group in our society.
I think it is clear that the objectives of this Bill are receiving considerable support from Canadians as a whole.
We also received a telegram from Montreal a few days ago, during the proceedings of the recent convention of the Canadian Labour Congress, and I quote:

Re amendments to the Canada Labour Code. I have sent a telegram today to the Prime Minsiter asking him to give us a firm undertaking for a set procedure under a rigid time table to see the amendments to the Code passed into law during the current session of Parliament. Delegates to the 15th constitutional convention of the Canadian Labour Congress here in Montreal have expressed very strong anxiety that the amendments to the Code be passed into law forthwith-

Mr. Speaker, I have received a host of letters and statements in support of this Bill, asking all three parties in the House to adopt the Bill as soon as possible. I do not intend to read through all this correspondence. We can of course lay it on the Table and perhaps expand on its contents when the Bill passes the second reading stage, if the Opposition parties ever agree with the Government to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee. However, I would like to mention the press release issued by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, dated May 24, in which the Council supports the proposed legislation and urges the Parliament of Canada to pass this Bill as soon as possible, and I quote:
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women supports the amendments to the Canada Labour Code proposed by the federal Minister of Labour, Andre Ouellet, and hopes that the legislation will be adopted very shortly.
I think it is important to stress the major amendments proposed to the Canada Labour Code. These amendments are connected with Part III and deal with labour standards. It is in this part, more specifically, that the Government wishes to make major amendments to give women better protection on the labour market.
We are proposing a series of amendments that cover child care leave, which will mean that a mother who must obtain a certain amount of leave because she is going to have a baby

June 5, 1984

will not be penalized as a result of this noble and important task she fulfils in our society. Consequently, the proposed amendments are concerned first of all with the period of continuous service required to be eligible for pregnancy leave. This period will be reduced from one year to three months. As a result, any employee who has been working at least three months for a company that is governed by the Canada Labour Code or who is working for the Canadian Government, will be eligible for pregnancy leave after three months' employment. This leave of absence which under the present legislation was seventeen weeks will now be increased by a period of leave in addition to the seventeen-week pregnancy leave. We are adding a leave of absence of twenty-four weeks for child care, which means that the mother who has a child and wants to take care of that child during the first months, during the time right after birth when the child needs its mother most, these mothers will now be able to take a leave of absence of forty-one weeks. In our modern society, however, it has now been recognized that both parents may participate actively in taking care of the children, and increasingly, fathers are sharing this responsibility.
That is why we have decided, with respect to the additional twenty-four weeks allowed for child care, to allow either parent to take the leave of absence. For instance, the mother could take the first twelve weeks and the father the remaining twelve of this additional twenty-four week period.
We also recognize the fact that whether a baby is born into the family or adopted, it needs special care. Consequently, pursuant to the proposed legislative amendments, this 24-week child care leave would be granted whether the child is natural or adopted.
More significant still, we have introduced a whole series of amendments to improve the job security of a mother who is temporarily forced to quit her job as a result of pregnancy. That is why we have strengthened the leave conditions and the guarantees that the mother will resume employment without losing the benefits to which she would normally have been entitled had she remained at work.
Considering that in our new and contemporary society there are ever more women in the labour force or a sizeable number of them who work on a part-time basis, we wanted to make sure that the annual paid leave of part-time employees will be covered just as if they were working full-time. Certain anomalies will thus be eliminated so that all part-time employees will be eligible for annual paid leave calculated on the basis of their working time.
I should like to refer briefly to the amendments related to sexual harassment. We acknowledge that any working individual is entitled to full respect for his or her dignity as a human being and that he or she must not come under any undue and unacceptable pressure in our modern society, nor should he or she be subjected to blackmail with respect to promotion or preferred treatment. That is why the Canada
Supply
Labour Code will contain a very specific definition of sexual harassment. Employers will be expected to make a mandatory policy statement on sexual harassment, and indeed to make sure that sanctions and penalties will be imposed should there be evidence of sexual harassment in the work place. We feel that such provisions flow from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we believe that those amendments to the Canada Labour Code will guarantee that all Canadian workers, men and women alike, will be better protected.
A series of amendments to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code have to do with work safety. We think that those amendments are very important because, for the first time, the Labour Code will cover all workers and all Government employees, a measure which had been strongly advocated by all major Canadian unions and more particularly by Canada's Labour Code will henceforth apply to transport and offshore resource-based industries as well as to all people who work aboard aircraft and ships or who belong to the Public Service of Canada. What will be interesting is that, wherever there are more than 20 employees, we shall require that there be work safety and health committees; these committees will be mandatory, and the Act will specify the responsibilities of both employer and employees in the area of work safety and health.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are too many accidents on the job and that lives are lost and serious injuries occur in the work place because of negligence. If we could cut down significantly the number of days lost because of work-related injuries, we would all benefit from it. I therefore submit that the amendments we are proposing to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code will be a step in the right direction to ensure that employers and employees will assume their responsibilities in a more serious way where work safety and health are concerned.
Finally, we will be proposing a series of amendments to Part V of the Canada Labour Code to ensure that the work of the Canada Labour Relations Board is done more efficiently and is better coordinated with regard to the objectives set when the board was appointed. Certain amendments are to be proposed to the provisions on technological change to ensure that the workers are better informed by their employers of their plans to implement technological changes.
In closing, I would like to remind the House that the Government is suggesting the mandatory deduction of union dues, which has long been requested by the unions. I therefore believe that this series of amendments is justified and long overdue, and I hope that all the Members of this House will soon be approving them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. Are there any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).

June 5, 1984
Supply


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to what the Minister had to say. He went on at great length to describe his concern about health in the workplace and to make sure that there would be no time lost through accidents. I think his phrase was that we would all be the richer if there was less time lost on account of accidents.
I have walked around Parliament Hill. The Department of Public Works is very busy doing construction work to make sure that these buildings are maintained. I have watched them working with diamond-tooth saws. They are breathing in clouds of pulverized stone and concrete and not one of them is wearing a mask. Has the Minister walked around the Hill to see how many of those workers are wearing hard hats?
If the Minister is so concerned about health in the workplace and time lost because of accidents, why do we not have the most minimal, even 1900 health standards enforced on the Hill for construction workers? If he is really concerned about workers in the workplace, why does he allow employees of the Government to breathe in those clouds of dust and become walking silicosis cases? If it is necessary to pass legislation to enforce this kind of minimum health standard, surely there is no heart left in the Government. I would ask the Minister to respond to that.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give my hon. friend a lecture on labour affairs, but I would at least hope that, as a Member of the Parliament of Canada, he should know who comes under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code and who comes under the jurisdiction of the various provincial Departments of Labour. Construction workers come under provincial jurisdiction. In all Provinces, construction workers come under provincial jurisdiction except for the workers in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, who are covered by the Canada Labour Code.
I have taken note of the comments made by the Hon. Member. I shall immediately advise the provincial authorities in Ontario that there could be negligence on the work site right here on Parliament Hill to make sure that elementary precautions are taken. However, I want to inform the Hon. Member right now that these construction workers are not federal Government employees.


Mr. Roy:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister (Mr. Ouellet) on this legislation which will amend the Canada Labour Code and Financial Administration Act, namely Bill C-34. These amendments concern pension, health and disability benefits and occupational safety and health standards. However, after reading the Bill carefully and listening to the Minister, I find there is one point on which I would have liked to hear his comments, although it may not be directly related to the Canada Labour Code. I am thinking of an instance where I received many representations from employees of a
transport company which had received a certain amount of money from the federal Government to ensure its survival. Unfortunately, employees who had been with the company for fifteen or twenty years received no protection whatsoever with respect to their salaries or pension plans, despite the federal subsidy.
I would like to ask the Minister, even if this falls under provincial jurisdiction, whether, when the federal Government agrees to provide subsidies, it could ensure that the employees concerned have some protection, not only for their salaries but their pension plans as well, and whether it could perhaps add an amendment to give them that protection under this legislation. When we see employees with twenty years of service who worked all their lives for a company, who have families and then overnight, the company goes bankrupt and shuts down ... The employee is the big loser: he not only loses his salary, he also loses his pension plan. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we could look for ways, perhaps in consultation with the provinces, to make sure the employee loses neither his salary nor his pension plan.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the whole issue of Government subsidies to the private sector should be examined, especially in the present situation, by all three social partners, that is, employers, unions and governments. Personally, I would like to see as one of the conditions for Government subsidies that a company would have the obligation to consult its employees and, if possible, obtain their support for improving, expanding and modernizing its facilities.
Very often if not always, subsidies granted companies have not been particularly welcome to workers who were then displaced by machines. The Government was supposed to be helping the company modernize its facilities, which often meant that a number of jobs would be lost.
I think I understand the Hon. Member, who would like to see greater social responsibility among companies that receive Government subsidies. I think that in future, we should strive for more direct involvement of employees in a process where the federal or provincial governments are helping companies with substantial funding to modernize their facilities or to get established in Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, I have asked him and his predecessors a number of times over the years when this legislation would finally be introduced into the House of Commons. I am glad to see it is here. I would like to see it passed and become law.
After hearing the official spokesman for the Conservative Party talk about long and lengthy debate and long and lengthy hearings, would the Minister not agree that the best way to ensure the passage of this legislation, that the best way to ensure those workers will gain the protection of a vastly improved Canada Labour Code, that the best way to make sure there is at least some minimal mention of technological
June 5, 1984

change, and that the best way to ensure some improvement in maternity leave benefits, would be for a House order which would guarantee the legislation would come back to this House for final vote prior to the June recess?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Minister has one minute in which to answer the question.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was very selective in tabling his correspondence. Would he table all correspondence he has received recently that relates to opinions expressing either concern or support for the legislation? I am sure that would help all of us.
It is not a matter of whether the Bill will or will not be passed or what changes are made or may be suggested to it; the important decision to make is whether the Government is committed to providing time for debate in the House of Commons. If so, how many days can the Minister gain? How much time can the Minister gain from his House Leader in the House of Commons in order that the Bill get to committee? And when it gets to committee, is he looking to allow-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. This puts an end to the period allotted for questions and comments. We are now resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the Minister did not have time to answer the question posed by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). Partly what we are engaged in today on an Opposition day is a debate about who is to blame. This Parliament has sat for well over four years now. For the first time, just recently we have seen some proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code. The Member from the New Democratic Party said he has been pushing for amendments to come forward for quite some time. I think that is probably true. Certainly the previous critic for the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), has pushed for years for amendments. Given the kind of unanimity found in the Opposition Parties that amendments to the Canada Labour Code are necessary and desirable, that the health and safety of workers are at risk and need to be protected, it is very curious that we suddenly see a proposed set of amendments so close to a federal general election.
Sitting here and listening to the debate it is very clear, given the fairly long-standing lead of the Conservative Party in the Gallup poll, that both the Liberals and the New Democrats, the socialist alliance which we have faced year in and year out in this country, have got together in a fashion designed, hopefully for them to erode the popularity of the Conservative Party of Canada and to replace it with popularity for either the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party.
Supply
I wonder whether or not we are looking at these amendments in the month of June, 1984 from the right perspective. Normally when a piece of legislation is before the House, it is the obligation of Members of Parliament to vet it, to see that it gets to committee, to hold hearings and to decide whether or not it is worded as well as it can be, whether or not it deals with the real problem, whether or not it is designed to provide a real solution. That is the normal practice. However, standing here today I am wondering whether this legislation is being brought forward solely for the purpose of electoral gain. I am wondering whether or not there is any motivation lying behind the legislation which deals with the health and safety of workers, the concerns of women and the concern for technology.
Last week the New Democratic Party brought forward a motion which was very similar to the one we are debating today. The first two or three lines of it were identical, but the last two lines read "at the mercy of long-standing Conservative resistance to such improvements in labour legislation". In that motion they attempted to indicate that the Conservatives were against labour legislation to protect health and safety.
Not only is that false, it is particularly vicious. I do not know a single Member of the House of Commons of any political persuasion-an independent or a Party member-who is not concerned about the health and safety of working Canadians. Surely every Member of Parliament is concerned about that. Given that concern, why have we not had this legislation before us? Given the fact that it has been introduced in the House and has received first reading, why do we require an Opposition day urging the Government to bring it forward for consideration, movement to committee and passage? The only explanation I can come up with is that there are some political shenanigans at work here.
When I look at the beheviour of the New Democratic Party, I see that some of its members in high profile positions, such as the heads of major labour unions in the country, have written to the Minister urging him to pass this piece of legislation. I hear members of that Party urging its passage as well in the House of Commons. On the other hand there are secret meetings between House Leaders in which they are supposed to reach agreement. They are not reaching agreement. I see NDP members filibustering other pieces of legislation such as the one dealing with mortgage insurance. I wonder whether we have a little shell game going on. They say that we need the legislation and that they want it, but if we dig underneath their motivation, perhaps we find that it serves the interests of NDP members to go into the next federal general election without the passage of this Bill. They need to be able to put out brochures and to say in their speeches that in four years of Parliament we did not provide improved health and safety regulations in the Canada Labour Code, that we did not provide protection for women or deal with technological change in the Code. The two mainline Parties, in particular the Conservatives, do not care about such things.
4368

June 5, 1984
Supply
If we had been in government, there would have been changes to the Canada Labour Code. In the month of June, 1984 we should look very carefully at the behaviour of NDP members. Are they really the Party in this Chamber which has the most to gain in electoral terms if this piece of legislation does not pass? If that is true, what kind of behaviour would we expect? We would expect to find filibuster behaviour in terms of other pieces of legislation designed to choke the House and to ensure that before it adjourns there is not sufficient time for this particular piece of legislation to pass.
That hypothesis can be confirmed by those who happen to be addicts of Hansard and like to look at the pattern of speeches of Hon. Members and the amount of time spent. If that is the case, I guess today is kind of an exercise in hot air. Certainly the New Democratic Party House Leader and its Leader have the power to hold up this piece of legislation for the remaining 23 or 24 sitting days before the House adjourns. They can do it unobtrusively, by filibustering other pieces of legislation and not attacking this one directly, so that they can create an impression with the general public that they really want it passed when in fact they do not.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House that it is the Conservative Party of Canada which in the year 1984 has a Leader with a lifetime of experience with the labour movement. It is the Conservative Party of Canada which has a Leader which labour movement leaders and labour union leaders respect, know and understand. The labour union movement understands the importance of and need for health and safety regulations. It is the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada which has that kind of Leader. We do not have an academic from McGill law school such as the one who is leaving the leadership of the Liberal Party, someone who never got his two feet on the ground. Will he be replaced with a Bay Street lawyer who is part of the Canadian Pacific board of directors and receives $15,000 per meeting? Will he be replaced with the petit gars from Shawinigan? Will we create a Prime Minister out of the current Leader of the New Democratic Party, another academic, a historian? Will we have after the next federal general election a government which is committed to the people?
That is to what a Conservative Government would be committed. We are committed to assisting people to maximize their talents, to maximize their energy and to maximize their creativity. That cannot be done from an academic, airy-fairy, ivory-towered perspective. That can be done by a Leader and by Members who have their feet on the ground, have lived in the real world, have been employees, have been labour union members, have been managers and investors. Those kinds of people, pragmatic and practical people, are what the country needs at all levels of the economy if we are to grow, eliminate poverty and have a fair deal for women. It is only the Conservative Party of Canada which provides the mix of talents, background and experience which the country needs.
I see that it is almost one o'clock. Since I have a few minutes remaining, perhaps I could continue after the luncheon break.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my riding includes many hundreds of Canadians of Japanese ancestry who saw their homes, automobiles, and fishing boats confiscated during World War II. I have thus followed with considerable interest the renewed debate over compensation for these Canadians.
I disagree strongly with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, some weeks ago, said that we should not try to correct the injustices of the past. Every injustice is technically a thing of the past the moment it is committed, but that does not absolve a Government from its obligation to right such injustice. I was also skeptical when the Prime Minister told the House that the Charter of Rights would prevent future Governments from taking such actions, in view of the fact that the Charter of Rights does not recognize the right to own and enjoy property. I thus asked the Library of Parliament to study this specific subject.
It is clear from the findings of the Library of Parliament that the lack of a property rights clause in the Charter of Rights seriously undermines its effectiveness in preventing the arbitrary confiscation of property by Governments. Some have said that because the War Measures Act overrides the Charter, a property rights clause would not help, but the Library of Parliament study indicates that a property rights clause would definitely discourage the illegal confiscation of property. I thus call on the Government not only to take steps to compensate Canadians of Japanese ancestry for this confiscation of their property, but also to add a clause to the Charter of Rights to ensure that future generations will have the right to the use and enjoyment of property.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
June 5, 1984

[ Translation]



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House and all Canadian men and women to a series of events which will commemorate the 450th Anniversary of Jacques Cartier's first voyage to Canada. Mr. Speaker, you are certainly aware that the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) is now in Saint-Malo, the French port from which Jacques Cartier sailed on his historic voyage. It is on July 26, 1534, on the shores of Gaspe, that American Indians welcomed for the first time this courageous navigator and his men. There, in several towns and villages, ceremonies will take place this summer to commemorate this major event in the history of our great and beautiful country. A most spectacular show will be the getting together of the tall ships which is scheduled to take place in the Bay of Gaspe June 17 to 20. An equally awe-inspiring display will take place on July 24 to commemorate the 450th Anniversary of Jacques Cartier's arrival in Gaspe.
Through its job creation programs, the subsidies provided by the Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), as well as those provided by the Hon. Minister for Supply and Services (Mr. Charles Lapointe) who is responsible for these 1984 celebrations, as well as the assistance of several other departments, the Government of Canada is contributing over $1.5 million to the success of these celebrations. Celebrations on such a large scale have never taken place there. We are therefore looking forward to seeing you all in the Gaspe area, the cradle of Canada.



