1985-10-03

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-62, an Act respecting Employment equity, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to move second reading of Bill C-62. Sir, this Bill is an historic piece of legislation. For the first time in the history of this country we have legislation before this House which enshrines the principle of equality in the work place throughout Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Sir, we have legislation that guarantees the removal of employment barriers for women, native people, handicapped persons and visible minorities. This Bill is about opportunity, because employment equity is about opportunity, opportunity for Canadians everywhere to earn a decent living and participate fully in our society, opportunity for people to be judged by what they can do. Bill C-62 is a crucial step forward, the First major step in ensuring equal access to new opportunities for all Canadians.

The fact that we are giving employment equity legal status creates an important precedent. We are showing, as legislators, that we are committed to bringing greater social justice to the work place. We are proving that this House believes strongly that every Canadian is entitled to equal opportunities for employment, and furthermore, we are promoting a spirit of fairness, co-operation and understanding which, I firmly believe, will be reflected throughout the country.

That spirit of fairness which I speak of, Mr. Speaker, that same spirit of fairness which is fundamental to the legislation, is also reflected in the commitment to equity and equality which characterizes the Canadian job strategy, because employment equity is fundamental to the Canadian job strategy. Again, Sir, that spirit of fairness is reflected in the
announcement that was made by myself and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) just two weeks ago. From now on social assistance recipients, many of whom are really the very people affected by this particular piece of legislation, will have opportunities for training and employment that were really not accessible to them heretofore.
The legislation before us today breaks new ground. It is not enough just to say that we are for equal opportunity. For years people have been saying that what we need is real change, we need to shake up the workplace. For many years women and other target groups have demanded legislation on employment equity. Sir, we are providing it. We have gone beyond the removal of barriers. We have demanded in this legislation that employers take special measures to ensure that women, native people, handicapped persons and visible minorities are able to participate fully in the workplace. We are telling employers: look at your operations and make the change now.
This legislation represents a milestone for many Canadians in their struggle to gain proper recognition in the workplace, recognition which, I may say, is long overdue. For too long, Sir, Canadian women have been denied a chance to reach their full earning potential. Native people and visible minorities have been refused job interviews, not because of their competence but because of the colour of their skin. Sir, disabled persons have been rejected because it was thought that it might be too difficult to accommodate them. This Government is not prepared to sit by and let discrimination, whether overt or unintentional, deny these people a chance to get ahead, to grow, to show what they can do and to contribute all their talents, skills and abilities to our society.
[DOT] (mo)
This legislation testifies to our readiness to act in the interests of fairness and social justice, to eliminate obvious cases of discrimination and to root out less obvious ones. This kind of systemic discrimination has unfortunately become part of traditional employment practices.
Fairness and equality in the workplace is not just a watchword for social justice. It is also, I may say, a vital element in our economic growth and development. Put simply, we need these people. We need their talent, their skills and their energy if we are to remain productive as a society and as a country.
We face tough competition in the years ahead. If we are to be able to face the challenge posed by rapid technological change and new trade patterns, then we will have to draw on the full range of human resources. We need to build a strong, highly motivated, skilled workforce that will be able to compete with anyone, anywhere in the world, that will be able to increase our productivity and efficiency.

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
Bill C-62 is the first step, the first step in mobilizing a full human resource potential for the huge challenge that we have
ahead.
What does the Bill do, Mr. Speaker? It requires all federal employers, all federally regulated businesses, which have 100 or more employees, whether Crown corporations or businesses in the private sector, to remove employment barriers and to eliminate discrimination in the workplace. This legislation covers all federally regulated employers in the fields of banking, transportation, communication and natural resources. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, employers will have one year to put the appropriate systems in place in order to collect essential data. They will have to examine their hiring methods without delay and find ways to correct unfair practices that have been tolerated far too long. It follows that changes must be initiated as soon as possible. Employers who fail to comply with the obligation to file reports will be liable to a fine of up to $50,000. Each year, a consolidation of these reports will be included in a progress report to Parliament.

Under this legislation, employers must identify barriers to target groups, and they must remove them. They must adopt special measures that will involve senior level commitment and management accountability. They must begin immediately hiring, training and developing target group members in all areas of their organization, by moving women into occupations from which they have been excluded in the past. They must show the progress they have made.
Beginning in 1988, these employers will be required by law to report annually to Parliament. This means that by January, 1987, just over a year from now, employers must have their systems in place so that they can collect the date needed to provide a full report on 1987 operations.
All employers must provide a detailed breakdown of their labour force by designated group so that we can check the status of designated group members within occupational areas. Employers must report on hirings, on promotions and on terminations of designated group members, and they must supply specific data on the salary ranges of designated group members within the organization. The annual reports, which are submitted by employers, will be made available for public scrutiny and media scrutiny across the country. We will bring the strongest possible pressure to bear on employers-the force of public opinion.
Data will be made available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This means that for the first time the commission will have access to data on the participation of women, of native people, of disabled persons and of visible minorities. It will have that data available, data which it has never had before and therefore has never permitted the commission to do the job it should. For the first time the commission will be in a position, not only to respond to complaints received, but to
initiate its own investigations based upon information contained in a company's report.
Of course, we recognize-and we have been asked about this-that this will place an extra burden or demand upon the Canadian Human Rights Commission. For this reason we are committed to providing that commission with the additional resources required to carry out this work. In effect, we will have a two-tiered enforcement system. The first is the court of public opinion, and I can say to Hon. Members on all sides of this Chamber that the court of public opinion is the strongest court there is. As well, we have the full force of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


Mr. Waddell:: As well as the criminal division.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member opposite in the New Democratic Party derides the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As a Member of Parliament, I am proud that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be involved in this.
What will we achieve through Bill C-62? First of all, we will ensure that all organizations within federal jurisdiction implement employment equity measures. However, there is a further gain.

We want to show all Canadian employers who are not federally regulated that the underlying principle of employment equity is a concept for the future. I believe that in addition to its regulatory aspect, the Bill introduces an element of change that is very instructive.
By setting an example, we intend to demonstrate that distinctions between black and white, men and women, normal and handicaped do not exist when we are talking about employees. Only one criterion counts: the ability to hold a job. We intend to prove to employers and to all Canadians that employment equity is worthwhile.
I would like to share with the House some comments made recently by the President of Xerox Canada Limited, Mr. David McCamus. During an interview for the Financial Times, he said:
If wc consider women as a separate group, we are limiting our scope, and we cannot afford to do so in the competitive world we live in today. To remain competitive, we must be able to tap the broadest possible range of ressources.
That is the kind of thinking that we want to achieve through Bill C-62, not grudging acceptance but a realization that employment equity makes good sense.
In addition to this legislation we will require federal contractors, that is firms doing business with the Government, to implement employment equity. Businesses with 100 or more
October 3, 1985

employees bidding on contracts for goods and services of $200,000 or more will be subject to stringent employment equity guidelines. A formal review process will monitor this policy. Contractors who fail to live up to their signed declaration of action will be denied the opportunity of competing for future Government business.
This new policy will have a far-reaching impact on Government contractors. It will cover about 500 major Canadian firms and well in excess of half a million employees. This policy will cover federal contracts for goods and services with a projected total dollar value of at least $5 billion. At the same time, we are making vigorous efforts to ensure that all contractors, large and small, implement employment equity.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62 represents a bold new move. It goes further than any Government in this country, federal or provincial has ever gone. Federal Governments in the past have not touched this issue and provincial Governments have not moved as far in this direction.
The issues it raises are complex and they affect a large number of Canadians. We must move carefully to ensure that measures to achieve this goal, which for far too long has eluded us as a society, are now firmly put in place. I know very well that all Members of this House share in the goal of employment equity and I hope that Members will take this opportunity during this debate to share their ideas and their views on this very critical matter.
I would say that if we lived in a perfect world we really would not need legislation like Bill C-62. Unfortunately, we do not live in that perfect world. As long as we do not, then we have to remain vigilant to see that those who suffer from discrimination have an equal chance to share in the rich potential of this country. This Government intends to be more than vigilant. It intends to act. It intends to redress imbalances in the workplace which have existed for far too long. It intends to create a society of equal opportunity in this country, and this legislation will help to achieve that goal.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the substance of this Bill I simply want to say a few words about the way the Government has organized its House business and the fact that we are debating this Bill today when it was not listed on the list of business announced by the Government House Leader last Thursday. The Government House Leader usually on Thursdays lists the business, the Bills to be debated for the following week. That gives all Parties involved an idea as to how to prepare themselves. This Bill was not so listed. It was not listed the week before or the week before that. However, it was listed four weeks ago but did not proceed.
Because we only heard yesterday about the fact that this Bill would be debated today, our critic on women's issues and our critic on issues facing the handicapped cannot be present to debate the Bill because they have to attend an important women's conference outside of Ottawa. This leaves us unable
Employment Equity
to debate properly an important Bill like this one. When the Government says that it believes in parliamentary reform, and I believe it is serious about that, it should keep in mind these kinds of situations in which we are not able to give proper consideration and debate to an important Bill.
When the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) rises on Thursday to read to the House the list of Government business, that list should be adhered to unless people are sick or there are important crises that require a change in that list. Aside from those important exceptions, the Bills that are listed on Thursday should be proceeded with in the order announced by the Government House Leader so that all Parties that wish to take part in the debate can prepare themselves and participate in it.
With respect to this Bill, on June 24, 1983, the then Minister of Employment and Immigration appointed Judge Rosalee Abella to head the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment. The Abella Commission was to look into effective and equitable means of eliminating discrimination and promoting employment opportunities for four target groups: women, native people, visible minorities and disabled persons. Judge Abella reported in November 1984 and her report recommended that legislation was required to ensure equality in employment. She said that voluntary measures do not work and that quotas were inappropriate and not recommended by the report. She said that legislation of equality requires an enforcement agency, and she put forward three alternatives for an enforcement agency. She said that all federally regulated agencies should be subject to employment equity legislation. She recommended that provincial compliance of international and federal legislation on equal pay for work of equal value was required and she also recommended a national child care Act.
The appointment of the Abella Commission and the report of Judge Abella was a logical follow-up to the Charter of Rights adopted in 1981 and in particular Article 15, the equality section, which has been in force as of the spring of this year. Further legislation with respect to Article 15 is now being studied by a special committee of this House.
As well, it was a logical follow-up to the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1977 and the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, all important accomplishments along the road to equality, not only in the workplace but in society.
It was the logical follow-up as well to several task force reports prepared in the last Parliament including the task force report on visible minorities which made recommendations along these lines, the task force report entitled Obstacles dealing with the problems of handicapped people and the report on employment opportunities in the eighties. All these task force reports recommended the removal of barriers to equity to designated groups in the labour market-place.
We see that there has been a great change in attitude with respect to the matter of employment equity. According to a Gallup poll that was taken in March 1985, Canadians have reversed their position on equal job opportunities for married

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
women in the past 25 years. Today, 77 per cent of Canadians believe that married women should receive the same opportunities as men in the market-place and only 18 per cent would give men first chance at a job. Some 25 years ago only 23 per cent of Canadians favoured that type of equal opportunity. There has been a great change in attitude in this country with respect to equal opportunity for women in the labour market.
On the other hand, systemic discrimination still exists and is fairly widespread in the country. In a report handed down in May of this year by the Urban Alliance on Race Relations of Toronto that organization reported, and I quote from an article found in The Globe and Mail of May 14:
Bigotry, prejudice and discrimination against visible minorities are widespread and entrenched in policies and practices of small and large employers in the Metro Toronto labour market-
The alliance found that slightly more than half of management participants in the study had negative things to say about racial minorities. Only 9 per cent of 199 large employers stated a firm belief in racial equality. That is rather shocking.
In the alliance's 121-page report entitled No Discrimination Here?, it is stated that 28 per cent of employers said they felt non-whites in general do not have the ability to meet job performance criteria when compared with whites. As I have said, that is shocking indictment with respect to those employers in the Toronto area. I have a feeling that that sort of sentiment exists in other parts of the county as well.
On March 8 of this year, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) made a statement in the House responding to the recommendations of Judge Abella in which she announced the Government's intention to take up some of Judge Abella's recommendations but not all of them. In responding to the Minister on that date I said that the Government's announcement was a step in the right direction but that it was enough. I said that some key Abella recommendations had been left out which should not have been left out.
Bill C-62 which is before us today and which was given first reading on June 27 is intended to carry out some of the intentions announced by the Minister on March 8. In examining the Bill we find that in many respects it is even weaker than the indications made in the Minister's statement of March 8. If we look at Clause 2 of the Bill we will see that it states the purpose of the Bill, which 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 person who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada-
We give full support to the principles and purposes set out in the clause. However, when we look further at the Bill we see that the measures introduced are not adequate to accomplish the goals set out in the Purpose. They do not put forward the sort of measures which were recommended by Judge Abella, nor do we believe that the definition of employer is broad enough. The definition takes in a certain number of employers.
For private employers under federal Government jurisdiction, which is a minority of employers in the country, it includes all those who have 100 or more employees. The same is true with respect to employers performing a function on behalf of the Government of Canada, other than a Department as defined in the Financial Administration Act. We find that provision could be strengthened as well.
My principal criticism of the Bill is that it simply instructs employers to introduce employment equity while making no provision for a monitoring agency. There are no penalties for employers who do not move ahead with the introduction of employment equity. It is true that employers must file reports with the Minister and there are penalties if they do not file the reports. However, if the report does not show sufficient progress, the penalty set out in the Bill is for not filing the report as opposed to a penalty for not proceeding with employment equity.
If we look at the Bill we will see that the requirements placed on employers are very vague and subjective. In Clause 4 it states:
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;
That leaves to the employer the identification of those employment practices which the employer believes are employment barriers against persons in designated groups. The employers are the ones who decide what the barriers are. The barriers are not spelled out, nor are they defined. The guideline is too vague. There are no firm requirements applied to employers. There are no provisions for policemen or enforcement agencies and no penalties for employers who do not move ahead. There are only penalties if they do not report. Judge Abella clearly stated in her report that this was not acceptable and that it does not work. She stated that voluntary measures with guidelines have been tried, they have not worked and that it is unfortunate but that is the fact.
When we look at the wording of the report it states that the commission has concluded that voluntary measures are an unsatisfactory response to the pervasiveness of a systemic discrimination in the Canadian workplace and it has therefore recommended that all federally regulated employers be required by legislation to implement employment equity. Judge Abella also states that the commission's review of the American experience of mandatory affirmative action confirmed that legislated enforceable requirements are essential to the success of affirmative action programs. The commission concluded that the enforcement of employment equity requires an independent agency which has a qualified staff familiar with labour relations, employment systems and human rights issues and which has sufficient resources to discharge its mandate. The Bill does not do any of that. It does not have the provision for an enforcement agency. It does not have clear-cut requirements for employers with respect to employment equity.
October 3, 1985

What do others say with respect to this measure? I have given Hon. Members my criticism of the Bill, but what do others say? I have in my hand a release put out by a group called the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities which announced:
Over 1.00 consumer activists and agency advocates met on April 10 at the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped to form a new coalition with the express purpose of ensuring that the recommendations of Judge Rosalie Abella's Royal Commission Report on Equity in Employment are put into effect by government.
In a statement prepared by the coalition it says that the proposed government plan, that is, this Bill, is "ineffective and unacceptable". The coalition states that the program has no effective enforcement mechanism and what is required is equal access to jobs. The report goes on to state that the Government appears to have rejected the recommendations of both the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped in its report Obstacles and those of the Abella Royal Commission.
Further in this regard I read from a statement of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women as reported in The Gazette of September 17. The council says that it wants Ottawa to put sharper teeth in its Bill to force Crown corporations and federally regulated companies to hire more women and minorities.
A few moments ago I referred to the Urban Alliance on Race Relations of Toronto. The alliance also put out a statement which it distributed to all Members of Parliament in which is set out a criticism of this Bill. I quote from the statement in part:
What is missing from the legislation is the following: (1) one central enforcement and standard-setting agency for all four sectors-departments, crown corporations, contractors, and federally-regulated businesses, with powers to:
(1)	Define program requirements;
(2)	Set standards for goals and timetables;
(3)	Receive, analyze, and publish employers' workforce data;
(4)	Impose program requirements and penalties on non-complying
employers;
The alliance states that the legislation is missing mandatory programs for all four sectors and that it is also missing contract compliance for all government contractors with over 50 employees and $200,000 worth of government contracts per year.
I also refer to a report in which a good cross-section of business also agreed that enforceable standards are required if there is to be equity of employment in the workplace. I have a quote of William McEwen, Chairman of the Resources and Equal Opportunity Committee of the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers. He said, and I quote:
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.
The article goes on to say that if all employers are going to be treated equally, and if we are going to see real advances among employers, we will need clear-cut standards for employment equity which are enforceable.
Employment Equity
Several of my colleagues, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, have responsibility for the designated groups referred to in this Bill. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin), is responsible for the status of women for our Party, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone), was the former critic for the status of women. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) is responsible for visible minorities. The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) is responsible for the handicapped and the Hon. Member for Cochrane Superior (Mr. Penner) is responsible for Indians and native people. These issues are all touched by this Bill and these Hon. Members will all want to put on record their views as to how this Bill does not satisfy those designated groups in the way that it should. I am sure they will want to participate in this debate.
In committee, Mr. Speaker, we will want a full opportunity for these designated groups to be heard. We would like them to have an opportunity to give their views to the committee. As a result of those hearings, we would hope that the Minister will leave the door open to amendments so that this Bill can be made a much better Bill as a result of the committee system.
We have moved into a new era with respect to committees and if we are serious about greater powers for committees, I would hope that whatever committee deals with the Bill, after hearing many of the things I have said here today, will bring forward amendments and that the Minister will agree to those amendments.
This Bill attempts to move in the right direction. It is a small step in the right direction but it is inadequate and a disappointment. It does not implement the Abella recommendations and it does not satisfy many of the designated groups, nor the Official Opposition.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no doubt that employment equity is the goal which all in this House share. I believe the whole area of employment equity is very, very important.
What we are really talking about today is a need in this country for greater fairness and for more jobs. We are talking about fairness in jobs for the women of Canada who still face massive discrimination in the workplace whether in the federal Government, the provincial or municipal Government, or the private sector. What we are talking about is fairness in jobs for the disabled Canadians who, because of their disability, face even more problems when they try to get a job.
We are talking about fairness in jobs for visible minorities who, because of the colour of their skin or other characteristics, face discrimination when seeking a job, and we are also talking about fairness and justice for native Canadians who, despite the fact that they were the first Canadians and have lived here for hundreds of years, face perhaps more discrimination than anyone else when it comes to job training and jobs throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on September 4 last year, the Governemnt was given a massive mandate. During that election campaign there

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
was a lot of talk about job creation, but this country still has 1.5 million unemployed, which means an unemployment rate of 10.3 per cent.
The situation is even worse for Canadian women and minority groups including visible minorities, the handicapped and our native peoples. Despite the fact that we live in a very rich country with a great deal of natural ressources, and that we have a large number of highly educated people, there still is a lot of discrimination in Canada today.

