1984-06-11

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour) moved: that Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling for second reading the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code. I must emphasize that these proposals are the result of close and, I would say, very successful consultation with labour organizations and employers' associations.
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code is the main body of federal legislation that governs the very important business of work. The Canada Labour Code has always shown the way for all other labour legislation in this country, and other official authorities have always used it as an example in drafting their own legislation. Some 600,000 workers are subject to the provisions of the Code, and I am referring to the provisions on occupational safety and health.
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge the responsibility we have as the leader in this field, and in doing so, we are aware of how important it is to present legislation that considers the obligations of employers and the rights of employees, the need for modern labour standards and the incredible rate at which the job environment and the labour force in Canada are changing, the possibility of letting the collective bargaining process take its course but also the legislated intervention that is available to us. However, Mr. Speaker, the balance we are seeking cannot be imposed, either through legislation or any other means.
I repeat that the amendments we are proposing today are the result of close consultations, during which these proposals were discussed at length with labour and management representatives. The amendments were prepared in co-operation with experts in the field. They have been the subject of
discussions, negotiations, revisions, and finally, I would say, of an agreement. Mr. Speaker, all this took time. I do not think it was time wasted, because I believe that today, in the House, we have a piece of sound legislation in which the interests of all Canadians are served to the best of our ability. We have, I repeat, been able to balance the interests of workers with those of employers, at a time when it is imperative for our economy and Canada's industry that all parties should work together.
Last Tuesday, on June 5, I gave a fairly complete summary of the main clauses of the draft amendments to the Canada Labour Code. I do not intend to repeat today all the points I have already explained. A transcript of my comments may be found in Hansard of June 5, 1984, on pages 4363, 4364, 4365 and 4366, where Hon. Members will find a detailed description of the amendments to three parts of the Canada Labour Code, namely Part III, Part IV and Part V.
Without wishing to repeat the explanations I gave last week, Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend some time this morning on the proposed amendments to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with occupational safety and health, one of the major concerns of the labour world today, which requires urgent action. According to the preliminary data for 1982, in Canada more than fifteen million work days were lost because of accidents on the job and occupational illness, which is more than two and one-half times the number of days lost owing to strikes and lock-outs. The amount of compensation paid was nearly $2 billion in 1982; this does not include the indirect cost, estimated at an astonishing $7.8 billion, which, Mr. Speaker, is hardly something for this country to be proud of. Aside from the obvious human suffering, it is clear that the impact on the economy and productivity is enormous. Since regulations and inspections provided by the Government to improve occupational safety and health have their limitations, it is becoming increasingly necessary to obtain the active co-operation and direct participation of labour and management in the regulatory process.
Mr. Speaker, with this legislation the Government hopes to give both management and labour an opportunity and the requisite motivation for increasing their involvement in occupational safety and health programs set up in the work place itself. We earnestly hope to create a climate in which all participants will work together to resolve occupational safety and health problems.
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to making some very real progress in this area. First of all, we believe that all workers

June 11, 1984
Canada Labour Code
under federal jurisdiction should enjoy the same rights with respect to occupational safety and health. At the present time, the federal Government's legislative authority is based on a large number of Acts, which engenders uncertainty and creates considerable differences in the type of protection offered to workers. Repeatedly various groups have tried to put an end to this fragmentation, and I am thinking of the Special Committee of the Elouse of Commons on Regulatory Reform, the Economic Council of Canada, and a number of labour organizations.
To correct this situation, the Bill before the House today provides that occupational safety and health provisions will apply also to all employees under federal jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, this means that about 300,000 more employees will now be protected under Part IV, if the Bill is adopted. In fact, what we are proposing is that Part IV of the Canada Labour Code should now cover all employees in marine, air and railway transport and all employees working for interprovincial pipelines or on offshore oil rigs on the east and west coasts and in the North.
Needless to say, the existing procedures for ensuring safety of operations and public safety remain unchanged. Furthermore, the federal Government proposes to amend the Financial Administration Act, in that as far as occupational safety and health is concerned, the federal Government will no longer be a self-regulating employer. For the first time, the Government of Canada, in its capacity as an employer, will be subject to the rules imposed by Parliament on other employers. Consequently, Canadian public servants will enjoy the same rights as employees in the private sector.
Although they are important, the proposed changes are, I feel, only the first step towards creating a climate of cooperation at the national and local level, with a view to preventing accidents in the work place and occupational illness.
At the national level, involvement in developing programs will be increased through the creation of an advisory council, composed mainly of union and management representatives. Its mandate will be to advise the Minister of Labour on policies, the administration of the Act and the development legislation.
At the local level, direct involvement in the compliance process will be achieved through joint safety and health committees. A few committees are already in place. To broaden representation and consultation in this area, the Bill before the House today provides for the establishment of committees in all businesses where twenty or more workers are employed. The committees shall be composed of an equal number of employer and employee representatives. In cases where the nature of the work is relatively risk-free and it is possible to prove there is no risk of accident or illness, exceptions may be considered.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that these compulsory committees will have a very important role to play in encouraging employers and employees to recognize their responsibilities and to make an effort to prevent accidents in the work place.
In small businesses with fewer than twenty workers and where committees are not compulsory, we still want a representative to be appointed who will act as liaison officer between employees and the employer. With more or less the same powers and responsibilities as the committee, the representative shall ensure that employees participate as required in resolving occupational safety and health issues.
Another amendment to Part IV concerns the right to refuse to work in case of imminent danger. When in 1978, it was suggested that workers be given the right to refuse to do work that might put their safety or health at risk, there was some concern that there might be abuse. That I think explains the very conservative wording of the Act.
However, experience at both federal and provincial levels has shown that workers have exercised this right responsibly. However, the wording of Part IV, and especially the expression "imminent danger", has created some ambiguity as to the kind of work one might refuse to do. For the sake of clarity, we are proposing in this Bill to delete the qualifier "imminent" while the word "danger" will be defined in the Definitions section of the Act.
Furthermore, provisions concerning normal occupational risks and cases where public safety takes precedence over the exercise of this right have been reformulated to be compatible with the expanded application of the Act.
The provisions concerning enforcement, as well as the administrative policies with respect to those provisions, have been revised to improve compliance with Part IV and thus prevent accidents in the work place and occupational illness.
Those legislative provisions have been drafted so as to take into consideration the Canadian Government's policy to decriminalize federal laws. In keeping with that policy prepared under the auspices of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. MacGuigan), the Government undertakes to limit its recourse to the Criminal Code.
Therefore, Part IV will promote among employers and employees voluntary respect for the law and the joint settlement of issues. If need be, the provisions concerning respect for the law will also be reviewed so that they will be used more properly.
We firmly believe that work safety problems will be solved and accidents at work considerably reduced through good will and joint responsibility of both employer and employee. No matter what kind of legislation we have, it stands to reason that accidents cannot be eliminated through laws, but we feel that the approach we recommend in this Bill is good and will
June 11, 1984

enable Canadians to reduce absenteeism through improved work safety.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that all the amendments I have just mentioned concerning Part IV as well as others to Parts III and V are the result of long consultations with unions and businessmen. Their purpose is to promote even more the spirit of cooperation and the sense of responsibility among all parties concerned.
Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Canada Labour Code have been the subject of several interventions in the House last week and we have heard quite a few comments about them both inside and outside the House. Many people are waiting and hoping that the amendments will be adopted. I think it is fair to say that the amendments we are proposing are not only desirable and necessary, but that they are also quite appropriate. We can only conclude that they have drawn wide support both inside and outside the House.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in strongly urging Hon. Members to adopt them as quickly as possible so that they will become part of the Canada Labour Code.
[DOT]	(1125)


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that in studying this Bill we have come to the conclusion that it does not adequately address the concerns of Canadians regarding health and safety, and that it fails to address the concerns of women in the workplace. As well, the Bill provides no hope for the unemployed youth of this country and fails to recognize the rapidly changing nature of the workplace, particularly with respect to technology. If it fails in these four basic objectives-health and safety, technology, women and youth-it is not much of a Bill. That is my opinion of the Bill. That is my assessment of the Bill in its broadest terms.
[DOT]	(H30)
This Bill is not a blueprint for labour, for business, for productivity or for Canadians. It is unsuccessful and a disappointment for Canadian workers and Canadians as a whole. It does not project the kind of future for our workplace we must have to meet the basic aspirations of all Canadians. It seems to me that what we are discussing today is a labour amendment code, and "code" is a very significant word because, surely, it suggests a type of guideline, a statement of values which points in a direction towards those values. A code should lead and be a strong statement of principle and direction; it must arise from current conditions in the workplace today and point towards conditions as they ought to be. I suggest it does neither.
This Bill is brought before the House of Commons, before the people of Canada, at a time, Mr. Speaker, when labour, our working Canadians, are concerned. They are concerned about jobs, about the creation of new jobs, and that those new jobs will be secure. In other words, those who are on the
Canada Labour Code
unemployment rolls want some hope of a secure job, not a six-week, 11-week or 12-week make-work program. It is not the hope of the unemployed that they survive for six weeks or 12 weeks. Their hope is that they can find a secure job which projects towards long-term, permanent employment.
Is this Bill pointing in the direction of giving job security to Canadians? I do not believe so, and it is a disappointment that it is not. Canadians are reaching out for jobs now. They want some leadership from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet). Instead they will get a minor extension of social benefits, a wishy-washy definition of sexual harassment, and little else, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians want job creation and job security. To get that job security we have to be assured of stability in the workplace, minimal work stoppages and strikes. How do we do that? We do that when in fact labour feels it is being treated in a just and equitable manner and when management feels that labour is trying to increase productivity at a time when productivity is decreasing. These are the kinds of conditions which have to exist and we must have a code, a guideline, which encompasses major labour code amendments. We have 1.5 million unemployed Canadians today, according to statistics, but that really represents only those who are looking for work. It does not represent-as has been revealed in the House of Commons-those on welfare, those who have ceased to look for work, who have just given up-


Mr. Darling:: It does not even represent part-time workers.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: -and those part-time workers. The Minister made the excuse that our youth are lazy. What a pathetic condemnation! Our young people are not lazy. In fact, the current generation have a new work ethic instilled into them. There may have been drop-outs in the 1960s and 1970s but our new generation has concern and conviction. They want jobs and are willing to work hard at those jobs. That is how the majority of our young people feel today.
By the Minister's own statistics there are 800,000 young people with no jobs and with no hope of finding one in our country today. Labour is very concerned about that problem. How do we create a labour code, a guide, which will give hope to those young people? There must be a guide and direction for the labour force which will exist in the next five years and ten years.
In his speech the Minister did not talk about that, Mr. Speaker. He failed to put forward a guideline toward hope and opportunity for our young people. That is not to say that the opportunity cannot be there; but you have to create through the Labour Code those conditions in order to increase the capacity to produce through a working and expanding labour force.
Right now the labour force is chasing after a declining amount of work. So instead of the hope that somehow we are going to have an expanding economy, a larger pie with more jobs, we have a labour climate whereby labour itself is saying that the pie is getting smaller, more people will have to work fewer hours, and we will have to recognize that fact. But that

June 11, 1984
Canada Labour Code
is not the answer. The answer is that we must increase our productivity to create more wealth and power. Since this Government has come to power, Mr. Speaker, Canada has dropped its share of world trade by about 3 per cent, and 1 per cent of world trade represents a half million jobs. Three per cent represents 1.5 million jobs. That decline in world trade, that failure of this administration, is a major reason why we do not have an expanding economy and enough jobs.
There should be some hope in this Bill that we will have a safer workplace where there are not so many injuries with the accompanying loss of production hours. We should provide adequate social benefits so that people feel they are receiving justice and equity in the workplace. If we can create those kinds of conditions we will enhance productivity and inspire our workforce to meet that challenge. We can, in fact, accomplish those kinds of things, and if we can give confidence to our workers so that they believe it, and if we can regain our share of world trade, then we will be able to create the kind of labour climate where management can increase its profits, where labour can increase its wages and social benefits, and where our nation can again take its rightful place in the world economy. And I am not only suggesting that we can do just as well as we did before this Government came to power. I feel we can do more than just as well; I believe we can do better.
Our workforce is better educated. Unfortunately, it is not better trained to understand the reality of changing technology. Technology should be boosting this nation through research and development but it is not. The impact of technological change is a burden on our society instead of lifting it into the next century. This is where it really starts-the vision of more jobs in an expanding labour market, better working conditions, better wages and more profits for all elements of the workplace. But there is not hope, not from this Government. It has created the conditions I have described today. To quote from the Vancouver Sun:
At 30 years of age, Richard Bell of Castlegar can't remember the On-To-Ottawa trek by unemployed workers in 1935, but he has heard a lot about it from some of his neighbours who did make the long journey. Bell, himself an unemployed carpenter, is the spark plug of a new expedition by the jobless-this time dubbed the Off-To-Ottawa trek-that is preparing to leave Vancouver June 8.
Their goal is to arrive in Ottawa June 14 in time for the Liberal leadership convention, to convene a "gathering of the unemployed" to lobby the politicians for a jobs program.
They are coming here to lobby us for a jobs program, Mr. Speaker. That is what this is supposed to be leading to and setting the tone for. Canada will soon go to the polls and the number one campaign priority will be, as the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) noted, "jobs, jobs, jobs" and the economic climate which first has to be created to allow jobs to happen. The Minister and his Government have failed to give that inspiration and leadership in the form of legislation. To go out in the country and meet with the leaders of our union and business communities, to inspire them to achieve what can and must be ours; to create a positive attitude through labour, management and government working together in a co-operative manner building towards those national goals; that is what the Government should be doing.
I can go into considerable detail, and I will cover some of those areas in a moment, but I want to say that I am pleased the Bill has come to second reading. There seems to be general agreement that it should go to committee where we can hear from those concerned. It has been suggested that everyone seems to go along with this. Well, what is seemed to go along with is something that is very little. I think when we get into committee we will find in this Bill many loopholes and areas which need change. Perhaps through that democratic process there will be some changes to make this legislation somewhat more acceptable. But there is not the time to develop the direction that Canadians need to underpin any code.
The Minister suggested that everyone thinks this Bill is a good one; therefore we should proceed quickly and pass it as it
is.	I do not think that is necessarily so. I, too, have received telegrams, not just the two in favour, and I think those should be recorded. I have a telegram here from Shirley Carr of the Canadian Labour Congress. She is an important spokesperson for labour in Canada and I recognize that importance by reading her telegram first:
I have to bring your attention most urgently to the following emergency resolution passed unanimously today by the 2300 delegates at the 15th biennial convention of the Canadian Labour Congress in Montreal.
Whereas Bill C-34 ... was introduced in the House of Commons on May 15th, 1984 and;
Whereas the NDP have consistently supported the adoption of this health and safety legislation before the end of the session, and;
Whereas the Government and the Official Opposition have failed to promote the passage of this legislation before the end of the session ... to give the health and safety of Canadian workers the highest priority and commit themselves to adopt Bill C-34 before the summer recess.
I can agree with that last paragraph, Mr. Speaker, all the way through. We should try and pass such a bill. It is with some regret that we have to have the partisan format, and I would plead with the CLC to make labour issues less and less of a political issue and more and more of a national issue. I am not going to get into the partisan criticism implied by the telegram except to express regret for that part of the telegram while I agree with the substance.
I have another telegram, this time from Don Montgomery, regional action co-ordinator, Public Service Alliance of Canada. It reads as follows:
On behalf of twelve thousand members who work throughout southern British Columbia for the federal Government and are members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada we urge you and your colleagues to pass Bill C-34 without further delay. It promised us legal health and safety protection. There are only a few days left in this session. We do not want to be denied this protection which we badly need. You have previously received the Public Service Alliance of Canada "black paper" and we are certain you will agree the health and safety of Canadian workers should not be a partisan political issue. Put aside party politics and adopt Bill C-34.
I think that is a positive telegram, in keeping with the spirit which should exist here today, and I commend those who sent
it.	But the Minister only read the supportive telegrams. He failed to read the others; I know he has them because I have copies of what was sent to him. The first is from Mr. Masters, chairman of FETCO, who said:
June 11, 1984

It is our understanding that Bill C-34 will be before a parliamentary committee in the near future and FETCO members in the airlines, trucking, marine, longshoring, rail and communications sectors would all like to be heard before the committee concerning the principles of Bill C-34. It would be appreciated if you would advise us with whom to communicate on this issue.
I hope we will hear these groups as they have requested and in the manner they have requested, and I will certainly be recommending that to the committee. The next telegram comes from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which says:
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is extremely concerned about reports that you plan to pass the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code without referring them to a parliamentary committee for public input. Given the devastating implications for job creation and productivity contained in several of the measures, business representatives and other concerned citizens must be given the opportunity to comment on these measures. After all, the proposed amendments were only tabled on May 15th.
We spoke of the late timing and tabling of this Bill in an earlier debate. The telegram continues:
The debacle of the November 1981 Budget illustrates the problems created by proceeding with legislation without adequate public input. Your press release announcing the proposed amendments, describes the proposals as "the culmination of extensive consultation", but we were never consulted.
I would appreciate your undertaking that these serious measures will receive the usual careful parliamentary committee review.
It is signed by Jim Bennett, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I want to hear his views, Mr. Speaker, because he is concerned that there are devastating implications for job creation and productivity. I know the workers of Canada want job creation; they want to increase productivity because they recognize the benefits which flow to society as a whole. I know that they want these things. If there are devastating implications, as is indicated here, I hope they will in fact be heard so we could make our own judgment as to these devastating implications.
The next telegram comes from R. M. Macintosh, President of the Canadian Bankers' Association. The telex states:
-the chartered banks consider Bill C-34 such a major piece of legislation that it is imperative that employer and employee groups be given every opportunity to comment at the committee stage.
As a major employer of over 150,000 Canadians, vitally concerned with the implications of this Bill, the chartered banks seek your assurance that full consideration will be given to our request to present a brief and to others wishing to appear before the committee to express their views.
I have another telegram from Roy A. Phillips, President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It states:
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has reviewed and analyzed Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada labour Code. Because the Bill proposes substantive amendments to the code, which will have significant implications for private and quasi public employers, it should be subject to thorough assessment and analysis by members of Parliament and by interested and affected parties, before passage. Therefore, CMA urges that following second reading Bill C-34 be referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for detailed study. Interested organizations should be invited to appear. CMA requests the opportunity to present our views to the committee regarding the following matters:
Canada Labour Code
-The cost, extent, application and feasibility of proposed new labour standards, -The extension of compulsory arrangements under occupational health and
safety and the expanded right to refuse dangerous work.
-Impact on collective bargaining and individual rights, and ways in which
stability could be improved.
It is imperative that these groups be heard, whether it is labour or various sectors of the business community. For that reason I have read all of the telegrams that I have received into the record. I know that the Minister has received many more. I read them into the record to emphasize that it is important that we get an input from the public.
On that basis, I am hopeful that these measures will pass second reading stage today so that we may proceed to the committee stage. Hopefully we will hear their true concerns about these measures at committee stage and that, time permitting, this legislation can come back to the House of Commons for a final decision.
I and my Party look forward to these measures going to the committee. We look forward to hearing the representations of all interested parties and to hearing their views on improving this legislation. As far as we are concerned, we are willing to meet as often and as long as necessary to complete such hearings. I look forward to discussing with the chairman how these matters may be dealt with.
I have further considerable information on various aspects of this Bill that I was going to put on the record. I have already talked about youth unemployment to some degree. In addition, there are the ramifications of technological change. The Conservative Party has not simply talked about these major concerns but has studied these concerns as a result of the establishment of a task force which investigated and reported concrete steps that the House should be taking in recognition of technological change and the necessity of retraining. My colleague from Calgary led that task force. He will report on the implications of technological change and what must be done to meet those changes. This is an important aspect of this legislation that must be discussed in committee. I will leave it to my colleague to discuss the ramifications of these technological changes.
Another extremely important aspect of this legislation concerns women's issues in the workplace. The Canada Labour Code is of great concern to the women of this country who are often the first victims of cut-backs. Women are presently a great resource in the Canadian workplace. As our population ages we will increasingly need that resource in the workplace. Therefore, retraining and working conditions for women is an important issue not only to women but to the entire nation. It is extremely significant to recognize their input and to give them special consideration and concern.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who has been a strong advocate, a strong leader and a strong voice in understanding and expressing these concerns, will demonstrate that care today. She will demonstrate the importance of women in the workplace and describe their great potential. We must recognize the potential of all our workers, be they young workers who face no hope

June 11, 1984
Canada Labour Code
and no jobs, middle-aged workers who perhaps are only forty years old but have been unemployed and fear that they will never be employed again, or older workers who recognize that they have much left to give from their experience.
Will there be places in our labour force for these people? How will we adapt our workplace? These are issues for which leadership should be coming from the Minister and the Government. However, it is that failed government and failed leadership that have resulted in our current unemployment levels and the desperation that exists in the labour force of Canada. That desperation has not been addressed by this legislation and has not been addressed in Parliament.
I do not want to delay the House for long today because I want to move this Bill to committee where we can hold hearings. I appreciate that the Bill has been brought forward by the Government but I wish that it had been brought forward sooner. Of course, we will deal with it now as best we can and in a manner that is just, equitable and fair to Canadians and the Canadian workplace.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in opening debate on Bill C-34 on behalf of the NDP, let me reiterate what we have said a number of times in the House. We are in favour of the passage of this legislation prior to the June recess for two obvious reasons. First, there is no guarantee that we will be back after the June recess.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: With NDP, I can believe that.


Mr. Blenkarn:: The NDP will not be back.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I can understand the humour that certain Conservative spokesmen feel toward this labour legislation but it is a very serious piece of legislation to us.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It's you.


