1985-03-08

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of International Women's Day, a day which gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the progress women have made collectively and individually.
Since the early 1970s when the women's movement began in earnest, women have organized and worked effectively for social and economic change. Since the early part of the century, March 8 has increasingly become a focal point for drawing attention to women's concerns.
Across Canada this week, more than 900 groups representing women from farms to cities are going beyond simply celebrating the day; they are organizing activities around issues that are so crucial to their struggle for equality.
[ Translation]
This year, International Women's Day has particular significance.

Indeed, it falls in the year marking the culmination of the United Nations "Decade for Women". In July, Canada will join with other countries in a world conference on women which will be taking place in Nairobi, Kenya.
The concerns and achievements of Canadian women will be brought to the conference table and shared with women from around the world who are part of this global struggle for equality.
The concerns of women are many and varied. In Ethiopia, for example, there is the tragic famine. In many Third World nations women are plagued by poverty and illiteracy. Indeed, the needs of women in the developing world are dramatic, but the needs of women in Canada are great too.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Minister, I am now in some difficulty because this is the period for 90-second statements. May I take it that the Minister was rising to seek unanimous consent of the House that we move to Statements by Ministers? Is there unanimous consent for that?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. I must advise the Minister that his 90 seconds have expired.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, on International Women's Day, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the lives of immigrant women in Canada. Many are confined to jobs in the lowest-paying industries in our country, services and manufacturing, which employ one-third of immigrant women, compared with one-fifth of all Canadian women and one-sixth of all Canadian men. Language training courses do not always fit in with their working hours, and there is a serious lack of industrial training courses.
Many of these women work in the home and are not eligible for language training because the programs are offered only to individuals who intend to enter the labour market.
There is a great deal to improve in our adjustment and training courses for immigrant women, and I think an approach based on feminine values and a more generous and humanitarian outlook would be advisable for these programs.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to women around the world and women in Canada on the 75th anniversary of International Women's Day. Women in Canada have contributed much, in building this country originally as pioneers, as farm women, as homemakers, as workers in many fields of endeavour, and as those who perhaps contributed most to the survival of families during the Great Depression, which was followed by the war. We are now in the forefront of maintaining peace as well as contributing to our social and economic well-being.
Our heritage has been enriched, particularly by the contribution of Inuit and Indian women and the different cultures

March 8, 1985
and viewpoints brought by women from many countries. It has been through hard work of Canadian women that we have achieved victories such as equal pay for equal value, although much remains to be done-legislation outlawing discrimination on the basis of sex, recognition of society's contribution to children through some form of maternity benefits and, if not action, at least acknowledging the lack of truly equal opportunities and the systemic barriers facing women.
We are looking forward to really establishing equality under the Charter of Rights, with sound amendments that will benefit women and implement equality. International Women's Day is a day for reflection.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.



Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, today we observe International Women's Day, a day which marks the celebration of women's rights, and honours our contribution.
For so long, women's needs and concerns were ignored and excluded from processes of government. It was only 56 years ago that women were recognized as persons under the BNA Act, and the right to vote was granted only nine years earlier. Discrimination still exists in many areas, subtle, often as a result of attitudes.
In the Speech from the Throne our new Government outlined measures aimed at redressing economic and social inequalities faced by women in our country. I am proud to say that we have made substantial progress in addressing these concerns, through amendments regarding spouses allowances, removing the discrimination against Indian women, and with the statements to be made later today on the Abella Report. In this session we anticipate changes to the Divorce Act and the establishment of a parliamentary task force on child care. These are all issues of special though not exclusive concern to women.
We know other social change must occur before women achieve full equality not only in the eyes of the law but in the councils of those who hold power in business, government, and labour.
This morning my 15-year old son said to me: "Mom, why do we have a women's day? I bet we don't have a men's day". I would like to be able to answer him within the next decade-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the concept of International Women's Day was first advocated on March 8, 1910, when Socialist International held a conference commemorating the strike by New York women textile workers who, on March 8, 1857, began a labour struggle to improve their working conditions. Women's Day recalls the participation of women in an event unmistakably defined as a clear intent to redress injustices experienced on the labour scene. Today, once again the emphasis is on the economic independence sought by women for years.
Men and women alike are concerned about efforts aimed at making people more aware and promoting justice and equity in our society.
With respect to the status of women, 1985 will be just as significant as 1975 if only because next July will signal the end of the Decade for Women. Women have not achieved all their objectives, but their courage, determination and efforts to stir people have given rise to a new mentality which nurtures our aspirations towards justice and equality.
Initiatives should be undertaken in order to protect our aging population, preserve future generations, and ensure employment equity.
Today we reach out to women across the world and assure them of our support in their efforts-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has eliminated the energy division at the National Research Council. The energy division sponsored research and development of renewable energy resources, 70 per cent of which was contracted out to the private sector. It is estimated that some 2,000 small businesses will be drastically affected by the withdrawal of research and development assistance, and that approximately 15,000 jobs will be lost. Per million dollars, invested in alternate energy, twice as many jobs are created as in fossil fuel and nuclear energy projects.
The New Democratic Party is not only concerned about this job loss, but also about the fact that the Government is so short-sighted regarding the potential for Canada's renewable


March 8, 1985

energy industry on the international market. It is estimated that international sales in renewable energy, including solar, will increase from $3.5 billion in 1985 to $14.75 billion by 1990. Canada now has a fledgling solar industry which exported $4 million in photovoltaic products in 1984. Most of the products exported were developed under the guidance of the National Research Council's energy division. Technologies such as the "light pipe" super window, and photovoltaic water pumps, show considerable promise and are in high demand in developing nations around the world. This is in contrast to the CANDU reactor which is in demand nowhere.
Ironically, Canada is hosting the World Solar Conference in Montreal this June, and 2,000 delegates will see, unfortunately, that Canada has made this new type-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating International Women's Day. Throughout the country, women are gathering to show their solidarity and to reflect on the themes of our major demands.
The women of Argenteuil-Papineau learned long ago to consult with each other and to solve problems together. I would like to pay tribute to their ongoing efforts in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, since women got the vote, a great deal of progress has been made. However, the fact remains that we are too often obliged to use in conjunction with the concept "rights", the terms "demands", "struggle" and "women". Mr. Speaker, it is also a fact that issues as basic as equal pay, abortion, maternity leave, day care centres, old age pensions, shelters for battered women, rape legislation and sexual har-rassment are still the subject of public debate in 1985.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see all women make this a day of increased awareness of the status of women here and in other countries, in countries where women are hungry, cold and afraid. Let us hope that this 33rd Parliament will give us the political instruments we need to correct these inequities.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give hearty congratulations to another woman,
Oral Questions
the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). Her initiatives in waging war on acid rain put Canada on the cutting edge of environmental protection throughout the world. This Government has attained heights in its first six months that the former government failed to achieve in 16 years.
Canadian automobiles and light trucks will be equipped with emission standards equal to the United States, effective in 1988. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) must also be given credit for his wisdom in endorsing this necessary and vital measure. For the first time in the history of this country, we have some bargaining power to seek cut-backs in the United States.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) meets with President Reagan in Quebec City on March 17 and 18, he will take with him a new mandate supported by every Canadian who fears for our fragile environment. We will reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 per cent by 1994. We will provide $150 million for emission controls at smelters. We will assure $25 million is used for technological development. We will investigate increased use of low sulphur coal from western Canada. We will organize an acid rain office to co-ordinate new policy.
I advocate the reconstitution of the federal sub-committee on acid rain to monitor the progress of this war we are waging. There will be many battles before the war is won-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, we don't seem to have much of a front bench. I see the Minister of Finance is not here.


An Hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Donald James Johnston: The Prime Minister is not here. I see the President of the Treasury Board is arriving.


An Hon. Member:: What about your front bench?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we are not the Government, and we expect the Government to be present. I must say that I am a little surprised, in view of the economic circumstances and the escalation in interest rates which we saw yesterday, that we do not have the Minister of Finance in the House. I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.

March 8, 1985
Oral Questions
We have seen the bank rate rise to just under 12 per cent. The Minister of Finance has constantly and repeatedly said that this is a temporary matter, and "wait until March". Well, we are in March.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, the ides of March.


Donald James Johnston: The trend is clear. We have had six consecutive weeks of interest rate increase, and the Government steadfastly refuses to act. We have the impression that this is a Government of handwringers, that the Ministers are out there wringing their hands. That is not what Canadians thought they elected back in September of last year. The economic summit is not necessary to tel! us that increasing interest rates are the most serious problem facing the economy of the country. I plead with the Government, through the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of home owners, farmers, fishermen, the unemployed, and small businesses, to use his good offices to ensure that action is taken immediately to stop the escalation in interest rates.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I wrung my hands was when the former Finance Minister in the Liberal Government brought down his Budget.
I should like to point out to the Hon. Member that this morning we have a modest recovery in the Canadian dollar and that we have some better news on the unemployment front because the people of the country have confidence in the Government. We will see the change in interest rates for which we are all hoping.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Minister of State for Finance is here. I wish they were wringing their hands, because at least they would be doing something. In fact I believe they are probably wringing their hands.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago on March 20, the present Minister of Finance asked my colleague at the time, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, some questions. He said, and I quote:
Will the Minister, on the strength of his convictions, stand up and offer his resignation if the Government's policies do not stem the slide in the Canadian dollar which today hit an 18-month low of 78.06 and was only stopped by massive intervention on the part of the Government?
I would therefore put the same question to the Minister of State (Finance). If a year ago, the resignation of Mr. Lalonde would have been appropriate, does the Minister of State believe, considering the economic situation in this country and the lack of confidence shown by the Prime Minister, that the Minister of Finance ought to offer his resignation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if Mr. Lalonde had resigned we
wouldn't be in as big a mess as we were when we took over the Government.
The Minister of Finance has the confidence of the Canadian people. He has expressed, in the House many times, his concern over interest rates. None of us like rising interest rates. We have reflected to the other side of the House that the strength in the U.S. dollar has been unique and has affected the currencies of all western nations, including Canada. The interest rate policy of the Bank has been to pursue a moderate, stabilizing influence.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of State for Finance tell us in concrete terms what advice she would offer the home owner whose mortgage is coming up for renewal, and the small-businessman who is basically labouring under increasing interest rates every day and is afraid to make capital investments?
I am not satisfied to stand here and hear this nonsense about last year, when we had one of the strongest growth records, delivered by a Liberal Government, of 4.7 per cent, and the lowest inflation rate of 3.7 per cent, better than the United States. What advice does the Minister have today to offer those people who are suffering every single day and who are not able to plan their future because of these escalating interest rates?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have expressed their confidence in the future. Small business with which we have been discussing many of our policies, has expressed its support for what we are doing about bringing down the deficit. The best thing we can do for Canadians is return an atmosphere of confidence, which we are seeing all over the country.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. Yesterday we heard a plea from the Secretary-General of the United Nations that Canadians not become captive to the new nuclear technology. Today we are honouring International Women's Day. We know that no cause unites Canadian women more than their plea that Canada not contribute further to the arms race. In the spirit of those messages, I would ask the Minister of National Defence whether he thinks it is now time for the Government to reconsider its support for the U.S. star wars initiative.
March 8, 1985

In particular, because of a further apprehension raised by Mr. Nitze in Ottawa two days ago about the linkage between the radar agreement and star wars, will the Minister agree that no signing of any agreement should take place until there has been a thorough review by Members of this Parliament? Can he give us an assurance that the Government will not sign an agreement until Parliament has fully examined the conditions of that agreement?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. I am really surprised that the Hon. Member continues knowingly to distort the Government's position with respect to EDI, which he knows as well as the rest of us is a research project, and continues to distort, as do others, what was said by Ambassador Nitze. I am sure he will be up to date-


An Hon. Member:: Read from The Globe and Mail.


Erik Nielsen: No, I will not read from The Globe and Mail. I will read from the official news release put out by the United States embassy on March 7, where the news release speaks of the comments of Ambassador Nitze.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Are they writing your briefing notes now?


Erik Nielsen: It is a copy of the press release, not of my briefing notes, which the Hon. Member, if he were up to date, would have in his own possession.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The quotation from that release is as follows:
With regard to the upgrading of the DEW Line and its replacement with the North Warning radars, the Department can state clearly and categorically that the North Warning System being planned by Canada and the United States is not part of the Strategic Defence Initiative Program.
The Government having said that, and the United States having said that, the Hon. Member should cease this constant distortion of the actual facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SIGNING OF POSSIBLE CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question on the same subject to another Minister. Let me ask the Secretary of State and Minister responsible for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, knowing as he does personally the very deep concern that women in this country have about the cause of peace, and recognizing that his colleagues are so far stonewalling any effort to have at least a parliamentary review of these major conditions, will he undertake on behalf of women in this country to represent to his colleagues the argument that there should be no agreement signed until Parliament has had the opportunity to review and determine if there are any linkages at all to the new American defence strategy as announced by Caspar Weinberger, the U.S. Secretary of Defence? Will he
Oral Questions
give us the assurance that at least he will do something about the arms race and the support the Government is giving to it?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member simply will not accept the blunt statement of facts that has been given to him, both by the Government and by the United States, that there is no linkage. Having said that, I refer to the answer that I gave to his first question. The answer is no, there is no justification for following that process now.


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES OFFICIALS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the same subject. It is certainly interesting to hear Liberal Members, now that they are on the opposition side, calling for debates in the House before agreements are signed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Talk about unmitigated hypocrisy. We have just heard it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you just a cheap-shot man?


John Edward Broadbent: I know a hypocrite when I see one.


Lloyd Axworthy: I know a cheap-shot artist when I see one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It is the Members' time. How they use it is their choice.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would Hon. Members please let other Hon. Members ask questions? If they do not, they will not be able to ask questions.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. He has just indicated that there is no link at all between the star wars concept, the policy of the American administration. He has indicated that the U.S. Government has specifically denied this connection.
Not many days ago Mr. Paul Nitze, a senior official of the American Government, while in this city, said that it remains to be seen, and prior to that the U.S. Secretary of Defense said that the updating of the DEW line is an integral part of the backup system for the star wars concept. How does the Deputy Prime Minister square these two statements, which do make a connection between the modernization of the DEW line and the star wars project, with the statement put out by the U.S. embassy yesterday or the day before?

March 8, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, they are entirely consistent. I will show the Hon. Member, who obviously has not read a copy of this press release put out yesterday, the only inconsistency it contains. The only confusion or misconception is in the minds of the members of the Opposition and, I am afraid, also in the media. There is no linkage to the future of the SDI system. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that repeatedly, and we have a press release here which sets that out very clearly. The press release goes on to indicate:
We believe that these reports have been misleading. In responding to a hypothetical question, in Ottawa yesterday, Ambassador Nitze was merely pointing out that the President's Strategic Defence Initiative is a research project and that it is impossible at this time to predict what decisions will or will not be made at a considerably later date on any actual development or deployment.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a research project that the U.S. Secretary of Defence has said involves an inextricable link with the modernization of the DEW line. I do not care what was said yesterday. There is a conflict between what was said yesterday by the U.S. Government and what the U.S. Secretary of Defense said. We on this side of the House want clarification of that.
If the Deputy Prime Minister is so certain that there is no connection, I would ask him, in the name of democracy, and because of the seriousness of the issue, why the Government does not bring a proposed treaty before the House of Commons for debate and discussion before it is signed by the two Governments.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that the Hon. Member, and others who are asking similar questions, continue to refuse to accept the statements made by the Canadian and U.S. Governments.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let's see it.


Erik Nielsen: I see that the former Minister is nodding in agreement. He spoke about linkages between SDI and the North Warning System. He was a member of the Government which started the negotiations on the upgrading of an outdated system, not this Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: We didn't sign an agreement.


Erik Nielsen: I simply emphasize once again that the North Warning System, as we have said, and as the United States is saying, is being planned by Canada and the United States not as any part of a Strategic Defence Initiative's program, which is purely a research program.


NORTH WARNING SYSTEM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has certainly proved that he can read
the same statement over and over again in the House. That is encouraging.
Considering that senior officials in the United States,-and I am not denying what they have said-including the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Nitze, have said something to the contrary, namely, that they see a linkage between the two systems, and considering that the whole world, not just Canadians, is concerned about the star wars concept, why will the Government not do the correct thing, and bring all of the proposals before the House so that we can see what the details are, before an agreement is signed?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's problem is that he continues to reject what Mr. Nitze has said, which has been verified by the United States Government.


John Edward Broadbent: No, I do not.


Erik Nielsen: There is no conflict. There is no linkage. The North Warning System is exactly what its name implies. It is an early warning system to account for intrusions over our sovereign territory. The SDI is a research project which has no linkage whatsoever to the NWS. We have said that, the U.S. has said that, and if the Hon. Member chooses to reject that, that is his prerogative. But, I rather suspect his motives in doing that, as I do those of the former Liberal Minister.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. In light of the Throne Speech commitment to accessible and affordable child care, and the Minister's announcement that he would be consulting with his provincial colleagues on the mandate for a parliamentary task force on child care, and after five months of inaction on addressing this primary building block, where is his commitment to the principle of the right to work and effective equal access to the labour market for women?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised an issue which is of importance to the women of Canada and to this Government. I am happy to report that I have been holding consultations on this matter with my provincial counterparts in recent months. As the Hon. Member knows, the delivery of child care is principally done through provincial vehicles, so without consulting the Provinces and reaching some agreement regarding the frame of reference of the parliamentary task force, the possibility of achieving what we all wish-affordable and accessible day care-would not be the outcome of the parliamentary task force. It is anticipated that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will announce the frame of reference for that task force in the weeks to come.
March 8, 1985


COOKE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister is aware that Canada has signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination, and that part of that convention is the inclusion of child care services. In light of the forward move which the Minister has just announced, would he share with us the task force decisions which were made by the Katie Cooke child care task force? Will he share that information with us? If so, when will it be tabled?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I should mention to my colleague that, over the past decade, this has been an issue on the public record, and the previous Government did not distinguish itself with movement in this area.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Who set up the task force?


Walter Franklin McLean: The task force, which was headed by Dr. Katie Cooke, will report to me at the end of this month. After a period of one month, which will be used to study the report, the report will become a base document for the parliamentary task force.


EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the status of women. The Minister may be aware that the Jobs Action Group of the NDP caucus has met with groups across the country and that the principal recommendation coming from those hearings concerned the effect on women's employment of cut-backs in the service area-health jobs, welfare jobs, and so forth. Many women have told us that they do not want to move into the non-traditional areas, and that they want to keep their jobs because they think they are important.
Would the Minister explain if it is government policy to attack women's jobs? Is he aware of the disproportionate effect on women that restraint policies have? Is this a good policy for the status of women and for the jobs which women want?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that it is quite clearly the policy of the Government, both in its job-creation programs and in its over-all direction, to see that women and other target groups will not be disproportionately affected by the necessary cutbacks. As Minister responsible for the status of women I have been in touch with my colleagues who have direct program responsibility, and I have asked them to be particularly sensitive about those implications. If there are further questions on this subject, I think my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will be able to speak to them directly as they relate to employment initiatives.
Oral Questions RESTRAINT POLICY INQUIRY


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is the Minister aware of a Canadian government paper which was delivered to a UN-sponsored conference on women in the economic crisis, in Vienna, which specifically said that as Governments cut jobs or restrain wages in jobs, women would be more affected than men? Losses mean not only less women's jobs, but also less better jobs which women can get. I have also pointed out that the job-creation programs of the Government were not directed toward jobs for women, but were disporportionately directed toward jobs for men. Is it the policy to cut these jobs? If not, how will the Minister make up for the disproportionate effect which women will suffer as a result of the so-called restraint policies?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I know that employment and unemployment figures are not always ones which the Hon. Member wants to hear, but I would advise her that, in actual terms, between January and February, the last month for which statistics have been reported, 61,000 more women entered the labour force. Of that number, 53,000 obtained jobs, the great majority of which were full-time jobs. That is the largest increase for some time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENSIONS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said: [English]
Our commitment is clear and irreversible... We are committed to the concept of a homemaker's pension within the Canada Pension Plan; we believe it is a Fiscally sound proposal and will urge the provinces to give it their consent. Women should have, in their own right, a measure of future security.

Does that mean that this Government is going to be encouraged to implement the recommendations of Chapter 3 of the Report on Pension Reform?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the statements which we made during the last election campaign, those statements being our objectives to achieve within our first mandate. The one concerning which the Hon. Member

March 8, 1985
Oral Questions
has raised a question is under review, and I would suggest that she exercise patience and allow us to get into that mandate for the purpose of achieving those objectives.
In the meantime, however, my colleague the Minister of National Revenue has speeded up the process to cushion the disastrous impact of that situation.


NATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE-PENSIONS   REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I must say I am rather disappointed with the answer. The Elouse is aware that the Prime Minister will be meeting several employer and labour organizations on the twenty-second and twenty-third of this month at the National Economic Conference. Could the Minister give the House a guarantee that the subject of pensions will be put on the agenda?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for the agenda of the national economic conference, but I can assure the Hon. Member that there will be issues of great relevance to women discussed at that conference. Certainly the question of pensions and pension reform is being discussed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with the provinces at the present time, and indeed, in his over-all discussions. It is also on the agenda for discussion during the conference which the Minister responsible for the status of women is holding. So I can tell the Hon. Member that this Government, which is committed to moving ahead with pension reform, will be taking steps which the former Government, unfortunately, shirked.
* *
*


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. At this time of year many women who have children are the victims of predatory tax discounters who pocket 15 per cent of an advance on the family child tax credit which poor people desperately need. That is why they go to them in the first place for an advance. Will the Minister tell us when he will introduce legislation to outlaw tax discounters and protect low-income Canadians, particularly women, from such gouging practices?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure my colleague by telling her that we have undertaken a consultation process, particularly with the provinces and various interest groups, and that we intend to introduce legislation in the near future.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals procrastinated, and now this Government is doing the same thing. We don't need more consultation. Women are going to tax discounters today. What is the point of reforming child benefits, as we are doing now in committee, if usurers take 15 per cent of the benefit? Why can the Minister not bring forward legislation right away? There is enough evidence to show that this is needed.