Even though the Minister is talking very positively, using all kinds of rhetoric and talking about all kinds of goals and objectives in her speech, and even though she is using all kinds of very fine clothing to dress up the Bill, the Bill before the House has major problems. We can see these major problems by examining the Abella Report. The Bill before the House is voluntary in terms of fighting for affirmative action. In fact, the only thing in the Bill which is mandatory, Mr. Speaker, is the requirement that there must be a report every year.
Second, there is no enforcement mechanism in the Bill in any mandatory sense, and the Minister knows that. Third, the Bill does not strike goals and objectives or give timetables for achieving employment equity for women and minorities. Finally, the Bill is not comprehensive. It does not deal with the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, the whole problem of daycare and all kinds of other problems which women and minorities face in this country.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's already law.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister says it is already law.


Ms. Mitchell:: It's not in force.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have all kinds of problems with those concepts-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It doesn't need legislation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself said in the election campaign. And if we are going to have real employment equity for women and minority groups, we need a more comprehensive approach.
I do think we need mandatory affirmative action in this country. We do need an independent enforcement agency and goals, objectives and timetables which are spelled out in the legislation, and we do need, I feel, a more comprehensive Bill. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have also talked to many groups in Quebec, and a number of unions and other Quebec groups have expressed their dissatisfaction with this Bill. For instance, the Vice-President of the Federation des travailleurs du Quebec, Marie Pinsonneault, stated during the conference held by the Canadian Labour Congress last weekend that the Bill itself was an insult to Quebecers . . . Even the French text-

Perhaps we can get the Minister to take a look at this. [Translation]
The French text does not reflect the intent made clear in the English text. For instance, on page 2-

-where they speak about employment equity in English. [Translation]
In French this is: fiQUITfe PROFESSIONNELLE
It is certainly not equite professionnelle but equity for any woman and any minority group in this country. But in the French text, it says:
"f-QUITfe PROFESSIONNELLE"
In English, it says employment equity.
Mr. Speaker, I have another example in Section 4 of the same Bill, where we read in English:

"Plant employment equity by ..."

But in French, it reads:
L'employeur vise a i'equite professionnelle par les actions suivantes:
Mr. Speaker, "vise" implies an objective but not an obligation.
Mr. Speaker, this is a distortion. There is a distinct difference between the two versions. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of discrimination against women here in Canada. In the Abella Report, in Table 5, we read that in the executive and administrative groups only 25 per cent are Canadian women, while 75 per cent are men; in the technical, scientific and mathematic groups, only 14 per cent are Canadian women. In Table 10, the Report says that the gap between men's and women's salaries is enormous, when we consider that the average income of women is only 64 per cent of that for men here in Canada. In her report, Judge Abella also says there are many similar statistics that demonstrate very clearly that discrimination exists against native peoples, visible minorities and the handicapped in this country.
The Canadian experience in affirmative action programs is very short compared to that in the United States. In the United States they had voluntary affirmative action programs for many years. About 25 years ago they decided that they had to have mandatory programs which were enforced because voluntary programs were not working at all.
I have an article which was in The Globe and Mail very recently. The headline is, "U.S. Big Business Bullish on Affirmative Action Laws". In the United States they found that if
October 3, 1985

affirmative action programs are mandatory it is good for big business, for the economy, and for making a profit. Despite the fact that Ronald Reagan has recently been trying to backtrack on some of the mandatory aspects of affirmative action laws in the United States, big business sees it as a very good thing.
In this country we have tried voluntary equal employment opportunity programs in the past. In most cases they have not been very effective. Judge Abella relates in her report how the proportion of women or minority groups which she studied has not been increased in terms of job opportunities and that discrimination has not really lessened in our country despite voluntary programs. We have the Human Rights Commission and human rights laws, but they only act when someone files a complaint. That is why we need some mandatory action in this country.
I think that Bill C-62 is a signpost that the Government has not really learned that voluntary affirmative action programs do not work. It has not really learned from the American experience and it has not really understood what Judge Abella is saying in her report. Mr. Speaker, the Government is trying to reinvent the wheel. It is trying to do the same old thing that has not worked in this country for years and years. This Bill is only a timid step forward which will not change things in any substantive way. The only part of the program that is mandatory is the reporting procedure and there is a $50,000 fine if someone does not report what they are doing in terms of affirmative action. That is all there is in the Bill and both of the Ministers responsible are fully aware of that.
The working paper of the Minister herself which was issued some time ago says that employers will not have to submit specific operational plans for approval by Government or report on specific initiatives. The Minister is saying that there is only the court of pulic opinion. She says that if it is publicized that Company A is doing a bad thing by not hiring enough women or Canadians from various minority groups, the sheer force of public opinion will force it to change its mind. That has not worked in the past, it has not worked in the United States, and I suggest that it is not going to work here now because there are no penalties. It will not bring fairness or more jobs to this country. In fact, on page 195 of her report, Judge Abella said that voluntary programs do not work. The Minister often speaks of this excellent report of Judge Abella and I will quote from it. It reads:
A voluntary program with a mandatory reporting requirements is nonetheless voluntary in the absence of a requirement to remedy the discriminatory practices disclosed by the information reported.
She says that it is still a voluntary program if reporting is all that is required. In her report she says time and again that it must be mandatory, that there must be timetables, and that we must ensure that the employment equity requirements are enforced by law. That is why we need mandatory affirmative action in this country.
Another thing we need is an enforcement agency, which we do not now have. We have no goals or timetables. All of this is so despite the fact that the Prime Minister, when he was
Employment Equity
campaigning as Leader of the Opposition, promised that we would have goals, timetables, and objectives in this country to bring about greater fairness for the women of Canada. He said:
We support the need for effective human resource planning within the federal bureaucracy which includes goals and objectives to achieve parity for women at all levels of government operations commensurate with their skills and expectations. Numerical goals are one of the several measures required. Training and retraining are others.
Where are the numerical goals, where are the targets, where is the timetable, where is the fulfillment of this particular election campaign? I do not see it, Mr. Speaker. It is another promise made and another promise broken by the Prime Minister of Canada. Time and again reference was made to the need for goals and objecties by Judge Abella, the Americans, women, other groups in our society, and the Prime Minister in his appeal for votes. Yet, it is not in the legislation introduced by the Government.
We have heard much talk about the Prime Minister being a union man, representing working people, and driving a truck on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. We hear that he believes in participatory democracy and that people should have more involvement in their own lives. Yet there is no mention whatsoever of the fact that workers who are unionized can have any participation whatsoever in achieving the goals of employment equity. Why is it that, through their unions in a co-operative way, workers cannot participate in achieving the goals of employment equity on behalf of women or other groups which are mentioned in this particular Bill?
I would also like to discuss contract compliance. Last March and April the Minister made much of the need for contract compliance, of the fact that the Government spends billions of dollars a year buying goods and services, and of the fact that we need more awareness of affirmative action programs by the companies from which we purchase goods and services. Yet, there is nothing to force companies to comply with what the Government wants them to comply with. There is nothing mandatory. There is no penalty. In the United States there is mandatory contract compliance. As I said before, in Canada it is voluntary for companies with over 100 employees or contracts of over $200,000. Why not make it mandatory? Does the Government not believe that that should be the case?
I went back through my records and I see another promise made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. That guy made a lot of promises, some 300-odd.


Mr. Boudria:: Three hundred and thirty-eight.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Three hundred and thirty-eight promises. When appealing for the votes of women last summer he said the following with regard to contract compliance:
When seeking government business, these companies will be required to detail their action plans, timetables and programs for attracting, training and advancing women within their operations. This, in my view, is a legitimate and fair requirement.
I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to show us any clause in the Bill which will put into law the promise of the Prime Minister that these compa-

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
nies will be required to detail their action plans rather than merely to report on what they have done for affirmative action employment equity. I see that one Conservative Member of Parliament is so embarrassed he is already over here on the opposition benches. The Prime Minister said that they would be required to detail their action plans, timetables, and programs for attracting, training and advancing women. If you get elected because you have made certain promises and commitments to the people, then I think you should keep those promises in the legislation you bring forward. It is no wonder that the people are becoming very cynical about this Prime Minister. Did he hear about the tuna? Did he hear about a Minister resigning? What did he say about old age pensions? What is he saying about family allowances? I know that the Minister herself would not break a campaign promise, but she is afraid to take a tough stand against the Prime Minister, or she has tried and cannot do it.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Are you kidding?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One of the back-benchers says: Are you kidding? That is a pretty big insult against the Minister. I have more confidence in her than he does. I am sure she has fought for this promise. I am sure she stood up in Cabinet and tried to point out to the Prime Minister that he made a promise of goals and objectives and timetables.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: And he is delivering. Where was the NDP? It was silent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The NDP has not been silent. We have said many times in this House and in the campaign that you must have mandatory goals and targets and objectives. The Prime Minister said, "That is a good idea, Ed". He made that promise and commitment himself. So once again I ask the people of Canada to contact the Conservative Members of Parliament and the Minister and tell them to keep their word. It is a sacred trust, the Prime Minister said. Well, keep your promise to the women and other people of this country. When we talk about affirmative action in contract compliance we are talking about some $12 billion a year of government expenditures, if not more. That is a lot of money, a lot of influence and a lot of impact this Government can have on the private sector from coast to coast.
I said before that I do not think the Bill is comprehensive enough. The whole concept of equal pay for work of equal value is not being enforced in this country as it should be. I do not think you can have any kind of employment equity without a comprehensive Bill which makes sure we have equal pay for work of equal value. We also need more money for daycare. The Minister herself knows that more and more mothers are working when they have small children. Judge Abella said in her report that in 1980 there were some 760,000 children under the age of six whose mothers are in the workforce. We do not have adequate daycare centres in this country.
I think there should also be more initiatives at the federal level to co-operate with the provinces on employment equity and getting rid of discrimination.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Where was the NDP Government in Manitoba?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In that way we can have greater social equity in this country, if I can coin a phrase. We still have tremendous discrimination in access to education for people from poorer families, native families, and all kinds of other groups. We do not have equal access to training in this country. We have all kinds of discrimination against disabled Canadians. You can see this in the architectural design of our buildings and the fact that there are all kinds of public services not available to them. We have all kinds of additional costs for disabled Canadians. We should be taking a lot more action and stronger stands on matters of social equity.
I am very disappointed that the Minister is not implementing the recommendations of Judge Abella to make sure that we have mandatory employment equity in Canada. As I said before, we can quote page after page where she says we need it, that voluntary employment equity and affirmative action will not work. As the Prime Minister said in the campaign, we need to have it in force and written into the law. I ask her why she is so timid. Why is she taking this very tiny step when she has a massive majority and a mandate to act and when she has an absolutely excellent report by Judge Abella to use as an authority? We need timetables, goals and objectives, and we need enforcement. You cannot just go to a big company like General Motors or any other company-perhaps the tuna affair is a good example-and say that we are expecting it to implement affirmative action.
These programs are becoming more and more important as time goes on. We have a changing world economy, world-wide recessions, along with the whole problem of international finances. When unemployment is created it is usually the disadvantaged groups who are laid off first. That is another reason why we need some mandatory affirmative action. Then we have technological change, jobs which are disappearing very rapidly. We have automation in the offices and in banks. Once again it is women and disadvantaged minority groups who are the first to be laid off. We do not want to create more and more job ghettoes in Canada, and it is for those reasons that we must have goals and enforcement if we are to achieve fairness in this country and create more jobs for one and all.
I want to conclude by saying that I have always believed that if you give people the tools and treat them equally, they will build a tremendous country for one and all. They will make a contribution to our society which will make us all proud. Certainly it is the role of the Government to enforce equality and fairness.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me this morning to have an opportunity to speak on this very important Bill, and I hope to deal with some of the misconceptions which have been portrayed by Members on the
October 3, 1985

opposite side of the House about the objectives of this Bill. As we know, at this point we are talking about the principles of the Bill and I think I can speak with some authority. For a number of years I was actually involved in the development and implementation of employment equity programs, both for women and for native people. I know what it is like on the ground to have to do it, not just to mouth the words of criticism we hear in this place. It is a lot more difficult than perhaps the Hon. Member on the other side of the House would have us believe.
During the past six months I have been fortunate as a member of the Special Committee on Equality Rights to travel across the country and hear representatives of the target groups included in this Bill. I have heard from women's groups, visible minority groups, the handicapped and native people. I heard their concerns about achieving equality of opportunity and employment equity and I would like to address some of those concerns as well. In addition, we heard from other Canadians who had great fears and misunderstandings about employment equity, and we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to address those fears and concerns as well. From what I have heard in the House so far this morning, I think there is as much misunderstanding in this House as there is among the general public about what employment equity is all about and the best way of achieving it. I will come back to these points later, but I want to assure my hon. colleagues that the Bill before us does provide for mandatory employment equity and an enforcement mechanism.
There has been lots of talk for many years about employment equity. I know that 25 years ago when I entered the workforce it certainly was not easy. We were saying that there should be more opportunities for women. But how do you go about doing that in effective ways? My colleagues on the opposite side had, of course, many years in which to address this subject and there were a number of reports which brought to their attention the inequities and problems, but really very little was done. It is only in the last year that positive action has been taken on the part of this Government to show our commitment to all Canadians to provide for employment equity.
The report of Judge Abella has been discussed in the House this morning. It was an excellent report by an outstanding woman of our society. It was laid before the House in November, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration provided a comprehensive response in March outlining the focus of Government initiatives. In June of this year we tabled the legislation and we are now debating it. I hope that we will see early passage and we do not waste more opportunities for more groups, many of whom have appeared before various government committees in the past. I would like to see us get on with this very quickly.
I would like to address the points I heard from across the country, and there are points of concern that come from my constituency, about why we need this legislation. Perhaps for
Employment Equity
most of us here it is easy to understand that, but there are some Canadians who do not understand. They see Canadian society as a society which prizes individual freedom and individual responsibility. They ask, why are special actions needed for certain Canadians? We had the myth that if you had a strong back, common sense and determination, you could do anything you wanted to do. The Horatio Alger myth is perpetrated in Canada and a lot of people think that that is the way you should do it, a lot of women, too.
We had women appearing before our equality rights committee who said "I don't want special treatment. I got there on my own. I don't think the Government needs to do anything for us". We have a responsibility to listen to those people as well. Unfortunately, the facts that we know are different.
As Sherry Stein of the Coalition for Employment Equity for Disabled Persons who expressed her view before our committee said:
In an ideal society you do not need affirmative action. But in a society such as ours, where it has been recognized that certain groups of people, including handicapped adults, are at a disadvantage, you do need some kind of measure to catch up to bring these people to a point of equal competition on the job market.
We know also from statistics that there are many groups of disadvantaged. We know that 77 per cent of women in the labour force are in only five of the 22 major job categories. In 1982, a woman with a university degree earned the same as a man with a high school education. Whites have three job prospects for every one for blacks.
My colleague earlier this morning referred to a report done in metropolitan Toronto about discrimination on the basis of race. We know that, unfortunately, it exists in our society still. We know that among employable disabled persons, 50 per cent are unemployed. We know that in many native communities, unemployment is higher than 70 per cent.
Clearly action is required. Also, action, as the Minister said earlier, makes economic sense. We feel all Canadians have a stake in our economic society, that they should have the opportunity to participate and to add to the wealth of society.
It is also consistent with the very beliefs outlined in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we should have positive action to ensure that all Canadians have equal opportunity. We are not prepared to waste the talents and abilities of so many Canadians just because they may be members of a group which, in the past, has suffered from discrimination.
To my mind, it is the mark of the kind of society in which we all believe that we truly provide for equality of opportunity, that we do not allow the weaker in our society to become still weaker, economically or socially, and that it is justified to have special measures to ensure that the economically weaker members of our society have an opportunity to improve their status.
Although I know there is some concern about the kind of approach employment equity will bring, I feel confident myself that if it is done in a sensible, reasonable kind of way, it will be truly to the benefit of our society.
How do you balance employment equity with our concept of a merit system? I do not think they are incompatible. We are

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
still saying, with employment equity, that people have to have basic qualifications to do a job. We are not saying that unqualified people will be given jobs. We are saying that through adequate training opportunities people, who traditionally have been disadvantaged because they are part of minority groups, will now be given the appropriate consideration for employment opportunity.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is result oriented. I think that is the only benchmark we should have in this kind of legislation.
We heard this morning, and I have also heard from other groups, that this legislation does not go far enough. Some people would say to us, "We want the full power of the state, whole new bureaucracies to force companies to hire people", but with that goes tremendous paper work and all sorts of things which, quite honestly, I do not think are very meaningful. You can have all sorts of bureaucrats running around with all kinds of reports and statistics, but when you get to the bottom line, the employer himself or herself has to understand the goals and objectives and has to make up his or her mind that a company is really committed to the program. It must not be a bunch of paper work being propounded by bureaucrats.
We also have to have the baseline data. Let me turn the attention of the House to Clause 4 of the Bill. I think this is the important section. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the House have missed the importance of this clause. It 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; and
(b)	instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodation as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in the various positions of employment with the employer that is proportionate to their representation
(i)	in the work force, or
(ii)	in those segments of the work force that are identifiable by qualification, eligibility or geography and from which the employer may reasonably be expected to draw or promote employees.
That is what this is really all about. First, you have to know what that data base is; how many employees there are in certain racial minorities, among the disabled, women and native Canadians for certain occupational categories from which you can draw. It is not a matter of saying that there should be 30 per cent women or 20 per cent of people with physical handicaps in this or that company. That is totally unrealistic.
What if I am running an operation in Toronto? We get the information and we know there are people with physical handicaps who have the basic qualifications or through training can achieve those qualifications. What if they make up 20 per cent of the potential workforce in a particular category? As a company, we will problably set a goal for ourselves. No goals can be set by legislation. Each employer in each geographic location, dealing with each kind of employment has to do that.
To me, that is the only rational and reasonable way you can go about implementing employment equity. All this talk about quotas and targets is a red herring. First, nobody wants quotas. Even Rosie Abella said, "No quotas".


