1985-11-21

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 31 consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-62, an Act respecting Employment Equity, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Keeper (p. 8197).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this will be the last day of debate on Bill C-62 at second reading. The Government for the fifth time in this session of Parliament has imposed closure, cut off debate, on an important Government Bill.
Mr. Lewis:: Something you never used to do, did you?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Alimand:: As a result of that procedure by the Government, we are not permitted to have a full discussion in this House of what is supposed to be one of the key pieces of legislation put forward by the Government.
The Government has made a lot, both in the Speech from the Throne and in speeches that have followed, about the reform of Parliament. The Government established a committee, headed by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), to examine the rules of Parliament and to suggest ways in which Parliament can be reformed to give Members on both sides of the House the opportunity for more input into legislation so that legislation will not be formulated in the back rooms of the civil service. In other words, those who are elected to this House will have some say in the drafting, in the amendment and in the content of legislation.
If the Government continues to use allocation of time and continues to cut off debate on Bills so Members of Parliament cannot have that input, what does that say about reform of Paliament? It says that the Government is not really serious about reform of Parliament. The proposals put forward are simply a facade and not a real approach to parliamentary affairs.
When we debate an issue in Parliament, such as we want to do with this Bill on employment equity, we know that we are not going to convince too many of the 211 Conservative Members on the other side to change their minds. We know that there are only 70 of us in opposition, 40 in one Party and 30 in another and despite the soundness of our arguments, we will not convince too many Conservatives to change their minds.
The purpose of debate in this House-and this does not begin with this Parliament-is to reach beyond the walls of Parliament to the public outside where we hope to touch public opinion. If we touch public opinion by continuing the debate in this House, through the media and through those who may watch the proceedings of Parliament, then pressure may be put on the Government and the Government will begin to amend and withdraw Bills. That is what happened when we dealt with the proposal to cut back indexation of old age pensions. If it had been for the government caucus itself, deindexation would have proceeded, but by debate in this House and outside the House the public became aware of what was happening to old age pensions. The public went after the Government. The 211 Member majority responded to the mass of public opinion that was brought to bear on the Government to amend and draw back on that proposal. We believe the debate should continue on this Bill. We abhor the fact that the Government is cutting off debate on Bill C-62 and that this is the last day on second reading.
Why do we oppose this Bill and why are we trying to make the public aware of what is happening? This Bill pretends, and I say pretends, to do something about employment equity. Employment equity is supposed to bring about fairer conditions of employment for certain target groups who have had a rough deal generation after generation. I am speaking of the women, the visible minorities, our native people and the handicapped. This Bill pretends to do something about those particular groups in our population so that they will have a fairer deal in seeking and maintaining employment.
The Bill was supposed to be based upon the recommendations of the Abella Report. The previous Government appointed Judge Abella in 1983 to look into the whole problem of inequity in the employment market-place and to make recommendations on how it could be corrected. Judge Abella tabled her report in November, 1984, after the change of Government, making some very specific recommendations on what must be done. Unfortunately, the Government has not followed those recommendations.

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
We are opposing the Bill because while it expresses the right intent-it indicates that it wants to do something about the situation of inequity in the employment market-place for different target groups in our population-it in fact does very little. There are no standards set out in the Bill. There are no objective criteria which must be followed. There is no enforcement agency set out in the Bill. In fact, there are no penalties if the employers who are subject to the Bill do not follow through with what is expected of them. The only penalty in the Bill is for employers who do not report to the Government. However, if they report, and even if their reports are wanting or are lacking in progress, there is no penalty. The only penalty is if they do not report.
Judge Abella, in her report, demanded that there be an enforcement agency, standards and penalties. The Bill does not provide for them. This is why we are opposing it and trying to make clear to Canadians that while the Bill pretends to do something, it does very little. We are afraid that if the Bill passes, the Government can then say that it has done something about employment equity, when in fact it will have done nothing at all and will go on pretending that something meaningful has been done. If the Government really wanted to do something, it would have put into law what Judge Abella recommended.
I am not the only one who says this. The great mass of public opinion is not yet aware of the faqade which is going on here. However, the leaders of the target groups do. They have come to Ottawa, have visited our offices and have told us so. The leaders of the handicapped associations have told us that the Bill is not acceptable. Also they have told us that they would rather see it defeated than passed in this half measure form before us. Women's groups have come to Ottawa, such as the National Action Committee and other organizations, and have told us that the Bill is not acceptable. The leaders of visible minorities and native people have told us that the Bill is not acceptable. Yet, the Minister and Members on the Government side tell us what a great Bill it is.
The Bill is not to serve most of us in the House of Commons; it is to serve those people who are considered target groups under the Bill. If they do not think it is acceptable, why does the Government not do what we have asked, take back the Bill and make some amendments to it?
The Bill could be improved and could be made worth while, if key amendments were made to it. I am afraid those key amendments cannot be made in committee. At first I thought they could be made after the Bill was sent to committee on second reading, that that would do the job. Now, after further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the Bill is so defective and needs so many amendments that it should be sent back to the drawing-board. The Government should reform the Bill, revise the Bill and bring it back to us. Then it would be doing something to please those target groups.
One wonders who the Government is trying to please with the Bill. Rather than trying to meet the needs of the groups to which I have referred, those who have difficulty with employment-women, native people, the handicapped and visible
minorities-it is really backing off Judge Abella's recommendations because it does not want to offend big business which does not want too much regulation or interference with its employment practices.
The decision in the Bill as to what the standards should be is left to the employers. That is really surprising. It is a very unusual situation. A Bill will be passed which indicates that employers must do something about a certain problem, in this case employment inequity, but the Government leaves it up to them to decide what the standards will be. That is what the Government is doing in Clause 4 which reads:
An employer shall implement employment equity by
(a) identifying and eliminating each of the employer's employment practices,
not otherwise authorized by a law, that results in employment barriers against
persons in designated groups-
It is saying to the employers that they decide which of their practices are against employment equity and do something about them. How many employers will say that they have been doing the wrong thing for several years and now they will make changes in some of their policies? We need standards in the Bill. We need an enforcement agency. I hope the Government does something about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. On debate, the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie).


Mr. Gauthier:: Good morning, David; I am glad you are here.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House this morning. I have been on the road for the last number of weeks, so it is nice to see smiling faces on both sides of the House.


William Warren Allmand: It is better to be on the road.


David Edward Crombie: The Hon. Member might be right.
It is with considerable pleasure that I am able to rise today to endorse the historic Bill which my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), presented some time ago. All Members of the House must recognize that we have reached a landmark, no matter what imperfections might be perceived, with this Bill. That focus should be kept on most of the discussions because in many of these things there are always matters which could be done better or could be done different. There is no particular Bill, no particular passage of literature, which contains all the wisdom. However, the House should not miss the point; it is a landmark Bill.
With the passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977 and the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1983, the people of the country clearly stated that employment discrimination could no longer be tolerated in a democratic society. With the passage of the Employment Equity Act, we will ensure that employers, both public and
November 21, 1985

private, will be responsible to ensure that equality becomes a reality.
Over the past 14 months, it has been my pleasure to criss-cross the country, talking with native people. After visiting many communities, hundreds of communities, I can say that few issues have dominated my discussions as much as the desire on the part of native people for economic development and employment. With unemployment rates reaching 80 per cent in many communities, native people want the opportunity for long-term productive employment. They want the types of jobs which will allow them to break out of the dependency relationships which they see as a major threat to the survival of their own culture and communities. Few other Canadians face the kind of barriers to employment which Indian people face. For many, there is a need to upgrade their education, to acquire occupational skills through training, and to obtain work experience and the special assistance necessary to enter the labour market successfully.
Recently I was pleased to announce the Indian Community Human Resource Strategies Program. It is designed to provide resources to Indian communities in order that they can provide their members with the skills, experience and other assistance the world of work increasingly requires. However, all the training and preparation in the world will be a waste if Indian people do not have opportunities for employment at whatever job and at whatever level for which they are qualified. Whether intentional or unintentional-and native workers are often excluded because of invalid or inappropriate employment requirements-discriminatory barriers for native people must be removed. Even further, employers must be prepared to demonstrate to potential Indian employees that those opportunities are there. Again, the figures are compelling. If Indian people are to reach the same employment levels as other Canadians by the 1991 census, some 85,000 jobs must be created just to get close to the level of other Canadians.
Certainly, our Government is committed to assisting Indian communities and individuals to develop fully the employment opportunities on reserves. However, even with success, a minimum of 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the required jobs will have to be in the non-Indian private and public sectors. Clearly, whether they are opportunities for Indian workers commuting from the reserve or for those choosing to live off the reserve, we must be prepared to ensure finally that Indians will have a fair share access to employment in this country.
I am convinced that this Bill represents the cornerstone of its successful employment strategy for native Canadians. Despite the rhetoric we sometimes hear from the other side, as it is part of their job, employers as defined in this Act will be required-I emphasize required-to implement employment equity. First, they will be required to remove all barriers which discriminate against designated groups, whether intentional or systemic. Second, they will be required to implement positive measures to ensure an appropriate degree of representation. Third, they will be required to provide annual reports to the
Employment Equity
Minister of Employment and Immigration on exactly how well they are doing with respect to achieving employment equity.
There are those who would criticize the Bill because it establishes no new enforcement agency. However, the facts show something different. Crown corporations will be required to submit mandatory employment equity plans to Treasury Board and will be closely monitored for compliance. Federal contractors will be required by law to certify their commitment to implement employment equity and they will be monitored. Those failing to comply will face debarrment, and that is a very powerful incentive. Companies under federal jurisdiction will be required, under penalty of a stiff fine, to report publicly their employment data on a yearly basis. If they make no progress, Section 32(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act clearly gives the Human Rights Commission the right to initiate complaints with respect to it. For the first time, the commission will have the information required to monitor employment practices.
As my colleague stated earlier, the Government is also committed to ensuring that the commission has the staff and resources to carry out that part of the mandate. If this Bill does not have a new enforcement agency it is because the Government believes in using the powers of the agencies already in place. What we do not need is another redundant agency. We need the action that this Bill gives to those people who are looking for employment equity. Officials in my Department are currently working with over 80 Indian communities which are negotiating with Crown corporations and private employers for employment opportunities. This long list includes oil and gas, transportation and service industries and construction companies. Many other communities will be developing and implementing long-term human resource plans as part of our human resources strategies program.
I can assure all Members that the employment equity program will be an enormous boost in all of these communities. It will help pry open doors that have long been closed to Indian people. The prospects are exciting for them. It is historic and I believe that all Members of the House should support this Bill.
Nothing in the world is perfect, but I can say that this Bill moves this country forward such a distance that it will make all Hon. Members who support this Bill proud they did so and those who do not will wonder why.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to Bill C-62, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). As the Minister is well aware, the native population in my riding is approximately 30 per cent of the total. We have had experience in the past with provincial regulation that is very similar to the Bill before us today. Therefore, I am aware of the difficulties we will face in turning this Bill into a real affirmative action program. The intent of the employment equity Bill must be to provide real equity and real participation at all levels in the workforce for

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
those disadvantaged groups, whether they are native people, women, the handicapped or others.
During my term as Public Service critic for my caucus prior to the last election, I read many reports stating that there was no real equity within the structure of the federal Public Service. The problems have not been resolved after many years of Liberal study and after a year of Conservative promises. I believe we will suffer from the same inefficiencies as a result of this Bill.
During the election campaign the Government promised to implement mandatory affirmative action. Again, this promise is being broken by this legislation.
Let me explain why 1 believe this legislation is flawed and will not fulfil the task that it should. Large hydro development projects were being implemented in Manitoba during the 1970s. At that time a northern preference clause was negotiated with the contractors and sub-contractors who were involved in these large projects that employed thousands of people. However, there was essentially no enforcement mechanism or method of ensuring that native people and women really became involved in the process. We have learned from those negotiations in the 1970s, and as we gear up for new projects in Manitoba at Limestone and Conawapa, we have built in quotas and indicated that various trades must provide up to 45 per cent native hiring and maintain 45 per cent native employment in some trades on those projects. There must be training for those people before the projects begin in order for them to be qualified for the jobs as they come on stream. In this case, I will give credit to the federal Government for helping to pay for these training projects. In particular, I give credit to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) for agreeing with the Manitoba Government to pay for some of the training that is involved in that project.
However, this illustrates that there must be some real enforcement mechanism provided in this Bill. It is not enough to leave it up to the companies to look after their own affairs and simply report to the Government. We have had experience with years and years of reports about the federal civil service. We know that women are under-represented and we know, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is well aware, that native people are under-represented especially in areas where they live. We know that the higher one goes in the hierarchy, the fewer disadvantaged people there are, fewer women and fewer native people employed in the Government. While that information is useful in itself, the process must continue to achieve the goal of real equity. That is what we are looking at in this legislation. It is unfortunate but true that this Bill is only a step along the road to what we need.
I would like to see the Government live up to its election promise of mandatory affirmative action for corporations that are involved in very large Government contracts. That was a promise, and presumably a promise is made to be kept. However, it is not being kept.
The fact that almost every major Canadian organization that is concerned about women, natives and the handicapped have spoken out against this legislation, tells us a great deal. They have said that it is not adequate and is not in keeping with the promise the Government made during the election campaign. There is really no enforcement mechanism that will make sure anything will really happen as a result of this legislation. There is no guarantee that these corporations will even fill out the forms the Government will produce for them.
As the labour spokesperson for our Party, I am concerned about the fact that there is no provision for the input of unions in this legislation. Unions are the ones that are involved in negotiating and it is their members who are affected. The unions could have input in terms of educational leave for purposes of helping people move up the ladder within the company. Yet there is no input from the unions suggested in this legislation. A Government that has prided itself on its consultation is leaving out a very fundamental group which has a lot of input into what will happen in the workplace. Again, this legislation is flawed because of that lack.
As well, this legislation is flawed because it lacks not only the goals but the guidelines for affirmative action. What does the Government expect to happen as a result of this legislation next year, two years down the road or five years from now? I think we have a right to know that. Year after year we have seen a failure within the federal civil service to deal with real affirmative action. I have talked about the fact that there has been study after study and that chart after chart has been shown to us. What is the real goal of the federal Government with regard to its own employees? We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians. What are the goals of the Government with regard to Crown corporations? What are the Government's goals and expectations for the effect of this legislation on the private sector? I think we should know that and I think that is the problem we are facing at this time.
We are dealing with a piece of legislation which I do not believe will do very much for the people about whom we are so concerned. I think that in 1985, the people have a right to expect more than a piece of legislation which would have been found to be faulty even in the 1960s and the 1970s. The Government is moving in the right direction. There is no question about that. However, I think that it is moving very slowly and probably very cautiously, which is certainly not in keeping with the bold statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the election campaign.
I have lived in northern Manitoba and seen mining companies bring in workforces from outside. I have seen other companies bring their workforces with them to the North. Because of that, I recognize that voluntary plans do not often work. Sure, we can say that we are open to native hiring and the advancement of women. However, if we are not going to do anything about it, that will not help the situation.
I do not think that INCO in Thompson had any particular regulation indicating that native people could not be hired but the net result was that very few native people were hired. It was only in cases like the one of Sherritt Gordon for which the
November 21, 1985

Government had specific programs that native people were actually being hired. It was only for Manfor Ltd. that the Government made specific regulations and developed hiring programs so native people would be employed in the forestry industry.
In closing, because we are under time allocation and I am limited to speaking only 10 minutes, I would say that the legislation is too weak. I can certainly speak from the experience I have had in my own riding and I say that it ain't going to work.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I too am rather concerned and disappointed that the Government is bringing a halt to debate on this very important employment equity Bill. A lot more needs to be said on this issue. Frankly, a lot of the things that have been said already need to be said again, because it is obvious that the Government is not listening.
I do not think anyone on this side of the House is quarrelling with the Bill per se. It is just that the Bill does not do what the Government said it was going to do. It certainly will not do what the Abella Royal Commission wanted done in this regard. This Bill provides us in the House of Commons with a chance to do something for women, visible minorities, native people and the disabled in the workplace. This is the moment when we can achieve something for these groups. If we let this opportunity go by with just a cursory glance, we may not get another chance, with the thinking of this Government, for some time to come. We have to be cognizant of the importance of this Bill, particularly at this time when we have before us this legislation and we can do something regarding this very important matter.
This Bill, as has been stated by the affected groups, just does not go far enough. This is the tragedy. It indicates to me that the Government is not sincere in what it is attempting to have the Canadian people believe. We in Canada made a good start with the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and particularly with Article 15 of the Charter. It was hoped that this Bill would provide the additional buoyancy that would support these groups in their attempt to attain what the Government should be giving to them.
There are a few things about the Bill with which I would like to deal. As has been mentioned, the definition of employer in the Bill is any person who employs 100 or more employees on or in connection with federal work undertaken. That is just not sufficient. There are holes in that definition through which one could drive a truck. It is not a clause that would be designed by a Government that wants to put teeth and feeling into the stated purpose of this Bill, a very important matter for these groups.
Clause 4 refers to identifying and eliminating each of the employer's employment practices not otherwise authorized by law. If it were not so obvious, we would say that the Government was just being naive. To try to give an objective standard to the subjective position of employers and leaving it at that is
Employment Equity
far from being sufficient. In fact, it is bordering on being insulting to the intelligence of the Canadian people and particularly the groups that we on this side of the House wish to help, the groups that the Government is not helping anywhere near to the extent that is needed.
I listened to the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). He made some very good points, points which I think all Canadians should consider regarding the seriousness of native employment. I think the Minister mentioned that we need to create 85,000 jobs by 1991 if we are going to bring native people anywhere close to the norm of employment levels in Canada. It is astounding for a country with the prosperity and enlightenment of Canada to have our native people in that type of position. Something has to be done, something more than what we see in this Bill.
I am not only distressed by the fact that the Bill does not carry the strength which is needed to protect native people and to secure employment for them, but I am distressed by the Government's policy with respect to abandoning its regional development aspect. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), will say more about this when he speaks. At least when we had a Department of Regional Industrial Expansion we had a way to help those people who were no longer on the reserve to work hand in hand with the work which was being done by the Minister responsible for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Those natives who are no longer on the reserve have no way of being assisted by the Government. The Bill does not go far enough in that regard.
As has been said earlier, there are no teeth in the Bill. There are no sanctions. There is certainly provision for a fine of up to $5,000 if companies do not report on their progress and position with respect to the requirements of the Bill. However, it is not enough to have these targeted companies and organizations do what we want them to do to enforce the principle, purpose and heart of the Bill.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) said that he does not know what the goals of the Bill are. The Government is not saying what the goals are, that is true. I think we can see a clear indication of what the goals of the Government are when it says that even though it requires a report and the sanction applies only to a report not being filed, it does not have to be filed until June 1, 1988. The Government is obviously not expecting anything from the Bill and from the targeted organizations and companies until after June 1, 1988. Without the spirit of accomplishing what the Government says it wants to accomplish, the Bill will not go anywhere near achieving what we want to achieve and what the Canadian people want to achieve. As has been said earlier, Canadians do not want a continuance of this discrimination. That is becoming more and more obvious.
The Bill will just not do anything. The recommendations of the special committee dealing with the handicapped have been pretty well discounted. The Abella Commission said that the