TOURISM


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, a 9 per cent sales tax is imposed on tourist material imported to Canada from the United States. It now appears that this will have serious repercussions on the tourist industry in Canada, especially in the area of our promotion in the U.S.A. Since Revenue Canada has decided to uphold its decision to impose the tax, it now appears that a Bill may be passed in Congress to impose a similar tax on Canadian literature entering the United States.
It would seem appropriate that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) should make strong representations to his Cabinet colleagues with a view to repealing the tax imposed on literature entering Canada. Otherwise, similar legislation in the United States will not only nullify the effect of our legislation, but cause financial hardship to those who make their living by promoting this country in the United States. If these people decide to pull out, there
could be a great loss of tourist business in Canada. This will push the unemployment figures higher. Tourism is labour intensive. We need an atmosphere that is conducive to creating jobs, jobs, jobs for Canadians.

[ Translation]



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, considering the various representations made in the past by the Dieppe prisoners of war who were kept in chains for 18 months and were subjected to every kind of bad treatment, such as undernourishment and unsanitary living conditions, and who were held in captivity for 36 months; considering that a number of them demonstrated on Parliament Hill at noon today, the 40th anniversary of D-Day, when Canadian troops landed in Normandy; for all those reasons, I think that the Government should review the scale of compensation automatically paid to former prisoners of war in Europe, which now ranges from 10 to 20 per cent, and increase to at least 30 per cent or more the compensation paid to former Dieppe prisoners of war who were involved in a very ill-conceived military operation which proved to be the worst fiasco of World War II.



FISHERIES


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Department of Fisheries and Oceans held meetings in various locations in British Columbia to hear the views of the public on Alcan's Kemano II Project. It was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the affected public want a full public inquiry. This has been reported to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) by his own officials.
Last week, following discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he agreed with me that a full public inquiry under the Federal Inquiries Act is warranted. His officials have contacted me regarding the drawing up of terms of reference, structure of the inquiry itself, costs of the inquiry, level of intervenor funding, access to intervenor funding, expected duration of the process, and implementation of the inquiry. They have now asked publicly for suggestions for a chairperson.
In light of the fact that the Province of British Columbia has offered an unreasonably inadequate process to evaluate the benefits, impacts, and alternatives for power supply to new aluminum smelters which are widely supported in northern

June 5, 1984
B.C., it is the responsibility of the Minister today to rise in his place and announce the implementation of a full public inquiry into Alcan's hydroelectric project.
We in this House recognize that there will be some costs for an inquiry, but these are small when compared with the effects of the major diversion of water which will take 88 per cent of the Nechako, lower the Fraser River by three feet at Hell's Gate, join the Fraser and Skeena Rivers, and have major impact on fish stocks. The Minister must act, and I trust the Minister will announce the Kemano inquiry today.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Johns Manville Asbestos mining company announced that more than 225 workers would be laid off beginning next September 1. A few years ago, this mining company was providing work for over 2,700 people.
Next September, only 950 people will be working for the J.M. Asbestos Company. This disastrous situation has two underlying causes: first, the world market for asbestos is weak, and second, the Johns Manville Asbestos, a private company, having to compete with other asbestos companies owned by the Quebec Government, has been operating in spite of substantial deficits.
The town of Asbestos, which is a very important community in my constituency, has lost in excess of 1,500 very well-paid jobs. As this is a one-industry town, the results are simply terrible and tragic.
The Quebec Government having completely ignored this community, I urge the Canadian Government to take action and help the people of Asbestos.
Twice already, our Government has intervened, first by designating the region and later on, by providing assistance under the NEED program and by way of Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully but firmly request an immediate intervention by the Government to help the Asbestos area and spare us a second Schefferville.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Town of Alliston and the riding of Simcoe South are smiling proudly today in the wake of the announcement that Honda Motors will be building its new assembly plant in Tecumseth Township. As the Member of Parliament for this dynamic riding, let me welcome Honda to Alliston, and let me congratulate it on its far-sightedness in choosing this location for its $100 million venture.
My good friends, Oak Gray, the Mayor of Alliston; Reeve Alan Glasford of Tecumseth Township, and the Hon. George McCague, MPP for Dufferin-Simcoe, are the type of progressive, forward thinking gentlemen who will ensure that both Honda and the surrounding communities will achieve the utmost benefit from this initiative.
When Honda goes looking for the 350 employees to run its plant, it will not have to go far. The labour force in Simcoe South is high calibre, dedicated, and equal to the task of operating one of Canada's newest and most modern industries. The area's network of transportation is second to none.
It is especially gratifying for me to watch Alliston, the birthplace of my mother, continue to grow and prosper. Mr. Speaker, to Honda Motors, let me say this: Kangei no i w>o hyoshemasu.

[ Translation]



SOCIAL SECURITY


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the statement made by Dr. Laurin, Quebec Minister for Social Affairs, concerning the Old Age Security pensions and other pensions for Quebec senior citizens, I wish to say that during a visit to Manoir des lies in Laval, I would like to officially register on behalf of the government of Canada objection to Dr. Laurin's request for a transfer of, any program either through tax points or transfer payments, to the Province of Quebec. Considering the attitude of that province's Premier towards senior citizens who, in his opinion, are against Item No. 1 of the PQ's platform dealing with Quebec's separation, Mr. Speaker, seniors citizens are urging us to oppose any change to the Old Age Security scheme or the Guaranteed Income Supplement or any other Quebec pension plan.
June 5, 1984



METRIC CONVERSION


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the metric madness of the Government of Canada continues to create havoc with the business community. By an Order in Council passed on May 17, but not communicated to anyone, the Government attempted to convert some of the customs tariff items in the 50,000 tariff series from imperial to metric. Canada Customs found out about the regulation on May 25 and, without telling the industry, tried to enforce the regulations on May 30 and May 31. There was havoc. The regulations have since been suspended. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the regulations only covered part of textile imports.
As a consequence, computer programs designed to convert imperial to metric cannot be used by customs brokers and others in attempting to comply with the regulations.
When will the Government wake up to the fact that business, indeed people generally, should have the right to measure things the way they want to measure things? When will the Government stop trying to change a measurement system without notification, and without understanding how that system works in the real world? In short, when can we have an opportunity to elect a Government which is prepared to cooperate with business?
The Order in Council affecting the 50,000 tariff series should be revoked forthwith.



CRIMINAL CODE


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the confiscation of video tapes by police at an international video art festival is the sort of thing which gives all of us who are concerned with violent pornography, a bad name. This is not to suggest that artists should be above the law. No one should be. However, it is to say that the police and departments of the Attorney General should exercise some common sense in deciding who are the real culprits and who deserves to have the full force of the law brought against them. There is real, serious, violent, and dangerous pornography out there. I continue to receive complaints from women's organizations that the complaints they take to the police are not being acted on.
The police, of course, are hampered by the loopholes in the current law, and that is something we could be doing something about here in Parliament. The Criminal Code amendments have still not been brought forward for second reading. It has been nearly a year since we had the draft legislation. It will require serious action on the part of Parliament to amend the Criminal Code and the Broadcasting Act to deal with pornography. It will also require vigorous enforcement. Let us
Oral Questions
hope that will be wise and well directed enforcement on the part of provincial authorities, and not a witch hunt against merely technical infringements of the law.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I would like to point out to the Minister that the Canadian dollar at noon today, in terms of the U.S. dollar, stood at 76.89 cents. It is just about down to the historic low, the lowest value the Canadian dollar has ever had in terms of the U.S. dollar.
I would also like to refer the Minister to the current economic analysis of Statistics Canada which was issued yesterday. It was stated in that analysis that the Canadian economy grew more slowly in the first quarter of this year than in the last quarter of 1983, and that low rates of growth will likely persist. Statistics Canada came to the conclusion that external demand, which provided most of the strength in recent quarters, has lost vigour; that real net exports have declined; that the already weak growth of domestic demand has persisted, and that the slowdown will continue beyond the first half of 1984. It is stated that growth has slowed to a pace which is insufficient to reduce unemployment. These are the conclusions of Statistics Canada, an official government agency.
Will the Minister tell the House, in view of the fact that his Budget has been a complete failure and that the economy is deteriorating around us, what plans the Government has to stop the further unravelling of the Canadian economy? The Minister is presiding over the dissolution of the Canadian economy. What plans has he to overcome these conclusions and these facts which I have just read to him from the report of Statistics Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague could not only have read from the Statistics Canada publication; he could have read from the Budget Speech which I delivered in this House on February 15, at which time I indicated that there would be a slowdown in the rate of growth which we had known in the last year, particularly in the last quarter of last year. At that time the rate of real growth was close to between 6.5 per cent and 7 per cent. That was such a high rate of growth it could not be sustained over an extended period of time, and one should expect a slower rate of growth.
What is important to note, however, is that the economy is continuing to grow and that a more moderate rate of growth is something we will be able to sustain over a longer period

June 5, 1984
Oral Questions
without the resumption of inflation. That will ensure that we will have, indeed, stable growth over an extended period. I have stated this repeatedly, and I have stated it in the Budget. My friend should not be very surprised. This has been forecast and foreseen for quite a long time.


MINISTER'S PLANS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Even supposing that the Minister had forecast what he said he forecast, that does not help the 1,500,000 unemployed Canadians who are now being told that domestic demand remained- and I quote from Statistics Canada-"about 2 per cent below its pre-recession peak". They are being told that growth has slowed to a pace insufficient to reduce unemployment. Unemployment cannot be reduced because of the reduction in domestic demand. They are being told that there is a deterioration of labour market conditions. They do not want to hear the Minister say he forecast this. What is the Minister going to do about the misery which he forecast? That is what the Canadian people want to know.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the Budget a number of measures which I invite my friend to take into account. Second, I invite the Hon. Member and his Party to support those measures when they take the form of legislation before the House, in order to ensure that this legislation is passed quickly so it will benefit the Canadian people.
I indicated, indeed, that the level of unemployment would remain too high, from our point of view, that it would take time to come down, and that we expected it to come down gradually. The economy, as I said, is still growing, and we are going to pursue a steady pace of stimulation of the economy as was contained in the Budget. I invite my friend to support the measures we have put before the House. That would be a first step on the part of the Opposition, rather than just crying at the wailing wall.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not put before the House any measures which will help this situation. In the February Budget he said he was delighted that he was not going to be affecting the economy. He has proposed no measures that this House can adopt which will help in this situation.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CALL GENERAL ELECTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada points out a weakening in housing starts, domestic auto sales, and exports, and that we can anticipate a slowdown in all interest rate sensitive industries. In area after area disaster stares us in the face. When will the Minister stop watching the shell game going on with the seven Liberal
contenders? When will the Government start to govern, or call an election so we can do something to stop this?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can hear my hon. friend whistling in the dark. I think that having had a taste, fortunately very short, of a Progressive Conservative administration, Canadians lost it very quickly. Since then, the Progressive Conservative Party has chosen a new leader whose record is quite clear: Schefferville is a case in point. If this is the alternative which the Progressive Conservative Party is suggesting for the economic future of Canada, I think that Canadians generally and Quebecers in particular will have no difficulty making up their minds. When the election comes, Mr. Speaker, we shall put forward for all voters to see not only what we have achieved so far, but also what we are planning to do to ensure an uninterrupted economic recovery, contrary to the "return to the past" sort of backward policy of the Progressive Conservative Party which is reflected in the Schefferville situation.


DECLINE IN HOUSING STARTS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the Minister of Finance if they are going to present 11.4 per cent unemployment to the Canadian people, but what I really want to ask him about is housing. He will know that 2.3 jobs are produced for every housing start, that is, jobs for backhoe operators, carpenters, plumbers, forest workers, and jobs in factories which produce such things as kitchen sinks. There are also jobs in building supply stores, and listings for real estate agents. Housing starts are directly linked to mortgage interest rates, and housing starts are down and mortgage interest rates are up. What prospects does the Minister of Finance see for employment in the housing industry in the next six months?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the previous questioner said that the Budget did not contain measures, and the Hon. Member is now talking about housing starts. I remind the Official Opposition that there is before this House a Bill which provides for mortgage interest rate protection. It has been submitted to the House for consideration and early approval. It has the support of all organizations in the housing field in Canada, including the Canadian Construction Association and the Canadian Consumers' Association. But what do we see? We see the Opposition dragging its feet on a Bill supported by everyone in Canada except themselves.


Mr. La Salle:: Not us!


Marc Lalonde: They are just dragging their feet on a Bill which has the unanimous support of every organization in the country. Who is dragging it out? The Opposition.


Mr. McDermid:: Who?


Marc Lalonde: The Opposition is dragging it out.
June 5, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Nonsense.


Marc Lalonde: If they were sincere in their concern for the housing industry and home owners, they would make sure that we get approval of this Bill which will be of significant benefit to Canadian home owners.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: First, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Minister that it is the NDP who are against this Bill, not the Progressive Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Second, the Minister went to the banks and the trust companies. If he went to representatives of the real estate industry at the level of CREA and OREA, the local real estate boards, he would know that they are unanimous in saying that this Bill will not strengthen the industry; it is only a safety net.


REASON FOR DECLINE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not agree that the real reason housing starts are down and the housing industry is in a slump is the extended period of unemployment for the past four years under this Government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Hon. Member's question probably lies in a small comparison. Housing starts in the United States went down 26 per cent last month, more than in Canada. The Hon. Member likes to brag every once in a while that the U.S. has had a significant decline in unemployment. I would think he would have to look a little bit further than just the unemployment figure for an explanation of the question he has raised.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We will not get it from you, that is for sure.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I asked the Minister if he would confirm that under the Government's R and D tax benefit program it was possible for a large corporation to obtain millions of dollars in benefits without doing any R and D. Essentially I suggested this was possible because of paper transactions, and I cited the case of Imperial Oil. The Minister denied it. Well, this morning I contacted Imperial Oil, talked to people in their tax department, and they have confirmed that what I said is the case.
Will the Minister admit that he was wrong yesterday and acknowledge that a company like Imperial Oil, under this program, can obtain not a thousand, not millions, but hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits without doing the R and D itself? Secondly, will he change the program to make it
Oral Questions
impossible for any company to gain a windfall from this program and make it impossible for R and D funds to be used for anything other than R and D?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know, and I am sure he does, that you cannot have the R and D performed before the credits have been acquired. Those credits are acquired to perform research and development. If no research and development take place, those companies are going to be liable to pay the taxes they would otherwise have to pay under Part VIII of the Act.


John Edward Broadbent: No, no.


Marc Lalonde: I invite my friend at least to consult a lawyer or accountant if he cannot find the facts for himself.


IMPERIAL OIL CORPORATION-ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister not only gave us a wrong estimate in his Budget when he said this would only cost $100 million, and it is going to cost $1 billion, but he is now suggesting he does not know what he is talking about. I say that with care, because I have looked into it with care.
Is the Minister telling the House that it is impossible for Imperial Oil to obtain millions of dollars in benefits under this program without doing the R and D itself? Or is he saying that Imperial Oil has to do the R and D to get that benefit?


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member is hard of hearing, or something, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Blaikie:: We cannot believe what we are hearing.


Marc Lalonde: I have indicated that before you perform the research and development you have to acquire the credit. That is what the companies are doing. They are acquiring the tax credits on the basis of R and D that they will perform. If they do not perform research and development then they become liable for the equivalent amount of the tax credit from which they would have benefited. This is quite clear.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: I have answered the question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: No, you have not.


Marc Lalonde: Well, open your ears, my friend. I am sorry. If you cannot understand that, then there are lots of things in life you will not understand.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I do not understand Liberals.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Minister is factually wrong. Imperial Oil can get a tax benefit even if the R and D he is talking about is performed by another company. The Minister should check his facts, because that is the case.

June 5, 1984
Oral Questions


PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF WORK
John Edward Broadbent: Under this program there is another deficiency, namely, that the taxpayer is providing millions of dollars before the R and D is actually done, in terms of the benefit. Certain officials of the Department of Revenue have acknowledged that the taxpayer may be left holding the bag because the R and D may never be done. Will the Minister change the program to ensure that, before any benefit goes out to any company, it must do the R and D?


Marc Lalonde: Definitely not, Mr. Speaker. The recommendation made by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is a ridiculous one.