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Have you talked to women's groups lately?


Mary Collins: I think the kind of approach that we are presenting in this Bill is workable. With the guidelines the Minister is putting forward, employers will understand how they can go about meeting the requirements of Clause 4 and putting them into effect.
Finally, let me speak about the comment on an enforcement mechanism that there is not a great policeman pounding on the door saying, "You have not achieved 20 per cent or you have not done this". But there is an enforcement mechanism. We have the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which already has the power in legislation to initiate complaints and initiative work. I do not think we need another bureaucracy to be the policeman. We have the highly respected Human Rights Commission, which is willing and able-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They can't make systemic changes in companies.


Mary Collins: -and with the resources the Minister has already said will be made available to it, can do this effectively and bring about the enforcement as it is required under this Bill.
I am very confident that this Bill will provide the start we need to bring about employment opportunities for all sectors in our society that so badly need them. We recognize it as a start. We will see by the results what happens.
I see two possibilities. I see, and I hope it is a possibility, that through public education and public participation- because the Minister and her people will be working with employers, unions and target groups-we will achieve employment equity, and ultimately we will not need this legislation. I would like to see a sunset clause. I think that is the ultimate goal. In a way it is an interim measure to bring us up to those standards.
If I am wrong, if I am too optimistic, then perhaps we have to look at other measures. Personally, I do not think that that will be the way in which Canadians will respond to this legislation. Drawing from my own experience in the private sector, when the opportunity was given or the issue was drawn to the attention of the people with whom I worked, they were more than willing to make the accommodation and, with the assistance of the Minister and her officials, to help provide the mechanisms. I think there will be a very positive response throughout the country to this legislation.
Employment equity is not only a goal cherished by Utopian dreamers. It represents a fair approach toward equality and greater efficiency in the labour market. That is really the bottom line; all legislation has to be fair, and I believe this
October 3, 1985

legislation is just that. Also, I believe that an overwhelming majority of Canadians agree with us. The public will support employers who are making an honest attempt to promote equity in the workplace.
As I said, this is the first step. It is the beginning of a process of co-operation on the part of government, large employers, labour, and special interest groups for women, native people, visible minorities and disabled persons. Together we can show progress. The optimal use of our human resources constitutes an essential element of economic development. This legislation testifies to our commitment to social justice and economic renewal. All Canadians will welcome this long overdue step toward employment equity for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker in this period provided for questions and comments, I want to deal with three different areas. During my speech I raised the difference between the French text and the English text. Perhaps the Hon. Member opposite could explain why the English text indicates "Employment Equity" above Clause 4. I think that would pertain to everyone and to employment in general, not just to professionals. I realize that she talked about employment in general, but the French text indicates "equite professionnelle". Why is there a difference between the two texts?
Also the Hon. Member indicated that the goals and targets were unreasonable. If that is so, why did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) make a very specific promise that we needed goals and targets in law? If they are unreasonable, why did he make that promise and why, now that the Conservatives are elected, did he break that promise?
Finally, she talked about our not knowing the legislation and she quoted Clause 4 of the Bill, which in part indicates that an employer shall implement employment equity, at least, that is what is indicated in English. It is somewhat different in French. In French it just urges employment equity. However, she did not talk about Clause 5 which tells us how that is to be done. Clause 5 indicates that it will be done through reporting, and that is spelled out in detail. It talks about reporting on how many employees there are in each sector or in each designated group, and so on. It indicates that employers must report about all of that.
If she looks closely at the Bill-and I am not sure whether she has read it-she will find that Clause 6 is the only part of it which deals with an offence. It indicates that it is an offence for these employer groups not to report to the Minister and states that there is a fine of up to $50,000. The only thing that is mandatory is the forcing of each group to report. On page 195 of the Abella Report, it was indicated that the court of public appeal was not good enough and that there had to be something mandatory. Why not make Clause 6 stronger and ensure that there are sanctions if a company fails to comply with employment equity? Why not do that? In Clause 6 there is only a sanction if it fails to report, and in Clause 7 the Minister has to lay a report before Parliament within a year or several months.
Employment Equity
Those are my questions. Why is there a difference between the French text and the English text? Does it only apply to professionals or does it apply to everyone? Why was there a campaign promise about targets and goals, if that Party did not mean targets and goals being mandatory or in the law? Finally, can the Hon. Member explain to the House how it is mandatory when the sanctions only apply to reporting, not to forcing a company to comply with the wishes and the words in the Bill? I agree that they are good words, good wishes and good sentiments, but only the court of public appeal enforces them. That is not good enough. The Minister should know that; she is an old-time politician.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I object to my hon. friend saying that I might not have read the Bill. I think that is entirely uncalled for.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You said that about us.


Mary Collins: Any Member of Parliament who has an intense interest in this subject, as I have had for 20 years, will have read the Bill thoroughly and understood it.
With regard to the French version, I am advised by my colleagues that equite professionnelle does indeed mean equity for all. I am sure, if there is any drafting misunderstanding, that this can be cleared up. Certainly the intention is that the meaning be the same in French as it is in English.
Turning to Clause 6, perhaps my hon. colleague might look at Subclause 5(2) in which it is indicated that a report under Subsection (1) shall be made in the prescribed manner. That manner will be outlined by the Minister in the regulations. It is not just that a report be made, but that the report be done in the prescribed manner. This will provide all the information about which we have been talking. It will have to show the data base upon which the employer obtained the information, how many women were in that geographic area and what their plans are to deal with them. All these things will be in the prescription set out by the Minister. It is not just that an employer can come along and put down a piece of paper. The report has to be done in the proper way. Perhaps my colleague might look at that in some detail.
As well, as the Minister and I have said, if these reports do not indicate that the employer is living up to the spirit of the legislation and if, for example, 60 per cent of the women were qualified according to the target qualifications and there was an obvious example that attempts were not being made to bring their own employment up to that, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will have that information, will be able to lay a complaint and conduct a thorough investigation. I really do not understand what more my hon. friend would ask for, other asking perhaps than policemen to go into places. That is not the kind of Government we want. We have perfectly adequate arrangements under this Bill to ensure that our intentions are honoured.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary question. Why was the campaign promise of the Prime Minister not honoured that there would be targets and goals in

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
legislation? Why was the promise made but not honoured? The Hon. Member seems to think honour is important.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that in my earlier discussion. Again, if we turn to Clause 4, it really deals with the concept. I do not know what the Hon. Member wants. Does he want us to put in place a piece of legislation that every employer will employ 40 per cent of a certain target group? The Hon. Member knows that that is ridiculous, that that cannot be put into a piece of legislation. This is the approach which is appropriate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why didn't you say that?


Mary Collins: Because you are trying to take someone's words and put them in the wrong context. We are providing legislation which will enable people to implement employment equity fairly throughout the country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. Has she really discussed the Bill and the practices which the Government is applying, particularly the whole question of enforcement, with recognized women's groups, even with that government body, the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women? Those groups have certainly expressed considerable concern that there is not enforcement in the Bill. There is a requirement to report, but let us not forget that it is only for a few large companies. It is certainly not general throughout the federal jurisdiction, much less among those outside the federal jurisdiction. After the Hon. Member has answered that question, I have another one for her.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I know the interests of my hon. colleague in this particular area and her work in this respect. I certainly respect that. We heard representations before the Standing Committee on Equality Rights from a number of groups representing women. Although they were dealing with a wide variety of issues, many mentioned concerns about this particular Bill, as I am sure they will when this Bill is before committee.
However I think, upon looking at this Bill and thoroughly understanding its relationship with the Human Rights Commission, that perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of how the two Acts together will provide an effective enforcement mechanism. I look forward to the opportunity of discussing this further with delegations from women's organizations.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the Human Rights Commission, the Hon. Member and also the Minister have referred to this a number of times. The Minister in particular referred to it and I think the Hon. Member did also, from the point of view of equal pay for work of equal value. Judge Abella made the point that equal pay for work of equal value should be enforced as part of the employment equity policy. There is an Act now that allows individuals to make complaints to the Human Rights Commission. But what
women's groups are talking about-and I would certainly think that this is what Judge Abella was talking about-is systemic change, first within the Government and, secondly, within any Crown Corporations or any corporations that the Government does business with. This systemic change would ensure that women are not paid on a different basis than men for jobs of equivalent value. Women should not have to go on a case by case basis to complain-I wish the Minister would allow me to make my remarks without heckling. She sounds very defensive, I might say, Mr. Speaker. It is my belief that women should not have to go through all the trouble of getting their own legal documents and so on and go to the Human Rights Commission to appeal this on a case by case basis, that there should be requirements within legislation and within Government Departments as well that apply to companies that would change the system so there would not have to be these kinds of individual complaints.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: She is way behind the times.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity perhaps of discussing this with my colleague more fully later on, but there is provision in the Human Rights Act for investigation into equal pay for work of equal value cases. 1 do not think it is really necessary to do that in this particular Bill. I know, from the discussions we have had with the commission, that it is are developing guidelines, as is Treasury Board, to have more implementation of that concept of equal pay for work of equal value within an establishment of an employer.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We want systemic change.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased with this opportunity to take part in the debate, but I am disappointed that I did not know until the very last minute that we would have this debate today. Nevertheless, I am happy to speak to this subject, and perhaps to reflect a little and report on the thoughts, wishes and comments of the groups we met while attending hearings of the Commission on Equality across Canada.
I can assure you, Madam Minister, that some of these groups will not be as delighted as you would wish them to be today because equality in the workplace, equal opportunity, equal access to the workplace were concepts they would welcome and which could be implemented through this legislation. It is unfortunate, but I do not think the legislation is going to be as successful as we would have liked.
That being said-

I would really like to suggest to you that it is a particular privilege to participate in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-62, an Act representing employment equity. The Bill, which results from the recommendations of the Abella Commission Report released last year, does represent a step forward. We have come some way from 1870 when the first two women were employed by the Public Service and from 1882
October 3, 1985

when the Toronto Labour Council first supported equal pay for equal work. We have come a long way from the concept of equal pay for equal work, and we have now moved into a concept to respond to systemic discrimination, which we call equal pay for work of equal value, which is a much fairer measure with respect to how we want to look at the society of today and tomorrow.
It has been a very long, hard struggle for these many groups-the women, the native people and the disabled-who have suffered from discrimination in the labour market and continue to be denied equal opportunity.
For them the goal of equality in real practical terms is still a distant goal and not yet realized. In the discussions leading up to the inclusion of Section 15, the equality section of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, many expectations were raised that the disadvantaged groups in our society would finally achieve equal access to the labour market and that past injustices would be rectified. For these groups I believe the Minister's legislation has been a disappointment, and I say that in full awareness of what these groups have been saying to us we have criss-crossed the country. We thank the Minister of State for Immigration and Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean) who helped the special interest groups, that is the disabled, the visible minorities and the women's groups, with some financing so they could put their reports together for us. In essence, what they had to say in their reports was that perhaps there is a way that the legislation could be amended and moved forward so that the intent behind this legislation in all reality can be realized.
During the election campaign the Tories promised that they would implement an effective affirmative action program with adequate control, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms within the Public Service, its agencies and Crown corporations and that their Government would make clear to companies doing business with the federal Government that their performance in hiring and promoting women would be a key factor in obtaining contracts for goods and services. I would suggest that there are many, many companies which have less than 100 employees and which do business on a scale of less than $200,000 a year that really should be responding to the criteria that the Minister would like to see applied.
In the Throne Speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated, "Economic equality is the vehicle through which women will come to full partnership and participation with men in our society". These are laudable principles and are basically the reason the previous Liberal Government appointed Judge Abella to do the research and to set this commission in place so that it could find the reasonable avenues substantiated in fact that would indicate the route by which systemic discrimination could be removed.
I find that the present Government's commitment to all these recommendations has not been matched by its actions and, hopefully, that can be remedied en cours de route. Equality of opportunity takes many forms but the Government has not moved quickly to give clear federal leadership in this regard.
Employment Equity
I know that the Minister has said that this is the first step and that this is the first Government to undertake it. In some sense she is not incorrect. I would suggest that the groundwork was laid and the principles ahered to by the previous Government, but this present Government made promises that it did not live up to. I am saying to the Minister, amend the Bill and live up to those promises that were undertaken.
I think it is important to understand the steps that have to be taken to achieve the goal of equal access for disadvantaged groups. I would like to quote from a brief that was presented to the Equality Rights Committee by one of the members of the Citizens for Public Justice group. It reads:
We must make every effort to identify and remove, barrier by barrier, discriminatory advantages. The federal Government should set an example by further expanding its employment practices and decision-making processes so that all Canadians are not only free from adverse discrimination but, can also enjoy just employment conditions which provide fair access to meaningful work and equitable participation in the life of our society.
When we say we want every barrier and obstacle removed I would suggest that the record of today's employers does not indicate that they have voluntarily undertaken to remove the obstacles and to tear down the barriers. In this Bill, the employers are being given the responsibility to remove obstacles and take down barriers. I would suggest that we have to be more definitive in the description of the barriers and obstacles we want removed and have a measure that will relate specifically to the jobs which have in many instances unnatural and unnecessary qualifications that have nothing to do with the jobs in question.
As Judge Abella stated, employment equity is a strategy designed to obliterate the present and residual effects of discrimination and to open up equitably the competition for employment opportunities to those artitrarily excluded. It requires a special blend of what is necessary, that is fair and what is workable.
Affirmative action as a term refers to a comprehensive planning process for the elimination of systemic situations bringing about inequalities. We must now redress historic patterns of employment disadvantage suffered by designated groups. In an affirmative action program, the impact of employers' systems and practices is measured through an analysis of designated group employment within the organization and a realistic assessment of the number of target group members available in the labour market both in total and in the job and skill groups.
I know that the Hon. Member said that this falls under Clause 4 of the Bill. I would suggest that it is not substantive enough and it is left in the hands of the employers. I do not think that those steps to neutralize discriminatory practices include the kinds of goals and timetables necessary for achieving equitable representation of the designated groups within the organizations. I do not think they establish the kinds of remedial measures which will redress the past imbalances and make achievement of numerical goals possible.

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
It is important to recognize that for many people, the term "affirmative action" has had negative connotations. It was for this reason, I believe, that Judge Abella coined the phrase "employment equity" but she expanded employment equity to include more than affirmative action. Even with the name having been changed, there is still some resistance to it as is obvious from the way this Bill has been applied.
The purpose of an employment equity plan is to open the competition to anyone who would be eligible for a position but for the existence of discrimination, unintentional or otherwise, and it does not mean that employers are mandated to hire unqualified persons. I think the opponents of these proposals tend to be uninformed about the many positive elements of such programs. Perhaps an education program for personnel departments would be very useful in helping them to undersand the implications of employment equity.
A review of the United States experience has shown that affirmative action programs have had a positive impact on the private sector, and although there was strong resistance at first, employers soon discovered that there was a wealth of talent that they had previously overlooked. Because of their past employment practices, they had restricted themselves to drawing from certain segments of society for their labour force. I think mandatory affirmative action laws showed that these disadvantaged groups could offer a pool of qualified people that could enhance and diversify workforces and bring new skills.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in her conclusions, Judge Abella said that voluntary measures are an unsatisfactory response to the pervasiveness of systemic discrimination in the Canadian workforce and has therefore recommended that all federally regulated employers be required by legislation to implement employment equity. The key word here is "mandatory", and I do not agree with what the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) has said. There are no mandatory requirements in this Bill and I would suggest that the Hon. Member re-examine its contents. The intent should be made mandatory, but unfortunately the only thing that is mandatory is the reporting provisions and the fine of $50,000 for non-compliance. That will not help the disabled, the women and the visible minorities who pleaded before us for access under the kind of mandatory contract compliance that could be measured and examined in the light of reality.
It is important to note that this Bill is all about voluntary compliance, although there is mandatory reporting. If voluntary compliance had worked, that example would have been set a long time ago. However, it has not been set, and I believe it is very important to recognize that mandatory compliance has been absent from our legislation and businesses practices. Even the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, a group which advises the Government, has said that it wants the Government to go further than it has in its proposals to force Crown corporations and federally regulated companies to hire more women and minorities. The Council has examined the Bill in the light of mandatory requirements and has found it wanting as well.
Regarding the American experience, Victoria Smith, a senior consultant from New York, notes that business is comfortable with numerical goals and targets and that that is how business works. She indicated that she had just done surveys of her clients, most of whom are big Fortune 500 corporations, and of the 142 responses, 95 per cent indicated they would keep on using numerical goals to track the progress of women and minorities regardless of the Government's requirements because it is good, sound business. It is good for the corporation and it is good for the country.
Many groups have testified that voluntary compliance does not work. As Hon. Members well know, a right is only a right if it is enforceable. Otherwise it is just a lot of lovely words that mean nothing.
I think it is about time that the federal Government, its agencies, its Crown corporations and federally regulated sectors and companies doing business with the Government recognized the diversity of Canada's population and the potential of disadvantaged members. The cost of employment-equity programs has often been cited as an impediment to their implementation. However, the United States experience has shown that good use of human resources is just good business practice. Basically, we cannot afford not to apply good business practices in this highly competitive world in which we count on productivity as a bottom line.
Bill C-62 demonstrates that the Government has lacked the willpower and the leadership that is necessary to implement employment-equity programs effectively. I speak not only for myself but for all those groups that came before us with the feeling that the Minister would be applying the kind of regulations and laws that would have the impact that the Minister herself indicated they would. I am referring to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations for the Handicapped and many groups belonging to the National Action Committee. They are all disappointed by the lack of an enforcement mechanism.
It is not enough for the Minister to say that public opinion will pressure companies and the Government to hire actively and to promote men and women from the targeted groups. Did she not read the chapter on enforcement mechanisms in the Abella Report? I believe she did and I am sure she studied it well.