Rodney Edward Murphy: While the jackal to my right continues to heckle, I will continue with my serious speech.
As I was saying, the passage of this important legislation is necessary because it will protect workers' health and safety. It will protect the lives of workers in Canada. We recognize that with less than three weeks before the June adjournment, with every possibility of an election either this summer or fall, this legislation must pass in the next two and a half weeks.
The offer that has been stated a number of times by our House Leader, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), is that we would deal with this legislation at second reading in one day. We would refer the matter to committee for extensive study, with public presentations from management and labour, but we would guarantee the legislation coming back to this House for final disposition before the adjournment on June 29. That is the essence of the House order. It allows for public participation, amendments and discussion. It guarantees that this House will deal with this important legislation. I again ask members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to stand up in this House
and say that they will guarantee that this legislation will pass prior to the June recess.
As I said earlier, this legislation deals with health and safety. It deals with people's lives. For the last four years Canadian labour spokesmen and workers have been waiting for this legislation. It is unfortunate that we are dealing with it on June 11, 1984. This legislation should have been introduced over a year ago. We should have had time for extensive study, discussion, and extensive work on improving the legislation. Sadly, that is not the situation. By dealing with this Bill on June 11 we are forced into a situation of dealing with it quickly or not dealing with it all.
The Conservative member who just spoke talked about all sorts of discussion, about the need for jobs, the problems of youth and the need to be concerned about work stoppages. I heard also from the Conservative spokesman about the need to improve productivity in Canada. Those are all valid concerns but they should not be used to prevent the passage of legislation which is so essential to Canadian workers.
I would be the first to admit that the proposed legislation is not perfect. Later on I will discuss some of the problems that exist in the legislation. I would also be the first to say that there are amendments which must be made to improve this legislation. Again, I will deal with that later on. There are, however, some improvements in this legislation. There are some guarantees in this Bill which will protect the lives, the health and safety of Canadians. That is very important, Mr. Speaker. This House for political reasons or for reasons of various special interest groups should not delay passing it.
One of the improvements that we see, and it is a minor amendment to the Labour Code, is that from now on handicapped people will not be subject to less than the minimum wage. The all-Party task force on the disabled many years ago reported to this House and asked for that change to be made. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), our spokesman on that all-Party task force, has often risen in this House to ask for that change. We believe it is a change that reflects both the necessity of handicapped people to earn a reasonable income and it also reflects the fact that there should be justice for all in our society. To allow the disabled to be paid less than the minimum wage is an act of injustice. I am glad to see that improvement in this Bill.
I am also glad to see the improvements for child care for both the mother and adoptive parents in this Bill. Those are social needs for which we have waited some time. Again, I hope that House will be in a position to act before the summer recess to ensure those improvements become part of Canadian law.
We are also pleased to see the amendments which would bring the Public Service of Canada under the federal Labour Code. We find it ironic that Liberal and Conservative Governments in the past have excluded federal Government employees from the protections of the Labour Code. Spokesmen for various Liberal and Conservative Governments have
June 11, 1984

said: "We have Treasury Board directives which protect federal Government workers." That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. These people deserve the same legislative protection as the workers, and that legislative protection is much more extensive than Treasury Board directives which can change at the whim of any government. People who work for the Government of Canada and for the people of Canada deserve to have the same legislative protection. The same thing goes for people who work on ships, on trains and for the airlines. The same thing should apply to those who work for Atomic Energy of Canada and the various elements of the uranium and nuclear industries. Those workers deserve legislative protection and they deserve to be able to go to the Minister of Labour to ask that Canadian legislation be enforced, that inspections take place and that their lives, their health and safety, be protected by the laws of Canada.
One of the problems this Bill does not address is the need for adequate inspection by representatives of the Department of Labour. In numerous committees of this House the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and others have been asked why there are so few inspectors in Labour Canada. They have been asked why it is impossible for inspectors from Labour Canada to get to most worksites under federal jurisdiction; why miners in communities like Flin Flon and Snow Lake who come under federal jurisdiction almost never see a representative of Labour Canada acting as an inspector. Why, Mr. Speaker, is that the case? Why has the Government of Canada refused to provide adequate inspections to enforce the Labour Code as it stands at the present time? The improvements before us today will require even more inspectors, making visits more often to the worksite. If we do not have federal Government inspection, regardless how good the law is, regardless of what improvements we pass into law, we will not meet the needs of safety and the health of workers in the workplace.
Let me give you some idea of the problems we face in Canada, Sir. I want to take some information from Labour Canada's own figures for 1981. There were 830 fatalities in workplaces. Total work injuries amounted to 1.21 million out of 9.34 million workers, or 12 per cent. There were 585,000 people who suffered disabling injuries. The total cost, benefit payments and indirect costs, was over $9.2 billion.
The union issued a "Black Paper" for the Public Service for 1982-3. Despite the misunderstanding many Canadians have, it is not safe to have a job working for the federal Government in Canada. There were over 20 fatalities in 1982-83. There were 31,000 reported injuries and the cost in workmen's compensation alone was $40 million.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there are many needs and many reasons for passing legislation to protect both workers who come under the Labour Code at the present time and those who do not. This House on a number of occasions has talked about the Ocean Ranger incident, the tragic loss on February 15, 1982, of 84 lives. One of the reasons that tragedy occurred was the failure to solve the jurisdiction problem between the federal Government and the provinces. Another
Canada Labour Code
reason for those deaths is that the federal Government did not bring the operation of drilling rigs under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.
A report has been made public in the United States on the Ocean Ranger. Of course, in Canada we are still waiting for the investigation to be completed and for the report to be issued, even though it is well over two years since the incident took place. The major reasons for the accident cited in the American report was the lack of adequate training for the crew with regard to safety and operational procedures in dangerous times. That lack of training in terms of safety and that lack of knowledge in terms of operating in treacherous waters caused 84 deaths.
I could give other examples, such as the death of a worker in a silo. There had been inadequate inspection by the federal Government which resulted in Paul John Jovanov being buried alive and dying of suffocation. I could talk about lead smelter operations with poor ventilation. Workers are subject to acid fumes, dust and smoke. Again there has been lack of protection because of inadequate inspection and inadequate enforcement. I could talk about workers on federal Government sites. They work in a sealed environment with a lack of air exchange. They are suffering from respiratory problems, nausea, headaches, eye and ear irritations, and quite often have a high rate of abnormal births. I could talk about people who work in CN maintenance shops. They work with lava-like lead with only heavy canvas gloves and aprons for protection. I could talk about the increased use of video display terminals and the resulting eye strain, back fatigue, birth defects and miscarriages. There has been a failure to implement or suggest any legislative controls in terms of radiation screens, hours of work on VDTs and continuous exposure within a small area.
Recent statistics also show that over the last two years VDT users were absent from work three times as much as non-users. That study was conducted by the New York Mount Sinai School of Medicine. There are a number of examples of people dying and suffering from health problems. Also they are faced with safety problems, with miscarriages and with abnormal births. This has been caused by a lack of adequate inspection, adequate legislation and adequate standards within Canada.
We require legislation to be in place. It must be followed up with adequate regulations and inspections. As I said earlier, the best legislation in the world is of no value if it cannot be enforced. It is of no value if we do not have standards by which to measure the legislation.
I should like to deal with some other aspects of the Bill for a few minutes. There is a need for improvement in the legislation. We will make a number of amendments at committee stage. One area in which the Government is moving very slowly and inadequately is in the matter of sexual harassment. The proposed amendments only compel employers to attempt to keep the workplace free of sexual harassment. We would like some federal guidelines to explain what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. We would also like to see the Human

June 11, 1984
Canada Labour Code
Rights Commission automatically investigating charges of sexual harassment, and when there is an organized workforce, we would like to see the union involved being granted the right to represent workers in those hearings. We believe that sexual harassment is a growing problem, a problem which is being recognized more in the workforce each year. The proposals under the Canada Labour Code are completely inadequate in terms of dealing with it.
There are other areas of weakness in the legislation. One proposal would allow the Minister to exclude from the legislation workers in various areas of the atomic energy field. We recognize that in certain areas it may be of benefit to workers in that they may come under stronger provincial legislation. If that is the case, we can accept the purpose of the amendment. However, knowing the history of the Government and of the Atomic Energy Control Board, I would worry that some workers in the industry will be kept out of the Canada Labour Code, not because of better provincial legislation but because it is inconvenient for AECL, the mining company, or whatever agency is the employer, to grant adequate protection to workers.
I should like to cite some evidence of my concern. Just a few months ago the Atomic Energy Control Board held hearings which resulted in increasing by five times the amount of radiation to which women workers would be exposed. It increased a number of other levels affecting workers as well. We had to fight to make those meetings open to the press, even on an occasional basis. I rose in the House three times to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) to intervene in order to open the hearings of the Atomic Energy Control Board, even for the presentation of labour briefs. The board was reluctant but finally the hearings were opened on a limited basis. This control agency, the Atomic Energy Control Board, was rather reluctant to hold public hearings on matters of safety.
How can we allow the Minister the right to exclude workers in the atomic energy field, especially with these recent precedents before us? If he wants an exclusion of workers coming under provincial legislation because that legislation might be stronger, that makes sense. However, if he wants a blanket right to exclude workers in that field, it is unacceptable to us.
We are very worried about the Minister being allowed to exempt employers from the requirements of health and safety committees if he feels that the workplace is safe. As much as I have some respect for the Minister of Labour, I do not believe he knows which workplace in Canada is safe and which is unsafe. One of the purposes of setting up those committees is to guarantee that the workers and managers get together to look at potentially dangerous sites. For the Minister, presumably on the basis of some lobbying by management, to say that a particular industry is a safe one and does not require a joint committee is a dangerous exception. We will certainly oppose it at committee stage.
Similarly we are upset that the Minister talked about excluding ships from workplace safety committees. I think we all would agree that working on board ships can be just as
dangerous as working on land. Those committees should exist on ships, and I do not think the Minister has the right to say that ships will not be included as far as workplace safety committees are concerned.
In the area of technological change, we see a very minor amendment. The amendment proposed by the Minister indicates that where there is a significant number of employees, the required notice period shall increase from 90 days to 120 days. The definition of "significant number" is left to the Labour Relations Board. That is not good enough. Employees right across the country should know what types of units will be used to determine whether or not this amendment is in effect.
We are concerned that the definition of technological change is very narrow. It might be possible for many companies to claim that technological change is not really taking place and, therefore, they do not come under the purview of this legislation. We are concerned that by laying off workers in small numbers over a period of time, employers will not have to be concerned about the proposed amendment. In the past when certain employee groups tried to negotiate technological change amendments, they have been unsuccessful. Many employers have resisted it. With that in mind, it is important that there be much stronger amendments to the legislation.
In closing, there are changes that must be made but the legislation is important. We want to hear from representatives of both the workers and the employers. We want to see this legislation acted upon before we adjourn. I reiterate the offer made by our House Leader, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, that New Democrats will agree to pass this Bill on second reading in one day. We will meet morning, noon and night to hear representatives of workers and employers to study this legislation.
We will be introducing amendments as we go through the committee process, but we would like the other Parties in this House to guarantee that this legislation and any amendments to it will be disposed of prior to the June recess. Without that, more lives will be lost, more people will suffer injury, more children will be born with abnormalities. The House of Commons will have failed those people and their unborn children. We will have not met the concerns of people who have a right to expect us to act for their safety and, indeed, their very lives.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the Canada Labour Code amendments, Bill C-34. I am particularly encouraged by the amount of agreement there seems to be in the House to deal with this Bill before the end of the current session. We have been waiting for this Bill for a year or two. We are delighted to see it on the table, to see the number of amendments that it makes and to see the encouraging sign that the Opposition, although not totally satisfied, seem to want to move the Bill to committee for more detailed study. Hopefully we will see it pass before the end of the current session at the end of June.
June 11, 1984

One clause which I find encouraging and on which we have had a number of representations from various groups is the consolidation of the various areas of occupational health and safety within the Department of Labour. It now not only includes uranium mine workers, those in the transportation industry and in banks, but as well employees under federal jurisdiction involved in shipping, trains, offshore drilling and so on. Through complementary amendments to the Financial Administration Act it will apply on an equivalent basis to public servants with regard to occupational health and safety.
I wish to indicate my support for the improvements to the right to refuse work, strengthening the provision where the question of imminent danger is removed. Collective bargaining health and safety committee can function as the committees for occupational health and safety without being structured under some new basis. This brings the Bill into line with legislation in the provinces, including the Province of Ontario.
As the Member for Algoma, I have been lobbying very hard for several years to have this legislation brought into effect. Within the next week an agreement will be reached between the United Steel Workers, the Elliot Lake Uranium Mines, the mining companies themselves, the Atomic Energy Control Board, the federal Department of Labour and the Ontario Department of Labour to enshrine under an order of the Atomic Energy Control Act the Ontario occupational health and safety regulations. When that agreement is reached it will represent a most historic event.
There has been a jurisdictional problem there for several years. It was not clear exactly who had jurisdiction. Up until about 1978 we thought the Province of Ontario had jurisdiction. In a ruling at that time the law officers of the Crown said that conventional health and safety was under federal jurisdiction, as is the question of radiation. Therefore, this jurisdictional problem has existed since that time. An agreement was reached between the concerned bodies. The Ontario occupational health and safety legislation will be referenced to the Atomic Energy Control Act. Therefore, uranium miners in Elliot Lake will operate under equivalent provisions to those in other mining operations such as Inco and Falconbridge in the Sudbury basin. This Bill makes provision for that kind of an agreement. Clause 80.1 provides, and I quote:
The Governor in Council may be order exclude, in whole or in part, from the application of this Part or any specified provision thereof employment on or in connection with any work or undertaking that is regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act.
That provision provides the needed flexibility for referencing of the Ontario occupational health and Safety Act. It dovetails more conveniently all the other provincial government jurisdictions dealing with boilers and other regulations relating to the operation of the mine. There is good provision for this in Bill C-34.
The Bill provides some improvements relating to technological change. That is important in this fast-moving period of technological change. It is fast moving, making jobs obsolete. It is therefore important that these provisions be in the Bill.
Canada Labour Code
A lot of the responsibility for technological change will remain with the employer. There has to be some give and take regardless of the agreements that are reached, such as collective bargaining agreements. They must take into account changes that occur over the two or three-year period of a collective bargaining agreement. A recent example in my constituency is where Canadian Pacific Railways brought in the manual block system, replacing train order people with a radio system so that train orders could be issued by radio operators rather than the train order operators, as was done in the past. This, of course, is a technological change and we do expect technological changes to occur. In the long term, I suppose it makes for a more efficient system. At the same time we would expect large companies like the CPR to operate like good corporate citizens.
The case that was brought to my attention was that of McKerrow where there were three train order operators who had put in an average of 37 to 40 years of service with the CPR. In April of this year their jobs in that location were made obsolete. Even though these operators had 37 or even 40 years of service, they had only reached the age of 58 and their collective bargaining agreement did not provide for an early retirement before reaching the age of 59. In one case the operator was shifted to a new location requiring the family unit to split up for the next year. When people with less than two years of seniority are bumped, their jobs may not be secure in the future.
In this case, three people are losing their jobs because of technological change. They have an opportunity to work in another location but if they do not take that oppportunity their pensions will not become effective at age 59 or 60, as is provided in the agreement, but in fact will become effective at age 65. They have the choice either to move away after 38 or 40 years of service or lose their pensions for seven years. It is an archaic arrangement and a company as large as CPR should not treat its employees like that. I Find it unbelievable.
If any Member of the House had an employee working for him for 38 or 40 years who happened to be one year short of being eligible for pension, the Member would do one of two things. Either he would keep the employee on for safety considerations to oversee the operation of the new technological change-and in the case to which I referred, it is very important that dispatchers be secure-or the Member would allow the employee to take his retirement one year sooner. Surely anyone would expect a company as large as the CPR to operate on that basis.
I find it unbelievable that the CPR would force these families to split up and move to another location for such a short period of time or to forgo their pensions for seven years. I think it is important that this matter has been raised in the Bill and it is important that the Government is moving on it. I think it is equally important that the representations that have been made by the union, by the employees themselves, by myself and by other Members of Parliament should not fall on

June 11, 1984
Canada Labour Code
deaf ears but that the CPR should take on its corporate responsibility in a much more positive way, rather than shucking off employees who have put in so many years of good service.
There are a number of very important changes in this Bill about which I will not go into any great detail. I have already mentioned the consolidation of the various federal responsibilities for occupational health and safety. I believe that the provisions regarding major projects are very important because, as we come out of the recession, major projects are being undertaken all across the country. The Blair-Car report and the provisions flowing from that report are very important. The provision of the union dues check-off and the use of the Rand formula which is much more enlightened and forward looking is important. I will not attempt to deal with all of the provisions in the Bill because of time constraints.
Surely the Bill contains important provisions relating to women in the workforce. It contains provisions for leave for childcare responsibilities and for dealing with the question of sexual harassment. There are provisions dealing with the guaranteeing of incomes for handicapped and disabled persons and there are provisions related to people not being demoted, suspended or disciplined for being away from the job because of sickness or injury.
All in all, I believe there are a number of important provisions in the Bill which commend themselves to the House. In committee I am sure Hon. Members will want to make amendments to strengthen the legislation. I believe this Bill is a good start and I am pleased to see that there is much support for having this legislation implemented. We have waited a number of years to see the Bill brought before the House and I would certainly hope that it would be adopted by the end of this month and then implemented so that the employees across the country who work under federal jurisdiction could benefit from it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a 10-minute period for questions and comments. Does anyone wish to put a question?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask some questions of the representative of the Liberal Government who just spoke. He mentioned the experience that he and I have had when trying to get some clarification regarding which jurisdiction the workers in Algoma fall under. We have tried to find out whether they fall under federal law or provincial law or under regulations pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act or the Labour Code. He said that he felt very positive about the amendment that is proposed here.
Would he not agree that, for the purposes of those in Elliot Lake, it would be better to say that the Minister could exclude them from coverage under the Canada Labour Code only where they fall under the legislation of the province as agreed to? I am afraid that we are going to end up with another situation in which many workers will be excluded from the Canada Labour Code without falling under the provisions of adequate provincial legislation.
While the Hon. Member is on his feet, perhaps he could explain on behalf of the Government why the Government feels that people who work on ships should not receive the benefit of health and safety committees. It seems to me that the 50, 60 or 100 employees on a ship are working under dangerous conditions just the same as anyone who works on land. If the rest of the provisions of the Act are to apply to these people, why should they not be entitled to the benefit of health and safety committees?
As well, perhaps the Hon. Member could explain to me why the penalties being imposed under this piece of legislation will actually make it easier and cheaper for an employer in fact to violate the law? The most obvious example of that is that the financial penalties for violating the Act to be imposed on both the employer and the employee will be exactly the same. It seems to me that a penalty of $2,000 or $3,000 that is imposed upon an individual can be quite severe but a penalty of $2,000 or $3,000 that is imposed upon Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting or another company like it would obviously be only a token penalty. It may well pay these companies to continue to ignore the law.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that any Government would exclude any group of workers by order under the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Hon. Member is concerned that that might occur, but I do not see any problem with the amendment. I am speaking off the top of my head because I have not looked at the amendment, but I do not see that as being a problem. The important provision is that this law provides for cases such as the one which has been experienced in Ontario in which there was a jurisdictional problem.
Writing regulations over the years which related to the Labour Standards Code became very, very involved, cumber-son and difficult. However, the United Steel Workers, in Elliot Lake, the two mining companies, the Ontario Department of Labour, the federal Department of Labour and the Atomic Energy Control Board reached an agreement. There is a provision to exclude them under this Bill which will allow them to continue that agreement. In saying that, I would like to pay tribute to the tremendous efforts which were made both by the steelworkers and by the companies. Without the goodwill that has existed over the past four or five years, there would have been many more difficulties. The agreement is clearly a model of the way in which labour relations should be carried out in the future.
With regard to the question of the Hon. Member which related to health and safety on ships, I believe the provision indicates that there would be one individual appointed rather than a committee. Arguments could be made that a committee would be better than a safety officer, but I think that those are details which should be dealt with in the standing committee rather than in the House. Perhaps representations could be made to the Minister as to whether or not it should be a committee or a single individual. Obviously, it depends on the
June 11, 1984

size of the ship. I believe that the current law requires 20 employees for a committee situation. It would depend on the situation, the size and so on.
I must say that I am pleased with the agreement that has been reached. It will be beneficial with regard to the jurisdictional problem of uranium miners. This Bill will dovetail in with that and make it possible to implement that kind of agreement. We hope to see that agreement reached during the next week.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I have two points which I would like to raise. Having been raised in a coal mining area, I believe I have a fairly good background with respect to safety and health committees. I am glad to see that the Bill provides for them. The only thing which bothers me is the fact that only half of the safety committee is made up of employees. The employees are the ones who take the brunt, and the employer is the one who pays.
Many coal mine operators realize that every accident which is prevented saves them a great deal of money. At one time mining was the most hazardous industry. I know of a mine operator who offered three $100 prizes for those employees who did not have an accident. They placed the names in a hat and the $100 prizes were given to some very needy families. This was an incentive. Through the safety committees and that incentive, accidents in the coal mine were cut by more than half. Those safety committees were composed of employee, along with the fire boss who was the representative for the employer.
One other example which indicates that an incentive will work is that of an international trucking firm which is located in Calgary. It realized that every accident which was prevented saved the company money. At the end of the year, all those who did not have an accident would receive an expensive jacket. As well, the company provided a banquet to honour those who had not had accidents. The safety record of that firm is still outstanding. The incentive was there. People went the extra mile not to have an accident.
In this Bill there does not appear to be any particular incentive. One could say that the incentive is that employees will not be injured. But if there is another incentive which could be provided in the Bill along with the safety committees, I think it would help to reduce accidents and to prevent accidents. That is really what we are trying to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there any further questions or comments? For continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, when the Parliamentary Secretary was addressing himself to Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act, he said that this particular piece of legislation had been in the works for the past year.