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the forecasts published yesterday by Statistics Canada-and in spite of everything that the Minister of Finance can promise Canadians and all the encouragement he can give them about our economic prospects, the fact remains that, according to Statistics Canada, as the Minister will have to recognize, the rate of unemployment, which was 11.3 per cent in September 1983, now stands at 11.4 per cent. In spite of all the commitments and promises made by the Minister of Finance, unemployment is still about the same.
Would I be pressing the Minister too much if I asked him to confirm to the Canadian people that we shall have to live with an unemployment rate exceeding 11 per cent during the next few months or years? If his answer does not tie in with what I have just stated, we would like him to prove what he says.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the forecasts voiced by the Hon. Member for Joliette would match the projections conceived by a Progressive Conservative Government. I can tell him that our own projections are contained in my Budget and clearly show a gradual and regular decrease in unemployment during the forthcoming months and years. It is quite possible in fact that, with a Progressive-Conservative Government, unemployment could well exceed 11 per cent.


REQUEST FOR DETAILED INFORMATION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising to hear the Finance Minister's reply in view of the fact that, during the last fifteen years, the number of unemployed has jumped from 300,000 to close to two million taking
into account all the people that have been dropped from the unemployment rolls.
The Minister of Finance keeps referring to Schefferville, but he does not say that there have been thousands and thousands of shutdowns. In Canada we have had thousands of plant shutdowns because of a lack of adequate policies.
I would like to direct my question once more to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that it has been established that his projections were inaccurate over a long period of time, and since Statistics Canada tells us that unemployment will remain at around 11 per cent even though the Minister says the opposite, as a result of the performance of the Government, can the Minister confirm that the rate of unemployment in Canada fall down below 11 per cent within the next six or twelve months? If not, will he be honest enough to stop lying to the Canadian people as he has being doing for too long?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentions thousands of shut-downs. He could have referred to a single one, the one which boarded up half of the North Shore communities because of the action of the Leader of the Official Opposition when he was in business! He could have said so many things about the situation in Schefferville, which is now a ghost town because of the decisions made when his Leader was a big man in the private sector. The record is clear in this regard.
On the other hand, I would remind the Hon. Member that, since 1968, for instance, Canada has created four million jobs. The labour force has increased by 40 per cent in Canada, and this is the highest rating among all industrialized countries, including the United States, for which the figure is about 30 per cent. The Hon. Member will realize that, of all the industrialized countries, Canada has created the largest number of jobs during the past fifteen years. Canada ranks first among all industrialized countries!
The record is therefore clear in this regard. However, as I have stated myself stated, unemployment is still too high. We have taken direct action to promote job creation in Canada. We have promoted investment and job creation by the private sector. We shall continue to do so and our objective is to bring down unemployment in Canada as quickly as possible, especially in Quebec, since the Hon. Member must be more familiar with the situation in that Province.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's East.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to the use of the unemployment insurance fund to train the unemployed. In the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I will defer my question.

June 5, 1984


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who talks about shutdowns of towns. When he was Minister of Energy he not only shut down a mine, but the whole town of Uranium City, Saskatchewan. The heartless act of the Minister of Finance put four times more people out of work than were put out of work in Schefferville. These people are still suffering.
The Government, through the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has complimented our Leader with respect to the humane way in which he, as president of that corporation, treated the people who were unfortunately laid off in that town. With all the resources of the Government behind the Minister of Finance, what is he going to do to bring justice to those thousands of people who have been laid off at Uranium City? Is he heartless, or is he going to do something for those people?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that, when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs wrote that letter, he was referring to the way the federal Government had made public funds available to the people who had been laid off as a result of the decision of that company. And if half the North Shore is still shut down today, we know who can be held responsible for that!

With regard to Uranium City, the Hon. Member knows- and I invite him to look at the record-that the Eldorado Mining Company has introduced the most generous scheme of any-


Mr. Mulroney:: Oh no.


Marc Lalonde: -company in Canada in terms of helping the people in that case where the mine had to close because it was absolutely uneconomical to operate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is with regard to the problems of the nine Canadians who were involved in brainwashing experiments conducted in Canada funded by the CIA. In January the Minister indicated that the United States Government had apologized for these experiments and that our Government was prepared to take the case
Oral Questions
to the International Court of Justice at The Hague if satisfaction was not obtained. Satisfaction has not been obtained.
The confidential apology received from the United States is useless to the nine people concerned, and an insult to Canada, particularly since the actions of the CIA were a violation of Canada's sovereignty. Is the Minister prepared to make the details of the apology public and to tell Canadians what officials from the U.S. State Department or the CIA expressed regret, and what they said? If not, why not?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the expression of apology or regrets has been covered already in the House and in correspondence. My predecessor, the present High Commissioner to London, addressed letters to Members of the Opposition when he was in this post. In them he stated that there had been an expression of regret by officials of the United States for the actions which had been taken at the Allan Memorial Institute. Furthermore, there is at least one member currently serving in the Department who recalls the oral transmission of these regrets to Canadian officials. I will be prepared to send that detailed information to the Hon. Member.
I do not think there is a written statement by an American official. There were expressions of regret. It was upon that fact that the former Minister made the assertions in letters to Members of Parliament at the time, several years ago.


REQUEST THAT CASE BE REFERRED TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the United States Government has thus far stonewalled all efforts to obtain compensation for the CIA's Canadian victims. There is no satisfaction in sight. Will the Minister now follow up his commitment to take the matter to the International Court of Justice at The Hague? If so, will he indicate when he might take such a step?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that members of the Department are under standing ministerial instructions to pursue this case with vigor with the United States authorities. I can assure him that I have taken a personal interest in the case. I have followed it up as urgently as could be done in the circumstances, and will continue to do so. We have consistently taken the view that the actions of the CIA in funding the research constitutes an infringement of Canadian sovereignty. We intend to press the case forward with the United States diplomatically.
The Member has raised the question of the International Court of Justice. That is a serious proposal which he has made, and it is an action that could only be undertaken after very serious consideration.


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
5 juin 1984
Questions orales

M. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Monsieur le President, ma question s'adresse a l'honorable ministre des Approvisionne-ments et Services et ministre responsable des Fetes 1984. De grandes fetes sont organisees du 17 juin a la fin d'aout en Gaspesie pour celebrer le 450' anniversaire du premier voyage de Jacques Cartier, et les grands voiliers doivent sejourner dans la Baie de Gaspe du 17 au 20 juin. Suite a la tragedie du grand voilier Marques, pres des Bermudes, est-ce que l'honora-ble ministre peut dire a la Chambre s'il prevoit des retards dans l'itineraire prevu pour l'entree de ces grands voiliers dans la Baie de Gaspe le 17 juin?
L'hon. Charles Lapointe (ministre des Approvisionnements
et Services): Monsieur le President, je remercie l'honorable depute de sa question et egalement de l'intervention qu'il a faite au debut de la reprise de la seance.
J'aimerais profiter de l'occasion, monsieur le President, pour offrir, au nom du gouvernement canadien, nos plus vives condoleances aux families des disparus dans le malheureux naufrage qui s'est produit pres des Bermudes.
J'aimerais rassurer l'honorable depute et mes collegues de la Chambre en disant que les evenements nautiques prevus a Halifax, a Gaspe et a Quebec, se produiront aux dates prevues et j'espere, comme l'a mentionne mon collegue, le depute de Gaspe, que les Canadiens viendront en grand nombre sur la Cote-Est canadienne durant l'ete, soit a Halifax, a Gaspe et a Quebec, pour celebrer le 450' anniversaire de l'arrivee de Jacques Cartier.


LE ROLE D'UN NAVIRE DE LA MARINE CANADIENNE
M. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax-Est):: Monsieur le President, je voudrais poser une breve question supplemental au ministre de la Defense nationale. Tout d'abord, voudrait-t-il bien feliciter l'equipage du navire The Assiniboine pour l'aide qu'il a apportee? En outre, nous dirait-il si le navire canadien a abandonne ses recherches ou s'il entend les poursuivre?
L'hon. J.-J. Blais (ministre de la Defense nationale): Monsieur le President, je reviens a peine de la cote ouest ou j'ai assiste, hier, aux funerailles du general Pearkes. Je debarque a l'instant de l'avion et je ne suis done pas en mesure de renseigner le depute. J'obtiendrai les renseignements demandes immediatement et les lui transmettrai, je l'espere, avant la fin de la periode des questions.


LES FINANCES
M. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga-Sud):: Monsieur le President, ma question s'adresse au ministre des Finances. La derniere fois que le dollar est tombe a 76.80 c. e'etait en juin 1982. A cette epoque-la, le taux d'escompte etait de 18.25 p. 100. Le ministre des Finances connait pertinemment le lien etroit qui existe entre les taux d'interet et la situation de l'emploi. Jusqu'ou les taux d'interet vont-ils monter? Attein-dront-ils leur niveau de 1982?
L'hon. Marc Lalonde (ministre des Finances): Monsieur le President, je tiens tout d'abord a dire au deput de Saskatoon-Ouest que j'ai oublie de preciser une chose dans ma reponse...
Des voix: Oh, oh!


M. Lalonde:: Je veux ajouter que la societe Eldorado Mines est allee de l'avant et a investi 500 millions de dollars dans 1'extraction de l'uranium a Key Lake, en Saskatchewan ...
Des voix: Reglement!


M. Lalonde:: ... afin de creer des emplois pour certaines des personnes qui avaient perdu leur emploi a Uranium City ce que, j'en ai bien peur, la societe Iron Ore n'a jamais fait. En fait, la societe Eldorado participe a l'exploitation de la plus grosse mine d'uranium du monde. Je pourrais egalement ajouter .. .


M. le President:: J'invite l'honorable ministre a repondre a la question.


M. Lalonde:: Oui, monsieur le President. Je ne fais pas de pronostics sur les taux d'interet.
ON DEMANDE AU GOUVERNEMENT DE DECLENCHER DES ELECTIONS GfiNERALES


M. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga-Sud):: Monsieur le President, si le gouvernement l'ignore, les Canadiens savent par contre que si le cours du dollar baisse e'est parce que les investisseurs manquent de confiance dans le Canada a l'heure actuelle. Les Canadiens ont exprime leur manque de confiance dans des sondages et le reste, en disant qu'a leur avis le taux de chomage augmenterait au cours de l'annee. Ils pensent egalement que l'inflation va s'aggraver. Le manque de confiance est egalement apparent chez les investisseurs canadiens qui pla-cent leur argent aux Etats-Unis ou il y a de l'espoir, des debouches, des emplois et des endroits ou investir. Que fera le gouvernement? Se contentera-t-il de profiter des avantages que lui confere le pouvoir qu'il ne merite plus ou declenchera-t-il des elections? Que fera-t-il?


M. Crosbie:: Declenchez des elections, Marc.
L'hon. Marc Lalonde (ministre des Finances): Monsieur le President, j'invite les conservateurs a se preparer a des elections qu'ils perdront de belle faqon.
Des voix: Bravo!


M. Stevens:: Allons-y.

June 5, 1984


Marc Lalonde: However, as the Hon. Member knows, such a decision is taken not by the Minister of Finance but by the Prime Minister.
As far as the question of lack of confidence is concerned, I suppose the biggest lack of confidence that there is in this country is the lack of confidence that the Conservatives are showing in the country itself and the lack of confidence that they show in themselves.
In effect, if my friend looks around, he will have to explain why it is that the European currencies have been losing ground against the U.S. dollar month after month over the last two years.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the Canadian dollar? You are the Canadian Minister.


Marc Lalonde: He will also have to explain why the Canadian dollar over-all has been gaining ground, over the last two years against the European currencies. He will have to reflect upon these facts again and find an explanation.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. My concern is jobs in Haldimand-Norfolk. The municipality of Dunnville has a population of approximately 11,000 and is textile and agricultural based. Dunnville is located 30 miles west of Welland, which is in a different constituency and is a large industrial centre. Yet Dunnville's Manpower office is a suboffice of Welland.
If Dunnville's unemployment figures are included with Welland's figures, it does not qualify for any programs that are related to textiles or agriculture.
We now have two more industries closing in the Dunnville area. Will the Minister take steps to separate the Dunnville employment office from the Welland office so that the residents of Dunnville can qualify for the job-creation programs that relate to their needs and not the needs of Welland?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. May I ask the Hon. Member to repeat the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: What is going on over there?


John Carnell Crosbie: You are shell shocked.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member make his question short?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make it short. The Minister was obviously too busy campaigning.
Oral Questions
I pointed out the problem experienced by Dunnville in my constituency. Its Manpower office is a sub unit of the Welland office. Dunnville is textile and agriculturally based, but is tied into the population of Welland which is a large industrial area and does not qualify for any of the assistance programs related to textiles or agriculture.
Since we now have two more plants closing in the Dunnville area, which will put unemployment up to approximately 25 per cent, will the Minister take steps to separate the Dunnville Manpower office from the Welland Manpower office so that the residents of Dunnville can qualify for the job-creation programs that relate to their needs and not those of Welland?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that I was unable to answer the first question which is the same as this one, because this issue is not a matter of my responsibility. It comes under Manpower and Immigration and the issue could have been addressed to the Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration or to the Parliamentary Secretary. This is how questions in the House are handled. They should be directed to the correct Minister.


NEED FOR EMPLOYMENT IN DUNNVILLE
T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out at first that I was going to ask my question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration but, in his absence, I would put it to the Minister of Finance because employment is involved with finance. Without the dollars you cannot have programs. Therefore, I will put my question to the Acting Minister.
We are concerned that the history of this Government has been to put one million Canadians out of work. My people in Dunnville are concerned about jobs; they are concerned about employment, and they are concerned about making money to put food on the table to feed their families. What is this Government going to do to create employment for the people of Dunnville, and for textile and agricultural areas like it?


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken as notice the Hon. Member's question concerning his riding. As to the situation which now exists in the textile and agricultural industries, the Career Access program administered by the Department of Employment and Immigration is providing financial assistance to help the unemployed train for other jobs. For the people in the textile and clothing industries, early retirement schemes implemented as a result of Bill C-172 being passed provide a measure of assistance. However, Employment and Immigration programs are made available through Canada Manpower Centres. I hope my hon. friend is referring the people who are seeking help to these centers which have money to help them. Concerning the particular situation of the two communities mentioned, I will inquire and reply to him at the next opportunity.

June 5, 1984
Oral Questions


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Last week, and again yesterday and today, the Minister attempted to ram his security Bill through the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, using closure. In view of the profound threat which this Bill poses to the fundamental civil liberties of all Canadians, allowing sweeping new intrusive powers, the targeting of law abiding Canadians, with no parliamentary oversight, why will the Minister not reconsider his position and agree-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is concerned about a question relating to a matter currently before a committee and a proceeding before a committee. The Hon. Member knows it is not in order to ask questions in the House on a matter which is before a committee at this time. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Burnaby on a supplementary question. Can he ask a question that is in order?


An Hon. Member:: No.


REQUEST FOR SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the legislation in question, will the Minister agree to hold public hearings across Canada to allow those Canadian individuals and organizations that are so concerned about this massive assault on their civil liberties to be heard, rather than attempting to ram the Bill through the Justice Committee, using closure?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the question which arises is when does the time come for Parliament to make up its mind about an admittedly difficult but very important issue for the country.


An Hon. Member:: It is not for you to judge.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member fails to take account of the number of briefs that have been received, the dozens of witnesses who have testified before the parliamentary Committee, the Senate Committee, the two Royal Commissions which considered the matter over a 15 year interval, and of the conclusions reached by many, many objective observers that it is time to get on with this now. The question now is how long one single Member of this House can prevent the parliamentary process from working.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The
Minister will note that a couple of days ago John Turner decided to clarify his position on acid rain. He said: "I would move to the President and say, 'how about a treaty to protect our air as we protected our water?' " That is what he said. If it is that easy, what has the Minister been doing all these years? Why don't you get on with it?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Hon. Member that we should be charitable about statements made by people who are not Members in this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Epp:: That is the best answer the Minister has ever given.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just said that is the Minister's best answer ever.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER BRIEF CANDIDATE
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister is very charitable, but would he do the following for the rest of us who have been working on this issue for some time? Would the Minister offer a briefing for Mr. Turner just to explain, first, what acid rain is and, second, what some of the problems are?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, this may be only a partial answer to the Hon. Member if I tell him that I have been doing something about it as recently as yesterday on a visit to Chicago. This allowed me to put the Canadian viewpoint on acid rain to Americans, on the America Today show and to a conference held by the American Outdoor Writers' Association. I met last night with the Chicago League of Women Voters and I again put our position to them. I think by intensifying efforts of this kind and trying to reach the American voter, developing an alliance with Americans who see the issue the same way as we do, that eventually we will be able to convince the Washington administration of its importance.