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleague that it is simply because the Government wants to consult the Canadian people and make the decisions they expect in their best interests.
* *


INCREASE IN EXPORTS-FREE TRADE PROPOSAL
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and, in his absence, to the Minister of State for Finance. A recent report by Statistics Canada indicates that there is an increase of 23.4 per cent in our industrial productivity in Canada. This increase has been attributed to the fact that the United States economy has improved and we are selling it more of our goods in United States markets. Does the Minister believe that this trend is going to continue? And should we have a free trade arrangement with the United States?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect a little bit on some of the things which have happened. An OECD report noted recently that Canada has risen from thirteenth to seventh place among the industrialized nations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: We did have a $2 billion trade surplus that indicates our capability to compete, which certainly puts us in a much stronger position as we negotiate our trade relations around the world. I expect the productivity gains to continue because we are seeing an upsurge in confidence among Canadian businessmen who are going out around the world to attempt to compete even more.
March 8, 1985


STATUS OF WOMEN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women.
During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to increase up to 30 per cent the representation of women on boards of directors, commissions, agencies and Crown corporations. What did we get? Few if any women have been appointed as executive assistants or Deputy Ministers, and women account for only 5 per cent of all Government appointments to key positions.
Can the Minister explain to the House why women are one of the minor concerns of the Government, contrary to the claims made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member I would like to remind her that, of the recent changes in senior personnel within the Public Service, 20 per cent of those appointments went to women, which is a beginning of a process. I would like also to assure the Hon. Member that, in the process of cabinet appointments, this is a high priority, and in the months which lie ahead the Government will be announcing a number of key board appointments. This morning I met with key managers in the Public Service Commission, from across the Departments, in order to affirm to them the importance the Government places on the elevation of women into key managerial positions.


EDUCATION
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State responsible for the status of women and for post-secondary education. Does the Minister realize that the enormous cuts in education which are taking place across the country have a particularly adverse effect on women? Does he also realize that the approximate $100 million which was slashed from post-secondary education in British Columbia is in direct violation of a moral commitment to spend the money from the federal Government on post-secondary education? When is the Minister going to make it possible to ensure that federal transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education are spent on post-secondary education in the provinces?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member who shares the concern of myself and this Government for the viability of Canada's post-secondary institutions, let me assure her that I have been
Oral Questions
meeting with the Ministers of Education from across the country. I have now had three meetings with them in an effort to come to a consensus regarding the funding of post-secondary education. It is my intention, and the intention of this Government, to go back to the drawing board with the provinces in order that the concerns which are reflected by university administrations, faculty, and students, are addressed in the funding which is made available from the levels of government.


LEVEL OF PROVINCIAL EXPENDITURES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, these continuing consultations are too late for the President of the University of British Columbia. He has resigned in despair at the situation in that province because the federal Government will not speak out. When will the Minister not only carry on these consultations but publicly denounce the fact that the provinces, particularly British Columbia, do not spend the money intended for education, on education? When will the Minister speak out publicly on this issue? And when will he present to this House of Commons the kind of goals and standards for education which we think a Minister in his position should be able to espouse?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Member, I might remind her that, in her selective memory of the circumstance, she may have forgotten that it was the amendment of this Party in opposition to Bill C-12 which sought to bring about the accountability in terms of the financial transfers which are made, which was not there in the agreements which were laid out.


Pauline Jewett: It's absolutely toothless.


Walter Franklin McLean: It is our intention now, in the discussions with the provinces, to bring about a sense of accountability for future arrangements.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. Will the Minister advise the House what response the Government will make to the food crisis in the Sudan, exacerbated as it has been by so many Ethiopian refugees? In particular, will the Minister tell us if the Government intends to appoint any full-time officials to protect such a Sudan relief program from the kind of abuse suffered in Ethiopia?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We had appointed a co-ordinator last fall and, at the same time, established an emergency fund for Africa. I might point out
80164- 43

March 8, 1985
Oral Questions
that Ethiopia has been one of our concerns and the emergency fund was intended as well to cover food assistance for Sudan. Mr. MacDonald just came back from Sudan and is expected to produce a report which will likely recommend assistance to meet the new needs in Sudan.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. As the House is aware, we have been trying for two weeks to persuade the Government to assist the Domtar project in Quebec in order to ensure the continued existence of thousands of jobs, and we are still waiting. Instead of reacting positively to our request, the Government is now depriving another region of Quebec, Becancour, by refusing to finance or assist the oxysynthesis project, despite the fact the project has been approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency and is a development priority for the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know when the Government is going to find its feet and whether the Minister can inform the House whether workers in Becancour can count on the Government's assistance in carrying out this major industrial project in a region that has a pressing need for such projects.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as far as information on the oxysynthesis project is concerned, I can inform the Hon. Member that I will make sure his question is passed on to my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who will be able to give him a more detailed explanation than I am able to do this morning.
Regarding his long preamble to the question about Domtar, I think my hon. friend is well acquainted with the Government's position and that he knows perfectly well the Prime Minister is meeting the Premier of Quebec on this very day and that this particular subject is on the agenda. Furthermore, I think the Hon. Member is also aware the Government has indicated that, aside from the direct subsidy suggestion, it is prepared to support other options that might be discussed with respect to the Domtar project.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government is finally going to bring in a consistent regional development policy instead of proceeding by means of decisions that are haphazard, arbitrary and ignore the provinces' priorities. Are we finally going to see where the Government stands and what
its criteria are for regional development? It is extremely important for Canadians to know this, and the oxysynthesis project is a case in point.


Robert René de Cotret: 
REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the same Minister on the same subject. As Member for Windsor, albeit Windsor in Ontario, I am interested in the Domtar file. This week, as it happened, the same decision was made concerning the oxysynthesis project as in the case of Domtar. We need to have an explanation now about the Government decision which might strike a blow to Quebec's economy and about which the Progressive Conservative Member for Richelieu was not informed. Why did the Government take that decision?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I must give my colleague the same answer to the same question asked by my other colleague. I will convey it to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion the moment he gets back, and he will undoubtedly be able to provide satisfactory explanations and say why a grant request for a project was turned down, in all likelihood in accordance with the specific standards of the program under which the grant application was filed.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, you cannot go on governing from Bangkok.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Will the Minister tell us why the Government had made a decision to protect
March 8, 1985

a foreign company, Dupont, at the expense of jobs and income in Quebec? Why did the Government make that decision?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is reaching conclusions which are very far from the topic at hand. I do not see how he can affirm, with such categorical and definite statements, that that decision in any way deals with any other than the question at hand, that of the request for a grant or subvention to the firm in question in Quebec.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I will direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board. As the Minister well knows, the pay-out under the Western Grain Transportation Act is approximately $600 million. Under the Western Grain Stabilization Program the pay-out is approximately $600 million annually.
My question is with regard to fairness. The farmers in the Maritime region of Canada are requesting a mere $13.5 million because of the emergency situation with which they are now confronted. Does the Minister think it is fair that there has been no action on that particular file?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the question is under very active consideration by the Minister of Agriculture. Knowing my colleague to be a very fair man, 1 can assure the Hon. Member that the solution will be equally fair.


TIMING OF DECISION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Estimates that the Minister has placed before the House of Commons with regard to the high expenditures in the Prime Minister's office, and a host of other expenditures, would the Minister agree to give the House an undertaking to have a decision by March 15 so that the farmers in the Maritime region will be able to set their economic agenda for the rest of the year?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, sometimes my Estimates are too high, sometimes they are too low. They are all over the map. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that the decison on those matters will be made as soon as possible to ensure-


Mr. Tobin:: Timely.


Robert René de Cotret: Timely is a very good word. It will be made in a timely manner to ensure that the farmers in that part of the country are aware of the situation they are facing.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Severance pay to be used against unemployment insurance benefits will come into effect on April 1 of this year. The NDP task force on jobs travelled around the country and discovered that many people are appalled at this change. Will the Minister tell the House whether she is prepared to reconsider the implementation of such a program on April 1? Will she, in fact, postpone it?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, notice of these changes was given in the economic statement by the Minister of Finance on November 8. At that time I undertook to consult with Member of Parliament, including the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. I then received representations to postpone the introduction of these measures until certain dates. On December 21 I announced that they would be phased in over a period of time, beginning on April 1. That decision stands, having been assisted, I may say, with advice of Members in the opposition Parties.


PURPOSE AND TREATMENT OF SEVERANCE PAY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister that we on this side of the House advised her that there is a very important principle involved in severance pay. Is the Minister now prepared to comment on, and will she accept, the principle that severance pay in fact has nothing to do with labour given in an employer-employee relationship, and that it in fact is to make up for the hurt to the employee when he is laid off?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the measures that I announced take into consideration that, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, severance pay and pensions will be treated as income in connection with unemployment insurance, like every other kind of income.


John R. Rodriguez: There is a principle involved.


HOUSING
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, unless we receive clarification this morning, Canadians can only come to the conclusion that they have been misled with respect to RRAP cuts. My question is for the Minister responsible for CMHC. On November 8 the Minister of Finance announced RRAP cuts of 25 per cent, or $29 million for fiscal year 1985. In fact the cuts range from 45 per cent in the Province of New Brunswick to 11 per cent in the Province

March 8, 1985
Petitions
of Ontario, for a national average of 36 per cent and a savings in excess of $50 million across the country. Will the Minister confirm those figures? Can he explain the massive disparity in cuts among the regions, under the RRAP Program?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm the figures that the Hon. Member has used, because they are inaccurate. He is correct in his first assumption that there was a reduction of RRAP announced in the economic statement of November 8. I am sure Members of the House are aware that that reduction occurred because of financial necessity when we took over government from the Party which the Hon. Member represents.
I would also inform the Hon. Member that, if he compares the needs-based study, and removes the special allocation, sometimes called "election year allocation", for RRAP with respect to certain regions in Canada, he will find that across Canada the reduction will be of the order established in the Minister's economic statement.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


NON PROFIT CO-OP SOCIAL HOUSING
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I note that those numbers were from his office this morning. Will the Minister also confirm that the Government is totally abandoning RRAP assistance worth $5,000 per unit to non profit co-op social housing, housing that is particularly important to senior citizens in the inner cores of our country's cities? I will tell the Minister before he answers that 1 got that information from his office as well this morning. There are zero dollars in the budget for non profit social co-op housing, housing that is important to senior citizens.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the Hon. Member alleges that he already has answers to these questions but puts them anyway. I would inform the Hon. Member that Section 56(1) with respect to non-profit and social housing-


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is no money.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member says there is no money. I can assure the Hon. Member that this Government's reductions will be considerably less than the 43 per cent by which his Government reduced funding under Section 56(1), particularly to those in the co-op housing field.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, March 6, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, today is a landmark for this Government and indeed for all Canadians. Today we are taking a major step: we are opening doors to opportunities and to equality in the workplace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am sure that Members of the House will know of my long-standing commitment to equality. They will know that I have long dedicated my energies to the issues that I address today.

That is why I have the rare privilege of rising in the House to announce the measures this Government will take in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment.

In her report which I tabled in November, Judge Rosalie Abella coined the phrase "employment equity". That phrase is short and simple but it singularly expresses the goal of this Government in promoting equal opportunities for women, for native people, for disabled persons and visible minorities- promoting equity in the workplace.
There are some plain facts that face us in this country today. It is a fact that women, on average, earn only 64 cents for every dollar earned by men. Fully 77 per cent of women are found in only five of the 22 major job categories, those at the bottom of the salary scale. It is a fact that the recently released study Who Gets The Work pointed out that "whites have three job prospects for every one for blacks". Fact: among employable disabled persons, 50 per cent are unemployed. Fact: in many native communities unemployment is higher than 70 per cent.
As a country, we cannot afford to exclude these Canadians from full participation in the workplace. We need their contribution to the economic renewal and the growth of this country. In the past, lip service has been paid to the concept of equality in the workplace. It has been talked about, studied and worried about. What we need is action. That is what I am announcing today.
This Government will require Crown corporations, federally regulated businesses and contractors providing goods and services to the federal Government to implement employment equity. Crown corporations will be required to report annually to Parliament on their plans and progress, beginning in 1986. Federally regulated businesses with 100 or more employees will be required by legislation to report annually to Parliament on their plans and progress with a three-year phasing in period to establish the necessary information and data systems.
March 8, 1985

Businesses seeking Government contracts for goods and services of $200,000 or more will have to show their compliance or stand to lose their right to compete for government business.

The approach we have chosen will enable companies to develop plans compatible with their individual needs. There will be no major administrative costs or unnecessary and heavy-handed intervention.

We are not creating a massive bureaucratic enforcement agency and we will not impose an unwieldy set of rigid procedures. Instead, we will draw on the energies and inventiveness of employers in removing barriers that now stand across the path of visible minorities, of women, disabled persons and native people. The means are flexible but the goal is fixed: employment equity.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time, disclosure of the results obtained will be compulsory. For the first time, all information will be made public. Public scrutiny will be a precious tool since it will provide an incentive for obtaining genuine and tangible results.

With this information in hand, the powers and authorities of the Human Rights Commission can be properly exercised. When action is needed to ensure equity in the workplace, action will be taken.
The Government will be discussing these measures in the next few weeks with representatives of visible minorities, business, women, disabled persons, labour and native people. We will be telling them, as I am informing the House today, that this Government is committed to action and that we expect results.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Equally important, we will be seeking their views on legislative measures to be introduced into the House by June of this year.
With regard to equal pay for work of equal value, the Government must first set its own house in order and this has not been done. We are committed to doing so. To that end my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), is inviting the Pubic Service unions to join us in developing an implementation plan for equal pay for work of equal value. I understand that he expects their preliminary report by June 30 of this year.
In total, the measures I have announced today will touch the working environment of over one million Canadians. This is a first and major step but I do emphasize that it is only the first step. We will not be satisfied until the goal-the concept of fair access and equal opportunities for advancement-is a reality from coast to coast, from the shipyard to the assembly line, to the corporate boardroom. We will remove the barriers
Employment
that restrict the economic future of so many Canadians. Our economic development, the development of this country, depends on and demands the full participation of all. Give Canadians real opportunities and they will get the jobs. Give them the jobs and they will create wealth. Generate wealth and there will be economic growth, and economic growth will develop more jobs.
[ Translation]
Jobs in all sectors of industry, in companies large and small. I would like to add at this point that small- and medium-sized businesses will not be obliged to comply with the measures announced today. However, we are confident that they too will implement employment equity measures since they are also anxious to reap the benefits of increased productivity.

The few people in business, Sir, who indeed have already adopted employment equity have told me that they have seen substantial growth in their productivity, in their profits and most importantly in their people. The value of investment, not just in plants and machinery but in people, was clearly recognized at the First Ministers' conference in Regina. There we embarked on an entirely new approach to labour market development. Fundamental to the new direction that was taken at that time is equity. Fair access for all Canadians to new training and new employment opportunities. This strategy will tackle head on the problem of trapping minorities in employment ghettoes. We will tackle head on the critical problem of job re-entry for women.
The measures I am announcing today in response to the Abella report will join those efforts announced earlier in a comprehensive attack on barriers to equity in the workplace. These measures are a major step forward in the progress of economic renewal. More than that, this is a step forward in the pursuit of economic justice. It is a step that will help to ensure that the benefits of growth and renewal will be shared by all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This is another step toward a better future for Canada, a future of opportunity, a future of equal opportunity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as the employment critic for the Liberal Party, it is my responsibility to comment on the statement just now made by the Minister in the House, a statement which she alleges to be, and we agree, on a very important subject. I must tell you, however, Mr. Speaker, that I am not able to make the comments that are required because, contrary to all practice and contrary to the promise of the Minister, I did not receive the statement until 11.15 a.m. after the Question Period had started.

March 8, 1985
Employment


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Allmand:: The Minister had promised to let me have that statement at nine o'clock this morning, and I had set aside the full morning to examine it so I would be prepared for this reply. It did not arrive at 9.30 a.m., it did not arrive at 10.00 a.m., it did not arrive at 10.30 a.m.; it arrived after the Question Period had started.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: That Party talks about parliamentary reform. What a farce that is! The Government has a majority. It has 211 seats to 70 in the Opposition, yet the Government stacks the deck on every occasion against the Opposition.


Mr. Foster:: Dirty pool.


William Warren Allmand: The Government talks about wanting to have better debates in this House, yet the Government did not deliver the document, the basis of the debate, until Question Period had started and we were occupied with other things.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter Franklin McLean: Where were you this morning-


William Warren Allmand: I was here, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Franklin McLean: Where were you this morning when we wanted unanimous consent?


William Warren Allmand: We would not give that unanimous consent because the Government did not produce the document that was to be discussed.
Worse still-and I want to give you notice, Mr. Speaker, of a question of privilege-this document was delivered to the press before it was delivered to Members of Parliament. I checked that. The Government could get the document to the press but the Government could not get the document to Members of Parliament.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That is trampling on Parliament.


William Warren Allmand: That is the real attitude the Government has to Parliament. The rest is rhetoric and media politics. That is all we get out of that Government.
With respect to the statement, we cannot, as I said, give the subject matter the attention it should have at this time. There are, however, some forward steps in the statement. We are pleased for those forward steps. They are the fruition of what was begun by the former Liberal Government in passing the Human Rights Act, sometimes against opposition on the other side, and in bringing in the Charter of Rights, in particular the equality sections that will go into effect on April 17.
When the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) appointed Judge Abella to carry out this commission, the initiative was indicative of the Goverment of Canada's commitment to increase the employability and productivity of disadvantaged groups. The commission of inquiry was to
examine and report on ways to assist women, native people, disabled individuals and visible minorities to compete on an equal basis for employment opportunities. The Member also stated on that occasion that the elimination of systemic discrimination is essential to ensure that there is full participation of all Canadians in the public and private sectors. The growth of the Canadian economy depends on such participation. That was when the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry appointed Judge Abella to carry out that commission on July 27, 1983.
Despite the fact that there are some positive steps announced by the Minister this morning, the document falls short of what Judge Abella recommended and it falls short of the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Conservative Party during the election campaign.
I have read the statement quickly. Some parts are vague and will need much clarification. We will be asking for some clarification this morning during the question period that follows.
One of the main points that Judge Abella makes in her report was that voluntary action was not working and we needed legislation.
Let us examine what the Minister has announced. She says that Crown corporations will be required to report annually to Parliament on their plans and progress beginning in 1986. But in another document which the Minister of Employment and Immigration gave us at the last minute, she says there will be no legislation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We don't need legislation.


William Warren Allmand: I am interested in knowing how the Minister intends to oblige the Crown corporations to do what she wants them to do. I would like to know what the sanctions are, and why she did not bring in legislation such as Judge Abella had recommended. In addition, Judge Abella recommended that this reporting apply to Crown corporations and federal agencies. There is no mention of the federal agencies in the Minister's statement.
With respect to federally-regulated business, and this includes Bell Telephone, Canadian Pacific Railway, the companies that come under the federal Goverment's jurisdiction for labour purposes, the Minister says that federally-regulated businesses with 100 or more employees will be required, in this case by legislation, to report annually to Parliament on their plans and progress with a three-year phasing in period.
The Minister says elsewhere that this applies only to 800 out of 4,500 companies. There is no explanation. We would want to know why only 800. I would also want to know what the sanctions are if the wishes ofthe Government are not adhered to.
With respect to contract compliance, the Minister says that businesses seeking government contracts for goods and services of $200,000 or more will have to show their compliance or stand to lose their right to compete for government business. Again, I am interested as to whether there will be legislation or will it be done by administrative action? The Minister said
March 8, 1985

it would only apply to 100 companies. Members opposite are laughing; they do not pay much attention to Judge Abella. They should read the report. Judge Abella said that legislation was required. I am anxious to hear the Minister's answers. For example, why only 100 companies? The Minister rejects outright Judge Abella's recommendation for a monitoring agency. There are no reasons given. She calls it a massive bureaucratic enforcement agency, but it does not have to be massive and bureaucratic. It can be an effective enforcement agency under one of the options set out by Judge Abella. We do not have very much on that either.
In her statement the Minister said that it was time for action. While she has given us some steps forward, there are many areas which are vague and appear to be in the voluntary sphere rather than provided through legislation. I do not understand that, and I think we would all like answers.
She will discuss further with representatives of visible minorities, businesswomen, the disabled and so on. I thought she was to do that before making the statement.
With respect to equal pay for work of equal value, she says the Government must first put its own house in order. The Prime Minister categorically promised to bring in legislation on that in the women's debate during the election campaign. If its house had to be put in order, what has happened? Government Members bragged the other day about being in office for six months. Why were they not doing that? The Minister says that they need action now, but she keeps putting it off.
We all have some specific questions to ask. Not only our employment critic should have had the right to look at the statement in advance; we have critics for the handicapped, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille); for women, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone); for multiculturalism, and who is also responsible for visible minorities, and for native people. None of them has had a chance to look at this statement. What kind of debate can we have?


Mr. Nunziata:: She gives it to the press.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, she gives it to the press.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We made the mistake of giving it to you.


William Warren Allmand: You did not give it to me. Live up to your commitments. I got it at 11.15 am. You would have been the first person in the last Parliament to complain of that kind of treatment. My colleagues who are specialists in various fields have many questions on this statement.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Minister for providing me with a copy of the statement at about 10.30 a.m.