Maurice Brydon Foster: For several years.
Canada Labour Code


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He says now that he said several years, but I think he did say for the past year. I would like to point out to him that there have been a number of us who have been urging the Government for a much longer period of time to bring forward this important piece of legislation. In fact, when looking through committee records and debate in the House, I saw questions that were raised with the Government on this issue. I came across a committee report from May 21, 1981, which was over three years ago. At that time, in committee the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) asked the then Minister of Labour, who is now the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan), when members of the committee could expect amendments to the Canada Labour Code to be brought forward. For the information of the Parliamentary Secretary, I would like to read the response of the then Minister of Labour. With respect to the review of the Canada Labour Code, he said:
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 Hon. Members if I do not go into the exact details of the package. The appropriate place for this ... will be its introduction in the House which I hope will be in the near future.
That was in May of 1981. He asked the indulgence of Members to await the introduction into the House in the near future of the details of the amendments. He must feel that the indulgence, patience and forbearance of Members can be stretched to the ultimate limit. That is what the Government has done in the past three years with regard to amendments to the Canada Labour Code. It has delayed them in the face of questions, urgings and pleadings which have been raised by members of the Official Opposition over and over again.
The result is that we have before us, in the dying days of Parliament, a very complex set of amendments to the Canada Labour Code. These are amendments which are of great interest to labour organizations, business firms, women's groups and people who want to examine them in detail. I think I can say at the outset that this is the major criticism which we have with this particular piece of legislation. It has been delayed so long that it allows so little time for substantial examination, study and improvement in committee.
Improvements do have to be made to this legislation, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about that. We have stated that, as we did the other day when we introduced an Opposition day debate so that we could urge the Government to bring this legislation forward. We are concerned about it. We want to see it get into committee. We want to see it passed. However, we also want to see it improved.
This Bill does go some way toward improving the rules and regulations which govern work standards and occupational health and safety as well as the general framework of labour relations for industries under federal jurisdiction, such as transportation, communications and banking. It also includes

June 11, 1984
Canada Labour Code
employees of some 40 Crown corporations and all employees in the Public Service. Those workers come to approximately 10 per cent of the Canadian labour force. That is how many will be directly affected by this legislation.
However, the importance of the legislation is just not in the number of people who will be affected. It is also vital in that it has the capability of a demonstration effect. It will show what can be done in those areas of federal jurisdiction to improve the situations in which people work, and it will set an example for industry, not only in the private sector but with respect to people who are employed in provincial jurisdictions. If that demonstration effect is carried out, then actions will really speak louder than words. However, as I said, Mr. Speaker, these actions have been a long time in coming.
Not only is this Bill slow in being brought forward, but in looking at the various amendments which are being put forward I would say that it is much stronger in dealing with some issues than it is with others. There are certain areas in this Bill which are notably weak. I have, as I mentioned the other day, particular concern about the way this Bill deals with issues which are of particular concern to women. It does take into cognizance the fact that there has been a tremendous growth of women in the labour force, a growth which has happened in all areas of the labour force. Women now account for over 40 per cent of the present labour force and it is interesting to note that it is predicted that in the decade ahead of us at least six out of every ten new entrants to the labour force will be women. It is important that we come to grips with some of the issues which affect women the most.
One of the issues which is dealt with in this particular Bill is the increased possibility of sexual harassment. That becomes more of a possibility as we see women entering into non-traditional sectors of the workplace. It is, therefore, vital that we not only come to grips with this issue but that we try to define the problem in a way in which it has not been seriously addressed in the past. If we can come up with the proper definition and the proper processes of carrying that definition through, it will be then more possible than it has been in the past to have cases of sexual harassment referred to the Human Rights Commission and dealt with under the Human Rights Act. The importance of coming to grips with this issue, Mr. Speaker, cannot be underestimated.
What is needed is to provide a formal process for action against sexual harassment and to also include employers in anti-harassment programs, because they are on the front lines and are able to develop and implement appropriate programs. Therefore, employers have to be involved in this whole area.
I want to point out, however, Mr. Speaker, that it goes beyond what we can set down in terms of definitions, and even legal processes, because sexual harassment is an affront to a person's dignity. There is no question about that. It not only diminishes the individual herself but it can also have a tremendous impact on the way in which that person is able to perform her work. It has an impact on the conduct of work and on the way that an individual is able to behave. That in turn has a very direct correlation to a person's promotion and the way in
which a person is able to be advanced in the workplace. All of these factors are interrelated. That is why it is so very critical.
I would say to the Minister that these amendments are a good first step, but they are only a first step. I want to add a note of caution because there is no single definition or single set of legal processes which will eliminate this problem overnight. It is going to take education and it is going to take time, we know that. That is why I wish these amendments had come in three years ago when they were first promised. We would then be that much further down the road toward the elimination of sexual harassment. However, it is a very critical issue and I want to see it dealt with.
Another area which the Bill addresses to some extent, and one I am happy to see being raised, is the area of proposed amendments to the child care provisions. The present requirement of 12 months' continual employment prior to being eligible for maternity leave is being reduced to three months. In addition, there is a proposal for a further 24-week period of unpaid leave, so that employees, whether male or female, have the choice to assume the responsibility of caring at home for a new child, whether natural or adopted, during those first critical six months. Also of note is that the 24 weeks may be split between the two parents. I feel that is a truly fair provision which reflects the dual responsibility of parents in the raising of children. It is only fair also that when an employee is away on child care or pregnancy leave, pension and health and disability benefits, as well as seniority and opportunities for promotion, continue if the employee so chooses.
Finally, Sir, the childcare leave would be at the discretion of the employee, and that is a good move. No employer could dismiss, suspend, demote or lay off an employee who chooses to take leave. There can be little doubt that these amendments relating to childcare or pregnancy leave, as well as those I mentioned relating to sexual harassment, more adequately reflect the role of women in the workforce. It puts an end to the present set-up which not only fails to protect women but, I would say to you, Sir, in fact penalizes them for having children or, indeed, even for being female. Therefore, I see these amendments as an improvement. However, what is unfortunate is that similar progressive amendments are not proposed in other areas of the labour force which are undergoing tremendous change.
I see that it is one one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue with that matter later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: 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.
June 11, 1984



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, almost one year ago today the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) was elected Leader of this Party. As a Canadian from western Canada, permit me to offer three reasons why I believe most voters in all four western provinces will elect his candidates in the upcoming election, whenever it comes.
First, he has already articulated our major economic needs-an energy policy which unites provinces, industry and consumers in common cause; freedom of choice for grain producers instead of compulsory and over-rich payments to the CPR and CNR; opening Canada for business again, particularly in increased exports to America and Pacific rim nations; and retraining Canadians.
Second, under his leadership an outstanding group of men and women have already won fiercely contested PC nominations throughout the West. There is at best now the possibility of a PC victory in every western constituency in the upcoming election, given the NDP drop in support.
Third, my leader has the competence, personal integrity, experience, candidates, and programs to get our economy moving again at high employment levels. The current flurry of pre-election activity by the Liberals in the West and elsewhere can only remind people of the man who abused his wife for years until the day she won a large lottery, and he then arrived with a box of chocolates. In short, the voice of the West will only be heard effectively-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, during the 16 year tenure of the Liberal Party, youth unemployment has escalated almost beyond belief. In one short year as a Member of Parliament, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) has compiled innovative policy to take young people off the streets and put them back to work. The Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has good reason to celebrate his first year in the House of Commons. Through
his genuine concern for Canada's youth, the bedrock of our society, he has exposed the sham which has become the Liberal Government. There are over 800,000 young people looking for employment. Read it and weep, Mr. Prime Minister, whoever you will be.
While the Liberals propose to apply a mustard plaster to cure the symptoms of fever run amuck, this Party is prepared to treat the cause of the illness. Our Leader has pledged this Party to follow six main principles to aid Canadian youth before it is too late. They include greater co-operation at all levels of government, a more creative approach to the UIC, local action and community self help, accent on the individual, challenging the private sector, and the dissemination of timely and relevant information. There is not time now to explain each measure in detail, but rest assured herein lies the answer that the Liberals have been vainly seeking for 16 years. The Progressive Conservatives have it, and are ready to use it.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I read with interest an interview with the Leader of the Official Opposition which appeared in the weekend Ottawa Citizen. He was asked would he rather run against John Turner or Jean Chretien. The article says:
"It's really six of one, a half dozen of the other", he says without any hesitation.
"I believe people want a fundamental change and they know they are not going to get it with either of them."
He was then asked;
But are Mulroney and Turner not saying a lot that is identical?
His response was:
"John Turner has said absolutely nothing he didn't take from me. Just look at my book, my speeches, my leadership campaign.
It's all there. Word for word."
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Official Opposition is correct, then how can the public expect to get a change if Mr. Turner is copying verbatim what Mr. Mulroney is suggesting? It seems the only question left unanswered is not which is Tweedle-dum, but which is Tweedle-dumber?



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member from a coal mining area, one that is proud of its coal mining tradition, I wish to say we approach Miners Memorial Day, June 11, 1984, with a sense of pride and a sense of sorrow. On this date we are reminded of the history of coal mining in Cape Breton and of the role coal mining has played in the shaping of our community. Mining

June 11, 1984
on the Island dates back to 1720. Many technological advances have evolved since then. While mining methods have changed over the years, the unique qualities of the miner, which can be best described in one word, courageous, have not.
The struggle of the miner has not been without adversity. We remember the fight to bring in the United Mine Workers of America and the infamous strike of 1909-1910; the six years of protest culminating in the strike of 1925, and the tragic death of William Davis, killed 58 years ago.
We also remember the No. 12 Mine explosion of 1917, more recently the explosion in 1979, and even more recently the fire at No. 26 Colliery some months ago. Over the years there have been triumphs and disasters. At this time we remember the contributions made by all miners and their families, and honour those who lost their lives.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: 

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, during the life of this Liberal Government the CPR has been the recipient of special favours. Here are two of many examples. During public hearings on the abandonment of the Rosedale-East Coulee branchline before the prairie section of CTC, I asked the railway to give me the depreciation figures on this branch line since its construction. The railway refused, but the CTC chairman ordered the CPR to provide me with the figures. I
wanted this information as I am convinced that the CPR has depreciated this branch line several times. I waited in vain, and finally the CTC wiggled out of the order. The Liberal Government condoned the CPR's hiding this information from the public.
Again, prior to the Crow debate Dr. Gilson recommended that the shortfall be paid to the farmers so they could pay the increased freight rates. The Bill provided for the freight increases for the farmers, all right, but the Government gave the total shortfall to the railways, with the CPR getting the lion's share. Then the other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had the gall to misinform the public by saying that this year the Government had given more than a billion dollars to the farmers. He should have said "to the railways".
But the CPR is still not satisfied. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has put Ian Sinclair, past President of the CPR, into the Senate, and now there are forces within the Liberal Party at work to make John Turner, a CPR director, Prime Minister of Canada. The Liberal Government and John Turner put the CPR first, but with the PCs and Brian Mulroney, the people are first.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to impress upon the House and the Government the urgent necessity for more funds to be allocated for job-creation purposes in high unemployment areas. I am talking about student employment.
The funds allocated to government Departments for the employment of students usually only affect urban areas because that is where the government Departments are. Private enterprise producers summer jobs mainly again in urban areas, because that is mostly where a private enterprise exists.
The only possibility for student employment in high unemployment rural areas is the direct job-creation program, Summer Canada Employment Program. If the Government is going to take action, it must be done now. Next month will be too late.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, last week in the communities of The Pas and Thompson, the CTC held hearings on an application by CN to remove station agents and destroy stations in various communities in northern Manitoba. From the presentations that were made to the CTC it became apparent that one of the ways that CN and VIA discourage
June 11, 1984

local business is by advertising only the toll-free numbers in the local telephone directories.
For example, in the community of Ilford, CN is listed with one 1-800 number and VIA is listed with one 1-800 number. Pikwitonei, CN has one 1-800 number, and there is no VIA number listed. In Thicket Portage both CN and VIA have 1-800 numbers. In Wabowden both CN and VIA have 1-800 numbers. In Cranberry Portage there are eight CN numbers and two VIA numbers, all of which are 1-800 numbers.
The point is that CN, with the support of VIA, is trying to take away the jobs of the local station agents but at the same time, in order to justify taking away those jobs, it has deliberately not advertised the existence of local facilities and local staff for a number of years. Such lack of service and lack of aggressiveness by CN and VIA just prove that the railways are trying to destroy the service that they are supposed to be providing.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, on September 13, 1983, the Lanaudiere Federation of the UPA told the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) about the seriousness of the problems caused by the drought in area last summer.
In October 1983, the four areas concerned, that are represented by 12 to 15 federal Members of Parliament, including myself, again advised the minister of the seriousness of the situation. All the formal and informal discussions which followed that meeting clearly showed how desperate it was. However, the federal Minister is now refusing to provide financial assistance to these farmers who are in a desperate situation.
In his reply to Mr. Garon on May 11, the Minister of Agriculture stated that he did not believe such an intervention as requested by his Quebec counterpart was justified in view of the existence of an adequate crop insurance system. In fact, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from Quebec, on the other side of the House, are perfectly aware that the crop insurance plan does not protect the farmers and does not provide replacement value or compensate for hay of lower quality.
In spite of all that, the Minister is refusing to provide direct assistance to the farmers even though this assistance would be justified and has already been provided in other areas in Canada; he is still saying that the crop insurance plan could correct the situation, which is absolutely-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately, the time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Rossi:: And the Leader of the Opposition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Leader of the Opposition is in my friend's riding, making sure that he will not be back after the next election.
I want to address my remarks to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the horrendous unemployment statistics that were announced last Friday and which are a cancer on our nation that will not go away. My question is addressed particularly with respect to the fact that we now have hard evidence to the effect that moneys for employment opportunities, to be invested in capital projects, are being withheld by regional Ministers for political purposes, not to be announced until the time of an election this summer or next fall. We did not get an assurance from the Acting Prime Minister that this practice would stop.
I can give the Minister some examples of moneys that have not yet been expended but which could be used right now when thousands of high school students across the nation will be coming into the workforce. There is a $40 million fund with respect to the Special Employment Initiatives Program. There is money not now being released? Why is the Government persisting in carrying out its political activities on the backs of the unemployed of the nation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I think that a few of my colleagues and myself gave all the necessary explanations on Friday. We listed all the programs which had been implemented for some time in all sectors such as the creation of jobs for the young and not so young, the training program, another one for young people in the fisheries sector and in the environment sector. We listed all those programs, and complete lists are available to the Hon. Member.
Obviously, I have never heard anything about regional Ministers allegedly delaying the implementation of those programs. I think they are more sensible than that. It is in our own interest to create jobs and promote job creation as rapidly as possible. I cannot imagine where the Hon. Member has heard such remarks. As to the western grain stabilization

June 11, 1984
Oral Questions
program which we adopted in the House 15 days ago, it will be implemented without delay one year and a half before it was due to come on stream if we had not amended the act.


RELEASE OF FUNDS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. I already mentioned this to the Acting Prime Minister, who apparently is not interested in the unemployment crisis we are now facing, and who gives trivial, philosophic utterances in a lazy way.
We have hard evidence to the effect that moneys that could be used for job creation are being held back by members of his Cabinet for political purposes, not to be announced until this summer, at a time when we are facing an unprecedented crisis in terms of unemployment. Now that the Prime Minister is back in Canada I want to ask him if he will not now advise and instruct his regional Ministers to release that money in the interest of the employment opportunities that should be available in our country, and in the interest of those who are seeking work and so desperately need work.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member says that he has hard evidence of Cabinet Ministers holding back funds, I suspect that what he means is that he has no hard evidence. He is just making it up.
I have looked into this matter since my arrival. I know that the Hon. Member raised the question, or that one of his colleagues had raised the question. Over the weekend I looked to see if there were the slightest grounds for suspecting that there was any evidence. Not only did I not find any hard evidence, I find the contrary evidence. I find that Canada Works constituency funds are almost totally committed already, and the fiscal year is only beginning. Summer Canada funds of $201 million are 95 per cent committed, and the balance is being approved at the moment as I am talking.
Career Access Funds are being committed at a steady rate of $3.2 million a week. Funding under Section 38, Canada Works Initiative, is being spent at the rate of $1.7 million a week.
I go through all the programs, Mr. Speaker, LEAD, Career Access, employment creation grants, contributions, everything is being spent. Nothing is being held back. When the Hon. Member says he has hard evidence, I suspect he is either just starting a rumour, flying a kite, or using the usual rhetorical approach to untruth.


SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the recitation on the part of the Prime Minister, maybe the Prime Minister will be able to stand in his place in
the dying days of his office and give us the assurance- unequivocal assurance-


Mr. Cousineau:: Cheap shot.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: These are facts. The Prime Minister is leaving his office. I think one of the final things he should do is make sure that something is done in terms of the Special Employment Initiatives Program of $40 million. His Minister of Employment has stated on the record that he cannot understand why the regional ministers have not yet given specific direction with respect to that matter and it is being held back. His Minister of Fisheries and Oceans told the Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries that he cannot get the Newfoundland regional minister to pay out the moneys or instruct him with respect to moneys for capital projects until, obviously, the time of the next election. Why have the western grain transportation funds not yet been expended in western Canada?
Where are these moneys that are so desperately needed now for the purposes of finding employment for the unemployed of our nation? Will the Prime Minister give us an unequivocal assurance that he will check to make sure these moneys are not being withheld, because we do have the facts? We've got the goods on him this time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member talks about facts, he talks about hard evidence, but he gives none, Mr. Speaker. He just talks about having the goods. We have allocated $1.2 billion plus in this year to create jobs, to fight unemployment, apart from all the job creation which comes out of the announcements which have been currently made, for instance, the American Motors Renault announcement and the Husky upgrader announcement. There are jobs being created, but in so far as direct fund spending for jobs is concerned, Mr. Speaker, all the Hon. Member is saying is that some regional Ministers are telling departmental Ministers: "Look, if you are going to spend money in my province, tell me how you are going to spend it and we will discuss it."
The fiscal year is only three months begun. I tell the Hon. member that, far from holding back, we have in some areas spent 95 per cent or 100 per cent of the funds. It seems absolutely proposterous, pure invention, pure fiction to suggest that we would be holding funds to spend in the next election. The Hon. Member may presume to know when the next election is. I do not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know it has to be very soon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that if this Government stays in office, or my successor decides not to have an election very soon, I know he will be running out of money for the constituency fund. As I say, the Canada Works constituency funds are almost totally committed. What will he spend next fall and next winter? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I think the problem then will be that the Hon. Member will be saying: "Increase the deficit. Spend more. You spent too much last spring. You spent too much last summer creating jobs". They will change
June 11, 1984

their line, but then consistency is not the forte of the Hon. Member.


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAMSCHEDULING OF EXPENDITURES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in reply to my colleague mentioned all of the programs except one. This is the program on which I want to focus his attention. It is called the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. For example, for this fiscal year it has a budget of $1.1 billion. We know from a cabinet document of last October that scheduling of expenditures under that program since the April 12 Budget was falling far behind. This is the area where funds are being withheld.
Given the extent of the unemployment problem, given the fact that it is immorally reprehensible and politically indefensible to hold back these funds when they could be providing jobs now, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that all of the expenditures under this program will be released by the regional political Ministers?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was here when the Budget was read. Indeed, he is right that there was less money spent last year than had been foreseen under the capital recovery projects. But this means we will be spending substantially more money this year than had been planned or anticipated, as he mentioned, to the tune of some $1.1 billion. That expenditure is going on at the present time in every province.
No funds are being withheld. No funds are being held in reserve. On the contrary, we are monitoring regularly in Cabinet the progress of expenditures in that regard. We have instructed our officials to make sure that the planned expenditures would be incurred and that the capital recovery projects would proceed this year in an expeditious way so as to spend more than we had anticipated, as I said, to the tune of some $1.1 billion.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have another question which I will direct to the Minister of Finance. Can he give us an unqualified assurance that programs under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, including Small Craft Harbours, programs under Public Works, and programs under the Post Office, all of which come under the category of special recovery capital projects, are not being withheld or held up by regional Ministers in their political capacity? Perhaps he can also give us some indication of just exactly how much money is left in that program.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give the Hon. Member that assurance for the good reason that these funds have never been in the purview of regional Ministers to withhold. The Minister of State respon-
Oral Questions
sible for economic development is in charge of that program. There is a special team of officials who are supervising this program. As I told the Hon. Member, the Cabinet committee responsible for economic development is reviewing the progress of expenditures in that regard on a regular basis. Any funds about which there might be some delay of expenditures might be the result of a reallocation of funds because a project which had been approved is not proceeding as fast as anticipated, and things like that. These are the only types of circumstances where I could see some foreseen expenditures not occurring.
As far as the exact figure is concerned, I am afraid I do not have it with me today but I will inquire of the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and his officials.
If that Minister is not in the House tomorrow I will be very happy to provide the Hon. Member with the information.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment. The Prime Minister might know that last Thursday the acid rain subcommittee released its second report during this Parliament. It reiterated its concern over the acid rain emissions which continue to fall all across the country. In particular the committee suggested that although the federal provincial environment ministers have set a target by 1994 of a 50 per cent reduction in emissions, in fact emissions in most of the major areas have increased.
Would the Prime Minister direct someone in the Cabinet or have the Government undertake discussions with the Government of the Province of Ontario, the purpose of which would be to try to convince the Province of Ontario that it would be better, both from an emission point of view and from a creation of employment point of view, for Ontario Hydro to purchase coal from western Canada, which has a lower sulphur content, than to purchase coal which Hydro presently uses and gets from the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take this to be a specific representation to the Minister of the Environment. I will make sure that he is informed of it. That being said, the Minister of the Environment himself has deplored the lack of progress in the fight which the Governments and the private sector must carry on to improve the quality of our environment.
I can assure the Hon. Member, having just returned from a discussion of this subject in Europe, that the Europeans are concerned with the same situation there, and in a much more serious way because of the more limited space. Their countries and ours are looking forward to the international meeting in Munich, I believe in a few months, where we will try to tackle
4528

June 11, 1984
Oral Questions
this subject in a co-ordinated way between countries. The Hon. Member is making a specific representation which concerns the Government of Ontario. I will make sure that our Minister is informed of it.


AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in a related area where the Government of Canada has sufficient jurisdiction to move unilaterally on the question of emissions from automobiles, why has it not moved to put into effect the recommendation of the acid rain subcommittee which would have seen a two-thirds reduction in the emissions from automobiles and would have brought Canadian-made automobiles into line with the standards already in place in the United States? Why has the federal Government not taken steps in that regard, given that the Minister of the Environment said some six months or seven months ago that a statment on that question would be coming within a couple of weeks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment upon the couple of weeks which the Hon. Member mentioned. I know that the problem of emission reduction in automobiles, in factories and so on, is always discussed with great enthusiasm, and justifiably so, by environmentalists. It is the Ministers responsible for employment, job creation, and investment who always make the point that we have to proceed at a slower pace if we do not want to force certain companies to go under and if we do not want to put workers out of a job.
I remind the Hon. Member that before the OPEC crisis, or even before the recent recession of slowdown in the economies of the industrialized world, there was much greater enthusiasm for rapid fighting of the problems of air pollutants and water pollutants. Now we are seeing Governments everywhere, provincial, federal, and in other countries, trying to balance this with the need to keep jobs going and the workers at work. High unemployment figures would be affected adversely if we were to close down some plants because they had not moved as quickly as we would like in reducing their levels of emissions.