John Allen Fraser: And what about Turner?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs. Three of my constituents are on a hunger strike in front of the Polish Consulate in Etobicoke because the Polish Government is refusing to grant exit permits for their spouses and their children to allow them to join
June 5, 1984

their families in Canada. Can the Minister tell the House what his Department is doing to speed up the reunification of all divided Canadian and Polish families, in addition to these three specific cases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that one of the major objectives of the CSCE has been to facilitate family reunification. There have been a number of cases with which we have dealt with Polish authorities. The additional cases which the Hon. Member mentions today serve our careful attention, but I must say we have had some success with the Polish authorities in these cases and we will continue to press them for further co-operation. I thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter because it will provide an occasion to make a further representation to these authorities.



Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday the Minister appeared to agree to help fund Canadian participation in the proposed International Conference on Women's Alternatives for Negotiating Peace. However, his reply was so shrouded in conditions that it is in doubt. Will the Minister tell the House of Commons now what precise amount of financial support the Department of External Affairs is prepared to provide?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the Right Hon. Member the precise amount, but I did want to indicate, in the message which I sent, a positive attitude toward the request.


Mr. Dick:: That means no money.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When we have further details we will attempt, both within the Department and in other government Departments, to fund as much of that program as is possible. I want to tell the Right Hon. Member that, even though there were conditions, the main purpose is to be supportive of the request.


PROVISION OF SEED MONEY
Charles Joseph Clark: Could the Minister tell us whether seed money will be provided immediately, Mr. Speaker?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In this case, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the term seed money is quite appropriate. I think what is required is financial support, not seeds.
Petitions


FISHERIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has now agreed to the need for a full federal public inquiry into Alcan's Kemano II project. His Department has completed the drafting of the terms of reference and is now searching for a chairperson for that inquiry. Will the Minister rise today, formalize the call for that inquiry, and give us some idea of a date when it might begin?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Department as outlined by my predecessor is that when there is a major project which could have significant impact on the fishery, there is a full investigation. Concerning the Kemano project, the policy of the Department is that we want a full-fledged inquiry. What is the most practical way of achieving that? Should it be only one inquiry under the B.C. Utilities Commission or should we have a separate one? Of course the two should not duplicate the work. This is what we will try to achieve through proper consultations with the province. As for the principle, as the Hon. Member said, I am ready to recommend a full-fledged public inquiry.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table in both official languages, copies of draft amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act.


PETITIONS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today on behalf of a number of people who are members of the Chinese Elderly Persons Association of the Woodgreen Community Centre regarding the discriminatory nature of the Chinese head tax.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to issue an apology to Chinese Canadians for the treatment they received and to begin negotiations for proper compensation on the head tax.

June 5, 1984
Introduction of Bills


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 597 students of Cardinal Newman High School in the City of Scarborough, Ontario. The petition strongly supports the proposed changes in the Criminal Code of Canada as set out in Bill C-19 presently before the House, which would impose stiffer penalties for impaired driving. Therefore the petitioners urge the House of Commons to pass the relevant clauses of Bill C-19 relating to impaired driving as quickly as possible.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents from the Oakwood Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada. These petitioners believe that the family is the cornerstone and basic building block of society and therefore oppose any means of making divorce quick and easy. They feel that any action taken to reduce the cost and pain of divorce is bound to increase the frequency of divorce and work to destroy the family-the very fabric that holds our society together.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (tenure of the Prime Minister).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, the entrenchment of the office of Prime Minister of Canada in the Constitution of Canada has become imperative. The purpose of this Bill is to list the minimum qualifications required to become Prime Minister of Canada. It also provides for a maximum tenure of 10 years in office for a Prime Minister and for the power of the Governor General to swear in the Prime Minister and to remove him or her if he or she can no longer meet the conditions of this office.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 96 and 682.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, media relations or publicity are employed by the Canada Post Corporation?


Mr. Normand Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows: A total of 48 employees are engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations. Twenty are employed at head office and 28 in the divisions.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Did the Stamp Advisory Committee of the Canada Post Corporation reject the proposal to issue a postage stamp in 1984 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of women attending McGill University and, if so, for what reason?


Normand Lapointe: The Canada Post Corporation has indeed informed me that the Stamp Advisory Committee recommended against the proposal to issue a stamp to commemorate the centennial of women attending McGill University because McGill was not the first Canadian university to admit women students and the Committee therefore considered it would be inappropriate to mark this anniversary with a stamp issue.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we said no.


Mr. Speaker:: I point out to the House that the net effect of refusal to let them stand is that all questions will disappear from the Order Paper. Is that the wish of Hon. Members?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: That will be the effect of refusal to let them stand.


John Leslie Evans: If they do not stand, they disappear.
June 5, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the Hon. Member for Burnaby that the remaining questions should disappear from the Order Paper?


Svend Johannes Robinson: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the Hon. Member should consent to let them stand. He can make up his mind.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, judging from the speed with which the questions are answered, we might as well let them disappear; but certainly that is not our intention.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wenman:
That this House condemns the government for failing to introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code during the first four years of this Parliament, and by so doing, unnecessarily putting at risk the health and safety of Canadian workers, failing to address the concerns of women in the workplace, and inadequately addressing the issue of technological change.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby on a point of order?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member did not have the floor in regular proceedings.


Mr. Harquail:: You cannot do that. The Speaker had already called Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: I draw to the attention of the House that there are certain Supply items which according to the Standing Orders must be dealt with today. In the circumstances, the Chair cannot entertain a motion for the House to adjourn when the House is under the provisions of the Standing Orders relating to Supply. I call the attention of the Hon. Member to Standing Order 8(3).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that Standing Order does not preclude a motion to adjourn until such time as the votes on Supply are to be put.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is seeking to move a substantive motion, and he cannot move it without notice. In
Supply
such a case he would have to give notice of such a motion. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has the floor.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have five or six minutes left. The motion which we are debating today has as one of its statements-


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby rises on a point of order again.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that surely a motion to adjourn is by no stretch of the imagination a substantive motion. Rather, it is a procedural motion which should be dealt with as all similar procedural motions are dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member rose on a point of order in the first place. He cannot move a motion to adjourn on a point of order. That is the first irregularity. The second irregularity is that the House is under a disposition relating to Supply today. Therefore the type of motion which he is seeking to move cannot be moved without notice. The Hon. Member may wish to confer. That is the decision of the Chair. In the circumstances, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) indicated in part that we were condemning the Government for its failure-


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a further point of order from the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Is it a different point of order? If it is a different point of order, we will hear the Hon. Member for Skeena.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I stand to be corrected but my understanding was that the first mention of the motion by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) was not on a point of order. He rose before the House had resumed debate on the order of Supply.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West had been recognized and had the floor. The Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Burnaby on a point of order. The Hon. Member seems to have difficulty understanding. Once conditions are applied to a motion to adjourn until a certain hour, which would have to be the circumstance today, it then becomes a substantive motion of the House and requires notice. The Hon. Member cannot move such a motion without notice. In view of the provisions relating to Supply today, an ordinary motion to adjourn is not in order and cannot be received by the Chair.

June 5, 1984
Supply


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, earlier this day when I began my few comments, I mentioned that labour union leaders across the country and certainly members of labour unions that fall under the Canada Labour Code should watch the behaviour of the New Democratic Party. They indicate strong support for passage of the amendments to the Canada Labour Code Bill, but their behaviour is one of obstruction and delay.
You have to ask yourself whether it serves the interest of the New Democratic Party to deny members of labour across this country the right to health and safety which will be guaranteed by the passage of these amendments. Do we find a political filibuster for political purposes, for purposes of trying to win a few more seats in the next election? Do they really care about the health and safety of workers or do they just care about winning seats? Certainly the behaviour we witnessed in the last few minutes would lead one to the latter conclusion.
I began my after-lunch comments by indicating that the Hon. Member from Fraser Valley West, as part of his motion, condemned the Government for its failure to address the concerns of women in the workplace and for inadequately addressing the issue of technological change. I have before me one page of a study done by the European Management Forum, EMF, a research organization in Geneva, Switzerland, and I want to put a couple of figures on the record.
Their survey of some 22 nations indicated that when it comes to equality of opportunity for women in the workplace, Canada ranks thirteenth in the world. The number one nation is Norway and the number two nation is the United States in providing equality of opportunity in the workplace. I do not think it is good enough for a nation like Canada to rank thirteenth in the world when it comes to opportunity for women in our workplace.
The next question dealt with equal pay for work of equal value for men and women. Where did Canada fall in that criterion? Canada was nineteenth out of 22 nations surveyed, OECD nations, western industrialized nations. On the issue of equality of opportunity, it was thirteenth out of 22 and nineteenth out of 22 on the issue of equality of pay.
We have a Government and a lot of members of the Liberal Party of Canada who serve in this Chamber who believe that their record when it comes to women's issue is a good record. Those 1984 statistics tell us that in the last 18 or 19 years in which that Party has been the federal Government of this country our progress is abysmal. We are going backwards, not forwards, when it comes to equality of opportunity for women.
If we simply look at figures coming out of the Department as they relate to the issue of departmentally-funded training, we get some startling answers. The preliminary data for the 1983-84 budget year show that for critical trade skills training-the flagship of the federal Government of Canada and its commitment to training for the future-96 per cent of the funding went to males and 4 per cent went to females. In the preceding year on clerical training, you get the converse, 92.2 per cent of training dollars going to females and 7.8 per cent to males. It is the clerical jobs that are being replaced by the computer.
We in this nation are busy pouring money into training programs for occupations that are disappearing. We are putting that money in the hands of the women of this nation. In the meantime, we are trying to put some money into occupations of the future, the higher-paying, longer-range occupations. Ninety six per cent of that money is being spent on males and 4 per cent on females. No member of this Chamber should feel very good about that kind of record. We have not only created the problem of lack of equality of opportunity, but we are perpetuating the problem into the future through the spending patterns of the Liberal Government.
When the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West moved his motion today to condemn the Government for its failure over a four-year period to protect the health and safety of workers, to provide equality of opportunity for women and to move on the issue of technology, what the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West is asserting is fact. Over this four-year period of time, at the very least, the Government has failed in all of those three critical areas. When our standard of living has fallen from second to fourteenth, it is in large part because the Government did not believe in and was not willing to invest in people. Thus we are not creating the kind of wealth we need to take care of the disadvantaged in this country.
[ Translation]


Normand Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion before the House today, a motion that ignores the very tangible efforts and progress of this Government in the field of occupational health and safety.
As the House is aware, the Bill tabled by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) on May 15 of this year, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act, contains a number of major amendments that will affect the three parts of the Canada Labour Code, dealing with, occupational health and safety, labour standards and industrial relations.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, protecting the health and safety of Canadian workers which is the purpose of the legislation before the House, is a major concern of this Government. The present provisions of Part IV have been in existence since 1968. However, although provisions are effective where they apply, many workers, especially those employed in connection with the operation of aircraft, ships and trains, do not receive the full protection afforded by Part IV. The Bill tabled by the Minister on May 15 of this year corrects that situation.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the proposed amendments on occupational health and safety contained in Bill C-34 is to cope effectively with the challenge of a constantly evolving social and technical environment for Canadian workers and employers. The new legislation is the result of numerous and intensive consultation sessions with employers and workers. Indeed, it was not drafted on the spur of the moment.
june 5, 1984

The proposed legislation clearly reflects its main purpose, which is prevention, in other words, prevention of accidents on the job and occupational diseases. The 1984 revision of the Act is aimed at increasing the participation and responsibilities of workers and employers, at every stage of the prevention process. It provides for more active participation by workers and employers and for the control and implementation of measures dealing with health and safety. It also provides for setting up more effective lines of communication in the work place, so that the "voice of concern" for health and safety can be heard and corrective action taken.
Mr. Speaker, the new provisions concerning health and safety representatives and labour management committees are only two examples of this increased participation and responsibility. The proposal to establish an Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health clearly indicates this government's commitment to guarantee not only that all parties will be heard, but that they will have a significant role in the overall process of developing policies, regulations and programs. In all work places employing more than 20 persons, labour and management will sit together on Safety and Health Committees. In small offices and workshops, workers will have an opportunity to be heard through an official representative.
Members of the National Advisory Council will be selected from labour and management. Their responsibility will be to advise the Minister of Labour. Essentially, the revised act emphasizes the fact that safety and health problems should be solved by the main people involved, namely the workers. The former general statements of employer and worker responsibilities have been replaced by a concise outline of specific responsibilities which have been added to those established in 21 different sets of safety and health regulations. Those consolidated statements of responsibilities will focus on the legal obligations of all persons now covered. They will be easier to understand, more uniform and clearer.
That change will also provide for the establishment of future regulations that will also be more readable, more succinct and more economical to produce. The amended enforcement sections clearly show that this government is seeking compliance through a practical and enlightened approach. The government is aware that the vast majority of employers and workers are ready and willing to meet their obligations to maintain occupational safety and health. On the other hand, Labour Canada is constantly striving to develop policies and programs to ensure that all people involved are aware of their legal obligations and the way they can meet requirements.
Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the Department of Justice, a policy of compliance with the amended Act has been developed. The main objective of that policy is to obtain a high percentage of voluntary compliance with the Act, through fair and equitable provisions. This in no way means the enforcement procedures in the Act, including the availability of stiffer and higher penalties, will not play an important role in the
Supply
enforcement of the Act, but enforcement is only one way of securing compliance. In most cases, enforcement procedures will be used only when attempts at obtaining voluntary compliance have failed.
The amendments to the clauses of Bill C-34 dealing with compliance should reduce the field of government intervention in the regulation process and will induce a higher degree of voluntary compliance. The supervisory activities of the occupational health and safety committees and the involvement of the members of the Advisory Council in the drawing up of legislation should promote voluntary compliance and reduce occupational hazards.
The improvements in the compliance policy will provide various procedures to deal with offences. The safety officer may accept a written assurance of voluntary compliance for a minor offence but, if necessary, he will officially set in writing the corrective steps needed or he will try to obtain a court order to remove the conditions posing an immediate threat to occupational health or safety.
Mr. Speaker, as a general policy, legal proceedings will only he launched for offences which are effectively crimes or serious violations of the law.
In a general effort to decriminalize the Code and to provide for more appropriate penalties the amendments to sections on penalties have greatly reduced the number of offences liable to imprisonment. Under those amendments, an emprisonment penalty can only be imposed in the case of offences related to deliberately dangerous acts in contradiction with safety and health standards prescribed under the legislation.
Some steps have clearly been taken to standardize the enforcement of the Code, as shown by the amendment which will effectively provide the protection of the law to workers who up to now were neglected as a result of legislation "subject to any other Parliament legislation".
Amendments to the sections that specified which workers are covered by the Canada Labour Code, and to the Financial Administration Act will from now on protect, either directly or indirectly, members of the federal Public Service working in transportation or on offshore oilrigs, and who were not covered before. This means that Part IV of the Code will now apply to approximately 300,000 more workers than before. The provisions which protect those who must do dangerous work were amended to specify the rights and responsibilities of those involved and to guarantee that fatal hazard or chronic illness situations will not be excluded from the motives which the worker can invoke to request legal protection. Experience has shown that the use of the phrase "imminent danger" was imposing restrictions hindered protection afforded to workers. This is why the word "imminent" has been deleted and the definition of hazardous work and normal occupational danger clarified.

june 5, 1984
Supply
In 1978, when the right to refuse to do hazardous work was introduced for the first time, there was concern that workers might abuse this right and that the employer could be faced with work stoppages resulting from the irresponsible or malicious use of the protection afforded. Experience has shown that these fears were unfounded and that the workers have used this right quite responsibly.
It is in the light of this experience that changes were made to the right to refuse to do hazardous work. The concept of acceptable risk or occupational danger was maintained in the provisions, but the wording is now clearer.
Refusal to work when the life or the health of someone else may be jeopardized is forbidden and restrictions to the exercise of this right have been imposed in the case of certain workers in the area of transportation to protect public health.
It is essential to a healthy economy and the welfare of Canadian workers that we constantly strive to improve all areas of occupational safety and health.
All Canadian workers, their employers and government agencies that deal with safety and health must be given the tools to do the job. In this way they will be in a position to efficiently communicate, under proactive programs to safely keep up with this decade's rapid technological and social change.
Mr. Speaker, thinking of the horrendous frequency of labour accidents, it is clear that corrective measures are an absolute necessity. When we look at the number of accidents and illnesses suffered by Canadian workers, we realize that strong steps must be taken to lessen this suffering. When the other aspects are added, productivity losses and very expensive compensation, the need for such measures becomes more acute.
Needless to say, simply amending the Act will not satisfy that need. However, the changes proposed in Bill C-34 will greatly help employers and employees better understand, share and take their joint responsibilities in the area of occupational accident prevention.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to Part IV of the Code are both significant and timely. As I said at the beginning of my comments, they clearly show this government's commitment and innovative approach to resolve a major problem.
I hope that all members in this House will show wisdom and objectivity and see to it that those amendments are passed into law.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Are there questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).