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
recommendations in the report entitled Obstacles have to be followed in a Bill such as this if it is to have meaningful application. That has not been done. The recommendations of the Abella Commission have not been followed. What we have is smoke and mirrors with respect to this very important question. Visible minorities, the handicapped, native people and the disabled have been waiting a long time. When I say a long time 1 mean that something should have been done a long time ago. What I am afraid of is that by having this insufficient Bill become law people will say: "Oh well, this question has been looked after and the needs of these groups have been looked after". It just ain't necessarily so. It will not happen. This Bill is not the answer. It has to be strengthened. We can no more abandon the search for the just practice and treatment of these groups after the passage of this Bill than we could before it was introduced.
I am concerned that there will be no follow-up and that companies will look at this legislation as just another porous document to which they will give only cursory glances now and again. Without any of the principles which we in the Liberal Party want to see but in the Bill these aims will not be put into practice. I think that will be very unfortunate.
I ask the Government to reconsider this Bill and to look at it again. I ask the Government to give further consideration to strengthening the Bill. The Government should listen to Hon. Members on this side of the House, put some teeth into the Bill and do what it says it wants done in Clause 2.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity. For years the Liberal Government paid lip service to the doctrine of equal opportunity in the workplace. It was all talk and no action. With its strong mandate from the people of Canada the present Government has given this basic right top priority. In fact, within our first year in office we have drafted a Bill which will finally make employment equity a reality. Members opposite are still all talk and no action.
We have had enough, as have the Canadian people. Women, native people, disabled persons and visible minorities want to see some action. They want to see results. They demand legislation which will enshrine the right of all Canadians, not just the white, able-bodied males, equal access to employment opportunities. They have waited patiently through years of rhetoric and self-serving inaction. However, with the Bill which is before us now the barriers are coming down. We have shared their frustration and we have heard their cries. As legislators we are committed to opening wide the doors of opportunity for all Canadians.
Not only will the doors be opened but here is the clout of this legislation. Employers will be held accountable for implementing special measures to ensure a truly representative workforce. Critics say the Bill is not tough enough. They say that accountability is not mandatory, that business will not comply and that employers will fudge their reports. This attitude of mistrust and confrontation toward the business community is counter-productive. I might say that this is one
of the reasons the labour market and, indeed, the economy as a whole was in the sorry state in which we found it when we assumed power.
I am proud to say that my Government has confidence in the integrity and intelligence of the business community and that, when required by law to report annually on the status of designated groups in the organization, they will comply, both through social conscience and because it makes good business sense. I am convinced they will comply because we are giving them clear guidelines and a firm but realistic deadline.
All employers within the federal jurisdiction must begin immediately to examine their employment procedures and to explore remedies to unfair practices. Systems must be established so that data can be collected to support an annual report on the status of designated groups beginning in 1988.
Recognizing that there are always a few bad apples and not, as some would have us think, that the whole barrel is bad, a fine of up to $50,000 will be levied if a report is not submitted or if it is incomplete. If real progress in the elimination of barriers is not substantiated, the report will be open to public and media scrutiny and it will be made subject to the full force of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
As can be seen, we mean business. We are determined to liberate victims of past discrimination, but as you can also see, Mr. Speaker, we believe in co-operation rather than confrontation to persuade business to conform. We know it is made up of, for the most part, responsible corporate citizens. We also know they are not fools. They are vulnerable to public opinion and they respect the bottom line.
Business sets goals and timetables for every aspect of its operations; profits, capital investment and productivity increases. Setting goals and timetables for designated minorities is a way of ensuring and measuring progress. I think most companies are aware as well that they can no longer afford to waste the potential contribution of capable people for artificial reasons. What is more, the Canadian companies which are already applying the principles of employment equity such as Nova and the Royal Bank, find that their efforts to hire and promote designated groups have resulted in increased productivity, reduced recruitment and training costs, together with a more appropriate use of human resources.
Employment equity makes good business sense. It also enhances the corporate image. If employees, including women, native people, disabled persons and designated minorities are offered equal opportunities, there is a noticeable increase in job satisfaction and morale. Does this improved morale and productivity shine through to the customer and to the public? Yes, it does. Everyone is a potential employee. Everyone is a potential customer. Any company with a representative workforce has something of which to be proud.
The purpose of employment equity legislation is to ensure that all Canadians, particularly victims of past discrimination, can stand proud and confident that in Canada people are hired
November 21, 1985

and promoted according to only one criterion, the ability to do the job.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to join in this debate on Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity. I think we should ask ourselves why the Government has chosen to bring in closure on this particular piece of legislation. This is the fifth occasion, I believe, that the Government has brought in closure on a piece of legislation which it has deemed to be important to all Canadians. Why, then, the rush? Why does the Government want to choke off debate on this particular subject matter? Why the hurry, Mr. Speaker? Would it have to do with the contents of Bill C-62?
If we examine Bill C-62 we see that the phrase "designated groups" means women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who belong to a visible minority. That is what the Bill directs itself to. I believe, as the Elon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) indicated, that it is an important piece of legislation, but when we look at the substance of the Bill, the four and a half pages-two and a half of which are legalese which is included in every piece of legislation which comes before Parliament-we see, perhaps, a page and a half which somehow addresses itself to the issue of employment equity. The Bill does not address the issues affecting those individuals and those groups of whom I have made mention; women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. The Government is bringing in closure on this Bill for the simple reason, I suggest, that it has very little to offer women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities or, indeed, individuals who belong to visible minority groups. The Bill is totally lacking in substance and in enforcement procedure to ensure that equality is brought to bear in the workplace. Clause 7 of Bill C-62 reads, and I quote:
The Minister shall in each year prepare a consolidation of the reports received in that year under section 5 and shall, as soon as possible thereafter but not later than the end of that year, cause the consolidation,... to be laid before each House of Parliament.
We are going to have to wait until after the next federal election-which is 31 months from now-before reports are tabled with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Then we have to wait for the end of the calendar year before the Minister tables her reports. That is a considerable length of time. The Government promised the Canadian people that if it was elected it would take strong initiatives in order to see that employment equity was brought to the workplace. It is certainly not living up to its election promises, nor is it living up to the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration that this subject matter in itself is important. It will take 31 months before companies in this country submit their reports to the federal Minister, and thereafter we will have to wait until the end of the calendar year before they are tabled before Parliament.
What about an enforcement agency for breaches of this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker? What about the sanctions for not complying with the legislation? Where are
Employment Equity
the standards? Where do we want to be on June 1, 1988, with respect to the provisions of this Bill? Has there been any statement of any goals or objectives set out by the Minister involved? There has been nothing. All we have is two or three pieces of paper about a subject matter which is important to all Canadians. The Government says it is concerned-as Clause 2 states-"to achieve equality in the workplace". But it takes more than pious statements by Ministers or Members of Parliament to achieve the goal of equality in the workplace. And sometimes measures may have to be taken, unfortunate as it may be, to call to task certain corporations and individuals with respect to seeing that equality is restored to the workplace. However, this Bill says nothing. It gives women, native people, the disabled and visible minorities nothing. These people may have to wait for 31 months and longer before Parliament will see the reports. In other words, the wrongs will not be righted by this legislation. These wrongs will continue and there will be no check for more than 31 months.
I had hoped Government Members would be a little more forthcoming in setting out the goals and objectives to be reached at the end of 31 months, but they have not been. I had hoped that the Government would provide clear and unequivocal sanctions in the Bill for those who breached its provisions in the workplace. That has not been the case. Then, to add insult to injury, the Government is using the guillotine, as Members opposite often referred to it when they were in opposition, to cut off debate on this very important matter. That is a shameful thing for a Government elected by the Canadian people en masse on the promise, among others, of substantive changes regarding equality in the workplace.
What do we have to show for it? A smoke and mirrors campaign by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Prime Minister of Canada. That is not what Canadians need. That is why groups from coast to coast have denounced the substance of this legislation. Surely in 1985 women, native people, the disabled and visible minorities have legal rights. Surely we, as Members of Parliament, have to give them our support in making sure that those rights are observed and that equality is brought to the workplace.
In closing, I suggest that this Bill ought to be withdrawn by the Government and replaced with legislation with substance, sanctions, enforcement ability and time restrictions on compliance.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-62, and in particular on our motion for a six-month delay on second reading. It is strange for an NDP Member to be asking that the Government and Parliament not deal with this Bill immediately. We have been prodding the Government to bring in employment equity legislation for a very long time. However, the sad fact is that this legislation is totally inadequate and we do not want to see it pass. We will be voting against it because of its very serious inadequacies. We would like the Government to spend the next six months in taking a real hard look at the problem and then

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
come back with some legislative proposals adequate to meet the needs of Canadians who suffer discrimination in the workplace, Canadians who are disadvantaged and who expect some action on the problem by the Government.
One thing the Government could do in the next six months is look at the Abella Report entitled Equality in Employment. It has a substantial list of recommendations on dealing with the employment discrimination that women, visible minorities, native persons and the disabled experience in Canada. In the section dealing with voluntary versus mandatory measures, which is absolutely crucial because it is the lack of mandatory measures which make this Bill unfit to be passed, it says:
Voluntary employment equity means that employers are encouraged, rather than required, to adopt measures intended to rectify employment inequities. There is no provision for an enforcement component. A voluntary program with a mandatory reporting requirement is nonetheless voluntary in the absence of a requirement to remedy the discriminatory practices disclosed by the information reported.
That is what we have here. We have procedures which will mean companies will be reporting information which could be entirely revealing of inadequacies, ongoing discrimination, and the lack of measures to deal with that. That would not cut them off at all. The report goes on:
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.
Casual attention is precisely what we do not want. Studies have all too amply documented the extent of discrimination, low wages and salaries, of these target groups; the very high percentage of unemployment among disabled and native people; the concentration of women in ghettoized sectors of the economy without opportunities for job advancement. In the case of women, they have plenty of qualifications. Often they are over-qualified for the job, but there is still systemic discrimination and the measures in this Bill simply do not deal with that. The report goes on:
Voluntary programs of various kinds on behalf of women were attempted in Canada after the Royal Commission on the Status of Women reported in 1970. Certain of these programs were revitalized and expanded, at least in the public sector in and after 1975, International Women's Year. Voluntary programs in the federal government have had little impact on the composition of the public sector workforce.
It is shameful to see the low proportion of women in these jobs and, of course, the heavy concentration in the lower paying, dead-end jobs which do not lead to promotion.
Let me refer also to the observations of the Urban Alliance on Racial Relations which presented a very excellent brief on this subject. This organization deals with visible minorities and has conducted studies on the extent of discrimination that they experience, and I think it has some very wise advice for the Government. It points out that the Government has not announced requirements for departmental affirmative action plans, the goals and timetables for increasing the representation of these target groups. It does not say whether, when and in what form government Departments will report publicly on their progress or what sanctions will be imposed by Treasury
Board on Departments which do not make progress towards equality. All of this, unfortunately, is true. This legislation is seriously lacking in this area.
The initiative regarding equal pay for work of equal value is long overdue. The Government has been bound by the Canadian Human Rights Act which requires this, but there is no timetable for implementation and no indication of the amount of money set aside to equalize women's pay. This remains a vain hope, an ideal somewhere off in the sky, but there are no realistic measures and penalties for failure to comply. Treasury Board has been responsible for affirmative action in the Government of Canada for some years now and women have little to show for it. Goals set for increasing women's representation have been very low and they have only been set for management positions where women are largely excluded. Target groups have no reason to consider Treasury Board a credible agency in the affirmative action field. They have been told about what they are lacking for a long time. There has been extensive lobbying and Treasury Board has been on the other side when groups representing workers are negotiating a better situation for women. Treasury Board does not want to see classification changed. It imposes artificial limitations on opportunities for women's promotion and advancement.
The Government of Canada has announced that Crown corporations will be required to have affirmative action plans and report to Treasury Board. Some Crown corporations will be required to report publicly. However, the Government has not announced the requirements for these affirmative action plans. It has not announced goals and timetables for achieving appropriate representation of the four target groups. There are no sanctions to be applied to Crown corporations if they do not produce results.
We know how bad Crown corporations have been. 1 personally have been lobbying the CBC since 1974. Its record is abysmal in hiring and promoting women into the creative production and managerial positions. This is typical of the backwardness of our Crown corporations. Crown corporations which fall under the legislation governing federally-regulated businesses will not have to begin to report their workforce data for three years. Why should there be this kind of delay? Why should we not be moving into mandatory affirmative action promptly? They have had plenty of time. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada reported in 1970. One of the recommendations was that each Crown corporation have a plan for the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission's report. For 16 years they have known that the people of Canada expect some action toward employment equity. For 16 years they have been stalling, and we now have legislation before us which would give them another three years to stall.
Contracts give the Government of Canada a major opportunity to have some impact. Billions of dollars a year are spent on Government contracts for goods and services across the country. This is a carrot which could be used to encourage
November 21, 1985

corporations doing business with the Government to clean up their acts. Instead, we have a very weak approach which includes only the major corporations, and under very weak provisions at that. This is an opportunity to involve the medium-sized and even small businesses which want Government business. For them the government contracts would be a decided incentive to clean up their acts and introduce employment equity.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will just point out that the legislation is woefully inadequate. We cannot support it. We call on the Government to take a good, hard look at it and to do justice for women, disabled persons, native persons and visible minorities. It is about time that we had some good, hard adequate legislation with timetables, goals, and mechanisms for enforcement in order to create a situation where people have a fair chance in the workforce.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, not only do I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-62, I feel that as a woman, and especially as the Minister for Youth, I have a duty to do so because, Mr. Speaker, it is essential to get back to a subject that is very important to us, who belong to a highly industrialized world and claim to live in a modern and progressive society.
I think everyone will readily admit that high principles and noble ideals do not readily become a living part of our culture, and that it is easy to forget the principles of justice, equality and equity, and even the idea of long term benefits.
That is why Governments must intervene to keep individual aspirations from infringeing on the rights of the community. And that is what led to the creation, in June 1983, of the Royal Commission on Equality and Employment. In October 1984, the Commission's report was submitted by the chairman of the Commission, Judge Rosalie Abella.
I shall, if I may, read a passage from the report. It is taken from Chapter 6 and concerns instruments of implementation. We read: It would also be expected that employers would set annual internal objectives but these would not be required by statute.
This recommendation from the Abella report brings us straight to the core of Bill C-62, which is now at the second reading stage. Clause 4 of the Bill establishes the employer's duty, in two respects:
To eliminate employment practices not otherwise authorized by law that result in employment barriers, and to institute policies and practices to ensure that the persons concerned achieve equitable representation.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that Bill C-62 does not provide any penalties for employers who fail to observe the letter and the intent of the legislation. Some see this as a serious shortcoming. However, those who do can hardly have spent much time reading and examining the Bill before the House today.
Employment Equity
Although the Bill does not contain any provisions that make achieving tangible and concrete results compulsory, that is not the case with the submission of reports. Indeed, Clause 6 tells us that an employer who fails to meet his obligation to produce the report prescribed in Clause 5 is liable to a fine of up to $50,000.
I do not know many companies that would want to be fined $50,000. Nor do I know any that would work very hard at submitting statistics that failed to reflect the true situation in their establishments.
So this particular provision of the Bill indicates the Government is firmly resolved to make federally-regulated businesses eliminate discriminatory employment methods and practices and substitute therefor such measures and practices that are likely to guarantee target group members that the principle of equity in recruitment, promotion and remuneration will be observed. It is this provision that will provide justice for women, native peoples, the handicapped and members of visible minorities, who have been left out of the labour market for too long. And that same provision will also provide a measure of justice for those who are being doubly discriminated against. I am referring to young women, young native people, young handicapped persons and young members of visible minorities.
People who think that getting a job right away is the sole concern of young people today do not know much about what young people are thinking nowadays. Today, they are thinking about post-secondary education, the environment, culture, and the practical job experience they can get while they are still at school. I think that as a result of these measures, they can expect to find jobs when the time comes, even if they belong to groups that usually have even more trouble finding employment.

Employment, Mr. Speaker, is not the only thing that preoccupies young people today. They want to talk about postsecondary education, the environment, the cultural aspects of life, peace, and pre-employment practical experience. Above all, Mr. Speaker, they want to talk about participation in the life of the country and the decision-making process of the country. They all want to be part of society in general. More than any others, the young women, the handicapped young people and the aboriginal young people find this difficult. It is through a Bill like C-62 that we will be able to achieve that for them.

Mr. Speaker, in our present situation, anyone who thinks that young people, and I realize I am repeating myself, see today's job as their sole concern is really oversimplifying the problem. It is with legislation like this Bill that over time, the advancement of women and all other minorities, all members of these target groups, will make enormous strides. As far as I am concerned, a vote against this Bill is a vote against the

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
youth of this country. It is a vote against women, young native people, young handicapped persons and against all visible minorities, and I cannot imagine how anyone in this House could be against the advancement of those who in ten or fifteen years will be the leaders of this country. If we do not take them seriously today, we deserve to get the same treatment when, in a few years' time, they will be sitting where we are now.
I therefore ask all Members of this House ... I think we must, all of us together, take this important step towards equity, towards justice for young people and the other groups.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the speech of the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne). You cannot help but feel sympathy for some of the things she expresses, concerns not only of hers but concerns of the overwhelming majority of people in the country. I listened also to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) who spoke about the need to proceed with this legislation because it was a step forward. Yet you have to stop and ask yourself, is it a step forward when you put in legislation and write into law something that you cannot enforce? Is that a step forward when you write a law that has absolutely no enforcement mechanism within it?
If we were to treat other sectors, other problems in society in the same way, we would have chaos. It is entirely possible now for companies and organizations operating in Canada to do all of the things that this Bill now requires, yet they do not. What therefore leads us to believe that as a result of having an unenforcible law companies will suddenly rush to comply with it? This is confusing to many people who view the Government's action and makes it aggravating for many of us who, for years-and I am not speaking just of opposition Members-have been arguing in some cases for what is now called employment equity but which in years gone by took on a variety of different names. We have all argued that discrimination in the workplace should cease.
When I listened to Government Members speak about a step forward, why did they not simply write a letter to everybody and tell people it is the desire of the Government that companies should do this thing and if they do, that would be nice and if they do not, do not worry about it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It takes too long by mail.


Ian Deans: If it does take too long by mail as the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) says, that is the Government's problem too, is it not, Mr. Speaker? Do not foist that on us. A year and a half has gone by and there is still no action.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is sending out yet another signal identical to the signal sent out year after year after year. Surely to God we do not think that somehow
or other, by virtue of the passage of this piece of legislation all of those people, who until now have refused to comply with what is reasonable and fair in our society, are suddenly going to start complying.
Does the Government truly believe that those individuals who have refused to maintain in their place of work safety standards sufficient to protect their employees will voluntarily introduce employment equity? Does the Government believe that those who have traditionally relied on women and paid them low, substandard wages will certainly alter their view of life, because we think it is a good idea, and will establish without any kind of enforcement mechanism a change in the practices pursued throughout their entire business careers?
I find it incredible that Government Members would rise one after another and attempt to leave the impression that the end result of this legislation will be a change in the attitude of Canadian employers, and that, as a result of our having nodded yes, we need to have employment equity, companies will rush to institute it. If they do not, we are going to be very disappointed, are we not, Mr. Speaker? We will be very disappointed if companies do not comply, but if they do not, there is nothing we can do because there is nothing in the Bill that will allow us to take any action to require compliance with what each and every Member of this Chamber, I hope, believes is necessary in a modern society.
I want to deal primarily with the problems of women. Time does not allow me to go into details on the other areas, those of visible minorities or the natives. We all know that the report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian society called Equality Now set out clearly what the problems were and set out the need for action by the Parliament of Canada to require compliance with fairness and equity. But did we see a great rush of people dashing forward to implement the recommendations voluntarily? No, we did not. What did we get, Mr. Speaker? We got the Abella Report. Judge Abella in her equality and employment report says that we should require, not ask, not cajole, all federally regulated employers in both the public and the private sector to implement what she calls employment equity, which for years was called affirmative action. We have seen the groundwork laid. There were countless other reports over the last decade and beyond dealing with it. Did anyone rush forward after Judge Abella's Report was tabled and immediately begin to implement policies in the federally regulated private and public sectors voluntarily? No, Mr. Speaker.
Are we thinking that because we pass a toothless law everyone will rush forward to comply? Would you put in a speed limit without some kind of penalty for breaking it, Mr. Speaker? Of course not. Would you allow people to pollute our drinking water without some penalty for having polluted it? I should not have asked that question because the Government might in fact do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: As I think about it now, that was not a very good analogy to draw. Let me assume goodwill if nothing else.

In this Bill we have something that goes to the very fundamental principles of society, equality for people, regardless of sex, regardless of background. We say to people at this late stage in the middle 1980s, "We are going to write a little law, if you want to live up to it, fine, and if you do not, do not worry about it because there is nothing we can do about it. We will be mad at you and if we are really mad, you will have to suffer the consequences of our annoyance." That is the extent of it and that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. That is why we say that this is not a step forward. It may even be a step backward. It is entirely possible that by virtue of the introduction and passage of this legislation complacency will become rampant in the country, if you can imagine rampant complacency.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: That tells you something about it.