UNITED STATES STANDARDS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that in the first instance the course of action we proposed, the use of coal from western Canada, would be both beneficial economically and from the point of view of acid rain emissions and would not in any way jeopardize any manufacturing operations in Canada, it would seem that that would be a logical undertaking. However, I think the second point is more important. How is it that the United States was able to enforce automobile emission standards at a level considerably below those in place in Canada? Why is it that we in Canada cannot require Canadian manufacturers of automobiles to meet the same standards as they are required to meet when they manufacture within the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member returns to the use of coal. He indicated in the phrasing of his question the first time that it was a provincial matter, a matter for Ontario Hydro. It is true that it is likely to impinge directly upon manufacturing jobs in Ontario. If the cost of the coal is higher when we include transport, if it means bringing coal at greater expense, presumably it would mean increasing the hydro rates in Ontario, and presumably it would mean that it would cost that much more for companies employing workers to break even. I do not know the answer. I am not a negotiator for Ontario. I told the Hon. Member that it would be brought up. I guess the same kind of answer would have to apply to the matter of automobiles.
I hope the Hon. Member is not holding up the United States as an example in its approach to combating environmental pollution. He shakes his head in the negative. I am reassured, because I can assure him that much of the fight of the Minister of Environment of Canada is with the United States to get it to respect certain provisions of the Great Lakes clean-up agreements and to proceed with a little more zeal in fighting the problem of acid rain. The Hon. Member pointed out the problem of automobile emissions. I am not involved in that particular aspect. I will also refer it to the Minister of the Environment.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week the Minister of State for Youth conceded that there are some 800,000 young Canadians who are directly affected by unemployment. That crisis has been with us for three years. After three years the Government and the Minister of State for Youth have the temerity to put forward what is described as a guide in seeking the development of a comprehensive youth policy in Canada. After three years the Government offers a guide. Those 800,000 Canadians do not need a guide. They need action. The policy they want is jobs. What steps is the Minister of Finance prepared to take to see that action takes place for young people this summer, so that there will not be 800,000 unemployed young Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not do what the last Conservative Government of which she was a part did, that is, abolish direct job-creation programs which were helping young people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I can assure her that this Government will not do what her Government did during the short time it was in office. In the meantime, in terms of job creation and job training for youth only, in 1983-84 we expect to have spent $634.9 million on job creation alone, and some $493.1 million
June 11, 1984

on training for young people. By far this is much more than has ever been spent in any particular year in this country on job support for young people-by far, by hundreds of millions of dollars more than has ever been spent. Obviously I do not have to repeat the reference to the experience of the Government of which she was a part that killed, as its first step, those programs of help for the unemployed.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance goes through a recital, and every time he opens his mouth he shows that the policies of his Government are not working. Otherwise, why would the number of unemployed continue to mount month after month?
The Government can only come up with guides and general statements, and it now says that it needs more time to develop policies to meet the crisis among the young people. Young people are running out of time. Since the Minister's Government has taken three years to come up with what it says is a guide to a youth policy, how does it feel the young people of the country will react when they are told they are the ones who are lazy? They do not take three years to get things done.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that this Government did not wait to respond to the concerns of young people. If she would only go back to the 70s, for instance, she will recall that the Government created the Company of Young Canadians early in that decade. In fact, it was even during the 60s that we created that company, which the Progressive Conservatives attacked systematically and continuously at the time.
Afterwards, we developed the Katimavik Program. We also developed the Young Canada-World Program. We did this during the 70s long before the Hon. Member's short stay in Government when they tried to kill off these programs. What we did during this period was to allocate year after year more money to help young people through direct job creation and training programs designed especially for them.
As I stated earlier, this year we shall be allocating $1.1 billion to solve the problems of young people as far as unemployment and training are concerned; this is hundreds of millions of dollars more than any federal Government has ever spent to help young people.
Far from delaying the implementation of policies to help young Canadians, the Government has been at the forefront of youth assistance in all areas, for instance in the federal contribution to post-secondary education, where year after year, the federal Government has contributed well over the increase in funding authorized by provincial Conservative Governments for this very important sector of the Canadian economy.
Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. For ten years I have heard the Minister reminding us of the interest his Party has shown in youth. My question is straightforward, and that is what young Canadians want to hear. In Canada, 800,000 young people are still looking for jobs. Could the Minister of Finance inform the House, in all honesty, whether he intends to introduce programs that could be implemented within the next few weeks or is he merely going to remind us that, unfortunately, 800,000 young Canadians are unemployed? I know the Minister of State (Youth) expressed her concern for these thousands of young Canadians. Could the Minister of Finance suggest today some kind of corrective action or special assistance for these young people? Otherwise, I would urge him to stop reminding us about what he has done in the last twenty years.
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance) Mr. Speaker, I did not have to go back twenty years to inform the House about what we have done. I referred to programs that are in effect at this time. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member does not seem to want to be bothered to find out about these programs. Canada Works, Summer Canada, Career Access, the federal Government's program to provide for a very substantial financial contribution to post-secondary education, the additional $500 million being spent by the federal Government on direct assistance to on-the-job training for young people-all those programs exist. If the Hon. Member wants a list, I should be glad to send him a copy. He will realize that the Canadian Government has continued to set a very high priority on resolving the youth unemployment problem. It has been one of our highest priorities and will continue to be a major one. It is an extremely difficult problem which will take time to resolve. We are entirely aware of this, but we are working on it instead of indulging in the kind of rhetoric we are hearing from the Progressive Conservatives. Once again, when they were in power for a short nine months, the first initiative taken by their Government, which included the Hon. Member, was to eliminate youth assistance programs.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROVIDE DETAILED AND SPEEDY INFORMATION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Youth). For the information of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State (Youth) has both acknowledged and deplored that it was normal nowadays that young Canadians did not have enough money to eat. She also said last week that it was necessary to correct, as soon as possible, the imbalance between "haves" and "have nots". In

June 11, 1984
Oral Questions
the circumstances, it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of State (Youth) confirms the view that the Minister of Finance has not fulfilled the expectations of Canada's youth. Could the Minister of State (Youth), who has mentioned programs that might be introduced this fall, inform the House today, to give young Canadians something to hope for, what her intentions are or exactly what kind of programs she intends to introduce, and, I hope, as soon as possible?


Hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my comments contradict what the Minister of Finance said. With the Minister, I realize that the federal Government has done a great deal for youth. However, I think we should do more, and I believe that the steps my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has taken together with her provincial counterpart, Mrs. Marois, namely to add $59 million to help young drop-outs and young people on welfare, are an example of the co-operation shown by the federal Government. We are negotiating with other provinces, and at this time I can give my hon. colleague the assurance that if Ontario and other provinces are willing to increase benefits for young people in order to give them additional training or let them do community work or seek additional training in the private sector, we are prepared to co-operate. Quebec's example shows that we are willing to help young people, but the provinces must do their share.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week the Leader of the Opposition, in commenting on unemployment insurance, said the following:
It defies common sense to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars to keep men and women idle-
That reflected the Tory philosophy that it is unemployment insurance that keeps people unemployed rather than the state of the economy. I recognize that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the words of the Leader of the Opposition.
I would also like to quote the Minister of Employment and Immigration who said that his proposal for changing unemployment insurance would be as follows:
It would mean people drawing unemployment insurance would be required to use their unemployment insurance payments as a means of participating in training and retraining programs.
Will the Prime Minister agree that those who are unemployed are not so unemployed because they love that prospect, or because of an insurance program from which they are now benefiting, but are unemployed because of the state of the economy? Will the Prime Minister also agree that many who draw unemployment insurance need that money to provide
adequate food and shelter. They do not have extra money for retraining programs at this time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked a rhetorical question and made a very valid point. I will make sure that it is conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition so that he will take heed of the Hon. Member's suggestion.


MINISTER'S RETRAINING PROPOSAL
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the remainder of this week the Prime Minister could also convey that message to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The problem with the proposal made by the Minister is that many young people, women, and native people do not qualify for unemployment insurance at the present time. If we are going to make training and retraining a part of the UI package, many of those people will find it even more difficult to get into community colleges and other training programs. Will the Prime Minister agree that it would be much better if those programs were adequately funded instead of requiring people when they are unemployed to use their UI money, which is meant to cover their legitimate costs, such as food, shelter and other normal expenses to maintain a home?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would be even better if there were a much lower rate of unemployment. In cases where the unemployment fund is used by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, under the provisions of the Act, it is done in consultation with the unions and the companies when it is decided to use some unemployment funds with governmental supplements in order to provide work-sharing, for instance. This is provided for under the Act. It is authorized by Parliament. In many cases it is wanted by the workers themselves. It is only in those cases that we proceed with it.
The Hon. Member is making a valid general point that an unemployment insurance scheme is an insurance scheme and the funds should be used essentially to provide an interim income to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. In my first answer I supported that point, but I tell him that there are some ways in which unemployment funds can be used with the consent of the participants in the fund to provide jobs, for example in the work-sharing scheme.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who will know that Conservatives create jobs. When we were the Government, jobs for young people went up by 7,000 a month. Under his Government, Liberals lose jobs; 5,500 a month on average since the Liberals again took over. That is the difference.


I ask the Minister of Finance to recall that in 1980 when he took over as Minister of Energy, Alberta had the lowest unemployment rate in the country and one of the lowest in the world. With his policies, in four years he has created record high unemployment rates. He brags about employment creation programs and the money that goes into direct job creation. Can the Minister of Finance tell us why direct job creation money is being allocated to ridings today on the basis of unemployment rates from 1980 and 1981 rather than those of 1984?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that, since the beginning of this year, 74,000 new jobs have been created in this country. Last month alone, 23,000 new jobs were created. My friend could reflect upon those figures which indicate that there is indeed a significant amount of job creation taking place.
Dealing with the situation of his own province, I would like to remind my hon. friend that, as recently as last week, we announced a significant participation in an upgrader project in Saskatchewan which will have the joint participation of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Both provinces will be benefiting significantly from this particular development.
As far as the energy situation in general is concerned, I must remind my friend of the situation around the world, and particularly of that in the United States. Perhaps he would like to check the figures for Oklahoma, Texas, and a number of other states, to see what has happened over there in the last two years regarding the decline in activities in the energy field. He would learn, for instance, that in Canada oil well drilling is increasing proportionately more than it is in the United States. He will also learn that, in the last year, the share of the revenues going to the industry in Canada was the same as it was in 1979, and it was a share that was larger by several billion dollars. In the last year the industry in Canada has benefited significantly from the energy programs of the Government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, not one of the those states in the United States has an unemployment rate of 12 per cent. Today there are more people working in the United States than there were four years ago. In this country there are fewer people working now than there were four years ago. The fault lies with the Government, not with lazy Canadians.


REQUEST THAT FORMULA BE CHANGED
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, could I have an answer to my question? For direct job creation the Government uses a formula that is composed of labour surplus rates based on statistics that begin in April, 1979. We are talking about unemployment in 1984. The formula gives a bias to Liberal ridings for election purposes and creates second-class unemployed and first-class unemployed. Will the Government change the formula so that unemployed people who live
Oral Questions
in Conservative ridings have an equal chance to get a job? All we are asking for is an equal chance.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, with the imputation that the Hon. Member has put behind his question, I do not believe that it even deserves an answer. I see Hon. Members of the Opposition rising constantly, brandishing figures from Statistics Canada and saying: "This independent agency has come forward with these figures." They then use the figures to attack the Government. Now the Hon. Member is saying that Statistics Canada is an organization with a Liberal bias. Members of the Conservative Party had better make up their minds about what they want to do and what they do not want to do.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. As we all know, the Prime Minister has been admirably representing Canada overseas.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I will give the devil his due at times. However, today we have been trying to get across to the Prime Minister and the Government the importance of the youth unemployment situation. There are 800,000 young people who are unemployed. They are trying to find jobs, but they cannot find jobs. I wonder if, in his possibly last days, the Prime Minister would not make it a high priority to look at the youth unemployment situation, particularly at this time when so many young people are entering the job market from the high schools and universities. I am sure he is aware of the seriousness of the problems being faced by these young people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very serious question, and I believe that many of today's previous answers have indicated that the Government is very much aware of this problem and is acting to alleviate as much as it can the unfortunate plight of the young unemployed. In the first answer I gave today, I believe that I indicated that 95 per cent of the funds allocated for Canada Summer Works have already been allocated. The Hon. Member can see from that that the Government is not only aware of the problem but is acting on it.


SOLUTION INQUIRY
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's concern. I wonder if the only solution to this widespread problem would be for young Canadians to wait until our Leader, a man who has the solutions to these problems, takes over?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would only say God help them if that is the only solution.

June 11, 1984
Oral Questions FINANCE
tax credit incentives for research and development


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns research and development tax credits. In typical fashion, using a crisis management mentality, the Minister introduced a quick-fix solution which has now created a zoo. The Dean of Engineering at the University of Victoria has called it a morally bankrupt situation. "We are seeing the phenomenon of people running around with bags full of money that must be gotten rid of within one year". In fact the only research that is being done is being done by accountants and tax lawyers. Will the Minister admit that a gross miscalculation has occurred, and will he change the situation immediately?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in an answer to a question which was asked of me last week or the week before, I stated that the Minister of National Revenue and I were monitoring the situation. I said that, if we were to discover any particular abuses taking place, we would take immediate steps to remedy those abuses and prevent the creation or continuation of any loopholes. Last week the Minister of National Revenue announced in a press release that special monitoring was taking place to ensure that the law would be fully respected. My officials have also been instructed to follow this matter quite closely.
I would not encourage the Hon. Member to conclude from the fact that there are larger amounts of tax credits being claimed that this is a defeat, or that something wrong has happened. On the contrary, we want to encourage research and development. If more research and development takes place and if more tax credits are being claimed for this purpose, the Hon. Member should applaud. He should rejoice in the fact that there have been more expenditures for research and development because that is what the country needs. That is my approach and my philosophy in this regard.
I would like to see more R and D in the country. On the other hand, I obviously do not want the tax system to be abused by the use of credits for phony or purely paper operations. We are monitoring this situation and, if steps need to be taken, we will not hesitate to announce them.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, of course we all want to see more R and D, but I think it is becoming obvious that the only R and D being done is being done by tax accountants and tax lawyers.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DISALLOW CERTAIN PRACTICES
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 11, while in Ottawa, the Minister himself called for a high degree of selectivity. Surely his tax credit scheme has no selectivity whatsoever. As quoted by The Globe and Mail of Friday, May 11, 1984, the Minister warned that:
-badly conceived or excessively generous tax incentives could produce not only diminishing returns but some net damage to the development of a strong and sustainable investor commitment to R and D.
Surely what we are seeing happen to the tax credit system today is doing damage to R and D. Will the Minister assure the House that at least the provision of the tax credit that allows for a quick flip and a double flip, thus enabling investors to make a quick buck at the expense of the taxpayers, will be disallowed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for quoting me. He has indeed quoted me directly and correctly. These are the principles that are guiding me in the implementation of this particular program.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister who is responsible for Canada Post. In the past few weeks I have received several letters from constituents regarding Canada Post's latest venture into competition with the private sector. They and I are concerned about the deal that Canada Post has made with Consumers Distributing. What is the expected income from this venture, and why did Canada Post choose this way to raise money?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the question the Hon. Member has just asked, because I indicated more than two weeks ago when I replied to an Hon. Member from this side that Canada Post had already announced it would end its pilot-project by the end of this month. The Corporation has also issued a press release to this effect, and I am sure that when he checks his mail, he will find this press release.


FINANCE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a previous question and is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister ought to know by now that we were concerned about the research and development tax credit when the Bill was introduced. It now appears as a benefit to stock brokers. He has given them employment. There is no protection to ensure that the money that is raised will in fact go into R and D. If a company goes bankrupt, the
:
:


June 11, 1984

investor gets the tax credit, and the broker gets a fee. No research and development is performed and the country gets ripped off. Will the Minister change the system to create a refundable tax credit which will be refundable to the company doing the R and D work, if in fact the work is done, and paid by the Government to the company if it has no taxable income?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions like this. I will take this as representation for the content of the next Budget.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 64(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Fisheries Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 64(2), I would ask that you designate the Order of the Day necessary for the consideration of this Ways and Means motion.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-246, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (official languages).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill calls for the insertion of the word "language" as a ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. At the present time English-speaking Canadians, including 70 ethnic groups in Canada, are being denied employment and promotion because of severe language proficiency tests. These individuals have no method of filing a complaint because the word "language" is not in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The word "language" is in the United Nations Charter and it is also in the Quebec Human Rights Act. It should be inserted into the Canadian Human Rights Act. It has been recommended by the retiring Language Commissioner, Mr. Max Yalden, that the word "language" be inserted into the Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[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. 431, 588, 655 and 669.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Ministry of State for Social Development and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: 1. No. The
Minister of State for Social Development employs exempt staff as follows:
(a) and (b)	(c)
Executive Assistant	P. Sauve
Special Assistant	J. Dickson
Special Assistant	J. Ablett
Special Assistant	R. Hill
Special Assistant	D. Martin
Special Assistant	C. Grauer
Special Assistant	D. Parkinson
Special Assistant	C. Hearn
Special Assistant	B. Hendrickson
Special Assistant	A. Dewitt
Special Assistant	D. Hendren
2. No.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In the year 1983, were any personnel released from the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, how many?
2.	In the same year, did any personnel seek voluntary release from the Forces and, if so, how many?


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, 5,212.
2. Yes, 2,062.

June 11, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Will the Department of Agriculture expand the Agriculture Canada Research Centre in London, Ontario at the University of Western Ontario and, if so (a) on what date will it be completed (b) at what cost?
2.	What is the projected cost of moving to such a facility?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The
Department of Agriculture has received preliminary approval to design a new office-laboratory for the Agriculture Canada Research Centre in London, Ontario. The proposed office-laboratory will replace leased facilities on Richmond Street and serve as an adjunct to the main facility located on the campus of the University of Western Ontario. The proposed office-laboratory is estimated to cost $11.2 million and is tentatively scheduled for completion in May of 1987.
2. The cost of moving to the new facility is estimated at $40,000.


Mr. Knowles: L On March 31 of (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 what total amount was at the credit of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account?
2. In the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83 what (i) average rate of interest did the government pay for the use of the money in the Account (ii) total amount of interest was paid into the Account (iii) total amount was paid out of the Account?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so far
as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned:
(a)	March 31, 1981	$1,032,985,638(b)	March 31, 1982	$1,212,155,986(c)	March 31, 1983	$1,391,538,970(i)	(a)	1980/81	6.36 per cent(b)	1981/82	6.36 per cent(c)	1982/83	6.36 per cent(ii)	(a)	1980/81	$ 58,765,937(b)	1981/82	$ 67,990,342(c)	1982/83	$102,510,707(iii)	(a)	1980/81	$16,251,967(b)	1981/82	$19,029,722(c)	1982/83	$20,221,166


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking prior to the noon break I had commented on a number of changes which are proposed in Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act. I would like to take the time remaining to comment on matters which are in the purview of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) and which have either not been dealt with or may have been very lightly touched upon in the Bill.
The Minister of Labour has two very significant reports before him. One is the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Part-time Work. That report was submitted to the Minister in April of 1983, over a year ago. However, there is almost no mention in the Bill of part-time work, the relationship of part-time workers to the Canadian labour force, and amendments which are required in that area. The other report is entitled In the Chips: Opportunities, People, Partnerships. That report deals with the question of micro-electronics and employment and was submitted to the Minister in 1982. Those are two very major areas of work standards yet they have not been touched upon in this Bill.
I would like to cite some reasons which will indicate why I am so concerned about these areas. There are 2.5 million or more part-time workers in this country. Approximately two million of those workers are women. These figures are predicted to grow steadily in the years ahead. However, if we look at part-time workers and the benefits accorded to them, we will see immediately that most of them are not eligible for benefits such as pensions, medical insurance and disability insurance. On average they receive about three-quarters the rate of income paid to full-time employees.
However, it is not until one realizes how important are the wages brought into a family by those who work on a part-time basis that we see the desperate need for reform. In the report of Labour Canada's own Commission of Inquiry into PartTime Work, that fact is very clearly established. There is a reference on page 105 of that report which I would like to cite. It reads:
The myth that women are working merely for pin-money, to buy a few little extras for themselves or their families, was firmly denounced by many briefs to the Commission ... Numerous studies have shown that the vast majority of women work in order to supplement their family income and that their salaries are an important part of that income. Nor could the Commission's research find evidence to support the pin-money argument.
June 11, 1984

The report goes on to cite some very interesting statistics which show that most of the women who work part-time account for almost one-quarter of their family income. It drew on statistics from a 1979 study which was produced by the National Council of Welfare entitled Women and Poverty. It showed that if the incomes of those female spouses who work part-time in the labour force were to cease, the number of families living below the poverty line would increase by 51 per cent.
The Government has a full study on the difficulties of part-time workers. This Bill does not touch on that aspect of labour relations at all, Mr. Speaker. I regret that it did not touch upon it, nor will we have time in committee to study the very real changes in the structures and patterns of work which we see developing.
A second area which is not reflected in this Bill is the dramatically changing face which technology is introducing into the workforce. Here again, as in the case of part-time workers, women are going to be the ones most directly affected, certainly in the initial stages. While this Bill does make health and safety conditions mandatory and tightens up the rules protecting workers from present dangers, it does nothing to address the very real concerns in the workforce now about the potential new health and safety hazards which are emerging as a result of the implementation of video display terminals. That is something which preoccupies a great many people. It is addressed fully in the report which was submitted to the Minister of Labour but he did not deal with this issue when he brought these amendments before us.
I will close by saying that the concerns which many people have in this regard are reflected in a letter by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women to the Minister. It states, and I quote-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member but her time has expired. There is a period of ten minutes for questions or comments.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would ask the Hon. Member if she would please read that letter to me because I believe it should be on the record. At the same time perhaps she could explain why there was no mention at all of part-time workers, technological change and changes to the Labour Code during the Throne Speech of 1979 when she was a senior member of the Conservative Cabinet.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I always find it so interesting that the New Democratic Party continues to dwell in the past. One of the things about technological change is that it is happening now and will be happening in the future. It really is something to which we have to direct our minds on an ongoing basis. I do not know where the Hon. Member was in 1979 and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I guess I do not very much care. However, I do care about the fact that this is an issue which has emerged with frightening clarity in very recent years and which is not being dealt with at this time.
Canada Labour Code
I would like to respond to the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I do not know how long the letter is, but-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is only a few lines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All right.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I quote from a letter which was written on April 27 of this year by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women:
National Action Committee is concerned with establishing compulsory standards in the Canada Labour Code which will ensure that all women exposed to VDTs and working in sectors under federal jurisdiction are guaranteed decent working conditions.
That could have been brought into the legislation, Mr. Speaker, but that proposal was not included.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member is aware that the provisions of this Bill dealing with technological training presumably only apply to an employer who is bound by a collective agreement. It does not seem to apply at all to people who have no collective agreement. Does the Hon. Member feel that that is an adequate response to technological change?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not by any means. The question of technological change addressed in collective agreements only covers one part of the labour force. Because of the concerns which people have about the impact of technological change, it has to apply to everyone. I realize that the amendments in this Bill only apply to 10 per cent of the labour force. Nevertheless, if we had directed this Bill totally to those persons who are under federal jurisdiction, to that 10 per cent of the labour force, it would have been a demonstration to those in the private sector and to those under provincial jurisdiction to do the same thing. The federal Government has a responsibility to lead by example and that has not been done adequately in this Bill.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will note that Clause 29 of the Bill which amends subsection 150(1) of the Act only applies to employees who have a collective agreement. Surely if they have a collective agreement, they could, by private contract in the collective agreement, deal with technological change. I am wondering, then, why that clause is there. It seems to me that the people who need assistance are those who have no collective agreement and have some real desire to have notice of technological change. However, this Bill provides only for people who have an agreement and I really cannot see why they would need the clause in the first place.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Well, I believe they would need the clause. I would really want to see it included because in many cases when collective agreements were being negotiated- unfortunately so much of the technological change is happening with increasing rapidity-people did not even think to include this matter in the discussion and negotiations which