William Warren Allmand: Why the discrimination?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We can say that the real Opposition got the report on time.
Employment
We have had a statement this morning on the Government's response to the Abella report. My first reaction has to be that the Government has stolen the words of Judge Abella but not the substance of the report. The Government across the way has a mandate to act or enforce what Judge Abella is saying, but I think it has chosen not to act in a substantive way. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had said that it should be done in the federal Government, Crown corporations and the private sector, with his mandate we could have employment equity, we could have equal pay for work of equal value, we could have all the things about which Judge Abella talked in her report.

As I said in English, they have stolen the words of Judge Abella, but they completely forgot the practical aspects of the report.

The first thing is employment equity. We find in the Government's statement this morning that there is no enforcement, outside of a voluntary appeal and lots of good words that there should be employment equity in the country. It is one thing to have rhetoric but it is another thing to have some real enforcement for the women and the minorities to whom the report refers-the visible minorities, the native people of Canada and the disabled. I ask the Minister and the Government: Where are the goals in her statement for employment equity? Where are the targets in her statement for employment equity? Where is the timetable in terms of imposing employment equity? Where are the sanctions? How can we have something without sanctions? Where is the enforcement mechanism? In the report of Judge Abella three or four different ways were outlined to enforce employment equity. Where are the enforcement mechanisms which are so necessary for this to work?
When it comes to enforcement, Judge Abella said that the voluntary mechanisms would not work and that we needed a mandatory mechanism. On page 195 of the report the following appears:
A voluntary program which a mandatory reporting requirement is nonetheless voluntary in the absence of a requirement to remedy the discriminatory practices disclosed by the information reported.
A requirement of public reporting may result in public pressure on a company to revise its systems but it is unrealistic to rely on public opinion as an effective monitoring agent. It results in a speculative and scattered approach and creates the perception, in the absence of enforcement, that the issue is deserving of only casual attention.
If we are to have employment equity in the country, we need an enforcement mechanism to ensure that it occurs. We have had a lot of good will and good words in the past. People have said that we could do this in a voluntary sense, but it just has not happened. This is why we need some enforcement.
As I said before, the Minister has stolen the words of Judge Abella, not the substance of her report. Also the Minister mentioned in her statement the importance of publishing information, making public all kinds of information. That in itself is not enough.

March 8, 1985
Employment
[ Translation]
We, in this country, have often looked into the situation of Canadian women, native women, visible minorities and the handicapped, with much publicity throughout the land. Judge Abella has produced a good report with many recommendations, and I agree with most of the recommendations denouncing inequality, inequity towards Canadian women, the handicapped, native people or other visible minorities here in Canada.
But what we need now, Mr. Speaker, is action. The time has come to do something in Canada. The Minister borrowed the words of Judge Abella, Mr. Speaker, but she forgot the practical aspects of the judge's report.

The fourth point I want to make this morning concerns the whole question of equal pay for work of equal value. In her statement this morning the Minister talked about the dismal record of the country in this particular area. Of course, I agree with her. I think we should look at her statement very carefully. She refers to the federal Government only, that she wants to rectify this situation in the Public Service. There is a bit of a timetable in her statement. The Government will enter into a consultative process to bring about the whole principle of equal pay for work of equal value. However, there is nothing in her statement for Crown corporations. There is nothing at all pertaining to the private sector when it comes to this very important question. There is nothing at all when it comes to government purchasing, and the Government purchased several billions of dollars worth of goods and services every year.
It is fine to apply the principle only to the federal Public Service, but what about the other areas that are so important? The Government has an important mandate. If the Prime Minister gives the word, I am sure he would have co-operation to implement the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, not only in the Public Service but in Crown corporations, in government purchasing and in the private sector. I suggest to the Minister that the Government should act according to that principle and sentiment.
As the Minister has said, there is tremendous discrimination against visible minorities in the country, such as black Canadians who are faced with real difficulties, as we discovered the other night in Toronto, finding jobs as compared with white Canadians. Also we find that about 50 per cent of the employable disabled people and 70 per cent or more of Indian and Metis people are without jobs. Because those figures are so harsh and real, the Minister should apply the principle across the board. We need more than just words and rhetoric; we must apply the principles which Judge Abella recommended in her report.
In the last while the action group of my Party met with disabled Canadians. There was a very moving example in Halifax about a month ago when we were told by an organization of disabled Canadians about the need for contract compliance, affirmative action and employment equity for disabled Canaians. We were told that disabled Canadians tended to be
the forgotten people in our country and were discriminated against greatly when seeking jobs.
The Minister did not deal adequately in her statement this morning with the question of government purchasing. In this area she is being very timid and is taking a Mickey Mouse approach. She says the government purchasing section applies to around a hundred companies in the country. Judge Abella says in her report at page 227 that in 1980 the Canadian Government purchased goods and services from between 25,000 and 30,000 companies, worth $6.5 billion to the private sector, and an additional $5.5 billion worth went to Crown corporations. That was around $12 billion back in 1980. As I say, there are between 25,000 and 30,000 companies involved, and all this compliance will apply to is the 100 largest companies in this country. She could be a lot more bold than that.
[ Translation]
There is another important point, Mr. Speaker, and that is training. In Regina two or three weeks ago, and I was there with the Minister for the First Ministers' Conference, the Minister announced a training program for Canadians which unfortunately allocated only 17 per cent of its funding for Canadian women and Canadian youth. Funding for other groups mentioned in the Abella Report was not very generous either, and I am thinking of native people, visible minorities and the disabled.

Once again that is an example where the Minister is very long on rhetoric but very short when it comes to substance.
Another area is the whole question of child care. Yesterday this Party had an opportunity to meet with about 15 or 16 women's groups from across the country here in Ottawa. One thing they mentioned time and time again was that if we are to have equality and equity for the women of Canada, we must provide adequate day care and child care services. We heard from the Prime Minister during the campaign the promise to put a lot more dollars into child care in Canada. What have we had since? We only have the promise of another study. We tend to study, study, study. I say to the Minister that the time for study is rapidly ending and the time for action is now approaching. We have a comprehensive study and a lot of specific recommendations. How about implementing some of those recommendations on child care?
We can have employment equity in this country. We can have employment equity for the four groups mentioned in this report. We can have employment equity just as we have employment equity now for Francophones in the Public Service.
[ Translation]
And I agree with this affirmative action program for Francophone women, and I am sure all Parties in the House will agree, Mr. Speaker, but we could do exactly the same thing for the other groups mentioned in this report.
March 8, 1985



We must, as I said before, have enforcement. Without enforcement, we are not going to have any action at all, or very little. In the United States, where there are some mandatory laws, it has been found, first, that it improves equality for minority groups and improves equality for women; and, second, it has made those particular industries more productive in the United States. I suggest that the same wouldhappen in the country.
We can and must have goals, targets, opportunity and more money for training and child care. In conclusion, we must give the people of this country an opportunity. We must give them equality. We must give them the tools to build a new country, a new vision for Canada where everybody will be put back to work and we will become a nation of producers. Putting Canada back to work will mean more fairness for every Canadian, more opportunities for every Canadian, more fairness for one and all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for speeches is now over. Questions?
[ Translation]


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister.
The Abella Report contains at least fifty recommendations on training, especially language training for immigrants and for women who work in the home. I wonder whether, considering the Abella Report's recommendations, the Minister could negotiate new agreements with the provinces on second language teaching, either French or English, for courses for women working in the home which would of course require some financial arrangement for babysitters, in any case for the whole language training issue. Mrs. Abella mentions the subject in at least fifty recommendations. I wonder whether the Minister could give us her views on the subject today and let us know where the Government is going and whether she intends to introduce a definitive policy, with the co-operation of the provinces, for setting up these language training programs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his question. A number of recommendations have been made in the Abella report with regard to Vinformation, the training area. These have all been taken into the ongoing review-and Regina was the first step of it-of training and job creation being conducted by my Department. Some of that will have to be developed with regard to training for native people, for example, with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). There will be other areas which touch directly on programs relating to the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), and this will be developed with him. The fact is that the whole thrust of training as agreed to at Regina is being worked out now on a federal-provincial basis. One thing that impressed me
Employment
in Regina was the fact that there was co-operation in this field by the First Ministers of the provinces. I look forward to seeing that continued.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister why she has not dealt with the whole question of part-time work. As she knows only too well, the large majority of part-time workers, some 72 per cent a couple of years ago, are women. We recently found that Crown corporations, Air Canada being the prime example, are trying to press for unlimited part-time jobs in their contracts. This will be targeted particularly at women. Women who have been employed full-time will be forced into part-time jobs without adequate benefits. They will not have adequate chance for all kinds of opportunities, for example, job improvement and training, such as they would have with a full-time job. Why are part-time workers not mentioned? This is vital. What is she going to do about part-time workers as far as employment equity is concerned?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there is no exclusion of part-time workers from this report. The approach that has been taken is looking at ways in which Crown corporations, federally-regulated businesses and those businesses having contract compliance will develop their employment equity plans to meet their needs. That includes part-time workers. It does not exclude them. I want the Hon. Member to know that.
I would also like the Hon. Member to recognize that in the agreements that were arrived at in Regina she may have noticed that there was one area where the federal Government committed something in the vicinity of $100 million for innovation. That is an area where I hope progress can be made with regard to flexible work hours, part-time, child care structures, all of this.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We want full-time, not part-time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member does not recognize that I mentioned flexible work hours and part-time workers. All of this will be dealt with in that field as well, but it will be interrelated.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I would begin by congratulating the Minister on making the announcement in the House. I listened to the critic from the Liberal Party. I was critic on behalf of the Opposition for over four years. On one occasion and one occasion only was an announcement made in the House. The common practice was for me to have a good day when I could pick up the actual announcement within 24 hours after the announcement was made somewhere else in the country. The average was close to two days. So we are in good shape.
The thrust of what the Minister said in the House today is that we are going to get employment equity in this country that its sensitive to local communities, sensitive to local aims of government and their function, sensitive to local businesses and the functions they perform in the local community. Am I correct in drawing the conclusion that this is a program that

March 8, 1985
Employment
will be really sensitive to all the differences between communities and businesses in the country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, not only this major step that we took today but the announcement that was made in Regina emphasized that the thrust of the Government will be toward recognizing local issues, local needs, regional disparities and regional differences. I know the critic for the New Democratic Party has said in the discussions he is having across the country with many of the people to whom I spoke that decentralization from Ottawa is definitely needed in this field. This would place more self-reliance on individuals, organizations and communities. That is the whole thrust of the Government's new labour market strategy and of today's announcement.
I should also tell the Hon. Member that in sending the preliminary material to the official critics of the opposition Parties, I was assured by both offices that it had arrived before Queston Period.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one of the things to which the Minister can address herself is her concept of the purpose of Parliament and her idea of allowing an opportunity for people to debate the issues. What is the purpose of making a statement in the House of Commons when the Official Opposition has no chance to respond to that statement? Something of such moment and importance as the Abella report which deals with four very important groups about which this Parliament is concerned and wishes to give them their dignity and human rights is brought up on a Friday. I would think that this would be a matter of great importance to this Parliament.
Members of the Official Opposition had not been given notes or information about the statement until it had been made. The statement was brought before the press before it was brought before us. As the Opposition critic for issues affecting the handicapped and as the deputy critic for issues affecting minority groups and visible minorities, I feel that that is a deprivation of my opportunity to get the information 1 think I ought to have in order to be able to approach this question.


Mr. Keeper:: Come back tomorrow.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Tomorrow is Saturday. Members of the NDP should look at their calendars.
This issue is something which requires some concern.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Let's get at the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr.   de Corneille@: There is a great deal of noise coming from my left side where Members of the NDP sit.
One of the promises that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the election campaign was that he would in fact bring in those recommendations contained in
Sections 26 and 27 of the report entitled Obstacles. That report made recommendations that required legislation and compulsory action on the part of the Government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question to the Minister, this being a question period. The Hon. Member's preamble has well exceeded the usual time allotted for the asking of a question. Would he please put the question to the Minister?


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Speaker, the question is related to the promise made by the Prime Minister that the limit for government contracts would be $20,000. Unless the Minister made an error in reading her script, she seemed to indicate that the level at which a contract must be before there will be some concern on the part of the Government regarding asking a private sector organization to comply with these requirements will be $200,000. That seems to be 10 times the amount mentioned by the Prime Minister. Will the Minister be satisfied with this promise-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I now recognize the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member began by asking what I thought Parliament was for. I think it is for discussing issues such as this. That is why I have taken the time to make this statement in the House of Commons. That did not normally happen when the Liberal Government was in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As the Hon. Member perhaps heard, I have also announced that there will be legislation coming before Parliament on these issues. I would trust that he would be here to debate those issues and discuss and study this legislation when it goes to committee. I would also say that reports were sent to the employment critics of the House of Commons. I am the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am not responsible for other areas. Therefore, I sent the announcement to the official critics.
The Hon. Member wanted to know about the $200,000 limit with regard to contract compliance. I can tell him that that affects 100 of the largest companies. In total, private companies do something in the vicinity of $6 billion worth of business in goods and services under government contracts. Those 100 companies to which contract compliance will apply do 75 per cent of that $6 billion worth of business. The great bulk of moneys that are dispensed by the Government to private companies will be covered by the steps being taken today.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). The Minister has expressed her commitment to employment equity and her concern about visible minorities. She knows that second-language training in English or French is crucial to visible minorities and recent immigrants so that they may
March 8, 1985

have adequate employment opportunities. I am wondering why the Minister, having expressed her concern about visible minorities and about equity, has made no announcement today regarding adequate funding for language training.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is because those issues were addressed in the over-all agreement that was arrived at in Regina. At that time we spoke about training as it applies to women, native people and visible minorities. I would like the Hon. Member to understand that the labour market strategy that was announced in Regina and the agreements that were reached with the provinces enable us for the first time to work together to meet the very concerns expressed by the Hon. Member. In that $900 million which is totally allocated for programs that will be worked out with the provinces and the private sector, training and second language will be a very major concern.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to compliment the Minister. I am really very pleased.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: On behalf of the Liberal Party, 1 would like to express the fact that I see this as a part of the ongoing steps of development started by one of the Minister's very good friends, Judy LaMarsh. I know that in the history of the development of equity, affirmative action and equality for women, it has been an uphill fight for all women regardless of political affiliation. I am really pleased to see this step being taken. I do, however, have questions. I must admit to the Minister that I did not receive a copy of the report so I cannot ask her the kinds of pointed questions that would elicit the responses I want.
My general gut feeling is that even with the Minister's desire to see this ongoing development continue in keeping with the Royal Commission on the Status of Women report which began in 1967, with the Advisory Council in 1973 and with many other events which I will not read into the record, I am really concerned about what I heard from the Minister. Does she believe that in not applying a mandatory requirement for reporting, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not be given the kind of manpower and finances it needs? If it is not given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, then to whom will it be given and how? She is creating goodwill no doubt, but how does she see the reporting so that we can supervise what she wants to accomplish for all women, visible minorities and the handicapped, some of whom are also women?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments which the Hon. Member made. She knows, as I do, of the ongoing struggle in taking steps and measures such as the ones which were announced today. We realize that struggle is there, but every time something moves forward, there are a great many of us who are that much more pleased. But we never give up the struggle.
Employment
Because the Hon. Member has not had an opportunity to read this document in detail, I will tell her that the reporting is mandatory. It is mandatory for Crown corporations and it is mandatory, by legislation, for federally-regulated businesses. As those reports are received on an annual basis, they will be tabled in Parliament and made public. Under its present legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be able to initiate action if it feels that the goals are not being met.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to see that after six months in power and only a few months after the Abella Report was published, the Progressive Conservative Government has now been able to table in the House some concrete measures on equality in the workplace.
The question I would like to put to the Minister, and which is of great concern to me, concerns maternity leave. I would like to know whether, in the near future, the next step will be to consider that women need supplementary maternity leave in addition to what they have now, in order to be able to raise and care for their young children more consistently and with let us say better results than is the case today. Does the Minister intend to consider this matter in the near future?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to the Hon. Member, I asked myself when was the last time a Government responded to a royal commission report within three months?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Some royal commission reports seldom get a response. The suggestions which the Hon. Member has made are very relevant and I will certainly give them consideration.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to encourage the Government to continue making statements. I think it is a helpful process when it is done in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: The Minister will know that up to 20 per cent of the projected increase in the labour force, especially in the western provinces in the next decade, will involve native young people. What plans does the Minister have to increase, rather than decrease, pre-employment training programs and particularly life-skills training? What steps has she planned for following the recommendation of the report, that there be innovative mobile training centres, especially in northern and remote areas, to help those people prepare for the jobs which they need badly?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the measures which have been announced today fit into the wider program of the new labour force strategy which was agreed

March 8, 1985
Employment
upon in Regina. I mentioned that because a number of provincial Governments, particularly the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan, raised the issue which was raised by the Hon. Member. In that sense, the thrust and directions which were decided upon in Regina will enable several target groups to have programs more effectively directed to them. The target group which is covered by the new programs, and job entry, will take young native people from the educational situation where they may be at the moment, and increase that educational opportunity to have it lead to work experience. Money has been allocated for that. At the present time we are working, together with the provinces and native people, to decide where and how these programs can best be allocated to the concerned regions. I can tell the Hon. Member, having arrived at the principles and an over-all agreement in Regina, that we are working on detailed plans for each of these programs.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that at least the rhetoric is there as far as it concerns the removal of barriers for re-entrance into the workforce, specifically as it affects women. I imagine the Minister had in mind the women who, for one reason or another, had to leave the workforce and are trying to return. It is very difficult for women to get back into the workforce, even when jobs are available. Women are discriminated against, especially in high unemployment areas. The greatest discriminator against those women is the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) because of her hiring guidelines which went to every single Manpower office in the country.
In view of the fine rhetoric today which indicated that the barriers would be removed, I would like to ask the Minister, for all the remaining direct job-creation projects that come under her jurisdiction which have not yet started but will start in the coming months, will she remove the restriction against hiring new entrants and re-entrants in the hiring criteria? Will she also tell the House if she will undertake to remove those same restrictions which, as she said, discriminate against women in the federal-provincial agreements which will be arrived at for direct job creation this coming fall? Yes or no? Or will she blame it on the Liberals?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, of course, that is very easy to do because the guidelines were set up by the former Government. I understand the importance of the steps which have been taken today. I waited 15 years for something like this. I sat in the House of Commons and urged the former Liberal Government to be much more assertive about affirmative action programs.
To address the question of job creation, it is because the job-creation projects of the past did not work for women, long-term unemployed and young people who were seeking entry into the labour force that we have developed a new labour force strategy. The Hon. Member does not seem to comprehend that. Indeed, we are making major changes in all of the programs. I am sorry, with the number of years he sat
on the government side, that he could not bring the Liberal Government to take some of these steps.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the Minister. I think women on all sides of the House, and women across Canada, are heartened today by the model which the Minister has put forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: I am also pleased to see such a reasonable approach. Some of the concerns which the small business community had, most of which businesses are headed by women, have been addressed. I am pleased to see the Minister's approach, particularly with respect to contract compliance.
Could the Minister share with us a few examples of the kind of assistance which she would anticipate being provided to companies under the contract compliance section, and the criteria by which their plans would be assessed?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines and the techniques which will be agreed upon with companies, whether they are companies which purchase from the Government or companies which come under the federally-regulated sector, will be discussed with each company. There have already been guidelines developed which can be utilized.
I would like to give a few examples. The following list outlines examples of measures which employers could implement: on-the-job training for target group members; development of an inventory of qualified, competent and interested target group members; orientation regarding career planning; work site modified as appropriate for women and/or disabled persons; jobs being widely advertised using target group media to recruit; company to ensure that all selection criteria are valid; and there are a number of other measures. All of these will be discussed with these companies so that they can put into effect a fair and just employment equity plan. I would see that this is done as we come down to making sure that these companies have in place the necessary systems for reporting the data and information which will be required.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It now being one o'clock, may I suggest to the House that I have unanimous consent to complete routine business?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of citizens who call upon this Parliament to persuade the Minister responsible for the post office-who I note is in the House today-to intervene with
March 8, 1985

regard to the closure of the National Postal Museum. This is important to the philatelic community across the country. They have been meeting with us and expressing their concerns. It is also important with regard to employment. If the Minister would consider issuing a special stamp, some of the financial obstacles to keeping the postal museum open could be met.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 208 and 229.


Mr. Henderson: 1.	Does the Prime Minister have an official photographer and, if so, what is the person's name and salary?
2.	Does the photographer travel with the Prime Minister and, if so, who assumes the cost of travel and expenses?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. In keeping with an established practice, Mr. Peter M. Bregg has been hired on contract to act as official photographer. His service contract is not to exceed $24,050.
2. When Mr. Bregg is asked to travel on official business, his travel expenses are covered under the terms of his contract.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1, 1984 to January 1, 1985, how many women were receiving (a) Spouse's Allowance (b) Old Age Security benefits?
2.	To the government's knowledge, how many of these women were also receiving pension benefits which they had earned, as opposed to widow's benefits, from a private company's pension plan?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. From January 1, 1984 to January 1, 1985 there were on average (a) 80,931 women per month receiving Spouse's Allowance and (b) 1,449,885 women per month receiving Old Age Security benefits.
2. Information does not currently exist which would permit an identification of the number of women receiving either Spouse's Allowance or Old Age Security benefits who also receive pension benefits from a private company's pension plan which they earned in their own right. However, the 1984 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by Statistics Canada did contain a number of questions which would help to estimate the number of women receiving earned, as opposed to widow's benefits, from a private company's pension plan. The results from the 1984 Survey of Consumer Finances are being processed and results should be ready in early 1986.
Fisheries Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 204 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Henderson: 1.	Were any Parliament Hill offices of Cabinet Ministers renovated since their appointment and, if so, in each case (a) at what cost (b) was the design and implementation done by (i) House of Commons employees (ii) Public Servants (iii) private sources?
2.	If private sources were used, what was the name of the individual or company concerned and were quotes requested from them before the work was awarded?
Return tabled.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could call it one o'clock and I will resume my address to two o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Chair agrees. It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.05 p.m. the House took recess.