Mr. Riis:: Rampant complacency is not any different from progressive conservatism.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: As my colleague says, rampant complacency is not any different from progressive conservatism.
When dealing with the question of women in society, why do we need to have a law with some kind of enforcement mechanism in it? We need it because the average earnings of women in the paid workforce are 60 per cent of the average earnings of men, notwithstanding the fact that for years people have said there should be equality in the pay of those doing similar kinds of work. Women workers are still confined to most of the job ghettos. Three out of five work in clerical, sales or service occupations.
I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that computer technology is invading the area in which women used to work, so they are not getting a chance at those jobs. At present, 52 per cent of Canadian women work outside the house, 42 per cent of families headed by women have incomes below the poverty line, and 62 per cent of elderly women live below the poverty line. By the end of the century, women's labour force participation rate is expected to be equal to that of men.
I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker; I am just winding up. During the last 10 years, the average unemployment rate of women was 9 per cent, while it was just over 7 per cent for men.
I make these points in order to reinforce what I am trying to say. We have known of these things for years. The discrepancies and discrimination have existed for years. People have written about it. There have been reports about it. There have been requests and requirements for years. However, there has never been a law with teeth in it. Now we have yet another toothless law. I say to the Government that we are opposed to it because we frankly believe that it will set back the cause of equality in the workplace rather than enhance it.
Employment Equity


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, it is both a duty and a pleasure to rise again on a matter of considerable interest to the Conservative Party, Bill C-62 on employment equity which I unreservedly champion. 1 regret that our Canadian parliamentary system is such that, as a result of the will and directives of their Party, Members of the Opposition-and particularly my female colleagues on the other side-cannot endorse this measure. What a shame!
While I would not for a moment entertain the thought that the principles of those Members who are against the measures advocated with respect to the designated groups might in any way spring from theories which had wide currency in Europe in the 1930s, I can only conclude that the position taken by some opponents of our propositions is likely to debase our country's reputation in terms of respect for all Canadian men and women, especially those who belong to the designated groups; visible minorities, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples, women. Canada is made up of immigrants from every corner of the world, and a stroll along the streets of any major Canadian city will bear witness to that. People of all races, colours and cultures can be seen every day.
As to persons with disabilities, examples abound, for they are active in all circles and all spheres of society, and public transportation, access roads to buildings and city sidewalks have been designed to meet their needs. A number of companies have rolled out the welcome carpet for disabled people, a reliable source of qualified, assiduous and devoted employees.
As to aboriginal peoples, their presence in our major northern cities is ever more apparent, and companies which develop our natural resources increasingly look to them as a pool of skilled workers.
Another of the main designated groups whose sheer numbers give it preponderance-women. A lot of ground has been covered since the first women's groups took position at the turn of the century and, as a result of changing economic needs and new trends in social values, a great many women have sought to enter or re-enter the labour market.
As I have just shown, Mr. Speaker, Canada is a welcoming land, a land of warm hospitality and great diversity, a country where a foreigner wants to sink his or her roots and where peace and justice prevail. How justice has become a trite concept! Some people claim that any man or woman is entitled to possess all the wordly goods he or she can afford to buy and that we all have equal opportunities to better our own lot. Others maintain that we are all entitled to the same standard of living and that our overall wealth should be equally divided among us all.
Were we to adopt that approach we would run the risk of opening ever unresolved debates which could only prop up the cause of those who prefer to stand pat rather than forge ahead.

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
Unlike previous Governments we have faced the facts and taken constructive measures.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party admits that the designated groups I mentioned are victims of discrimination in employment. The Progressive Conservative Party acknowledges that, however numerous they may be in this country, members of visible minorities are denied employment equity because of the colour of their skin. We know that. The Progressive Conservative Party agrees that, despite some progress, the professional potential of the disabled is shamefully exploited and that a good many of them simply cannot claim their rightful place in the labour force.
We have acknowledged the fact that, while an increasing number of native people live and work in northern centres, they still have a disastrous unemployment rate and very little access to the labour market. We have recognized that, while women have recently seemed to be better appreciated on the labour market, their wages are still less than one third those paid to men and they are still mostly confined to so-called traditional occupations in three sectors, namely sales, services and teaching.
Mr. Speaker, this Government has recognized these facts and taken concrete action to rectify the situation. Following the recommendations of the Abella Report, this Government has introduced Bill C-62 to provide employment equity to women, the native people, the handicapped and the members of visible minorities and give them the same rights as other citizens for recruitment, promotion and salaries.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that we have proven our case. The arguments against this Bill have simply melted away. There is no basis to the suggestions that passage of this Bill will entail considerable expenses.
On the one hand, the amounts that the Government will have to spend in this regard are minimal. On the other hand, the cost to businesses will be quite reasonable and indeed insignificant when compared with the enormous benefits which will be gained by employers in acquiring an enthusiastic, assiduous, quick, faithful and competent manpower.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we have proven our case. The Government has recognized the facts and taken action. Parliament must do the same. It must accept the facts and pass without further delay the Bill now under consideration which will enshrine in our statutes the principle of employment equity.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I remember that, in 1976, I was working for a large company, Esso Imperial, in the comfort centre department, and after going up through the ranks, I had attained a level where I was blocking the promotion opportunities of my colleagues.


An Hon. Member:: Such was the climate at the time.


Lise Bourgault: One day, I was called to the director's office, where I was told: "Mrs. Bourgault, we have to transfer
you and offer you a position in Don Mills, Ontario, because you cannot be appointed to a management position." I asked why and the reply was: "Because you are a woman and the company finds it difficult to recognize that a woman could be manager of the heating system installation department." Ten years after this, we are still discussing employment equity. We are not about to forget the work of all the women who, for a hundred years, have been making every effort to attain their rightful place in this country and make people recognize that their work and education are just as good as those of their male colleagues.
When your parents pay for your university studies, Mr. Speaker, the fact that you are a woman makes no difference. The fees are the same as for a man. It costs the same.
You pay the same for your lodgings and studies. Why is it that you cannot get the same wages after joining the labour market? This is a problem which must be addressed and our Government has recognized it. Bill C-62 attempts-1 am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw that word-aims at solving this problem.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much attention to the remarks made by the Hon. Member who has just resumed her seat, and I can tell her that her promotion at Esso's, on the basis of the arguments she has put forward . . . she should not think that she was refused a promotion because of her sex.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has suggested that she feels it is unfortunate that the Parliamentary system does not allow us to vote in favour of this Bill. I understand that she is a newcomer to the House and that, being part of this Government, she has never had the opportunity to vote freely or according to her choice. I want nevertheless to inform her, Mr. Speaker, that she has the right to vote according to her conscience like all other Members of this House, and that if the Conservative Party has not told her so yet, I urge her to consult our Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has told us just how everything is fine and dandy in this best of all possible worlds, she has mentioned the case of the handicapped whom she sees as perfectly integrated everywhere in the labour force. Either the Hon. Member is living in a world of make-believe, Mr. Speaker, or she does not understand the reality and problems of people afflicted with a physical or mental handicap. Mr. Speaker, she mentioned the native people who were so active in the major urban centres of the North. Has she ever been to the North, Mr. Speaker? In the North, major urban centres just do not exist, Mr. Speaker. If she has visited all parts of Canada, all she has to do is to check the statistical data concerning the under-employment of native people and she will realize
November 21, 1985

that the preamble to her remark was completely wrong. Mr. Speaker, she insisted that the Progressive Conservative Party is aware of the problem. Then she said that the Progressive Conservative Party is aware of the problem experienced by the handicapped, the visible minorities, the native people, and finally Canadian women. Her conclusion: it is so very much aware of it that it has decided to push through Bill C-62. But let us try to answer one question, Mr. Speaker: Is there anything in this Bill which would have solved the problem experienced by my hon. friend at the time she was working for Esso? There is nothing, because the Esso Company would have had no obligation under this Bill. She has said that the case is closed, but I feel that the advocates were quite poor, Mr. Speaker. If the case of women, the handicapped, the visible minorities and the native people has been heard by the Government, I do not understand its decision to introduce such a weak Bill as this.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62 is only wishful thinking on the part of the Government. You know as I do that there is nothing in this Bill to force anybody to do anything, except table a report, and not in every case, only a number of companies with contracts amounting to $200,000 or more; yet, small- and medium-sized businesses which have provided the bulk of jobs over the past ten years are automatically excluded by this $200,000 restriction. Where does the Hon. Member think she will have any influence with her worthless bill? How could she go through the mental exercise of reading the Abella Report and then feel that this was an adequate response? I am sure that if she has read the Abella Report, she must have seen that mandatory measures and a strong mechanism were required to make employment equity a reality and not just wishful thinking, Mr. Speaker. This is what was called for in the Abella Report. The report called for the establishment of a specialized agency to ensure that actual, everyday equality be implemented. Where is that agency in Bill C-62? It is nowhere to be found. This means nobody will be there to enforce those great principles which Government Members are so self-righteously bragging about.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill could have been replaced by an ad in the papers. The impact would have been the same. Nothing at all has been gained with our wasting the time of the House when all we want is to urge to action, to gently tap employers on the back and tell them to go ahead. But there is nothing, no teeth in that legislation. What kind of Government is this? Have they got any backbone? If they have identified the problem, where are the solutions? Certainly not in that flaccid Bill they are putting forward. And worse still, Mr. Speaker, listen to the kind of speeches we have been hearing since this morning. They would have the people believe that starting from now, there is no longer any problem, that those groups will be considered on an equal footing. The Hon. Member will go back to her constituency and tell women: "Do not worry, we now have as many opportunities as everyone
Employment Equity
else". Not with that Bill, Mr. Speaker. She should go back to the drawing board and reconsider her Bill. I hope the Conservative Members will not have the gall to tell the handicaped in their constituencies that this House has passed a bill that will bring them tremendous benefits, for they will be very disappointed, because this has no real-life meaning for them.
I hope the Government Members will not lie to the natives by telling them that from now on they will have as many opportunies as everybody else to make it on the labour market. Actually, this is not the case. The Bill only contains the pious wishes of a cowardly and spineless Government.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill was analysed by Lise Bissonnette, a well-known journalist, and her conclusion is that this legislation is only symbolic. She says that it simply proposes a disguised optional program. Mr. Speaker, why does the Government take the trouble to have this Bill passed if it will then misrepresent the situation to the groups involved? 1 trust that the Hon. Member will look at her own conscience and rise freely to say: "This is not good enough." Her personal experience with Esso will show her that this Bill will do absolutely nothing for her. Since she does not want other women to suffer the same humiliation as she did, she will go to the Minister responsible and tell her: "Your Bill does not respond to the needs of real life." At least, I hope that she will do so. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has a lot more influence than any of us on the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), is listening and taking notes and that he will recommend to his Minister that some teeth be put into this Bill.
The Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) tried to suggest that this legislation will do a lot for young people. There is as much in this for youth as she had in her Youth Year and as she will have under her own portfolio after January 1. In other words, there is absolutely nothing for young people in this Bill. I do not understand how she can have the audacity to rise today and pretend that there is.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that, after looking at this Bill, all the Members of this House and the groups concerned will be able to see that the Government is simply being wishful while its cowardice is very obvious.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the brief 10 minutes available to me, I would like to remind Hon. Members of the situation that faces women in the workforce or women who are trying to get into the workforce. Then I would like to take another look at this Bill, not so much from the point of view of criticizing it, because that has been done repeatedly, but I would like to put forward in a positive way the kinds of things we would like to have seen in the Bill and the kind of things we hope will still be considered.

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
Earlier my colleague referred to some of the statistics that apply to women in the workforce. It is now almost a cliche that women earn 60 per cent of the average wages of men. We know that 42 per cent of women family heads are poor, and this figure is increasing every week. We also know that the traditional family, the one to which we refer when we speak about family allowances-the one in which the father works, the mother is at home doing the dishes and there are two lovely children-is almost a myth in society. In fact, 52 per cent of women now work outside the home as well as in the home and 66 per cent of the workforce is at this time composed of women.
We could look ahead to the year 2000 by following the trends. We would see an even greater increase in the direction of women carrying full responsibility in the workforce. By the year 2000, two out of three of the new entrants into the workforce will be women. Yet the unemployment rate for women is higher. Let us keep in mind that the figure we now have is a very conservative one because many women who would like to work do not register with the unemployment office. Over the last 10 years, the unemployment rate for women was 9 per cent and for men it was 7.6 per cent.
1 believe we can find a very startling statistic if we look at the month of September. We heard from Government Members how many new jobs were created in September. Looking at the Statistics Canada figures very closely, we see that full-time jobs went down by 24,000 and most of those were jobs which traditionally employ women. On the other hand, there were 47,000 more part-time jobs. Most of the part-time jobs were for women. Here again there is a trend of women being forced into part-time work. Do not try to tell me that this is because they choose part-time work. It is because they do not have much choice, and in fact many of the largest companies in the federal jurisdiction, and the airlines in particular, are deliberately trying to force workers, most of whom are women, into part-time contract jobs.
The situation is bad and we had hoped that this Bill would deal with fairness within the workforce for the women who are now working. We had also hoped, of course, that there would be much more emphasis on full-time job creation, not parttime job creation, for women. We had hoped that there would be jobs with equal pay for work of equal value and jobs with equal opportunity for advancement for women.
It is very important that we look at employment equity within the federal job-creation programs. We have been told by this Government and by the former Liberal Government that employment equity is implicit in the federal job-creation programs. However, only 20 per cent of the people who benefited from the old NEED program were women. Only 13 per cent of those who benefited from the old Canada Works program were women and only 38 per cent of those who benefited from the LEAP program were women. I am going to be looking very carefully at the figures for the new job-creation programs to see what happens.
Only 5 per cent of the people going into apprenticeship programs in 1981 were women. Only .5 per cent of the workers
in non-traditional jobs were women. We can see that women are still stuck in the old job ghettos consisting of jobs that are being fast affected by technological change. These jobs include clerical, sales and service jobs, three out of five of which employ women. Very few women are entering non-traditional jobs or getting training for those jobs.
Let us look at management. Affirmative action and employment equity is supposed to be targeted at getting more women and minority groups to move up the scale. They are targeted at not only getting women into the jobs and into decent-paying jobs but at giving women an opportunity to advance. Members of Parliament should be ashamed of the fact that in the Public Service on which we have a direct impact, only 6 per cent of management jobs are held by women, yet 80 per cent of those who hold administrative or clerical jobs and the like are women. This is really intolerable when for years we have been talking about affirmative action in the Public Service. It just goes to show that even though it is now called employment equity and not affirmative action, voluntary programs do not work.
Ever since I have been in the House, and that is getting on to seven years now, the Government has said that voluntary affirmative action will work. It does not even work in the public sector on which we have a direct impact and for which there are unions as well. Let us not be naive about this.
We feel that this Bill should include more provisions and we hope that the Government will seriously consider withdrawing this Bill in order to make major changes to it. If we are to have employment equity or affirmative action, whichever name we want to call it, and if it is going to work, we believe very strongly, as do the authorities in this field, that there must be one central agency that is in charge of enforcement and the establishment of standards.
In the federal jurisdiction, there are four different areas to consider: federal Departments, Crown corporations, contractors and federally-regulated businesses. These are the four areas on which we should have direct impact in imposing employment equity. As well, unions should be involved in the planning of employment equity at all stages. That is another thing that has been forgotten in this Bill.
As my colleagues have said repeatedly, if we are to have employment equity programs that will achieve true equality in the workforce, we have to have a mandatory program and not a voluntary one. We have to have a program the goals of which are clearly defined and established, and there has to be a program with timetables for achieving a greater participation of women and minorities in each job situation.
An enforcement agency must be able to receive, analyse and publicize employer' workforce data. There is a fair bit in this Bill about reporting requirements. Perhaps the Bill is not so bad from the standpoint of reporting, but if that is all we are going to require, then we should forget it. We should simply do a reasearch project.
We feel that there must be a way of imposing program requirements and penalties on employers who do not comply
November 21, 1985

with the expected established targets and timetables. There must be penalties but there are none provided for in this Bill. The Bill does provide a slight penalty for not keeping records, but nothing beyond that.
We feel that there must be a way of investigating the programs, practices and data systems of employers so that reporting is not simply left to the initiative of the employers. There also must be a real channel for complaints or court action. We do not feel it is good enough that individual workers, most of whom are women, have to go case-by-case to take a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Every single employer in the federal jurisdiction should provide equal pay for work of equal value. This should not even be questioned and there should be no need for complaints. We should make a systemic change in that direction.
We feel that there must be contract compliance and that this is not defined clearly enough in the Bill. Contract compliance must be imposed on all Government contractors with over 50 employees and $200,000 worth of Government contracts per year. Contractors must also provide equal pay for work of equal value.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of New Brunswick are concerned about the federal Government's intention to subsidize the reopening of the Cyprus Anvil mine in the Yukon Territory.
According to several observers, this reopening of the mine would result in a reduction of the prices of lead and zinc, making several other Canadian mines hardly profitable.
In my province, the Brunswick mine, in Bathurst, could not stand a new price reduction of its minerals. Its profit margin was considerably cut as a result of the low prices of the past few years. The reopening of the Cyprus Anvil mine would be catastrophic.
Another example is the Heath Steele mine, in Newcastle, which was closed two years ago because of a glut of zinc and lead on the market. If prices continue to go down, its chances of resuming operation are non-existent.
Mr. Speaker, I am not against the principle of creating jobs in the North, but knowing that the reopening of the Cyprus Anvil mine would result in other Canadian mines being less profitable, the Government should know that the second consequence of this reopening would be a major loss of jobs in New Brunswick and elsewhere.
How could the Government justify using federal funds to create jobs in one area, when it is aware that this decision could result in jobs being lost in another elsewhere in this country?



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Pacific Railway recently notified its pensioners of its intention to withdraw their travel privileges. Improvements to the medical plan, of little use in some provinces, were offered to the pensioners as a saw-off.
Unfortunately pensioners were never consulted on whether or not they wanted this change. Many of them have complained to me and to other Members of Parliament about this unilateral change to their retirement benefits. Pensioners feel, quite legitimately, that they are being deprived of a benefit they earned during their working lives.
Clearly, it is not satisfactory that a company make such a unilateral change. Regulations should limit companies in making retroactive changes to the benefits of retired workers. CP Rail should reconsider these insensitive changes.
 * *



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government passed Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).
Such important changes clearly show Canadians that our Government is carrying on with its job of dealing out the correctives needed by our society.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the objections raised by the Liberals and New Democrats, the incidence of prostitution will be reduced thanks to the Conservatives.

November 21, 1985
We have seen no demonstrations organized by the Opposition on Parliament Hill like the ones they had with respect to family allowances and old age security pensions.
Mr. Speaker, when it is a matter of cleansing the morals of people, why is the Opposition not gathering our virtuous mothers or our respected older citizens together in support of the Government in its relentless task of eradicating prostitution?
When it comes to dealing with problems of moral depravation, the Opposition outcry is no longer heard.
We have been elected to bring about those changes. Mr. Speaker, as a Government we assume our responsibilities. A word to the wise is enough.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, approximately 80 farm families in my constituency of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, grow tobacco. With declining demand for tobacco, an orderly reduction in production capacity is necessary in order to prevent damaging repercussions to growers. The P.E.I. industry supports the reduction plan and feels that each province should share proportionately in relation to its production.
In order to avoid financial disaster, and to aid growers who must find new means of earning a livelihood, financial assistance from Ottawa is necessary. Compensation to producers for loss of productive capacity must be in direct proportion to their contribution to the generation of tax dollars from production.
The Government must also establish a mechanism with producer-provinces to pay out compensation. The P.E.I. industry has proposed that each province's share of compensation be based on a five-year average of domestic production. In this way Ontario would receive 83.4 per cent; Quebec, 10.3 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 4.9 per cent; and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, 1.5 per cent. I would urge the Government to act quickly to help all of Canada's producers through a difficult period of adjustment, in a fair and equitable manner.



IMMIGRATION


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of this House to the case of a Second World War veteran, Mr. Fred Darvin, who is 70 years old and who wishes to spend the rest of his life in Canada.


Mr.   Darvin@: to the United States after the war because he had found a job in Detroit. He raised his family in
Florida as his two sons, who died at the ages of 21 and 17 respectively, both suffered from muscular dystrophy. Now that Mr. Darvin is 70 years old, he wants to come back to Canada and the Immigration officers are calling into play the rule stating that anyone likely to be a burden on Canadian medical services can be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Darvin fought for Canada during the Second World War and he should be admitted in this country today. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) has even urged his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), to accept Mr. Darvin on humanitarian gounds. I sincerely believe that, if it is true that Canada is a welcoming and fair country, Mr. Darvin should be admitted immediately without further bureaucratic delays.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last June an Air-India Jet originating in Canada crashed off the coast of Ireland with the loss of 329 lives. Since that time the entire Sikh community of Canada has been under a cloud of suspicion and innuendo with the suggestion that some of its people were responsible for the crash. Federal investigation encouraged this suspicion when police raided the Sikh Temple at Duncan, British Columbia, violating their sacred space, even though the police found nothing to take.
A story in today's Globe and Mail now claims the Government of India has been using agents provocateurs to destabilize the entire Sikh community. People posing as religious fanatics have worked to discredit all members of the Sikh faith who have advocated an independent homeland in the Punjab. These very serious charges require clarification by federal authorities.
The Sikh people have the right to be protected by the Canadian Government. We cannot stand by if, as the article claims, a legitimate religious community within Canada is being destablized and placed under a cloud of suspicion by agents of a foreign Government. If the article lacks substance, the Government should indicate so. However, if there is substance to the Globe and Mail story, Canada must protest in the strongest terms to the Government of India about this violation of Canadian rights and freedoms.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

Lise Bourgault: For several months now, a group of women have been trying very hard to
November 21, 1985

make the headlines by speaking through their hats on very serious women's issues, despite the fact that in the past eighteen months this Government has made serious commitments on the status of women, as evidenced by the following initiatives:
-The extension of the spouse's eligibility to a pension-close to 85,000 widows and widowers will benefit from that;
-The elimination of discrimination in the Indian Act. Sex discrimination from now on will be prohibited-some
60,000	women will be affected by that amendment;
-Better employment and training opportunities under the Employment Planning Programs;
-The introduction of a new divorce bill with provisions for the enforcement of custody and maintenance orders, and we are now today discussing Bill C-62 on employment equality.
Mr. Speaker, this is but a brief survey of the many initiatives undertaken by this Government to establish equal opportunities for all women. Mr. Speaker, the women in that group are speaking more on their own behalf, and their narrowmindedness and ideology will result in the status of Canadian women being pushed back 15 years and we are not ready to live through that.