I think the Minister should at least take another look at the following words: .. . "The obligation to implement employment equity" .. . which will remain just words if they do not have force of law. Ideally, enforcement should be entrusted to an agency that would be entirely separate from the Government. This agency would dispose of the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate, including competent staff with a good knowledge of labour relations, employment mechanisms and human rights issues.

Voluntary measures just do not work. Let us stop pretending that they do. Without goals and timetables, no measurable
October 3, 1985

differences can be noted. The Minister has spoken of criteria and guidelines for employment equity. I would like her to make these available so that we can all know on what premise she is working.
I would just like to remind the Minister that it is a good thing that my neighbour and confrere, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), fought and organized the fight to keep the census on line. The Minister knows that without the instrument to gather the date with which we can measure the base, the whole thing does not work. The question is: What is in the census questions? Do they meet the information needs? I hope the Minister will answer my questions in the affirmative because I wish as much as she that it works.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You have not read the legislation.


Sheila Finestone: Yes, I have read the legislation. The Minister knows better than that. She knows that I would have read it and read it thoroughly.
The Minister has talked about criteria and guidelines for employment equity. I would like the Minister to make those available. In her job market strategy the Minister has indicated that employment equity will be an integral part of that. I believe that I read that provision correctly. Therefore, can the Minister provide us with her Department's goals and timetables for employment programs? In this way, in the future, the Canadian public can assess if the Government is setting the necessary examples for other sectors.
I would like to remind the Minister that in February, if my memory serves me correctly, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced that he had set up a joint committee with labour to review employment equity practices in the federal Government. The committee was to look into the matter of equal pay for work of equal value. He was to report back to us, but I have not heard from him yet. If I have missed his marvellous presentation, then I regret that. If I have missed it, I would like the whole of Canada to know where we have gotten to and what his report entailed, because equal pay for work of equal value is an integral part of the whole employment equity package, which the Minister has happened to overlook in her Bill.
Contract compliance, which is not covered in the legislation as I understand it, will be covered by regulation. I believe the Canadian public has a right to know if the Government and the companies with which it does business are complying with measurable goals and timetables. I recognize the need for flexibility in employment equity programs. I understand that small business and certain sectors need exemption under Section 1 of the Charter. However, that should not be used as a smokescreen for incomplete and insufficient data which are needed to provide an indicator of the success and the effectiveness of the measures taken.
I would now like to deal with the issue of sanctions. Clause 6 of the Bill would allow the Minister to impose a fine of
Employment Equity
$50,000 for failing to provide her Department with a report containing detailed information on employment practices. While this is not an insignificant amount of money, to say the least, it is not likely to improve the employment status of designated groups. The fact that Mr. Whoever-he-is had to pay a fine will not help the disabled. Nor will it help the minorities, or women, to find jobs. It will only prove he did not do his task.


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


Sheila Finestone: What is being asked for is an enforcement agency which will be able to monitor-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the 20-minute time period has now expired.


Sheila Finestone: Would Members of the House give me just one minute to wrap up my remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member has one minute to wrap up.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The key to the whole issue is the importance of having a mechanism put in place which would not be voluntary, but mandatory, and which will have an enforcement principle and sanctions. This could be a step forward. In Judge Abella's terminology, employment equity means a total package. It means hard facts and data, necessary instruments, affirmative action, equal pay for work of equal value, contract compliance and child care. When we measure the contents of this Bill against the reality of the situation I have to say that it falls short in many of the basic elements. I hope that when it is sent to committee we can see to the improvements which will be needed so that the Minister's goal, and our goal, which is to improve the lot of those who have suffered from systemic discrimination, is met in the days to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a couple of matters which have arisen from the speeches made in the House this morning. I do not think the attempt is deliberate to try to confuse people about what is involved in this Bill. However, a couple of statements have been made with regard to the absence of legislation relating to equal pay for work of equal value. I do not think we should confuse the Canadian public with respect to the fact that such legislation does not exist in the federal Government. I ask the Hon. Member if she is aware that under Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act it states that it is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value. Is the Hon. Member aware that this legislation exists? Is she aware that it has not been implemented in the past? The implementation processes are now under way. The Treasury Board has agreed to this provision with one public union and others will come on-stream. In this way the provision will be implemented across the Public Service of the country beginning in 1986. It has been undertaken because we believe so firmly in the principles of it.
I also wish to ask the Hon. Member if she is aware that, although the census data will be tremendously important, what this Bill does is to go beyond the census data and ask for information which has never been available from employers with regard to persons who are hired, promoted and terminated with respect to the pool of labour from which they draw. That type of information is normally not available from census data, which is why it is so critical to provide for its coming forward in this Bill. In this way we will be able to determine if employment equity is being properly implemented in company after company after company across the country. The data is critical to the implementation of employment equity.
Some people say that employment equity can be put in place overnight. I would like to ask those people who advocate that principle to explain how that can be done unless we know what the basic facts are now. We do not have that information now and that is what this Bill is structured to bring out.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for some of the clarifications which she has provided. However, I do have a few concerns which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. We are now asking the Canadian Human Rights Commission to perform an incredible amount of work. Where are the funds and the manpower for the performance of this work? Where is the potential for the commission to follow through on its recommendations? The Minister can perhaps answer me afterward. I would be pleased to hear from her. The Minister is asking the commission to take an expanded role in reviewing this data and then initiate investigations. I think many Canadians are looking to the commission to do exactly what the Minister is saying, and the Minister is anticipating that. The commission will be the watchdog in ensuring that real progress is made.
I would like to tell the Minister that the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was instituted by the Liberals in 1978.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Nothing was done.


Sheila Finestone: I realize that it was not enforced to the degree it should have been enforced. I was pleased to hear the tribunal's decision in this regard. It has a financial impact, and that is fine. I think that will bring matters into order. As I understand it, the Human Rights Commission has the right to prosecute and investigate, but it needs to have reasonable grounds in law. How will the commission find reasonable grounds in law?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am not answering the question.


Sheila Finestone: I suggest you look at that and when we go to study the Bill in committee I suggest we examine that. It does present a problem. I am not a legal expert. However, I know there is a constraint with respect to this matter which I think must be looked at. What I would like to say to the Minister is that the whole thing sounds good. All the right words are there. But what is the penalty if employers do not comply? The Minister really does not have a mandatory way of enforcing the issue.


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


Sheila Finestone: It is good but it needs enforcement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being one o'clock, 1 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.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, tax discounting is a service used mostly by low-income families. Indeed, two out of three persons who discounted their tax refunds reported a 1983 income of less than $8,000, and one out of three persons had incomes of less than $2,000. Therefore, the proportion of tax-filers who discount the most are at low income levels. Of the $41 million in refunds that were retained by the tax discounters, $15 million to $20 million was made up of child tax credits which are intended to help low-income families meet their needs.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) is aware of how important these child tax credit refunds are to low-income Canadians. They are used to buy furniture, household appliances, and children's clothing. The Minister is also aware that the tax system is being increasingly used as a vehicle for transfers to low-income Canadians. Poor families cannot continue to lose 15 per cent of their tax credits to discounters.
I would urge the Minister, therefore, to follow the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to take the necessary steps to outlaw tax rebate discounting or, at the very least, to adopt the position agreed upon in mid-September by the provincial Ministers
October 3, 1985

responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs to ban tax rebate discounting of the child tax credit.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, some 300 workers at the International Harvester truck plant in Chatham, Ontario, are facing lay-offs as the company moves jobs and production to Japan. The company is phasing out its Cargo Star line, replacing it with a new modified version to be produced under contract with Nissan, beginning in 1986.
The Government has given much publicity to the inflow of foreign capital and jobs which its new open-door policy claims to have attracted. The Harvester case demonstrates the darker side of this open-door approach. The door swings both ways. This can create outflows of foreign capital and jobs as the multinational corporation restructures its global operations.
I urge the Government to investigate this Harvester move, and to bring in stronger Canadian content legislation to keep these jobs and production lines in Canada. The future of workers and communities like Chatham depends on such tough trade action.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the final broadcast of the radio program Our Native Land which has been cancelled by the CBC. I believe this decision on their part is wrong. Our Native Land provided natives in Canada with a means of communicating among themselves and with non-native Canadians for 20 years. A full-time production staff worked in Ottawa where decisions are made that affect native Canadians. Now a new team is in Toronto. This is wrong.
The leaders of the four national aboriginal organizations united to urge the CBC not to cancel the program. The CBC did not listen. Without Our Native Land there will be inadequate coverage of important events impacting on natives and of interest to non-natives.
Seventy thousand listeners per week knew that on Saturday they would hear stories about natives. The loss of a dedicated time slot means that they must listen to non-native public affairs programs and hope that there may be a story concerning their interests. This is unacceptable.
Natives today face many challenges that non-natives are interested in. For example, the 1987 First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Rights, the Task Force on Land Claims, review of funding for native programs and organizations, annual conferences of native, Inuit, Metis and Indian organizations, evolution towards self-government, community-based education and health services, and the cultural renaissance in native communities are all reasons why all Canadians need a regular native affairs program in a dedicated time slot. I urge the CBC to reinstate the program.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I refer to unfounded allegations by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), affecting myself and other members of the New Brunswick caucus in which he stated that we had prior knowledge of tainted fish from a New Brunswick cannery and that we had communicated that knowledge to the caucus and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
These allegations, whether direct or made as insinuations, have seriously affected the credibility of a number of Hon. Members, as well as their ability to carry on their functions as Members of this House.
The imputations of the Leader of the Opposition in my case and that of other New Brunswick Hon. Members are false and injurious. They are unfounded and without substantiation. There was no tour of the plant. There was no meeting with officials. There was not in my presence at any time any reference to tainted tuna. There was nothing to refer to caucus or to the Prime Minister, and nothing was referred.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has behaved irresponsibly by launching himself on a mud-slinging expedition on the theory that if enough mud is thrown some is bound to stick. On behalf of other members of our caucus, I protest against Parliament being used for tactics more worthy of the gutter. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should withdraw statements that he cannot verify or substantiate. He should apologize to the New Brunswick Members of Parliament and to the Prime Minister. He should begin to conduct himself in a way worthy or the dignity of Parliament.
Members of Parliament cannot carry out their functions if they are to be subjected to unfounded allegations damaging their reputations by a person occupying the high position of the Leader of the Opposition. There should be an apology and a withdrawal by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Sports Minister's unilateral decision of September 26 to reappoint Marina Va Der Merwe as coach of the National Women's

October 3, 1985
Field Hockey Team represents an act of unprecedented and blatant political interference. The Canadian Women's Field Hockey Association is absolutely furious and disgusted over this entire affair.
The Association chose not to renew her contract, and this position was supported by a committee established specifically by the Minister to investigate the coaching matter.
Why is the Minister running roughshod over the best interests of this women's team and the recommendation of his own committee? As a result of the Minister's action, six to eight members of last year's Olympic team are thinking of resigning. Players have also been pressured into accepting this directive or risk losing their Sports Canada support. Furthermore, ministry officials have threatened to withhold the half million dollar funding unless the national association accedes to the Minister's recommendations.
Such political and bureaucratic interference and pressure tactics have no place in the workplace of this or any other national sports organization. I ask the Minister, therefore, to reverse his decision and allow the association to manage its own affairs in a competent and fair manner.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, while current employees of Canadian Pacific can bargain through their unions on many issues, including railway passes, the pensioners of CP cannot. They have no bargaining power and must rely on Members of Parliament in all Parties and Government to protect their rights and interests.
These pensioners served Canadian Pacific well all of their working years. "They worked the CP Railway line." One of the few benefits they have is their rail passes which are an earned right. Canadian Pacific has arbitrarily cancelled the passes of their pensioners effective November 1. Its heartless disregard in this matter must be halted by us in this House.
Canadian National Railways will continue to provide passes for their pensioners, which means CP pensioners are victims of discrimination by Canadian Pacific. On behalf of Hon. Members in all Parties in this House, I call upon the Minister Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to make the strongest demands upon Canadian Pacific to continue its rail passes to all of its present pensioners and, as a minimum, give their pensioners the option of either rail passes or a better health and welfare program.
[DOT] (MIO)



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same matter as was raised by my colleague, the Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett). Yesterday the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) made the allegation that eight Conservative Members of Parliament from New Brunswick, while on a visit to the southern part of the Province in April, made a tour of the Star-Kist plant in St. Andrews. That allegation includes me, and 1 must tell you and the House that the allegation is categorically false. There was no tour of the plant. 1 have never ever been near the plant, nor indeed inside its doors.
This allegation was made by a Member of the House who deserves respect, but the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) should know that no honourable purpose can be served by continuing to misrepresent facts and to muck about with the reputation of the entire caucus from New Brunswick. The Right Hon. Member should withdraw his statement and his question with all its sullying innuendo.




Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to comment upon inaccurate statements made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) as reported in Hansard, the account of the proceedings of the House of Commons, on October 2, 1985. At no time did I, or other Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament from New Brunswick, visit the Star-Kist facility in St. Andrews, nor did we tour this plant as alleged by the right hon. gentleman. 1 can assure the House that no formal meeting took place between the eight New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament and the management of the Star-Kist plant in St. Andrews.
To set the record straight, I was approached by a small group of what I assumed were workers of the plant, on the front lawn of the Royal Canadian Legion located in St. Stephen, New Brunswick, 10 to 12 miles from St. Andrews and the Star-Kist plant. The group expressed concern that the fisheries inspectors were becoming increasingly harsh and they feared the viability of the Star-Kist plant was in question and their jobs in jeopardy. No action was taken by me as an individual Member of Parliament-


Some Hon. Members:: Why not?


Dennis H. Cochrane: -nor did the New Brunswick caucus take any action collectively. It was not discussed in the New Brunswick caucus, the national caucus, or with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney).
October 3, 1985

The misrepresentation of the facts by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition illustrates once again the inaccuracy of statements made in reference to this issue. Now that the record has been set straight, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should apologize and withdraw his comments and allegations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely Hon. Members can listen to each other's statements with some respect.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, recently PLO terrorists struck again, this time killing three innocent Israeli citizens in Cyprus. As usual, the world was silent. The PLO is a terrorist organization. It has always been la terrorist organization. It has never acknowledged the existence of Israel, despite the fact that United Nations resolutions 242 and 248 recognized that Israel has the right to exist behind secure borders. The PLO has harrassed the Israelis, not only within Israel but in many other countries throughout the world. Its members have terrorized, maimed, and killed hundreds of Israeli men, women, and children, as well as many non-Israelis, thereby forcing Israel to deal with these terrorist activities by military operations.
Make no mistake, the PLO originated as an organization dedicated to terrorism and it has continued in this vein. Terrorism is not an acceptable mode of settling differences. Since terrorists do not respect national boundaries, they cannot claim sanctuary behind national boundaries. Israel should not have been condemned by Canada, through its Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), for taking steps to destroy PLO terrorism by bombing the PLO headquarters in Tunisia. Indeed, Tunisia should have been condemned by Canada for giving the PLO a base from which to operate.



FISHERIES


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member from New Brunswick, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the irresponsible attitude of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), who yesterday, during Question Period, repeated and amplified a statement by a member of the employees' union at the Star-Kist plant.
Oral Questions
I would have been delighted if the Leader of the Opposition had mentioned the fact that the Conservative Members from New Brunswick were doing a good job visiting the various regions in New Brunswick as part of the responsibilities of their position.
However, that was not the purpose of his statement. Far from it. Without checking his source, he wanted to pursue his campaign to vilify our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and involve eight New Brunswick Members in his pernicious designs.
First of all, I would point out that the tour of southern New Brunswick from April 22 to April 24 by Conservative Members was made by not more than eight Members, while in St. Stephen there were only seven.
In St. Stephen, I never at any time met any union or management representatives from the Star-Kist plant, and I have never visited the plant. Furthermore, the tuna issue was never raised, neither in the New Brunswick caucus nor in the national caucus.
It would therefore be more than appropriate, and the Leader of the Official Opposition would be doing this institution and his own position within that institution a great service, if he were enough of a gentleman to withdraw his allegations and apologize to the Prime Minister, considering the fact that some time ago, he showed he was capable of doing so when his leader, Mr. Trudeau, contradicted his version of events.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had understood that the Prime Minister would be in the House for Question Period today. Good, he has arrived.
This morning, after thinking about it for seven days, Jerry Lampert has joined the ex-Minister of Fisheries and the Member for Carleton-Charlotte in retracting statements contradicting the Prime Minister. I suggest that the Prime Minister owes the House an explanation and I would like to ask him for it. Why did a matter which he considered urgent take seven full days to resolve itself?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as Deputy Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I can tell the Hon. Member that it was I who conducted the discussions necessary with the President of the Party and his National Director. A press release was issued by the Party this morning. If he does

October 3, 1985
Oral Questions
not have a copy of it yet, I will give it to him. It says everything in that press release.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, what the press release does not say, and the fact that remains, are that two important matters which the Prime Minister should have known about, which led to resignations of Ministers, were known by senior people around him in the Government, in the Party, and in the Prime Minister's Office. It looks like a blind-eye policy has been followed by the Prime Minister in running his office.
What steps is the Prime Minister taking to straighten out affairs in that office so he will know and be informed of the important things that he ought to know as Prime Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the inferences contained in the Hon. Member's question are absolutely false. He started off his questioning by referring to a Party matter and wound up, through his convolutions, trying to fix the responsibility for response on the Prime Minister. The fact remains that this is a Party matter which has been dealt with by the Party and which has been made public. Surely he will allow our Party to determine what should or should not be in the press release, as we allowed him to do on May 11, 1984, when a press release was issued by the Prime Minister of the day accusing the Leader of the Opposition of a misrepresentation of events.