March 8, 1985
Fisheries Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the close of the day the last time this Bill was debated the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was not finished speaking. He had three minutes remaining and there was a 10-minute period to follow for questions and comments. I would like to make a comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Skeena. Prior to recognizing the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) you did not offer an opportunity for comments or questions to be posed on the speech of the Member for Skeena.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do not see the hon. gentleman in the Chamber. I realize that does not bar making comments on his speech. However, Mr. Speaker, you rightfully recognized me just prior to the luncheon adjournment.
I would like to point out two things. According to the rules, if I have uttered any words at all from my speech on second reading, that means that I have spoken on second reading. Therefore, by relinquishing my position, there would have to be unanimous consent of the House to permit me to continue my remarks. The second point I wish to bring to your attention is that the Standing Orders clearly state that when a Member feels there is a point of order arising from the proceedings, that point of order will be raised immediately forthwith.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. It is customary in the House that the question period following a Member's speech comes at the completion of the speech. When a Member does not have the opportunity to complete his remarks, as is the case today, because he is not present, we have not followed the practice of allowing questions or comments. I respectfully submit this to Your Honour and we will go by your ruling.


Mr. Gass:: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I wish to raise is that this debate was started by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), a Conservative. Since that point in time, two Members of the NDP and two Liberals have spoken on the Bill. I was going to rise at two o'clock because at one o'clock, when Orders of the Day were finished, the House adjourned. It was after one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that you recognized the Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker).


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have one further comment on the point of order. I wonder whether, in advance of making your ruling on the point of order, another course of action might be available to you, and that is to test the wish of the House. There has been some suggestion that the Conservative Member who just spoke would like to speak. I believe the Member for Gander-Twillingate-


David Charles Dingwall: Distinguished.


Raymond John Skelly: -the distinguished Member for Gander-Twillingate would be prepared to stand down if he were guaranteed his right to speak on second reading, with unanimous consent of the House, we might allow these Members to reverse their order and leave the question of time for comments undecided.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: For the benefit of all distinguished Members of the House, the Chair never thought it would have a chance to rule on this question. Having heard all the points of order, I would like to indicate that the Member for Skeena, as pointed out, had not finished the period for questions and comments on Wednesday. There were approximately three minutes remaining in that period. He is not present in the House today, however, and I am told that when the day finishes the period also terminates.
[DOT] (MIO)
In all fairness, having already recognized the Member for Gander-Twillingate, and considering myself incapable reversing that decision, I suggest that the House could seek unanimous consent to return to the period for questions and comments with respect to the speech from the Hon. Member for Skeena. It would seem rather awkward, considering the Hon. Member's absence today, but if there is unanimous consent, I would do so. Otherwise, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We will return to the period for questions and comments that follow the speech of the Member for Skeena.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that gracious approach to the problem. I would simply point out to the House that I thought the speech by the Member for Skeena was an excellent dissertation on the fishing industry. 1 will resume my seat and allow the order to progress.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Member for Skeena. In his absence, could I direct it to the fisheries' critic? I have taken the time to compose a question. Can I not put it on the record for the benefit of the Member for Skeena?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: This is a period for questions or comments. Due to the absence of the Member for Skeena it is not possible to ask him a question, nor is it possible for another Member to answer in his place. However, the time is available for the Hon. Member to make a comment.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to turn this well-phrased question into a comment.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Skeena on his participation in Wednesday's debate. It was a good deal more positive than I expected it to be, quite frankly. One of the benefits of interrupting a Member midspeech is that other Members have time to compose comments like this.
March 8, 1985

The Member for Skeena made the point that the powers given to the Minister to manage the fishery for a wide variety of purposes are absolutely essential. At page 2806 of Hansard he spoke of:
-the very delicate dilemma this country would find itself in if it was impossible for different Ministries... to manage the resource for social or economic reasons.
While he supports the Bill, he did make some suggestions. He asked about the implications of Section 2.1(d) of the "purposes" section, which reads:
-to provide, in cooperation with the provinces, for the proper management, allocation and control of the inland fisheries of Canada.
He wants to know why we are bringing the provinces in. It is no mystery.
In the inland fisheries in general, the right to fish comes under provincial jurisdiction. We cannot undertake to allocate provincial property, so we added the qualifying phrase to avoid any suggestion of intrusion on existing indisputable provincial rights.
My comment concerns the Hon. Member's objection to the amendment to paragraph 34(m) of the Act. The amended paragraph would permit the enactment of regulations:
-authorizing a person engaged or employed in the administration or enforcement of this Act to vary, in respect of any area or portion thereof, any close time, fishing quota or limit on the size or weight of fish that has been fixed by the regulations.
He says that this power is beyond anything anyone in the House has yet imagined. However, has he read the existing legislation? Does he realize that we are just adding two refinements to the existing on-site powers delegated to fishery officers? Fishery managers already can be empowered to vary close times for entire management areas. By adding the words "in respect of any area or portion thereof', we merely allow exercise of that power over a small geographical area, over portions of management areas. Does the Member realize that this is the impact of the legislation?
I should explain that the addition of the power to vary size or weight limits is simply an alternative management tool to opening or closing an area. It is a refinement of existing practices.
I hope the Hon. Member will also realize that granting these on-site powers to fisheries officers in respect of sub-areas will allow fishermen greater fishing opportunities. It will give fishermen access to selected fishing grounds in parts of the management area that cannot be opened in its entirety because it would endanger the stocks. This power would allow the fishery manager right there on the spot to close off the particular limited area where the endangered stocks are, while leaving the rest of the area open for fishing.
Does the Hon. Member prefer the existing blunt instrument of opening or closing entire large management areas? Does he want these decisions taken quickly and effectively on-site or does he want to preserve the current lengthy process of enactment by order in council?
Fisheries Act


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's intervention is perhaps a good place to start. He said that the Government did not want to infringe upon provincial jurisdiction and there would be a consultative process. Any infringement upon provincial jurisdiction is really subject to an interpretation of the courts. The same is true with respect to infringement upon federal jurisdiction.
For example, with respect to infringement of rights, it is quite possible for a court judge to interpret these amendments, once they are enacted, as being an infringement upon provincial jurisdiction. The first amendment, 1(a), is to include "portions of fish" under the definition of fish. That is a new section of the Act. The explanatory notes say that portions of fish would allow control in management of fish which has been processed to some degree; for example, headed, gutted or filleted fish.
It is a well known article of law that once fish are captured they become real property. We also know that according to the Constitution, provincial jurisdiction comes under property and civil rights. Once a fish is captured it becomes real property. Therefore, it could eventually be interpreted by a court judge that this section cannot be implemented under the Fisheries Act.
Let us look at the clause in terms of the Hon. Member's comment about not wanting to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Clause 1(b) includes in the definition of fish marine plants and portions thereof. The explanatory notes say that marine plants were formerly not included in the definition of fish. Anything attached to the seabed from headland to headland-in fact, out to three miles in some provinces-is provincial jurisdiction according to the interpretation of the courts.
In other words, as a result of decisions made by Supreme Court judges in the past, a provincial Government could not only control what is attached to the immediate seabed in every bay and cove on the East Coast of Canada, it could also be interpreted to mean under that law that the provincial Government could issue lobster licences because lobsters are on the seabed. If a net were attached to the seabed, then that could be interpreted to mean provincial jurisdiction.
These issues have been discussed between ministers in provincial jurisdictions. However, they do not issue lobster licences or licences for nets that are attached to the seabeds in their bays and coves because they know that according to federal law the federal Government has the rights to open and close seasons and limit the extent of that season for protection and conservation purposes. There would be no purpose for a provincial Government to issue lobster licences because the federal Government, under federal law, would have to shorten the fishing time.
The two additions to the Act which we are debating today could be perceived by a court judge to be an infringement upon provincial jurisdiction. This is not to say they should not be in the Act because we have seen provincial laws enacted that are really an infringement upon federal jurisdiction. I recall a couple of years ago the Province of Nova Scotia enacted a law that unilaterally seized control of the continental
March 8, 1985

Fisheries Act
shelf off the coast of the Province of Nova Scotia, and the wording went "and extensions thereof'; and the wording further went "to the extent of exploitability".
The drafter of that Bill in the Nova Scotia legislature took that section out of some charter of the mid-50s in Europe when there was an International Law of the Sea meeting. "To the extent of exploitability" meant as far as the technology would carry a drill ship, or whatever the case is, for the purpose of drilling for oil. In 1980 terms "to the extent of exploitability", meant you could drill an oil well in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. By passing a law in a legislative jurisdiction, you are passing it for a purpose, but although it is on the books, it does not really mean anything. If you went by the Nova Scotia law, "and extensions thereof' and "to the extent of exploitability" mean right across the Atlantic Ocean. If somebody walked out in the water off the coast of Africa, he could be charged with trespassing on Nova Scotia soil. It operates both ways in response to the hon. gentleman's question. Look at the ongoing disputes between provincial and federal Governments.
I have with me today a recent discussion paper passed to this new federal Government, the Mulroney Government as it is commonly known outside this Chamber, on behalf of the provincial Government of Newfoundland, by the Hon. A. Brian Peckford. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) should know this. I notice his Parliamentary Secretary is here. I only wish the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) were here. The Premier on behalf of the Newfoundland Government says in this paper delivered to the new Conservative Government:
Newfoundland believes that it must have a prominent role and in certain cases the paramount voice in the management of the fisheries resource in those areas which are adjacent to the province.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland Government wants a prominent role to manage the fishery off the coast of Newfoundland. The Premier does not stop there. He said that to achieve this goal "we have proposed a constitutional amendment to the federal Government".
I wonder what the response to that will be from the federal Minister of Fisheries. The Premier of Newfoundland goes on on behalf of his Government to say that in particular, resource allocation policy-which is what we are talking about in this Bill-for the northern cod way out in the Atlantic Ocean, hundreds of miles north of Newfoundland and east of Labrador, must grant priority access to the Newfoundland inshore fleet. In other words, toward the east, the north, the northeast coast of Newfoundland, out into the ocean, the Premier says first priority must be granted to the Newfoundland fleet.
Then he says that the second priority for access to this stock should be Newfoundland offshore vessels which land their catch at resource-short seasonal plants in communities adjacent to the stock. That is a further division, Mr. Speaker.
Then the Premier says that the third priority is for the remainder of the offshore fleet based in Newfoundland, and the fourth priority is for the Maritime Provinces respectively.
It would be interesting in this great time of consultation and of trying to appease the wishes of the provinces to find out what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) thinks of the Premier of Newfoundland's submission to him, given to him since he was elected. I bring this up because it is relevant to this Bill before us today. You get to the actual purpose of the Bill when you get to the section that outlines the purposes under this new Act.
An interesting question has been raised here. Right now according to the justice who made this decision in the court in British Columbia-and I would say that justice was absolutely correct in the decision that he made-the federal Government does not have the right to distinguish between gear types. It has been illegal all the way along for the federal Government to say in the case of a salmon fishery or a herring fishery: "All right, the big boats can have x amount of fish; the small inshore boats can have x amount of fish. That was always illegal but it was never tested properly in the courts.
The case presented before the federal Government said that we should have this power because there are the small boat fishermen or another group of fishermen who are really not getting enough fish to keep themselves alive. Therefore, we have a social and an economic responsibility toward fishermen. Nowhere in the present Act does it outline that the federal Department of Fisheries has a social and economic responsibility toward fishermen. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because that problem was never supposed to occur. In other words, it was not historically the duty of the federal Government to look at the socio-economic breakdown within the fishery and make resource allocations accordingly. It was not necessary. All of a sudden it is necessary. It has been necessary for the last eight to ten years. It is necessary because we have not, as the Government of Canada, devoted enough money toward research. We have not devoted enough money and now we have the recent cuts introduced by this Government into this Parliament which are laying off research people right across the country in fisheries, closing down research stations and cancelling expansions to research stations. These cuts are aggravating the problem. The duty of the Department of Fisheries now will become a socio-economic problem.
If you are going to get into that territory, Mr. Speaker, then you had better do it all and have a policy that says: "All right, what happens to the fish once it is landed? That is within provincial jurisdiction, but we have a socio-economic responsibility. Let's can the fish. Let's make sure it is going to the best use". Then you really get into it because of the waste that happens in the fishery today.
Let me outline what happens to capelin that is caught off the coast of this country. When you realize that 60 per cent of it is thrown away once it is caught, you begin to realize what a socio-economic problem we have, and that there is a number of things that would be required to be done by this Government to solve that problem. The fact is that you can sell only female
March 8, 1985

capelin because that is what the Japanese want. You have a Japanese shaker in every fish plant. The female herring continue along; the male herring go down a chute into the salt water and are thrown away.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


George Baker: 
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, come on!


George Baker: All right, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. We will see down the road just how good he is. He has been making fine statements, but I do not like his cuts. It is unfortunate that I do not have the time to deal with them. This is an incredible problem with which we are dealing. This simple action on the part of the Minister is not good enough because of actions taken by the Government since it came to power. Also it is not good enough because of the appeals which will undoubtedly arise as a result of the inaction and audits of the Department.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to some of the dilemmas in the fishing industry, notably the unemployment which has come about and the problems with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to this comment as well. It is important to the topic raised.

March 8, 1985
Fisheries Act
In the process of trying to address the question of unemployed fishermen on the West Coast, the Conservative Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) appointed a committee to oversee the disposal of $5 million. That particular committee was appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). As I understand it, they have hired a group of former Conservative organizers from the last federal election. Certainly there are elements of serious concern in terms of patronage and propriety. I would note, for example, an individual by the name of Stan Hagen, a prominent organizer; Jim Lorney, a prominent organizer; and Thor Petersen. They have been named as individuals to oversee this committee. Has the Hon. Member had any experiences of a similar nature in his riding where political patronage has been similar?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot point toward any political patronage which has occurred so far. I notice they changed the board of directors of Fisheries Products International since the Minister of Justice took office. His brother was removed from the chairmanship of the board. I cannot see any influence being exerted there by the Government of Canada as far as appointments are concerned.
I am not too concerned about political patronage, but when we have a Government which professes to do certain things which are perceived to be for the public good, what should be examined by the Chamber and by its committees is their impact on ordinary people. For example, when we decide to try to cut back on unemployment insurance and just do audits, as I mentioned in my speech, we have to realize the ramifications; people who are innocent could end up being found guilty and having to pay back enormous sums of money. We have to look at what happens down the chain. We cannot, as the Government announced, close a $30 million laboratory facility or cancel vessels for research at $18.1 million. The technological laboratory in Vancouver will be closed. It is intended that the technical and scientific staff will be reassigned within the Department. Really that is not an excuse; we have to look at the long term. I notice that the Minister says:
The recently-created task force headed by the Hon. Erik Nielsen intends to consult with the provinces and the private sector to determine which other areas of activities or programs might need restructuring.
The point is that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans really does not deserve the treatment that he is getting from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). This Minister is trying honestly to do his job. He has been associated with the fisheries for years. Now he is being frowned upon by the fishermen. He is being chastised in practically every home in certain parts of the country, all because of the actions of the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board and other Cabinet Ministers. I do not really think it is fair to treat the Minister of Fisheries in that manner.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the House, I am wondering if the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate
(Mr. Baker), because of his long-established knowledge of the fishing industry and particularly some of the various federal departments associated with that industry, would share with us his views with regard to other possible conflicts between the Fisheries Act and these amendments. While we are attempting to assist the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), it is important that we know what those conflicts are so that we can try to resolve or reconcile them to the benefit of the people we are supposed to serve. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member that question.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the short time available I will deal with definitions. I could go anywhere in the Act. When you look at the Act, you see that the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Commission describe kelp. Let us get down to the catch, the fish, the natural product or by-product of the ocean. It includes Irish moss, kelp and whales, but does not include fish scales. It includes kelp and Irish moss. That is a definition of fish under the Act. Somebody who walks out into the water and catches a capelin which drifts ashore is not insurable under the definition of fisherman, but somebody can walk out and rake up kelp on the ocean floor or in a river basin and he is a fisherman. That person is a fisherman, but somebody who does it from the shore is not. There have been innumerable cases before the courts.
Fresh catch is defined as a catch that is not cured. There have been cases which arose from that because cod liver is listed as cured fish but shark liver is not. You go back and you judge that somebody should not have received unemployment insurance because the division was wrong.
The definition of "fisherman" is a person engaged in making a catch, but it also includes people doing incidental work related to that catch. In other words, let us look at judges' decisions in the Province of Nova Scotia, where the Hon. Member who asked the question is from. There was the case of Phyllis Karsten and Catherine Stevens v. The Minister of National Revenue. In that judgment, the Chief Justice said that by reason of performing the tasks, these tasks include cutting bait and baiting hooks. The point is that it was not done in the boat. It was done on the shore.
There are these problems within the Act. Women in this case are saying that they bait hooks. So does somebody in the boat. You need do only one thing to cure that problem. You need just put in one line that says you must have been in a boat. You would not then have these appellants having to pay back $10,000 to the federal Government. There are many other cases. I do not have time to go into them because my time has expired.
My original point is this. When a problem arises, MPs from this Chamber have to go to their districts and defend constituents who must repay money to the federal Government. We have been doing that for years. When you look at other judgments that have been made, it could be a massive problem. However, no changes are made to the Act. When the Department of Fisheries has been slighted, changes have been brought before the House of Commons and they have been
March 8, 1985

passed forthwith. That is what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be examining.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a Member is going full flight, he should be allowed to carry on. I appreciate the comments being made by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) regarding UIC and the fact that there are problems. I agree almost 100 per cent with the Member when he talks about the problems of UIC and Revenue Canada. I have had the same experience with the previous Government and the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act with regard to the Minister of National Revenue making the final decision. With a new Minister, I hope some changes will be made and some of the problems with UIC will be corrected as they relate to fishermen and the fact that the Minister of National Revenue has the final say after the fact. I know from experience where five years after the fact people have had to pay back money because the Minister of National Revenue said the person was not eligible as a result of some circumstance that happened four or five years previously which the person could not prove.
I am off the point I am supposed to be speaking on, namely Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) made special mention of the roe herring industry in British Columbia. He has pointed out its great importance this year. For those Hon. Members who are not from the Pacific coast and who may not be familiar with the roe herring fishery, it may be difficult to visualize the challenges and rewards that management of this fishery involves.
Certainly in terms of its tempo and its intensity, the roe herring fishery is unique. The prize in this fishery is not the fish but the roe, the eggs. Herring roe is a gourmet item in Japan. It is, so to speak, the caviar of Tokyo. The price Fishermen get for the catch depends on the maturity of the roe. The trick is to catch the herring at precisely the right moment, figuratively speaking, at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth second before spawning.
The herring season has opened on the West Coast. We had two seasons, one on Wednesday which lasted four hours and ten minutes and one that started at nine o'clock this morning British Columbia time. It will end when the quota is reached in that area.
A large British Columbia fleet takes part in this fishery, 241 seiners and more than 1,300 gillnetters. To succeed in this fishery, timing has to be exquisite. The stakes are so high that many boats take up position on the fishing grounds well in advance of the opening. That is in case the herring show up a little earlier than expected. If they show up late, that means higher costs and dead time. If they show up very late or not at all, it could be a catastrophe. February and March are tense months for herring fishermen in British Columbia.
Fisheries Act
The roe herring fishery starts very early in the year in San Francisco Bay. Then it moves north with the spring to other parts of the coast. The first Canadian roe fisheries off the west coast of Vancouver Island and in Georgia Strait began, as I said, yesterday. The last one before the stocks pass on into Alaskan waters is at the end of March on the north coast around Prince Rupert.
The intensity of this fishery is legendary. There have been years when a roe herring fishery in a given area has been opened for just 15 minutes. The competition in this limited fishery is tremendous. One of the management challenges is to balance the interests and efforts of the two gear types used in this Fishery, gillnetters and seiners. It might be interesting to note that of the two seasons that began this year, one was for seiners and one was for gillnetters. The seiners generally work in deep water. They are powerful harvesting machines. It is not unusual for a seine boat to take 600 tons in one set. The gillnetters work closer to shore with fixed gear and their capacity is much lower: about 1 per cent of the seiners. Part of the problem is to balance the interests and impact of these two different gear types. To do that we have to be able to regulate by gear type and by area.
There is another aspect to the challenge that also demands precise fishery management. Herring stocks have a reputation for instability. In 1965 there was a massive stock collapse that put an end to the fishmeal industry. In the long run, things turned out well. In 1972, when Japan's herring stocks were in decline, the B.C. industry was able to get a foothold in a much more lucrative market. Fishermen had been getting $11 per ton for herring used for fishmeal. In recent years they have been getting as much as $900 per ton for the roe. In fact, the price this year is $812 per ton.
The basic volatility is still there, however. As the Minister pointed out, some of the stocks are depleted. The fishery off the west coast of Vancouver Island has been closed and the fishery in Georgia Strait has been curtailed. This is a prudent and necessary action. We do not know all of the reasons for the ups and downs of the herring. Some scientists think it may be related to the infusion of warm currents known as El Nino. Whatever the cause, we know we have to be doubly careful not to over-fish the stocks.
It comes down to this, Mr. Speaker: we have a resource of immense value. We have an industry built on that resource which in B.C. is second in size only to the salmon industry. We have a complex fishery concentrated in time and location, conducted by competing gear types. We have a resource that requires careful management.
If, as this fishery gets under way, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' authority to manage the fishery or the validity of the fishing plan developed with the industry is challenged because of a possible deficiency or lack of clarity in the wording of the Act, there may be very serious consequences for Fishermen, for the industry and for the resource. With the salmon industry in difficulty, an efficient roe herring fishery is

March 8, 1985
Fisheries Act
essential. We should make sure that its performance is not hindered by uncertainties in the Act. We can remove that danger by making the revisions proposed. I hope Members will do so without further delay.