WAR CRIMINALS


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to echo the concerns of my hon. colleagues from Calgary East, Edmonton East, and Parkdale-High Park with respect to the Deschenes Commission ruling on the advisability of travelling to the Soviet Union to take evidence. In his ruling Mr. Justice Deschenes clearly stressed that six basic precautions must be applied to the collection of Soviet evidence to counter the very real danger of abuse and subversion of the rule of law. In referring to the six precautions Mr. Justice Deschenes states that: "The Commission concurs in those conditions and will insist that they be accepted and observed. Failure to agree ought then to be considered as a refusal to co-operate with Canadian justice."
Are we to assume that if these conditions are not met by the Soviets then the Commission will not take the Soviet evidence? If this is the case, why not have this agreement committed to writing beforehand? I believe the six safeguards proposed by Mr. Justice Deschenes are significant and necessary, but I do not think they go far enough. For example, there should be a forensic examination of all documents to determine their validity, and this examination should take place in a neutral environment.
Consideration should only be given to evidence if it is of a corroborative nature. As well, the Commission should at least request that witness depositions be taken in Canada or at the Canadian Embassy. Without an extension of these safeguards and an agreement in writing with the Soviets, 1 cannot support the Commission's decision to travel to the Soviet Union to take evidence.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Again yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) break his word. And again, that promise had been made in Sherbrooke during the election campaign. We all remember the Prime Minister's famous promise to the elderly in Sherbrooke, a promise which he was forced to swallow.
And then in the month of May, in Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships, he had promised to maintain footwear and textile quotas, but again yesterday the Prime Minister did not keep his word and footwear quotas went by the board.
Mr. Speaker, this inhuman Government is unable to tell us . .. Today's headline in the Journal de Montreal reads: "5,000 Quebec shoe workers will lose their jobs". The Government is unable to tell us where these workers will find other jobs.
Montreal East is already threatened with the loss of 5,000 jobs because of the inaction of this Government. Two groups of people from Daoust and La Parisette in Montreal East came here to see if anything could be done to help them, but what they heard yesterday was the end of it and, without quotas, other shoe factories will have to shut down as a result of this Government's stupid and inhuman decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I dare hope that the 58 Quebec Conservative Members-described as cowards yesterday by the union president-will wake up and convince the Prime Minister that he has to honour his commitments and maintain quotas.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1985, rail passes for all CP Rail pensioners in Canada were revoked and replaced by an extended health care package. This action by CP Rail was taken unilaterally without consultation with the pensioners. The extended health care plan does not necessarily enhance health benefits for the

November 21, 1985
Oral Questions
pensioners as they were already covered free of charge by provincial health plans. To the pensioners the passes were construed as a right in recognition of past employment, a right pensioners enjoyed since the inception of the railway some one hundred years ago.
It is morally wrong for CP Rail to have taken such action unilaterally against a group which has no bargaining units to defend itself. I believe such action to be questionable legally as well. Understandably, Mr. Speaker, the pensioners are upset. On their behalf I strongly urge the support of all my colleagues on both sides of the House in speaking out in order to allow CP Rail pensioners the option of retaining their pass privileges so abruptly revoked by CP Rail.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister for Internatiional Trade. The Prime Minister of our country has broken another major promise, this one given in a clear-cut commitment to the workers in the Canadian shoe industry. On May 4, 1984, the Prime Minister said: "A Conservative Government will not abolish import quotas imposed by Canada in the shoe sector. The quota policy will remain as is". Why has the Prime Minister of our country once again broken his word to the people of Canada?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry which was undertaken was the most comprehensive inquiry ever undertaken into the shoe industry. It was found that in the vast majority of categories no further protection for quotas was needed. Where quotas were required, they were recommended and we agreed to them.
I would like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that it was his Government that appointed this inquiry. It was they who set the terms of reference. It was they who appointed the members of that board of inquiry. I find it strange that they do not want to accept what the board of inquiry has now recommended.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Why did you promise it then?


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister is saying is all very interesting, but
unfortunately, it directly contradicts the promise made by the Prime Minister to workers in the shoe industry.
Last year, the Prime Minister stated quite clearly that the quota policy for shoes would remain as is. And now these quotas have been eliminated by the Conservative Government. Talk about cynical!
I will put my question again: Why has the Prime Minister of this country once again betrayed Canadian workers?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am greatly surprised by the response of my right hon. friend. Quotas are remaining on 50 per cent of all footwear produced in the country. The tribunal which the Liberal Government appointed has found that quotas were not needed in the other categories. All sorts of remedies have been provided and offered by the Government to protect the workers in the event that there is any diminution of the work force, which the tribunal did not feel would take place. I am frankly surprised at his lack of concern for the consumers of the country who have been paying an extra half a billion dollars for shoes which they should not have been paying.


Jean-C. Lapierre: How about the workers?


PRIME MINISTER'S PROMISE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has just set aside $100,000 for a study of the future of 20,000 workers in the shoe industry in Canada. That works out to about $5 per worker.
I want to ask the Minister: Is that what the Prime Minister's word is worth? Five measly dollars per worker in this industry?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am afraid that the premise of the hon. gentleman's question is completely inaccurate. That is just one of many programs being offered by the Government. There are a number of programs in place, not only for the workers and the companies, but for the communities in which those companies are located. All the Hon. Member has to do is read the statement which I enunciated in the House yesterday which quite clearly set out a very comprehensive program for those people.


RECONCILIATION OF STATEMENTS AND COMMITMENTS WITH GOVERNMENT DECISION
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. As we all know, the Prime Minister made some formal
November 21, 1985

commitments in the Eastern Townships in May 1984. Much later, however, in March 1985, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said that if the Government guaranteed them a fair share of the market over the long term, they might become surprisingly efficient. Yesterday's decision apportions about 12 per cent of the market to the industry in Canada. How can you reconcile those statements and formal commitments with the decision you released yesterday?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would again point out to the Hon. Member that it was his Government appointed the tribunal, set the terms of reference, and appointed members to it. I am surprised now that opposition Members are finding it difficult to accept a decision of a tribunal which conducted the most extensive investigation of the shoe industry ever undertaken.
I would remind Hon. Members opposite that there still remains in place a 23 per cent tariff on all shoes, and a three-year extension of quotas on 50 per cent of all shoes produced in Canada.


LAY-OFFS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, in his statement yesterday, the Minister said there would probably be repercussions in terms of lay-offs and that there would be quite a number of these. Could the Minister inform the House, first of all, how many lay-offs are expected, and second, whether, if the number of lay-offs were to be substantially higher than expected by his Department, the Minister is prepared to make a formal commitment to review his decision?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again I must refer to the decision of the tribunal, which in four of the five categories stated that no further protection by way of quotas was required and, therefore, any lay-offs whatever would be extremely minimal.
In those areas that were endangered, children's and women's shoes, we have left the quotas in place, which quotas represent over 50 per cent of the total. In our opinion the programs we have announced to take care of any dislocation are more than adequate to meet the needs of the industry and the workers involved.


INQUIRY WHY PRIME MINISTER HAS NOT KEPT HIS PROMISE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, before the electoral campaign, the Prime Minister made a promise in Sherbrooke. He specifically stated that a Conservative Government would maintain footwear import quotas in spite of
Oral Questions
American pressures. The Government has now done exactly the opposite. My question is quite simple. Why?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to remind the Hon. Member that we are not ignoring the concerns of the workers.


Ian Deans: A broken promise.


James Francis Kelleher: In those areas where that part of the industry is endangered, we have left the quotas in place. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member not being concerned at all about 25 million consumers in Canada, and particularly those in the low income groups who have been badly hurt by the imposition of these quotas. Where is his concern for them?


Ian Deans: They will get nothing.


Mr. Crosbie:: You don't care about the low-income people, Ed.


EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Minister that the people of Canada are surprised that a Conservative Government which promised change is defending a Liberal appointed commission. If they wanted a change, why did we not get it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Minister, who is taking pride and boasting about implementing a Liberal commission's report, is he aware that when the quotas were lifted in the United States just a short time ago American producers lost 60 per cent of their share of the market. If he is aware of that, will he tell Canadians why we will not lose thousands of jobs which we badly need right now in Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Hon. Member: because up here in Canada, the tribunal, after one year of the most far-reaching inquiry into the shoe industry, found that it did not need the protection, and that was not the case in the United States. I am still surprised that he is not concerned about those consumers and he is not concerned about all of the other workers in other industries who would suffer a loss of jobs because of retaliation by our trading partners.


REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF QUOTAS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister is an expert on the textile industry, as everyone in Nova Scotia knows.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 21, 1985
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: If he checked his facts he would find that the United States was told that it did not have to worry if it lifted its quotas too, and it lost 60 per cent of its market after its Government did the stupid thing which our Government plans to do here. If the Government is interested in the 20,000 jobs nationally, and if it is interested in more than 10,000 jobs in the Province of Quebec, why does it not use its common sense, maintain those quotas and maintain those jobs, instead of abandoning Canadian workers?


James Francis Kelleher: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. gentleman. There are 15,000 people employed in this industry, not
20,000	and, second, the tribunal found that they no longer required the protection, except with respect to women's and girls' shoes. We are protecting them with quotas for another three years. We are concerned about the workers. That is why we took the action which we did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Finance. The budget projections would now seem to be in tatters, along with much of the Budget itself. We have a $2.8 billion cost for the Minister's two black eyes-the Northland Bank and the CCB.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: We have $1 billion in tax rulings. We have $500 million in an ice-breaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald James Johnston: Would the Minister undertake-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Go back to piano playing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the House allow the question to be heard, please?


John Carnell Crosbie: There was no question.


Donald James Johnston: Would the Minister undertake to ask her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to withdraw his inequitable, complex, costly capital gains tax exemption proposal, to make up at least some of the lost revenue which will take place by reason of those gaffes?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, at least my eyes are open.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Go get 'em, Rocky.


Mr. Oberle:: You can lick him at any time, Barbara.


Barbara Jean McDougall: They are open enough to know, as the Hon. Member obviously does not know, that in the latest reporting months the deficit went down for the first time in many years. That is something his Government never managed to accomplish.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET BEFORE FEBRUARY
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is bragging about reducing the deficit by putting taxes on the backs of the poor and the disadvantaged who cannot protect themselves, that is fine, but the fact is that costs are going through the roof. I would suggest to the Minister that it would be appropriate for the Minister of Finance to bring forward fiscal projections before Christmas. Would she undertake to ask him to ensure that his Budget to correct some of this damage is tabled before February?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not paying any attention to what is going on in the country as a result of our actions on the deficit. What is going on is that mortgage rates are coming down, housing starts are up, and jobs are being created. Is that not enough for him?


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF GLOBAL TEXTILE QUOTA SYSTEM
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. Another promise made by the Prime Minister before the elections was that a comprehensive quota system would be implemented for the textile industry. Can the Minister confirm what he told the Canadian Textile Institute to the effect that the Government has now decided to forget this promise as well?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the statement with respect to textiles that is alleged to have been made by the Prime Minister. I can certainly say to the Hon. Member that I am dismayed that he has not applauded what our decision has done for the consumers of this country, particularly low-
November 21, 1985

income consumers whom these quotas have hit the hardest. It has cost them half a billion dollars.
[ Translation]


SHOE INDUSTRY-REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF QUOTAS
Steven W. Langdon: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking about the textile industry, not about footwear.
Can the Minister tell the 160,000 Canadian men and women working in this industry that the decision on footwear is an indication that the Government has also decided to abolish any kind of quota system for the textile industry?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Hon. Member should be drawing conclusions when no decision has yet been made with respect to the textile industry. It will be made on its own merits, based on its own problems and concerns. He will be advised in due course, as will all Hon. Members of the House.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. When it was announced that Hyundai would be establishing a plant at Bromont, it was quite clear at the time that the federal Government had agreed with the Government of Quebec to provide a measure of financial participation in this undertaking. Today I want to give the Minister a chance to stop "frigging" around and to inform the House outright whether or not the commitment made by the Prime Minister in his call from Florida will be met and whether we now have the assurance that Hyundai will come to Bromont, with federal participation.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third day in a row that that question has been answered. The answer remains the same. The Government is "concluding agreements pursuant to our joint agreements with the Government of Quebec, and in view of the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, details will be announced when and as appropriate," as stated by the Prime Minister last Wednesday and repeated by me yesterday.
Oral Questions


NATURE AND PUBLICATION OF OFFER
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister is telling the House that they are going to make their announcement as provided under the federal-provincial agreement. Nothing is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to take another look at the agreement his Government signed. If those are the conditions, what was the offer and why was it not announced jointly? What are they waiting for? According to the conditions of the agreement, everything was supposed to be "clean above the board", no secrets and no "frigging" around.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, they are so upset. Again I must express my total lack of understanding of why that particular Member should be upset with the establishment of an automobile plant in his region of the country which is bound to create jobs for his constituents. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he continues to oppose it.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The recent Genstar tax ruling by the federal Government now means that preferred shareholders can avoid paying tax on dividends. Of course this has incredible implication for many other corporations that can take advantage of this ruling. What will be the cost of this particular ruling in terms of lost tax revenue as it is applied to other corporations? What is the cost to the taxpayers of Canada?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: First, Mr. Speaker, I can understand the importance of the question, but the Hon. Member must also understand that it is not incumbent upon myself or any other Members of the House to discuss these kinds of implications-


Ian Deans: We are entitled to know how much revenue we are losing.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I can assure him that in this particular case the action taken was in accordance with the law which was applied to the facts. Each of these cases is reviewed on a case by case basis.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, now that a brand new loophole has been opened that is likely to

November 21, 1985
Oral Questions
cost hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of dollars, is the Minister of National Revenue indicating that he is not prepared to say what this will cost the taxpayers of Canada, and that it is an open-ended loophole? Is that what he is saying, or is he refusing to pass that information along?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying anything of the kind. My hon. friend opposite is the one who has characterized this as a loophole. If he wishes to characterize it as that, it is not our loophole but a product of what we inherited when we formed this administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Each one of these cases is looked upon as it is relevant to the laws that are applied to the facts that are brought forward. If there are changes to be made in the fiscal and monetary policy, they are in the purview of my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister for International Trade responsible for the creation of unemployment in Canada.
Could the Minister explain what happened to prevent the Government from honouring the commitment made by the Prime Minister in Sherbrooke when he said that he would maintain the quotas in the footwear industry and thus save
20,000	jobs? What happened that made the Prime Minister cheat the people of Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, my reply to the Hon. Member would be in a similar vein as my reply to his colleagues. We are not deceiving the public. We are protecting the industry where it is required, as recommended to us by the tribunal which his Party appointed under their terms of reference. Is he suggesting now that after one year its decision is not competent? If so, I suggest that he reconsider the whole matter.
We are protecting the industry where it needs protection, and that protection will be removed where it is not needed.


LAY-OFFS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer is unacceptable because the Government has had the Abella Report on equity in employment and failed to take it into account. Now stop fooling the people with the antidumping report!
Could the Minister explain why the Government was unable to fulfill the promise made by the Prime Minister in Sherbrooke? And what solutions are there for the 20,000 workers who will lose their jobs?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the second question is the same as the first. I will remind him that there are not 20,000 people involved in the industry, but 15,000. The tribunal did not find that there would be any great loss of jobs. If he has evidence of that from some study, I wish he would make it available to me.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. On Tuesday he said that his Department has to look ahead with programs like SDA-2000 which seek to integrate NORAD and SDI, even though he told the House on Monday that NORAD and SDI are "quite distinct". Was the Minister misleading the House on Monday or misleading the press on Tuesday?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been looking behind for so long that he would probably find it impossible to look ahead.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: What he attributes to me is absolutely false. I made no such linkage and no such statement.


UNITED STATES STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the Minister is defending his looking-ahead statement as quoted in the newspaper. Therefore, I would ask him if it is not rather dishonest to tell Canadians that the Government will not participate in star wars when the Minister's Department is laying the groundwork for Canadian participation through NORAD's Strategic Defence Architecture Plan 2000.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman. I would be dishonest if 1 had said it, but I did not.
November 21, 1985


SPREAD OF AIDS DISEASE
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Standing Committee on Health and Welfare has heard from yet another eminent witness, Dr. Peter Gill, the Director of the Bureau of Microbiology for the Minister's Department, regarding the dilemma and rapid spreading in Canada of the fatal disease AIDS. Is the Minister prepared to provide the full resources of his Department and full funding by the Government to combat this deadly plague?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has taken an interest in this subject and I thank him for it. When the National Advisory Committee on AIDS was established by the previous administration, it put together what I believe was a very full response to the situation as it was at that time. We have seen a very rapid increase in the disease, both nationaly and internation-aly. The committee is meeting again on December 9. Some of those very questions regarding further recommendations and proper responses are on its agenda for the December 9 meeting. Obviously I will look at its recommendations in the light in which they are given.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for immigration, I hope someone will be able to provide some answers. Yesterday over 300 refugees from some eight different countries spanning 13 different organizations marched on Parliament Hill. They came because they despaired of the insensitivity of the Government in dealing expeditiously with their concerns. Therefore, can the Government inform the House and the over 20,000 refugees living in this country of what specific proposals the Government is prepared to introduce and support and, more important, when?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister I will take notice of that question and inform her on her return. I am sure she will communicate with the Hon. Member.


BACKLOG OF REFUGEE STATUS CLAIMS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure that the 20,000 people whose futures lie with the Government would be too pleased. I would also like to draw to the Minister's attention the following question: is the Government prepared to release a second and confidential report dealing solely with the refugee backlog that was submitted to the Minister by Rabbi Plaut? Is the Government prepared to
Oral Questions
release that report, make it public, and act on its recommendations ?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Minister finds it necessary to be absent from the House on Government business at this time. I will draw the Hon. Member's question to her attention.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Council of the Haida nation have had their aboriginal claim to the Queen Charlotte Islands accepted by the Department of Justice and by the Minister's Department for over two years. But the B.C. courts have warned the Indian people that they are sleeping on their rights right now. Those Haida people standing up for their rights are now being arrested. Will the Minister appoint a negotiator who can legally and formally get negotiations under way, in order to defuse a very dangerous situation in British Columbia?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question and his obvious interest in the matter. A couple of points are probably worth mentioning. As the Hon. Member is aware, the comprehensive land claim policy that the federal Government has been following for a number of years limits the number of negotiations to six and there is only one of those in the Province of British Columbia at the present time. As a consequence, as the Hon. Member I am sure is aware, I asked for a review of the comprehensive land claim policy. The report on that should be due at the end of this month or the beginning of December. At that time I will be able to look for ways in which to change the general policy in order to take us out of the limit of six.
Second, with respect to the current situation, I have indicated on a number of occasions to all parties that I am pleased, along with the Minister of the Environment, to use our good offices for mediation with the interests involved. I share the concern of the Hon. Member, as we all do.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL INTERVENTION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister is aware of the pressing nature of the issue on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The Haida people and the loggers, not only on the Queen Charlottes but around British Columbia, are being used as political cannon fodder. Is the Minister willing, along with the Minister of the Environment, to come with me to the Queen Charlotte Islands to see if we can defuse this matter before it gets any further out of hand?
8678

November 21, 1985
Oral Questions


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am of course always willing to travel with the Hon. Member. I have on a number of occasions indicated to all parties that the view of the federal Government is that the future opportunity lies in bringing the parties of the contending interests together to recognize that there ought to be an understanding of the relationship between the park, the legitimate interests of the Haida people in terms of stewardship and management, and the operation of commercial enterprises. In our view, those three contending interests can be accommodated in a way which will bring about the best interests for all three. We would like to be able to participate in those discussions. I have indicated that I would be willing to do so and, indeed, if I could get a message from the other people, I would even be willing to call a meeting.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who, among other things, is also the Attorney General for the Northwest Territories and Yukon. The Supreme Courts of the N.W.T. and Yukon have found that the traditional six-person juries are unconstitutional. Does the Minister plan to appeal this finding to a higher court or, alternatively, to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code to allow for 12-person juries in both of those territories?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, two decisions were made. One, in the case R v. Bailey, was made on June 11 in the Yukon and held that a six-person jury could not stand because of the Charter. We have decided not to appeal that case because in Yukon, Supreme Court jury trials are held in Whitehorse which has a population of 17,000 people. Therefore, the administration of justice could live with that decision.
A similar decision was made in the Northwest Territories which held in the case of R v. Punch on October 12 that there had to be a 12-person jury. Because-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: If you are not interested in the administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, then continue to talk.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Statements by Ministers.