June 11, 1984
Canada Labour Code
took place. I would want to see these questions raised with the Minister when he is before the committee and to know why it has not gone further than it has.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there any further questions or comments? Debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments today with respect to this proposed piece of legislation. I was struck this morning by the June 5 press release from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) in which he announced the creation of a $5 million fund to support research into human and social impacts of technological change in the workplace. I would guess there is no Hon. Member in this Chamber who feels more strongly than I do that it is time this country made a greater commitment to the examination of how new technologies are affecting the workplace. However, the timing of this press announcement is peculiar. It is dated June 5, 1984, at a time when there is a lot of speculation that we will be into an election by the end of June, 1984.
I was struck by the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in his press release the Minister of Labour indicates that it is a response to the piece of research which was done by his Department called In the Chips. That was a report, Mr. Speaker, which came into this Chamber well over two years ago. So it has taken the Minister of Labour well over two years to respond. He has responded with a $5 million pot of money, but if one reads the press release carefully, one finds he does not tell us whether the $5 million is to be spent in one year, two years or over ten years. So we really do not know how large it is. However, we know it is a nice shiny white paper, with a nice red border, and it makes the Minister of Labour look good, like he cares, that he really wants to do something.
This whole Bill, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat in that category. I cannot help but think back over the debates we have had over the last month or two in this Chamber. We had the Special Employment Initiatives Projects, which came up again today in question period, a $300 million slush fund which Liberal Members were spending in their own ridings, 147 ridings, when there are actually 282 ridings in this country. We heard about the use of those slush funds to create first-class and second-class unemployed persons in this country. The Government has money for direct job creation, Mr. Speaker, but if someone wants to participate in that program, if someone wants to try for one of those jobs, he had better live in a Liberal riding. That is where most of the jobs are. It probably would not hurt if you were a friend of the Liberal Member of Parliament as well. That might be of some assistance in getting those jobs.
I cannot help but think also of the millions of dollars spent on advertising recently. In the south shore, in Quebec, pictures of eight Members of Parliament, all Liberals, were printed on three-colour glossy paper expounding on the marvellous things those Members of Parliament have been doing. Well, that
expounding has been done with taxpayers' dollars. Not donated dollars from the Liberal Party of Canada but taxpayers' dollars. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) had his picture in a really nice 16-page insert. In fact there were two, one for youth and one for women. It was a nice picture of the Minister who just happens to be a candidate for the Liberal leadership. Those people are sitting at home, they have not had a job, and they are feeling pretty depressed. Then they get the brochures and it looks like an opportunity. You can almost feel the growth of hope in those people. But it is a scam. When they show up at the Canada Manpower Centres they find out the budget has been spent and these training programs do not really exist. That is a very cruel thing to do to the unemployed of this country.
In the last two or three months we have seen far too much electioneering on the backs of those who are to some extent down and out, the unemployed, and the labour unions who are in trouble. We heard earlier today that the money for the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program has not been allocated. It has been held back so there can be announcements during the 50-day election period. Of course, the money does not get spent and the jobs are not created until later, but you make it sound as if you are creating jobs today. That is what the Government is going to make it sound like but the jobs will not be there.
Four years ago the Government indicated that the need for amendments to the Canada Labour Code was urgent. Today, June 11, 1984, we are finally debating those amendments in the House of Commons, more than four years later. The last two times the Canada Labour Code was amended by this Government, the amendments were brought in during the last 30 days of the life of the Parliament. There seems to be a conspiracy going back over decades where labour legislation is discussed in the last 30 days of a Parliament, in the middle of a leadership race when it is difficult to get information on anything except leadership candidates. The attitude is that we should be discussing labour legislation in private. Well, it is a subject they do not want to discuss in public. I suggest that the Conservative Party of Canada wants labour legislation discussed in public because we have been doing our homework. There is no resource in this country of more interest to the Conservative Party than the resource called people. If we are going to have a decent standard of living in the future, then it is hard-working and creative, well-trained people who are going to provide that kind of a future.
The introduction of technological change in the workplace is a topic which is becoming more and more popular. Recently a couple of us in the Conservative Party completed a task force report and this is a summary of our findings on technological displacement and the issue of manpower training and retraining. It took us quite a few months and a lot of hard work. One of the things we discovered is that, regardless of the country you are taking about, when there is co-operation between management and labour, when they work together to see that new technology is introduced in a humane, caring and produc-
June 11, 1984

tive way, then you have gains in productivity and economic activity and a larger share of the market-place.
This is good for the people involved, the company, the employees, indeed for society. But when you do not have that, and witness the Government of Canada's record where new technology was introduced without consultation and concurrence of labour, the major example being the post office, what do we get for it? An increase in employees instead of a decrease. An increase in inefficiency instead of a decrease. Why? Because people are not machines; people are very special. When they want to co-operate, when they want to work, when they are involved, they can make it work. But when they are not, they can make it not work. They are very clever at making it not work. They will beat the machine every time if that is the challenge you set for them.
In that context it is particularly disappointing to look at those changes to the Canada Labour Code. We are on the verge of a new era. Management-labour relations have to deal with rapidly changing technology. But what is the Government of Canada's response? What is this Minister's response? He changes the word "ninety" to "one hundred and twenty". That is how much thinking the Government of Canada has done about this new phenomenon. Let us have 120 days' notice instead of 90 days' notice. Well, we have a fair number of years' experience with the Canada Labour Code and the section dealing with new technology. It is not hard to draw conclusions based on that experience. The provisions are too vague, the definitions are too narrow. They do not work. Do we find in these proposed amendments anything that would change the vagueness, anything that would change the narrowness? Sadly, we do not. What is next, Mr. Speaker?
From the unions' perspective, the conditions leading to the reopening of bargaining are somewhat strange and tough. The union must prove that the employer plans to introduce new equipment or material, and-not or-that there will be a change in the manner in which work is carried out, and-not or-that the particular change is directly related to the introduction of new equipment. That is the strongest of the three conditions.
Such conditions can only create an adversarial climate. How does a clause such as that move us closer to a sense of co-operation and togetherness? It will not take place in this instance.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) should know that section 152 is totally inadequate for the modern age. Section 150 contains such phrases as "substantially and adversely affect" and "significant numbers of employees". What do those phrases mean? I do not believe that anyone in the House could tell us what those phrases mean, yet they are absolutely critical phrases with respect to interpreting the section of the Canada Labour Code that deals with technological change that is to come.
This legislation is disappointing. I suggest that there will be many witnesses who, at committee stage, will tell committee
Canada Labour Code
members that those sections of the Canada Labour Code should have been changed long ago. Section 149(2) of the Canada Labour Code should have been amended, but was not. That section deals with the issue of reopening an agreement that had been signed. If one looks at the labour relations in this country over the last few years and recognizes the speed with which new technological changes have come into being, it is easy to recognize that although employers and employees bargain in good faith and sign contracts, there suddenly may be a technological breakthrough six months later that has a massive impact potentially on productivity. Yet there is no adequate mechanism for reopening those contracts to allow employers and employees to work together to introduce that technology.
One positive measure in this legislation concerns lengthening the notice clause from 90 days to 120 days. It is unfortunate that it is not 180 days, because time is required to devise solid plans and to work together to implement those plans.
Just a few short years ago we had the second highest standard of living in the world. We have dropped to fourteenth and are continuing to slip. One of the reasons for that drop is that there is too much conflict between the federal Government and provincial governments and between management and labour. We must embark on an era of co-operation and develop an attitude in this country where we work together to accomplish our goals.
That is the fault with the amendments to the Canada Labour Code. They were not brought to us in a spirit of togetherness. Some of us even wonder if Members of Parliament were made aware of these amendments before some major employers were made aware of them. These amendments were introduced at a time when probably we have less than three weeks in which to complete examination of these measures and pass the legislation through the House before the summer. It will require the co-operation of all three Parties of the House and a willingness to work extra hours to hear expert witnesses in this country to even have a chance to amend this legislation so that it addresses more effectively the job that needs to be done.
Our Party is willing to embark on that exercise. I hope other Parties are as well.


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not get into the health and safety aspect of the Bill. I am sure that he has had an opportunity to read Clause 20 which deals with amendments to Section 82 of the Act. Although there are two pages of requirements prescribed for employers, I thought the requirements for employees were particularly horrendous. Was the Hon. Member aware that an employee is required, under penalty of fairly large fines, to ensure that he uses safety materials and equipment in the manner prescribed, presumably, by regulation, and to follow prescribed procedures with respect to health and safety? Furthermore, he is to co-operate, again in the manner prescribed by regulations under the Act,

June 11, 1984
Canada Labour Code
and to report in the manner prescribed every accident or other occurrence?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I must refer the Hon. Member to our rules and suggest he should not be discussing the clauses of the Bill at this stage. Second reading is for discussion in principle. If he has concluded his question, I will allow a reply in principle.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: With respect to the principle, should there be such detail of regulations as is indicated by this Bill? Is the Hon. Member satisfied with a Bill that contains that number of regulations all of which impose penal requirements if the regulations are not complied with?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) asked that question. We are dealing with occupations here which come under the Canada Labour Code and which have traditionally been occupations that are generally held by the poorly educated part of the Canadian population.
We have said that 30 per cent of the adult workforce in Canada is functionally illiterate. It is 40 per cent or 50 per cent with respect to some of the occupational groups that come under this Act. Therefore, I hope that Members of the House would carefully consider that fact if we are to include complex measures in the Canada Labour Code that require individual employees to obey the law or face prison or a big fine.
It was stated earlier today that the penalties which apply to individual employees are no different from the penalties that would apply to major employers. There is no difference in size or kind. Do we want that principle?
I do not know if Hon. Members are aware that the Auditor General's last report criticized Labour Canada's approach to occupational health and safety. There are two or three pages of criticism. When I read the Bill, I did not find that this legislation provides the kind of protection that the Auditor General suggests. When we examine this Bill in committee, I hope Members will bring their copy of the Auditor General's report to review what it says about occupational health and safety and the practice of the Department of Labour. Perhaps when the officials from the Department of Labour appear before us, we can look carefully at their performance to see how some of these clauses came into being and to ask why they believe it is fair and just to penalize an individual employee who perhaps has a grade 4 or 5 education in the same way as someone who has a Harvard M.B.A. I wonder where the justice is there?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I raise the issue about individuals being fined the same as corporations. Does the representative of the Conservative Party agree to making amendments at committee stage to increase the fines to corporations? We will then not be in the ridiculous situation where a corporation may be fined $2,000, which is the same amount as that imposed on an individual. This obviously is not a deterrent to a corporation, but it is for an individual.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the only justification for a fine of any kind is that it acts as a deterrent. Any fine that is not adequate should either disappear or the act not be fineable in the first instance, or else the fine should be large enough to serve as a deterrent. That is the basic principle under which all of us should operate.
The Hon. Member might be interested in the efforts we made in the energy committee after the Bill was split following the bell-ringing to have fines apply equally to federal civil servants as to people in the private sector for the same kind of behaviour. The Government and the NDP would not let us have those principles. Those are the kinds of principles for which we fought before and for which we will fight again.


Mr. Gamble:: Bearing in mind the Speaker's admonition against particularity with respect to my question, has the Hon. Member had any regard to the potential extension of the multi-employer rules now to be changed by regulations, which might have a rather unfortunate consequence with respect to some independent contractors who might now be caught in the net of being designated as employees losing the tax advantages which they otherwise might have in connection with travelling and other expenses relating to the conduct of their own business, Mr. Speaker? Is this something we might discuss and hopefully remedy?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am glad that issue has been brought up, Mr. Speaker. One of the insidious things that has occurred, and we see it in almost every piece of legislation that I have faced since 1979, is that the Cabinet is given power to make regulations by Order in Council. One of the characteristics of a regulation is that it is done in secrecy. It just appears. It is like instant law. It affects arrangements that people have sometimes spent thousands of hours and dollars making. You just get the secrecy. I hope that collectively we can remove the regulatory power as much as possible in every piece of legislation, and certainly I hope we can do so here. The rules of the game should be clear to all participants, and we should not have mechanisms in law which allow the rules to be changed in the middle of the night without a chance to object and bring some wisdom to a situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments, we will continue debate.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is as follows: Mr. Ouellet, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved: That
June 11, 1984

Bill C-34, to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan that Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: When the House adjourned on the last day of debate on Bill C-10, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) had the floor.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, at four o'clock on May 11, a month ago, I was talking about the situation which the law required under the present divorce Bill. I was talking about the concern we should have with the need to establish blame, that it should not be carried on. Proving blame, adultery, cruelty, or whatever hardly promotes amicable relations for arranging maintenance, custody, and for visiting children when there are children involved. The key to this Bill and the reason we are not supporting it is that it is so deficient in the area of maintenance.
Just before I leave the matter of establishing blame, I would like to read into the record a statement made by The Catholic Women's League of Canada in a brief which the League presented in May 1983 wherein it backs up this particular position. It reads:
... the accusations and counter-accusations of the present adversarial system seem to do a great deal of harm to the familial relationship which often times must survive the dissolution of a marriage because of children. Accordingly it is our submission that the best interests of all parties concerned, including children would be best served if the only ground for divorce were permanent breakdown of the marriage.
The second portion of this Bill has to do with the one-year waiting period. This used to be three or five years depending upon the circumstances. Some groups have even suggested that we eliminate it totally and have no waiting period, that the application for divorce should just go ahead. Some groups, such as the National Association of Women and the Law and the Canadian Bar Association have opposed this one-year term. We also have a large group of people concerned, probably reasonably so, about the possibility of an approach to marriage and divorce which you could call divorce on demand.
Divorce Act
This one-year waiting period is a compromise. I think it is an acceptable compromise for most people between the feared divorce on demand and the five-year requirement which is in the present structure.
The other area, which I think is probably the most important part of this Bill and is a real deficiency in it, is its lack of dealing with maintenance. The points I will be making will no doubt be reiterated here many times by many speakers. Because we are pointing out the shortcomings, with which I hope the committee will deal when the bill gets there, it will not hurt to repeat the deficiencies and to keep on repeating them until the Government thinks it thought of them and makes the appropriate changes in the Bill.
This divorce Bill could have very negative economic consequences for the recipients of maintenance orders. As we know, most recipients of maintenance orders are women. The Bill sets out self-sufficiency as the goal of a person after divorce. While this would be a very desirable goal in theory, in reality it is unattainable for many people and almost impossible for a large group.
We should deal with the particular deficiencies of the Bill as we go along. The first is the time limit on orders. The Bill would place time limits upon maintenance orders which could not be varied after they expire. This would cause much hardship for people receiving maintenance who are unable to adjust during the time limit established. The Bill will establish the principle of short-term maintenance orders.
The best way to approach this matter is by presenting some examples. There is the case of a 55-year old woman who has been deserted by her husband. They live separate and apart for one year and then apply for a divorce. This particular woman has been a homemaker for 30 years and has no marketable labour skills. Under the Act she will be required to become economically self-sufficient. She might be awarded short-term maintenance for the purpose of job training or retraining, depending upon the situation, for time to search for a job and for readjustment. She is given two years of maintenance and, if she has been unable to obtain a job or keep a job, after that period she is on her own. She can return to the court for an extension only if the time period has not expired. Suppose she obtains a job but loses it just after the two years is over. Then she is out of luck entirely. Therefore, we must strongly oppose this time limit.
As the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women put it, who knows exactly how long it will take a woman with young children or an older woman who has never been in the labour force to become economically self-sufficient? The Council included that in a press release dated January 20, 1984. What are the prospects at this particular time for any

June 11, 1984
Divorce Act
unemployed person to find a job, given the present state of the economy? Therefore, short-term maintenance becomes dangerous when it is coupled with awarding lower amounts, which is also encouraged by the Bill.
I would like to list in my remaining time some of the other shortcomings in the Bill. For instance, the objectives of maintenance and enforcement features are woefully inadequate. We will oppose this Bill now because of its shortcomings. When it goes to committee, we hope something will be done about them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. As there is no one wanting to put a question, for continuing debate, the Hon. Member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most important Bills to come before Parliament. Certainly it is without question the most important one in this session, in my opinion. I say that because of the negative impact it can have in its present form upon Canadian society, especially upon the keystone of society, namely, the family unit.
There are those who would say that the Bill is merely an ongoing reform, that it is the result of the processes of law reform, that it merely responds to that process and that what we have before us today is merely the results of the processes of the Law Reform Commission and Canadian law societies. Essentially, we have before us today a lawyers' Bill. It was drafted by law officers of the Crown within the sanctuary of the Department of Justice. In its present form, it largely ignores the responsibility of Parliament to maintain the family unit as the most important and indeed the bedrock of Canadian society. Some wise person once said that war was too important to be left to the generals. I can paraphrase that statement by saying that divorce and family law are too important to be left to the lawyers. If we are not careful, vigilant and prudent, we could, by the passage of this Bill, be opening the floodgates for divorce in the country, thereby undermining the security and sanctity of the family in Canadian society and, equally important, the rights of children.
I remember another Bill in a previous session of Parliament. It was in 1969. It was a Bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to its provisions dealing with abortion. The purpose of it at that time was to provide the legal basis for therapeutic abortions. We were told that it was merely a reform of the law which would give some legal justification, some de jure justification, to a de facto situation. At that time the de facto situation was the 300 or 400 therapeutic abortions which were performed yearly in Canadian hospitals. At that time we did not know very much about abortion nor did we fully understand the implications of what we were doing by that Bill. The Bill was passed and it has been subsequently overtaken by events. For example, it was overtaken by medical science, the
Charter of Rights and the whole question of the right to life, specifically the rights of the unborn child. The unborn child is now treated by medical science as a separate person through the medical science of fetology and out of the womb surgical procedures. Little did we know 15 years ago that we would be opening the floodgates to a massive denial of the legal and constitutional rights of the unborn.
In 1969, there were 300 therapeutic abortions a year. That has increased to over 70,000 in 1983. In one year in the City of Toronto, I believe it was 1981, there were more abortions in that city than there were live births. I use that argument because it perhaps best expresses my concern about what we are doing here today.
Today in Canada four out of every ten marriages end in divorce. We can anticipate that this number will increase quite significantly and drastically with the no-fault definition of marriage breakdown as contained in this legislation. This has been a good debate. I look forward to the time when the Bill goes to committee. I say it has been a good debate because I have heard some excellent speeches on both sides of the issue. There were relevant speeches in terms of dealing with this question in a just way.
Let us take the question of maintenance. In my opinion- and other speakers have addressed this problem-the Bill does not deal adequately with the question of how to enforce maintenance. What is more, it ignores, with respect to maintenance, the basic rights of children as set out in the United Nations Charter of Childrens' Rights and their basic fundamental right to be raised in a healthy family environment.
The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) put forward a suggestion with regard to maintenance and our inability to enforce maintenance orders. He put forward the need for federal-provincial co-operation and the need to establish a central registry with regard to the implementation, enforcement and collection of maintenance orders. That is a very positive suggestion, one that addresses one of the basic weaknesses in this legislation.
I remember seeing a study over U.S. television recently dealing with the question of poverty. It dramatically showed the plight of women in the United States trying to cope with raising their children alone, having been abandoned by their husbands. One thing stood out, and that is, that in each case of the women interviewed, all of whom were living in poverty, the courts had legally provided for their maintenance. We are talking about a number of jurisdictions in the United States. In each case society was powerless to enforce the court order. Thus, the children were not only deprived of a normal double parent family, but were in fact physically deprived of the basic requirements of a healthy upbringing by being forced to live in poverty. In our society today, women are among the poorest of the poor, abandoned women, women who have to look after
June 11, 1984

single-parent families. They have no provisions for their future. They are not covered, for example, by the Canada Pension Plan.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) made a strong case during the course of his speech on this Bill for mandatory mediation. I suppose you can make a case for no-fault divorce, but surely we should recognize the importance of marriage. Before granting a no-fault divorce there should be a process of mandatory mediation. That should be fundamental in the whole concept of no-fault divorce. At the Hon. Member suggested, it has been tried in other jurisdictions and it has been shown to be practical and successful in keeping down the rate of divorce through reconciliation, bringing couples back together. It is a proposition that has been put forward by a number of groups in Canada, including the Roman Catholic bishops of Canada, the Pentencostal Assemblies of Canada, just to mention two.
They have identified the lack of compulsory mediation as one of the basic shortcomings of this legislation. If there is to be no-fault divorce, and I have difficulty with that, there has to be mandatory mediation. This at the very least would be society's way of stressing the importance of the marriage contract and its commitment to protect and preserve the family unit. One submission on this Bill came from St. Andrew's-Wesley Church in Vancouver. I quote from their submission. It reads:
You do not divorce your children. Divorce severs the connecting relathionship only between the parents. The relationship between the child and each parent is sacrosanct and unless harm can clearly be anticipated it should continue on in perpetuity to the continuing benefit of the child.
It then goes on to recommend that this Bill include a provision of legal presumption and the need for continued joint parenting. We are talking here aout the rights of children who are overlooked in this legisation and are overlooked in the divorce courts of this country. We as parliamentarians have an obligation to address that problem. Dr. Julien Payne, Professor of Family Law at the University of Ottawa, put it this way:
To all intents and purposes, therefore, current judicial practices (in Canada) confirm that the legal divorce process severs not only the marital bond but also the child's bond with the non-custodial parent.
Hence we have the single parent family, the lack of enforcement maintenance orders and poverty among single-parent families, largely headed by women. This Bill fails to address that problem by not providing for mandatory mediation. Unless we take steps now in this legislation to protect the rights of the children, and we would be recognizing these rights by putting in a provision for mandatory mediation, thereby recognizing the rights to which we are signatories under the United Nations Charter of the Rights of Children, we will be seriously undermining the family unit in this country. That is a move we will live to regret.
Who will speak for the children of broken marriages? Who will speak for the young people who will now be able to try it
Divorce Act
out for a short period of time, knowing they can go through the relatively simple process of no-fault divorce? What about the consequences of these short marriages? Who will look after the children? The family is already threatened from all sides in our North American society. Inflation and the pressures of the consumer society have resulted in the phenomenon of both parents being forced to work, both parents having to enter the workforce to cope with rising costs and the need to keep up with the Jones, leaving the children largely unprotected and uncared for, vulnerable and susceptible to the commercial pressures of the mass media.
Surely as responsible legislators, society expects us to protect its interests by incorporating in this Bill whatever provisions are necessary to recognize children's rights and the importance of the family unit. It is interesting that in the materialistic godless societies of this world, as perhaps best exemplified by the communist regimes of this world, they are doing exactly that. In the Soviet Union, they are taking steps to reduce the incidence of abortion. They are also taking steps to cut down on the incidence of divorce because of the impact it is having on Soviet society. Within the People's Republic of China, they are taking steps to preserve the family unit by overturning one of the Maoist principles which would provide for one of the parents, the mother, to remain at home to care for the children and the family. Surely we as a society that is based on the Judeo-Christian concept have a responsibility equal to that of those societies which do not recognize any kind of Judeo-Christian principles, or any principles for that matter save those that are in their best interests.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that this is probably the most important Bill with which we will have to deal. I think it should be dealt with as an important Bill. When the Bill goes to committee, the committee should receive briefs and hear witnesses from all segments of our society. I do not think that the question of children's rights is adequately understood or has been adequately addressed in the country. I do not believe that the importance of the family unit has been adequately addressed in this legislation. For that reason, I believe that this Bill falls short of meeting the traditional requirements of this basically Judeo-Christian society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a 10-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has had many, many years of experience in this House and I would appreciate hearing his personal views about whether he believes the law results in a change in action by society or whether the law follows a change in action by society. We saw what happened when we changed the law with respect to abortions and we saw what happened when we changed the law with respect to divorces. To what extent does he think that the law is a leader