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


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I heard the speech made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. While we are dealing with a fisheries Bill, I would like to comment on the tremendous importance not only of the fishing harbours in eastern Canada and the West Coast but as well of the small craft harbours and fishing harbours on the Great Lakes system. In fact, in the Ontario region there are some 450 or even close to 500 fishing harbours and small-craft harbours.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the small craft harbours branch have done an excellent job in maintaining these harbours. They not only do a good job of maintaining them under very arduous conditions but they see that they add greatly to the economic activity throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
In my own constituency there are some 45 small craft harbours, representing about 10 per cent of the small craft harbours in the Ontario region. There are a number of harbours used for fishing but a great many are used for small craft activity and provide access to the north channel of Lake Huron which is the best boating and cruising area in North America.
I would call on the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister who is present in the House and other Hon. Members to add their support to providing financial assistance for the maintenance of small craft harbours and fisheries harbours in the Great Lakes Basin because they are very, very important. I agree completely with what the Hon. Member from Newfoundland who just spoke said, and that is that the Minister is totally dedicated to his Department and to improving and upgrading the harbours. However, he needs the support of the Fisheries Committee and he needs a strong resolution from the Fisheries Committee and from Members of Parliament in order to get adequate funding.
Funding for the Ontario region runs to slightly over $3 million per year. That is simply not adequate to ensure that there is proper maintenance of the small craft harbours. There has been very massive expansion due to the special recovery capital projects in the last two and a half or three years.
There is a main entrance point from Michigan into the north channel of Lake Huron on Meldrum Bay. An iceflow seriously damaged the harbour there and it will require some $70,000 or $80,000 to repair it. I know it is difficult for the Minister to get that kind of funding but I appeal to him to provide that assistance.
For the Minister to have adequate funding not only for the Great Lakes Basin but for the entire country, we as Members must speak up and support him in the Fisheries Committee and in the House to ensure that there is adequate funding to
repair and upgrade all our harbours and particularly those like Meldrum Bay, a main entranceway into the north channel area. As I said, that area is not only a fishing area but a very important boating and sailing area.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's comments, I can only assure him that we on the Fisheries Committee and we who represent fishing communities on the West Coast, on the Atlantic Coast and on the inland waters of Canada realize that ports, harbours and wharves are essential to fishermen. Fishermen must be able to depart from a safe port and return to a safe port with their catch. I can assure the Hon. Member that that is something about which we are all very concerned even in these times of restraint.
We have to try to be conscious of the dollars that are spent because of the fact that the previous Government wasted so many dollars and set us on a course of no return. We have to cut back everywhere we possibly can, but we must maintain if possible the harbours and wharves that are so essential to the fishermen from one end of the country to the other. In fact, as early as Monday night we are bringing people before the Standing Committee to talk about small craft harbours.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about a serious matter of which I gave him warning by way of a question, and that is the matter of patronage. I mentioned the individuals concerned and the fact that prominent Conservative organizers now handle jurisdiction over the approximately $5 million that is intended to be spent on projects to aid unemployed fishermen. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: That is a point of order. The subject matter brought up by the Hon. Member is not related to the Bill. I am stopping the Hon. Member at this point because it is obviously not related to the Bill before us today. It is neither related to the speech made by the Hon. Member nor to the Bill itself.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would rise on a point of order and take a moment to point out to you that the previous speaker mentioned serious economic concerns of fishermen. The point I am coming to is that that particular group has been charged with the responsibility of dealing with the economic concerns of Fishermen by using this money, and that the Minister failed to conduct any meaningful consultation with fisheries groups, community groups or any other groups that may be affected. This particular point of order is vitally important because we do not want to see this kind of thing happening. I hope you will recognize my right to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Government continue to appoint political hacks rather than move ahead to widespread consultation? That consultation is not happening.
After I have made my point of order, may I have an opportunity to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary on a matter directly related to this issue?
March 8, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will permit the question. However, as I have pointed out, I have reservations concerning its relevance in the large interpretation. I will permit the question but 1 would hope that the Hon. Member will bear that in mind.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might just correct the record by indicating that the individuals who are involved are experienced, knowledgeable and have integrity. The point of the matter is that consultation is a factor which is important. I do not wish to criticize those people in any way, but the way in which the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) went about this appointment was absolutely wrong.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I cannot take responsibility for appointments which are made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Neither can I take responsibility for the appointments which are recommended by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). I have no knowledge of the appointments which have allegedly taken place. However, if members of the Liberal Party and members of the NDP would let this Bill out of the House today, they could put those questions to the Minister in the standing committee next Tuesday.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). However, we ran out of time, so I will bootleg it to the Parliamentary Secretary.
In his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that not enough money had been devoted to fisheries research. I presume he was speaking about the last 16 years. As I am a new Member, I wonder if he could tell me if it is indeed a fact that not enough money has been devoted toward research in the fisheries. Second, he wondered whether socio-economic grounds should come into play in the Fisheries Act. Is it not true that the majority of legislation in the House of Commons is based on socio-economic grounds? If so, why should the Fisheries Act be an exception?


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is an important question and one which would take a long time to answer. Again, I would remind the Hon. Member that the question could be more appropriately put to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. If this Bill could be given second reading today, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans could be before the committee as early as next Tuesday and he would be able to answer those questions. Then we could get on with this Bill, which is very important to the fishing industry of Canada because of the uncertainty which exists due to the two decisions which were rendered by a judge. The intent of this Bill is to remove uncertainty in the minds of Canadians as to whether or not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the right to allocate fish stocks to different sectors of gear type and different areas.
Fisheries Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In resuming debate, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-32, although I regret the haste with which the Government is attempting to push this legislation through the House. The Government says that the legislation must be passed in a hurry because of the herring season. The herring season opened two days ago for seiners on the West Coast and it is open today for gill netters. The rush and fury of the herring season, which the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary described, seems to have infected the Government. It is introducing this Bill in a similar manner of rush and fury, expecting the legislation to pass very quickly. I do not think the Government is going to do that. I think it is in for a long haul, unless it is prepared to give certain assurances to the House. This last minute tabling, and the Government's indicating that we are up against a deadline, is the sort of activity that we used to get from the Liberal Government. It encourages a degree of cynicism and makes parliamentarians look somewhat irresponsible. Our Party does not intend to submit to that kind of blackmail.
Bill C-32 will increase the power of the Department to control the fishery but, at the same time, the Estimates which were tabled a week ago decreased the ability of the Department to manage the fishery in a rational manner.
Incidentally, we do have some good news. I think the Minister has been too modest in some of the things which he has done. He is responsible for a net increase of one-third in the fisheries habitat over the last week. If we looked at the Estimates which were tabled on February 26, we would see that there are 1,500 rivers on the West Coast which are capable of spawning salmon. However, in the Minister's speech a week later he indicated that 2,000 rivers were capable of doing that. The increase of 500 rivers within a week is the first sign of any real activity we have had from the Minister since his appointment.
I would like to ask a question in a rhetorical way, and maybe the Conservatives would like to answer it in a rhetorical way. If Romeo LeBlanc or Pierre De Bane had brought in this legislation in the previous Government, would members of the Conservative Party have supported it? I suspect the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) would have been among the first, after the New Democrats, to oppose it.
Bill C-32 is as arbitrary and high-handed as the salmon treaty which was recently concluded with the United States. As my colleague has pointed out, that treaty was rushed through Cabinet in half an hour. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had not read it, but he knew that he wanted the treaty so he would be able to sign it with President Reagan on St. Patrick's Day in Quebec City. That illustrates the arbitrary nature of what is happening.
We could look at what that treaty has done in relation to the sports fishery. There are 300,000 to 400,000 sports fishermen in British Columbia. The treaty indicates that within the Strait

March 8, 1985
Fisheries Act
of Georgia there will be an annual catch of 275,000 Chinook. That catch has to be shared between the sports fishery and the trollers. Sports fishermen were previously entitled to four Chinook a day, or a total of 30 Chinook per season. When the Department was first studying the treaty, it considered a limit of one Chinook per day, or a total of five per season. However, under pressure from the sports fishing industry, the number was increased to two Chinook per day, or a total of 20 per season. That seems to be a reasonable compromise.
We recognize the importance of the sports fishing industry, but we must recognize that that compromise is not without some very serious problems. There is still an upper limit of 275,000 Chinook which must be shared between gulf trollers and sports fishermen. Not all 400,000 sports fishermen are salt-water fishermen, and not all of them fish in the Strait of Georgia, but that is where the bulk of the fishing takes place. The official designation for the Strait of Georgia includes everything from Sherringham Point on the west coast of Vancouver Island, to Chatham Point, which is located north of the Campbell River. If there were only 150,000 sports fishermen in that area, the total allocation would not give them one day's catch of two Chinook each. That does not leave anything for the gulf trollers. Gulf trollers generally have small boats and cannot fish on the dangerous west coast of Vancouver Island, so they require a share of the Chinook in the Strait of Georgia.
Because of the mild climate on the coast, sports fishing has year-round potential, not only as recreation but also as an industry. Once the 275,000 Chinook limit is reached, the industry will be closed down. That limit includes both natural and enhanced stock. In a letter to me, the Minister said that the limit could be raised "if there is an improvement in the strength of runs of natural Chinook stocks". But how about enhanced stocks? If there is a great improvement in enhanced stock over the next few years, the 275,000 limit will remain. If there are more fish, it will take much less time for the sports fishermen and the trollers to reach the total allocation. When total allocation is reached, the sports fishery will be closed. That will mean financial ruin for marina operators and others who depend upon it.
The treaty has now been approved by the United States Congress and is ready for signature on March 17. It is worth nothing, Mr. Speaker, that the United States administration has not put any dollars on the table to make sure that it is able to live up to its part of the bargain. This fact was brought out by Mr. Don Bonker, a Washington State Democrat, who is concerned that the United States might fall short of its obligation with regard to the salmon fishing treaty.
The arbitrary means by which the Conservative Government approved the treaty is fully consistent with the arbitrary nature of this Bill. There was no consultation. We recognize the necessity of management and of allocation. We recognize that there is great pressure on a limited resource. But we raise the question of how that management should take place. This
is an important question, Mr. Speaker. On February 3 of last year, when the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in opposition, he raised that question when he moved a motion of non-confidence in the Liberal Government. Throughout his speech on February 3 of last year, he stressed the need for industry involvement and management. He said, and I quote from page 1055 of Hansard, February 3, 1984:
The third imperative is industry participation in fisheries management. This must be something much more than mere consultation.
The present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans went on to say:
What we have in mind is an industry management board appointed by the respective user groups to determine policy and to report directly to the Minister. Policy recommendations, with the rationale for them, should be made public. This is the only way the difficult decisions, impinging on one group or another as they will under current circumstances, can ever be made to work. The immediate advantage to this is that those who know the most about the industry and the impact of decisions on the industry will be formulating the policy. The insistence that their deliberations be made public will guarantee accountability.
Later in his speech he said:
-we would recommended that the Government establish an industry management board with representation from all segments of the industry, including the sports fisherman ... If we are going to do that, as I have urged, that industrial management board must have some clout. It must be respected. The policy options that it works out must be treated seriously by the Government.
The Minister also called for buy-back and building habitat. He talked about the importance of the salmonid enhancement program. He said that second stage salmonid enhancement program funding should be brought forward immediately for this purpose. There is no reference in the speech of the Minister last year to increasing the berthage fees for vessels at the docks of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is no reference to privatizing the fishing vessel insurance plan. These are two things about which we now hear.
There is nothing in this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and nothing that the Minister has done since taking office last fall, that has addressed the urgent problems which he outlined last February. Where is the commitment to open Government about which we heard so much last spring and during the election campaign? Where is the commitment to real participation in management of the fisheries which the Minister talked about when he was in opposition? Where are the decisions which are going to be made by different user groups? Where is the buy-back to reduce the excess fishing capacity in the industry? Where is the increased habitat protection? Where is the salmonid enhancement program?
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that shortly after the Minister was appointed he was interviewed by the United Fishermen Allied Workers Union and he said that he was committed to a buy-back program as soon as possible, and to increasing funding for salmonid enhancement. He said that if the buy-back program could not get legislative approval in short order, he would proceed without it. One of his first announcements after taking over his new post was to call for an industrial board to advise the Minister on Fisheries matters. However, details of the board structure have not yet been worked out. That was back in September, Mr. Speaker, and the board's structure has still not been worked out. We find
March 8, 1985

that this Minister, who had and still has a good reputation as a progressive within his own Party, is going right along with the cut-back mentality of his Government. I believe that some of the progressives within the Cabinet are going to have to sit down together at some point and ask their consciences how long they can continue to go along with the general direction of this Government, which runs completely counter to the sort of things they in their hearts believe in. Although the Minister is from the Pacific coast, 4.4 per cent was cut from the budget of the fisheries on the Pacific coast as compared to 1.5 per cent cuts to the fisheries of the Atlantic coast. We do not expect patronage just because the Minister is from the Pacific coast but we would like to see at least some equity.
On the Pacific coast the fishery research has been cut almost 30 per cent, from $17.5 million to $12.5 million. That is a loss of 31 person years. Fisheries management will have 18 fewer people to do the kinds of jobs which are needed if the fishery is going to be properly looked after. At the very time that the Bill is giving the Department more responsibilty to regulate the fishery, the Minister is reducing its capability to do so in an informed and intelligent manner. The salmonid enhancement program remains stuck in second gear of the transition phase.
Without any regulations which require input from user groups, the Department will be given the right to regulate the industry in the most minute ways and in a manner which can spell economic life or death for the people who are involved in the fishery. The Minister made a commitment that there was going to be involvement of user groups, but now we see that there is an arbitrary power being given to the Department and its employees. The Minister asked for this power so that he could treat all segments of the industry in a fair manner. However, I am sure that the Minister would not have wanted to give this kind of power to his predecessor. I am sure that he would not want to give this power to any successor from another Party because it places too much power by far in the hands of the Minister and his Department without any kind of checks or balances.
I would like to say a few words about the rights of the aboriginal people. There is nothing in this Act which speaks to their needs or reassures them with respect to their aboriginal rights. Hon. Members of this House should know-they have been told a number of times in the last couple of weeks-that the reserves in British Columbia were very small when created because government officials recognized that Indian people in British Columbia depended for their livelihood upon the ocean and rivers and upon the regular runs of salmon and other fish. For that reason the reserves, when created, were very small. They have very little economic viability apart from their access to the fishery, yet there is nothing in this Bill which recognizes their right. Several British Columbia aboriginal tribes look out to the ocean and stake some of their claims there, but this Bill does not recognize or deal with that.
We have concern about Clause 2 of the Bill which alters the purposes of the Fisheries Act. Clause 2.1(d) reads:
Fisheries Act
To provide, in co-operation with the provinces, for the proper management, allocation and control of the inland fisheries of Canada.
This opens the way for provincial involvment and control of inland fisheries, which can have a very negative impact upon some of the rights of the Indian people who live upstream. The sweeping nature of this clause leads us to request that the Minister either delete it or else bring in some kind of acceptable amendment.
I understand that there is also some question about the congruence of the English and French version of this Bill. I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in the French language so I do not intend to go into any detail on that. I simply want to flag it. I hope that the appropriate people will study that and ensure that the English and French versions are brought into line with each other.
In conclusion, before we give the Minister the power for which he has asked in this Act, we want to have some reassurances from him that there will be regulations ensuring a proper allocation to the native people, some guarantee of their right to fish. We want assurances that there will be commitments to the different communities on the coast so that allocations will not discriminate against one community in favour of another to ensure that all parts of the coast are treated fairly. We want assurances that there will be guidelines tabled to enable us to understand how allocations will take place. We want assurances that there will be some mechanism for co-management as the Minister promised. I urge the Minister to be forthcoming in these respects as soon as possible so that, as he requests, this Bill can get out of the House and into committee where it can be properly addressed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on a question or comment.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to learn, from the remarks of the previous speaker in his excellent presentation, that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mul-roney) had not even read the treaty when he urged that it be signed and dealt with very quickly. I recall the time when we discovered that the Cabinet had passed this very complex, important document in 30 minutes, that the Prime Minister accused the NDP of trying to force the country backward. I am now shocked to learn that the Prime Minister had not even read the document. The second thing that amazes me is that they spent most of the time in that Cabinet meeting discussing where they would get the $8 million to pay for the administration.
Would the previous speaker give the House an indication of whether the Prime Minister has read the document to this date? I know it is on record that he wanted that document very badly, as it appears in the news release. Yet, until the point in time when the Cabinet approved it, he had not even read the document. Does the Hon. Member know whether he has read it to this day?

March 8, 1985
Fisheries Act


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say whether the Prime Minister has read the document. However, I would like to point out that while there has been some discussion as to whether the $8 million would be forthcoming, there has been no indication in the United States that the money they need to implement the treaty will be forthcoming.
My hon. friend has just pointed out that the increase in moorage will match exactly the $8 million needed to administer the treaty. Therefore, fishermen, who are facing a very difficult economic time right now, are being charged extra moorage costs which they cannot avoid in order to pay for the administration of this treaty, which, as my friend has pointed out at different times, seriously impinges upon the sovereignty of Canada.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks on Bill C-32 with a very unusual statement coming from this side of the House. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister (Mr. Gass). I would like to wish them well in carrying out their responsibilities of administering a fisheries program for all of Canada. I say that very sincerely because I want the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada to be successful. It is important to my region of the country that the fisheries and the fisheries programs instituted by the national Government be successful. I do not think that any Member of Parliament, regardless of his or her political affiliation, would want to see the Minister or his very able Parliamentary Secretary not be successful. We want the complete opposite. I hope he will be successful. I will indicate some areas, Mr. Speaker, in which Members in this Chamber, including Members of his own Party, can be beneficial and very helpful to the Minister and the Department in assisting them in carrying out their mandate.
In reading through this short Bill I was interested to read its purposes. One of the purposes stated in the Bill is worth bringing to the attention of all Members. It is a far-reaching purpose acknowledged solely because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans understands the complexities of this particular Department and the linkages which that Department has with the economies of the West and East Coasts. It is stated in Clause 2.1(c):
The purposes of this Act are
(c) to ensure a continuing supply of fish and to maintain and develop the
economic and social benefits from the use of fish to fishermen and others
employed in the Canadian seacoast fishing industry.
That is a very far-reaching purpose in a federal statute. The Minister has said that the reason for these amendments is that:
The Fisheries Act itself does not clearly provide the federal Government with the powers for full fisheries management. Bill C-32 will confirm the ability of the federal Government to fulfil such a full range of modern day responsibilities.
He went on to say that:
-the amendments to Bill C-32 are needed to confirm and to clarify our authority under the Fisheries Act to make decisions reconciling all these competing interests.
And I emphasize the word "competing", Mr. Speaker. The Minister went on to say that:
Fisheries management involves not just resource goals but also social and economic goals.
Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, as stated in the clause on the purposes of the Act and by the Minister responsible for the Act, social and economic goals are part and parcel of a fisheries policy for Canada. I want to flag that because it is important. When one looks at the other agencies and Departments of the national Government, there seems to be a void. They are not, in my opinion-and I stand to be corrected- fulfilling the substantive portions of the enactment and of the Minister's statement.
I will give you an example. What about the provisions of unemployment insurance? My colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twiilingate (Mr. Baker), made mention of some of the changes and other things which are tied to the Unemployment Insurance Act and how that affects fishermen. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), sent out signals across the country that he wants to haul back on the Unemployment Insurance Commission payments. For a fisherman living on UIC, SI50 a week is not much. These signals sent out by the Minister of Finance are different from those sent out by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is one thing to tell the middle class of Canada, who make $25,000 or $30,000 a year, that there are going to be changes. They can provide for their food and lodging. However, it is a different matter for the Minister of Finance to tell those receiving $150 a week in unemployment insurance that he is going to shorten their period of insurable earnings and they will get less money. Do you know what that means to someone who must buy the milk and pay for the rent and heat? It is a devastating feeling to sit in your home, available and ready to work but unable to find work, and to have the Minister of Finance say on the floor of the House of Commons that the Government is considering and will ask questions about how it can save more money on unemployment insurance. I say to the Minister in all sincerity that that is certainly not in the best interest of the recipient of UIC, whether it is a fisherman or someone else. It is a devastating feeling. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) are sending out many different signals throughout the country which have a real effect on the fishermen on the East Coast and the West Coast.
Another agency that has a competing interest working against fishermen rather than for their benefit is the Department of National Revenue. Perhaps it is acceptable for Members of Parliament, some of whom may be legal scholars, to talk about audits conceptually. However, for those who make a small amount of money, often below the poverty level, it is tantamount to harassment to have some bureaucrat, at the instruction of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) or in co-operation with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, say that the Department will do a lengthy and detailed audit of their earnings over a period of time. This may
March 8, 1985