John Carnell Crosbie: Because trials in the Northwest Territories are held in small communities and because this would result in having to bring offenders to trial in large communities and travel hundreds of miles to do so, we are considering an appeal in the Northwest Territories case.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. I would like to ask the new Minister a question about an old and pressing problem. The Government's delay in making a decision about research funds is becoming unbearably long. The Dean of the Methematics Faculty at the University of Waterloo has said that he is leaving the country because of the negative research climate here. Unless a decision is made now, more Canadians will leave for greener labs abroad. Will the Government end the uncertainty it has created, by keeping its promise to provide money for research, and will it do so now?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, there is probably no greater reward any person could receive than being appreciated by one's peers. I thank the House very much for its kind applause and for the good wishes that I have received in the last couple of days.
Having said that, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that I am very appreciative of the expertise he brings to his role as critic, an expertise which I am about to develop myself. The particular question he has asked is one to which I bring a particular and personal interest. I can tell the Hon. Member that he will be pleasantly surprised over the next few weeks with the announcements which the Government is about to make following the reporting of the various funding councils, which is to take place next week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the first answer is encouraging. The Minister should need no briefings to answer my next question since all MPs have received thousands of letters from Canadians whose careers are in danger.
Can the Minister tell us today precisely how long it will be before the Government keeps its promise to provide funds for research?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Government has already done a great many things in the 14 months it has been in power. In fact I was pleasantly surprised myself to find that $500 million has been spent, apart from the direct research funding which has been made, to support research and scientific activities throughout the country.
November 21, 1985

Will the Hon. Member be patient and give me a week in which to prepare myself in order to surprise him?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF RIGHT HON. MALCOLM FRASER, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of Members of the House to the presence in our gallery today of the Right Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS LEVEL OF FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. This week is the six-month anniversary of the May 23 Budget. This week the Maritime Premiers joined the New Democratic Government in Manitoba in opposing the cuts in transfer payments which the Government announced in its Budget. After listening to its Conservative colleagues, in addition to the NDP Government in Manitoba, is the Government now willing to withdraw that proposal?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have suggested to the House before, as has my colleague the Minister of Finance, that there are no cuts in transfer payments to the provinces and that there is an ongoing discussion concerning the rate of growth in future payments. The Minister of Finance meets regularly with his provincial counterparts. There is the First Ministers' Conference coming up. I am sure that the issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Government denies that there will be a cut. There will be a cut in terms of what the provinces would receive if the present legislation were extended. In addition to that there will be cuts next year, in April of 1986 instead of April, 1987, for which the present legislation allows. It is our estimate that these cuts will amount to $400 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is our estimate that those cuts will cost the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


Rodney Edward Murphy: Will the Government release its figures showing how much these cuts will be? Will the Government tell the provinces and the people of Canada how much it intends to cut next year?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, Members opposite have not only a problem with their eyes but with their ears. We have made it clear that there are to be no cuts.
I ask the Hon. Member to consider the type of things which have gone on with the provinces. There has been a record number of ERDAs since our Government took over. Interest rates are down because of our work on the deficit, which helps them more than anything else we can do. The discussions with respect to the transfer payments will continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. 1 think he is aware of the climate of concern and uncertainty which exists in the municipality of Saint-Adolphe d'Howard following the Government's decision to close the Canadian Armed Forces Base near Lake Saint-Denis.
Could the Minister tell me today how things stand as of this date? Has he received any bids to purchase the base? If so, could he make them public, and could he meet the members of the Renewal Committee to discuss them?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the Hon. Member who is particularly concerned about the Saint-Denis Base in her riding. I would like to indicate to her that the Department of National Defence has identified this territory as surplus effective November 1, that bids may be accepted until March 1, 1986, and that no bid will be accepted without their being discussed with the local Renewal Committee. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will be please to meet this Renewal Committee before the end of this year.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The Marchment report was tabled in the House last

November 21, 1985
Oral Questions
Monday and surely the Government has had time to read and ponder over the recommendations. Is the Minister, fully aware that the postal service means a lot to elderly Canadians, remote areas and small businesses, now prepared to tell us when the Canada Post president will be appointed?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: In answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that we are waiting for the list of prospective applicants who are available and have been proposed by the consulting firm. We hope to be able to announce the appointment of the president of Canada Post and he will take over early next year.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, it is not the Conservative Party's patronage list!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It makes you nervous.


URGENCY OF THE SITUATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: In yesterday's Le Droit, Mr. Speaker, the Minister was reported as saying that he would act on the Marchment report recommendations before the end of the current fiscal year, April 1986. Is that really how urgent the Minister considers this matter to be? Is he not aware that there is a problem in Canada Post and that it must be settled?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, of course we give priority to Canada Post problems. We received the Marchment report recommendations early this week. They will be discussed with my Cabinet colleagues and decisions will be made very soon. I can tell my colleague that action is forthcoming.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who has received notice of it. It concerns the closure of the blood-typing laboratory by Agriculture Canada. With the closure of this blood-typing laboratory our exports of pedigreed cattle will be threatened because they are based on embryo transplant technology. As well, a tentative agreement with the New York Jockey Club to accept Canadian tests as valid has put the exports of our horse breeders into jeopardy. Why did the Minister decide that this blood-typing laboratory should be
privatized in light of a report recommending against it which was made for him in 1979?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member must recognize that the Government was elected over 13 months ago to reduce the deficit. We are doing an excellent job in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: The Hon. Member must recognize that as Minister of Agriculture I have the responsibility of identifying certain services which are currently being carried on by Agriculture Canada which might be done better by the private side, in the interests of effectiveness and efficiency. That is exactly what we are doing.


FUTURE TEST STANDARDS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since this laboratory has been operating on a cost-plus basis and has actually been covering all its fees and making money, the Minister seems to be saying that it should be turned over to the private sector for that reason. How can he guarantee that this turning over to the private sector will not result in the same type of scandals which we saw in the United States where profit intervened in testing in industrial biotech laboratories, which caused hundreds of tests to be thrown out because the company decided to go for fast bucks instead of accurate tests?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member does not expect me to give any guarantees with respect to what might or might not have happened with some laboratory in the United States.
The Hon. Member and the House should know that bloodtyping has nothing to do with disease detection and identification but is simply done for parentage verification. The Hon. Member will know that we did not act unilaterally when we implemented the cost recovery exercise. We will not act unilaterally in this case either. We will have to be satisfied that, indeed, the service can be provided by the private side. If we are not satisfied, then we will wait a little longer in the interests of the industry.


DECENTRALIZATION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A year ago the Minister cancelled the decentralization of an income security office to Sydney, Nova Scotia, while three similar projects were approved for three Tory ridings. The Auditor General in his most recent report stated that the cancellation of the Sydney office cost the Government $1.5 million. When the Government has already
November 21, 1985

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE WEEKLY STATEMENT
spent $1.5 million, why did it cancel a projet which is so desperately needed?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes an interesting point about Tory ridings. Most ridings in Canada now are Tory ridings-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -so it is very difficult to have any action in any riding which is not Tory. However, I point out to the Hon. Member that, yes, there have been certain moneys spent in the North Sydney office which was not needed. In fact, if we had continued with the project, the cost would have been much greater.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The answer of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is going to wow the unemployed in Sydney, Nova Scotia.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: My
supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who knows that his own task force recommended 34 points to help the economy in Cape Breton, one of which was decentralization. When is the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have a question right now, please. We are out of time.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: When is the Deputy Prime Minister going to implement some of those recommendations and provide jobs instead of taking them away?


Erik Nielsen: Soon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, November 20, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: I would like to ask the customary business question on Thursday. Would the Government House Leader tell us what the menu is for the coming days?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Whatever it is, it will be overdone.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: The
menu will be as usual, Mr. Speaker, tempting, appealing, progressive and ambitious. With the co-operation of the Opposition, I hope that we can serve the best interests of the people of Canada. Accordingly, today we will carry on with the consideration of a progressive piece of legislation, Bill C-62. Hopefully, if we conclude that debate some time today, we will be able to deal with Bill C-79, which allows the depositors of certain banks which have failed to receive compensation for their investment in the banks.
Tomorrow the first item of business will be Bill C-66, which is the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation. I believe there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to this legislation and that there is a disposition to deal with both the report stage and the third reading stage of that Bill by consent tomorrow. If Bill C-66 is completed, then we will carry on with the discussion and debate on Bill C-79.
I would like to take this opportunity to designate next Monday as the third allotted day in the current period of supply.
Later on today the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) will be tabling Ways and Means motions with respect to the Income Tax Act. On Tuesday, the first item of business will be to dispose of the Ways and Means motions relating to the Income Tax Act which, as I said, will be tabled later today.
Following the Ways and Means motions, I will call Bill C-74, respecting electoral boundaries redistribution, which I understand is going to be reported to the House today. When Bill C-74 is completed, we will resume consideration of Bill C-79-that is on Tuesday.
It is my intention on Wednesday and Thursday of next week to call second reading stage of the Income Tax Bill as the first item of business in the interest of having Bills relating to the Budget dealt with in an expeditious manner. We can, hopefully, make progress on that matter so the Bill will be able to go to committee so that the taxpayers of Canada will have certainty of passage of the legislation when they are putting their income tax returns in at the beginning of next year.
The back-up legislation with respect to the Income Tax Act will be the three Bills which deal with divorce and ancillary matters of relief and enforcement, that is Bill C-46, Bill C-47, and Bill C-48.
Obviously, we will continue to monitor the progress being made from time to time and we will consult with the Opposition House Leaders. If there are any changes to be made in

November 21, 1985
Point of Order-Mrs. Champagne
that line-up, I will advise the House and my opposition counterparts.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned about one statement made by the Government House Leader that, I believe, perhaps is not entirely accurate. With regard to the CDC Bill, there would be no difficulty, as far as I can tell, in completing the report stage tomorrow. However, there are a number of amendments which will have to be voted upon and I would think it inappropriate to proceed to third reading given that the votes on the amendments will have to be held over until Monday.
What I would like to suggest to the Government House Leader is that if we get through the report stage tomorrow, and we defer the votes until Monday, we will deal with third reading with only one speaker, which will help expedite passage, but I do not want to leave the wrong impression about the way the business might be conducted tomorrow.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I had understood we had made progress on that legislation with respect to both Parties and thought possibly the amendments might go on a voice vote. However, if there is intention to call a standing vote, then the rules would preclude us from having it on Friday and the votes would take place on the following Monday at the end of the proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have received notice of a point of order from the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne). The Minister of State for Youth.



POINT OF ORDER


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, during the past few days, some Members of the Official Opposition's francophone caucus have been using language in this House which no francophone would want to hear, and certainly not in the House of Commons. I realize that if they want to go on demonstrating their fondness for vulgar language and their poor taste, they are free to do so. However, Mr. Speaker, it is incredible ... 1 ask you to listen to the tapes and look at the blues, because we can hardly tolerate a Member accusing the Government of, and I quote:
-frigging-
-and a Minister of the Crown of "frigging around". This is unparliamentary language, and we have here a case of what is referred to as "indecent language" in Beauchesne's, Citation 319. I wish you would look into this, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I know I never took elocution with Mrs. So-and-So and I have never been on the stage. I am here to represent the interests of my constituents, and at this very moment, Mr. Speaker, this Government, by refusing to get on with it and making a decision it promised the Premier of Quebec it would make, is indeed "frigging around" and jeopardizing the survival of my riding and the creation of thousands of jobs.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Minister, I am not ashamed of speaking in the vernacular, because it is probably the best way for me to represent-


An Hon. Member:: That is not a point of order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Clearly a question of language is a point of order. 1 am sorry, I am like most Anglophones, English is my mother tongue. I, therefore, do not know all of the words in French which one might know. Therefore, in the circumstances, I believe I must reserve, check the "blues" and determine what was said and what it does in fact mean, if I can put it that way. 1 am sorry, I am not in a position to resolve the matter for the House immediately.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the twelfth report of the Striking Committee in both official languages.


PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in both official languages.


WAYS AND MEANS
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 65(1), I wish to lay upon the Table copies of notices of Ways and Means motions to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes. Pursuant to Standing Order 65(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for their consideration.
November 21, 1985


PETITIONS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition from a number of residents of my constituency and other communities in British Columbia who continue to be extremely grieved by the decision of the Government to remove full indexation of family allowances. They pray that the Government may still act to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility to present two petitions. The first is signed by some 300 members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour who protest the proposed changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act coming into effect January 1, 1986. These changes would have pension income counted as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes. They call upon the Government to retreat from that very retrograde step before it is too late.


John R. Rodriguez: The second petition is signed by many Members of the Sudbury Women's Action Group protesting deindexation of family allowance benefits. They call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from citizens in my riding, especially from the area of Walkley and Chester Avenues. They ask that the Government of Canada abandon its regressive decision to deindex family allowances. This decision, if implemented, would further reduce the buying power of the truly needy in Canada.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table a petition from eight Manpower-sponsored adult students together with their teacher from the settlement of Lac La Martre in the Northwest Territories. They point out that their cheques from the Department of Employment and Immigration arrive at least a month late and often much later than that. The problem is that cheques are not mailed on time-not that the Post Office is slow. They ask Parliament to remedy this situation which causes them considerable hardship.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present concerning the Government's intent to partially deindex family allowances. They are significant
Petitions
petitions in that in one community concerned, Lac Brochet, where all groceries must be flown in. Everything is quite expensive and they certainly need their full family allowance.
The other petition is from residents of Leaf Rapids, Manitoba, where hundreds of people are protesting the Minister of National Health and Welfare's intention to deindex family allowances. It is significant that the majority of the adults in that community signed the petition.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from residents of Victoria, British Columbia, concerned about the Canadian Forces maritime experimental and test range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. They are concerned that we do not have adequate information from the U.S. Navy about whether or not vessels entering Nanoose Bay are nuclear equipped. We do not have adequate information about the economic impact of the said test range. They call for a full public inquiry before the present agreement is renegotiated.


James Douglas Manly: 1 have a number of other petitions from residents of Victoria also, who are concerned about the Government's proposal to deindex family allowances. They point out that this imposes an unfair burden on families, especially those with young children, as well as single-parent families. They call upon the House to institute full indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from some 150 residents of the Centre Point community in Nepean-Carleton who are deeply concerned about a total lack of mail delivery in their community and the very inadequate facilities they have to use for general delivery purposes.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to present before the House two petitions signed by people from my constituency. First, a petition signed by a group of ladies who live in Saint-Adrien de Ham.
Also from my constituency, I have another one from the community of Saint-Zacharie, on the immediate outskirts of Windsor-Richmond.
I also have a whole set of petitions, but in order to comply with parliamentary procedure, I will list them according to their constituencies or origin.

November 21, 1985
Petitions
So there is a group of Canadians from the constituency of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who also object to the same thing as always, the proposal to deindex family allowances.
I have another one, Mr. Speaker, from the constituency of Saint-Jacques in the Province of Quebec.
Another one from the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, in Quebec. Another one also from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, in Quebec. And another one from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, in Quebec.
Another petition from Chicoutimi, in the Province of Quebec, in which again all the signers regret the Government's intention of deindexing family allowances.
1 have another petition from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke in Ontario. And another one from Essex-Kent, also in Ontario. And still another one from Kingston. And another one from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic in the Province of Quebec.


An Hon. Member:: Pronounce the names correctly.


Alain Tardif: Yes, if you tried as hard to speak French as we do English, I think everything would go much better.
I have still another petition from Charlevoix. And another one from Montreal-Sainte Marie. Another still from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. And another one from Moncton, New Brunswick. And another one from Laval-des-Rapides, in Quebec. Another one from Rosemont-Montreal-Sainte-Marie. Still another one from the constituency of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic.
Another petition, Mr. Speaker, from the federal constituency of Halton, Ontario. And another one from Saint-Jacques, Quebec, and, finally, a last one from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, where thousands of Canadians regret the Government's action-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! And thank you. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and the duty to table in the House four petitions. The first one is signed by residents of a number of ridings in Montreal, Laval and Dollard-des-Ormeaux, in the province of Quebec, asking the House to reinstate the full indexation of family allowances and to rescind unfair tax increases.


John Edmund Parry: The second petition is signed by residents of the great community of Oshawa, Ontario. They call upon Parliament to examine the effect of
the Nanoose Bay test range on the local community and its implications for Canada's independent foreign policy.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by residents of the communities of Montreal, LaSalle and Verdun. They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.

The fourth one, Mr. Speaker, asks Parliament to reinstate the indexation of family allowances.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions to present from pensioners in my riding who won the fight for fully indexed pensions. They feel that right should be granted to mothers and children who receive family allowances. They call upon Parliament to index fully universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases levied against families. These petitioners are from the communities of Humboldt and St. Gregor in my riding.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have well over 1,000 names of people from my constituency who have signed petitions stressing very strongly their opposition to the deindexation of family allowances and to the tax increases which are being imposed on ordinary Canadians. They call upon this House to reverse those policies.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from a number of people from different parts of Canada opposing Bill C-70 and asking for full indexation of the universal family allowance. They ask also for unfair tax increases to be rescinded. On this last day that the committee will be speaking to this issue, I implore the Minister to think of the thousands and thousands of signatures that have been presented and that will be presented which oppose this Bill. 1 hope he will think seriously of this.

[ Translation]



TAX REBATE DISCOUNTING ACT


Michel Côté: for leave to introduce Bill C-83, to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 21, 1985