SERVICE PROVIDED TO PRIME MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the question which must be put to the Prime Minister, and which he alone can answer is, after all of this, can he tell the House and the country that he is satisfied with the way his office has served him?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if he has read the press release, as I am sure he has, he will see that the Prime Minister's Office was at no time involved as the Leader of the Opposition and others in the House have suggested. There was no communication of the sort that was suggested with anyone on the Prime Minister's staff, including senior Party officials. That is made clear in the press release. Regardless of how the Hon. Member wants to twist, distort, and mar those facts, they are there for all to see and I would urge him to accept them.


TRANSPORT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Transport) who, we are informed, has been "transported" quite a bit in recent months. Today, we heard about the abuse of power and the waste of public funds indulged in by the Minister of State (Transport) when she went on a holiday to Europe with her husband, at the Canadian taxpayers' expense.
How can the Minister justify her trip to Europe, at taxpayers' expense, to attend a conference that was cancelled before she had even left? Would she care to explain how it was that at her request, a meeting was arranged with the OECD official responsible for the environment, in an attempt to justify a visit that was obviously a private trip?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely nothing to hide. In answer to the Hon. Member's question, I can say that I made two trips as the Minister of the Environment, one at Easter and one in June and July. Programs for these trips were duly planned and were mentioned in the papers at the time. One of these trips, the second one, had a public and a private portion. The private part was for my own pleasure, and I paid all the expenses of that part of the trip, as prescribed in the Government guidelines.


COST OF TRIPS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the Minister is trying to kid here. I am sure the Prime Minister would say that the Minister is a person of unimpeachable integrity and should not be qus-tioned, but would she tell this House the total cost of her two trips to Europe and what portion of those costs did she pay herself?


Some Hon. Members:: Order Paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We got into a confusing situation a minute ago where a Minister seemed to be answering regarding a previous portfolio. However, I am going to find these questions are so specific that they properly belong on the Order Paper.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 3, 1985


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. There are reports today of a major reorganization of the Department of Indian Affairs involving the loss of 1,500 jobs. A Tory back-bencher says the reorganization could trim some $200 million from the deficit. Last spring we had two similar leaks of Government plans to cut Indian programs and apply the money to the deficit, and which the Government denied. Since the Minister does not deny the reorganization, will he assure the Indian people that any money saved will go directly to them and their needs?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I not only do not deny the reorganization, I applaud it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: The reorganization, of course, is the other half of Indian self-government. Since I got the job people said to me please get the Government bureaucracy off our back and have Indian self-government. That is what this is about.
With respect to the question regarding funding, in April the Prime Minister indicated that funding levels would not change. Indeed, I have already talked to Indian people about it, and I am happy to assure the NDP who should have known about it.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, Indian self-government should involve Indian people from the very beginning, not half way along the line. Does the Minister deny any link between the proposed cuts and operation Buffalo Jump? And what assurance will the Minister give to this House and to aboriginal people across the country that the reorganization is not just a scheme to trim money from the Indian people and apply it to the deficit? What assurance can he give the Indian people that they can accept?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the only connection between those two events lies in the evil intent the Hon. Member is trying to impute to me. Insofar as it relates to gathering the opinions of Indian people, I spent 14 months doing just that, and I travelled further during that time than any Minister in the history of the Department. I talked to every one of those communities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, all the moves by the Government to give Indian people for the first time in their history an opportunity to be in control of their lives come directly from the report of the standing committee which is
Oral Questions
supported by all political Parties including, I thought up until now, the NDP.


EFFECT ON INDIAN PEOPLE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, this Party does not need to apologize to any Party in the House for its support of Indian self-government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: The Minister knows that. He should also know that the cut of 1,500 jobs in the Department is going to affect vital Indian programs regarding housing, education-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


James Douglas Manly: What assurances will the Minister give to the Indian people that the money cut through reorganization is going to be applied directly to them? What assurances do we have?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, up until now I did not think the NDP had anything to apologize for with respect to Indian policy. However, this line of questioning sure throws that into doubt. We want the 1,500 jobs and more for Indian people, not federal bureaucrats.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday we heard a reply to a question in this House from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East regarding political activity of military spouses on Department of National Defence property, and 1 now quote the Government's reply from page 7252 of Hansard'.
-there is a long and honoured tradition in Canada that political activity and the military do not mix, and they ought not to.
I ask the real Minister of National Defence if it is his policy to allow the right of political assembly on military bases only to groups who represent the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member indicated, there has been this long and proper tradition of non-political activity on military bases. I believe that is a wise policy and it should continue. There is not and never has been any prohibition against spouses of military members joining political parties, getting involved in political activities, off the base as private
7298

October 3, 1985
Oral Questions
Canadian citizens. They have all the rights everyone else has. The question is: Do we want to see a situation where the military is actively involved in partisan politics? My answer to that question is no.


NEWSPAPER REPORT
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the real Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Crosbie:: Where is the real critic?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I have evidence right here from the Oromocto Post that a Progressive Conservative meeting was held on Canadian Forces Base Gagetown on May 4 of this year.
Will the Minister explain to this House why Members of the Conservative Party of Canada are permitted the right of assembly on military bases at a time when he has denied that right to the rest of Canadians, even to military spouses?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should answer that question since the real defence critic from Labrador is not here today. However, if in fact such a meeting took place it was contrary to military regulations and I hope the persons responsible were reprimanded for holding such a meeting.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport who has apparently been off on a junket around Europe at taxpayers' expense.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Minister apparently spent three days in April in bed in a luxury hotel in Paris after meeting with a junior OECD official.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Axworthy:: Would you care to rephrase that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: She went to Stockholm despite the cancellation of the meeting there.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Sexist!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Is the Minister prepared to account to the taxpayers of Canada by tabling in this House all receipts for her personal expenditures on these junkets around Europe?
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, and as I said earlier, those trips represented lengthy preparations and they were approved by the Department of External Affairs. All documents are available, and the part of the trip in June during which I was on a private vacation with my husband was paid for by me, and the receipts exist.


MINISTERIAL TRAVEL
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday we learned that the Minister of Health is on a junket in China with his campaign manager and close friend. In view of that and the Minister of State for Transport's little trips around Europe at public expense, does he really believe that this is an appropriate example for his Government's Ministers to be setting at the same time his Government is cutting back on basic social services, including, as we have just learned today, social services for native people in Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Ministers have to travel; not as much as our predecessors, I will admit that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not by a long shot.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are homebodies, compared with them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, we are real homebodies compared with the Liberals.
The response which the Minister of State for Transport gave was a very reasonable and thorough answer to a question. There is no reason to go beyond her response, except to tell my hon. friend that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is well known in the House both for his probity and his frugality, is making an important trip and will respond upon his return.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we have just realized that the Conservative Government of Canada
October 3, 1985

allows Conservative political meetings on military bases at the same time as it denies women the right to form organizations.
I should like to ask the "real Minister" whether, in his opinion, it would be against the law to distribute cards on military bases to families asking for dental plans for their children.

Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier-and I think the Hon. Member heard me-if any political meeting took place on base, it should not have. If the persons responsible have not been reprimanded, I will ensure that they are reprimanded because we do not believe that political activities should occur on base.
In terms of dental plans, salaries and so on, perhaps the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is not aware that the remunerations, including salaries and benefits such as dental plans and so on, paid to the Armed Forces are the same as those paid to the Public Service in general. In fact, these questions might more properly be put to the President of the Treasury Board who negotiates with Public Service unions.


An Hon. Member:: Don't wake him up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members might let their own colleague put a supplementary question.


RESPONSE TO ORGANIZATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister's reticence; once burned, twice shy. Why, in a letter last March to the organization about which I spoke in the House yesterday, did the Deputy Prime Minister refuse to provide them with guarantees that they would not face military prosecution if they distributed cards in a door-to-door compaign, calling upon the Prime Minister of Canada to consider a dental plan for military families?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that is a misrepresentation of the contents of the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Ouellet:: Table the letter.


Harvie Andre: The Deputy Prime Minister simply indicated in that letter what I have repeatedly stated in view of repeated questions, that the policy of the Department of National Defence and the Government is that political activity on military bases is not allowed for good and proper reasons.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is political about dental plans?


Harvie Andre: Everything else which the Hon. Member is implying about direct sales parties, meetings to discuss alcoholism and counselling, is permitted and in fact happens every day on all our bases in Canada.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


SOCKEYE SALMON STOCK IN NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is, no doubt by now, fully aware of the cold-blooded murder of sockeye which is taking place on the Fulton and Pinkut river systems in northern British Columbia. I see that his colleagues think it is funny. However, since you have denied commercial fishermen the right to access those stocks, since you have denied Indian people the right to take them for food, since you have denied sports fishermen the right to catch them, and since you are now denying the fish their God-given right to spawn-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


James Ross Fulton: -will the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you, I think that was the issue.


James Ross Fulton: Will the Minister undertake emergency airlift measures to see that those fish, which can move up those systems to spawn, are given that opportunity?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I can inform the Hon. Member that enhanced salmon stock returns to the Skeena River system were unexpectedly large this year. However, they could not be fully exploited because to do so would have been to jeopardize the weaker wild salmon and steelhead stocks in the river system. Wild stocks return to the river, mixed with the more numerous enhanced stocks, and hence the fishery must be managed to protect overharvesting of the weaker components of the run.
I appreciate the fact that there are other departmental concerns involved in a resolution of this problem. My colleague, the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and departmental officials in Fisheries are currently attempting to work out those problems.


MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Minister peddle the departmental line. The fact of the matter is that $20 million worth of sockeye are blocked at those gates.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he commit himself and his Government to providing the necessary scientific staff and funds to put in place a management system so that a million fish like this do not have to die unspawned on the Fulton and Pinkut system again?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows full well, but perhaps overlooked smuggling the element into his question, that there has been an unusually large run of sockeye this year in that system.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is good news.

October 3, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Of course that is a favourable preamble, so he would not have smuggled it into the question. As Acting Minister of Fisheries I can give him the kind of assurance which he seeks. They in that Party are not the originators of new options to deal with this kind of problem. It is being addressed very vigorously, and there will not be any resources of Government withheld in order to ensure an appropriate solution to the problem.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
During a pre-election tour of the Eastern Townships you stated, and I quote: "A Conservative Government would not abolish footwear quotas".
Mr. Prime Minister, since more than 20,000 people depend on those quotas, will your Government honour this firm and unequivocal commitment?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I should think that the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that the tribunal involved has submitted a report which is now being considered by the Minister. We intend to act in a responsible manner to protect the rights and the jobs of Canadians.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CONSIDER INDUSTRY'S DEMANDS
Alain Tardif: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Am I to understand that a decision will be made soon? If so, will it take into consideration the objectives of the sector, namely 50 per cent of the market for five years, which would account for 20,000 jobs in Canada? The manufacturers claim that the implementation of such a policy would create 6,000 jobs in the near future.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of the number of jobs involved in this case. As I said, the matter is under active consideration by the Government. I must point out that a number of Canadian industries are now threatened by changes in international trade. That is precisely why the Canadian Government is determined to take a constructive approach in its trade relations with the United States and other countries of the world.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the minimum tax. I understand that the Minister of Finance met with his provincial counterparts last week and that they all agreed to a minimum tax. Could the Minister advise the House on what will be the minimum income level at which the tax will start? Will it be the $30,000 level, as is the case in the United States, or will it be the $50,000 level advocated by the NDP?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has indicated his total commitment to the introduction of a minimum tax. I understand that officials are working on the details now and that an announcement will be made within the next several weeks on the kind of detail which the Hon. Member is requesting.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice on the matter of equality rights. Has the Minister been asked to review what appears to be a violation of the basic rights of spouses of military personnel to freedom of association, which are guaranteed under our Charter?


Mr. Riis:: Good question.


An Hon. Member:: Tweedledum and Tweedledee.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, they have quite a self-admiration group over there.


Mr. Broadbent:: You would have a hard time doing it on that side.


An Hon. Member:: Don't you wish you had.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am not given a chance to answer a question very often. Would the hon. gentleman stop trying to interrupt my train of thought?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's because we love you, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer to the Hon. Member's question is that I have not been asked to look into what has not happened so far as I know.


John Edward Broadbent: Were you at that meeting in New Brunswick?
October 3, 1985


DENTAL PLANS INQUIRY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister right now to do something. I would like to ask him further whether he feels in view of the comments made yesterday by the Associate Defence Minister which trivialized and demeaned women, does he feel and would he confirm that in his view-


Charles Joseph Clark: How about Svend Robinson's
question?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -as Minister of Justice spouses of the military should have the same right to association with dental plans and to group funding as other groups in society.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Hon. Member's representation, but when it comes to demeaning women we have already seen an example of that from the same Member's Party this afternoon. We also saw it yesterday when there was an attempt to demean the wife of the former Secretary of State who is now the Minister of State for Immigration. When it comes to demeaning, look in your own eyes first.


TRANSPORT
André Ouellet: In the absence of the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Transport.
Can the Minister tell us why her Government did not intervene to prevent Bombardier from closing down its Montreal locomotive manufacturing plant?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, the Bombardier decisions in this case were made in accordance with the best industrial development criteria. We had lengthy discussions with Bombardier representatives who pointed out to us that there was no other solution.


PURCHASE OF LOCOMOTIVES FROM BOMBARDIER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am quite disappointed by the Minister's answer, coming as she does from that region of Canada where there is such a severe job shortage.
Does the Minister know that since her Government took office roughly 1,000 jobs have been lost in locomotive manufacturing and in a related field, namely locomotive wheel manufacturing? Is the Minister prepared to ask VIA Rail and
Oral Questions
CN Rail to buy Bombardier locomotives and save this industry which has been operating in Montreal since the turn of the century?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, we are all saddened by job losses in various industries. Still many jobs have been created since we came into office-300,000 new jobs over the past year.
The point to keep in mind in this case is that although Bombardier management have decided not to remain in the locomotive manufacturing sector they are now actively seeking to develop new markets, and I think they will be successful.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In light of recent lay-off announcements at Inco and Falcon-bridge and total recent job losses of 17,158 in single industry towns across the country, when is the Minister going to introduce legislation which she promised, outside the House, to prevent lay-offs in single industry towns?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member would be the first to admit that, following remarks that I made about Inco, that company saw fit to increase its benefits package by 70 per cent. I would say that that move by the company indicates its responsibility towards its workers. The same applies to Falconbridge. That company has instituted a benefits package which will enable people to have early retirement and thereby hopefully any unnecessary lay-offs will be avoided.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: In light of the very serious loss of jobs in single industry towns across the country and in view of the fact that the Minister is only prepared to talk about legislation, is she prepared at least to withdraw the severance pay provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act and to postpone the calculation of pensions being used as earned income under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


John Edward Broadbent: Good, John.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to believe that when 1 do talk it brings about some response. The response in the case of Inco has been that they have increased their benefits package by 70 per cent and that has been to the benefit of the workers in that plant.


An Hon. Member:: Less than 100 workers.

October 3, 1985
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


AIRLINE TICKET TAXES-EFFECT ON NORTHERN TRAVELLERS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: My question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In that the removal of the cap on airline ticket taxes has been unfair to and discriminates against people who live in northern and remote areas of Canada, is the Government considering any changes to the way in which it levies this tax?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern expressed by my hon. colleague but I also have to point out that the needs of the Arctic are being recognized and special fee and tax provisions have been installed. For example, landing fees at Arctic airports have only been increased once since 1957.


An Hon. Member:: Table the document.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Landing fees at airports such as Whitehorse and Yellowknife are approximately 60 per cent lower than at similar airports in the south.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, we learned a few moments ago from the Minister of Indian Affairs that there would be 1,500 workers, one-quarter of his staff, being laid off in his Department. We also heard about
3.000	workers being laid off in the Post Office and about the
5.000	transport workers being laid off. We have also heard about the 1,150-maybe not the Minister of Indian Affairs, but I want to ask the Minister who is responsible for this layoff program-


An Hon. Member:: Very few are responsible.


An Hon. Member:: Question, question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Will the Minister tell us what career plans he has for all these workers of the federal Government who have been laid off because of government programs?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond since the Hon. Member led off with a question which I hope he knows is mistaken in fact. He did not hear about 1,500 jobs from me nor from anyone else who has responsibility for the matter. In fact, that was a newspaper report and of course is not the figure that anyone else is using.


Lloyd Axworthy: Two thousand?


David Edward Crombie: Let me make sure he understands this. The assurance of the Government has always been that anyone who
is in these kinds of situations will be treated fairly and equitably through the normal practices of the Treasury Board. I say to him that he should not repeat figures which are untrue or alleged facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Supplementary to the Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Speaker. The Minister knows that Indian nations in this country support and that the task force on Indian self-government recommended the dismantling of his Department but only if there was a commitment that that dismantlement would take-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a supplementary, not a new preamble, please.


Mr. Allmand:: -place with full consultation and the funds would be-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question.


William Warren Allmand: No, I don't!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


William Warren Allmand: You're a joke!