be acceptable conceptually, but the reality is that those individuals are facing harassment. There can be nothing more distasteful or repugnant than to have a national Government zeroing in on the unemployed-fishermen or anyone else. We can agree that abuses must be corrected, but National Revenue, in its attitude to fishermen in auditing their claims, has gone too far. I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of National Revenue and their colleagues will consider that issue.
The Minister talks about social and economic concerns. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is a substantive and very important body in terms of the lifeblood of Atlantic Canadians. We are worried in Atlantic Canada that the Minister responsible for that Department is not acting in co-operation with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Some weeks ago, 1 brought to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that a fire destroyed a fish plant in my constituency. Of course, there were musings from the Minister of Employment and Immigration that help would be forthcoming to rebuild that plant, but nothing has taken place except for a few studies.
My point is that the intent of this legislation cannot be left to one Minister of the Crown to carry out. There must be a collective will to do so, and I urge Members of Parliament, particularly government Members, to impress upon their colleagues and respective Ministers to take cognizance of the purpose of the Act.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has pledged his support for the fishermen and their interests. However, notwithstanding his comments about unemployment insurance, the Minister of Finance has made substantial cut-backs with regard to the Deparment of Fisheries and Oceans. I suggest that a Government that strongly supports a resource industry would not implement cut-backs as the present Government has done. For example, with respect to capital expenditures alone, there has been a deferral of phase 3 of the construction of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre in Saint John's. This is a substantial cut, although it may seem insignificant to those who are not familiar with the fishing industry. I urge government Members not to allow the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to hang the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans out on a limb, because that is what they are doing. They are not permitting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to have the tools to do his job, as evidenced by the deferral of the construction of the new fisheries lab in West Vancouver and the deferral of the construction of a new district fisheries building in New Brunswick.
It is time for Government back-benchers to speak up, because I firmly believe that the Government cannot state a certain intent in a federal statute and then do the exact opposite. Another example is the Scotia-Fundy Fisheries Centre which will be deferred for four years. That is a facility which would greatly contribute to the enhancement of opportunities for fishermen and people in the industry. There are many more cuts.
Fisheries Act
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) wants to cut the deficit. Rather than go to Bay Street to cut the deficit, he singles out the fishermen. He will not build more wharves or give them the much needed infrastructure when the livelihood of the fishermen depends on a good facility. However, neither the Minister of Finance nor other Ministers of the Government have a vision of this country. He does not share, as we in this party and, I am sure, certain Members on that side of the House, the view that the fishing industry of Canada is important to the Canadian economy and absolutely vital to the regions of this country. The Minister of Finance has taken actions which are completely opposite to what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated publicly, and they are also opposite to what is stated in the Act.
Again I say to government Members that if they are going to vote in favour of this legislation and its objectives, I suggest that they advise the Minister of Finance to live up to those objectives.
Finally, in the last number of years we have seen a proliferation of regulations both at the provincial and the federal levels. There are approximately 17 statutes which are administered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is one thing to enact a piece of legislation, but we must remember those whom we are attempting to serve. What is this legislation for? It is to have regulation after regulation after regulation made by the vehicle of Order in Council, much of which is not known by many individuals. Yes, we have the argument time and time again that a regulation is gazetted and that it goes out to the regions, and if anyone wants it they can call up and get it. The fact is that there are a lot of confused individuals who, through no fault of their own, are not aware of the regulations nor of their effects and how they operate. I will quote one individual talking about regulations, a professor of law at Dalhousie University, who said that great administrative discretion allows federal officials to alter fishing regulations and policy almost overnight. A lack of a legislative mandated consultation process allows officials to chart a fishery management policy virtually on the basis of plans of their own design subject only to the advice of their own choosing.
I think that tells it all, Mr. Speaker. We do not want a proliferation of regulation for the sake of regulation. If there has to be regulation, it ought to be meaningful. Before you arrive at that level of legislation-because that is what it is, let us make no mistake about that-there ought to be a meaningful consultation process. It does not have to be a process which is long and cumbersome, but there has to be a process, both to communicate the intended result about what the regulation is supposed to achieve and also for the general knowledge of the active players in the fishing industry. It is important for them to know first hand both the content of what regulations may be and the effects of that legislation.
I want to conclude because I have a gentlemen's agreement with my colleague, who no doubt will get up and support

March 8, 1985
Fisheries Act
everything I have said. I want to have the record show that I agreed to speak until a quarter to four-


Melbourne Alexander Gass: It was twenty to four.


David Charles Dingwall: My understanding was that it was to be a quarter to four.


An Hon. Member:: It is now eighteen minutes to four.


David Charles Dingwall: Maybe I will go on until ten to four. I had a gentlemen's agreement with my colleague that I would speak until a quarter to four.
I want to thank Members opposite for giving me an opportunity to participate in this debate. Unlike the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, this is the only area on which I have disagreed with him up to now. I think it is good we are having this debate in the House of Commons. I would not be in a hurry to pass this legislation through this Chamber. Let us give each and every Member an equal opportunity to say what he or she believes, particularly the Members who come from the east and from the west where the fishing industry is so vital to our economy.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's assertion that the Minister is trying to do a good job. That fits with my recollection of the Minister speaking on this matter in the House last year in his role as Fisheries and Oceans critic, but whether he was the critic or not, he was certainly active on this subject. I remember that at that time the Minister was very interested in having the greatest amount of consultation possible with the fishermen before the legislation was passed. Could the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) comment on whether there has been the kind of consultation to his knowledge, because he knows a great deal more about this than I do, that would enable this legislation to be more practicable, or would he suggest that that consultation might still be obtained?


David Charles Dingwall: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there has been any meaningful consultation. I believe there has been consultation by the Minister in terms of his travels across the country in meeting with the various provincial Ministers of fisheries and the various interested groups. In terms of actually debating and having briefs which will be submitted on various points, hopefully we will be able to get some of that information through the process of committee. I would say in cursory fashion that if there had been consultations, then why were there such devastating cut-backs in the November 8 economic statement to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? I do not find too many fishermen writing to me saying that they agree with these cut-backs, both in terms of the capital and the operating expenditures of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is not a fishermen that I know of in Atlantic Canada who will write and say, "Yes, we want to have our special recovery program terminated", whether it is to build a wharf or something else. There was no consultation.
The answer to the Hon. Member's question is that I do not believe there was meaningful consultation. Hopefully, because
of the attitude of the Minister there will be much more meaningful consultation in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg).


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, it is customary for a Member of Parliament during his maiden speech to sign the praises of his or her particular riding. Far be it from me to break this tradition.
Nanaimo-Alberni has been called Canada's paradise, with its temperate climate and inherent scenic beauty from Nanaimo on the east coast of Vancouver Island to the rain forest of the Pacific Rim National Park on the west coast. It is also a very busy place, Mr. Speaker. It is the scene of the world famous Nanaimo to Vancouver bathtub race. It is said that Nanaimo has the cleanest politicians around. The salmon capital of the world is located in Port Alberni. Parksville-Qualicum is the site of the world croquet championship. It is also the former riding of one of the world's great statesmen, Mr. Tommy Douglas.
There is a dark side to the beauty of Nanaimo-Alberni, and it is one of the main reasons I would like to speak today on Bill C-32.
In an area dependent on the resources sector, the logging of trees and the harvesting of fish, unemployment is as high as 30 per cent in Nanaimo-Alberni. That, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable. The fishermen in my riding are counting on our new Government to manage the resource properly and to improve the economic prospects of the West Coast fishermen, or fisherpersons as one Hon. Member has stated. Unfortunately, many of our fishing methods have been around for the last one hundred years. They are very much out of date and changes have to come. This Bill represents a modest change.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act. We on this side of the House had hoped we could still get speedy consideration at all stages. This Bill is housekeeping legislation. I am quoting the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). It is a straightforward, unambiguous Bill intended, first, to confirm the Minister's powers to manage the fisheries in all its dimensions and, second, to refine the on-site management powers assigned under the Act to fisheries managers.
I was rather disturbed by some of the objections raised by members of the two opposition Parties in Wednesday's debate. I think they are labouring under some misapprehensions about the implications of the Bill-misapprehensions which I hope to dispel this afternoon. I am equally concerned when they say they cannot pass this urgently needed legislation until the whole gamut of issues affecting the fisheries on both coasts has been aired.
Let us establish at the outset what this Bill is about. Essentially, it has two thrusts. First, it removes any statutory ambiguity concerning the Minister's powers under the Act to undertake the full management of the fishery. It does this by
March 8, 1985

spelling out clearly the purposes of the Act and by up-dating the definitions of fish and fishery in the Act to make them more comprehensive. It confirms what people who know the fishery have always known, that is, that true management of our fisheries means management for social and economic benefit and not for conservation alone.
Second, the Bill refines the on-site management powers available to local fishery managers to allow them, among other things, to open or close portions of a management area where now they must open or close entire areas.
Let us be clear. There are no vast new powers conferred by this Bill. To quote again the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, this Bill "simply enshrines in law what the Department felt it could do all along".


Mr. Redway:: It sounds like an excellent Bill.


Ted William Schellenberg: It is. Many of us were surprised that these powers were disputed in a court of law, but since they have been disputed, that shadow of doubt must be lifted. These amendments do just that.
None of the three Parties in the House has questioned the need for these powers. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) in a speech in this Chamber on Wednesday indicated, in terms of the denial of these powers to the Minister, the following:
-to me spells complete chaos in the fisheries management regime, not just on the West Coast but on the East Coast as well . . . We must amend this legislation to provide an orderly management regime in the fishing industry.


Alan Redway: That makes sense.


Ted William Schellenberg: It does. The second major provision concerning on site management powers for fishery managers similarly refines existing delegated powers rather than conferring new ones. As I just remarked, currently fishery managers must make judgments about opening or closing entire management areas to fishing. If a particular endangered stock is found in one small corner of a given area, the entire area may have to be closed and fishermen denied access to fish stocks throughout that area, just to conserve the endangered stock.
Opening and closing sub-areas is possible under the current Act, but the decision cannot be taken on site. It requires a lengthy process of enactment by Order in Council a slow and cumbersome process which inhibits effective fisheries management. The process can take weeks, and we need decisions in hours or even minutes. The provisions of the Bill simply ensure that a fishery manager can act right there on the site, right where a highly changeable situation is unfolding, a situation much like the one the Parliamentary Secretary talked about earlier today in the herring season.
The final point I should like to make about the over-all package is its urgency. The West Coast roe herring fishery has begun. Confirmation of the Minister's management powers is required to ensure the smooth progress of that brief, very lucrative and very competitive fishery.
Fisheries Act
Members of the NDP have said that these powers are not needed for the herring fishery because the major groups have agreed to be bound by the management plan worked out in advance. The Department can take some credit for this, because the Minister and his officials devoted time and energy to developing a workable fishing plan in consultation with the industry. We hope the fishery will proceed without disruption, but it could take just one unhappy fisherman to disrupt that densely packed race for a precious harvest. NDP Members acknowledge that the Minister must have these powers to do his job. Where we part company with them is when they say they will not allow this House to confirm those powers-the framework for fisheries management-until they have a complete accounting of how he plans to allocate among gear types between commercial, sports fishing and native fishermen, of how he plans to address native constitutional and economic issues, and so on. They want to know every detail of how the Minister plans to discharge every facet of his responsibilities now and forever.
They have demanded details on the proposals for a voluntary vessel buy-back, on the next phase of salmonid enhancement, on the settlement of native land claims, on small craft harbours, and on habitat management. If we get into that, we will be discussing this Bill for many days to come. I can tell them that the answers are not available because we are still working them out co-operatively and in close consultation with all affected groups, in line with our commitment to open government.
The opposition Parties claim that we have not adequately considered the people and Parliament on all these issues. That is incorrect. Let me deal with these points in turn. Fisheries management is a consultative process. In the end, Government has to take tough decisions. That is what we are elected to do. Those decisions are tough. They affect the lives and livelihood of literally tens of thousands of individuals in hundreds of communities. They require the reconciliation of closely competing interests of diverse groups, all vying for the same limited resource. But because the issues are so tough and their impact so deep, they have to be resolved collaboratively. On the East Coast, there is an elaborate bottom-up consultative process involving the industry and the provinces. This year the federal groundfish management plan developed by the industry was approved enthusiastically and in a timely fashion by all Atlantic Ministers. Moreover, since taking office, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) has consulted the industry exhaustively on a range of long-term issues.
The Minister has met with the Ministerial Advisory Committee, commonly known as MAC, a body which brings together gillnetters, seiners, trollers, natives, sports fishermen, unions and processors. He has also met groups individually- the Native Brotherhood, the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative Association, several native bands, the Sports Fishery Advisory Board, and so on. He has met several times with the Fisheries Ministers of the Atlantic provinces and with numerous provincial fishermen's organizations. There is no alternative to putting time and effort into these consultations. This

March 8, 1985
Fisheries Act
commitment to open decision-making will be preserved and strengthened.
The Opposition alleges that the new Fisheries and Oceans Minister has not sufficiently consulted Parliament. That charge is unfair. NDP members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry had numerous opportunities to bring the Minister before the committee, but they have never availed themselves of those opportunities. The committee had before it the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation amendments, the Saltfish Act amendments and the departmental Supplementary Estimates, but they have never invited the Minister to appear on one of those items.
I urge my colleagues-let us put the essential statutory framework in place. If the Opposition has concerns about the specific provisions of this Bill, let them be put on the record of the House. Let us get down to the business of the Bill, let us leave the rhetoric aside.
I see that I am almost out of time. I should like to point out quickly, as I said earlier, that fishermen on the West Coast have been fishing that way for over a hundred years now. Not everyone likes change, least of all radical change. The fishermen's whole economy is based upon how things are now, so radical change could disrupt many of them. Thus we must be very careful in the measures we initiate in the House and how those measures are initiated.
I have been listening to the comments of my hon. colleagues in the Opposition over the past two days. I know they have a great deal of faith and respect for our new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is not too presumptuous to say that the future of an industry in trouble rests in the hands of the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It has suffered from neglect for too long now. Through this Bill, we are simply asking for the tools to get the job done.
In view of the fact that it is five minutes to the hour, I wonder whether we could simply get the job done and pass this Bill into committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I join with other Hon. Members in the House in congratulating the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) on his maiden speech in the House. Most of us have had that experience. I know he lives in an area which is dependent upon fishing. Would he be in a position to elaborate on a number of issues which he touched upon?
On the Gulf of Georgia there is a serious allocation problem which has been exacerbated by the fact that the Government signed a treaty limiting the total number of Chinook which can be taken. However, it appears that there is a conflict between the gulf trollers and the sports fishing group in the gulf. There appears to be the question of a very serious threat of removing the gulf troller fleet from the gulf entirely. Would the Hon. Member be prepared to go on record as stating that he personally supports the continued existence of a commercial fishery in the Gulf of Georgia?


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am a relatively new Member of the House, but the Hon. Member who has just spoken and several of his colleagues who have been in opposition for years know that the West Coast fishing industry has been in trouble for decades. Very little has been done. We are simply asking for the tools to get the job done. The Pacific salmon treaty was one of the first measures which we could enact to give us the framework so that fishermen could plan for the future. This Bill is another measure or action to enable the Minister to get the job done. We fully support what he is doing in that matter.
As I said earlier, we are running out of time on this. The Minister is prepared to appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry next week to answer those kinds of questions. I simply ask my colleagues and the Hon. Member's colleagues to pass this Bill at second reading today.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Hon. Member. He certainly indicated his support for the salmon treaty. Does he support the process by which that treaty came into force in Canada, the fact that Members of Parliament were not allowed to deal with the issue in the House, unlike the American Senate where representatives of the people had a chance to make a judgment on it? Does he in fact support a process wherein Cabinet approves a matter and denies the opportunity for elected representatives to consider it?


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to tell the Hon. Member what kind of process I support. I support any process which actually results in action after 18 years of dithering on the salmon treaty. We actually brought action into the House and on that treaty. This Government stands for action, whether it is on this Bill or on the treaty. We stand for action on this Bill today. Again I ask the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River to assist us in passing this Bill into committee.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity in the lobby to see the Hon. Member making his speech, and I congratulate him on it. I thought it was well crafted. I know of his obvious intergrity and sincere interest in fisheries matters. However, I want to say to the Hon. Member that we cannot stand-


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


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the House Leader can confirm the business for Monday. He did hint last Wednesday what we would be looking at. I wonder if he could give a stronger hint today of what we will be doing on Monday.
March 8, 1985


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I were a betting man, I would say that we will probably be doing the same thing on Monday as we are doing today, but I hope we will make progress on the fisheries Bill. Then we will deal with the Bretton Woods Agreement. There is an element of urgency to get that legislation passed. The business of the House will be in essence in the same sequence as I announced for today.
I am in the process of monitoring and of consultations with respect to the progress made in the House on these pieces of legislation. I will advise the Hon. Member and his Party and all Hon. Members if there is any change in that sequence on subsequent days next week.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['This meeting is now adjourned.', 'Monday, March 11, 1985']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 59?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Reginald Francis Stackhouse: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing a motion to amend the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, in order to provide for a major reform of the Senate, so as to ensure that this House is able to fulfil the mandate it was elected to implement without undue interference.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is vital because, as it is now constituted, the Senate has no place in a democracy. To be a valid democratic legislature, the Senate needs a mandate from the people, and it has no such mandate. The Hon. Stanley Knowles told this House in 1965, and I quote:
We ought to ask ourselves whether there is any place in our parliamentary institution for a group of people who are not responsible to the electors.
In defence of the Senate, there are those who point to the quality of its Members. Of course, Canada is not a meritocracy governed by an elite. It is a democracy whose laws are passed by men and women who have one source for their authority. The Members of this House have a right to determine the direction of Canada. Regardless of our individual talents or lack of them, regardless of our Party strength or lack of it, each of us has the same legislative authority. We have been chosen by the people. We have been given an authority no Senator can ever claim.
Defenders of the Senate have tried to make it acceptable by defining it as a kind of legislative refinery, designed to improve
The Senate
legislation that emanates from the one democratically authorized house, namely the House of Commons.
Bagehot, the 19th century authority on Parliament advocated an Upper House as "a revising and leisurely legislature". In this country, John A. Macdonald wanted it available to check what he called "hasty or ill-considered legislation", to be the so-called "chamber of sober second thought". Let us appreciate, in fairness, that often the Senate has been that in terms of amending and improving legislation, but when we try to defend the Senate as the bulwark of defence for the regions, for the minorities, for the oppressed, we do not have that kind of impressive history to cite.
Let apologists for the Senate admit that it has not been the bulwark for justice they claim. They say the Senate is needed to protect regional interest, but where was the Senate when the national energy policy eviscerated the economy of western Canada? They say the Senate is needed to protect the people's freedoms, but where was the Senate when the War Measures Act was used in 1971 to override civil liberties? They say the Senate is needed to protect minorities, but where was the Senate when Canadians of Japanese origin suffered injustice at the hands of their own Government? The fact is that the Senate has been effective mostly when it has defended privileges, like the privileges of the chartered banks and of the Liberal Party.
Its Liberal majority in the Senate, the only Liberal majority left in the western world, and that solely because it is appointed, has just given us another example of its passion for privilege. Its delay of the borrowing Bill was not a necessary defence of the taxpayers. If that had been necessary, why would the Official Opposition in this House ever have supported passage of the Bill? Yet, it did give support for its passage. I wish to quote from a letter sent by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the Leader of Opposition (Mr. Turner):
This Bill was not forced through the House by the use of our majority. It passed following an all-Party agreement that had passed the scrutiny and approval of your Caucus.
I cite correspondence from the Government House Leader to his counterpart:
This Order was the result of an agreement made in good faith on behalf of the three parties represented.
The action of the Senate violates the unanimous decision of the House of Commons. The decision was made after full consultation with yourself and your Party's finance critic, Aideen Nicholson, MP, on behalf of the Liberal Caucus.
There was, therefore, no need for the Senate to resurrect its long-neglected power of resisting and vetoing so that it could protect the people of Canada against the tyranny of a majority in this House. The Senate's objective was clear to see for anyone with memories of the Coyne affair. It was to begin a Fabian-like guerrilla war on this elected House and this elected Government, this in spite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I remind the Hon. Member, and I say this for the benefit of all Members who will intervene in this debate, that the Senate, as the House of Commons, is part of the legislative body of Canada. Therefore, as other Speakers in this Chair have done from time to time, I