James Ross Fulton: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) rising on a point of order?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) be now heard.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, the Chair should have the motion in writing, first of all. Order.
Mr. Fulton, seconded by Mr. Blackburn moves that the Hon. Member for Kootenay West be now heard. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting day. In speaking to the Opposition motion which is before us, and to refresh our minds, I will remind the House that there were two motions presented initially for consideration, one presented by the New Democratic Party and the other presented by the Progressive Conservative Party. The Speaker, in his wisdom, decided to put the motion to the Progressive Conservative Party. We have no disagreement with that, of course. We are always willing to co-operate in order to expedite the business of the House and there is no business on which we are prepared to be more willing to bend or to compromise than on a motion which attempts to advance the timetable for measures relating particularly to the occupational health and safety of Canadian workers, be they men or women. That is the purpose for which we were elected.
I do not believe that anyone in reading the record of this House of Commons over the period of the last four years could have any doubt as to the position that I myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have taken. As far back as three and a half years ago we were putting questions to the Government and being assured, in the words of the former Minister of Labour-that is three Ministers of Labour back- that we would have these amendments to Parts III, IV and V placed on the Order Paper "in the near future". That was approximately three years ago. I believe the date was June 1, 1981, if I am not mistaken. Here we are in the "near future" by Liberal definition-a very Liberal definition-and we still have not begun to debate second reading on the motion. We in this Party have been prepared to adopt almost any course of action. In fact, my House Leader, just a few days ago, on May 31, moved a motion to which I referred in questioning an Hon. Member of the Conservative Party earlier today, that we in the New Democratic Party would be prepared to move and to support that the Standing Orders be amended by adding, immediately following Standing Order 79(1), the following:
The purpose of this Standing Order is to provide for the orderly and timely consideration of Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, and to be finally disposed of no later than June 30th, 1984.
(b) When the House is considering the said legislation for second reading at the end of one day's debate, all questions necessary to dispose of it shall be put;
June 5, 1984

(c) That the said legislation shall be deemed to be returned to the House for report stage and third reading no later than June 28, 1984.
The subject matter of the legislation before us is so important and so vital to the lives and livelihoods of millions of Canadians that there is little, if anything, that our Party would not do in order to expedite its movement through second reading to committee and through third reading, in the hopes that it could be proclaimed before this Parliament is prorogued.
Approximately 1,500 Canadian workers are killed on the job every year. Approximately 20,000 Canadian workers are disabled on the job every year. During the time in which we conduct our debate today there is a very good chance that more than one worker will die and a certainty that many will be disabled. We have already waited some three years-that is almost the gestation period of an elephant-for these amendments to Parts III, IV and V of the Canada Labour Code. We cannot perceive of any reasonable excuse which anyone could have for not wishing to expedite these matters.
I would like to make a few rather personal comments on the legislation before us and on the kind of problems we face, especially in the industrial work places of Canada. I am at least one Member of this House for which this is not an academic subject by any stretch of the imagination. I do not know how many other Hon. Members have had the dubious privilege of having to sweep their workmate's brain off the pavement, or how many other Hon. Members here have had to go on more than one occasion to visit a newly widowed woman to tell her that her husband and your friend has been killed just within the last few minutes. I am sure everyone here will understand that it is not a pleasant task.
I also think back to a story I heard a year ago here in the City of Ottawa, or perhaps it was across the river in Hull. The young son of a woman who works for an Hon. Member of this House, a member of the Conservative Party, was killed in an industrial accident in this area. He was a young boy who had been given absolutely no training for the task which he was required to do. He fell or slipped into a piece of grinding machinery used for grinding up garbage, and as an old German workmate of mine used to say in our sawmill at Kootenay Forest Products, "One day comes home the hamburger". It is not pretty. Anyone who has seen the remains of people we have known and loved being poured into a box will agree it is not the kind of experience that makes one very patient with the kind of political horse trading-some of it for very dubious purposes-which seems to be taking place around this piece of legislation.
I am certainly not suggesting that anyone here would knowingly want to continue a regime which has encouraged the continuation of practices in industry which lead to so many fatalities and injuries every year. I know better than that. No one here wants that to happen. But sometimes by doing nothing we contribute to that continuation. While I know that none of us individually want to be responsible or see ourselves
Supply
as being responsible for that kind of situation, there is a vast difference in the attitudes of governments of different political stripes when it comes to the emphasis placed on matters relating to life and death in the workplace.
I want to take Members back to a situation that existed prior to 1972 in the Province of British Columbia because it is relevant to our personal and political scale of priorities in regard to this issue. Since the 1930s there was legislation in British Columbia called the Factories Act. Many of us, including those in leadership positions in the labour movement and even people who worked for the Department of Labour in that province, were not aware of the existence of that legislation even though it had been on the books for almost 40 years. I and a few of my workmates found an old moth-eaten copy one day and we said, "Hey, this looks pretty good. It has some protective clauses here requiring lighting and ventilation in the workplace, the number of washrooms required per 100 employees and a whole host of things that could make many industrial workplaces much more civilized institutions." We asked some questions, but no one knew anything about it. We phoned the Department of Labour in Victoria, but no one had ever heard of it. Then, after the change from a Social Credit coalition government in early 1972 to an NDP administration we found that there were only two inspectors who were responsible for enforcing that legislation in the entire province. They must have been hiding in a closet somewhere for 35 years, but they were supposedly responsible. We immediately started hiring extra people to enforce the law, and we asked these two people how they ever accomplished their job. They were hired not only to inspect all existing industrial installations and factories in B.C., but to inspect every new work site before it went into operation. We asked how the two of them ever did that for the thousands and thousands of factories and workplaces throughout that province. They said, "Oh, we did telephone book inspections". The new NDP provincial Minister of Labour asked them, "Do you mean you just phoned the companies and asked them if they were obeying the law?" They said they did not have time for that. They just looked up the names of all the companies in the telephone book and transferred them to report forms.
That is the kind of farce that we will see again under people who continually call for smaller and smaller government and less and less regulation when it comes to the workplace. People who do that, whether it is by accident, design or ignorance, are guilty, Sir, of murder. They are guilty of murder, or at least manslaughter. Those of us who have gone through the excruciating pain of having to tell a woman that her husband was just murdered at the workplace by a regime which not only allows but encourages that neglect to take place do not have much patience with governments or politicians of any stripe who continue to allow that kind of ignorant action to take place.
We are now seeing the same thing again in the republic to the south of us, and the same things that used to prevail in British Columbia and is again happening under another government of a Conservative stripe calling itself Social Credit in

June 5, 1984
Supply
B.C. I find it interesting that the gentleman, who is now the labour critic for the Progressive Conservative Party in this House, was formerly a Social Credit MLA in British Columbia from 1966 to 1972, because we can look to that province to see what kind of provincial labour code changes we are now getting.
While even Members of the Government as well as Tories and New Democrats realize that the legislation in Bill C-34 before us could be improved, at least we know that it is moving in a more healthy direction to protect the lives of working people than the regime which exists today. It is poles apart from what exists now, but the legislation in British Columbia is moving in exactly the opposite way.


Mr. St. Germain:: You are in Ottawa.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I wish some of my Conservative friends, who are trying to remind me that I am in Ottawa, would remember that they also come from British Columbia, and that they would learn some lessons from it. I know where I come from. I know what kind of workplace I come from and I know what kind of province I come from. I know that I and hundreds of thousands of their voters as well as my voters are fed up and disgusted with the kind of regressive policies we are seeing followed right now by that coalition of Liberals, Tories and Socreds who call themselves a Social Credit Government in the Province of British Columbia. "Catch the Spirit" was their slogan in 1983. Catch the bloody spirit when you take a look at the things happening in workplaces paid for and managed by their friends every day.
So many investigations have been carried out by that conservative government to the south of us in the last little while that it has become evident that that government is also moving to the right in terms of occupational health and safety and away from any civilized conduct in labour relations. The kind of activity investigated by committees of Congress has been disgusting, and I would like to mention one example. In The New York Times of Monday, April 9, 1984, it said:
Labour Department lawyers representing OSHA told the subcommittee staff at first that the documents were Mr. Vance's "personal property,"-
Mr. Vance was an officer of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the U.S. who was under investigation for some rather dubious deals between the OSHA and certain contractors who, members of Congress suspected were getting a rather easy ride from the government. It continues to read:
-not subject to a request or a subpoena addressed to Mr. Auchter or his boss, secretary of labour Raymond J. Donovan. The Labour Department reconsidered and informed the subcommittee that the department's lawyers were withdrawing that defence.
The requested documents still were not produced, and Mr. Vance subsequently told subcommittee investigators that he had stowed his office logs in the back of his pickup truck on a hunting trip and that his dog vomited on them. He said this had made the documents so 'disgusting' that he disposed of them in a rural Virginia dump.
That is also the disgusting nature of the apologists for that government in British Columbia, which tolerated manslaughter or murder in the workplace in past years and which
is now engaged in moving toward a regime of industrial relations that will again welcome those kinds of practices.
I am sure some Members will suggest later on in this debate that I am being wild in my accusations. I do not make personal accusations because it is not individual acts that we are talking about. That problem is often a curse in the area of industrial health and safety. It is not an individual problem. The fact that some people feel that we must learn to live with and tolerate industrial death and injury is the problem. There is a collective perception that this is something which just happens along the way to earning a living, and if people do not like it they can quit. This is the same type of philosophy espoused by some of the people from the Fraser Institute in relation to prostitutes being beaten up by their pimps. The Fraser Institute is the outfit that advises the Government of British Columbia. They say that if prostitutes do not like being beaten up, they can always quit. That is management's right. Those are his words taken from his recent book. That is the kind of philosophy which prevails there, in spite of the fact that we have made great advances as a civilization.
Earlier in this debate I heard a Conservative Member saying that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) understands the problem because he has respect for a lunch bucket, or whatever the rest of that garbage was. There is a difference between someone who has worked for wages in industry for a little while to work his way through school, and someone who is destined to work in heavy blue collar industry for the balance of his or her working life. It is the same as the difference between someone doing a weekend sentence for impaired driving and someone who is serving a life term in prison. Your attitude toward the institution is different. If you realize that you are there for life you take the problems which exist there a little more seriously. You learn very early that the idealistic conceptions of the law being fair are hogwash. The spirit of the law in North America or Europe was never designed to protect the lives or rights of working people in their workplaces. Initially, they were set up under the Magna Carta so that the barons would have a few more rights and the king would have a few less. It has not really changed that much.
I hope that some of the changes in Bill C-34 will provide for a regime which is a little more civilized, so that people who go to work and their spouses together will have a better chance of seeing their families at the end of the day. The toll is still too high. There are 1,500 people a year who are killed on the job in Canada and 20,000 a year who are disabled. That is more than we have lost in most combat situations in which the Canadian Armed Forces have been engaged. It is time to end it. Anything we can do to promote an end to that kind of regime and to get this welcome but limited legislation passed will be done. We will do all we can to co-operate with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) on a question.
June 5, 1984


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The reality is that we could have three or four days of full debate in the House of Commons when everyone could talk about the problems of workers in Canada. We could have 10 days of debate in committee. The Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Labour, business and other workers' groups could appear before us. We could come back and have two or three more days of debate here and probably wind up this debate. Would the Hon. Member agree that the problem is one of the political will of the Government, which has 16 more government days? It is a matter of how the Government wants to use them. If the Government wants to use them for a good debate on the problems of the workers of Canada, it can do that. Does the Hon. Member agree with that?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West for his question. I agree that that is the prime responsibility. About two weeks ago in the House, prior to first reading of the Bill introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouelllet), I asked him why it had taken three years up to that point to bring forth the legislation. After four years of acting as if they were Conservatives they start talking like Liberals in the last few months before an election. That is typical of that bunch over there. While this legislation is welcome, I do not think that lets the Government off the hook. I agree with my Conservative friend that the Government is ultimately responsible for the delay which has now got the House into a bind.
It is easy for road-blocks to be put in the way, either on purpose or by chance. The Government is responsible for leaving it to the last minute of the eleventh hour. In recognition of that responsibility, I hope that the Government will say to my Party and to the Official Opposition that one day of debate, if that, is enough on second reading. We in the NDP would agree to one speaker from each Party. We would agree to move quickly through committee with a time deadline in order to ensure that we could have a one-day debate, or a debate with one speaker from each Party at third reading, on the understanding that the Government will accept its responsibility and undertake that this legislation will go to the Governor General and be proclaimed before this House is dissolved. We do not want to spend another four or five years before deciding whether Canadian workers should stop being injured and killed in the numbers to which Canada has regrettably become accustomed during the past generations.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member also agree that if we were to have a debate in the House of Commons and move the Bill to committee to hear representations from the CLC, the Canadian Federation of Business and other groups, we could improve this legislation? If not, why not?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, it is always possible to improve. I can assure the Member that after two or three years our NDP task force has all kinds of suggestions for improvements. But we also recognize that, whether by accident or design, we are facing deadlines. We think that lives are
Supply
more important than politics. We are quite willing to settle for half a loaf and put aside hearings, if necessary, in order that less people will be injured and die. The Government is to blame for leaving it so late. We are angry about that. Damn it, let us get on with the job because people's lives are at stake.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there further questions? The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that labour movements such as the Canadian Labour Congress and its affiliates have lobbied quite extensively for this legislation. Consultations between the Congress and the Government would indicate that extensive hearings before a committee would not be required. Even though they may not be satisfied with the total Bill, it is acceptable to them in its present form. Would the Member clarify that?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, yes, that is my understanding. Many representatives of unions across Canada as well as the officers and staff of the Canadian Labour Congress have been in close consultation with the Government. I know there have been consultations with my own colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I suspect as well that there have been some consultations with members of the Progressive Conservative caucus. They have expressed their willingness to forgo the opportunity to appear as witnesses, even though they would very much like to do so. They consider it urgent that this legislation, limited though it is, pass as quickly as possible. They are willing to surrender perfection for the sake of saving lives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), for his excellent motion today regarding safety in the workplace, and especially for addressing the concerns of women in the workplace and for pointing out that the Government is addressing the issue of technological change inadequately.
Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the Ontario Construction Association for its television advertisements on construction safety. These messages appear on television regularly and give a very vivid message which shows that many workers are not adhering to safety rules and regulations, which in turn causes many accidents. Being a former foreman of the Manitoba Telephone System for many years, I was involved in safety training and I found that it was a continuous job to train apprentices and even some of the old hands in using their safety glasses, hard hats and other equipment.
I think everyone has the responsibility to report any unsafe conditions in any industry. If the NDP knows of all of unsafe conditions in the workplace, wherever they may occur, there is

June 5, 1984
Supply
a responsibility to report it to the Government or to the Workmen's Compensation Board.
I have been reviewing the material prepared by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West in the summary of the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code. I believe we have a reincarnation of the Hon. Michael Starr who was the Labour Minister in the Diefenbaker Government and Canada's most successful Labour Minister, who brought co-operation and harmony to labour and government.
Let me comment on some of the items in his document. He points out that the proposed changes in the Bill to amend the Canada Labour Code are the result of two years of extensive consultations with labour organizations and employers' associations and are intended to ensure that the Canada Labour Code continues to meet the rapidly changing realities of today's workplace. I am sure that we all agree with that, especially with respect to safety, which is the subject we are debating today.
Furthermore, on April 16 of this year, my colleague from Fraser Valley West presented a motion in the House under the Business of Supply on an allotted day in regard to technological change and the Government's delay in dealing with that issue. Therefore, our Party does not have to apologize to anyone for not being interested in labour problems or dealing with advances in the future. We are all labour. Before coming here we have all had to work in different occupations. Regardless of whether one is in the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party, we are still all of us labour.
There is another area I would like to discuss with regard to a Private Members' Bill of mine with respect to an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. I would suggest to the Government that it give serious consideration perhaps to introducing a government Bill dealing with the issue I will raise in a moment. It would certainly be much faster than having to wait for my Private Members' Bill to be dealt with. It is in regard to injury to personal feelings and the different manner in which some industries and Crown corporations treat their employees. There is a double standard in their dealings with their employees.
I would like to read the explanatory note of this Bill into the record. It states:
This amendment to the Canada Labour Code would ensure that the administration of a collective agreement would not have a discriminatory or detrimental effect on the employees covered by that agreement in comparison to other employees not covered by the agreement.
Let me give some examples of how this affects people in Air Canada. It concerns Air Canada's golden handshake policy in which it applies a double standard when rewarding its management for long and faithful service. For instance, in 1977, 356 management people took advantage of this benefit. At the time, the union raised a grievance at the headquarter's level, contesting the fact that the early retirement program only applied to management personnel and not to employees covered by the IAM collective agreement. That is clearly a double standard that is causing great concern among many of the machinists at Air Canada. The grievance was denied by the
company on the basis that no surplus situation existed with respect to people covered by the IAM collective agreement.
Since that time, the membership of District Lodge 148 IAM-AW has been concerned with this discriminatory policy. As a result of a resolution passed by members who were present at the 1981 convention, District Lodge 148 executive board set up a one-man committee to look at all aspects of Air Canada's golden handshake program. It provided early retirement for many senior officials in Air Canada. Twenty-one million dollars was set aside in the golden handshake program. Instead of using some of that money to keep machinists on at that particular time, they were being laid off.
Further meetings between the company and the union on this issue took place in 1982. At a meeting in September of that year, the company talked about a VSP for IAM members, but it would be substantially less than one being offered to management. That is why I presented my Bill, which would call for the same compensation for employees at retirement or lay-off, whether he be a white collar worker or a blue collar worker.
I do not want to hold up passage of the Bill. I think there has been excellent debate. We are all in agreement that the Government must take immediate action before we adjourn at the end of June. I understand that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) wishes to enter the debate, and I want to give him that opportunity. I am sure he can discuss the British Columbia question in an excellent manner.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The House will now proceed to debate.