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that Question No. 434 will be answered today.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Are amateur athletes from the United States, who play for local Canadian athletic teams, required to have their team management complete clearance for their admissibility to Canada through documentation of Canada Employment clearance of Emp. 2151 and Immigration Authorization, Imm. 1102 forms?
2.	Did the Ontario regional headquarters of the Department of Employment and Immigration issue instructions to its regional managers to process American amateur athletes entering Canada as visitors, provided they were not otherwise admissible and, if so (a) on what date was the instruction issued (6) which offices received it (c) who authorized the instruction and what is his/her name and job designation?
3.	Were these instructions authorized by the Minister of Employment and Immigration or any person at national headquarters and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) who authorized them and what is his/her name and job designation (b) if not, for what reason?
4.	Will the Department instruct its officials at every port of entry to adopt the new procedures and (a) if so, on what date (6) if not, for what reason?
5.	Did the national headquarters of CEIC review its procedures concerning the admission of amateur athletes from other countries and, if so (a) on what date was the review completed and what were its results (b) for what reason?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: 1.
Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) May 25, 1983. (b) Ottawa District which made copies for their local offices, (c) The Program Specialist of the Ontario Region on behalf of the Regional Director General of Immigration, Mr. D. Donn.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable. (b) The instructions referred to in part 2 were issued by the Ontario regional headquarters as an interim measure pending completion of a review by national headquarters concerning the entry of foreign athletes and also to resolve a local problem. The instructions allowed the Ottawa immigration district office to admit as visitors only those amateur athletes who were playing on recreational teams, if they were not otherwise inadmissible.
4.	No. (a) Not applicable. (6) Immigration national headquarters are drafting new guidelines that will be more specific than those issued earlier by the Ontario regional headquarters.
Employment Equity
These new guidelines should then be adopted by all immigration officers.
5.	(a) A review was completed in August, 1985 and the new guidelines will be issued sometime in November, 1985.
(b)	Foreign athletes destined to Canadian-based teams will be dealt with under one of the categories described hereunder because Canadian athletes are allowed to work in other countries with minimum requirements.
(1)	A person who plays or participates on a recreational basis in a sport activity, does not receive remuneration or any valuable consideration will be treated as a visitor.
(2)	Athletes earning less than 50 per cent of their income from sports activities will be exempt from Canada Employment Centre validation pursuant to Subsection 20(5)(E)iii of the Immigration Regulations and to the exemption code E95 as per the instructions contained in Chapter IS 15 of the Immigration Manual. They will nevertheless be documented on an employment authorization. The exemption will only be used for "amateur athletes" as defined by Sports Canada i.e. a person who does not earn more than fifty per cent of his or her income from performing a sport.
(3)	Athletes earning more than 50 per cent of their income from sports activities will be exempt from Canada Employment Centre validation pursuant to Subsection 20(5)(E)iii of the Immigration Regulations and to the exemption code E99 as per the instructions contained in Chapter IS 15 of the Immigration Manual. They will nevertheless be documented on an employment authorization. The exemption will be used for all semi-professional or professional athletes coming to Canada to join a Canadian-based team.
The two different exemption codes will allow the Commission to monitor the entry of amateur athletes (Code E95) and professional athletes (Code E99).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment
[Stage Direction]
November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
equity, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Keeper (p. 8197).
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak first on this Bill before the motion to hoist was moved. Rather than reiterate some of the things I said the other day, I would like to draw the attention of the House to exactly what it is in Bill C-62 that the Liberal Opposition is opposed to with regard to the proposals made by the Government. More important, I would like to draw to the attention of the Members of the House the reasons we had the Abella Commission in the first place, the working conditions that led to the need for that kind of commission, and the exact recommendations made by Judge Abella in her report. By doing so, I will point out the inadequacies of the Government's response through Bill C-62 which is presently before the House.
The mandate of the commission, Mr. Speaker, was, in essence, the following: The Judge was asked to inquire into the most efficient, effective and equitable means of promoting employment opportunities for, and eliminating systemic discrimination against, four designated groups: women, native people, disabled persons, and visible minorities. In the 11 Crown and Government-owned corporations, the improvement rate for women over the five-year period studied had been minimal. Women remained overwhelmingly concentrated in the lowest paid occupations in every corporation. In fact, the Judge found that they held very few managerial or supervisory positions.
As a result of the first study that was done, the Liberal Government in power at the time undertook a pilot project at the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is singled out as an example of success in elimination of discriminatory barriers in employment. It was found that only in those corporations where measures have been implemented to eliminate discriminatory barriers in employment have opportunities for women genuinely improved. All corporations agreed that without legislation and a reporting requirement substantial change was unlikely to occur. Bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker, because that is a very important element in the reasons for the Liberal Party's opposition to Bill C-62 in its present form.
When Judge Abella went across the country gathering evidence most representatives with whom she met considered further Government intervention necessary to ensure their equitable participation in the workforce. The report also concluded that it is critical that census data relating to the quality of labour force participation of the four designated groups be collected every five years. Judge Abella found that employment barriers articulated by the group included insufficient or inappropriate training facilities, inadequate information systems, inadequate hiring and promotion practices and discriminatory assumptions.
The Abella Commission concluded that voluntary measures are an unsatisfactory response to the pervasiveness of systemic discrimination in Canadian workplaces and have, therefore, recommended that all federally regulated employers be
required, by legislation, to implement employment equity. In other words, it decided that there had to be a mandatory affirmative action program instituted, and several ways were recommended in which to oversee and ensure that the intent of the legislation is sound.
The first recommendation to ensure that this kind of discrimination was being eliminated was to expand the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to make it responsible for employment equity. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that that is one of the recommendations in Bill C-62. It is unusual, though, that in diluting that proposal of the Abella Commission the Government has indicated that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be the regulatory body that is going to oversee the implementation of these proposals but, in fact, it has not mandated additional resources to the Canadian Human Rights Commission through this Bill, nor has it given that body jurisdiction. Therefore, in terms of the enforcement provisions, we have serious reservations about the ability of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to undertake the necessary review and ensure that the four target groups are going to be allowed the employment opportunities that we know do not now exist within the federal Government or our Crown corporations. More important, they do not exist within companies with which the federal Government has contracts and does business.
This leads me to my second point, Mr. Speaker. What laws presently exist and in what ways can we improve the track record of the federal Government with respect to enhancement of employment equity? In 1977 the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex. Since 1978 there have been affirmative action programs in federal Departments. I mentioned the pilot projects within CMHC. We later had the Katie Cooke Task Force Report on child care established under the Liberal administration which is presently in the possession of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean) awaiting follow-up.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That has not been reported.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) indicates that that is not yet reported, so it is still at report stage.
The following are the major points of criticism that the Liberal Party has with Bill C-62: First, it does not implement several of Judge Abella's key recommendations. The Bill includes no mandatory enforcement of employment equity. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very serious flaw. As outlined earlier, every group that came before the Abella Commission indicated that they felt that without mandatory enforcement there would be little progress made. They have cited case after case from the 1970s and early 1980s to reinforce that view.
Second, in this Bill there is no provision for a separate monitoring agency. As I indicated earlier, the responsibility has been conferred upon the Canadian Human Rights Commission but there have been no additional manpower resources allocated to that group. Due to the backlog of cases before the Human Rights Commission, the groups that have criticized
November 21, 1985

Bill C-62 are probably correct in their assumption that with a monitored three-year reporting program it will be the year 2000 and beyond before we get the first test case of the Abella Commission's Report before that body.
Third, without the allocation of additional resources, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not have the power to enforce employment equity. That again flies in the face of all the evidence that was gathered by the Abella Commission over the several years during which she studied the problems of the four groups about which I spoke. In addition to the fact that we are not even going to have mandatory enforcement-we are going to have voluntary reporting-there have not been any targets set by the Government as to what each Department and companies that represent 200 employees or more must agree to in order to abide by the rules set by the Government.
As I have indicated about that reporting procedure, there has been no standardization established in Bill C-62. If there is no standardization, Mr. Speaker, then we will have three years of monitoring before anything can be put before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We are talking, in effect, about another generation of Canadians who will have to await another Government, I suppose another Government with more of a commitment to the enhancement of employment equity than has been exhibited by the Conservative Government.
In the election campaign in the summer of 1984 the Government made a number of promises to women in particular with respect to recommendations that would flow from the Abella Commission report. This is another example of more broken promises.
Earlier today during Question Period quotes were given by my colleagues from the Province of Quebec and southwestern Ontario. These were verbatim promises made by the Conservative leader a year ago during the campaign about how he was going to ensure the viability of the Canadian shoe manufacturing industry. He broke that promise. The Government has broken promises with respect to making sure that deficit reduction would never be done at the expense of low-and middle-income Canadians. That promise was broken within 10 weeks of the Conservatives assuming office.
Here again, with the Abella Commission report, and the manner in which the Government has chosen to reply to those excellent recommendations, we have another series of broken promises and another generation that we will have to wait before we have some improvement in employment equity.
Last but not least, in addition to all the flaws I have outlined about this Bill previously, there are no penalties in the Bill for companies not complying with it. Why do we not simply tell Canadians and those four groups, the women, the native people, the disabled and the visible minorities, that Bill C-62 will not address their concerns, that it will not, in a reasonable period of time, add to their quality of life. They should be told that the Government is not prepared to move to create the
Employment Equity
kind of legislation required. Quite frankly, Bill C-62 is a sham. Those groups know it, opposition Members know it, and I would be delighted to hear perhaps a Government back-bench MP try to defend the recommendations in the Bill.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today another instance of the degree to which the Government has adopted half measures and token efforts in replacement as a substitute for responsible, serious and enforcible legislation. I think it raises real questions about the self respect of the Government and the degree to which-


John R. Rodriguez: It has none.


John Edmund Parry: -the Government takes its promises and preelection commitments seriously when we compare the legislation before us today with the sort of promises made before the election and the statements after the election of September 4, 1984.
I will not be repetitious, Mr. Speaker, by quoting to the Government the promises it made. I think that has been done adequately. This Bill highlights the difference to me between the sort of society which the Government would like to see us aim for and the society that I and my Party would like to see us aim for. It also highlights to a degree the difference between the sort of society that we have today and the sort of society that any of us might want to have. Notwithstanding our material prosperity in many parts of the country, though certainly not all, and the strides and gains made concerning the employment and the status of women, the minorities and the handicapped, our society is falling far short of what I would like to see.
We have to look at the state of a society in which women, as an example, receive only five-eighths of the average male's wage, in which native people suffer from greatly elevated levels of unemployment compared to the average in our society. We have to look at a society in which the job is of central and paramount importance to the individual, to the determination of his or her identity and self and how a person perceives himself or herself and his or her relationship to society. What I see are large numbers of people within society who are disadvantaged by the status quo, that status quo which this legislation does so little to change and so much to maintain.
I see people, Mr. Speaker, whose parents and grandparents suffered from unemployment. I see women who have been and are still being held back by prejudice and a failure to understand their potential, a failure to appreciate their commitment of what they are capable of doing. I see very little in this Bill that will do anything to correct those situations and move us toward a society where people will be able to compete on an equal, full basis, regarding only their talent, their ability, their skills and their commitment, and which will set aside extraneous factors such as race and sex.
The way in which the Bill is being handled in the House shows that what once were vices are now merely habits. The Government is introducing closure for the fifth time. The Government is trying to push through this inadequate little

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
piece of legislation, as modest in its size as it is in its quality, as small in its thickness as it is in its ambition to do anything about the state of employment in our society.
I hear the Government taking the view that one cannot introduce mandatory programs for this sort of thing. We cannot push too hard. We cannot take steps that will upset anybody in the corporate environment. This reflects not only a lack of imagination and a lack of intelligence in design of an employment equity program, but it also essentially reflects a lack of adequate commitment to such programs.
Simply because we have bad examples of similar types of programs in the recent history, such as the language and the police issues in the Province of Quebec, does not excuse the federal Government from trying to produce something better, something that will better serve Canadians as we try to work toward a future of equality, a future based upon a concept, a realization and a concretization of employment equity.
I regret when we look at this legislation that there is no provision for the involvement of a union in the development of a corporate plan. I believe that many unions have pioneered the concept of employment equity and pioneered the implementation of employment equity measures in the workplace.
I recall the example of the Ontario Federation of Labour, which has been working on employment equity for women. It had a co-ordinator who was working on employment equity for people of minorities that previously had suffered a lack of equity in their employment prospects.
I believe that this has endowed our labour bodies with experience which could be put very well to use in the design of a corporate plan such as the legislation rather inadequately stipulates and rather inadequately outlines and requires.
Many others have said-and I must reiterate it-that this legislation lacks goals. It lacks guidelines for affirmative action. It lacks an effective enforcement mechanism and really effective sanctions. After all, the penalties for non-compliance are not framed to include any effect on the business which the offending company does with the Government.
I was surprised to hear the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) say this morning that the Bill introduces employment equity. It manifestly does not, because of the restrictions in the Bill which apply to a very narrow segment of the total economy. After all, there is nothing in it about the Government itself and its commitment to employment equity. It merely, as we see it, applies to those employers who employ 100 or more employees on or in connection with a federal work undertaking. There is nothing relating to the over-all size of the enterprise. There is only a very loose definition of people connected with or employed on a federal work undertaking or enterprise.
A comprehensive affirmative action program would include contract compliance and sanctions. It would include equal pay for work of equal value. It would include some stipulations as to the provision of the faciliative mechanisms to institute
employment equity, such as education, training and child care. These things are not addressed by the Bill.
We know that with the majority which the Government has, the Bill will go through. We also know that five years or ten years from today, when the history of this sad piece of legislation is reviewed, all that could be said is that it had a marginal impact upon the introduction of employment equity in Canada.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am also very happy to join those who have already had the opportunity to speak about Bill C-62. In my humble opinion, this Bill is another exercise which shows the true nature of this Government. Bill C-62 deals with a very important issue which was of special concern during the last election and still is for the coming provincial election. We are always meeting people who draw our attention to unacceptable situations, especially as concerns the problems faced by women, in certain cases to get a job, and in other cases to get promotions. There are a great many instances of such problems and we are all aware of them. All that this Bill does is stated in clause 1, namely: 1.
1. This Act may be cited as the Employment Equity Act.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, about the only good thing that we find in this Bill is its title and its intent to recognize a fact which has existed for quite some time. However, there is obviously no real intent, no courage, no determination to attack the real problems directly.
The Bill states that recommendations will be made very nicely to some companies, and I emphasize the word "some", not necessarily in the short term, as the date mentioned is 1988, asking them to file a report and state their plans and intentions. However, Mr. Speaker, everyone recognizes that jobs are generally created by smaller businesses. These businesses, which are major producers of jobs, especially in a constituency such as mine, rarely employ more than 100 people.
Generally, when we speak about small businesses, we mean those whose work force varies between 2 and 50 employees. Everyone agrees that, when a business has over 50 employees, it becomes a company, since the very great majority of small businesses have fewer than 50. Yet, this legislation does not deal with such businesses in any way. It deals only with companies with over 100 employees. I find this measure rather timid, and for my part, it is quite enough to convince me to vote against this Bill.
On the subject of discrimination I think we all agree. We all recognize that there is a lot to do. Suffice it to know that 36 per cent of complaints filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, since its inception in 1976, relate to sex discrimination. Filed in 80 per cent of cases by women, those 2,300 complaints dealt especially with employment, but also with housing, recreation and credit. In my view, statistics such as
November 21, 1985

these clearly point to a situation that is so prevalent that, unfortunately, we have somewhat become used to living with such an unacceptable fact of life.
And faced with such a crying situation, all the Government finds as an answer and a response is the tabling of what it calls Bill C-62, a rehashing of pious wishes, of decidedly unrealistic expectancies, with the hope that someone else will help better the situation, that the private sector will take action, and that despite the absence of any sanctions, we can and will rely on good faith alone. But I would be most surprised if three, four, five or six years down the road, we found the slightest betterment, the slightest improvement in the situation as it now stands. Except that when the Bill comes into force, Government Members will have an opportunity to slap their own backs, to go bragging all across the country that they as a Government have solved the problem, that in spite of the Opposition's objections, legislation was passed and from now on we will be referring to professional equity. I agree that as a theme, or balloon, it is quite interesting.
However, when we consider the subject matter of the Bill, I think that it simply is ridiculing those for whom they have been working for years to improve conditions and eliminate those discriminations. The Government is practically laughing at them by introducing a Bill that solves so few problems and which finally is a statement of intent rather than a solution to concerns.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to see how much indifference there is to that problem. I have what people call a semi-rural riding where small- and medium-sized businesses manufacture clothing, footwear and textile and where women are for the most part assuming whatever responsibilities there are. They assume such responsibilities by choice, by liking and in many cases also by necessity.
Yesterday, we heard the Government announce a decision which will affect in the very near future those job-creating businesses where there exists comparative equity as far as the hiring of women is concerned and with the loss of their jobs, those women will strictly have nothing to hope for. This is an absolutely revolting decision as a result of which a promise will be broken and there will be no more quotas in the footwear industry. The actual short-term consequence will be that several plants will close their doors and hundreds if not thousands of jobs mostly held by women will disappear.
There is something else I want to tell Hon. Members, and it has to do with what happens every week in my riding office. Female constituents, ladies and representatives of women's associations come to my office to make represntations and various requests. They are quite simply shocked and even insulted every time they walk into manpower and immigration offices and see signs like "Women and disabled persons, this way". Mention that to women in your ridings and you will get
Employment Equity
the same reaction-they are insulted by the way they are treated.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this opportunity to take part in the debate, especially since the first speech we had this morning referred to the fact that once again, the Government is introducing a motion of closure on a Bill, and we will be speaking to this motion for some time.
I am glad that the motion of closure was presented because it is high time we stopped ignorance from making further inroads in this House. It is time for a change and for saying why we are using closure. It is because we cannot afford this new kind of fanaticism which could be defined as refusing to change the subject.
People who have been watching us since this morning and listening to what we have said, especially the kind of language being used, know perfectly well why we are going to change the subject, with everybody's general approval, Mr. Speaker. Recently, we had a Member who said: Quebec is being "screwed". This is unparliamentary language. He withdrew the term and said: Quebec is being had. And you listen to the news that evening and lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, they quoted the first term. That is the kind of language we have been hearing recently. They speak from their seats, they speak to the Speaker without having the nerve to rise, and we have had a few examples today. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have a motion for closure and why we should support this motion and get the debate over with and change the subject and let the Bill go to committee.
Mr. Speaker, I will give you a few examples. They said earlier that we were going to go to our ridings and brag about what we did. No, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to brag and say we have fixed everything. In the last few days we have been seeing people from Montreal East. Who is bragging to the people from Montreal East? Who is bragging about finding a solution? Not us. When they shut down BP and three other refineries, they weren't bragging, but now they are.
Mr. Speaker, there was a group of political refugees here in the House of Commons yesterday. They were here because of the old system that caused a backlog of nearly 10,000 cases. And people want to criticize Bill C-55! I was there. It was incredible! But who set up the system? Who was bragging to these people yesterday and saying they would take care of them?
Mr. Speaker, today, workers in the footwear industry are setting up an appeal tribunal that will make recommendations. And who is bragging that they are going to save the footwear industry? The same people again.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -going to fall flat on your face-


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, that is fanaticism for you. Fanaticism has a one-track mind, but we want to change the subject

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
and we will go before the legislative committee if necessary, and we will stand firm.
Mr. Speaker, the people watching us understand the system.


Alain Tardif: You are not saying a damned thing!


Jean-Guy Hudon: What? I see the hon. expert on the footwear industry decided to come back from behind the curtains and listen to the debate-
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that Hon. Members as well as people watching us on their television sets should understand this system. The Government introduced this Bill which was examined by a legislative committee; before that, it was referred to a Standing Committee of the House for a review of the problem. Then the Bill was read the first time. It was later read the second time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am going to see it on TV.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Yes, you will be able to see it tomorrow on your VCR.
Then the Bill was read the second time. During second reading debate, we looked into the same amendments which had been raised before our Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. We went through the whole thing again, very nicely, very politely. No, no, no and no. It was at the second reading stage. There was an eight-hour debate on this Bill. Yes, eight hours!
After that, it was referred to a legislative committee. The legislative committee held four meetings during which it heard the same witnesses as our Standing Committee. Four or five meetings were held to hear these witnesses, following which we made a clause by clause study of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, there were four amendments-one, two, three and four-the very same amendments which the House had debated, because it is democratic.
Well, at the end it was passed, because we had the necessary majority and we had discussed it with people.
Do you know that, Mr. Speaker? If you check the official record, that is, the debates of the House, concerning Bill C-55, the very same amendments are still there.
For the information of the people watching us on their T.V. sets, this is the third reading stage. If you have followed me in the legislative committee, in the Standing Committee, you are going to see me again-
And do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because they do not want to take-


Alain Tardif: Because you do not understand.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Because we do not understand? Let me tell you that you do not understand either.
Do you know what they want to do, Mr. Speaker? They want to file .. . witnesses to appear before the Appeal Board; they want to send for 18 to 55 people to look into appeal cases of refugees. That is what they want to do.
Yesterday, Hon. Members opposite said; We are looking after your case.
Mr. Speaker, that is what is meant when we hear that ignorance is making progress in the House of Commons. It has to be said! When Members opposite want to score a few points, they make us feel guilty or make us look like fools. They say: It is unthinkable that we should vote for such a measure.
Bill C-62 may not be much, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
They were in office for fifteen years, but we will not brag about solving all problems. We will brag about taking the first step, then you will take the second, we will take the third, and so on. That is how a society is built.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Our first step will be so good that, if they are to take the second step, it will only be in 22 years from now.
They say they make us feel guilty. It was terrible listening to them this morning, as if we ought to hide behind our desks, ashamed of the Bill we support.
But you did not do a thing about equity, not a thing, no legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Beau-hamois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) has the floor he does not say anything relevant to the Bill under consideration.
I would therefore ask my friend the Hon. Member to speak to the Bill.


Jean-Guy Hudon: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, we are debating a closure motion and I am talking about closing something. Very well, I will get back to Bill C-62.


Alain Tardif: You have nothing to say about the Bill-


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, might the Hon. Member be urged to speak to Bill C-62-


An Hon. Member:: He does not even know what Bill C-62 is about-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is referring to the closure motion we are debating and which all other Members have mentioned-


An Hon. Member:: A point of order-

November 21, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: No, if I may, I should like to finish what I have to say. All or almost all Members who have taken part in the debate today did refer to it, including the first speaker this morning who practically did not talk about anything else during the ten minutes allotted to him.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your intervention, especially as the first Member to speak this morning on the other side was the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), I believe, and the first thing he said was that the Government was doing a terrible thing in imposing closure, and I am now explaining why I agree with the closure motion.


An Hon. Member:: It is not a closure motion: it is a time allocation motion.


Jean-Guy Hudon: No? Mr. Speaker, we are now going to argue with the Liberal Party about the difference between a closure motion and a time allocation motion. This is what they did for 15 years: they argued about the difference between a closure motion and a time allocation motion.
As I was saying when I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, and I was moving along very nicely-I do not understand why they cannot hear me on the other side-what is going on now? People are made to feel guilty and are ridiculed. The Members Opposite should perhaps learn from this.
During the question period, and even now, Mr. Speaker, I can hear from my seat insults when certain Ministers are speaking-


Carlo Rossi: It is not true.


Jean-Guy Hudon: -or when someone else is speaking. Because he used to sell cheese, they say that he stinks. Somebody attacks one Minister; someone else attacks another Minister. What kind of word did we hear at noon?