March 8, 1985
The Senate
remind distinguished Members of this House that they must be treated with respect. I would carefully remind all Members at this point to act accordingly.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I just point out that I have the utmost respect for Fabius in the ancient world. In likening the Senate majority to Fabius, I was not showing disrespect, but simply pointing out a historical parallel between his ancient style of warfare and what is now being initiated in this Parliament. The action of the Senate-and in no way does this reflect on any individual Member-occurred in spite of the Leader of the Opposition saying to this House words that were permitted by the Speaker in the Chair at that time "I recognize the primacy of the elected House of Commons over the Senate."
This motion was introduced in the hope that it can be passed and that it will not be talked out, for the time for Senate reform is overdue. No one should acknowledge this more than members of the Official Opposition. Senate refrom was a plank in the Liberal platform at the 1919 convention. It was advocated by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King in the elections of 1925 and 1926. In 1925, King said that reform of the Senate was a necessary bulwark for the preservation of democracy in this country.
I come closer to the present. In 1961, the current Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, writing an article entitled The Senate-A Political Conundrum, said:
The Senate, in terms of current facts, no longer plays a useful part in the Government of Canada. Its historical purposes have been lost. It no longer operates (albeit through forces beyond the control of its own Members) as a restraining influence on legislation. Its initial historical function, that of representing and protecting the rights and interests of the provinces, were never discharged; and it is scarcely equipped with the necessary mandate for that role today. Consequently, the argument for its abolition is difficult to resist.
The Leader of the Opposition wrote that in 1961. Let him act on it now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: His Party has endorsed Senate reform since 1919. Let it use its opportunity now.
Some of us may think that there is little or no hope of action replacing discussion. We count on the support of the Opposition in this Parliament. As the late Right Hon. John Diefen-baker said, Senate reform has been a continuing subject of conversation throughout the years, "something like the weather".
The time for major reform is here as never before. This House has to face the possibility of a Senate using its veto power over legislation. An article in The Toronto Star of February 3, 1985, reads as follows:
Liberal Senator Royce Frith, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, says his Party "will not ignore the fact we have a majority ..if legislation is important enough to warrant defeating a Bill.
He is reported to have said that examples of such Bills could be Investment Canada and the reinstatement of capital punishment. That some Members of this House are equally opposed to those measures does not justify an unelected Chamber thwarting the will of this elected House. Certainly, Liberal Members of Parliament should not want it to happen because their Leader has already affirmed the primacy of the elected House of Commons over the Senate. If that primacy is to be taken seriously, the Senate must be reformed. Its potential for vetoing this House must be checked.
We all know the argument for defence which goes that the Senate has not exercised its veto for so many years that only parliamentary historians know when the last time was. Surely that was in part because since 1935, the Liberal majority in the Senate had a Liberal Government to follow in the Commons for 43 of those 50 years. Now there is a Progressive Conservative Government, and since the Thirty-third Parliament opened, this House has heard rumbling sounds rising from the usually dormant Senate. To quote a Member of the other place, Senator Hartland Molson, an independent Senator, has observed:
It's perfectly obvious that what is happening is purely political.
Hubert Bauch in the Montreal Gazette of February 20 reports Senator Molson as saying that with the appointment of so many Trudeau loyalists to the Senate during past years, the Liberals have extended the heated partisanship of the Commons to the Senate.
Now is the time for reforms that can change that situation. One possible change is the proposal that the Senate be elected. This proposal was supported by the Joint Committee on Reform of the Senate in the previous Parliament. According to Senator Michael Pitfield, the Senate cannot perform its function of representing the regions because it is not elected. He has written:
As an appointed Chamber it simply does not carry the credibility to perform the role in this day and age.
If an elected Senate would be, as some people fear, an example of the cure being worse than the disease because it contradicts the principle of Cabinet Government, then we must attempt another kind of reform, namely, one that will spell out clearly and definitively that the Senate's role is not to hold a veto over this House but to assist it precisely by refining its legislation and making major studies of current problems. If that is what history has shown the legitimate role of the Senate as an appointed body should be, then let the Constitution say so. Let us make a reform that spells out in words and legislation the way history has evolved.
I plead that Hon. Members of the House see that reform of the Senate should not stop there. The Senate can never have credibility with the nation, with the House of Commons or perhaps even with itself as long as it is, as so many members of the public have thought it to be, a happy hunting ground for hacks, a plantation for patronage plums, a Shangri-La for sinecure seekers. If an elected Senate is not acceptable, then let us use the opportunity of having a new Government and a new Parliament to give Canada a new method for appointing Senators, one that will give them the same public respect
March 8, 1985

enjoyed by Justices of the Supreme Court who are appointed without reference to partisan criteria.
To quote the Hon. Robert Stanfield on the Senate:
We should do whatever is in our power to increase its credibility and that has to come basically through reform of the appointment process.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for this House to endorse a resolution calling upon the Government to initiate a process that will lead to legislation reforming the Senate and making it a more viable, credible, effective and acceptable institution in our parliamentary system.
I must conclude by saying that if such reforms are not possible, then I as one Member of Parliament would have to believe that abolition is the only reasonable alternative. An unelected legislature exercising powers to make and unmake laws has no place in a democracy. As the Leader of the Opposition in this House has written, "... the argument for its abolition is difficult to resist". Only legitimate and adequate reform can resist it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on a motion to reform the Senate. One cannot help but wonder if this is not indeed a motion rather to abolish the Senate, a move which seems to be a late bluff of some of the Conservative Members of this House.
When the Senate is accused of not doing its job, we say it needs reform. When it is accused of doing its job, we say it needs to be abolished. It is that kind of schizophrenic behaviour on the part of some Conservative Members of the House that makes me wonder if we know what we are speaking about.
1 do not purport to be an expert on constitutional matters in this country, but it seems to me that throughout the years, the Senate of the country, nothwithstanding the fact that it does require reform, has indeed performed a very unique and useful role. Let us look at some of the history of that institution.
When the Provinces of Canada East and Canada West joined together along with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, there was fear in Canada East, which prior to that was called Lower Canada, that through representation by population, the parliamentary structures would create a circumstance under which the Francophone group of Lower Canada may eventually lose its reprensentation through sheer numbers. Therefore, the people of Canada East wanted to have a structure by which there would be a guaranteed representation, and that structure of course was the Senate. It is also interesting to note that in the Province of Quebec, unlike any other province, the Senate has electoral districts or Senate ridings, if we can call them that.
Again, looking at this matter historically, we also note that the maritime provinces wanted to have some guarantees that they would not be part of the conflict that was raging at that time between Canada East and Canada West. There were linguistic conflicts and a constant deadlock after the Act of Union of 1840, and there seemed to be a new Government
The Senate
about once a year. The maritime provinces felt that difficulties could arise from the union because they felt they had more stable parliamentary institutions at that time. Again, they wanted a structure which would guarantee some uniformity, consistency and regional representation. That structure, of course, was the Senate.
We are discussing here today whether or not the Senate accomplished any useful role in providing regional balance to this country.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that he thought the Senate had not fulfilled its mandate to represent the regions of this country. I would like to remind my Conservative colleagues how, after the 1979 election when the Clark Government had only one Member from Quebec, a Francophone, who could be appointed to Cabinet, how the then Prime Minister decided to have a Francophone presence from Quebec in Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that Messrs. Asselin, Flynn and de Cotret were appointed to the Senate to guarantee the Province of Quebec representation in Cabinet, because there was no other way to do so at the time.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), who spoke earlier, feels that those Senators did not do a good job in Cabinet. That may be his opinion, but I think that although the Government of that day was shortlived, it was essential that Quebec be adequately represented in Cabinet, and that is the mechanism that was used at the time.

We are told that as an institution of sober second thought the Senate has not been useful. In the opinion of the Hon. Member who has just spoken, it was the fault of the Senate that the War Measures Act was invoked. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that his Party voted for the War Measures Act as well as did the Government of the time.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: They did not stop it.


Don Boudria: Well, I have not taken the time today to verify how Conservative Senators voted on that Bill, but I know that the Conservative Members of the House-who, the Member claims, were pure and holier than thou-voted for that Bill. In hindsight we might say that the measure was unnecessary, but we are not debating that today. We are debating the fact that the Conservative Members of the House of Commons also voted for that Bill, and now the Conservative Party is accusing Liberal Senators because they voted for it.
I think I have just described what is wrong with the Government. It is trying to find scapegoats for its incompetence. Conservative Members have indicated that the War Measures Act was the fault of Liberal Senators, even though Conservative Members of the House voted for that measure. Today,

March 8, 1985
The Senate
because of the Government's inability to run the country, to keep interest rates down, and to find employment, it is creating a new debate-the debate of the Senate.
The Senate does need to be reformed. We have probably looked at Senate reform in Canada since 1868-just after the institution was established. There have been Liberal and Conservative Governments since that time. There is no reason for the Member who has just spoken to stand and say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) should act on it now. Since when is it the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition to initiate government legislation? Introducing government legislation, in my short experience in the House, was, I thought, the responsibility of the Government. That is why it is called government legislation. Perhaps the Hon. Member should become familiar with that fact. What we have today is nothing but a red herring. Conservative Members of the House are attacking another institution because of their own inability to govern.
The Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was quoted in The Globe and Mail of today as having said:
You can't abolish the Senate without unanimity, the reason being that it affects the amending formula under the Constitution.
He also said that it would require the consent of all ten provinces, as well as the consent of the House. But the Member opposite just told us that it required the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition. Need I remind that Hon. Member of the feelings of the ultra-conservative Premier of British Columbia? How does the Premier of B.C. feel about abolishing the Senate? How do the other Premiers in Canada feel about abolishing the Senate? They do not feel that it needs to be done away with-


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: How does your Leader feel about it?


Don Boudria: I am glad the Hon. Member asked how I felt about the Senate. I feel that our parliamentary institutions need to be enhanced, protected and, first and foremost, they need to be respected by each and every one of us.

And that, Mr. Speaker, is where the Members of this House have been extremely remiss. We must remember that senators are Members of Parliament as we are. We are Members of Parliament as Members of the House of Commons, and Senators are Members of the Parliament of Canada by the very fact they have been appointed to the Senate.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true!


Don Boudria: One of the Members opposite says that a Senator is not a Member of Parliament. He is entitled to his opinion, but I would strongly advise him to read the Constitution of our country and to become a bit better acquainted with our parliamentary procedure. If he has ever presented a petition in this House or in the past read up on the history and traditions of the Parliament of this country, Mr.Speaker-The Parliament of Canada is not the House of Commons, it is the
Governor General representing the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons in assembly. I want to mention and emphasize that for the information of the Hon. Member opposite who has just stated that a senator is not a member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, some claim that the Senate has not played an important role, especially over the past few years, and that it has not carried out its duties in the best interests of the Canadian people. I could mention a number of achievements and reports . . . For instance, "Soil At Risk" is an excellent report which has been prepared by the Senate and which several Hon. Members of the House have publicly described as being a well-documented paper of major significance. There have been in the past many such documents. The Senate of our country has done quite a lot of work in many areas.

The Senate has acted as a Chamber of sober second thought.


Raymond John Skelly: Prove it.


Don Boudria: There are some New Democratic Members who say that it is not useful and that it is unnecessary. Perhaps they should review some of the Bills which have been passed by the Senate to see what they missed when the Bills were in the House. Then they will know that their shortcomings are sometimes corrected by the expertise which exists in the upper Chamber of our Parliament.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I feel it is somewhat ironic that we are debating this motion today. We have today, very appropriately, discussed women's issues in this House. I live in the same village as the first woman Senator of this country, Senator Cairine Wilson, who was appointed to the Senate in 1930 and whose statue is right here in this building. I just thought that on this particular day it was appropriate to pay a special tribute to the first woman ever to have sat in that illustrious Chamber, namely, the Hon. Senator, Cairine Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my Progressive Conservative colleagues that the steps taken by the Senate in recent weeks were aimed at delaying an unreasonable initiative on the part of the Government. Unreasonable indeed, for the Government came before this House to ask the Canadian Parliament to approve expenditures for a fiscal year yet to begin, a fiscal year for which the estimates had not even been tabled. Mr. Speaker, we have seen today why we do need the Senate, if only to remind the House and, particularly, the Progressive Conservative Party that Canada is not under a dictatorship and that respect must be shown for our parliamentary institutions. So it was the Senate which reminded the Progressive Conservative Government about the respect which our parliamentary institutions command.
March 8, 1985

Mr. Speaker, one of the NDP Members was wondering why the Bill left this Elouse in the first place. I thought that any NDP Member would know and recall that, on December 21, when the Bills came up for debate in the House on the last sitting day, we reached a compromise and agreed to hold a debate on universality and another one on a Conservative Measure which threatened a tradition and something important to this country. On that day, the House had to debate that measure and, once this was done, the Bill was read the third time and sent to the Senate.
I would remind my NDP colleague that Liberal Members rose to speak in the House on many occasions, and I challenge him to check that in Hansard. He will find out that it was not only in the Senate that Liberal Members or rather members of the Liberal Party stressed the importance of seeing the Government's estimates before passing the Bill, for I said so myself in my speech when the Bill was under consideration.
As usual, we see that the preconceived ideas of the New Democratic Party and of the Progressive Conservative Party, which of late seem to have been drawing closer than before-

We are seeing, Mr. Speaker, more and more members of the Conservative and New Democratic Parties sleeping in the same bed. On this particular issue it is quite obvious again. We are seeing this incestuous relationship, and let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is becoming obvious that the two Parties are playing the same game in this House.
The New Democratic Party does not want a Senate. Perhaps it does not feel that the regional interests of this country are important. I accept that as the policy of those Hon. Members, if that is the policy they wish to have. But I don't like it and I feel that that is why that Party will never get anywhere. But Hon. Members of the Conservative Party should know better. They are in government. They should have more respect for our parliamentary institution. If they do not realize the value of our institutions, Mr. Speaker, then let them consult with the provincial Premiers across the country. Let them ask what those Premiers think of this initiative, and we will see that that idea will be soundly defeated. Reform of the Senate, Mr. Speaker, yes; abolition of the Senate, definitely not.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). It is a possible sign that there might be some action at last on this subject, which everyone says has been talked about for the whole history of the entity known as Canada, then a semi-independent country and now a "maybe" independent country. It depends on whether we can run our own affairs without interference from across the border.
This motion only calls for reform of the Senate, but I would like to support it in the hope that an exploration of reform might lead sooner or later-I hope sooner-to the discovery that reform is neither possible nor really useful and that the only real alternative is abolition.
The Senate


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Hear, hear!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Of course, that has always been the policy of the Party I represent, including its predecessor since 1933. The Hon. Member opposite who said, "Hear, hear!" reminded me previously of his history in that connection.


Cyril Keeper: He must be a red Tory.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The CCF adopted this policy in 1933. I was not at that convention. I was a little too young, but I will admit that that was one of the many attractive features of the CCF when I joined it in 1957. Since then I have never had any occasion to reconsider or have second thoughts about the proposal to abolish the Senate, to reform it right out of existence.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), said that the Senate has done many good jobs on legislation, but he did not say what jobs. I am not aware of any Bill which came out of the Senate any better than it went in. There have been some Bills, such as Bills concerned with regulation of the banks, which came out from the Senate worse than when they went in. That is not surprising considering the ties and directorships which many members of the Senate have.
There was a Bill put forward by the Liberal Government last year to impose the secret service on us, the CSIS, which did go to the Senate and did get a superficial proposal for reform. However, it was clear by the actions of the Liberal Government that it was not interested in having that Bill improved. It was only interested in playing for time. It only used the Senate as a smoke-screen in order that it could ram the Bill through the following year with only superficial and cosmetic changes. Some of the changes which in fact the Senate committee suggested were ignored by the Government. It was clear, therefore, that the Government of the day did not intend that the Senate should actually improve the Bill. It only intended that the Senate be part of a charade in the pretense of the Government that it was consulting the public on a Bill to impose a secret police on us that was utterly irresponsible, that is to say, it has absolutely no obligation to report what it is doing to any elected representative of Canada.
The Senate made no change in that essential irresponsibility of the Bill in its proposals, so the whole charade of putting it to a Senate Committee was, as I say, only a way of keeping it out of public view for some months, then bringing it back with deceptive changes made. They changed nothing fundamentally. So I am very pleased that there are no New Democrats in the Senate. There are certainly New Democrats who have been respected enough by the Government of the day that they might have been appointed to the Senate, but if they were ever asked, they declined. There are now no New Democrats in the Senate, and therefore, as The Toronto Sun points out, we are in a very clear position in saying it should be abolished. I hope there never will be New Democrats in the Senate. There will
2850

March 8, 1985
The Senate
be New Democrats on the other side of the House in due course, but not in the Senate.
It is very interesting to note that The Toronto Sun is with us. It surprises Paul Godfrey, the Editor. It even surprises us a little bit, but not as much as it surprises him, because we believe that our position was sound and that some day even publications such as The Toronto Sun will recognize that. Evidently some Members across the way are beginning to recognize the soundness of our position. They were probably encouraged to do that by the extreme action in the opposite direction of the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, in entrenching the Senate into the Constitution and then loading it down with his buddies just before he left and just after he left with the little deal he made with his successor. That certainly left a bad taste in the mouths of many Canadians. That, of course, is no reflection on the individual merits of the Members of the other place, but it is a reflection on the function that that body has served, intentionally or unintentionally.
I congratulate the Member for Scarborough West for having introduced this subject. I would be very interested to know whether he and his colleagues, who have votes in this place, are serious about what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has trumpeted in the media in the last few weeks, what many of his colleagues on that side of the House have supported, and what the Hon. Member for Scarborough West advocates in his motion. Are they really going to try to make changes?
The Hon. Member for Scarborough West reminded us that a former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, said that everybody talks about Senate reform like the weather but nobody does anything about it. In that case, John Diefenbaker himself was one of the nobodies, that is to say, he did nothing about it. He had a term of office in which he could have addressed the matter, but apparently he did not choose to do so. Now the members of this Party are talking about the need to do something. The question is whether they are serious or whether this is just horseplay. I am sure the Hon. Member for Scarborough West is serious, but he is a back-bencher. He sits as close to the back-benches on his side as I do on my side. It is not clear whether those who sit on the front benches share his seriousness of purpose.
Is the Cabinet willing to proceed or is it just stalling? Is it going to put forward a definite, concrete proposal, or perhaps even a Bill as a beginning? If not a Bill, will it make a report to Parliament? Will it put a motion to the appropriate committee of Parliament to have this matter opened up? In the alternative, will it hide behind the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner)? Is it going to say that with 211 votes in the House it cannot do it because 40 people on the opposite side of the House in the Liberal caucus are not going to co-operate?
If the Prime Minister takes that stand seriously he will make himself the laughing-stock of the country. Everybody
can count. Everyone knows that if the Prime Minister wants to put that through the House of Commons, he can do it. There is a constitutional question which he might have thought of before he spoke, but perhaps, as is his custom, he is better at speaking than at thinking, and he does not always know which he should do first. The fact is that he said he was going to make changes, and then the next day he and his colleagues began to wonder whether it was possible to make the changes. The fact is that there are colleagues of his Party in most of the provincial Governments of Canada. If there is agreement within his Party, they can act.
I can assure him, on the basis of more than 50 years of consistent policy by the NDP and the CCF, that he will not find the Government of Manitoba difficult to work with on this point. I can assure him that he will have co-operation from the Premier of Manitoba. There is evidently the potential for near unanimity among the provincial Governments of the country. Changes in the Constitution have been accomplished before with even less unanimity than that.
The question raised by the motion of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West is whether this talk by the Prime Minister and others of his Party about reforming the Senate is merely a dodge to take the minds of the public off the fact that the Conservative Government is doing nothing about jobs and tax reform, or whether it is a serious concern that will be followed up in the next week or two by a substantial proposal from the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues in the Cabinet for actual reform of the Senate. We will soon know whether the Conservatives are serious about it or are just leaving a backbencher out to dry.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak in support of this motion on Senate reform which was put forward by my colleague and roommate, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). This is a subject on which I personally have felt very strongly for a long time. In my very first year of university, I took a Canadian political science course. After having taken that course, I was convinced that we needed some very drastic changes in the Canadian Senate. Therefore, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak today on that very subject, which takes me back a few years.
The subject of Senate reform has been discussed very broadly and in a great deal of detail over a number of years. The pace of that debate has been speeding up, particularly in the years leading up to our new Constitution, our new amending formula, and our new Charter of Rights. Since that time, there has been a great deal of debate on what we should do about the Canadian Senate.
There are a variety of thoughts which I believe break down into four main choices. The first choice is that of making some modifications in the power of the Senate. The second choice is that of changing the method of selection of appointees to the Senate, or changing the method of appointment. The third choice is the possibility of actually having an elected Senate, as my friend the Hon. Member for Scarborough West suggested.
March 8, 1985

The fourth choice is, as both the Hon. Member for Scarborough West and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) indicated, that of abolishing the Senate altogether.
With regard to modification of the Senate, or any of these choices, the key to the issue is accountability, that is, whether the Senate is an accountable body now or whether it can be made an accountable body and whether, in a democracy, we can have a body which is not accountable to the people of the country.
With regard to the first option of modifying the powers of the Senate, there is no question in my mind that no matter what is done with the Senate, whether its power to block legislation is limited or whether a time limit is imposed on its debate, it still cannot be made accountable to the people of the country. Therefore, I personally reject the idea of tampering with the powers of the Senate.
The second possibility is to have another method for Senate appointments, that is, based on propositions put forward by provincial Premiers that the provinces be allowed to appoint people to the Senate. Once again, this raises a very basic and fundamental issue about the accountability of the Senate to the people of the country. Tampering with the powers of the Senate or finding another method to appoint Senators, be it by the provinces or anyone else, does not deal with their accountability and responsibility to the people of Canada.
The third choice that is possible, which has been suggested today, is that of electing the Senate. I reject that proposal because it would bring about a very fundamental change in the concept of our democratic government and Canadian parliamentary system. As the Hon. Member for Scarborough West has pointed out, our system is a Cabinet system in which the Cabinet is responsible to the House. If there is more than one elected body, there will be two bodies claiming to have equal accountability and responsibility to the people of this country. They will be vying to represent the authority of those points of view as far as Canadians are concerned. I do not believe that will work and I think it would simply create a stalemate. It could very well happen that an elected body in this House and in the other House could have differing views on how the country should be run, and if so, both these elected bodies could claim to have the right to follow their respective course, based on the mandate they received from Canadians. I suggest that we do not want that.
What we have had in the past in this country is strong government. When the Government must act, it has had the ability to act because of the Cabinet and the parliamentary system. That is not the case in every democracy. France went through many republics before de Gaulle became President. The main reason that France could not come to grips with its problems was the instability of the constitutional system under which it was operating. We would not want to move from a system with one unelected, unrepresentative House, to a system with two, which would create a completely unstable
The Senate
government in this country. Personally, I believe we would be extremely foolish to adopt such a system.
It has been suggested that perhaps we could modify the powers of the Senate in relation to having an elected body there. At the same time, Senator Pitfield, whom my hon. friend quoted, also said that it would not be possible to limit the powers of another responsible and elected body for long because it would also have a mandate from the people.
The fourth choice, which I believe is the only choice, is that the Senate must in fact be abolished. It seems to me that when we look at the history of Canadian parliamentary democracy and try to find the isolated events when the Senate played a role of which we can be proud, the only one I can think of is the James Coyne affair. He is the former President of the Bank of Canada who came into conflict with the Government of the day. The Senate took his side in that argument and there was a great controversy in the country about whether or not the Government had the right to tell the Governor of the Bank of Canada how to run the monetary policy of the country. As a result of that Coyne affair, the Governor of the Bank resigned from his position. The question of whether the Government had the power to direct monetary policy was left in Limbo temporarily. Subsequently, a new Government with a majority in the Senate decided that the Government should have that power, and it changed the Bank of Canada Act so that it is now clear that Mr. Coyne's position was not the one we wanted in the country and that the Government of Canada should have that power.
Many people in various provinces have said in recent days that it would be foolish to abolish the Senate. There was a day when many provinces of this country had a second House of Legislature. Today, there is not one. In fact, the provinces abolished all of their legislative second Houses, and if they believed that the second legislative body was so essential to their proceedings it is almost inconceivable that they would believe we should not abolish the Senate of Canada.
Therefore, I am led inevitably to the conclusion that our Senate should be abolished and that this motion should be passed to call upon the Government to take some action in this manner.
What action can the Government take once the motion is passed? The Constitution Act sets out provisions for amending the Constitution of the country and the method for dealing with the Senate and any motion to abolish, or otherwise reform, the Senate. Those provisions are set out in Section 38(1) of the Act, as well as in Section 41 and Section 42.
Section 38(1) provides the power to pass a motion of the House of Commons. The remaining procedure is outlined, but my time is drawing to an end. I want to ensure that this motion comes to a vote this afternoon, and with that in mind, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to put the motion to a vote right now.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

March 8, 1985
The Senate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Stackhouse, seconded by Mr. Redway, moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a motion to amend the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, in order to provide for a major reform of the Senate, so as to ensure that this House is able to fulfill the mandate it was elected to implement without undue interference.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.