Mr. Murphy:: This House is not used to such honesty.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and follows up on questions I asked yesterday. At that time, I asked if the Minister of Finance, while in Halifax last Thursday, had announced to his provincial colleagues that he intended to reduce transfer payments to the provinces effective 1986 rather than 1987 as the legislation presently reads.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I owe the Hon. Member an apology. I know 1 did not give him a good answer yesterday in the House. I think the Budget made it very clear that while we are limiting the future rate of growth in payments to the provinces, it was agreed that Ministers would meet again. The Minister of Finance had made it a point, because of our Government's commitment to national reconciliation, that changes will only be made in
October 3, 1985

consultation with the provinces. That is exactly the process that is under way.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the federal Minister of Finance announced that in 1986 he intended to reduce transfer payments, money for medicare, post-secondary education-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?
Oral Questions
I wonder whether I am having trouble making myself clear. What I am asking the Minister, who apparently has nothing to hide, is whether she is prepared to table the documents. That is what we want to know, and the question should not be too difficult to understand!


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I understand perfectly well what my hon. friend is driving at, and if he wants to lay charges perhaps he could do so outside the House.


An Hon. Member:: Is it true?


Rodney Edward Murphy: My question is this, Mr. Speaker. Is the Government going to live up to its election promise by reinstating full funding for post-secondary education? Will the Government keep that promise?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government's commitment to postsecondary educational funding is very well known. Discussions with the provinces are continuing and the Minister and the provinces will reach an agreement. Speculation about the outcome of those conversations is, I think, not helpful.


TRANSPORT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns the Gulf-Reichmann-Petro-Canada deal. Given that it is a fact that Gulf, Norcen and Petro-Canada formed a refinery partnership for income tax purposes, that Oilweek magazine reported in June that Revenue Canada was not co-operating with the deal and that the Priorities and Planning Committee of the Cabinet was involved, and given that this has all been corroborated by Mr. Dunnery Best in The Financial Post-


John Carnell Crosbie: That's who's co-ordinating your Question Period.


REQUEST THAT EUROPEAN TRAVEL VOUCHERS BE TABLED BY MINISTER
An Hon. Member:: Great source.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed by the Minister of State for Transport and concerns her two trips to Europe.
Earlier, in reply to a question by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, the Minister said that the travel documents were available and that there were receipts. However, she failed to answer the main part of the Hon. Member's question, which was whether the Minister was prepared to table those documents in the House.
That is the question I wish to put again to the Minister.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier, in response to this question, that the trips were very carefully planned and that they were approved by the Minister of External Affairs, and that all the documents exist. In fact, they were available before all this was written up in the newspapers, at Easter and in July.


DEMAND THAT TRAVEL DOCUMENTS BE PRODUCED
Jacques Guilbault: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I happen to think it is a pretty good source. Did the Minister go to bat at the Priorities and Planning Committee to cause the Government to pressure Revenue Canada to make a ruling in the takeover favourable to the Reichmanns?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.


TERMS OF TAX RULING
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain whether or not there was a change in the tax ruling in favour of the Reichmanns between the time the first deal which collapsed and the second deal, as a result of pressure from the Priorities and Planning Committee of the Cabinet?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this question is properly addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has been answered by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue.

October 3, 1985
Oral Questions FISHERIES


REFINANCING OF FISHERY PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Government of Canada has just announced a $105 million refinancing plan for Fishery Products International in Newfoundland as well as the disposal of 15 so-called unprofitable fish plants. Will it be a condition of sale that these fish plants will continue to operate as fish plants? What guarantees can we give to these communities if the plants are not sold?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member who is putting the question distorts the actual facts. There was a press release issued yesterday by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. If the Hon. Member would read it carefully, he would see that the five-year plan that was approved will provide for a more viable industry and for more jobs in the long run.
To incite fear in the hearts of the people who are affected by the fishing industry, something which he and his colleagues from Newfoundland are continually trying to do, does no service to their constituents or the country.


COMPANY'S SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
George Baker: Let us bring into this question a statement made by the Hon. Member for St. John's East. My supplementary question is the same question posed this afternoon in the media by the Conservative Hon. Member for St. John's East. The question is this: who will assume the social responsibility that Fishery Products was to be carrying? This is a serious unanswered question and we want to know the answer.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, the fisheries reorganization project was developed to make the Newfoundland fishing industry a viable one, and the amounts invested will be used to safeguard many of the jobs in the industry and to privatize plants, and thus make the industry viable in both the short and long term.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and follows up on the question posed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill. The Minister of Finance has clearly stated that there will be a reduction in transfer payments from the federal Government to the provinces. Could the Minister of State for
Finance advise the House how the Government can talk about a reduction in federal transfer payments without also talking about a reduction in moneys for post-secondary education and medicare?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think I am interpreting my colleague, the Minister of Finance, correctly when I say that what he indicted was that there would be a reduction in the rate of increase. There will still be a substantial increase in transfer payments going to the provinces and all of these programs will continue to have our full commitment. As the Hon. Member knows, we have attempted to bring some discipline to all our spending and the Minister is consulting with the provinces on how best to do that.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance clearly indicated that there would be a reduction of some $2 billion. Could the Minister of State for Finance assure the House that that reduction will not take place so that medicare will not be attacked through the Government's desire to reduce the deficit?


Barbara Jean McDougall: 
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. From the release of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States dealing with the proposed free trade negotiations, it comes as a great surprise to many Canadians to see that there is no reference whatsoever in that correspondence to a need to defend and protect Canadian sovereignty in the way of culture and economics. Will the Prime Minister explain why that exclusion was made in the letter? Does he intend to write a second letter outlining the deep commitment which he says his Government has to protect Canadian sovereignty in these areas?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to mention every time I turn around, because the President of the United States and every other leader knows, that as Prime Minister of Canada and leader of this Government we epitomize the protection of the cultural integrity of this nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 3, 1985


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may see it that way but many other Canadians do not. There is a high level of uncertainty created by the question of what will and what will not be on the negotiating table.
Will the Prime Minister, in a formal document or letter to the President of the United States, clearly state what the parameters of the negotiations will be? Will he state that there will be a clear defence of our sovereignty in key industrial areas of the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is about my hon. friend which renders him so insecure.


Lloyd Axworthy: Canadians want to be secure!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Every time he stands up it is the nasty Americans doing this and the nasty British doing that. 1 stand before you, Mr. Speaker, as a proud and confident Canadian, proud of the capacity of this country and this Government to defend and enhance the strengths of our regions and the integrity of our cultural institutions, at all times and in all circumstances.


Lloyd Axworthy: Put it in writing.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of four, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, October 2, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

The petitions presented by the Hon. Members for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), in answering one of my questions, challenged me to repeat outside the House what I had just said. I wish to advise you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister concerned that I am going to do so forthwith.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Member leaves the House, I should indicate to him he presumably has made the point he wished to make but it was not a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise now on a point of order, since points of order are not per mitted to be raised during the Question Period.
During Oral Questions is appeared to some Hon. Members that the question asked by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), which was asked, by you, to be placed on the Order Paper, was very similar to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), which was allowed. I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, can assist us by clarifying the distinction between the two questions.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. House Leader wishes to come and see me, I would be happy to explain it to him.


Some Hon. Members:: In here!


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the practice of asking me to spend part of the day giving advice is improper. However, I think the Hon. Member knows that questions which are specific and which require detailed information with regard to numbers are traditionally placed on the Order Paper.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask the question with respect to the business of the House. I would appreciate it if the Government House Leader would tell us the House business not only for the balance of this week but for the coming week in as clear and as precise a manner as possible. Will he also indicate to the House the extent to which he intends to stick to that order of business?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't hold your breath.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the question was so garbled I did not quite catch it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will try to give a clear and unequivocal answer to the question asked with respect to the business of the House. As the Hon. Member knows, and as I keep reminding the House, we meet on a frequent and regular basis to discuss various items which will be coming forward. We try to accom-

October 3, 1985
Petitions
modate all Members, including members of the Hon. Member's Party and members of the New Democratic Party.
As the Hon. Member knows, today, the House will resume consideration of Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity. If the debate with respect to that Bill concludes, then we will return to the debate on second reading of Bill C-42, which is an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
As I have indicated in a preliminary way to the House Leaders, their staffs and their offices, tomorrow, the House will consider second reading stage of Bill C-76, which is an Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners.
Following debate on Bill C-76 we will resume consideration of Bill C-42.
Next week, the first item of business will be with respect to an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and the Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits. That Bill will be introduced for first reading later this day. The back-up to the compensation Bill will be Bill C-42, if it has not been completed by that time.
As usual, the Government will monitor the progress made with respect to all legislation, and further announcements well in advance of the introduction of new business will be made to the House Leaders and to the House at the earliest possible date.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a great many fathers and mothers in my constituency of Papineau. The petitioners plead with the Government to restore the full indexation of
family allowances and child tax credit. It is sheer injustice, and all petitioners deplore the disastrous consequences of this measure if it is not changed.
The Conservative Government must reverse its decision and honour its commitment by restoring the full indexation of family allowances and child tax credit.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, on behalf of Overbrook voters in my riding, a petition wherein they urge the Government to restore the full indexation of family allowances and child tax credit.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition from the region of Orleans in the riding of Ottawa-Carleton asking the Government to restore the full indexation of family allowances and child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from residents of the National Capital Region, Gatineau, Carleton Place, Aylmer, Perkins, Val-des-Monts, Orleans and several local municipalities, from heads of family who ask the Government to reconsider its position. They say that Government programs are important to those families, and they want the reinstatement of full indexation of family allowances and child tax credit.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to the House a petition from people in New Brunswick, particularly from Saint John, who plead with the Government not to proceed with the partial deindexation of family allowances.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present which have come from across the country. The first petition demands justice for Isabel Goligher and asks that she either be reinstated to her former job or be given an alternate position of equal status and pay in London with the Government of Canada. It asks that all pay and benefits be paid to her retroactively to the date of her forced resignation and that her reputation be cleared of the false allegations, that she receive written apologies from all parties-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should make a brief summary of the petitions. I think she has done that. I am afraid she is embarking upon reading the petition.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a large number of petitions from across the country. I am being brief, given the petitions which show support from ridings all across the country. I do have other petitions on other subjects.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from persons
October 3, 1985

concerned with the deindexation of family allowances by the Government.


Barbara Jean McDougall: for leave to introduce a Bill respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain) moved:: That the Order of the Day be now read.

(Division No. 116)
++YEAS
Andre
Axworthy
Baker
Beatty
Belsher
Berger
Bernier
Bissonnette
Brightwell
Brisco
Caccia
Cadieux
Caldwell
Carney
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Chartrand
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Cochrane
Collins
Cook
Copps
Corbett
Cossitt
Crofton
Crombie
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Dick Dingwall Do mm Edwards Ferland Finestone Fontaine Fraleigh Fretz Friesen Frith Gagliano Garneau Gass Gauthier Gervais Gormley
Gottselig
Gray
(Windsor West) Greenaway Grise Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques) Guilbault (Drummond) Halliday Hardey Hawkes Henderson Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Hopkins Horner Hudon Isabelle James Jardine Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-Conception)



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DEPOSITORS COMPENSATION ACT


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moves that this Bill be read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When shall the Bill be read a second time?


Some Hon. Members:: Never.

October 3, 1985
Order Paper Questions


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: No.



AUDITOR GENERAL ACT


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-250, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this Bill will allow the Auditor General to report his audits when completed rather than once annually as is in the present structure. It would make his report and the subject of his report much more current as far as this House is concerned. Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 363 and 430.
[ Text]


Mr. de Jong: 1.	For (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 id) 1983 (e) 1984, how many individuals registered with the Minister of National Revenue or the Department, their intent to withold and/or redirect that portion of their assessed taxes owing which would, as they have determined, contribute to the national defence/military budget to a Peace Tax Fund or Trust Account?
2.	Did the Department of National Revenue seek from the Department of Justice any legal opinions and/or advice with respect to initiating legal action against those persons who advised the Department of National Revenue of their intentions to withhold a portion of their taxes for the Peace Tax Fund or Trust Account?
3.	For the same years, what was the total amount of taxes, both personal and corporate, which were redirected to the Peace Tax Fund or Trust Account?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
The requested statistics are not maintained, however, general correspondence on the subject of the Peace Tax Fund indicates that 180 letters were received in 1981, 385 in 1982, 141 in 1983 and 133 in 1984.
2.	No legal opinion was sought as there is clear authority under the Income Tax Act with respect to the collection of withheld amounts of tax. Normal collections procedures in this regard are followed.
3.	Nil.


Mr. Blenkarn: In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983 (J) 1984, what was the total amount of goods sold by (i) Canada to Czechoslovakia (ii) Czechoslovakia to Canada?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports: Statistics on the total value of Canadian exports to and imports from Czechoslovakia for the period 1979-84 are show below:
Exports	Imports
(Domestic and re-exports)*
(thousands of dollars)
1979	36,182	67,5091980	128,091	63,3811981	28,238	72,8901982	31,507	60,3371983	15,266	54,4431984	18,972	64,960* Domestic Exports:	Statistics of domestic exports include both goods which	
are wholly produced in Canada and goods previously included in import statistics which have since been changed in form by further processing and then export.
Re-Exports: Statistics of re-exports include only goods previously included in import statistics which are exported from Canada in the same form as when imported. Minor operations such as sorting or blending are not considered as changing the condition of imported goods.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining 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
October 3, 1985
[Stage Direction]
equity, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House rose at one o'clock, there were four minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I see that the Hon. Member is not present in the House at this time. Therefore, we will resume debate.


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women to address the implications of employment equity for the women of Canada. At the outset, I want to take a moment to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), for her achievement with this Bill. She has conducted extensive consultations with all interested parties, consultations which give real meaning to this initiative. This is reflected in the successful drafting of the Bill, a document which is a bold first step. I am pleased and encouraged to hear Members opposite recognize the importance of this first step which represents a position which addresses the sensitive needs of both employers and target groups.
The employment equity legislation before us today ensures that no person will be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to abilities. There is no doubt that such legislation is urgently needed in Canada. Despite a decade of voluntary affirmative action and equal opportunity programs, there has been little progress in the over-all economic advancement of women in the labour force.
As Members of the House will know, the statistics speak for themselves. Historically, the unemployment rate of women has always been higher than that of men. In 1982, women working full time full year earned only 64 cents for every dollar earned by men working full time full year.
The employment options of women are so narrow that fully three-quarters of employed women work in only five of 22 major occupations. Most of these jobs are not only low paying but are also dead-end jobs offering limited scope for advancement. In addition, many of these jobs are threatened by structural changes due to micro-electronics, automation and other technological developments. Further, many women who cannot find full-time jobs are forced to accept part-time work. In fact, in the year 1984, women accounted for 71 per cent of all part-time workers across our nation. This type of employment provides fewer jobs, fewer job benefits, less security and fewer promotion opportunities than full-time work.
Despite these roadblocks, the trend is such that women's participation in the labour force is growing. In the year 1974, the participation rate of women between the ages of 25 and 54 years was 48 per cent. A decade later in 1984, it had jumped to 66.7 per cent. It is estimated that by the year 1990, women will account for two-thirds of the labour force growth. Already over half of women whose youngest children are under three years old are now in the labour force.
Employment Equity
Another marked trend is the accelerated rate at which women are turning to self-employment. Women encounter specific barriers in this area of employment, particularly with regard to acquiring loans and financing credit. Although women's contribution to the formal economy as both employees and entrepreneurs has increased, women have not benefited equally. This must change.
Women workers are necessary and valuable contributors to the economy. Their full participation in the labour force is essential to ensure Canada's future growth. What we are proposing here is not merely justice but a part of our whole economic and job-creation thrust. The current under-utilization of women workers and their qualifications is a waste of human resources that Canada can no longer afford. As well, it results in conditions that women themselves cannot afford
I need not remind Hon. Members that women work for the same reasons men do: for their own personal satisfaction and to meet their own economic needs and those of their families. We know for a fact that if women did not work outside the home, over 60 per cent more families would be living below the poverty line. We know too that 85 per cent of all single-parent families are headed by women and that close to half or 47 per cent of these families live in poverty. Clearly, the inequities in our economic system and the social barriers that prevent women's full and equal participation in the economy cannot continue.
The employment equity legislation before us today brings together measures related to equal opportunity and affirmative action. It is designed to counter the restraints that keep women from attaining full parity with men in the labour markets. These constraints include economically limiting job segregation and occupational concentration, social attitudes which lead women to consider only a few types of occupations, systems which overlook significant numbers of trained and skilled women workers and the lack of training opportunities and upward mobility.
Members will recall that at the First Ministers' conference in Regina, the premiers committed themselves to improving access to training and child care in order to help women achieve economic equality. Some of the premiers at the Regina meeting have stated that they too are developing specific policy measures to implement employment equity.
Since we announced our response to the Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment last March, we have met with representatives of women's groups, business, labour, native people, disabled and the visible minorities to discuss employment equity. The swift introduction of employment equity legislation is further proof of our commitment to address this pressing situation.
The Government is setting an example in employment within its own jurisdiction. The federal Government, in strengthening its commitment to employment equity, will be seen to be a leader for provincial Governments and the private sector in supporting and promoting a structure of employment practice founded on merit and not on bias or barriers. We are doing so first for reasons of fundamental justice because