June 11, 1984
Divorce Act
in that? Alternatively, does he think that the law simply follows the customs and moralities of the day? What does he think we should do to affect that, if anything?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have always been concerned about some of the recommendations that are coming forward on an ongoing basis from the Law Reform Commission. I do not know who that commission is in touch with because it is certainly not in touch with the society in which I live. For that matter, it does not reflect the cares and concerns of that society.
In this particular case, I believe that we are dealing with a lawyers' Bill. As I said during the course of my remarks, divorce is a social problem that is far too important to be left to the lawyers. That is why I believe that, legal arguments nothwithstanding, we should look beyond this Bill to the impact that it will have on the family unit and the impact it will have on the rights of children, impacts which are not fully understood and not addressed in this Bill.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I believe I spoke on the first day this Bill was presented. Since that time, a good deal of correspondence has been received from various parts of the country on both sides of the question. I would like to ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), whether or not he has received any particular reactions. Perhaps he could inform the House of the reaction of the many religious groups in the Province of Newfoundland.
Perhaps I was the first one to say so, but during my speech I said that I felt, as does my colleague, that as this is really a matter of the morality of the country, the House Justice Committee should undertake extensive hearings across the country to hear the views of the people and not just the views of the lawyers. It has been said that this is a lawyers' Bill which is responding to a certain element in society that is looking for quick, fast, glib divorces.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Bill is out of step with the mainstream of Canadian society. That is perhaps best reflected by the concerns that are put forward on an ongoing basis by various groups in society, not the least of which are the churches. I referred to two such groups. I referred to the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops, a group which speaks for the Roman Catholic Church on a national basis, and I believe that their adherents represent about 40 per cent of the population of the country. I also referred to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. I believe the question has been addressed by many synods of the Anglican Church in Canada. I know it has been addressed by many of the member churches of the United Church of Canada.
It seems to me that this Bill is merely responding to the lawyers who seem to be saying to Canadian society that they know what is best for us. I do not think that they do in this particular regard. I think we as legislators have a responsibility
to put this legislation before the mainstream of Canadian society so that we can hear from the churches and from the groups that must deal with family breakdowns, battered wives and the poverty that is symptomatic of a single-parent family. We as legislators have a responsibility to make sure that the committee that will examine this Bill on second reading will travel extensively throughout the country.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for the quality of his remarks on this Bill and for his obvious concern, of which I think all Members know and for which I think all Members respect him.
I would like to put a question to him that is perhaps a double-barrelled question. First, I agree with his position regarding abortion and I wonder if he would comment briefly on whether or not the Act itself, an Act that was passed in the House before I came here, has not been subverted to a large degree by the provincial Attorneys General and the so-called hospital abortion committees that have basically become a rubber stamp for abortion in many hospitals? The fact that that can happen may well be a fault of the law, but it is also a fault of the people.
I would ask the Hon. Member what his suggestions might be vis-a-vis divorce in Canada in order to prevent the kind of knock-down, drag-out, dirty battles that often occur in divorce court, which make relationships between the divorced partners so bitter that there is little chance of their ever speaking a civil word to each other again and thus causing a great deal of trauma for the children of the marriage.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the non-adversarial elements of the no-fault provisions in this Bill are the only positive things I can find in it. Because of those provisions, there is a serious chance that the two parties can be reconciled. That is why I believe the no-fault provision which eliminates that adversarial approach should be complemented by compulsory mediation.
I am only concerned that this legislation does not adequately address the importance of marriage and the family unit. If we go the same route with this Bill as we did with the abortion Bill, then, putting the two Bills together, we as a Canadian society are in deep trouble. If we cannot take steps to support the family and to support the rights of children, then we, Sir, are in deep, deep trouble.
I believe that we as legislators and parliamentarians have a responsibility to address this problem, and I welcome the question of the hon. gentleman. I remember the time when I put forward a provision to provide for the rights of children. I had the support of the Hon. Member and he was one of the few people who understood what that measure was all about. He understood the rights of children in a society to an adequate upbringing, which means the right to double-parent families. To me, that is a basic right. As well, when a divorce is granted, children still maintain certain basic rights with
June 11, 1984

regard to both parents. That speaks for the inadequacy of the maintenance provisions of the Bill, and the need for compulsory mediation. We as a society, notwithstanding the fact that we consist of 10 jurisdictions, can get together on everything but we cannot seem to get together on an adequate enforcement of maintenance, orders. I do not think that there is one Member in the House who has not experienced a family who has been abandoned by the male partner. It has left the woman as a single parent, with no income and no means of providing the children with the kind of environment that is necessary for the healthy upbringing of the children. Not only that, we create problems which that woman will face in the future because she has no retirement benefits and will not qualify for the Canada Pension Plan. She will end up as one of the statistics in Canada-the poorest of the poor, who are usually women.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that I agree with his proposal that the Bill should go into the country under the auspices of a parliamentary committee to be examined and to allow for a good deal of public input. The Bill deals with the basic unit of society-the family.
I would remind the Hon. Member that he did not address the first part of my two-pronged question. I wonder if he sees any reasonable time frame which might be applied to the kind of public hearings about which he is talking?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman could repeat the first part of his question. I now recall that I did not deal with it adequately.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the question referred to the role that the provincial Attorneys General and the hospital abortion committees play in the granting of the right to an abortion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I did address that by referring to our inability to standardize procedures in the country, given the fact that there are ten jurisdictions dealing with maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders. We failed miserably in that regard when the abortion Bill was passed in 1969.
I understand exactly what the hon. gentleman means. The abortion provisions of the Bill, which was passed in 1969, mean different things to different people. In the Province of Quebec they are wide open; in other provinces they are interpreted differently, and, indeed, they are interpreted differently from hospital to hospital. That is a problem which we can no longer ignore. It is a problem which we will have to deal with sooner or later in Parliament.
Divorce Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: This is the conclusion of the ten minutes which is allowed for questions and comments.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)- Fisheries (a) Possible impact of United States Oil Lease Program on West Coast Fisheries, (b) Environmental Hearings in Alaska; the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)- Crown Corporations-de Havilland Dash-8 Aircraft-Financing of Sales; the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell)-Public Service Commission (a) Office of Equal Opportunities for Women, (b) Equal Pay for Equal Work.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan that Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on debate the principle of Bill C-10, which is an Act to amend the divorce legislation. I do so with some trepidation because it is one of the difficult areas of social legislation which we see so often in Parliament. It turns out, in actual fact, to be different from what Parliament had basically intended.
We need only go back to the Divorce Act of 1968 and review the speeches which were given in the House at that time. It was clear that the intention of the Government was to make it easier, for those couples for whom divorce was inevitable and the marriage had truly failed in a commonsense understanding of those terms, to obtain a divorce. Yet, once that piece of legislation was passed, the divorce rate in the country absolutely sky-rocketed and is still going up. The very fabric of the family has been affected adversely by that piece of legislation. It is so much easier for people today to back out of a marriage and start up with someone new, rather than to

June 11, 1984
Divorce Act
examine their own conduct and to attempt change within the marriage which would keep the marriage intact and the children under one roof with two parents.
I am sure the abortion law was another example of Parliament's passing social legislation. At the time I recall that there were something in the order of 3,000 abortions a year. Many of those abortions happened in the backrooms of medical quacks and, as a result, women were dying. Clearly we did not want that to be the law of the land. We wanted to change that and make it more reasonable. Yet, as a result of changing it, there are over 70,000 abortions per year. Most people, from a common sense perspective, feel that that is out of line and that again it is easier for people to have an abortion than to carry on and have the child. Once we meddle in one area, we find that we must touch other areas. I do not think that is what we intended and what we want.
Here we are again, 15 years later, addressing the divorce legislation. As earlier speakers have indicated, I hope that we will be wise-if the Bill gets through second reading-and require the committee to travel extensively in order to give Canadians an opportunity to express their views. I am not convinced that many Government backbenchers want this Bill to pass second reading. I know from my discussions with them that they too are receiving an enormous amount of letters from their constituents which indicate that the whole area is out of control and that there should not be any further changes. In my own case, I have received approximately 90 letters from all sorts of groups, as well as from organized lobby groups.
Bill C-10 raises many questions which must be debated and answered. The first one is: Why do four in ten marriages fail? Is it because of the divorce law which was passed in 1969? Is it because of pornography? I think that is a probable factor. Is it because of the abuses in the economic system which have led to massive unemployment? The standard of living in Canada was once second in the western economy. We are now approximately fourteenth. This is a result of an enourmous failure on the part of the government of the day to maintain our rate of change. It thought that by creating Crown corporations, by taking over areas which were not competitive on a world-wide scale, and by subsidizing tern, we could keep them going. It is true. We did keep them going for an extra 10 years or an extra 15 years, but at an enormous cost. Our standard of living in this country has dropped. As rich as we think we are, we have gone from second to fourteenth in comparison with the other western industrial powers. What a tragedy that is. We are still a small population with vast resources. As well, we are an educated population. If it were not for the fact that governments promise people something for nothing, we could still be number two. We will be number two again after the next election when there is a new Cabinet.
Is the increasing divorce rate the result of urbanization? Perhaps our churches and our social agencies have failed us. I know that my own church, the United Church of Canada, has a high management structure which has advanced to the point where it believes that the institution is much more important than the people who are at the grassroots level. The institution
now believes that it knows what is best for the ordinary people who belong to the church. It does not listen to what the people are saying. It has given up on the salvation of mankind and turned into a political lobby group. It wants to grab political power and forget the salvation of mankind. That is what has happened in the United Church, to the regret of a great number of us. It will affect the membership in the church dramatically. Therefore, I believe that the church has failed us. The highest leadership of the church, as has happened in the past, is out of line.
I am sure that it is failure also at the individual level. Particularly in the last 15 years, there has been a continuous bombardment by government offering us something for nothing. There were all sorts of programs with low taxes because we were borrowing the difference. We had the benefit of those programs. Therefore, we had a lot more disposable income with which to buy big cars, big houses, land and businesses. Now the taxes are starting to match the programs, because you can only borrow so much. Even as a country ultimately you have to balance your books. That is why we are in trouble. So we have failed individually to take on the responsibility because we got sucked into the belief that we could get something for nothing.
I suppose that, rather than looking at why four marriages in ten fail, we should consider it remarkable that six marriages in ten continue in spite of all the enormous pressures which are put upon us as a result of urbanization and changing from an industrial society into an information society. We have just been through an enormous transformation from a rural society into an urban society. We have gone from a collectivity to individuality in terms of individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to free speech, freedom of conscience and the right to go out and do your own thing. That has been one major change in our society. We have gone from the collective factor, which used to control people in the small towns and villages, to an urban setting where people, as a result of the anonymity of the cities, feel an enormous freedom to live the life style they want. However, at the same time we have given up the responsibility of looking after ourselves and our families, which we accepted when we lived in small towns, villages and farms, and have reached a point where we now let the governments do it for us. We look to the government to provide education, daycare and to look after our individual failings. I think that is why four marriages out of ten fail. In fact, I am amazed that more marriages do not fail. Perhaps that is a tribute to the basic stability of Canadians. I think we should find out what makes those six successful marriages in ten work so that we can make appropriate changes. Only then perhaps will the figures show eight successful marriages out of ten or nine successful marriages out of ten.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there is a loss of a sense of community and a loss of a sense of individual responsibility. People have the attitude that it is easier to get out and start anew with someone else rather than to make the changes within themselves individually and within their family.
June 11, 1984

With respect to the global scale, our Canadian rate of divorce is 2.9 per 1,000 of population. It is about the same as in Australia, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark. So this shows it goes beyond whether we have left wing governments or right wing governments. It is the fact of the enhanced growth of government itself which has affected us. The United States, of course, has a much higher rate at some 5.3 per 1,000.
The institution of marriage is still strong, Mr. Speaker. As shown by statistics, some 84 per cent, particularly men, are remarried within five years. If I might be permitted a personal comment, Mr. Speaker, having practised law for some ten years in the City of Lethbridge, I found that there was not one case, to my recollection, of a reconciliation after either a man or a woman had come into my office and laid out the fee for divorce, whether it was contested or uncontested. There was not one incident, Mr. Speaker, where I, as a lawyer, acting in that capacity, was able to effect a reconciliation, even though I had to bring to their attention the fact that there were mediation facilities available in the community. By the time they had come into the lawyer's office and put their money down, they simply were no longer interested in reconciliation.
I also found, again from my own personal observation, that the problem was not with the women. The problem was with the men. Men could not come to terms with the "new woman", the woman who genuinely wants to be equal, who genuinely wants to make a contribution, not only in the home but feels it is important to get out into the community. The educational dimensions of women have grown enormously. I found that the problem was within men, because most of them had been raised in a family where the wife stayed home, looked after the children and was totally dutiful and respectful to the husband, accepting his views on practically everything, including the vote. The woman today is not prepared to do that, and men have to come to terms with that fact. I found that the problem was in trying to convince men that the wife was not being abnormal in her expectations of living within the family; the problem was in the man expecting the 1980s women to be like the woman of the 1940s or even the woman of the 1960s, and I feel the whole question of abuse grew out that problem. Women were not prepared to accept their traditional role, and men, responding in their macho way, felt they had to force the woman into line, which led to wife battering, and, of course, we should not tolerate that at all. Men will have to come to terms with the role of the new woman and accept it. We can never go backwards. Women are not going to go back into their old role. Therefore, men had better get on their side.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is like a lot of other Bills. Some parts of it are acceptable, other parts are much less acceptable, and on some parts we have totally different views. Some parts of the maintenance legislation are good, but they do not go far enough. There is another dimension in Canada to which the provinces have never adequately responded, that is, that Canadians are a mobile people. Because we are mobile, we should be able to expect as a right that the maintenance laws
Divorce Act
of one province will be respected in other provinces. I believe Canadians should have that as a right.
With respect to medicare, I always thought it was practically criminal that the provinces had not put in the proper mechanism so that a Canadian could go anywhere and receive medicare. I sat on a task force in 1980 which made that recommendation, as did earlier task forces. The provinces have never brought it in, and I feel they have to accept criticism because of that.
With respect to custody counselling, a no-fault, out of court procedure where both sides are in full agreement and the questions of custody and maintenance are settled, I found in my practice that there was a very deep anger and frustration bordering almost on a destructive hatred of the system when two responsible adults, who had agreed that the marriage was at an end-most often the children by that time had left home-and who wanted to dissolve their marriage in a positive and constructive way, were forced into the court system which was both adversarial and expensive. They found that to be wrong. Therefore, the part of this Bill which permits no-fault, out of court procedure when there is a genuine agreement is good. The problem, I believe, is that the Cabinet has gone too far by saying it should be no fault divorce in all cases. That does not adequately cover all situations. We should have no fault divorce for those cases where the parents agree and they are mature and responsible about it. In other cases, where the rights of children are being affected and in still other cases where there is genuine fault, I believe that should be recognized. Again, Mr. Speaker, we will find dozens and dozens of cases in each of our individual lives where the wife has in fact put the husband through university. The wife has gone out and got a job or she has stayed home and raised the children and now, at the age of 45 years or 50 years, finds herself turfed out by the husband, so to speak, who has fallen in love with a younger woman. It is not right that that man should be able to receive a no-fault divorce and put that 50-year old woman into a position where in three years she has to become totally self-sufficient, and within that same three years the man is off the hook. That is not acceptable because that woman, under these conditions today, does not have the opportunity within three years to become adequately trained to that she can step into a $50,000 or $60,000 a year position. On behalf of my constituents I say that I am simply never going to agree to that being the law. It is not fair. That woman should be entitled to at least a fifty-fifty split on assets and she should be in as strong a financial position as she was before the divorce. There are many cases where the wife is not at fault. She has done everything properly, continues to love the man and wants to live out the rest of her years with him, but because the man is out in the workforce, exposed to younger women all the time, he gets himself into a position where he has two women rather than just his wife.
Another dimension of this Bill that I find very troublesome and unacceptable is that the man who is 55 can turf his wife out, expect her to be self-sustaining within three years, and

June 11, 1984
Divorce Act
himself get a divorce within one year. The only way in which the women can get a half decent financial settlement now is, if the husband boots her out, that he has to wait at least five years before he can remarry. That has been a powerful instrument in the hands of the wife and her solicitor in order to obtain a settlement which is fair to the woman and takes into account the effort and years she has put into the marriage and the family. To just change it holus-bolus affects that, and without other changes in the Bill that itself will not be satisfactory.
On the other hand, there is sometimes a need for a provision where a divorce can be obtained quickly. A wife, sometimes because she had been totally on her own, most often as the result of the man having ignored her over a number of years, becomes involved with another person and becomes pregnant. I suppose I had ten or fifteen cases of this over ten years. The wife would come in, pregnant by another man, and she needed a divorce quickly so that the child would be legitimate. Most often we were able to do this by going before a judge who would grant the divorce. Under this legislation, that woman would be forced to wait a year before she could remarry and the child would be born illegitimate, to be legitimized at some later time. We should have a way of handling this because, wherever possible, we want to have children born within the contract of marriage.
Another area where the law needs to be changed, and I am amazed that it was not in this Bill, is that of endorcing maintenance and custody orders. In over 85 per cent of divorces, custody is given to the mother. In my own Province of Alberta, the last statistics I saw indicate that one third of the maintenance orders were fully paid, one third were only partially paid and one third were not paid at all. Yet if this Bill becomes law, husbands could move to another province where they could apply to have the maintenance varied downward, and often they would succeed. The wife would be in Alberta, her husband would be either behind in his payments or not paying at all, so how will she be able to afford to go to another province just to get the order varied? What if she lives in Alberta and her husband lives in Newfoundland? It is not right, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot let that Bill go through as it is.
It was my intention to speak about the many lobbying groups who have presented their views. I have over 90 letters, several from churches and many from non-religious groups. Some act on behalf of men, some on behalf of women. We have had some good briefs on this subject, and I think that if we put our minds to it, when the legislation gets to committee we could improve it substantially.


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


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that, in his experience as legal counsel, the couples who sought his advice had gone past the point of reconciliation. I notice that the Bill goes into some detail on reconciliation and counselling. I wonder if, in the opinion of the Hon. Member, it is a waste of
time to incorporate all that in the Bill and whether it could best be dropped, because all it is is a recommendation to the lawyer dealing with these cases.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I feel strongly about that, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is superfluous. It is designed so that we politicians can stand up and say we are trying to do everything we can to save marriages. But it did not work in the 1968 legislation and it is not going to work in the 1984 legislation. It has to be done at the local level. First, it has to be done in the individual family involved, where they make a commitment to try to make the marriage work. Then there are church groups, and also we have social counselling agencies available who make it known throughout the community that they will assist people in this area. But to try to make it mandatory-and again I speak only from my personal experience-will not work because by the time they get to that point it is usually over. You have to get to them much, much earlier. If we are going to make anything mandatory, let us make it at another stage, when people are young and perhaps could benefit more from understanding the realities of marriage and living with other people and the economic problems, rather than when they are 35 or 50 and think they need a divorce.


Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he has a very definite protocol to follow in attempting to bring about reconciliation. It has been my experience that with many lawyers it is simply a very factual meeting with the couple concerned at which they go through the usual procedure.
I am also in sympathy with him concerning his thoughts about considering practically all divorces to be no-fault. A delegation of women came to me and said that they feel that if such divorces go through and the children remain with the mother, as they usually do-and she is most often the innocent party-they will, in time, acquire a suspicious attitude toward that innocent person. They will begin to feel that he or she must have contributed to the divorce and, as they get older, they will become concerned about the support they really got from the innocent person. Who really should make the judgment as to whether or not it is a no-fault divorce, or whether one is the innocent party and the other one is the guilty party?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be left to the parties themselves. Parliament should pass legislation which will give them the power to decide. We could have a no-fault provision where the couple could agree. But we could also have a provision covering fault, so that a wife, if a satisfactory settlement cannot be negotiated, can proceed under those provisions. She will have the right, then, to go before the judge and give her evidence as to what happened throughout the marriage that led to its decline. It very seldom saves the marriage, but at least, if she feels she is innocent, the courts can make that ruling. I think that does have an effect on the court's order for maintenance, custody and a property settlement. Let us put in the mechanism where it can go either way and leave it to the individuals rather than lawyers or some government agency to make that decision on their behalf.
June 11, 1984


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with any possible relationship between the number of abortions that are performed and the ease with which divorce might be obtained. I think even those people who favour easy abortion look upon it as being something that is rather undesirable.
I notice that the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) reflected on this subject a little in his presentation. Does he see any relationship between the rate of abortion and the ease with which divorces might or might not be obtained?
Mir. Thacker: Mr. Speaker, that is a tough question because it goes back to what one's personal experience has been. I have had very limited experience with abortions as affected by the law. However, the ones that I have come to know have to do with people who simply felt that they were in such a desperate position that they could not see themselves carrying through. Even women who feel the need for this for social reasons do not lightly decide to have an abortion. There is usually a good reason behind it.
Therefore, I really could not give an adequate answer to the Hon. Member's question about tying abortion to divorces. I think there is a relationship between the law and whether it is invoked, but I am not sure about a relationship between abortion and divorce. With great respect, I cannot answer the question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I did not originally plan to participate in this debate today, but I think the Bill is too important to let it go without saying a few words about it. I have enjoyed listening to the speeches so far today. I thought that the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) made a valuable contribution to this debate. Many of the things said by the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) were very important. It is unfortunate that he had to mix in some partisanship in a matter as important as divorce. I do not think that partisanship should play a role. I cannot understand how the size of a government deficit or, in fact, the size of the government relates to a divorce rate.
Having disposed of those extraneous issues, I would like to make a few brief comments. First, I do not believe that there is any doubt in any thinking person's mind that marriage is the most important institution in our western society and perhaps in any society. It is the glue that binds together the basic unit of society, namely, the family. For many centuries, the marriage contract was held to be virtually inviolate. It has been so almost until the time of Henry VIII who, in British tradition at least, made divorce somewhat easy to get because he took the law into his own hands.
However, I believe the issue is so important to society in general that it must be discussed very thoroughly. I believe that an opportunity must be made for those people and groups in the country who wish to have input into this matter. I am afraid that if we do not do that and do not write this law very
Divorce Act
carefully, we will end up with the same kind of disaster that was produced with the provisions under the Criminal Law respecting abortion.
The Act, as I recall it, states that an abortion may be obtained with the approval of a hospital abortion committee when the life or health of the mother would be endangered by the continuation of the pregnancy. Yet today, in some hospitals, there are more abortions than there are live births. That is an obvious flouting of the law, because no one in this day and age can claim that, in a majority of the cases, the life or health of the mother would be endangered by the continuation of the pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a disease, it is a natural phenomenon. While there are certainly cases when the life or health of the mother could be endangered by the continuation of the pregnancy, it does not occur in the majority of pregnancies. To claim otherwise is total nonsense.
Obviously I speak not as a woman but as a man. I do not happen to be a woman and cannot speak as a woman. Of course, I have never had a child in the sense of giving birth to it, but between my wife and I we are rearing five children. It is not always easy. Neither are most aspects of life always easy.
I do not want to see this Bill become the kind of boondoggle that, in my opinion, the abortion provision under the Criminal Code has become. I believe the fault lies basically with the provincial attorneys general, almost all of whom have completely disregarded their responsibility under the Canadian Constitution in that regard.
I am concerned that we are not now putting enough emphasis on premarital counselling, as the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills said. We write laws saying how we can get out of a marriage, but we do very little, if anything, with regard to the law about how one can get into a marriage. Some churches are making an admirable effort in providing premarital counselling. In the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, in the Archdiocese of Ottawa, premarital counselling is now mandatory except in special circumstances. I believe that that is a move in the right direction. I hope that all churches will do that. Perhaps all of the churches could spend more time on the issues of the day, talking about the morality of the issue, rather than worrying so much about how it will affect the collection. Clause 5 of the Bill reads:
Subsection 7(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'7. (1) It is the duty of every barrister, solicitor, lawyer or advocate who
undertakes to act on behalf of any petitioner or the spouse of any petitioner on
a petition for divorce under this Act...
-to instruct them on the provisions of this Act concerning the effecting of a reconciliation. Is that the job of a lawyer?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was a requirement of the other one.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I know that it is a requirement, but is that what it should be? The clause goes on to say that in the absence of any prospect of reconciliation he must notify them of the mediation facilities known to him. Maybe we are putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps the law should require the couple to go to the mediation service