March 8, 1985

[Stage Direction]
of
HIS EXCELLENCY JAVIER PEREZ DE CUELLAR Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on Thursday, March 7, 1985
His Excellency the Secretary-General was welcomed by the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Hon. G. Charbon-neau. Speaker of the Senate and the Hon. John W. Bosley, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. John W. Bosley (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. Secretary-General, we are highly honoured to have you address this joint session of the Senate, and the House of Commons. Before calling on the Prime Minister, we want to welcome you and Mrs. Perez de Cuellar warmly to our Parliament.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Your Excellency, Mr. Secretary-General and Mrs. Perez de Cuellar, Hon. Members of the Senate and the House of Commons, it is a special occasion in the life of the Canadian Parliament when we gather to hear a distinguished visitor address a joint session of the Senate and the House of Commons. Today, we have the honour of receiving the head of the world's pre-eminent international organization, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and we bid you a warm welcome.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In his presence let me reaffirm, on your behalf, Canada's commitment to the United Nations and to the values and aspirations it was created to serve.
Mr. Secretary-General, there has been no war on our soil in more than a century and a half. In that respect, Canadians are among the most fortunate people in the world. Yet three times in this century young Canadians have put on uniforms and, leaving all they love behind, have gone overseas to war. Six hundred and twenty thousand did so in the First World War;
550,000 in the Second World War; and 25,000 in Korea. More than 100,000 Canadians died in those wars. Most of them were younger by far than any of us in this Chamber today, and they lie in graves in Europe and Asia. Those who came back to Canada gladly turned to peaceful occupations and to the building of this country. Some of them sit in this parliament. Some have raised sons and daughters who sit in this parliament with us today.

Canada has not forgotten those days and the lessons of those days. So long as there remains etched in our national memory the sacrifice of our youth and the trauma of war, peace will be, Mr. Secretary-General, the paramount objective of this nation, of its Parliament and of its Government. I mean a lasting peace, a just peace, a universal peace.

Forty years ago the terrible memories were new and hopes were high that the United Nations could ensure international order and world peace.
On many occasions and in many parts of the world, the United Nations system has in fact helped prevent the worst from happening. Your predecessors, sir, have played an honourable and a memorable part in those events. Your own very tenacious efforts have contributed to the easing of tensions in such areas as the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, Cyprus, the Middle East and Africa.

Yet, as we meet today, the most tragic and brutal wars are laying waste to the lives and resources of human beings and

March 8, 1985
nations in many parts of this world. These wars and their continuance mark the failure of our world organization to make peace prevail. This failure is a reproach, not to the United Nations, but to each and every member state.
As you know, Sir, Canada is a member of the North Atlantic Alliance. That Alliance has for more than 30 years helped prevent war in Europe. We believe in a strong defence as a deterrent to war. We believe further that a country such as ours can make its best contribution not only to defence but to peace and stability by participating in organizations such as these.
You will also be aware that the Canadian Armed Forces have taken part in almost every United Nations peace-keeping force that has been formed. We are particularly proud of the fact that we have never failed to respond as a nation to a call to serve the United Nations. We have heard that call in the past and it is with great pleasure that we meet with you today in the quest for peace.
[ Translation]
The wars that are still raging in various parts of the globe do not seem ready today to respond to peacemaking or peacekeeping initiatives by the United Nations.
Is there a more effective way for the world community to anticipate and avert such wars?
That is a complex question. But I want you to know, Mr. Secretary-General, that Canada agrees that a good part of the answer lies in a stronger United Nations Organization.
In particular we support your personal efforts to play a more active role in the Security Council in dealing with critical world situations-and to pursue the task of peace-keeping and peacemaking as the sine qua non for significant progress in the social and economic spheres.

We welcome the steps you are taking to ensure that the machinery of international co-operation is serviced by an efficient and solid secretariat. Your actions have restored a strong and central role for the Secretary General in the management of the international system and in the conduct of world affairs. For that and for many other things, Sir, we salute you as we welcome you to our Parliament today.
Canada strongly supports this pivotal role within a renewed and revitalized United Nations system.
No less than the waging of frequent war in every part of our world, the threat of nuclear war and the danger that life on this planet will be extinguished by nuclear war is a reproach to member states and a disgrace to the ideals of the United Nations.
In every forum that is open to us, Canada will pursue arms control and disarmament with vigour, commitment and patience.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In this connection, Mr. Secretary-General, I want you to know that your remarkable intervention, at the last General Assembly, on the dangers of nuclear war, struck a responsive chord here in Canada.
Mr. Secretary-General, if the multilateral system is, at worst, under siege or, at best, in a weakened state, then we pledge to strengthen the system.
We know that continued prosperity in Canada cannot be realized except in a healthy and growing world economy.
That is the meaning of interdependence. The world community must address with renewed seriousness the issues of trade and aid, of social and economic development, of raising living standards everywhere.
Up to now, those issues have been addressed intermittently. They must be addressed relentlessly or we shall constantly lose ground, all of us, especially the poorest.

Canadians have come to know you, Sir, for your determined and reasoned leadership of the United Nations. The leadership of the United Nations in co-ordinating the massive response of the international community to the emergency in Africa is a tribute to your personal commitment, a commitment which is shared by the Canadian people. At such times, we see vividly something of the immense possibilities for good when the nations of the world are mobilized to that end. We see manifested also, the solidarity of millions of individual human beings around the world, their sense of fraternity, their willingness to help. That, Sir, is a powerful force for the betterment of mankind.
Under your leadership, the international community must rededicate itself to the realization of these objectives and to the rule of law in international affairs. You can count upon the Canadian Government, the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian people in this formidable pursuit. Welcome, Sir.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
His Excellency Javier Perez de Cuellar (Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization):
Mr. Speaker of the Senate,
Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons,
Mr. Prime Minister,
Honourable Members of Parliament.
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, most sincerely for your warm, generous, and stimulating words of welcome.
It is a great honour for me to address this joint session of the Canadian Parliament. I regard your invitation and kind welcome as another expression of that deep concern for the
March 8, 1985

success of the United Nations, which has motivated Canada's role in the world Organization.
It has been an exemplary role, based, of course, on your sincere dedication to the aims of our Charter. But I believe it has also derived much of its vitality from this great country's distinctions: the rich diversity of your culture, the wide range of your international contacts and the understanding of world affairs which you command.
It has been suggested to me-from your side-that I should speak to you about the possibilities relating to Canada's future role in the United Nations and not deliver an encomium on your contributions in the past. The suggestion reflects an appealing modesty and generosity, yet it would be inappropriate for me to omit a reference to all that Canada has done to help the United Nations meet the difficult challenges facing it.
The break-through in 1955 in the deadlock which had frozen the composition of the United Nations, the innovative response in 1956 to the situation created by the Suez Canal crisis, your participation in almost all peace-keeping operations launched by the United Nations, your positive contributions to the work of every committee or commission set up since 1945 to deal with the issue of disarmament-these are only the most outstanding instances. Long before the issue of achieving greater balance in the world economy assumed its present prominence, Canada was among the pioneers of the idea of technical assistance programs for developing countries being undertaken by the United Nations.
Let me, therefore, pay my heartfelt tribute to Canada's loyal and consistent support of the endeavours of the world Organization. Solidly based as it is on a national consensus, sustained as it has been through your successive administrations, it provides a graphic illustration of the capabilities of countries, other than the permanent members of the Security Council, to advance the work of the United Nations. I might parenthetically mention here that it has become conventional to call countries such as yours the medium-sized ones. The phrase is hardly descriptive of a number among them. Canada, for one, is large not only in territory but also in spirit and intellect, in its resources of statesmanship and in its philosophy of practical co-operation in international life.
As I stand before you today, looking ahead in this year of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, I feel that the future appears to hold even better prospects for the decisive role of countries such as yours. A dynamic United Nations system provides you with a unique instrument for wielding a collective influence on the resolution of outstanding global issues. It is true that major decisions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security depend on the agreement of the permanent members of the Security Council. But in our age of interdependence, other countries have an equal stake in peace and cannot, therefore, be bystanders. A privileged position is conferred on a few, but responsibility rests with all.
[ Translation]
Ladies and gentlemen, I am sure you are aware of the increased dissatisfaction being expressed in certain circles with the way the United Nations operates. It is said, and there is some truth in this argument, that the UN has been steadily losing credibility. I have said as much, if not more so, myself. However, can the world afford to sit back after making such a judgment? Credibility requires that we provide purpose and direction to the multilateral dialogue on issues that give rise to tension and threaten to cause conflicts between nations.
Since in the world forum that is the United Nations, the dialogue is an international one, it is incumbent on those who express dissatisfaction to bring to this forum the requisite practical and methodical approach and appreciation of urgency and consistency which together may be expected to produce concrete results. An organization like the UN cannot afford to maintain a purely rhetorical stance. It cannot afford to prevent the free expression of the aspirations, fears and grievances of the peoples of this world. It is important that each Member State consider the success or failure of the UN as the success or failure of a personal undertaking. Small- and medium-sized powers have various avenues open to them for making good use of the capability of the UN to promote negotiations leading to lasting agreements. These countries can influence the climate of debate and play a moderating role in international conflict. They can formulate specific and realistic suggestions and put them on the agenda of the international community. Through discreet diplomacy they can help fend off threats to peace. The United Nations offers many opportunities for consultation and contacts between ministers of Foreign Affairs and heads of government, which can be used to seek a meeting of minds, to explore avenues that may lead to an agreement on major issues and to analyze the world situation.

I have mentioned earlier the idea of peace-keeping by the United Nations and the part that Canada has played in its conception and development. Peace-keeping operations have conclusively shown the resilience and responsiveness of the United Nations and its capacity for conflict control. The very idea of launching a peace-keeping mission with the help of member states that are not permanent members of the Security Council puts a focus on the responsibility of these states for the maintenance of international peace and security.
But the responsibility does not end with containing a conflict; it extends to resolving the underlying cause of the conflict. Peace-keeping without peace-making can be but a palliative. The cooling-off period which peace-keeping operations manage to secure is of little avail if it serves only as a prelude to a more violent eruption.
I do not have to cite any particular regional conflict: the proposition holds true of all that, without a credible movement toward a just and lasting settlement of an international dispute, pent-up passions accumulate and distrust mounts.

March 8, 1985
Frequently, such a situation runs the risk of dangerous escalation on to a global plane, with immediate ramifications for the entire international community.
The Charter of the United Nations lists all conceivable means for the pacific settlement of disputes. At present, in situations where direct negotiations are difficult or impossible for one reason or another, states rarely feel encouraged to avail themselves of such means as mediation, the good offices of an impartial third party, or adjudication. This is one of the cardinal manifestations of disorganization in international affairs. However, the failure is by no means terminal. Member states of the United Nations can exert a collective and benevolent pressure for the rational settlement of international disputes.
In this regard, the bulk of these states, compared to the world powers, have the advantage of greater flexibility because they are less entangled historically in the causes of the conflict. Alone, none of them can expect success in mediating a dispute: together, their voice can be persuasive and may well prove irresistible.
I would urge influential states like Canada to use the opportunities afforded by the United Nations for giving a fresh impulse to encouraging the comprehensive and durable settlement of regional conflicts. I do not underrate the difficulties involved but, even with the small signs of realism and fluidity that can be discerned in certain situations, the climate may be more propitious now than it has been in recent years. In some situations, the United Nations or the Secretary-General remains essential to communication between the parties. I think, for example, of Cyprus, over which at the moment I am engaged in a new personal effort to find a solution, of Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq war and South-East Asia.
Another very important area in which a country like Canada can play a most useful role is the promotion of the North-South dialogue. I do not believe that there is a primordial or inherent conflict between the interests of the developing countries and those of the industrialized ones: all will benefit from a more efficient, less unbalanced and less crisis-prone global economy. If the positions respectively formulated by the two sides seem irreconcilable, a more imaginative approach can help to bridge the gulf. What is important is that the dialogue should be free from the tone of confrontation.
Canada has been second to none among the industrialized countries in acknowledging the necessity of making the world economic system more responsive to poverty in large parts of the globe. Your statesmen have urged a less fractious approach to the process of giving a more balanced meaning to the idea of economic interdependence. The objectivity and breadth of vision that inspired their appeal can be most helpful in stimulating some progress in the North-South dialogue.
[Translation\
One of the main concerns of our society today is the existing situation with respect to human rights. Paradoxically, at a time when the United Nations, after tremendous efforts, has
succeeded in giving the provisions guaranteeing the protection of human rights force of law internationally those very rights are still being violated on a wide scale. For the first time in history, the states that make up the international community and are signatories to the Charter of the United Nations are committed to work together to promote and foster respect for human rights and basic freedoms for all. Such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related convenants prescribe those standards against which the international community can judge the behaviour of a state in that context. Various procedures have been established to make it easier for the states to adhere to those standards. Unfortunately, many regions of the world still violate them, and that is one of the most disturbing characteristics of mankind. This problem ought to be tackled with tact, and the method most likely to give positive results ought to be adopted. In my opinion, countries such as Canada can contribute to strengthening the means available to the United Nations to allay the great sufferings caused by the denial of human rights and dignity.
In conclusion, may I allude to the concern which, in the minds of people the world over, overshadows by far all others: the apprehension stemming from the unrelenting expansion of the nuclear arsenal. Here again Canada has the advantage of being a country which, however advanced in the realm of nuclear technology, is not equipped with nuclear weapons.
In that capacity, you are in a position to give invaluable assistance to overcome the technical obstacles which stand in the way of the implementation of effective measures to limit and, ultimately, eliminate nuclear arms. Mankind's foremost objective must be to reverse the trend towards nuclear overarmament. This is not the proper forum for me to attempt to analyze the various reasons why no progress has been made to that end. However, it seems to me that the human mind has now become a prisoner of a new form of determinism, even more paralyzing than fatalism: a belief in predestination, to which the fall of the glorious civilizations of the past has been attributed. I am speaking of the submissiveness to the ruthless advance of military technology.
Technology should be at the service of mankind and not be the ruler of its destiny. If private corporations can maintain control over their industrial technology and use it sensibly in their own financial interests, there is no reason why states cannot maintain control over the technology of destruction in the interests of peace. However, such control requires reciprocal agreements to put an end to the arms race. Without these agreements, science can play the role of the sorcerer's apprentice as far as armaments are concerned; if we want the gnome to stop before all of us are swept away by the flood, we need an order from our political leaders.
As a matter of fact, the arms race among the major world powers was prompted by their serious concerns about their own security. However, the concept of security cannot be solely military; its other aspects, whether economic, social,
March 8, 1985

cultural or philosophic, are infinitely more important today than in the past. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that our quest for security must always lead us to outbid each other as far as armaments are concerned rather than agreeing to a mutual reduction of arms levels. Without an armament limitation agreement there can never be a fixed point at which one of the parties can feel assured of equality or of an advantage in armaments. Viewed only in terms of armaments, total security is a goal which always recedes further as we close in on it and which is always just out of reach. Humanity cries out to escape from this vicious circle.

Distinguished Members of Parliament, 1 have touched on only some of the more important problems facing the international community today. I am convinced that if these and other difficulties are to be tackled squarely, we must all concentrate more on what unites us as human beings than on the often transitory factors that pit nations as adversaries one against the other. Few nations know better than Canada the need to recognize fully and accommodate differing voices in a representative forum.
Such recognition is the secret of your success as a people. Success for the community of nations cannot be complete while so many of our fellow human beings languish in deprivation. Ultimately, we must all advance together, and I am convinced that the United Nations is by far and away the best vehicle for doing so. I am gratified indeed to find here in Canada such frank and fair recognition of these truths and I look forward to continued close co-operation with you as we proceed to our common goal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Guy Charbonneau (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. Secretary-General, being aware of your reputation, I knew you would be sharing with us today some profound thoughts on the current problems of a divided world. As we sit upon a huge powder keg, the detonator of which could be activated from the four corners of the world, we find solace in the assurance that the Secretary-General of the organization whose mission is to unite all the nations on earth is endowed with such a positive understanding. As a matter of fact, you carry out your duties with the realism of an experienced politician and the generosity of a confirmed humanist.
As we commemorate this year the 100th anniversary of Victor Hugo's death, allow me to quote one of the biting comments for which this great man was deservedly famous and which reflects on the nearly superhuman dimension of your quest: "Universal peace is an hyperbola and the human race is following its asymptote". In other words, we are trying to bring together two parallel lines which can never meet.
In spite of this age-old evidence, you fervently persevere in your efforts to foster appeasement throughout the world,
efforts which we, as Canadians, both admire and support. In your achievements so far we find grounds for hope because, like us, you constantly proclaim the priority of right over force, of reason over blind passion, and of dialogue over violence.
Through your untiring and omnipresent action, you appear to us to have acquired a sense of ubiquity which is the distinct characteristic of a universal assembly. You must be everywhere at once because nations all over the world need a peacemaker.

When things go wrong, it is easy to join the chorus criticizing the United Nations. But we should never lose faith and throw our hands up in exasperation. You know as we in Canada know that the United Nations system can be no stronger than the collective will of its member states. We cannot treat the United Nations as a handy scapegoat.
It is not surprising that the United Nations is having more difficulty carrying out its responsibilities in the maintenance of peace and security. The drift toward political conflict and war between nations is never easy to reverse. You, Mr. Secretary-General, have continued to work assiduously in the centre of these conflicts in the highest traditions of your office. I need only note that where all others have failed to date, you have successfully chipped away at the inhuman edges of the war between Iran and Iraq. In Cyprus, you are bringing the leaders of the two Cypriot communities together to promote a settlement. You must not lose hope. You should draw your encouragement from quiet successes and the support of nations like Canada for the long road ahead.
We are honoured by your presence among us. Canadians support you in your vital work. We are proud of the contribution we shall continue to make in strengthening the United Nations so that it can rise to the new challenges. Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John W. Bosley (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. Secretary-General, on behalf of the Hon. Members of this House of Commons and the people of Canada, I wish to thank you for sharing your thoughts with us so eloquently.
Twenty-one years ago, U Thant spoke in this Chamber and brought to Canadians a message that still rings with relevance and importance. He said to us that "for all its moral authority and good intentions, the United Nations, like any peaceful agent of order and justice, cannot be effective without some co-operation, some give and take, some effort to move forward, on the part of the peoples primarily concerned". Today, you gave us a message that will stay with Canadians for at least another 21 years.

We are compelled by your masterly review of the current global situation to ponder seriously over the problems faced by

March 8, 1985
the international community and over the impact on each of us of the "multilateralism crisis."
You have explained why it is of the utmost importance that the United Nations Assembly should remain strong.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from recent history, it is the global interdependence of nations.
Without such a dynamic mechanism for international cooperation, the conflicting interests of nations would lead to chaos. In a world of increasing complexity, the United Nations is an essential body.

Canadians know this, and as you have heard in the Prime Minister's introduction, Canada remains committed to the United Nations, its principles and its objectives, in both word and deed. As you have indicated, what is needed is a revitalization of the U.N. system. What better or more effective way could there be to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations?

During the thirties, certain countries turned their backs on the League of Nations, and the consequences were disastrous.
If in a nuclear era a new cataclysm were required to have us realize the importance of mankind's heritage, we might very well find that we have nothing left on which to rebuild the world.
This is the reason why your message to us today is of unparalleled urgency and import.

For Canadians, peace is an urgent matter, as it is for you. We too hope that leaders around the world will find the way to make peace last forever throughout our planet. For Canadians, the blue beret that has been worn with pride by thousands of Canadian peace-keepers is a constant and positive reminder of Canada's partnership with the United Nations. You, Sir, by your presence and your words here today have reinforced this partnership. For this we are truly grateful. Again, Mr. Secretary General, thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This meeting is now adjourned.

Monday, March 11, 1985