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in my response to the Opposition motion concerning Bill C-34, I would like to stress a very important point. The major changes to the Canada Labour Code cover not only occupational health and safety but also labour relations and labour standards. I would like to speak more specifically to the latter today, since it is a subject that was not necessarily discussed by our colleagues opposite.
Although all the amendments proposed are important, two of the changes which relate to labour standards are fundamental: the guarantee of a work place free of sexual harassment and the availability of leave of absence for child care to fathers and adopting parents. These innovative provisions are meant to cope with serious social problems. Before presenting the proposed amendments, the Government asked for the opinions of all parties that would be concerned by the legislation.
In December 1979, Mr. Speaker, the Government submitted all amendments to the parties concerned. Consultations went on until last March, and the result is a series of carefully balanced amendments which reflect the concern of the principal groups involved.
June 5, 1984

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to what I consider to be the major changes proposed in Part III, and I am referring to those that cover the leave of absence for child care and sexual harassment in the work place.
Over the last thirty years, a very substantial shift has occurred in the labour force in Canada. From 1951 to 1980, the proportion of women in the labour force rose from 22.2 per cent to 40.1 per cent. In 1980, Canada broke through a critical barrier when the women's participation rate went over 50 per cent. In other words, the percentage of women actively engaged in the country's economy simply doubled in barely 20 years. From a social standpoint, this massive influx of women in Canadian plants and offices has to be one of the most lasting and notable changes in this day and age. It has forced all Canadians to reassess their personal views based on tradition and compelled Governments to redesign and redraft their public policies.
Some 15 or 20 years ago, there was no need to account for an employee's family responsibilities when drafting employment policies. Once married, most women would quit working and devote themselves to their home and the education of their children. Husbands were supposed to give all their attention to their own career to ensure the financial security of their families. The reasons behind the disappearance of work distribution on the basis of sex are many and varied, and they are due to economic, educational, demographic and psychological considerations on which I would like to comment briefly.
From an economic viewpoint, it is obvious that two salaries were needed by the many families that wanted to raise their standard of living. Unfortunately, it is equally obvious that, in a good many families, the husband's take-home pay is hardly enough to maintain the family income above the poverty level. Indeed, a recent study revealed that the number of families living in poverty would increase by 51 per cent if women did not have any income. Another factor which did contribute to boost female representation on the labour market is that the educational standards of men and women at all levels have been rising.
Statistical data and plain common sense indicate that there is a genuine and solid link between the level of education of women and their rate of participation in the labour force. With respect to demography, higher divorce rates, fewer marriages and the upward trend in the average age of newlyweds are all factors which had an influence on the economic activities of women. In that respect, it should be noted that, even though the participation rate of women of all age groups has increased considerably, that increase has been even more striking in the 25-to-34 age bracket. In 1981, almost two thirds of women of child-bearing age were on the labour market.
Supply
Finally, let us not forget that psychological factors are just as significant as all other factors combined. Many women like the independence which comes with gainful employment. Whether we like it or not, independence spells respect in industrialized democracies and a regular pay cheque is the guarantee of that independence. In addition, it would seem that women exert more influence in the family decision-making process simply because they can get a job and earn a salary. As women are more and more present on the labour market, they quite naturally demand equal pay for work of equal value. Along with many others, the federal government launched a number of programs to advance the status of women. Unfortunately, as was admitted by Kathleen New-land, of the Worldwatch Institute, progress toward a new and fair distribution of jobs in the area of paid work force is hindered by the persistence of the former and unequal distribution of household tasks. In other words, even though men no longer exert a domination over paid jobs, women have found themselves, quite against their will, with a real monopoly over non-paid household tasks.
The results are obvious. As long as men do not assume a larger share of the work within the household, women will be unable to benefit from attractive work opportunities on the labour market. Also, according to Ms. Newland, employers will continue to treat women without any consideration as long as they presume, and rightly so, that women will be the ones who will quit their jobs, even temporarily, in order to look after their young children, take time off in order to nurse a sick child, refuse to work overtime because of their domestic responsibilities and follow their husband when he is transferred.
As a great number of women workers know too well, the interruptions in their career caused by pregnancies and child rearing have a tendency to reduce their seniority, to have a negative influence on their promotion opportunities and to hinder their eligibility for fringe benefits.
All these considerations are powerful arguments for the reforms to Part III that are included in Bill C-34. In short, these amendments are the result of considerable effort on the part of the federal Government to help workers covered by the Canada Labour Code to reconcile their domestic and professional responsibilities. For example, at the present time, women employees must have been employed for 12 months in order to be eligible for maternity leave. It is proposed to reduce this eligibility period to three months, reflecting the far reaching changes which have dramatically modified the structure of the activity rate. As we are all aware, the birth rate in Canada has been plummeting ever since 1960. In fact, since 1972, it has been below the population replacement rate. In other words, as long as women continue to show a deep commitment to their career, it will no longer be necessary to require of them a long eligibility period. Under the current legislation, only pregnant employees are entitled to this type of

June 5, 1984
Supply
leave. Natural fathers and adoptive parents cannot be granted leave of absence for child care responsibilities. In order to encourage the sharing of domestic chores and break the unappreciated "monopoly" which I referred to earlier, the Government is providing for a 24-week long leave without pay for child care responsibilities for both natural and adoptive parents. In a major amendment, the Government has provided that no employer shall require a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence, unless she is unable to perform an essential function of her job and no appropriate alternative job is available for her.
The Government is moving this amendment because the courts have ruled that no provision in the Labour Code could stop an employer from requiring a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence from her employment. They felt that it only precluded the employer from refusing a leave of absence. It was therefore necessary to define more accurately the intent of the legislator to ensure that no employer could unduly require a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence without pay.
As to the reinstatement of an employee, the purpose of the new clauses is to remove certain discretionary powers which the employer has now by requiring him to reinstate the employee in the position that employee occupied before the leave of absence commenced. Whenever possible, the employer must reinstate the employee in a comparable position with the same wages and fringe benefits and in the same location.
The government intends also to reinforce the fringe benefits protection scheme under the Canada Labour Code by demanding the uninterrupted accumulation of retirement, sickness, disability and seniority benefits while an employee is on leave of absence.
There is also a provision concerning the right to notice of employment opportunities. Many employees are aware that lost opportunities during a leave of absence for family responsibilities are often tremendous and hard to make up for. It is therefore imperative to legally prevent the dire consequences of an employment stoppage for child care purposes on one's opportunities for promotion. Under the new provisions, every employee must be informed in writing of every employment, promotion or training opportunity that arises while on leave of absence. The employee will then be in a position to decide what is to be done during that leave of absence and to keep in contact with his or her place of work.
In my opinion, the last three amendments concerning reinstatement, accumulation of benefits and notice of employment opportunities are of utmost importance, for they demonstrate at last to women employees that they will no longer be penalized for assuming as mothers, their indispensable role to society. It is clearly unfair that this role should affect so
negatively nearly all aspects of their professional lives, including their revenues, fringe benefits, promotion opportunities and experience.
I am delighted that the Minister chose to include those provisions in the Labour Code and I hope that all parties will agree to have those amendments passed quickly by the House. I hope as well that the amendments pertaining to sexual harassment will gain wide acceptance. We Canadians have been tended to consider sexual harassment as strictly a human rights issue, and employees who were so victimized in the work place quite often just did not know how to react.
Until last year when the House adopted amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the legislation did not contain any specific reference to sexual harassment and very few employees were aware that such behaviour could lead to legal action on grounds of sexual discrimination. Even though recent amendments to that Act leave no doubt as to that, there are persons who are often reluctant to use those means.
The investigation of a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act lasts more than a year, and its success depends on the ability to adduce evidence that will convince an ordinary court of law. Unfortunately, that kind of evidence is not always easy to gather in cases of sexual harassment. Even though a complaint may be settled by one of the Human Rights Courts, probably the settlement of one such complaint would not be a deterrent, since in order to reduce those cases, the shamefulness and unacceptability of such conduct would have to be publicly recognized. Therefore, with the current amendments, a definition of sexual harassment would be introduced in the Code to clarify what is meant by such a conduct. In my view, this will significantly help reinforce the fact that sexual harassment is a degrading behaviour, an insult to human dignity and an unacceptable conduct when a person's occupational life is affected. Further, after consulting the employees or their representatives, employers would have to develop a policy prohibiting sexual harassment and make each of their employees aware of its contents.
In order to put an end to such harassment, the active cooperation of employers is needed because they can not only increase the level of people's awareness, but also take immediate disciplinary action after a specific incident. They can control sexual harassment in the workplace just as they control hazardous behaviours.
Mr. Speaker, the reforms put forward in Bill C-34, involving as they do not only Part III, but also Parts IV and V, are progressive and timely. Further, the extensive and therefore stimulating consultations that were held with labour and management representatives proved they were both practical and workable. I am confident honourable members will support these major government initiatives, and they will do so as soon as possible.
June 5, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a period of ten minutes for questions or comments.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) tell the House why, in view of the fact that negotiations on Parts III, IV and V of the Canada Labour Code have been taking place for some three years since the time when the then Minister of Labour on June 1, 1981 said that they would be coming soon, it was only in the last few days that Bill C-34 was given first reading? Certainly we in this caucus were aware that negotiations were progressing along the road to completion some months ago. Why has the Government, for whatever reason, placed us in the House of Commons in the position of being required to expedite the hasty implementation and proclamation of major reforms to the Canada Labour Code in order to get results before the prorogation of Parliament? If it thinks that the objective is important, why is it placing us in the position of having to forgo some of the realistic opportunities for amendment and discussion which should be the right of Parliament and of the people of Canada?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member that those dispositions are before the House now. If we had had the collaboration of his caucus earlier and free time in the House, I am sure we could have come forth with those modifications sooner. The consultation was a long process. We wanted to ensure that the proposed amendments would result in a consensus. It appears that is so. Most Hon. Members seem to agree with the amendments. I think it is sooner than soon. In a way the Hon. Member has to realize that there is always an end to a session. Whether it is this Bill or any other one, Bills are always proposed at the end of a session. We are hoping that the consultations beforehand were sufficient to obtain support. All of us would have liked to have had this legislation before now, but maybe it was not ready then or the spirit was not there. Now we have the political will we will be happy to pass the legislation right away.
[ Translation)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Other questions, comments? Debate.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, it took the Government four years to bring this forward. Who does the NDP criticize? It criticizes the provincial Government of British Columbia. I find that to be totally irresponsible. Members of that Party want to adjourn the debate. They are being obstructive in the House for political expedience on a matter affecting the working man whom they profess to protect. The working man would be in a lot of trouble if it were up to the NDP.
We are entering an age of new technology and labour relations. We must be as sure as possible that we have the correct labour code to deal with the problems at hand. We on
Supply
this side of the House are not trying to delay the Bill. We are trying to bring forward the best legislation for the working men and women of the country. Labour and labour-management relations have been a big part of my life. I was a union president and had to sit across the table from management. I was told that there was everything but safety and wage increases for my membership. Later, as a contractor I remembered the lessons of my union days. I had respect, consideration and a good sound communication with the men who worked in my organization.
Fairness should be the hallmark of all labour-management relations. That must be the thrust of labour-management relations and, if I may say so, we require a new labour-management code to establish a new standard of behaviour for both sides. A civilized labour atmosphere is indicative of an advanced civilization.
The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) moved a motion concerning the health and safety of Canadian workers, women in the workplace and technological change. Initially I should like to address the area of technological change, its impact upon the youth of the country and the unemployment which has resulted because it was not addressed by the Government opposite. The primary concern of all of us should be the 1.5 million to 2 million unemployed Canadians. The biggest issue facing Canadian today is that of jobs. That should be the concern of every Bill which comes before the House.
We cannot be sure of the real numbers of unemployed, but there are many out there. Unemployment affects nearly every household. It affects my household. I have trained, educated unemployed youth in my home. Canadian workers are out of work not because they do not work hard, not because consumers do not want to purchase the goods and services produced, but because of the disastrous management of the economy by the present Government, the growing national debt and high interest rates. All these factors have diverted attention away from attacking the real problems at hand. Our technology has not advanced with the rest of the world.
Earlier this year I had the privilege of attending the OECD Conference in Paris. Countries with the most civilized labour relations have the least problems. They have addressed the question of technological change. Japan has addressed the problem. It has a labour code and code of ethics which attacks the problems at hand. This Government has done nothing to mitigate the crisis of unemployment. Although the Government denies it is a crisis, especially for the young, there are between 600,000 and 1,000,000 million youth unemployed. If we really check the figures, it would probably be closer to 1.5 million. Because of this despair and frustration, some youth have totally given up looking for jobs.
The Labour Code has not done anything with regard to technological change. The Government has seen fit to shirk its responsibility. Our youth are totally ill-prepared. The Government does not adequately address the issue in Bill C-34. It

June 5, 1984
Supply
would be nice if it did. Our Party will not delay Bill C-34 because it does not deal adequately with this issue, but Canadians have the right to know the inadequacy of that Bill. That is why normal debate should lake place.
We cannot make the point often enough that even though we have high unemployment, 40 per cent of Canadian firms report difficulty locating workers with necessary skills. That is hard to believe. A lack of foresight and planning and proper labour legislation has brought about this situation.
Has the Government notified Canadians of technological change? Has it prepared for the over 30 per cent of Canadians who are considered functionally illiterate? There are sources that have done studies such as the one entitled, "Global Stakes, the future of high-tech in America". It lists the number of professionals per ten thousand people. In North America there are 40 trained accountants, in Japan there are three. There are 20 lawyers in North America compared to one in Japan. However, there are 25 engineers in North America and 35 in Japan. They do not have low unemployment and are not meeting technological change because they do not know what they are doing. They know what they are doing. They are training and giving the guidance that is required of government.
Government training and educational programs in this country are totally inadequate. Because of its inadequacy, the Government has been forced into programs that do not necessarily apply to the problems. This has resulted in a band-aid and make-shift situation that is costing billions of dollars and is not attacking the problem the way it should. Programs are consolidated and then splintered. All the while the problems continue to stare us in the face. The priorities are missed. Our apprenticeship programs in this country are far behind those of other countries. We have the lowest apprenticeship enrolment in the western world.
Co-operative education and literacy training receive the smallest financial support. Co-op education is one area that has a direct effect on solving the problems. There the technology is taught in direct relationship to the needs of business. Co-op education is working on the job part-time and attending classes for the remainder of the day.
I said before that 30 per cent of our population is functionally illiterate. With education as necessary as it now is, what does the Government do? It introduces Bill C-12, which has the net effect of reducing funding for post-secondary training. We in the Opposition have put forward amendments. We oppose the Bill in its present form. It should have more social direction and aim. We want money to go to the technological institutes and the training schools. What does the Government do? It ignores us.
Bill C-34 should address the problem of training, phasing our youth into the labour market without jeopardizing trade unions or the viability of business. Bill C-34 and our Labour Code should lead the way, setting the precedent for all other labour Bills.
In Canada we run and hide from technology. We are a trading nation. Over 30 per cent of our GNP is tied to foreign trade. Incredibly, 1968 we traded more than Japan. Today their trade is more than double ours. We must face up to technology and ensure that the transition is fair. The worker on the job must be given ample time for change. Why was the Labour Code not brought forward sooner? Does it contain those provisions? No. We must address the jobs of the future if we are going to have a productive society and a reduction of unemployment levels.
Before an election and just before the end of a session, we see a labour code. The Member on the Government side pointed out that some Bill had to be brought down before the end of a session. I agree. However, why such an important Bill? It is a basic right to have good, sound working conditions. Why jeopardize that by bringing in the Bill so close to the end?
Earlier this year the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) said that something should be done about this. He asked where this legislation was. The Government has shirked its responsibility. It is using a labour situation as a political football to try to embarrass the Opposition and to blame someone else for its shortcomings. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) spoke about safety. He made it sound as though his Party were the only Party concerned about safety. He wanted us to believe that he is the only one who has ever worked in the trenches. A lot of people in the Official Opposition have worked in the trenches, and I am one of them.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: On your way through.


Gerry St. Germain: Not on our way through, not for one minute. My entire family have been involved in construction for all of their lives. I know what safety is. I have been head of a labour union whereas most of you guys in the NDP have never even had a job.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Most of which guys?


Gerry St. Germain: You fellows in the NDP.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is a lie.