An Hon. Member:: A neologism.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Are we going to tolerate such a thing? No, Mr. Speaker. We shall later on study the bill in Committee-listen to this, you people watching television-we shall refer the Bill to a legislative committee where the same subject matter will be discussed and we shall come back to the House at the third reading stage with the same amendments. We shall be coming back to it.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in the last few minutes we have to debate Bill C-62,1 think we need to recognize that it is a-
Employment Equity
[ Translation]


Carlo Rossi: You will not be coming back after the next elections.


Ms. Jacques:: We shall see.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please! Unfortunately, you are interrupting the speech of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) who would like to have the same opportunity as everyone else to express his views. If you please.


James Douglas Manly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If Conservative Members wish to speak, they should not have voted for time allocation on this Bill. It would be nice if they would allow those who do wish to speak on this Bill to have a chance.
I would suggest that Bill C-62 should not so much be opposed as it should be exposed, exposed as a sham and as a hoax because it claims to do something when in fact it does nothing of the kind. Clause No. 2 of Bill C-62 reads as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
Those are fine sounding words. In order to achieve employment equity, we need to have some special measures and that naturally would lead to the hope that this Bill would introduce some special measures, However, where are the special measures in it? It simply contains a system of reporting.
Back in 1978 the federal Government tried to establish a system of preferential hiring to ensure that native people had greater representation in federal Departments by sending out requests to all Departments. However, by June 1980, only 19 of 58 Departments had even complied with requests for action plans. This is what happened with the federal Government's own Departments, let alone other corporations.
In The Globe and Mail of September 28, 1985, Michele Landsberg quotes William McEwen, the Chairman of the Resources and Equal Opportunity Committee of the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers as saying the following:
"There's no such thing as voluntary compliance with affirmative action laws. If voluntary compliance worked, Moses would have come down from the mountain with the Ten Guidelines."
Voluntary compliance just does not mean a thing. The system of reporting that the Government is introducing will not do the job either.
This Bill is a sham. I suspect that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) knows that it is a sham. Certainly, if she had stayed and listened to some of the participants in the Conference on Women that she attended last week in New York, she would know that. For example,



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif)-Agriculture-(a) Possible construction of research laboratory-Minister's position (b) Brief presented by Canadian Federation of Agriculture-Government position.
November 21, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-62, an Act respecting Employment Equity, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Keeper (p. 8197).
William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in this extended debate on Bill C-62. The extra time we are giving to these deliberations reflects, to me, the importance of the topic to all Canadians.
The employment equity legislation will have a dramatic impact on the Canadian labour force-not dramatic in the sense of crisis or antagonism between special interests but, rather, dramatic in that for the first time Canadians long denied opportunities to participate fully in the economy will be able to contribute all of their skills and talents. These are not idle promises. In anticipation of this legislation businesses large and small are already calling Government offices to learn how they can apply employment equity principles to their operations. Believe me, this is good news to the millions of Canadian women, native people, members of visible minorities and disabled individuals. Something positive is happening at last. Individuals covered by the legislation are being given a chance to compete as equals.
The purpose of Bill C-62 is to provide for employment equity, that is, to guarantee everyone equal rights with respect to employment, advancement and remuneration. The legislation will require employers to implement employment equity and to demonstrate their progress by reporting annually on the results. What is wrong with that? To abide by the Bill's intent, as recommended by Judge Abella, objectives have to be set by and for each employer concerned. These objectives cannot be universal. We must consider the specific circumstances under which each business operates. The distinction between purpose and objective is very important. Matters cannot be taken in isolation. We must consider the general availability of qualified workers. Then, we need to take into account the availability of such workers within the designated groups. Finally, we need to look at whether workers are in the right location for the job.
For example, it is beyond dispute that there is an inexcusable lack of women in the engineering profession. We would like to see businesses hire more women engineers. However, when women represent only 6 per cent of all professional engineers, it would be folly to set quotas for individual businesses requiring them to hire women engineers in direct relation to the number of women in the general labour force.
I believe the Government is taking a far wiser approach. It is acknowledging individual needs and circumstances rather than setting arbitrary rules and procedures which would place both the private and public sectors into a straight jacket. It is
Employment Equity
like pointing a gun to a person's head. Yet, members of target groups need not worry that the lack of quotas can be used as an excuse for inaction. When employers covered by the legislation begin filing their mandatory reports in just a little more than two years, they will have to show that they are making constructive changes.
The data reports will enable the Canadian Human Rights Commission to play a key role in the enforcement of employment equity. Investigators from the Human Rights Commission will be able to use the reports as grounds to initiate investigations and then cover possible violations of human rights legislation. No longer will they be forced to wait for individuals or groups to file complaints. The Government has already committed itself to ensuring that the Human Rights Commission has the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate in support of employment equity.
These are major changes. Thus, it is only fair that the Government allows the private sector some time to get the systems in place and, ideally, take positive measures even before employers file their first reports. Yet, the changes will not be costly, which is an important aspect. Data from the United States shows that the reporting costs will probably amount to a little more than $1.50 per worker, a small price to pay to release the blocked talents of so many capable Canadians.
I am glad that many businesses are already discovering the advantages of employment equity. I agree that few enterprises paid heed when things were totally voluntary. However, we are now receiving some genuine interest well in advance of the implementation of this legislation.
I would ask Hon. Members to consider the case of the Westin Bayshore Hotel in Vancouver which has worked with the CEIC consultants. This business employs about 500 people. It took two people only one week to collect and analyse the data of the firm's workforce. The managers there say it takes only a small amount of their time to operate the employment equity program now that it is in place. That is a good sign. Executives at the hotel, and at other enterprises, are saying that they are pleased and surprised at how easy it is to make employment equity work. They are discovering the simple truth that equity actually helps to enhance productivity and profitability.
Bill C-62 requires that the affected companies implement employment equity and report annually on their workforce's composition. Similarly, associations and representatives of target groups covered by the legislation have a responsibility to work with their members to encourage them to acquire the necessary qualifications. I agree that this task is immense. There will be times of frustration, especially in making progress in the professions where it takes a substantial investment of time and effort to obtain the required skills. In this regard, the Government is ready to help out through programs in the new Canadian job strategy. There is support for training and skills development and projects, and proposals which take employment equity into account are going to receive priority attention.

November 21, 1985
Employment Equity
I have been listening to Hon. Members of the opposition say they wish enforcement. That reminds me of what happens in a communistic state where everyone works. Everyone will work digging ditches, men, women, disadvantaged and all. However, we cannot enforce everything immediately. There is a great diversity of peoples and of employment opportunities.
Let me conclude with a simple but important observation. No Government can, or should, regulate every small element of economic activity. Our responsibility in this House is to provide a framework through which the economy can be as productive as possible, in an environment of social justice and fairness. Bill C-62 meets the high standards so essential to democracy. The legislation calls for real change and facilitates enforcement of human rights legislation against those who would try to defy the law's intent, but the most important and significant responsibilities must continue to rest with individuals and groups within our industries and communities. It is these Canadians; workers, employers and members of target groups, who will ensure the success of the employment equity objectives. We have a big challenge ahead, one of genuine opportunity for growth and change. I am confident that Bill C-62 is a major step in the direction of justice and equal opportunity for all and I urge other Hon. Members in this Chamber to join me in supporting its passage into law.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in this debate, however, this particular motion we are debating is a closure motion. I listened to Hon. Members of the Government saying what a great system they have now in the House of Commons. They used to sit on the opposition side and castigate the Liberals for introducing closure motions or any kind of time allocation to debate. The Conservatives called the Liberals undemocratic. Those Conservatives are phonies. They are now in the Government and what are they doing? They have done it five times. They have the largest majority in Canadian political history and what they think they have to do is muzzle the opposition. Why do they need to bring in closure motions? There are only a total of 70 Opposition Members. There are 210 of them over there. Don't they feel like big bullies? Why do the Conservatives have to be the bully on the block? Why not give us a chance to debate the principle which is involved? It is an important principle and one which is not carried out in practice in the Bill.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) sits over here. I don't know how he ended up on my left. It seems to me he would be more appropriately placed on the right of Attila the Hun. He sees the communist threat in any kind of mandatory employment equity program. He really sees the danger of creeping communism. He is Jerry Falwell's disciple, sitting on my left.
Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, in Ronald Reagan's America they have mandatory employment equity programs. It was only after they got those mandatory employment equity programs in the 1960s in the United States that things started to
turn around for those females, visible minorities, native people and the handicapped.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: How about Pawley? Can he do it?


John R. Rodriguez: We should look at the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party, on the other hand.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about Pawley?


John R. Rodriguez: I am giving you an easy target.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: If you promise, I will listen.


John R. Rodriguez: What about the Liberals, on the other hand?


Some Hon. Members:: Where are they?


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, there he is.
The Liberals had a policy convention in Halifax and one of the big issues was providing equality for women in the Liberal Party. Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? I quote from an article in The Leader Post on November 9, 1985:
Senior Liberal women reacted angrily Friday to the Parties rejection of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Before 1 recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and he gets into his point of order, may I point out to the House and to Hon. Members that I am not very surprised to be standing here listening to a point of order. It sems that it always happens on Thursday afternoons.


An Hon. Member:: Especially when John is on his feet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Especially when certain persons are together in the House. Before we get into the point of order, I hope Hon. Members will bear what 1 said in mind.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask that you be patient with me while I make my point of order which is, indeed, one of great importance. The Hon. Member from, I believe, Nickel Belt, said we had a policy meeting in Halifax. It was a reform meeting which his Party would do well to attend to and look after its own troubles. After all, we are only 22 per cent. We have to reform something. It was not policy, it was reform.


John R. Rodriguez: I know how sensitive and touchy the Liberals are when one points out their foibles, their phoniness in attacking this piece of horse feathers which is called Bill C-62. The Liberals are accusing, quite correctly, that this Bill is phoney, but they are the biggest phonies because they cannot even practice equity in their own Liberal Party with respect to women.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Our President is a woman. How about you?


John R. Rodriguez: Apparently when the motion was made to give women equal representation as elected delegates to the Liberal Convention, there were comments like this, and I quote: "One Ontario male youth delegate said the woman's
November 21, 1985

proposal would give one group power to dictate to the whole Party". This is the kind of phoniness of the Liberal Party. When it was the Government it brought in closure. The Tories when they were in opposition used to protest. Today the Tories have brought in Bill C-62 to debate in principle, a Bill which really has no substance, which is all smoke and mirrors, as the Tories would say in the old days, and lo and behold, the Liberals are acting in exactly the same way they criticized. They do not want equity in employment any more than the Tories.
I look at this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to unmask it for what it is, a piece of fluff, just smoke and mirrors. Bull feathers is what it is.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What is a bull feather?


John R. Rodriguez: That is a Tory floating to the ground.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), on behalf of all of agriculture in Canada, that "bull feathers" is not something we would find in that community.


John R. Rodriguez: I thank the Minister. Clause 2 states, for example, that this Bill would be giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences. Yet it does not provide any special measures. The only mandatory part of this Bill is some kind of reporting process. This is a report card. No wonder the Tories want a protracted adjournment at Chirstmas and then start a new session.
I see the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has arrived and he feels moved to speak. He can do it on his own time, he should not do it on mine. I have been interrupted with points of order by the Minister of bow feathers, Members on my right and Members in the centre.
The only thing which is mandatory here is a reporting system. What do they report? Is there any punishment if, for example, a corporation does not ensure employment equity? No, of course not! This Government wants to give the impression it has something going on here. This is sleight of hand. I can think of other instances where there were reporting systems. Canadian corporations operating in South Africa were supposed to file a report of their employment practices in South Africa. What a joke that has been. Bata and Falcon-bridge, for example, have not reported in a decade. Yet the Government used to get up and say that we have a reporting system. The reporting system has broken down! Every time we have that kind of wishy-washy approach to important issues nothing gets done. In my own riding, for example, can you imagine a police force of 224 officers with one woman constable? The force interfaces with the native community in a negative way and there is not one native person on the force. There is not one visible minority on the force.
Employment Equity
This Bill does not cover most corporations in this country so far as reporting is concerned, so why are we selling people a bill of goods? Why is the Government building up expectations? This is empty. A shell game. The Tories are masters at playing the shell game. They were in Opposition so long they learned it from the Liberals. The best thing that can be done with this Bill is that it be hoisted and not considered for the next six months. The Tories should go back and look at Judge Abella's recommandations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Miss MacDonald, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity be now read a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Keeper, seconded by Mr. Young, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed please
say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we record the vote in the reverse of how it was previously taken?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It shall be so recorded with the addition of the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) in the negative. I take it the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Pru-d'homme) would like the same abstention recorded with regard to this vote?


Mr. Prud'homme:: Yes.
[Translation]	The House divided on the motion (Miss MacDonald), which


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. WaS agreed t0 0n the following division:


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.	(Division No. 132)


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, you made me the honour of appointing me chairman of the legislative committee which dealt with Bill C-62. In order to maintain my impartiality, I did not vote.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that we know what the outcome of the next vote might well be, might it be possible to have the same numbers recorded in reverse so that we do not have to go through the voting procedure and take time from Private Members' hour?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is as follows: Miss MacDonald, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity be now read a second time and
Bernier	YEAS Members Crouse	KingBertrand	Darling	La SalleBlackburn	Daubney	Layton(Jonquiere)	Desjardins	LesickBlais	Ellis	LewisBlais-Grenier	Epp	MacDougallBouchard	(Provencher)	(TimiskamingBourgault	Fennell	MacKayBoyer	Ferland	MarinBradley	Fontaine	MazankowskiBrightwell	Fraleigh	McCainCadieux	Fretz	McCuishCaldwell	Friesen	McKenzieCardiff	Gervais	McKnightChampagne	Gormley	McMillan(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Graham	MitgesChampagne	Greenaway	Moore(Champlain)	Grise	NielsenCharest	Guilbault	OberleCoates	(Drummond)	PaproskiCollins	Gurbin	PennockCook	Halliday	PorterCooper	Hardey	PriceCossitt	Hawkes	RavisCdte	Hicks	Reimer(Langelier)	Hnatyshyn	RicardCrofton	Hudon	St-JulienCrosby	Jardine	Schellenberger(Halifax West)	Kempling	(Wetaskiwin)
November 21, 1985

	Members	
Scott	Tremblay	. Vankoughnet(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Quebec-Est)	VincentScowen	Tremblay	WarnerSparrow	(Lotbiniere)	WhiteTardif	Tupper	Winegard-94.(Charlesbourg)	Turner	Thacker	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Towers	Valcourt	NAYS	Members	Althouse	Isabelle	OrlikowBaker	Jewett	ParryDeans	Keeper	RiisFinestone	Langdon	RobichaudFulton	MacLellan	RobinsonGauthier	Malepart	RodriguezGuilbault	Manly	Rossi(Saint-Jacques)	Mitchell	TardifHopkins	Murphy	(Richmond-Wolfe)-25.


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion carried.	
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 5.13 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS   EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN CANADA
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: that Bill S-5, an Act to provide for the creation by amalgamation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to say briefly that the amalgamation of the churches to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada is supported by all members of the two churches that are to be amalgamated. There is nothing controversial involved in this and we are serving a useful public purpose in passing this private members' Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Charest in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Tobacco Growing Industry

Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Agriculture be empowered to study the current state of the tobacco growing industry in Canada, taking into account various Financial and non-Financial government-assisted options available for a rationalization of the tobacco sector of agriculture which might provide appropriate solutions for all interests involved.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk to my colleagues regarding the problems of the tobacco industry. I am asking in my motion that we refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for its consideration.
Let me say a few words about the history of the tobacco industry in Canada and explain some of the changes that have taken place in that industry and society in general. I will then conclude with some suggestions as to initiatives which might be considered by the Standing Committee on Agriculture in an effort to relieve some of the pressures we are seeing not only on the producers of tobacco but on the surrounding communities.
This question must be considered carefully from the point of view of the communities surrounding those parts of the country where tobacco is grown. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns), rose under Standing Order 22 this afternoon and offered some very valid comments. He said that an orderly reduction in production capacity is necessary in Canada in order to prevent damaging repercussions to growers.
I support what he said on behalf of his farmers in Cardigan. I want to add that not only are we concerned about the growers, but also about the communities that surround these growers. I believe I am not only speaking on behalf of my constituents in Oxford but also for those in the riding of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the riding of Elgin, and the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, all of which are adjacent ridings. To a lesser degree, we have the same problem in a small area of Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Most Members will know that the history of tobacco growing began roughly 50 years ago when it became a significant industry, particularly in the area surrounding Tillsonburg, Delhi, Aylmer and Simcoe. Prior to that the area was largely sand and was useless for agriculture of any kind. When it was found that tobacco grew very well in this area, tobacco growers flourished as well as the surrounding communities.
Once the surrounding communities began to flourish, various support service industries began to develop in those various communities. As a result, for a number of years there has been a very vibrant and excellent economy in those areas surrounding the tobacco growers.

November 21, 1985
Tobacco Growing Industry
Efowever, some changes have taken place which have threatened that economy. Let me refer to those briefly. Once that economic base was developed around the tobacco growers, a certain social fabric also developed as part of the community in which they work and live. The social situation in Canada has undergone some changes. In the last 10 years, we have noticed a decrease in the use of the product tobacco for smoking. In more recent years in both the United States and Canada, there has been a decline in the use of tobacco of about 2 per cent. I as a physician who believes that tobacco is harmful, as do by far the majority of people who are familiar with the health aspects of the use of tobacco, have to agree that the decline is desirable. I do not bemoan that decline but I do bemoan the fact that it is having a deleterious effect not only on the growers who deserve better treatment than that which they are receiving now but also on their communities. As soon as the growers begin to earn inadequate incomes, those who supply the growers and offer support services in the community begin to suffer.
If I may, I would like to read from one of the four western Ontario journals, the Western Ontario Business News. On page 1 of the September 23 edition, there appears the following:
It has required new marketing approaches and lent a sense of urgency to the search for new industries in communities like this town (Tillsonburg) of 10,000-
Tillsonburg happens to be in my riding but similar towns like Aylmer, Delhi, and Simcoe are all in somewhat desperate straits because of the rapid decline in the use of tobacco and the impact of that on all aspects of society in those communities. It is mainly because of that that I believe we should be addressing this problem in Parliament in an effort to help not only the producers make a transition into some other more useful type of agricultural pursuit but also to protect those people who have nothing directly to do with tobacco at all but are suffering extensively as a result of the severe drought.
I have already alluded to the health aspects of tobacco smoking. We do know, for instance, that the actual number of cigarettes smoked has gone from 69 billion in 1983 to just under 68 billion. It is a drop of roughly 2 per cent per year, as I already indicated.
From an economic point of view, the growers have also suffered because of the fact that our inflation rate, our cost of production and our lack of efficiency in many industries has led the price of tobacco on the foreign markets to be way out of line with the price of tobacco from other countries. We find that Latin American countries and some African countries are now able to produce tobacco at just a fraction of the cost for which we in Canada can produce tobacco. As a result of that, what were hitherto foreign markets that we could enjoy are now pretty well gone due to the price differential. Not only is there a health care factor and the costs related to the health problems caused by tobacco but there is also the economic factor of the decrease in foreign markets hitting tobacco growers all at the same time.
These two factors have come together on top of a history which has allowed for a very active economic growth in the communities affected for a number of years. Suddenly this growth is coming to an end. I would indicate to the House how one of the leading business people in Tillsonburg feels about this issue. Mr. Eugene Heath, owner of the Heath Department Store and also Vice President of the local Chamber of Commerce, had this brief word to say:
Tobacco has been instrumental in establishing Tillsonburg.
For that reason, I think it is incumbent upon us to take a look at this problem and see what we as a Parliament can do to obviate some of the hardships that are beginning to show already on the growers and those who are living in the communities affected.
I can cite, for example, the fact that a supplier to the tobacco industry, DeCloet Limited, which produces farm machinery for the tobacco industry, has laid off 79 of 140 workers in the last couple of years. We can see the effect this is having. The general impact on the growers themselves amounts to the fact that heretofore there were about 1,700 growers in the area but there are now only about 1,000 growers. This has occurred since 1976 because of the depression that has been suffered in the growing and particularly the sales of tobacco.
It is interesting to note what has happened to the manufacturing industry. Naturally, it surrounds to a large extent the area in which tobacco is produced. In 1985, the manufacturers indicated that they needed only 170 million pounds of tobacco compared to the 235 million pounds required the year before. No agreement was reached with the manufacturers so instead of having 170 million pounds being guaranteed by the manufacturers, they have now come up with an offer of only 135 million pounds guaranteed for this year. We can see that the growers are in quite a significant bind.
Let me go on to the next area which I believe is the important one. As a country generally composed of citizens who are compassionate toward each other, what can we do to assist these people in making a transition from growing tobacco, an industry which has been cut down to approximately half of what it was, to growing something else that is productive and will allow them to lead a normal life while at the same time not cause the communities to deteriorate in other ways? We can look at a number of initiatives that could be considered by the Standing Committee if and when this motion were to be referred to it.
I must say that one of the prime concerns of the growers is the establishment of a national marketing agency for tobacco. There have been a lot of misconceptions about this agency. I have received letters and I know the Minister has received many letters indicating to us that many people feel that this agency is designed to increase the selling of tobacco in the domestic market. If that is a significant point in favour of the national agency, it is not a big one at all and is perhaps one of the smallest.
The real reason to have a national agency is to give the growers a chance to combine together to maintain a price for
November 21, 1985