June 11, 1984
Penitentiaries
before they go to a lawyer, and maybe the mediation service should be recommending a lawyer, instead of the other way around. I think we are putting the cart before the horse, and I will have more to say about that later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, but the time allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now come to an end."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items preceding item 9 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered (1) to study means of providing greater public involvement in policy-making for the Canadian Penitentiary Service (2) to determine the feasibility of amending the Penitentiaries Act so as to provide that the Commissioner of Penitentiaries be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of a board, to consist of five members serving for five-year terms which would each terminate in a different calendar year, appointed by the Solicitor General of Canada, the said board to be responsible for, subject to the direction and control of the Solicitor General of Canada (a) the development of policy (b) presenting an annual report to Parliament through the Solicitor General of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to present this motion which in effect is to refer the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This House is not being called upon to make a final decision on the wisdom, the validity or the usefulness of this motion, but I hope the House will see the wisdom of having it referred to committee for study. I say that for two reasons. First, we are in the process in the House now of trying to institute some reforms whereby our committees have more and greater opportunity to deliberate on issues which may not necessarily be referred to them solely from the Government. This is one attempt to do that. Second, my whole motion today arises out of the unanimous report of an all-Party subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which, in 1976 and 1977, studied the subject of penitentiaries in Canada. Under the chairmanship of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), it came up with a report that was unanimous. Among the various recommendations in that report, of which there were 65, recommendation No. 24 dealt specifically with the topic of the motion before us today. I want to emphasize that this motion and subject of it was a recommendation made unanimously by the subcommittee. It is not one of a partisan nature for two reasons, first that this issue is basically non-partisan politically and, second, that we are attempting to encourage the House to have its committees become more involved in studying matters that they feel are more important. I hope the House today will agree that the motion be referred to the standing committee for consideration.
It would be germane to make some comments regarding the background which led up to the subcommittee's report in 1977 and see how similar the situation was then to the situation we see in Canada today vis-a-vis our penitentiaries.
In the early 1970s, we in Canada were deluged with a number of violent incidents in our penitentiaries across the country. These included riots, strikes, murders, hostage takings, suicides, and so on. This culminated in the rather nasty hostage-taking in the B.C. penitentiary where Mary Stein-hauser was killed in the course of a riot and in an attempt to rescue her. Following that, various attempts were made, one of them by the Official Opposition to have a public investigation. By agreement it was worked out that an all-Party subcommittee of this House be struck to study the matter. We spent a number of months studying Canada's various penitentiaries. We heard many, many witnesses. We came up with a report which was hailed far and wide as being an excellent report.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: I hear the Minister of Justice say hear, hear. He should indeed be proud of that report, as I know he is. I suspect that the Minister of Justice is equally disappointed now as he was then that recommendation No. 24, which is really the embodiment of this motion today, was not put into practice nor taken serious account of by officials in the Solicitor General's Department. I think the essence of the subcommittee's report can be summed up in its recommendation No. 1. Its report to Parliament in 1977 at page 2 reads:
Recommendation 1 A crisis exists in the Canadian penitentiary system. It can be met only by the immediate implementation of large-scale reforms. It is imperative that the Solicitor General act immediately on this Report as a matter of the utmost urgency.
This indicates that we need large-scale reforms. The issue which this motion today addresses is one of those large-scale reforms. It is disappointing to think that it was not, in my view, properly addressed and actually instituted by the appropriate officials.
One might ask what reception this report received. I intimated a few moments ago that it received rather good reception both across the country and in other countries of the world. I think it is best voiced by the chairman of that subcommittee in a paper that he wrote in 1980, several years after the report, entitled The Role of the Standing Committees on Justice and Legal Affairs of the Canadian House of
June 11, 1984

Commons 1966-1978. Let me quote from his article as follows:
Although the impact of the Subcommittee's report on the press and public was immediate and strong, the hardened professionals in the CPS-
which is the Canadian Penitenitary Service.
-approached it rather gingerly and the Minister-
-the present Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox).
-even though from the outset favourably impressed by the report, was limited by the attitudes of the system.
"Limited by the attitudes of the system." That to me is the deplorable thing with which we have been faced ever since that report was received by Parliament.
Let me move on to discuss specifically something about recommendation No. 24 to which I have alluded. I think it would be appropriate if I were to read that recommendation, Mr. Speaker. It does embody my motion before the House today and indicates that it is a motion calling upon the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to study, hopefully with the intention of asking the Government to put into effect, recommendation No. 24. At page 77 of the subcommittee's report we Find:
Recommendation 24
The Commissioner should remain the chief administrative officer of the penitentiary system but he should be appointed by and responsible to a Board of five members (appointed for 5-year terms on a staggered basis by the Solicitor General) which would have sole responsibility for the making of policy. The Board must not have an attached bureaucracy additional to the Penitentiary Service. It should report to the Solicitor General and should be required to make an annual report to Parliament through the Solicitor General.
I want to address a few of the issues raised by this recommendation and indicate some of the points that should be discussed at this time.
Recommendation No. 24 of the all-Party subcommittee recognized that there was a need-and I submit that there is still a need-for greater public involvement in policy making in our criminal justice system, that it should be more visible to the public. I should like to refer to a quotation which substantiates that need. I refer to a 1977 publication entitled Community Involvement in Criminal Justice. It was a federal Government study and it reported on the role of the private sector in criminal justice. It dealt on page 117 with the influence of professionals on effective decisions in the upper echelons of government, in particular in the criminal justice system. In part the study at that page reads:
It is probably safe to say that the majority of important decisions in the criminal justice services, except major political decisions, are taken by an elite group of professionals. Not only is there an emphasis on professionalism, but the deliberations of those professionals are often not open to public scrutiny.
Hence, as I said a moment ago, the need to have this brought to the attention of the public and the need to have input other than that of departmental professionals. It continues:
The movement toward professionalism is now well advanced, which is understandable in view of prior criticisms that the justice services were not sufficiently professional. The thrust to professionalism is not likely reversible. That is as it
Penitentiaries
should be, provided there is a balance against the exclusiveness that comes with professionalism, an exclusiveness which sets up firm obstacles to citizen involvement.
It indicates that we need to be wary of the present and continuing situation with excessive amounts of professionalism at the top, without adequate input by the community in an appropriate manner, input which is visible at the same time to the people.
In arriving at recommendation No. 24, the subcommittee realized that we needed an opportunity for line staff, for the staff in our institutions and penitentiaries to contribute to the policies of those institutions either at the local level or at the national level, as is the case in this motion. By the same token, there was a need to remove the imposition of policy from the top and to place it with those at the bottom. Often policies were derived and formulated by people who were not necessarily raised in the system or had not experienced the total implications of what went on at the institutional level. Those are some of the important matters with which the subcommittee wrestled in reaching its recommendations.
Finally, I should like to discuss an implication which has bothered me for a number of years. I have raised it before the standing committee from time to time. I am referring to the fact that it is interesting to compare a number of public institutions in the country with the special institution about which we are talking today. I am referring to our criminal justice system and the penitentiaries and jails which form part of it. If we study public institutions, we see that the militia or the army might be considered exceptions. Other than that, the only public institutions which do not have the benefit of adequate, effective and meaningful public input are prisons, penitentiaries and jails. They are governed by departmental people. I will conclude my remarks in a few minutes by discussing the adverse effect of that. There is a century-old sessional paper which deals with the matter.
We have schools, universities, hospitals, libraries, police commissions and various other public institutions which offer some kind of service. They all have public boards or committees to which people are either elected or appointed or both. They set most of the basic policy. In many cases fundamental policy is established by, for example, the department of education. Certainly I am quite familiar with the workings of the educational system in the Province of Ontario. Certain basic policy is established by that provincial department. As long as local school boards remain within those parameters, they set the policy for schools within their jurisdiction. The point I am making is that that does not exist within the penitentiaries system. The only effective input is on the part of citizen advisory committees, which are purely advisory. Any well-intentioned person who wants to have an idea implemented does not feel comfortable if he is on an advisory committee, unless he feels his recommendations or advice are being implemented by the particular institution and its management. This is the last of our public institutions to have public involvement at the planning level. The time has come to do something at the federal level, hence the need to refer the motion to the standing committee.

June 11, 1984
Penitentiaries
I could refer to many examples to suggest that something must be done. For instance, a very good article appeared in Le Soleil on April 28, 1984. I will not take the time of the House to read it now, but it pointed out that in the first few months of this year there were five homicides in the Province of Ontario. That was more than ever before. As reported in The Whig-Standard of Kingston on January 34, 1984, a Crown prosecutor from that area indicated that from his perspective penitentiaries appeared to be totally out of control. Another example would be Dr. Robert MacMillan, regional coroner for eastern Ontario, who released a study. He was asked to study the situation respecting the various riots, killings, deaths and homicides which had taken place in the Kingston area. In his recommendation No. 11, in a document of some 18 pages, he wrote:
That the federal team appointed to study violence and homicides in the prison system have a member or members not directly linked or employed by the federal Government included in the review team.
There is a review team studying this matter now. I believe it is either the Vantour or the Stewart Commission. In both cases they are conducting in-house studies. We require that problem to be evaluated or assessed by at least some people, as Dr. MacMillan suggested, who are outside the federal system.
I could also refer to the Archambault riots on July 25, 1982. It is obvious that we are in need of some very major reforms in our penitentiaries and in our criminal justice system. Hence the need for this particular motion to be before the House today.
During the past few years I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I have raised this matter with four successive Solicitors General following the report in 1977. Each and every one of them, representing two political Parties in the House, adopted the same arguments and reasons for recommendation No. 24 not being implemented. They were virtually ludicrous arguments. There were no substantial bases for them. I was dismayed that senior officials in the correctional services of Canada obviously had such control over their Ministers that each and every one of them, when it reported on the implementation of our report, suggested in the very same words the very same reasons for not implementing that recommendation.
This disturbs me because it indicates that the Minister was not really making a decision. He was ratifying or rubberstamping a decision which was made by his senior staff in the correctional services of Canada. That is the essence of the problem in the entire system. We do not have independent people such as those proposed in the motion before the House today who are nominated and appointed by the Solicitor General to determine the policy of the correctional services.
I want to conclude with a brief reference to a Sessional paper published in 1880 by the Parliament of Canada. It dealt with the report of two gentlemen commissioned by Parliament to look into the riot at St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary in the
1870s. It is amazing that in 1875 the Penitentiary Act, which made some major changes, put the responsibility for the management of prisons into departmental hands. According to the two Commissioners, Mr. Miall and Mr. Tache, that was the major error. We are still living with that error. I just want to read the concluding sentence of their 19-page report. It reads:
It is, therefore, with full confidence in the rectitude of our view, that we recommend to your consideration the advisability, we may say the necessity of abrogating the Act of 1875 and its amendments, and the restoration of a Board of Directors of Penitentiaries, constituted after the manner, and possessing the powers of that which existed prior to the recent unfortunate innovation.
That was referring to the Penitentiary Act of 1875. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for fifteen years, and for many of those years I have had the pleasure of sitting on the Committee with the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). I have witnessed his diligence and his interest in legal questions, despite the fact that he is not a lawyer himself, which proves that one can be interested in these issues without necessarily belonging to the legal profession.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments put forward by my honourable friend, and I appreciate the fact that he said the point raised was not a political one. I appreciate this because if our views differ, it will not mean I have political reasons for disagreeing with the interesting views he has expressed and maintained with considerable determination for many years.
Mr. Speaker, the penitentiary system is a subject of considerable interest which too many people approach in a very simplistic fashion, which consists in saying that when a criminal has broken the law, all we have to do is put him in a penitentiary for as long as possible, and the problem is solved. I think my hon. friend has raised a number of questions that would bear discussion here in the House, about riots and suicide in our penitentiaries. These are very serious problems which we want to solve, but the solution is certainly not incarceration.
The point raised by my hon. colleague is an interesting one, and perhaps I may be allowed to repeat it, even if you yourself, Mr. Speaker, read the motion at the beginning of this period, and even if my hon. friend repeated it as well. I think it would be interesting to repeat the motion because it contains some very important points. The motion moved by the Hon. Member for Oxford states that the Government should consider the feasibility of providing for greater public involvement in policy-making for correctional services by amending the Penitentiaries Act to include, and this is interesting, a board of five members appointed for five years, who would be responsible for appointing the Commissioner of the Correctional Service. Developing policies and presenting an annual report would be a major undertaking. That would be the normal
June 11, 1984

thing to do if the proposal were to be accepted. This annual report would be submitted to Parliament by the Solicitor General, and this would also seem the normal thing to do. I believe that what the Hon. Member for Oxford wants is something of a wish that can be entertained by both sides of the House. I think we agree that the management of the Correctional Service now lacks, if I may say so, originality occasionally. Increased public input might be desirable wherever it meets the objectives of a responsible government. Of course, needless to say, we do not have the same political system as in the United States, where the ministers are selected by the President; in Canada they are elected and are part of a responsible government, which means that they are eventually held accountable to the public for their actions.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Oxford has said, this recommendation was contained in the report of the 1977 Parliamentary Subcommittee. Since then, the Hon. Member and other Members have urged implementation of this recommendation, which was Recommendation No. 24. However, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Oxford, in spite of his persistence and perseverance, it seems that there are major obstacles to the implementation of this recommendation which is, at first glance, quite interesting since, as stated by the Hon. Member, it calls for greater accountability and an increasing participation by the public, which we would all appreciate.
The Parliamentary Subcommittee came under the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I remember that, at the time, while having to attend other committee meetings, I had attended some of the meetings of the sub-committee and found its proceedings quite interesting. I would say that this sub-committee displayed a single-mindedness devoid of political partisanship, and this was quite pleasant. I think that, as a result, its members felt that their responsibility was committed, not as party affiliates, but as parliamentarians faced with a serious problem, that of prisoners and their sometimes perplexing actions, whether they are riots, suicides or internal problems. We often look for solutions by increasing public involvement. However, I respectfully submit to the Hon. Member for Oxford that this might not necessarily be the best overall solution. The sub-committee was made up of members from both sides of the House and they submitted their report.
Following its investigation, the sub-committee made 65 recommendations, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Oxford, aimed at improving the Canadian penitentiary system, which was in need of new ideas and adjustments. As of January 1, 1984, of these 65 recommendations, 47 had been accepted and implemented as submitted or in an amended form; nine had been accepted but called for implementation at a later date; seven had been rejected including, unfortunately for the Hon. Member for Oxford, Recommendation 24; and the last two belonged to a special category over which the Correctional Service did not have full jurisdiction, but which
Penitentiaries
the Service still considered as these recommendations were nevertheless interesting. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Oxford, who is a reasonable man, realizes that the report as a whole was not only the subject of a study but that, unlike other reports, it was not simply shelved. Many of its important and essential recommendations have been implemented, but not all of them-for reasons we deem fair and reasonable-and the debate continues. I am sure that the door is not completely closed since the problem has not been solved and one should never definitively exclude any solution.
The point to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that 56 of the 65 recommandations made by the parliamentary subcommittee have been accepted and implemented unchanged or in a modified form by the Correctional Service since 1977.
As much as possible, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Correctional Service have tried-and I think that their effort deserves praise-to implement all the recommendations of the parliamentary subcommittee but, as I said, recommendation No. 24 which the Hon. Member for Oxford is raising today in his motion was among those that were rejected. In his response to the parliamentary sub-committee report in August 1977, and it may be important to mention that response of which the Hon. Member may be aware but which I draw to his attention in any event, the then Solicitor General of Canada pointed out that this recommendation was one of the most significant changes advocated by the subcommittee and that its implications were so wide-ranging and difficult to assess that he had asked for time to consider that recommendation more thoroughly. However, he did raise a few questions after reviewing the recommendation for the first time. I would like to recall some of them to show that on such important issues we do make serious studies, and this question has to be considered quite carefully because it is very important, as the Solicitor General of Canada pointed out. For one thing, the then Solicitor General indicated that, if the recommendation was aimed at a greater participation by senior officials in the policy-making process, steps had already been taken to have the staff play a more active role in policy planning. Still, the means suggested by the subcommittee to do that had to be considered more carefully. In other words, the idea itself was accepted, but at the time the ways and means did raise a few questions. According to him, a five-member commission responsible for drafting policies, without full support nor its own analysis and research facilities, would be seriously hindered in its approach. It is a debatable argument, but I think it has some merit and that we ought to speak to that issue in this debate.
On the other hand, the Minister had pointed out that the federal Government wanted to set up commissions and Crown agencies that would be more responsible to the Minister and therefore to Parliament. This recommendation seems to point

June 11, 1984
Penitentiaries
in the opposite direction. Perhaps that is the argument which, to my mind, seems to be the most peremptory and the most serious. When, as parliamentarians, we have responsibilities for which we must answer to the House and the public, it would be too easy to avoid them, it would be too easy to shirk them by passing to others responsibilities which are ours and which, difficult though they may be, we cannot refuse to assume when the time comes.
Finally, the Solicitor General of Canada had then specified that it did not seem to him that the recommendations would help solve one of the deficiencies deemed to be vital by the subcommittee, namely the lack of an adequate definition of authority and the resulting confusion for the person who controls the system. On the contrary, it seemed to him that the recommendation could exacerbate rather than solve the problem.
I recognize that this is a point of view, Mr. Speaker, and that the Hon. member could reply that it is not right for us to view the situation is this light. I recognize that he would have the right to say so, but from my own assessment, I find this argument well-founded and I believe that it justifies the reluctance we have on the Government side at this stage to follow up on the recommendation of the Hon. Member, which is, I repeat, quite interesting.
Later on, an interdepartmental task force led by the Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Planning and Program Evaluation, was appointed to assess some of the recommendations, including No. 24 which is the subject of this motion. The task ; force shared the Solicitor General's concern, namely that a commission such as that suggested by the sub-committee would considerably erode the concept of departmental accountability. In fact, that brings us back to the central argument of departmental accountability and the responsibilities which have been laid on us by the people we represent.
Indeed, the task force concluded that the Correctional Service policies are so politically important that an erosion or a loss of departmental accountability could have serious effects on it. I have a feeling that the Hon. Member for Oxford recognizes the thrust of this argument and would admit that it would be a difficult decision to make at this stage when the problems are acute and the recommendations, although interesting, could not provide a guarantee that the problem would be solved.
Finally, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in March 1978, the Solicitor General took a definite stand and rejected Recommendation No. 24. The reasons he gave were as follows: First, it is the Government of Canada which is responsible to Parliament for the policies carried out by the Canadian Penitentiary Service. Second, a five-member board which would be appointed to make policies for the Canadian Penitentiary Service, would feel cramped in its approach, with little or no support, and limited to its power of enquiry. Third, the Department of the
Solicitor General, through its Deputy Solicitor General, is already responsible for providing the Solicitor General with advice on the policies the Department should apply. Fourth, the tendency of the Federal Government is now to make Crown corporations more accountable to departments and, therefore, to Parliament. Fifth, it is not certain that a board such as the one described by the subcommittee would help solve the major problems identified by the said subcommittee, namely, the lack of well-defined powers and the confusion as to who should control the system. That recommendation could in fact exacerbate the problem rather than contribute to its solution.
The Hon. Member for Oxford should be commended for providing us with the opportunity of an in-depth study of his motion allowing us to put forward a series of arguments which, although they may not convince him, will at least indicate that we have not considered lightly the issue he has raised. Personally, I should be delighted to discuss it further with the Hon. Member for Oxford, whom I hold in high esteem, and to work with him in harmony both in the House and in committee to seek a solution to the problem faced by all these men and women who are deprived of their freedom and who must live for shorter or longer periods of time behind bars.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) for all the previously stated reasons. I have had more than one occasion to observe the dedication and sincerity of the Hon. Member in his work as a Member of the House of Commons. I would like to begin my remarks by congratulating him on bringing forward this motion today.
I am sure, however, that the Hon. Member will understand that the proposition which he brings to the House is in some respects in conflict with what is in existence now, certainly with respect to the position of the Government of the day. While I agree with the thrust of what the Hon. Member for Oxford is attempting to achieve, I would like to bring forward other salient aspects of the subject matter.
I agree with my colleagues that there is a direct relationship between the Hon. Member's motion and recommendation No. 24 in the report of the Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System in Canada. However, I have decided to explore the link between this motion and recommendation No. 26 of the same report which proposed that the CSC be treated as a separate employer within the meaning of the Public Service Employment Act. Acceptance of recommendations Nos. 24 or 26 would ultimately transfer the correctional service of Canada into a non-departmental body.
Recommendation No. 24 states that a board would be charged with the responsibility of formulating correctional policies. The board would have no line authority, but would appoint the commissioner to supervise the operations of the
June 11, 1984