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
barriers restricting the economic future of millions of Canadians must be removed. I also believe that employment equity is a practical measure leading to enhanced productivity and to economic prosperity. Employment equity measures will affect roughly one in five Canadian women. For the first time, the implementation of reporting of employment equity results will be mandatory and reported information will be available on the public record. Public scrutiny will be a valuable instrument of control, bringing pressure to bear for real progress. I have been encouraged by remarks made earlier in the debate by the Minister, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) and Hon. Members opposite who have recognized the importance of data in addressing this sensitive situation.
The principle of employment equity is already established within the federal Public Service. As the employer, the Treasury Board is now working on a number of measures to ensure that this principle is further reflected in federal employment policies and practices. These include immediate initiatives to identify systemic barriers in the Public Service job classification system, intensified implementation of the Government's affirmative action program, with an added commitment for adequate resources. To assist the achieving of the stated goal Hon. Members will know that an invitation has been extended to the Public Service unions to participate in a senior level joint union-management committee to prepare a detailed implementation plan in the area of equal pay for work of equal value throughout the Public Service.
Employment equity measures are an integral part of the Government's economic strategy. Full participation by all Canadians contributes to economic growth. It ensures that our human resources are used to their fullest potential. A priority on jobs and economic renewal must involve an attack on barriers to equity, just as it must involve an attack on obstacles to growth. I believe that employment equity is both beneficial to women and fully compatible with the Government's principal economic priorities. Employment equity is not lip service to those Canadians who have been denied opportunities. Rather, I believe the legislation is a pragmatic program of action which will be the catalyst for change that will spread throughout all sectors of the Canadian economy.
As Minister responsible for the status of women I am aware of the particular systemic problems facing women in employment. For example, employment equity will help debunk outdated myths about working women. It will also alert employers to the cost incurred by overlooking qualified women. It will ensure that employers recognize the benefits to be gained by training, hiring and promoting women on the same basis as they do men. Employment equity is a bold new initiative. While it flows from the recommendations of the Abella Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, and while it is in keeping with the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights, it is as yet an innovative concept which will have to be tried and tested. Because of this we are endeavouring to take a flexible approach to the process of implementing employment
equity consistent with individual needs and the capabilities of employers involved.
There are some critics of the legislation and we have heard their comments echoed in the debate thus far. There are those who say the legislation is inadequate, weak, impassive or vague. Others, at the opposite end of the spectrum, charge this is government interference, undue coercive measures, bureaucratic nightmares, regulations or what have you. Yet, the Government's commitment to employment equity is firm and unyielding. We realize that the current under-utilization of women, native Canadians, visible minorities and disabled persons in the labour force is a waste of human resources which Canada can no longer afford. We are determined to involve Canadians fully in the economic renewal and in the life of this nation. The full participation of these groups is essential to ensure our country's future economic growth.
Results are what matter and results are what we are seeking to achieve. Interestingly enough, in her report, Judge Abella encouraged the Government to see that the legislation looked to results rather than regulations. I reiterate that the voluntary approach of the previous Government had very limited success, as Members opposite have recognized in the debate. It is only through legislated, mandatory requirements that we are likely to bring about real employment equity.
Examples of similar mandatory programs which have worked in Canada are the French language program in the federal Public Service, which raised Francophone representation to the same proportion as the over-all Canadian membership, and the preferential hiring of World War II veterans. These two measures were imposed on the system, backed by significant political will, and they yielded positive measurable outcomes.
We ask in 1985 no less for other target group members in our society: women, native people, handicapped persons and visible minorities. Our commitment to this principle of employment equity is on the record.
There is a potential of 1,000 companies employing close to one million workers who will be affected by the legislation. Instead of perceiving employment equity as an obstacle to economic growth, we must realize there are benefits to be gained, not only by the target groups but by employers and the economy as a whole when we promote sound, fair human resource planning-a structure of employment practices founded on merit. In fact, the principles of employment equity go to the very heart of rejuvenated Canadian economy. Canadian economic renewal requires the full participation of all members of the community.
Up to this point in the debate we have been encouraged by the response that this legislation is a step in the right direction. Earlier in the debate the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) indicated that while in the committee stage he wishes to explore some aspects, he and others in his Party see it as a step in the right direction. In response to the concerns raised by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) with respect to the fact that somehow equal pay is not in force and is not related, we wish
October 3, 1985

to remind Hon. Members that this is already in place in the federal jurisdiction but not, of course, in many of the provinces.
Others have been concerned that the provisions are not voluntary. I wish to suggest that not only will public opinion be brought to bear through mandatory reporting mechanisms but that there is the commitment of the Government to strengthen, as necessary, the Human Rights Commission in order to undertake this action.
Earlier in the debate it has been underlined that in order to move forward with this step we require the data. Other than making a bureaucratic effort, what we wish to do is have the companies come back and show us what they are doing to give us that data. We want to assure the House that there will be provisions for enforcement and that there will be in the regulations a number of the concerns addressed which have been raised.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) raised a matter which I thought was most important and one on which I would like to encourage suggestions. That was the concern for educational programs, the need for target groups and the importance of this to Canadians. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that as this legislation moves forward we, as Hon. Members of this House, might be part of that educational program on behalf of women. We might see, as a part of this exercise with employers and employees, that there is an essential educational ingredient for all Canadians.
I am confident that the Government can achieve the goals outlined in this legislation. This legislation can have a meaningful impact on the lives of all members of the designated target groups so that economic equality will be within their grasp. Employment equity legislation clearly spells out the Government's intention to create true equality of opportunity for those who have not enjoyed this right previously. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring that all Canadians will be able to share the benefits of future economic growth. We look forward to the support of Hon. Members on all sides of the House for this first and historic step in beginning to address these longstanding inequalities and in opening up this truly great opportunity for resource development within Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions
Employment Equity
to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)-The Administration-(a) Request for review of contract awards (b) Conflict of interest guidelines; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Official languages-Commissioner's report-(a) Request for legislation (b) French as language of work in Public Services; the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Transport-(a) Closing of a plant in Montreal by Bombardier (b) Purchase of locomotives from Bombardier-Government's position.



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.
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the Minister, and I have a number of questions which I would like to ask him. The Minister said that the Government is adopting a flexible approach consistent with the needs and abilities of the employers. I hope I have quoted him correctly. I would like to ask him if this is not really what the Liberals were saying as well. When the Liberals were in Government, and we were on this side, along with the Conservatives, we were both extremely critical of the Liberal Government because it was saying that we must be flexible. It backed down on mandatory contract compliance, for example, and said, "We'll leave it to the business people to establish their own ideas of what is right". The Government really shied away from the issue.
It seems to me that really the Conservative Government is doing the same as the Liberal Government in trying to use just persuasion and a very flexible approach which has no teeth in it. no "mandatory enforcement" and I insist we use that term because that is really what it means.
Second, the Minister also said that this was a step in the right direction. I would like to ask the Minister why we should only take a step in the right direction. If we are going to do something which is so important and, as the Minister said, which will ensure that no person will be denied employment for reasons other than ability, why should we not go all the way? Why should we only be making this a data collection project? Why should we not be establishing a goal? Why should there not be a mechanism outside of the employer himself which establishes the goals and then enforces these goals? Why do we need to take so much time about it? It will be at least 10 years before the Human Rights Commission can

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
get back to the employers to criticize any changes. It will take that long to get the information together and then to try to do something about it. I would really like to leave those two questions with the Minister.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her comments and assure her that those concerns have been addressed. The Hon. Member raised three items. With respect to the question of flexibility, I want to suggest to the Hon. Member that, as she will recall, the Abella Commission recommended that the Government take a flexible approach-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It recommended enforcement.


Walter Franklin McLean: -and recognize the diversity of the country and the diverse needs of the employing sector. Second, the Hon. Member speaks of mandatory enforcement. I want to remind her, and the House, that this Bill does have within it mandatory provisions, mandatory for employment equity, mandatory for reporting, and these are legal tools-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Reporting but not change.


Mr. Cassidy:: Tell us what is being done.


Walter Franklin McLean: I suggest to the Hon. Member that she read Clause 4 of the Bill and the comments of the National Action Committee, and others. I understand, as does the Hon. Member, the sense of urgency on the part of the women's movement in relation to this Bill. I am interested to see that the women's movement endorsed Clause 4 which states, and I quote:
An employer shall-
-not "may". In my understanding of the English language, "shall" implies mandatory-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: How are you going to do it? It's fine to put the words down.


Walter Franklin McLean: In answer to the comments of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville in the debate this morning, we talked about the importance of regulations.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Its mandatory manipulation.


Walter Franklin McLean: The Hon. Member also spoke about the question of the next steps to be taken. I agree with her entirely. What we are hoping for is that, for example, the Province of Manitoba will follow and join in. This is not something the federal Government can do on its own. What we are trying to do is deal within our own jurisdiction.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: But you're not dealing with it. You're just taking statistics.


Walter Franklin McLean: What we are also trying to do is to set an example in front of the Canadian private sector, the unions and the provinces with the hope that they will begin to follow it. I would like to also reiterate that in the report of Judge Abella, she spoke about the importance of having legislation which was "results oriented", which would not bring back
reports from employers which, somehow, do not reflect what is happening but is their way of getting around the regulations. We have here a mechanism in the Human Rights Commission to see that those reports are acted upon, as against the alternative of companies having plans which would have to be approved with more regulatory imposition and fines and so on.
In response to the Hon. Member, I suggest that the concerns she is addressing are concerns which are very much in front of the Government. This is a first step. I remind the Hon. Member that five years ago this was not on the agenda at all and while many quite obviously would wish that there was more in the first step, we make no apologies for coming forward with mandatory provisions, for taking the first step. We will be acting with Crown corporations, with contracts through the Department of Supply and Services, and I believe this Bill will become a complementing part of our action toward a total comprehensive program in relation to justice for target groups.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to characterize the Government's Bill not as flexible, but as flaccid in that it does nothing on a mandatory basis to determine that Crown corporations and the federal Government comply on pay equity issues like affirmative action. Is it not a little embarrassing for his Ministry responsible for the status of women-and I know he sees his wife as more than a rose in his lapel-to be in the same Government which, since the introduction of the new Conservative mandate, has decided that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will no longer pay for renovations to make apartments accessible for the disabled? On the one hand, Crown corporations and the federal sector are being told to make a plan to make employment accessible to women, minorities, and the disabled. On the other hand, through the Minister's own Ministry, the Government is cutting back on the issue of accessibility which is obviously critical to those people who will be able to compete in the employment market.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an issue which is tangential to this particular issue. On the matter of action in this area her Party was not evident over the last number of years with any legislative measures whatsoever. On the matter of sensitizing and education about target groups, let me also remind the Hon. Member that in the last few week the House established a standing committee on the condition of disabled persons.
On the question of education and sensitizing all of our instruments, I would invite her to join with me and others in the Government. Our positions in relation to equality for target groups, be they women or the disabled, are clear. We now need my commitment as the Minister responsible to encourage and work with my colleagues in Cabinet to see that we integrate those concerns into all of our planning processes. As we are able, despite the limited resources that may be available, we must ensure that these groups are targeted as special groups with special concerns. As was indicated earlier in the debate, education in all aspects is important so that
October 3, 1985

when decisions are made the issues of accessibility and the needs of the disabled will be front and centre. This Bill puts that in front of the entire Government as well as the entire community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, as the New Democratic critic for the status of women, to be speaking on this Bill this afternoon. As we have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, we feel that this is very weak legislation. We agree with the intended thrust of it, but we feel that it is very weak. In fact, I would say that it is mush.
As I said, we support the goal of the Bill which is to bring about true equality in the workplace for women, for physically and mentally handicapped people, for visible minorities, and for natives. However, there are very fundamental flaws in Bill C-62 which will, we believe, prevent the achievement of this goal. Organizations which represent all four sectors are extremely dissatisfied in most cases and would agree with most of the reasons. The Minister said this morning that it will enshrine equality in the workplace and that it ensures access to opportunity for all Canadians. Those are pretty grand goals and I only wish that they could be implemented. I am sure that the Minister sincerely wants to do this, but I have very serious concerns that this is not achievable through this legislation.
The legislation calls only for a reporting of workplace data related to the four groups. It imposes a fine if the designated employers do not complete this report within five years. The reporting is mandatory, but that is only a first step. This legislation does not require the establishment of objective goals set by someone other than the employer, targets, or a timetable for employing members of the designated groups in a much fairer proportion. In other words, there are no real targets, and certainly no quotas.
There is no enforcement mechanism to require compliance by employers, no monitoring agency, and no penalty if the employer does not make changes. I find it hard to understand why there is a fairly stiff penalty if they do not report, but there is no penalty if the employer does not make changes. It is difficult, of course, to impose penalties if you do not know what those changes are going to be. The Bill applies only to selected employers. The Ministers said that it would affect everyone, but in reality it applies only to approximately 500 of the largest corporations in the federal sector. Maybe there is hope for a trickle-down effect, but I think this would be wishful thinking. As well, the time allowance for employers to make changes is far too lengthy. As I understand, it will take three years to compile the first report and another three to five years to study the results. What will happen after that? By then the Government could be changed.
Employers are left to make whatever changes they deem to be reasonable. This whole Bill is so subjective. It is nice to try to get employers to be more progressive and to care more about equal representation in employee groups, but they have
Employment Equity
a very vested interest. Many of the American business people who were quoted this morning said that they feel that mandatory affirmative action really works. They like it and feel it is productive from a business point of view as well as a human point of view. I do not understand why we have not put more teeth into this Bill.
The Minister said that we will use the force of public opinion. Of all people on the Government side, the knows through her fight for equality that women have never really achieved very much through the force of public opinion. I would think that disabled people, natives, and visible minorities have even less of a chance of achieving this through public opinion. Simply because an employer may feel a little embarrassed is not going to change the whole scheme of things.
As well, the Bill includes no reference to equal pay for work of equal value. According to the experts in this field, equality in employment must include equal access to jobs and equal pay for work of equal value. There is not much point in getting a job if you do not have a fair rate of pay. Judge Albella and all other authorities on affirmative action agree that any plan must include a requirement that employers will practise equal pay for work of equal value. Judge Abella has said that it is not enough to get women and minority groups into jobs, they must be paid fairly according to the value of that job compared to similar jobs.
We know, as the Minister pointed out this morning, that there is equal pay for work of equal value legislation. We all know that there is human rights legislation, but the Minister herself admitted that this has not been enforced and has not worked. We know that this is partly due to lack of staff, but it is more than that. Women still have to prepare complaints and go on a case-by-case basis to the Human Rights Commission. Members will recall that it was two years before the Bell employees were even heard. Many women do not have the ability, the time, or the expertise to prepare their case. They might not even know that this was their right. Therefore, there has not been adequate enforcement of equal pay for work of equal value.
This Bill is an opportunity for the Government to strengthen that principle. Government employers, whether it be Crown corporations or the Government itself, should be required by this legislation to practise that principle. The onus must be on the employer to make systemic changes, it should not left to a woman to complain individually or the Human Rights Commission to wait for complaints. This should be part of the agreement made with every employer involved in employer equity and I urge the Minister to look at this again.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We have looked at it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am not convinced the Minister has done that at all. I think the experts in the field would say the same thing, including Judge Abella.
The sixth point I want to make is that the Bill ignores the important role of collective bargaining. Last week I attended a

October 3, 1985
Employment Equity
special conference held by the Canadian Labour Congress. Well over 500 representatives of trade union affiliates were there and expressed great concern about this Bill. The Government has not included in the Bill the importance of referring to the collective bargaining role which is of great concern to these groups. The Minister has already presented some facts regarding the deplorable situation facing women in the job market, a situation which has not improved. We hope very much that this legislation, if it can be improved and toughened, will help women as well as other designated groups.
I would like to make reference to the comments of some other people regarding this Bill. Judge Abella, of course, cannot comment on the legislation but she said that voluntary compliance does not work. There must be an enforcement agency, that is very clear from her remarks. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is a Government recognized agency which is supposed to be advising the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Obviously he has not been taking their advice because he did not refer to their points at all. They said they were very disappointed that crucial elements in Judge Abella's recommendations are absent from the Government's proposal, such as the lack of a mechanism to provide co-ordinated and effective enforcement of employment equity. There are other groups I could refer to, Mr. Speaker, but my time is getting short and I want to introduce a very important document into the record this afternoon. I will be glad to see that the Minister gets a copy of this. It was compiled by the CLC and compares the key Abella Report recommendations with this Bill and also refers to the CLC position on affirmative action, a term they prefer to use regarding this same issue.
The first point they make is that Judge Abella said that all federally regulated employers should be required to implement employment equity. The two key words are "all" and "required". Bill C-62 says that federally regulated employers and Crown corporations employing 100 or more are required to implement employment equity.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is right, "required".