Gerry St. Germain: The Labour Code covers only 10 per cent of the workforce. But as there were 82,000 workers injured and 18 workers killed in 1981, as the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West pointed out, this area deserves careful attention. Why so late? Again it is a political Bill and the NDP would like to make it a larger political football than it is already.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: We just want to pass it.


Gerry St. Germain: This is a legal precedent-setting piece of legislation. It is not worthy of this Government to wait so long to introduce it. The Government is slipping it in just before an election.
If you were a worker, Mr. Speaker, affected by the Labour Code and apprehensive about technology and displacement,
June 5, 1984

would you be reassured by the Government opposite? I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would not be. Would you be happy with the Government for ignoring your concerns for so long and now rushing the legislation through? I cannot overemphasize that fact. The Government has not weighed carefully all the planning or all the contingencies, and it has been especially negligent in the past in anticipating technology. It has not anticipated technology to the slightest degree. The Government has not recognized nor has it rectified safety and health hazards. This is a very, very serious area that we as an entire House should address together. As the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West has pointed out, he is prepared to expedite this particular piece of legislation.
I would like to comment briefly on the labour and management relations and the lead role that the Bill should play in that area. The mishandling of the Labour Code by the Government is part of a bigger problem-its attitude toward labour and its poor handling of those relations. The Government in Ottawa must take the blame for much of what is wrong between labour and management today. Not once has it come up with a reasonable idea or given great consultation to labour and management in working together. It has consistently dodged and ignored the basic requirements. It is of absolute necessity that we establish and start working toward good, sound labour-management relationships. This area should be included in the federal Labour Code.
We must start looking at work sharing. However, here again work sharing can only be achieved with a sound economy. I have had discussions with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) regarding youth unemployment. I pointed out that work sharing is inevitable. However, we must have a responsible and sound economy if we are going to enter into this particular area. We must improve technology and distribute profits equitably. If we do not improve our technology, we will not be able to compete in the world of tomorrow. That will compound the unemployment problems which we now have. If we are going to move toward work sharing and a more equitable distribution of wealth, it can only be achieved if we maintain a high level of technology.
I would like to speak very briefly about women in the workplace. With the rising rates of divorce and the rising rates of unemployment, there are substantial numbers of women who are being told that their jobs have been terminated. However, their responsibilities for the needs and support of their children have increased. The average income of a man is approximately $35,000, whereas for women it is about half that Figure, that is, $17,000. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) will be speaking today on this subject. However, I wanted to mention the fact that I am concerned about the plight of women. I think that all governments should be concerned. As well, I think that the Labour Code should address this very, very important item as well as those of technology and safety.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a period of ten minutes for questions and comments. For a question, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
Supply


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of questions to the Hon. Member who just spoke. He talked about the fact that 30 per cent of Canadians are functionally illiterate. That is true. He criticized the federal Government for not dealing with this very important defect in our education system. That criticism is one which has been made by many other Members on both sides of the House. He also talked about the fact that we have one of the lowest numbers of apprentices of any of the modern technological societies and that our technical education is deficient. All of that is true. For all that, the federal Government must share a very large part of the responsibility. But I would like to ask the Hon. Member: Does he not realize that under the Constitution and the provisions of the British North America Act, education is the responsibility of the provinces?
What has happened is not just that present and past federal governments have failed to deal with the problems. If I could digress for a moment, I would like to say that in the Diefen-baker years great strides were made in the setting up-because the federal Government helped fund them-of technical schools which later became community colleges. The fact is that not only has the federal Government failed to do what it should have done, but virtually every provincial government has failed. What we have seen in the last few years, particularly during the last few years of the recession, is that not only has the federal Government cut back on what it should be spending on this kind of education, but almost every provincial government has cut back also. No province has been more ruthless and more determined to make the cutbacks and to put those cutbacks into effect than the Hon. Member's own Province of British Columbia with its Social Credit Government. I would like the Member to comment on that point.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I understand the problems of the federal-provincial agreements on education. However, I honestly feel that the lead role must come from this Government. If the Hon. Member has been watching, traditionally the Government opposite has not been able to work with the provinces. If the leadership is not to come from here, and the other ten children are faltering along the way, I think that it is our responsibility as a senior government to provide the leadership which is required. Inevitably we will be footing the bill. We pay for UI and we share a major cost of welfare. I am fully aware of what the Hon. Member is saying. I am not here to protect any province or any provincial Party. I am here to represent people at the federal level as I was elected to do. That leadership is our responsibility. We will not gain anything by throwing bric-a-brac at the provinces. The only way in which we will achieve anything is by working together with the provinces and showing them, if they have shortcomings, where those shortcomings are. Criticism is fine as long as it is constructive.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain). He wondered aloud why the New Democratic Party, and I think myself in particular, should have

June 5, 1984
Supply
spent equal time-although he suggested that it was all the time-attacking the provincial Government of British Columbia instead of attacking the federal Government for its irresponsibility in delaying the introduction of this legislation. I thought I had done that, Mr. Speaker, not only today in commenting on the miserable record of the Government in the last four years in this regard, but certainly I did so in the House of Commons a few days ago when I believe I used the phrase of CLC President Dennis McDermott, "sleazy Liberals", referring to these people in the Government who act like Tories for four years and then sound like Liberals for a couple of months. And after saying that this legislation would be brought forward "in the near future", the Government delayed it for three years, and we have finally received it in the last minute of the eleventh hour.
The Hon. Member was wondering, however, why I spent some time talking about the Conservative Government of British Columbia, and I would point out that it is composed of Socreds, Liberals and Tories. All one needs to do is to look at the signs which my Conservative opponent in Kootenay West had up on his lawn during the last election. They were Socred signs. They go to each other's nominating conventions. They are the same people. There is an old phrase with which I am sure the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) is familiar, that is, "If it acts like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck".
I ask the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody this: In view of what has been happening in the current Labour Code amendments before the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia, in view of the number of right-to-work amendments to the Labour Code introduced by members of his own caucus in the House of Commons, and in view of what the Conservative administration of the United States has done in order to destroy individual workers' rights and attack the U.S. occupational safety and health administration, why should workers in Canada not say, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and regardless of the debate on C-34, regardless of the fact it could be better, let us get this legislation passed now so that fewer of us will die or be injured in the future"? Why should they not say that? I am used to cutting cards with the devil, but I will not hand the deck of cards over to him to do with what he wants. Who knows what the next election will bring.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as much as the Hon. Member will not recognize it, there were some people who were traditionally NDP, and perhaps still are, who voted for me, otherwise I would not have been able to win the election.
With respect to the Hon. Member's question, there is no doubt that if we cannot get amendments in a fairly short period of time, without delaying this particular Bill, our Party will accept what is there, as much as we would like to see many more amendments to the particular Bill. However, the fact remains that there is still one very big problem we are facing. I believe that the safety of the workers is the most
important aspect of this Bill, but I believe also, with respect to technological change, that we are getting very close to the point where we are not going to have any workers because there are not going to be any jobs. This is why we in this Party feel we should be addressing this particular aspect, as well as the matter of women in the workplace who are playing a more predominant role, and rightly so. I believe we must act when we have the chance, and the chance only comes once in every four years, and perhaps less frequently than that, and who knows who is going to be elected next. I am sure that we in our Party are going to be elected, and if we are, there will not be any problem. The Hon. Member can rest assured of that. We will look after all these things in a proper manner for the benefit of the working man. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be expediting this Bill. We will not delay it unnecessarily.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There is time for a short question.


James Ross Fulton: Yes, I have a very short question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether or not it is in fact the position of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody that he and his Party would not support this Bill going through in one day?


Gerry St. Germain: The three House Leaders, Mr. Speaker, to my understanding, have been in negotiation with respect to this.


James Ross Fulton: But where do you stand?


Gerry St. Germain: Where do I stand? I will be working to improve the Bill as much as we possibly can within a reasonable period of time and we will try to have it passed before June 30.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the end of the ten-minute period for questions and comments. We will continue debate.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not be very long in my remarks because I would like to listen to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for at least 20 minutes or 25 minutes on a subject in which she has always been interested. My colleagues have addressed mainly the contents of the Bill which was introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) on May 15. This legislation proposes to amend Parts III and IV of the Canada Labour Code. In addition, a number of the clauses contained in Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and Financial Administration Act, would amend Part V of the Code, the provision governing the conduct of industrial relations in federal jurisdictions. Like the other parts of Bill C-34, Mr. Speaker, these amendments are the product of lengthy and complex consultations with unions and employers under this legislation, and that of provincial jurisdictions.
I would like to discuss for a few moments the proposed changes to Part V of the Canada Labour Code, that is those changes dealing with industrial relations and the collective
June 5, 1984

bargaining process. Labour relations legislation establishes the rules and procedures for collective bargaining, unionization and certification of bargaining agents. It establishes the rules of conduct between labour and management by setting out their obligations and responsibilities. It is vital that labour relations legislation be balanced, workable and generally acceptable to the industrial partners. Much has been written about the adversarial nature of collective bargaining and it would be utopian to hope that full consensus could be reached between labour and management on labour relations legislation. However, it is essential to secure the greatest degree of consensus possible and to have the benefit of advice from industrial relations practitioners on this very complex subject. Such advice was sought from the Canadian Labour Congress and other labour centrals and every major federal employer in Canada.
In 1972, the Government introduced what I would call radical amendments to the Code governing the introduction of technological change during the term of a collective agreement and more changes are needed to make that completely fair. Prior to 1972, under the management's rights theory, employers could sign a collective agreement with a union for two or three years and then immediately introduce technological changes which could drastically affect the working conditions and livelihood of the employees, thus radically changing the terms under which the bargain had been made. Such tactics resulted in considerable labour unrest and, indeed, a major wildcat strike on Canadian National Railways, which brought that entire transportation system to a halt.
The technological change provisions of the Canada Labour Code introduced in 1972, prohibited employers from introducing any technological change adversely affecting a significant number of employees during the term of the agreement, unless proper notice was served on the bargaining agent and negotiations took place. The legislation put the onus on the parties, through collective bargaining, to incorporate procedures and provisions in their collective agreements to deal with technological change. Failing this, a union could apply to the Canada Labour Relations Board for authority to reopen the agreement where technological change was introduced without notice and negotiations. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this was considered by some people to be very radical legislation at the time, and even today it has only been copied by three provincial jurisdictions. In the Bill recently introduced, the Government is further strengthening the technological change provisions by calling for 120 days advance notice of technological change. That is more than is done by any other jurisdiction in Canada.
There are other technical improvements to these sections, with the objective of further encouraging the parties to deal with technological change through collective bargaining. Whether we like it or not, our society-indeed, all western societies-will continue to change, and change rapidly. Developments in technology, which are occurring at a breathtaking pace, virtually guarantee us that. But as I see it, our job as policy makers and legislators remains basically the same, that
Supply
is, to ensure that everyone, always and everywhere, receives equitable treatment. I believe that one of the ways we can do this is by preserving the basic integrity of the collective bargaining process.
As Members know, collective bargaining is the principal method by which workers and employers determine wages and working conditions. In my view, it is one of the most important social inventions of our time, and one which has served this country well. But despite its social utility, collective bargaining has been under sustained attack. As the Minister of Labour pointed out in his speech, governments of all stripes concerned about rising prices and costs and disruptions to the economy have intervened, perhaps too often, in the collective bargaining process. The long-term effect of such interventions has not really been fully considered. For my part, I am hopeful that the need to intervene in the process will diminish as governments, unions and employers come to realize more strongly what is at stake. We are not simply talking about a dispute resolution technique; we are talking about our faith in the capacity of democratic decision-making to work effectively.
I would like now to turn to other amendments contained in Bill C-34, which I believe contribute to the smooth functioning of this process. They have been drafted in response to suggestions made by those who actually negotiate under the provisions of the code. With respect to the Canada Labour Relations Board, the Government proposes to make a number of administrative changes, the purpose of which is, as they say, to unclog the system and thereby remove some of the frustrations felt by those who must deal with the board.
As Members probably know very well, there is nothing so irritating as dealing with an overworked bureaucracy which is further encumbered by its own regulations and red tape. I am pleased that the Government is proposing changes to the fair representation clause of the Code. At present this clause requires that unions fairly represent all bargaining unit members. This is not an unreasonable obligation considering that individual members and minorities within larger groups always require protection. However, there is a need to balance the right of the individual with the rights of the union. In recent years, grievance arbitration systems have become obstructed. To remedy this, the amendment proposes to adopt the proscriptive language used in other jurisdictions, which simply stipulates that unions must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of the employees. In addition, the amendment will apply only to administration of the collective agreement, not to the negotiating process.
The Government also proposes to make compulsory the so-called Rand formula. Employees in a defined bargaining unit are not required to join the union as a condition of continuing employment. However, because non-union members obtain the benefits of union activity, they are required to pay the union an amount equal to union dues. At present the code permits the parties to negotiate the union security and

June 5, 1984
Supply
dues check-off regime that will apply. This permissive approach has been a cause of conflict during many negotiations over first collective agreements.
I want to end my remarks today by commending the Government on both the content of its labour reform package and the process by which it put the package together, albeit it took an incredibly long time. In my opinion, the amendments are fair, progressive and in line with the economic and social realities of the 1980s. This should not be entirely surprising considering that the Minister and his officials met with some 40 labour organizations and employer's associations representing all sectors under the jurisdiction of the Code. I am extremely pleased with the reactions to the amendments. Generally they have been quite positive. Members will know, for instance, that the CLC expressed approval. The Public Service Alliance has termed the Bill a firm step in the right direction. However, the business community has not been as supportive as some of us on this side of the House, but I believe it will come to realize the social necessity for the reforms and adapt accordingly. As I suggested earlier, it is in the employer's own interest to have a collective bargaining system that functions smoothly and a workforce that feels its legitimate needs are being met. It is my sincere hope that all Parties will agree to speedy passage of these amendments through this House.
I just wanted to refer to a remark made by a previous speaker concerning the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen). I want to assure the House that for many years this particular Member of the NDP was one of the forerunners in organizing unions in the forestry sector throughout Atlantic Canada.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member or his Government be prepared to agree to a proposition that there be one speaker from each Party or one day of debate on second reading of this Bill, and set a timetable for the Bill in committee with an assurance that we would have it reported back with an agreement for either one day of debate on third reading or one speaker from each Party? Immediately following passage in the House it could be proclaimed before Parliament recesses. He may not be able to do that, of course, and the Government may not be able to make the decision because a new Prime Minister may have to make it. But we would like some assurance that in any negotiations which take place later today or tomorrow, no other conditions tied to any other legislation will be forthcoming from the Government. Obstacles will not come from this Party, certainly at this point, and I would like that assurance from some Member on the other side. What the Conservatives will do, God only knows, but the Government has our assurance, and I would like an assurance from over there.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I know for a fact that the Minister responsible for this legislation wants it through at the earliest possible moment. However, I think there is going to be somewhat of a problem at committee stage. There are various interest groups in Canada which will
want to make representations concerning this legislation. I do not think that in this particular case it is the unions which will want to do so because they have supported the legislation as a step in the right direction. I think the problem Members will encounter will be that the business interests will want to be heard publicly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no further questions or comments, the House will proceed to debate.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) had to say and I commend him for his interest in these amendments, as well as those others who have spoken on this very important Opposition Day debate. I want to commend as well the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) for having brought the motion forward, because it is important that we debate these amendments to the Canada Labour Code.
The Hon. Member who just finished speaking mentioned that it had taken a very long time to bring these changes forward. That is true. I was thinking of this when I was looking at the record going back over the times in committee when we raised this question again and again. It was struck by just how long these amendments had been in seeing the light of day. I looked at my records and I discovered that this issue has been raised for the first time in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration on May 21, 1981, over three years ago. It was raised at that time by my colleague from Don Valley West who was then the Conservative Party's critic on labour matters. In responding to his question as to when the new amendments might be expected, the then Minister of Labour, who is the present Minister of International Trade (Mr. Regan), said the following, as reported in issue No. 5 of the committee report:
This review, which in my opinion has been painstaking and comprehensive, will shortly emerge as a package of amendments to the code and will substantially involve employment safety, conditions of employment, improving matters of specific concern to women and minority groups, and dispute settlement.
He went on to say:
At this particular stage, I would seek the indulgence of the honourable members if I do not go into the exact details of the package. The appropriate place for this, of course, will be its introduction in the House which I hope will be in the near future.
That was the then Minister of Labour speaking in May, 1981 in response to questions and entreaties from the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), a Conservative Member of Parliament. I went through more of the records of that committee because 1 sat on it at that time and had been involved in discussions. I recall the numerous times the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) raised the question of when these amendments could be expected to be brought forward. In the House earlier this year and in committee last year the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) raised the question of when these amendments would be introduced in the House. I mention the number of times this issue has been
June 5, 1984

raised on an ongoing basis by Conservative Members in committee and in the House of Commons to indicate our very real and irrefutable interest in having these amendments to the Canada Labour Code brought before the House, debated, examined and passed within this Parliament.
All one must do to determine the long and irrefutable quest of the Conservative Party in this issue is to look at the official records to see how often it has been raised by Members of this side. I recommend this exercise to Members of the New Democratic Party as well so that they can see the number of times this issue has been raised by Members of this Party at times when often their Members were not in attendance.