service in accordance with the policies it establishes. It would report to the Solicitor General and would submit an annual report, through the Minister, to Parliament.
While recommendation No. 26 states that CSC staff should be exempt from the Public Service Employment Act, it also adds that the CSC should be similar to the RCMP in its discipline and professionalism and that employees could be discharged for misconduct or incompetence.
At this time, I think a brief history of the origin of the subcommittee should be given. The House of Commons agreed on October 21, 1976, to the motion of the then Solicitor General that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs inquire into the penitentiary system in Canada. On October 26, 1976, the committee referred the subject to an all-Party subcommittee which was fully representative of the House of Commons. I might add that I had the honour and privilege to serve on that committee with the present Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) as its Chairman. Of course, the distinguished Member for Oxford was also on the committee and made a very significant contribution to the committee's work.
The mandate of the subcommittee was to examine the background of the correctional service of Canada-maximum security institutions, the purposes of imprisonment, correctional staff, the organization and management of the penitentiary service, justice within the walls, socialization, pre-release and parole programs and inmates' work, and educational and other training programs.
The fifth and final progress report on the implementation of the 65 recommendations of the subcommittee was made public by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in June of 1981.
In recommendation No. 26, the subcommittee suggested that if the CSC were to take responsibility for its own staffing and firing, the thrust of the recommendation would be better fulfilled. It would enable faster staffing action and would reduce vacancies. It would also facilitate the employment of higher calibre people and would help create staff professionalism and a desired esprit de corps.
The CSC appointed a task force in June, 1978, to study the personnel recommendations of the report of the parliamentary Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System. That task force completed its work at the end of June, 1980. Since that time, the recommendations of the task force have been the subject of extensive consultation between the CSC, the Union of Solicitor General Employees, officials of the Treasury Board Secretariat and other interested government departments. Consequently, steps are now under way to bring into effect certain mechanisms, such as a distinct correctional employees operation group and a provision to allow for the early retirement of correctional employees who suffer from the results of the high levels of stress that are common in the correctional environment.
Many positive changes have already taken place in the area of personnel management in the correctional service of
Penitentiaries
Canada. I will outline some of these changes. They include a detailed code of conduct which sets out the standards upon which staff conduct is judged and the process by which disciplinary action is taken. It includes a nationally-managed CX recruitment program designed to ensure the selection of high calibre recruits. This program has been developed and implemented. The changes provide the selection criteria for CX recruitment, which have been modified. The minimum educational standard for correctional officers has been upgraded to Grade 12 or the equivalent. The university qualification for CXs to obtain WP positions has been removed, thereby developing a career path for security staff. Greater emphasis has been placed on manpower planning and training from a national perspective. As well, a 13-week full-time induction training course, followed by a 24-month probationary period, has been introduced for all new correctional officers. Live-in unit officers also receive an additional four-week course on case management, counselling techniques and group dynamics.
The CSC has implemented the policy of official language service to inmates consistent with that which is available to the general public, in the spirit of the Official Languages Act. It has also created one of the first language ombudsman positions in a federal department or agency to protect language rights and to develop programs for second language acquisition in the workplace.
Additionally, the CSC has introduced a supplementary income benefit plan for survivors of employees slain on duty. This benefit plan guarantees income maintenance for survivors of employees to supplement any payments received from Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and Workmen's Compensation. It has also implemented a program of rehabilitative assistance to employees of the service who became victims of acts of violence in institutions.
Furthermore, the CSC has developed a policy to integrate female correctional officers in male institutions. The long-term goal is to reach a representation of 13 per cent in medium and minimum security institutions by 1987. The integration is presently being done in medium and minimum security institutions. As of January, 1984, the number of female correctional officers in male institutions has been 255, or 5.6 per cent. On May 20, 1980, Ms. Mary Dawson was appointed Warden of Warkworth Institution, thus becoming the first woman to head a major federal institution for male inmates. On November 9, 1983, Doctor Pauline Lamothe, who began her career as a psychologist at the British Columbia penitentiary, was appointed the first female executive director of a regional psychiatric centre in Canada.
In order to ensure the highest level of communication with its employees, the CSC conducted a survey in the fall of 1983 through the Gallup poll to examine the attitudes of staff and the effectiveness of internal communication. The survey revealed that over one-third or 37 per cent of the employees interviewed are very satisfied with their employment, and almost three quarters, or 71 per cent, described it as reward-

June 11, 1984
Penitentiaries
ing. Commitment to the job was felt strongly by 70 per cent of those surveyed, and almost three-quarters of the respondents, or 72 per cent, perceived their function as a career.
The CSC has also developed and implemented a CSC awards program for staff, including the Commissioner's Citation for Bravery and Meritorious Service, the Service Commendation, the Certificate of Appreciation and the Long Service Awards.
For these reasons, as well as those expressed by my colleagues, I feel that the Solicitor General, through the Correctional Service of Canada, is fulfilling his mandate and is meeting the objectives of the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Oxford as well as the recommendations of the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will say that we were all very pleased to have the opportunity to work in this committee and to deal with this most urgent and serious question at that time back in the late 1970s when we had very serious riots in the major institutions, the maximum security institutions in Canada. We were delighted with the reception which the recommendations in the report received and the fact that the Solicitor General of the day, and subsequent Solicitors General, have taken the recommendations very seriously. The majority of those recommendations have been implemented, acted upon or studied. Some action has been taken. I believe it is very gratifying to know that our work has not been in vain but indeed has made a substantial contribution to our society.
For all those stated reasons, once again I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Oxford for his diligence in bringing this matter to our attention.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my intervention with respect to this motion will be very brief since I do not want to talk it out. I want to give the Government the opportunity of allowing it to be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I agree with the basic trend of the motion. I also appreciate the fact that it is in line with the recommendations made in the 1977 report.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that in my constituency there are two federal institutions, one maximum and one minimum. They are probably two of the best run institutions in Canada. Part of the reason they have gained that reputation is that, to a geat extent, they have opened up their operations to the public. I believe what the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) was attempting to do was to suggest that this kind of openness is necessary, particularly in those areas from which we isolate ourselves easily.
That is particularly true in the area of the correctional service. Most of us tend to isolate or to separate ourselves from the whole approach to correctional institutions and say it is the responsibility of someone else. However, living in the community of Prince Albert, I know that the more open the organization is to public scrutiny, the better it is going to be.
Besides the advisory committee in Prince Albert, which operates very well and thoroughly in the community, the Prince Albert maximum institution has a large number of
volunteers who go in and work on a one-to-one basis with the inmates. The projection of those people into the prison community has made a considerable difference, when the inmates leave the institution, to their acceptance into the community, and has contributed to the continued and long-term rehabilitation of the prisoners coming out of those penitentiaries. This applies not necessarily only to the Prince Albert institution, but to institutions all across Canada. I feel, therefore, that what we need to do as a Parliament is to take a look at those recommendations from the 1977 report which were not acted upon, and most of which, if you look at them closely, deal with the whole area with which the Hon. Member for Oxford dealt. I believe if we were to open up and give to the public a better insight into why decisions are made and how the decisions are made, we would have better institutions, because, in large part, our attitude toward correctional institutions is caused by fear of the unknown. If we can eliminate that fear by increasing the knowledge of the public generally, we will have a more open situation. For example, if one looks at the statistics of the Prince Albert maximum security institution, one finds that there were more complaints by inmates in Prince Albert than in any other institution across Canada. The reason for that, I believe, is the openness which is encouraged. Rather than being a criticism of that institution, it is a praise of that institution, because it has allowed the inmates to feel free to come forward with their complaints and to have their complaints acted upon.
Therefore, I support the position of the Hon. Member for Oxford in his attempt to open up the institution for more insight by the public.


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the idea behind the motion brought forth by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) is one which has been in existence for a number of years. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Oxford was a member of the Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System in Canada. This motion stems, as he has stated to you, from recommendation No. 24 of the report of the subcommittee. However, in my mind, it contains one important addition. Recommendation No. 24, in itself, did not contain any reference to providing for increased public participation in policy-making by having the Commissioner of Corrections named by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of a five-member board. This statement, however, seems to be the basis of the motion of the Hon. Member. He obviously feels strongly that by having his motion passed, the public participation in the penitentiary system will greatly increase.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I have decided to examine and enumerate for you what the correctional service of Canada has accomplished to increase public involvement in policymaking, not only within institutions but also during the prerelease and parole periods of an inmate's incarceration. I hope to show you what the Hon. Member proposes will not serve to enhance public involvement.

June 11, 1984

Public participation in the correctional service of Canada is at an all-time high. This has a great deal to do with another recommendation of the 1977 subcommittee report. Recommendation No. 25 states that the penitentiary system-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, but the time allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now come to an end.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, on May 18, as recorded at page 3869 of Hansard, I tried to find out from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) whether the concerns of his Department had been taken into account in a diplomatic note delivered to the U.S. State Department in Washington the week before. As far as we can make out, because, we have not seen the text of the note, it was protesting quite rightly certain Maritime claims that the U.S. authorities appeared to be making in northern B.C. waters.
As I say, I agree fully that the note on the sovereignty aspects of that particular problem was due to be delivered to the U.S. and I am glad it was. But without being too precise, the Minister brushed off my question as virtually inconsequential by stating that decisions, presumably relating to the note delivered by our Government, are decisions that involve all Departments. That barely deals with my concerns. Mr. Speaker. It was a clever answer, but it literally did not address itself to the question I had put to the Minister. I have still to be satisfied that the other matter which concerned me at that time had been taken into account. Perhaps I should explain.
The U.S. Department of the Interior announced a call for tenders to explore for gas and petroleum in certain waters off the Alaska coast. In one of their publications, comparable to our Gazette, called the National Register, they describe it as the Gulf of Alaska. That covers a great area of territory to the west of the Panhandle, out into the Gulf and down into the A-B Line which defines the boundary between Canada and the United States. The schematic charts published with this call include one area designated as the Gulf of Alaska which infringed, in its southern boundary claims, into waters which
Adjournment Debate
are not, in Canada's eyes, U.S. waters at all. That I believe was what the note was all about.
There is another aspect to which I was drawing attention, and that had to do with environmental concerns. I am not sure that the note dealt with them. What the Minister was evading, I suppose is the correct word, was any notion that the environmental concerns in that area had been dealt with in that note. Fish sometimes go through other people's territory to get to the high seas, and fish bred in Canada go through the Panhandle out into the Gulf of Alaska. If there is drilling, exploration and contamination in that area, and Canadian fish are going through that area, either upstream or downstream to the breeding grounds or out to sea, there is a hazard to Canadian resources. That is what I wanted to know from the Minister. I hope that the spokesman for the Minister will be able to assure me that not only the sovereignty claim but also the environmental concerns that I was seeking to express were taken into account in that particular note.
There are three rivers which are salmon breeding rivers in that area. They come out through what is known as the Panhandle there. The fish in the Stikine, the Nass and the Taku Rivers all have to come out through the Panhandle as well as fish possibly even from the Skeena.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary who will reply to this question if he can assure me that the note that was sent to the United States on the sovereignty issue also dealt with the issue of the environment and the safety of Canadian fish. If so, I am deeply reassured. I hope he will be able to let me know-perhaps not tonight-that the text of the note will be made available to the House. It is a very important issue.
There is a related issue that may very well come up in the not too distant future. It concerns another territorial claim to the east of the 141st meridian which divides the Territory of Yukon from Alaska, extended out to the Arctic Ocean. However, I am not dealing with that tonight, only with the environmental issue in the Gulf of Alaska.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, from my viewpoint, herein lies the benefit of having this portion of debate set aside for clarification. First, there is no grounds for him to use the word "evading". Let me make that point very clear for the Hon. Member. There is no evasion on the part of anyone.
The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has raised the issue of the possible environmental and fisheries impacts of the United States lease program in the waters off the Alaskan Panhandle. The Hon. Member is making reference to the recent publication in the U.S. Federal Register of the United States' intention to offer oil and gas exploration leases for certain areas on the Continental Shelf on the West Coast. I should point out, however, that the leases in question do not cover the area within Dixon Entrance itself, but are

June 11, 1984
Adjournment Debate
located to the west of the Entrance. As there is no agreed Maritime boundary between Canada and the United States in the Dixon Entrance and adjacent waters, the Government of Canada considers it unacceptable for the United States to propose to issue leases in any of these waters.
As a result, the diplomatic note which was sent dealt solely with the jurisdictional issue. The environmental aspect of the proposed program is thus not an issue at this time. It would appear to me that making representations in the diplomatic note with respect to environmental and fisheries concerns could be taken as acquiescence on the proposed leases.
Canada did not make representations to the Department of the Interior when it was holding environmental hearings in Alaska on the Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared for the lease area. We are, however, obviously concerned about the potential threat from oil and gas exploration in this area to Canadian fish and fish habitat, including the fish destined for Canadian rivers that pass through Alaskan waters. The Hon. Member can be assured that we will continue to monitor the situation very closely. This is especially important as the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia have recently announced their intention to conduct an environmental assessment and review of the proposal to renew oil and gas exploration in the waters off British Columbia, north of Vancouver. Part of the area under review by us is immediately adjacent to the proposed U.S. leases.
I would assure the Hon. Member that for those areas under Canadian jurisdiction, Canadian environmental laws and regulations will apply. I am fully aware of the potential threat to fish and fish habitat of offshore oil and gas exploration. I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that offshore exploration has been ongoing for over ten years in both the Beaufort Sea and on the east Coast of Canada. My department participates in all aspects of the environmental assessment and review of these projects and co-operates fully with the provincial and federal agencies responsible for the management of offshore activities t6 ensure that adequate protection measures are in place for fish and fish habitat.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-DE HAVILLAND DASH-8 AIRCRAFTFINANCING OF SALES
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Bill Domm (Peterborough): For approximately three months now we have been exploring in this House through questions, statements and adjournment debates why there is so much delay in the sale of aircraft by de Havilland to Time Air of Lethbridge, Air Atonabee of Peterborough, and Norcan Air of Saskatoon. We all realize in this House how important $100 million worth of aircraft sales by our Crown corporation de Havilland would mean to the future of that organization.
We started out by exploring the possibility of some interest assistance that might be made available to de Havilland in order that it could offer competitive interest rates on the sale of aircraft to Canadian companies that wish to purchase them. We were advised in the House on April 16, 1984, by the Minister Responsible for the Canadian Development Investment Corporation, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) that there are regulations on domestic and international trade which are set under the General Agreements on Tariff and Trade. This matter was pursued in an adjournment debate and later in a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It was felt at the time by the Prime Minister that GATT did not affect sales of domestic aircraft here in Canada, so there would be no exclusion to the offering of assistance, if assistance were deemed necessary by the Government.
Pursuing that to the next stage, I rose in the House of Commons on May 14, 1984, and asked the Prime Minister if anything could be done in order that we could compete with the company in Ireland that has offered aircraft to Atonabee with interest rates of 7.5 per cent. At that time the Prime Minister said that any further subsidies to de Havilland would be costs. What is the sense of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in de Havilland so it can build an aircraft to sell around the world if we are not prepared to be competitive here in Canada with offshore domestic airlines that come into Canada with interest assistance programs.
Then I picked up the Globe and Mail on Thursday, June 7, 1984 to read about the Dash-7 sale to Indonesia. I found out that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) said the federal Export Development Corporation has signed a financing agreement worth $20.25 million U.S. to support the sale of the planes and spare parts to Indonesia. If we can offer financial assistance programs to Indonesia so that it can buy Dash-7s manufactured by de Havilland, why can we not offer similar financial packages to Canadian companies that wish to purchase Dash-8s to use them here in Canada? It clearly is not an infringement on GATT agreements.
If we can build an aircraft here in Canada-this is an industry badly needed, and there are 2,500 jobs at de Havilland alone, plus another 10,000 jobs in spin off supply industries-what a shame it is to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in this Crown corporation and not offer an interest assistance package in order to sell the aircraft locally, use it domestically and prove its worth to the rest of the world.
There is not much sense in offering a financial assistance program to Indonesia of $20.25 million through the Export Development Corporation, as reported in the Globe and Mail on June 7, while at the same time procrastinating in the sale of $100 million worth of de Havilland Dash 8 aircraft to the three Canadian companies-Time Air, Air Atonabee and Norcan Air.
Why is it good that Indonesia receives a financial package? We are not building monuments in Algeria; we are selling aircraft. Why should Indonesia receive this assistance program, while at the same time we are not prepared to offer a similar program to these domestic airlines which are ready to purchase the aircraft if an interest rate package is put together?
June 11, 1984
[Stage Direction]
In conclusion, I should like to read a paragraph from the 1983 annual report of The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Limited:
There are two aspects in particular affecting the ultimate profit or less of the Dash-8 program. The first relates to the cost of lending money to purchasers of the aircraft. The second relates to cost of production. In each case, the Dash-8 is facing stiff competition. Because competitors are largely supported by their governments-
We in the Opposition are asking that the Liberal Government be competitive with offshore governments selling aircraft in Canada.
Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Hon. Member will agree about our competitive abilities, not only in international trade matters but at home. I think we have been very effective when it comes to competition at all levels, not just in terms of commerce and the marketplace. In recent times, I am sure he will agree that our competition has been very effective according to the statistical figures which are released from time to time.
The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) appears to be worried about de Havilland's ability to meet the competition for commuter aircraft. He worries that de Havilland is asking too high a price and that it cannot offer competitive financing because of our arrangements under the GATT.
Let me deal first with competition. The Hon. Member has claimed that the Shorts 360, a plane built in Northern Ireland, is a comparable product which sells for $2 million less than the Dash-8. The Shorts 360 is not comparable. It is not pressurized, which means that it cannot fly above 10,000 feet. For example, most of the weather in Ontario where Air Atonabee flies requires a plane which can climb above 10,000 feet in order to avoid turbulence. The Shorts 360 is also slower than the Dash-8. As I said, the plane is not competitive; it does not have the capacities of the Dash-8.
Let me also clear the air on another point. The price offered by de Havilland does not keep rising, as has been claimed in recent news stories. The standard practice in the industry is to set a price in a particular year and to add an escalation clause. This is the practice followed by de Havilland. The price is set in 1982 dollars with escalation for inflation. The basic price itself has not changed.
The Government is fully aware of the concerns raised in public by regional air carriers. Their comments simply show what de Havilland is up against. We will not negotiate sales contracts in public. I can say, however, that the Government is working very hard to address these concerns.
The Government has told de Havilland that it will provide assistance to enable it to meet competition from Brazil or Britain or wherever. The exact form of that assistance is in the final stages of discussion within government, but the commitment is solid. Hon. Members will be aware that the form of assistance eventually arrived at will have to accord with Canada's international undertakings and that we musts be very careful on that count. We are a trading nation, and interna-
Adjournment Debate
tional trade is governed by rules which on the whole benefit Canada greatly.
The Hon. Member for Peterborough quoted the Minister responsible for CDIC, and thus de Havilland, as saying that we might meet Britain's term of 7 per cent financing. I have checked the transcript and found that what Senator Austin said was:
What we want to do is well at market interest rates and at prices that recover our costs of production.
He also noted that we are indeed competitive on the cost of production side. Perhaps the Hon. Member did not hear him correctly.
Let me reiterate what this Government has said many times. We will not allow de Havilland to be driven from the marketplace due to predatory financing practices by its competitors. The Government is committed to de Havilland and to the Dash-8.
We all agree that we not only want this company to be successful but to provide jobs in Canada. We must also support the point of view that we should arrange to purchase these aircraft within Canada within the terms of our production.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN. (B) EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on February 20 I raised with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women the concern of women that the Office of Equal Opportunities for Women in the Public Service Commission was to be closed on April 1. Despite the Minister's unequivocal statement that the office would not close, it did in fact close its doors on May 1, 1984. This office was important because it provided information, training advocacy, counselling and referral services for women, especially for 95,000 clerks and secretaries, the lowest paid public servants.
Political pressure from this side of the House and intense lobbying by many womens' organizations followed. On May 14 the Public Service Commission opened a Women's Program Centre which will be integrated into its Operations Directorate. While many of the essential functions of the EOW will remain, the office will be under intense scrutiny to make sure that the watchdog and advocacy function is maintained. This will be very difficult in an integrated structure.
In the west, cuts have already begun. The EOW office in the prairie region has been unilaterally reorganized so that the EOW officer there will now spend only one half of her time on direct equal opportunities work-one quarter of her time for each of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This is completely unacceptable, particularly in light of the Minister's statement on February 20 that "regional equal opportunities offices are not under review."
Both the Minister and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) attempted to sidestep responsibility for equality

June 11, 1984
Adjournment Debate
for women in the Public Service by saying the PSC was outside their jurisdiction. These are the same people who tell us we should worry more about women in the private sector and the inaction of provincial governments.
New Democrats are advocating economic equality for all women. If the federal Government cannot ensure equality for its women employees, it is in no position to provide leadership to the provinces and the private sector. It seems that the Liberal motto is: Practice what we preach, not what we do.
One of the most glaring deficiencies in the Public Service affirmative action program is its focus on women in senior management positions. What about the majority of women workers who are concentrated in clerical job ghettos? When will the Government act to provide measures such as bridging positions and comprehensives skills training for these lowest paid Public Service workers? Women want to see action and concrete programs, not more paper promises, such as were made in committee by the Minister last week. I am very concerned that there is no target date in the new Womens' Program Centre for the extension of the Womens' Career Counselling and Referral Bureau Services to clerical and secretarial staff. This service is now available only to senior women.
The time has long passed for the Government to rectify the inadequacy of its affirmative action program. The Minister recently said that by the year 2000 the program would produce the kind of results that are necessary. She tells women to wait over 15 years for equality when this same Government's Official Languages Act produced equality for Francophones in the Public Service within three years. Why can she not do this for women? Where is her credibility?
The record is dismal. Four years after the implementation of a pilot project, women held fewer than 6 per cent of management positions, but fill over 80 per cent of the administrative support jobs in the federal Government. Approximately 63 per cent of those who have been laid off due to privatization and reorganization have been women. Things are getting worse for women rather than better under an ill-conceived Liberal program.
I question the Minister's understanding of the fundamental principle of affirmative action which is systemic discrimination. Both the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and the President of the Treasury Board have insisted that there was no intention to have layoffs affect women more adversely than men. However, the exact point of affirmative action is to ensure that unintentional discrimination is also removed. Claiming that there is no deliberate discrimination is no answer. Any practice which has a discriminatory effect, intentional or not, impedes women's struggles for economic equality. I urge the Government to revise its own affirmative action program as a model for other employers to provide concrete opportunities for women. The time to do this is now.


Mr. Michel Veillette (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may be aware of the Public Service Commission's announcement of the establishment of a Women's Program Centre on May 29, 1984. The centre will be part of the Operations Directorate, Staffing Programs Branch. I am confident that the Women's Program Centre, a centre which evolved out of the Office of Equal Opportunities for Women, will exert even greater influence on the operational processes relating to the recruitment and staffing of women.
I am particularly pleased that the commission will be offering a series of 16 noon-hour sessions that will be of particular interest to women in the administrative support category. These sessions begin this month in the National Capital Region. In addition, one-day information sessions on such subjects as part-time work, job sharing and the impact of microtechnology on women public servants are planned for later this year. Increased career counselling services will also be available through the commission's regional offices. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that these programs are specifically designed for women at junior and intermediate levels of the Public Service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.28 p.m., the House adjourned.

Tuesday, June 12, 1984