their tobacco that will allow them a reasonable return on their investment. The second reason for trying to establish a national agency is the fact that it will provide an opportunity to help prevent imports into Canada of tobacco leaf from those countries which can easily undersell the producers here in Canada. Some people argue that it can also be useful for export trade but with the price of our tobacco at the present time, 1 doubt that we will see much of an increase in exports of our tobacco.
Previously this year, the House saw fit to pass the legislation necessary to have the National Farm Products Marketing Board hold hearings that would allow the agency to be formed. Unfortunately, those hearings have been completed but before the report could be transmitted to the Minister, it was stopped because of an injunction through the courts brought forward by the manufacturers' council. Of course, this is disastrous to the producers for this year because they are not going to be in a position to be able to market their product. I would hope that that is one of the initiatives that we recognize as being very important for the growers. This national marketing agency will help those who are still in the business maintain a level of return on their investment that is consistent with a normal way of life.
There are other important reasons why this motion should go to the committee for consideration. I think particularly of the concept of alternate crop development. There is no doubt that there is a capacity for alternate crops in the sandy soil that exists in that part of Ontario and other parts of the country. I have heard representations from Gary Balthus of Haldimand-Norfolk and from George Demeyere, a former Chairman of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board. These people have shown a lot of initiative over the last couple of years in developing a plan that would see tomatoes to be used for tomato paste grown in this part of Ontario. They have now interested close to 30 farmers in this project. They have developed a real protocol for the development of this plant. It is interesting to note that Canada utilizes about 110 million pounds of tomato paste per year, yet we import 80 million pounds. The time is here to seriously consider the wisdom of trying to develop tomatoes to be used in the production of tomato paste as an alternate crop. We are told that the same plant which could be used for tomato paste at one time of the year could be used, with a few alterations, for the processing of additional crops such as strawberries to the tune of about $26 million per year. Of course, there will be some spin-offs if alternate crops can be developed for the area. There will be spin-offs in terms of machinery production, employment for the area and plant nursery operations.
The people who have proposed the Southern Ontario Tomato Co-operative Incorporated have offered to provide 1.5 per cent of their profits to the Delhi Research Station, a neighbouring federal research station, to work on these alternate crops. That bodes well for the attitude of the people in the area who are trying to help themselves out of a difficult problem.
Tobacco Growing Industry
We have heard talk in the past which has given rise to some misconceptions about the $90 million of advance payments which was recently granted by the Minister of Agriculture. This was a big help to the producers this year who have been unable as of yet to sell their crops. The conception around the country is that this was a $90 million gift to the tobacco growers. It was not that at all. It was simply a repayable loan. The producers are hoping to be able to sell their crops in order to be able to repay the loans.
Another interesting area which should be looked at in committee is with respect to help which can be given to the remaining tobacco industry in terms of our tax laws. Taxes on tobacco products both federally and provincially have been increasing at a rather rapid rate so that they far exceed taxes on most other products. I argue that is somewhat unfair since it is a regressive type of tax. People who smoke are penalized the most and they are the ones who can least afford it. I think it is regrettable that we have to see these taxes increase at the rate which they have.
In the United States there has been a move to allocate one cent of tax per package of tobacco to encourage growers to go into other industries. It is an attempt to help those in the tobacco industry out of this predicament. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should consider taking a certain amount of the large amount of tax revenue raised from tobacco products and allocate it to those growers who wish to become involved in the transition to another type of agricultural product. Not only would this be helpful in terms of encouraging growers to become involved in another type of industry, but it would be useful to the communities which surround these same industries.
I wish to make a few comments with respect to research and development which I think the Standing Committee on Agriculture might want to consider. There is need for a longterm study to be done with respect to what will happen to the tobacco industry over the next 10 years. It is estimated that although there are now 1,600 or 1,700 tobacco-growing farmers in Canada, in 10 years that number will most likely be reduced to approximately 800. These people have to be taken into account in society. We should be looking at ways and means to help them make adjustments.
The Delhi Research Station is situated in the sandy soil of Norfolk County. It has been performing research studies on tobacco and other products which can be grown in the area. We have been told by officials at the station that they are presently underfunded with respect to assistance which they could provide to tobacco growers who wish to diversify. They say that as little as $40,000 or $50,000 more would make a big difference in their program in order to increase their progress. They also acknowledge that what they call the new crop program is definitely underfunded.
Another area in terms of research which we should be pursuing and which has taken place in Carolina concerns the young green tobacco leaf which is one of the best known sources of a complete protein in the world. I am told it is a little expensive to extract the protein and make it ready for

November 21, 1985
Tobacco Growing Industry
human consumption. Of course, what is needed in this respect is more research. I am told that there will probably be some resistance from other sectors of the economy with respect to spending money on this research. I refer to the soybean producers and perhaps others. If we know that the tobacco leaf is one of the best sources of protein I think it is deplorable that this matter not be pursued in a world which is going as hungry as the world in which we live. I suggest this is an area into which the committee should look. Perhaps it should encourage our Minister of Agriculture to allocate some funds to this research.
Finally, I would like to deal with another area of research which is being conducted at the Delhi Research Station. Research is being done with respect to the need to cut back on the tars which are present in tobacco which is still being grown. Research being conducted there may well reduce some of the hazards which exist in terms of the carcinogens found in tobacco smoke.
I would like to conclude by saying that in various provinces there were at one time flourishing industries with strong supporting communities which are now suffering badly. I think the compassionate nature of Canadians tells us that they would like to see these people helped into a more productive and acceptable form of work. I encourage Members of the House to agree to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that it can be given in-depth consideration. In this way we may be of some assistance to one sector of the community which is suffering very seriously.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support my colleague in what he has just said concerning this motion, and I cannot help remembering that Canadians not too long ago had the opportunity to learn about a somewhat contradictory situation.
The Government invested substantial amounts of money to support a campaign against the use of tobacco. It made a big fuss about the need for Canadian men and women to become aware of the dangers of tobacco, with the hope of seeing them reduced their smoking. At the same time, the Government was spending tens of millions of dollars to help tobacco growers.
I suppose that a great many Canadians have reacted the way I did and felt that these two initiatives were somewhat contradictory.
I think, however, that the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) deserves our support, especially when we realize the importance of this industry for Canada.
Our hon. friends opposite are blaming us, saying we are against everything for the sake of being against everything. Well, Mr. Speaker, when legislation makes sense and is relevant, as that introduced by my hon. friend certainly is, I think that my Party makes a point to support it and encourage it. I believe this initiative deserves all our encouragement and all
our support if we stop for a few moments to appreciate the importance of the undertaking.
I was somewhat amazed to realize how many constituencies actually produce tobacco. Those constituencies are to be found in Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Those tobacco producing areas are in a relatively bad position to meet the changing demand for tobacco.
However, there are still many people directly involved in that industry, which for instance in the first half of 1985 was valued at $137 million, 69 per cent of which was in Ontario and 19 per cent in Quebec. And to go on with the information I have here before me, tobacco production was stable in 1985. All areas except Quebec experienced a decrease in the value of their tobacco production. More than 10,000 Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are permanently employed in tobacco production, and 40,000 other Canadians are provided with seasonal employment. And there are more than 7,000 people working in the processing of tobacco which is being done in approximately ten plants, both in Quebec and in Ontario. In 1983, 9 plants, 6 in Quebec and 3 in Ontario, produced a total of 63 billion cigarettes, which probably was much too high.
We are facing a situation that is quite contradictory in itself, as I must recognize. The fact is we must, on the one hand, try to help those tobacco producers, and also those communities that depend on them, that have grown in line with that production, that directly depend on it, and the future of which is closely linked with the performance of the tobacco industry. So the motion now before us proposes that the Standing Committee on Agriculture be empowered to study that question, through some sort of in-depth scrutiny, to derive some kind of expertise, and surely on future possibilites, on the present situation, so that we might take concrete steps to help those thousands of persons directly affected by that industry. The motion as such seems most commendable. It must be encouraged and supported, and such is the approach taken by this Party regarding this motion, as we give it our unreserved support.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the few moments to explain the support which we will be giving to this measure. We in my Party agree that this item should go to a committee for further discussion. We do this, however, in an attempt to make it very clear that the decisions which have to be made now by the Government should in no way await any decision by that committee. There are some very clear decisions which are on the desk of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) at the moment which require immediate action if the tobacco farmers in Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec are going to survive another year or two years.
November 21, 1985

As the House has been made aware, the tobacco farmers are under a great deal of economic pressure at the moment because the Tobacco Manufactures Council-which is in effect a very well organized oligopoly working of a few very powerful companies which have decided to work together through that Council-have organized themselves to fight the attempt by the producers to form a National Marketing Agency. The permissive legislation for that Agency was passed in this House in the fall of 1984 and the farmers have hit road-block after road-block in implementing that plan and getting it to work. The most recent road-block was a court order by one of the justices of our court system who suggested that because the cost of production formula had not been submitted to cross-examination by the tobacco manufacturers, either the process should be reinitiated or the whole thing stopped entirely. The Cabinet now has a decision to make as to whether to appeal that decision through the courts or to direct its National Farm Products Marketing Council to reinitiate the hearings concerning the cost of production Figures which are proposed in the plan. Either way, it will take some time and will probably mean that tobacco farmers will miss one more year of having the right to negotiate prices on a national basis and to have some control over imports.
That is extremely important when we look at what these 2,000 producers are up against. Over the years demand for their product has actually been holding or increasing slightly in Canada. Smoking is becoming less popular as the health effects are becoming better understood. Basically we produced some 58 billion cigarettes in the 1970s and we seem to be producing 60 billion or 61 billion cigarettes in the 1980s. Therefore the production has remained relatively stable. Yet we are told by the Tobacco Marketing Council this year that it only needs 60 million or 70 million pounds of a normal requirement of some 170 million to 180 million pounds. The proposition which is being put forward on the table indicates that the Tobacco Marketing Council is not particularly interested in this tobacco crop. The reason it is doing this is quite clear. It happens every time the farmers get the right to put forward a marketing plan. The buyers of that product do everything in their power to make certain that the plan does not get off the ground.
We have suggested to the Minister in this House that one of the ways, perhaps, he could help to ease the two parties toward the bargaining table would be to make it very clear to the Tobacco Marketing Council, the manufacturers, that if it chooses to pull out of the country-which is one of the threats it has thrown out a number of times-that brands of tobacco or products those particular companies choose to produce would no longer be permitted back into the country, for health reasons, trade reasons and a whole host of other reasons. The Minister has hesitated to make such a move. We have found that in order to make up the clearly understood shortfall of the manufacturers' production requirements in this country, they have been importing products from outside. That seems to be of concern both amongst health people and producers, perhaps for different reasons, but sometimes their interests are fairly
Tobacco Growing Industry
common. They are concerned about pesticide residue in this imported product. The tobacco growers of Ontario had written to the Minister of Agriculture asking for upgraded analyses of imported tobacco for pesticide residue content, and they received a nice reply from the Minister on November 5 which said that officers from the agriculture inspection directorate of his Department will collect the sample material and forward it to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Pesticide Residue Laboratory at the University of Guelph for analysis. He said: "Officers of my Department will be in touch with you directly to co-ordinate their sampling activities with any special needs or interests that you may have". He had explained previously in the letter that it was a joint federal-provincial sampling agreement which was at work.
Some 10 days later another letter arrived on the subject of imported tobacco samples which came from the program officer, pesticides, Ontario region, who informed the board: "It has come to my attention that our tobacco sampling program must temporarily be put on hold. Customs officials in Ottawa have refused to provide the information required for timely sampling." We do not seem to be getting uniform messages from the federal Government with regard to this issue. The question that continues to arise is whether the Government is concerned and interested in setting up such a national program. Is it concerned about protecting producers in Canada? The actions to date are not clear, and I think that it is time that producers received a little more indication from the Minister of Agriculture, and from the Cabinet, that they are indeed serious about setting up this national agency.
This is important not only for agriculture but for consumers as well because it provides a means of monitoring the size of the crop and imports. This is an extremely important power to have in the hands of farmers when they know they are producing a commodity which has limited expansion possibilities. Without a national marketing board it will be chaos for those producers and towns and villages in tobacco producing areas. Without those powers they will not be able to restrict production in a way which will permit them to ease slowly into the production of other crops and out of tobacco. Without the protection of such an agency it will be the dog eat dog world of a big oligopoly or near monopoly picking off the smaller producers one after the other. Hundreds of tobacco producers will be forced out of business this year, several hundred next year, until the industry has shrunk to just a few producers. The producers themselves have been trying to do that in a more humane way by operating through a marketing agency to distribute the pain and permit the industry to shrink to fit the new health conscious consumers we have now.
Tobacco producers are attempting to fit their product to this new reality. As the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) noted, Canadian tobacco has one of the lower tar contents of any tobacco in the world. This means it has a slightly lower carcinogen level so there is somewhat less of a chance of contracting cancer of the lungs and related diseases due to smoking. I do not want to leave the impression that Canadian

November 21, 1985
Tobacco Growing Industry
tobacco is necessarily good for you. There are 30,000 to 35,000 Canadians who die each year from tobacco-related diseases. About 5,000 of those people have not smoked but have had secondary exposure to smoke in private meeting rooms and in public places. About one-fifth to one-seventh of the people who contract cancer and related diseases are people who are not active smokers themselves. As well we have a cost to the economy each year of some $85 million in property loss due to fire started by careless smokers. Therefore, there are some very real economic and health reasons for phasing down smoking, and only a national marketing agency will permit producers to make the necessary adjustments without causing undue harm and hardship to their communities. They will be able to make the transition over a few years rather than having to decide whether they go bankrupt next year or not.
I hope that when this proposal goes to committee the committee's work will encompass not only production and marketing problems, and the shenanigans going on between growers and processors, but that it will also spend a considerable amount of time on the health effects of the use of tobacco. I hope it will look at possible changes to the tax laws which will have an impact both on the growers and users of tobacco.
The committee should also look at the use of tobacco advertising. From the roughly $300 million of product that the farmer sells there is generated just over $2 billion of economic activity through processing, taxing and advertising of tobacco products. Advertising is a very large part of that $2 billion. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has just begun an anti-smoking advertising campaign. It is a very small campaign and we should be looking at proposals to change the tax laws as they apply to advertising. Perhaps it is time to look at a system for reducing the amount of advertising dollars which can be claimed as legitimate expenses for tax purposes by tobacco companies. Perhaps we should place a surtax on advertising to raise money to produce a counteradvertising campaign as well as providing assistance to producers to get into new forms of agricultural production. These are some things the committee should look at when it sets out its terms of reference. I hope the committee is able to follow in the footsteps of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) who produced the report on tobacco and a part of the industry in 1971 and presented it to this House at that time. It is time to review the industry from production to final use, to look at the health effects, and look at a means of marketing which will permit producers to adjust to the new realities.
Because my time is nearly up and I am putting you to sleep, Mr. Speaker, I think we should stop at this point, vote on the proposal, which I understand will receive unanimous approval, and send it off to the appropriate committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed. Motion agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to raise a question which I feel is very important, in the circumstances.
The previous Member for Lotbiniere, Mr. Speaker, was probably one of the most forceful defenders of the agri-food industry in recent years. He represented a riding where farming is the major industry, as it is in Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and Drummondville, and the Member in question, and I am referring to Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois, worked very hard for the implementation of a project that was to be set up in his riding, at Victoriaville.
I am referring to the plant protection laboratory that was to be established for the purpose of enforcing the Plant Quarantine Act. It was a project worth $13 million, of which $12 million was to be financed from the Laprade Fund and $1 million from public funds allocated under the budget for Agriculture Canada.
The project was officially announced on June 13, 1984, and this announcement was followed by an Order in Council on July 11, 1984-I can even give the House the number: 794586-which made the project official.
The project as such would have had and was supposed to have a very positive impact on this farming district. I saw it as a sign that the agricultural industry in this riding, and in Saint-Hyacinthe and Lennoxville where other laboratories were set up, had attained the status it deserved. During the election campaign, the project was frequently discussed, and the present Member made a firm commitment that the project would be implemented in the weeks following his election. Surprisingly, today it is November 21, so it was a year ago on September 4, when I put a question recently to the Minister, the Hon. Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Wise) answered, and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, I regret that 1 do not
November 21, 1985

have sufficient information to respond specifically about the project to which the Hon. Member refers. I am very happy to take notice of the question and will get back to the Hon. Member."
This was not a project worth $30,000, $35,000 or $50,000, Mr. Speaker. This was a project worth $13 million with spinoffs in terms of very good jobs for 50 technicians and 15 scientists, not to mention the supporting staff and all the indirect benefits .. . This is a project worth $13 million, and all the Minister of Agriculture can reply is this: I do not know. I do not have the information.
Mr. Speaker, this makes me wonder about what the present Hon. Member has been doing for his riding. Instead of coming to my riding and telling my constituents that the federal Government would richly subsidize industrial motels, which is not the case, I think that he should limit himself to defending the interests of his riding and make the necessary representations to his Minister, because it seems to me totally unacceptable that the Minister of Agriculture should not be aware of a project worth $13 million which had been planned for Vic-toriaville.
There had been an announcement. The Treasury Board had approved the expenditures and civil servants had even taken steps to find the proper site. Now, a year and a few months after this announcement, the Minister makes the following statement: I do not know what it is all about. I am going to find out and get back to the Hon. Member in due course.
This is an insult to a great many people who have been waiting for this project and are dependent upon it being carried out. Under the previous administration, we had put together two projects which I felt had extremely important benefits. There was the Mapping Centre in Sherbrooke and the Plant Health Centre in Victoriaville. These were two regional projects which would have established the economic importance of the greater Eastern Townships and Bois-Francs area. And of those two projects, one is being questioned and the other one is unknown in Ottawa.
I think that under the circumstances, I am not being petty when I ask myself certain questions and when I say that I have some reservations about what has been done, because if I had a $13 million project for my riding, you can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that I would harass the Minister, I would raise the matter with him day after day until a final decision is reached. Will it be built or not?
Mir. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) cannot be faulted for not responding immediately when the question was put to him on October 31. As Hon. Members know, when specific questions are raised during oral questions period, Mr. Speaker himself does not
Adjournment Debate
usually allow five- or ten-minute answers to any given question.
So the Minister simply said that he would eventually get back to the Hon. Member, and we now have the opportunity to do so this evening.
As the Hon. Member would know, the Minister of Agriculture reviews his programs on a regular basis to make sure they are still appropriate and meet the requirements of the industries for which they are designed.
One of the programs under active consideration has to do with the protection of vegetables and related quarantine facilities. The mandate of the Department is to prevent the introduction and spreading of agents which might be harmful to the production and marketing of plants and their products. We must also ensure that all farm and forest products likely to harbour phytoparasites meet the quarantine standards of importing countries.
The departmental study committee includes representatives from the private sector. That sector does not act lightly. Canada's achievements in that sector are highly esteemed everywhere, and it is my view that we must maintain that high level of quality.
The number and the location of inspection points for crops under plant quarantine are included in the list of problems identified by the comittee, Mr. Speaker.
The committee also looks into the way the program's scientific support services are distributed to optimize the ratio of inspection and program staff to the scientific support staff. This is something not to be done lightly. I appreciate that as a crash action, the previous Government, perhaps to get the support of people in that area, wanted to announce a project to get votes. That may have been so, but people were not misled.
There is also a sub-committee that is now looking into how and where this project is to be undertaken.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, we took specific measures to make sure that the right location is chosen. Consider also the fact that the site which had been selected and which still has not been rejected up until now, gave rise within that very committee and within the private sector itself, to certain difficulties linked with its remoteness with respect to transportation, from some areas. This was not raised by us but by the private sector, which you have a duty to represent, as I do, and as does each and every Member in this House.
In view of the fact that this Government is also making every effort to control its expenditures, something the previous Government was not doing . . . They found it easy to announce projects, because with a running deficit that had reached $200 billion, $13 million did not make that much difference. But this is not the way we-
The private sector is asked to invest, the Government joins in, perhaps not to the least possible extent, but still it must join

November 21, 1985
Adjournment Debate
in so that projects are carried out, but it is not the Government's role to always assume the financial responsibility for all those projects.
Mr. Speaker, that project should ... by the end of the fiscal year, we will have a final answer concerning the location of that centre.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.08 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
mam
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 22, 1985