James Ross Fulton: Tell us about it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It should come as no surprise that it was a Member of the Progressive Conservative Party who moved this motion on this Opposition Day condemning the Government for acting so slowly to protect employees under federal jurisdiction. That proposal has been cited on a number of occasions today. I stress the point that the amendments which are proposed in Bill C-34, which we have yet to debate at second reading stage, apply to only 10 per cent of the labour force. They apply only to those employees who come under federal jurisdiction and the Public Service. It is an area in which the Government could move. It could provide leadership. The demonstration of that leadership by the Government could lead to improved labour conditions throughout the country. No doubt, it could at least help to avoid unnecessary management labour problems.
One really must castigate the Government for its failure to exercise the leadership in this field which it should have been showing three years ago when the then Minister of Labour promised to produce these amendments in the House in very short order. The Conservative Party supports the provisions of Bill C-34, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, despite its late introduction and its obvious imperfections.
We are supporting no area more strongly than the changes affecting women in the federally regulated workforce. I would like to concentrate a few remarks on that subject. The number of women in the paid labour force has risen dramatically in recent years. Women now constitute approximately 40 per cent of the labour force. It is estimated that six out of every 10 new entrants into the labour force in the next decade will be women. This increasing number of female employees makes it essential that they be more adequately protected from sexual harassment, particularly since women are moving into areas which have been considered non traditional employment for women. At least for a period of time they will be overwhelmed numerically in these areas by their male counterparts.
The proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code will remove any doubt that may exist that harassment is a form of discrimination. The amendments will emphasize that any complaints of harassment under the Code can be referred to the Human Rights Commission and can be dealt with under the Human Rights Act. The importance of this action cannot be underestimated. There is no doubt in my mind that harass-
Supply
ment is a totally inexcusable affront to a person's dignity. It could impede a person's performance and progress in the workplace.
The passage of this Bill and the improvement to it would provide a definition of sexual harassment. That has been one of the problems up to the present time. There has been a lot of confusion as to what that term meant. Just as important as the definition which will be introduced is the fact that employers will be required to develop policies and programs within their places of business to combat sexual harassment on the job. Employers are in a position to recognize problems at work and to take immediate corrective steps to control harassment. Therefore, their participation is essential.
That in itself is not suddenly going to resolve the problem in this field once and for all. It must be recognized that the amendments do not present a magic solution to the problems with regard to harassment. They are a step in the right direction, but only a step. They must be accompanied by a change in attitude. That cannot be legislated and cannot be brought about overnight. It must be done through education and example. That will take time. If these amendments had been introduced, passed and in place four years ago, that would have been a good step toward eliminating the sexual harassment which still exists. That was four years that was wasted when we might have had them in place.
Another amendment that is included in the proposed Bill and which is of great significance to women, is the improvement of child care leave provisions. The present requirement of 12 months continual employment prior to being eligible for maternity leave has been reduced to three months. In addition, there is a proposal for a further 24-week period of unpaid leave so that employees, whether female or male, have an opportunity to assume the responsibility of caring for the child, whether natural or adopted, during that 24-week period. When an employee is away on leave, during that period, his or her pension, health and disability benefits as well as seniority continues if the employee so desires. I think that is a very positive step in the right direction.
Finally, child care leave would be at the discretion of the employee. No employer could dismiss, suspend, lay off or demote an employee due to pregnancy or child care leave. There can be little doubt that these amendments relating to child care and maternity leave are progressive and would greatly benefit both women and men.
I think it is important that we have this debate and get the Bill before us and into committee so that we can also try to do something about its shortcomings. There is one aspect of the Bill which I believe has not really come to grips with the problems in our workplace, that is with regard to the propsed amendments relating to part-time workers. There are about 2.6 million part-time workers in Canada today, almost two million of whom are women. They are currently ineligible for benefits, such as pensions, medical plans, disability insurance. On average, they receive approximately three-quarters of the

June 5, 1984
Supply
wage of full time employees. Furthermore, in most cases they are not protected by unions.
Despite this situation, the only mention of part-time workers in Bill C-34, this present legislation which the Government has introduced, is to eliminate an anomaly which precludes some part-time workers from qualifying for general holiday pay. That is all that the Government thought to say about part-time workers, almost two million of whom are women without benefits of any kind.
If these amendments to the Canada Labour Code had been introduced sooner so they could have gone to committee for the necessary study and so that we could have heard representations to try to get the Government to change its mind about part-time workers, I believe that these two million people whom I am talking about could have anticipated better treatment in the workplace.
As the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Part-Time Work-better known as the Wallace Commission-illustrates, the field of part-time work is an incredibly complex one. I mention this because I feel certain that we will need time to study amendments in this field. We want to see improvements made.
More important, we need to work out a definition of what a permanent part-time worker is. That is not included in the amendments and has not been dealt with. Therefore, there is no way of working toward the prorating of wage rates and benefits until we have some such definition.
No one in this Chamber is unaware of how important committee study of legislation can be. That is why I say that I am sorry that the Government has waited so long to bring this legislation forward. I do not think it can be given the adequate time and attention it should have in committee in order to improve the working conditions and the way in which parttime workers are treated.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women stated in a letter to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) on April 27 of this year:
The National Committee is concerned with establishing compulsory standards in the Canadian Labour Code which will ensure that all women exposed to V.D.T.s and working in sectors under federal jurisdiction are guaranteed decent working conditions.
This is another area we could have studied in detail in the committee if we had the time. I do not believe that we will have the time now.
The problem that arises is that women will be worse off because the Governmet did not allocate that time or make provisions for it by bringing in all of these amendments earlier. This comes back to the way in which we see so many matters of this nature treated, always being done at the last moment and always being done so that some group is deprived of adequate and fair treatment. All too often, that group of people are women.
In the few minutes that remain to me, I would like to raise briefly the matter of technological change in the workplace. It has been said over and over again that in the next decade
technological change could bring about the displacement of almost one million women from their present jobs. It is a horrendous possibility to even think about.
The proposed amendments will attempt to strengthen the existing provisions with respect to technological change by increasing advance notice of changes from 90 to 120 days, by increasing information available to employees and by providing means of redress against employers who do not follow the first two requirements.
While this may be considered a positive step, it is really unfortunate that these proposals have not been complemented by programs under the jurisdiction of other Ministers, particularly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Notice of technological change does not mean that job loss will not occur. It simply means that people will have 30 days longer to think about it. Unless more comprehensive and more easily accessible training programs are made available, women will end up paying the heaviest price for technological change. That is a subject that has not been addressed by the Government except in a very meagre way. It is a tremendous challenge that is before us. The particular amendments that have been introduced in Bill C-34 only touched the surface. They do not go to the heart of the matter at all.
Once again, we see that women, whether the part time paid labour force or those who are affected by technological change, will be the ones who suffer the most, because there is not a sufficient and comprehensive look at the way in which change in the labour force will affect us in the years ahead. There is no doubt in my mind that had the amendments to this Bill been brought in three years ago when the then Minister of Labour promised them, we could have moved much more quickly to improve the lot of women in the future. As our Party has said, the amendments will be supported when they come before the House, but it is really an inexcusable treatment by the Government that it should wait until the dying days of Parliament to introduce measures as important as these to change the Canada Labour Code.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. lady a question. Where was the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party in 1959 when the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers took on the huge national corporation, namely, Canadian Pacific Railway? The issue was technological change. There were no Conservatives or New Democrats on the picket line. I was on the picket line. Where were your members?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a longer memory than I.


Charles Robert Turner: I was there.
June 5, 1984


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He may well have been there in 1959, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate him if he was. But what has the Hon. Member been doing in the last 10 or 15 years while his Government has been in office?


Charles Robert Turner: Where were you?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There have been no changes brought to the Canada Labour Code in that period of time.


Charles Robert Turner: There were no Conservative Party members, Mr. Speaker. I was on the picket line. I was in Sudbury, Toronto, and Windsor. I operated part of the strike on the CPR. There were no Conservatives nor New Democrats there. Where were they then? They are talking about the issue now.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner) getting into the debate. I have no great argument with him. In a sense, he is one of the House officers. He is perhaps the one who can best tell us why it was that the then Minister of Labour in May 1981 said that these Canada Labour Code amendments would be before the House in short order. He did not bring them forward at that time, and here we are having wasted three years when these amendments might have been in effect.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question of the Liberal Whip who just asked us, New Democrats and Conservatives, where were we in 1959. I do not know where other Members were, but I was busily engaged in 1959 helping to raise money and organize protest rallies-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I must insist that the questions be directed to the Hon. Member who just delivered a speech.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Comments or questions, 1 believe, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am sorry to advise the Hon. Member but comments are supposed to refer to the speech delivered by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the comments of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) I could not help but reflect upon the attitude of Conservative and Liberal members over the years. For instance, in 1959 I was busily engaged in organizing protest rallies and raising money trying to protect the rights of woodworkers in the Province of Newfoundland who were facing legislation that, for the first time in Canadian history and almost the only time in international history in the free world, outlawed an entire union from the Province of Newfoundland. That, Mr. Speaker, was done by a Liberal Government. We had never in the history of the United States, Canada, or western Europe, to my knowledge, other than for Adolf Hitler and perhaps for II Duce in Italy, seen the kind of legislation that totally banished an entire free organization from any political jurisdiction in North America or anywhere
Supply
in Europe. A Liberal Government imposed that on us. For the Liberal Party to try now to play hero when it is responsible for the most vicious anti-labour legislation that ever existed in North America, sounds a little hollow-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please, I must again draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that he is supposed to be directing his remarks to the Hon. Member who has just spoken. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I truly do appreciate the great interest of members of the Liberal Party and of the New Democratic Party in the past. I understand they are rooted in 1959.
What I was trying to do in my comments, Sir, was to direct the attention of the House to the very real problems that will be faced by Canadians in an advancing technological age in the next decade, to look forward and to see how it is we can introduce good amendments that will make it possible for people to have more beneficial working situations in the years that lie ahead, not look back to 1959.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there any more questions?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the floor is not asked for, as the proponent of the motion I may conclude the debate. Is that right?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: At this stage the Hon. Member can ask a question, if he so wishes, of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: No, Sir. I was rising to debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I see the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) rising.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the question of technological change with the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). She mentioned that this change is very definite. The change has been going on gradually. The Government's program has met some of the retraining needs but not all. The difficulty with the Government's program is that there are not enough slots for training. In my riding, young people particularly, men and women, go to the employment office and are told that there are no slots, no places. This is pretty frustrating. The Government sets up a program and it is not set up big enough to include the majority of those who want to retrain. I would like to have the comments of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands on this.
Just before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask where the Liberals were in 1918 when the UMWA and I were fighting the OBU.


Mr. Ellis:: Where were you, Charlie?
801S2-18

June 5, 1984
Supply


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has raised one of the major problems that we face. We must all take it very seriously. Adequate consideration has not been given to the training and retraining of persons either entering the workforce or presently in the workforce to allow them the opportunity to enter into new types of work, and take new kinds of advancement. I mention that, Sir, because I had said during my remarks that what the Canada Labour Code needed was complementary legislation from other Ministers, particularly from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), so we could deal with this question of more adequate training programs throughout the country. What he does not seem to realize is that not only do we have great numbers of young people coming out of school and universities going into the workplace, but we have the possibility of something between 3 million and 4 million people in the workforce who will require retraining in order to take advantage of the technological age. That is a massive job of organization. The Government has not really begun to turn its mind to what has to be the biggest challenge of mobilization which the country has ever faced. I compliment the Hon. Member from Bow River for raising this question and for saying that the Government must get on with giving higher priority to it, and we all must do so as Members of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That concludes the ten-minute period for questions and comments. Continuing with debate, the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant).
[ Translation]


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in the debate on amende-ments to the Canada Labour Code, in other words, Bill C-34. I must admit that after what I just heard, I feel a bit uneasy. Someone shouted across the House, a little earlier: "Where were you in 1954?" Later, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said: "Where were you in 1917?" Well. .. As far as I am concerned, I am afraid I am a little too young to react to these comments.
Nevertheless, I think we should look to the future instead of looking back. I also listened, of course, to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who made some excellent suggestions, some very laudable ones, and her intentions were laudable as well, and I am thinking of her suggestion that the Bill should have included Canada's two million part-time workers. . . And of course, employees who spend the whole day in front of a video display terminal... There is some concern about the impact this could have on their health. There is also technological change, which will mean, inevitably, that many people will have to be laid off or recycled in some way or another. As I said before, these are all excellent suggestions made by the Hon. Member who usually
has good suggestions about Bills the Government is introducing.
However, it is clear that if we wanted to examine draft legislation very thoroughly, we would never see the end of it. If we want to make Bills perfect in every respect, we would have to examine them for a very long time. I think the Government has decided to act, while keeping the option of amending these Bills again later on. I think that if we consider the statements made by a number of labour and management leaders, it is high time the Canadian Government took action.
I would like to refer here to a statement by Mrs. Shirley Carr, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress, who said during an interview on the CBC-she was still Vice-President at the time-that the amendments could not have been tabled many months ago because they did not contain everything they asked for. It is also interesting to note that on the same occasion, a representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Mr. Gil Levine, stated that "The labour movement in Canada is pushing for adoption of the amendments proposed by Mr. Ouellet, despite their limitations, because we believe that with a new Government, Liberal or Conservative, and especially under a Conservative Government-Mr. Speaker, I am still quoting Mr. Levine-it will be years before these improvements are felt."
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me and probably to most Members of this House that the amendments were tabled at the right time and that they are more than welcome. This proves that the Government has not neglected its responsibility in the area of labour legislation.
As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) has already indicated, these legislative proposals have resulted from the excellent co-operation shown by the many labour organizations and employer associations during the extensive consultations which led to this Bill.
I believe that these amendments will emphasize the fact that the Canada Labour Code has always paved the way for further labour legislation and has often been used as a model by the authorities concerned.
I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments meet the new requirements of the eighties and are a step forward in the evolution of labour legislation in Canada.
As you know, the Canada Labour Code is the body of rules which regulate work standards, occupational safety and health, as well as the general framework for labour relations in the areas under federal jurisdiction, which employ something like 600,000 workers in Canada. These industries include those which, by their very nature, extend beyond national and provincial boundaries, for instance in the areas of transportation and communications, some 40 Crown agencies and corporations, as well as the banks and industries which Parliament has stated to be of national interest. This includes, for
June 5, 1984

instance, the uranium mines and the Western grain handling industry.
With respect to the amendments to Part III, I would like to remind this House that these deal mostly with workers whose responsibilities are related to child care and with the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace in Canada, while the amendments to Part V are designed to promote a greater commitment on the part of workers and employers to matters of occupational safety and health.
Finally, various sections in Part V have been amended to reinforce the provisions of the Code which deal with collective bargaining. Mr. Speaker, could you tell me whether my time has expired?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(10), to interrupt the proceedings and to put every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. In consequence, the first question is the following:


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
André Ouellet: That Vote 1, in the amount of $125,773,000 under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been consultations between the Parties and there is an inclination to have the vote as recorded on Motion No. 1 apply also to Motions Nos. 2 and 3. If we have unanimous consent for that proposition we can then move on to Motion No. 4 and Motion No. 5, to be voted on separately by separate votes.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members who did not vote previously who wish to be recorded as voting on this occasion? There are none.
By unanimous agreement, the vote which applied to Motion No. 1 will also apply to Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3.
Supply	
Messrs.	
Ogle	Siddon
Orlikow	Skelly
Reid	Stevens
(St. Catharines)	Stewart
Riis	Taylor
Robinson	Thacker
(Burnaby)	Towers
Roche	Vankoughnet
St. Germain	Waddell
Schellenberger	Wenman
Scott	Wilson
(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Wise
Scott	Young-98.
(Victoria-Haliburton)


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
André Ouellet: That Vote 5, in the amount of $3,488,000 under the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development-i jrthern Pipeline Agency, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
André Ouellet: That Vote 15, in the amount of $170,000,000 under the Department of Labour-Payments to Canada Post Corporation, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Speaker:: The next question is as follows:
Hon. Andre Ouellet (for the President of the Treasury
Board) seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $18,995,000 under the Department of the Solicitor General-Administration, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES, 1984-85
André Ouellet: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, laid upon the Table, Tuesday, February 21, 1984, except the items disposed of earlier this day and less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(A)
André Ouellet: That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, laid upon the Table, Thursday, May 17, 1984, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ouellet (for the President of the Treasury Board)
thereupon moved that Bill C-45, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985, be read the first time and be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Ouellet (for the President of the Treasury Board)
thereupon moved that Bill C-45, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the Chair.


Eymard G. Corbin: House in Committee of the whole on Bill C-45.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Mr.   Chairman@: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


André Ouellet: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.37 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 6, 1984