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The CLC feels that legislation at both federal and provincial levels must make it mandatory for employers to negotiate programs with unions. I hope the Minister will have another look at that.
The second point is that the legislation should require employers to implement a program of filing data, et cetera- this is Judge Abella speaking-and an enforcement mechanism must be implemented. Bill C-62 requires that employers implement a program and file reports. The programs require no approval and there is no enforcement mechanism other than the filing of the reports to be made public. The CLC of course agrees with the Abella Report recommendations.
As well, Judge Abella says that discriminatory barriers should be eliminated. The Bill requires that employment barriers be identified and removed. Those are fairly similar. The fourth point was that employers should be required to have employment equity committees consisting of representatives of
management, labour and the designated groups. There is no legislated requirement for committees, so that is another point we will want to look at. The CLC has strongly recommended equal representation by union and management on any committee and the union should select its own representatives. Judge Abella said no quotas should be imposed and the Bill says no quotas or targets will be imposed. The CLC says targets and timetables must be set to ensure progress. Judge Abella says employers must be given flexibility, as the Minister mentioned earlier, and the Bill gives total flexibility to employers. The CLC says that unions must have the right to negotiate changes into collective agreements, including employment practices and procedures.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They are not very willing to do so.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Judge Abella says there is an obligation to file data but the requirement to implement employment equity should take effect immediately. I think that is quite different from what this Bill requires. It requires that employers shall commence filing reports on June 1, 1988, and once a year thereafter. They will begin to implement employment equity in 1985 and they will submit plans to Treasury Board. The CLC feels there should be regular reporting to an enforcement agency. Judge Abella says that the enforcement of employment equity requires an independent agency with sufficient resources, qualified staff and an ongoing consultative relationship in the development of guidelines with business, labour and designated groups. That is not the type of enforcement agency included in this Bill. There will be complaints that can be lodged with the Human Rights Commission but we do not feel this is effective. The enforcement of change is what has not really been dealt with.
The CLC feels there must be strong penalties for non-compliance and impartial boards to adjudicate disputes. The Abella Report says that contract compliance should be imposed by legislation. This could include specific goals and timetables. There are no goals and timetables in this Bill. The report says that equal pay for work of equal value should be part of all employment equity programs and more resources should be allocated for enforcement.
I could go on and mention the other matters which are not covered at all and which are so important to women. It is not enough to have open access to jobs; they must be jobs at fair rates of pay with opportunity for promotion. More than that, in many cases women cannot move up if they do not have child care, adequate training, including pre-employment training, which will help them to be competitive with traditionally male dominated occupations. We feel that changes are needed to this Bill. I hope very much that there will be a chance to make some of those changes through amendments, but, as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women said, it is only just a step. It is not a big step, and there are serious omissions in the Bill.
October 3, 1985


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member realize that she just blew her case when she quoted the analysis of the CLC about this Bill? She stated that CLC indicated that the Bill required employers to implement employment equity. The CLC recognizes, as do we, that the Bill requires employers to implement employment equity. That is mandatory, but it does not do it for small business. CLC recognizes that the mandatory action is in Clause 4 of the Bill wherein employers are required, by law, to implement employment equity. Is the Hon. Member aware of that?
Was she aware, when she talked about flexibility, that Judge Abella indicated in her report that it would also be expected that employers would set annual internal objectives, that these would not be required by statute and that no quotas would be imposed? I think the Hon. Member tried to leave the impression that the recommendations of the Abella Report were not being followed. We have followed them in very many cases, particularly the section concerning enforcement mechanisms. Judge Abella recommended four models of consideration by the Government. Is the Hon. Member aware that the fourth model as an enforcement mechanism relied upon the provisions already in effect in the Canada Labour Code and upon the Canadian Human Rights Commission? That is the agency which we chose as the mechanism to ensure the accumulation of data. Does she realize that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, under Article 32(3), has been given the right to initiate a complaint? It has not been able to do that so far. It has never used that particular part of the legislation because it has not had data available to enable it to do so. This legislation makes that possible. Does the Hon. Member realize that?
Finally, when the Hon. Member talks about timing, does she realize that the moment this legisation is passed, employment equity goes into effect? Companies will have 1986 within which to develop their plans and methods. They have to begin counting the data as of January 1, 1987, and reporting on that full year by the beginning of 1988. From the moment the Bill is passed, there is an onward march which leads companies to the development of their plans in 1986, to the implementation of their plans in 1987 and to the reporting on those plans in 1988. If that process is not carried out, they will be subject to the penalties in the Bill. Does she realize those things?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I realize what is in the Bill. Of course the Minister does not agree with the criticisms I have been making about the very things which she stated. It is one thing to say that employers "shall" implement employment equity. However, how will they do that? As I understand it, it is really being left up to them to gather the data and, if they do not gather the data, there will be a penalty. However, what will they do with the data? That is left up to them, as I understand it. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but it is up to them to establish what is employment equity in their case. How many native people should they employ? How many women should they employ and in what kinds of jobs? How many disabled people or people of a visible minority
Employment Equity
origin should they employ? My point is that the onus is on the employers to establish their own targets and goals. It is unreasonable and unfair, in a way, to leave that up to employers.
This morning it was indicated that many business people in the United States like mandatory affirmative action. They like to be told what has to be done, and there have been positive results from this requirement. 1 cannot understand how employers can establish their own targets and how we can be reassured that it will result in an effective systemic change which will provide equal opportunities for the groups 1 have mentioned.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister left me rather dismayed because she did not admit that the Bill was a weak one. She talked about an enforcement mechanism involving the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I have searched in vain throughout the entire Bill, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not in fact mentioned as the enforcement agent. She talked about how this would bring employment equity into the workplace right away, yet went on to agree that reporting was not meant to begin until 1988. Reporting to Parliament will not begin until this time three years hence. An employer who was challenged to that point would certainly say: "We will have to get this under way", but we are talking about some time in the life of the next Parliament. For example, we are talking about a situation where a woman aged 21 in the workplace today would be 24, 26 or 27 before any conceivable action might occur.
Also the Hon. Minister talked about the Abella report. 1 will refer to page 195 of that report and ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) to comment on it. Judge Abella indicated that a voluntary program with a mandatory reporting requirement was nonetheless voluntary in the absence of a requirement to remedy the discrminatory practices disclosed by the information reported. The penalty in the Bill for not reporting is heavy, but there is no penalty for doing nothing. The only penalty is for failing to report that nothing was done.
Also Judge Abella indicated that a requirement of public reporting may result in public pressure on a company to revise its systems, but that it was unrealistic to rely on public opinion as an effective monitoring agent. She went on to indicate that it would result in a speculative and scattered approach and would create the perception, in the absence of enforcement, that the issue was deserving on only casual attention.
When affirmative action on a voluntary basis was tried in Ontario, barely 200 firms out of tens of thousands actually did anything in a concrete way. Does the Hon. Member expect that much more will result from the Bill at the federal level?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the elaboration of my colleague, particularly his references to Judge Abella regarding the absence of any requirement to remedy a discriminatory situation. Again I say to the Minister that that is obviously what is lacking here. I agree completely with the comments about public opinion, that public opinion is not

October 3, 1985
Canada Pension Plan
really the way to bring about change and to require it in an authoritative mandatory manner.
I am not from Ontario, but aside from having very fine reports at the end of three years and perhaps a few fines if reports are not submitted, I would certainly be very skeptical about the Bill bringing about the major change urgently needed for the affected groups.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment. I think we are taking a very major step forward today as a maturing nation. It is not the end of the road, as some Hon. Members have indicated. We certainly know which route we want to follow. I, for one, congratulate the Hon. Minister. She has worked tirelessly in this area, month after month, year after year, to develop job opportunities and equality programs which all her Liberal predecessors did not put together in the last 15 years.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CANADA PENSION PLAN MEASURE TO AMEND
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Before proposing the question for second reading in reference to Bill C-247, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Chair ought to express some reservations as to the procedural acceptability of this Bill which seems to infringe upon the prerogative of the Crown.
Having entered this caveat, the Chair is prepared to allow debate to take place on the motion for second reading of Bill C-247. However, should such a debate come to an end then the Chair will have to rule on the procedural acceptability of this Bill.


John R. Rodriguez: that Bill C-247, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (survivor's pension) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset say that I would certainly want to participate in the question of order involving this particular Bill. I have no reservations about the fact that it is a Bill that is properly introduced into the House and should be properly debated.
The purpose of Bill C-247 is to eliminate discrimination on the basis of age from the Canada Pension Plan. A person in receipt of disability benefits under the plan should have the assurance that in the event of his or her death the surviving
spouse and dependants will receive whatever benefits are left in the Plan irrespective of the age of the spouse.
At the moment if the spouse is 35 years of age or younger, that spouse cannot collect the survivor's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan Act. I intend to prove that this is an unfair provision in the Act, that in fact the surviving spouse of any age should be able to collect the pension. The Act provides that people start contributing to the Canada Pension Plan at age 18. Therefore, if a person starts contributing to the Canada Pension Plan, providing they meet the basic requirements, which is six years contributions in the last 10 for a disability pension, it seems to me that providing they meet those particular criteria then they should be able to collect the survivor's pension irrespective of the age of the spouse.
I suggest and argue that the law is an arbitrary one. What is so magical about the age 35? Why not 25, or 45, or 30 or 46? The very arbitrariness of picking a number, it seems to me, is not a fair way in which to administer a pension scheme.
I know from my own experience that many workers, because so many of them work in the mines, become disabled at very young ages and many of them pass on as a result of accidents in the mine. Their spouses, of which 99.9 per cent are women, are unable to collect yet they may have families, have no income and are unable to collect the survivor's benefits from the Canada Pension Plan.
That seems to me to discriminate against them not only because of age but, because of the nature of the occupation, it discriminates against them because they are women. 1 would refer to Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights under the section of equal rights, and I quote from Section 15(1):
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Clearly, Section 44(1 )(rf) of the Canada Pension Plan Act is unconstitutional and is outlawed by the Charter of Rights and the equality rights section, Section 15(1). We cannot have a law that contravenes what we now hold as a basic right of Canadians. We cannot discriminate based on age.
The Canada Pension Plan is a plan to which employers and employees contribute. Nine million workers at the present time pay 1.8 per cent of their yearly salary, up to a maximum of $379.80, into the Plan and their employers pay the same. Self-employed people pay the full $759.60 themselves.
The Canada Pension Plan has been accumulating considerable sums of money which the federal Government in turn has loaned back to the provinces for very small rates of return. Indeed, it is estimated that the provinces would never be able to pay back to the Canada Pension Plan the money they owe. Now we have a movement afoot to get workers and employers to put a greater percentage of their income into the Canada Pension Plan. The scenario is simply that the Canada Pension Plan would have larger amounts of money to once again lend to the provinces.
October 3, 1985

This particular change that I am proposing is not guaranteed to put the Canada Pension Plan into the red. It is not an amendment that encroaches upon the Treasury of Canada. The Canada Pension Plan is the fund into which employers and employees contribute. The Government of Canada does not contribute a penny. My amendment does not encroach upon the federal plan. These are moneys which the Canada Pension Plan program administers. It is money contributed by employers and employees.
I would argue that my amendment is a reasoned one. It conforms to Section 15(1) of the Canadian Constitution, 1981, the equality rights section of the Charter of Rights. It seems to me that it is only fair that the surviving spouse of anyone who is on a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan Act should receive the survivor's pension irrespective of what age he or she may have attained, whether it is 29 or 34 or what it is.
Right now I am dealing with the case of a widow from my riding who missed the cut-off of 35 years because her thirty-fifth birthday was three days away.


An Hon. Member:: Got to have a cut-off.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. That is a very smart response from the Tory benches. Ministers can trot around Europe at great cost to the taxpayers. The Government can bail out a bank for $1 billion. We can talk about restraint while the Ministers spend taxpayers' money like drunken sailors. She said she spent three days in bed when she was supposed to be out doing Government business.
It is all right for well-heeled Tories to talk about cutting people off. However, we do not have to cut them off. The plan is funded. The contributors are paying their fair share for this kind of coverage. The only reason the money is not there is because we have been lending it to the provinces. Now we are going to have the contributors contribute an even greater percentage to the Canada Pension Plan.
This amendment is fair. It will bring some equity and fairness to the Canada Pension Plan Act of 1966. It will eliminate the arbitrariness built into Section 44(1)(6) of the present Act. It seems that it is only just that the surviving spouse of someone who was collecting a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan Act should indeed receive a survivor's pension.
I may also point out that things are fine for those who live in urban communities in which there are lots of opportunities for employment, particularly for women. However, in areas like mine, predominantly a mining community, once a spouse dies, the survivor hopes to collect the survivor's pension because there is no possibility for the spouse to step out of mourning and into a job. It is just not possible. That is why the spouse who was working was contributing to the plan. He was paying for this kind of coverage. The plan includes a death benefit, a disability provision and a pension at age 65.
Canada Pension Plan
An exception was made in the Act. The present Act indicates that if a surviving spouse is under 35 there is only one way that she can collect the pension and that is if she is disabled. I do not think that those who framed the Act in the first place were aware of the difficulties they created for a person who worked in a mine, was injured, received a disability pension and then passed away leaving his spouse unable to collect the pension because she was under age 35. Children may be involved and there is no opportunity for employment. It is a fund to which the spouse contributed and from which the surviving spouse is entitled to collect.
I call on Hon. Members to support this very reasoned, fair and just amendment. I call for the support of Bill C-247.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased indeed to be able to speak to this amendment to the Canada Pension Plan Act proposed by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I think all of us in this House realize the importance to our whole pension structure of the Canada Pension Plan. I must commend the Hon. Member for making an attempt to improve the Canada Pension Plan.
We all know or should know that our pension system works on three main tiers. First there is the tier composed of the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security and the GIS, all government programs. The second tier is composed of the industrial and company pension plans and the third tier is composed of personal savings including RRSPs, homes, cars and bank accounts. Those three things are all forms of assistance for which people can plan during their working lives so they may have an adequate pension when they retire.
For most people in Canada, there is no doubt that the Canada Pension Plan and the OAS are the main supports for retirement. That is why I commend the Hon. Member for attempting to make some improvements to these plans. However, I would like to correct some misunderstandings with which he may have left the House while he spoke. The wording of his amendment is liable to cause some difficulty in determining what he said.
From the wording of the motion, one could be given the impression that the Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits are paid only to the surviving spouse of a person who was in receipt of a CPP benefit when he or she died. This, of course, is not the case. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that but that is not clarified by the wording of the amendment.
We should know that CPP benefits are paid to the surviving spouses of deceased contributors who, on their death, met the minimum contributory requirements. What are these requirements? Specificially, benefits are paid to survivors of contributors who have made contributions for at least three years and for one-third of the period during which he or she could have made contributions for 10 years, whichever is less. Further, as the Hon. Member mentioned, if the deceased spouse satisfies these minimum requirements, the surviving spouse must also meet certain conditions. She must be 35 years or older or, if she is not 35 years or older, then she must be disabled or have dependent children. Only when the deceased had made suffi-

October 3, 1985
Canada Pension Plan
cient contributions and the surviving spouse meets one of the eligibility criteria to which I referred does entitlement to a CPP survivor's benefit exist.
If eligibility is determined, then the amount of the benefit to be paid is calculated, once again taking the survivor's age or presence of a disability or dependent children into account. The amendment proposed by the Bill before us suggests that survivor benefits be paid to a surviving spouse under the age of 35 years. Currently, this survivor would be entitled to a benefit only if he or she was disabled or had a dependent child. However, what level of benefit does the Member suggest? I think it would be very relevant in terms of the costs to workers to know the amount of the benefits. The Hon. Member has not mentioned this. The reason I ask this question is because the way the current benefit levels are determined is rather complicated.
Under the current plan, the level of survivor benefits payable is also dependent on age. For instance, survivors over the age of 65 receive 60 per cent of the deceased spouse's retirement pension which was paid or which would have been paid at the time of death had the deceased reached the age of 65. For survivors under the age of 65, the survivor's benefit is composed of two parts. First, there is a flat-rate component of $87.56 per month as of 1985 and an earning-related component equal to 37.5 per cent of the deceased contributor's retirement pension which was paid or which would have been paid had he or she been entitled to receive it. The maximum monthly earnings related component payable in 1985 is $163.28 for a total maximum survivor's pension of $250.84. However, it should be noted that not all eligible surviving spouses under age 65 receive this level of benefit. For example, a surviving spouse between the ages of 35 and 45, who is not disabled or who has no dependent children in his or her care, receives a benefit which is reduced by one one-hundred-and-twentieth for each month he or she is under the age of 45 at the time of the spouse's death. This is equivalent to a 10 per cent reduction per year. Thus, a 40-year old survivor could receive a CPP survivor's benefit which is only one-half of the amount which would have been paid if she or he had been age 45 on the contributor's death.
When we look at these provisions today, these benefit calculations and complex eligibility criteria for survivor's benefits may indeed seem discriminatory. They are certainly complex and not easily understood unless you are in the business. However, I believe it is important to keep in mind that the current CPP survivor's benefit provisions were designed in the early 1960, when the flag was designed. Thus, they reflect the social values of that time. Perhaps my hon. friend is right when he says that now is the time to re-examine these proposals because social values have changed.
In any event, in 1960, it was assumed that the surviving spouse of a CPP contributor would be a woman. That is not necessarily true today. It was assumed that that woman prior to the contributor's death had been financially dependent on
her husband's earnings. That is becoming less common today. Thus, legislators decided that the older the spouse the greater the likelihood she could not become financially independent. I think that reasoning is as good today as it was then. Those who were disabled or who had dependent children were also not expected to have the ability to become financially self-sufficient. As a result, these women were provided with the greatest amount of protection under the survivor's benefits provisions. I do not really see anything wrong with that provision, if one is thinking in terms of the cost to the worker of these pensions. Those areas which are most likely to need help should be targeted, which is what the provisions of the CPP did in 1960.
On the other hand, widows under the age of 45 who had no children and who were not disabled were expected to become at least partially responsible for their own financial well-being; and those aged 35 and younger were expected to have the ability to become completely self-sufficient. I am not sure whether that is not an assessment which is even more valid today because there is no doubt about it that today women are better educated, they are out in the workforce and they have better skills. At the age of 35 they are definitely still very employable.
Some of these assumptions may have been perfectly reasonable when the plan was implemented. However, I agree that they may not completely reflect today's values. Today, when a high percentage of women are participating in the paid labour force, the need for lifetime survivor's benefits based strictly on age and/or presence of a disability or dependent children is not really as clear as it was in those days. I do not believe we should look only at the criterion of a surviving spouse being aged 35 to be eligible for CPP protection. We must look at the whole package of survivor's benefits to see how best they can be modified to meet the needs of today's surviving spouse.
As I am sure Hon. Members can appreciate, this is not an easy task. Nevertheless, the Bill before us today asks us to decide whether the current CPP survivor's benefits provisions are out of date and whether or not they should be changed. Because of the complexity of these questions, I am sure Hon. Members realize that the issue of CPP survivor's benefits requires much more study. I can assure Hon. Members that the task force on pensions which reported to the House a year or two ago examined in detail all of the issues flowing from the Canada Pension Plan, including the one brought forward by the Hon. Member. At that time we concluded that the features of the plan with respect to this particular system need not be changed.
For instance, even if a decision is made to change the current system, alternate survivor's benefit provisions must be designed. Like the legislators who put the current plan into effect, we have to determine the needs of CPP contributors and their families and what survivor's benefit protection will best meet those needs.
Of course, as with all major CPP amendments, any future changes to the survivor's benefit provisions must be approved by both the federal Government and two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the population of Canada. Ontario
October 3, 1985

alone can stop any change with respect to the legislation. Hon. Members will recall that the Province did this with respect to another issue.
The Canada Pension Plan belongs to members of the labour force and their families. We must ensure that the plan remains responsive to those people. In any event, I commend the Hon. Member again for bringing this matter before us.
The Canada Pension Plan as devised in 1966 was devised on the basis of what the conditions were at that time. It was well known that in 20 years from that time there would have to be a reassessment. The Hon. Member implied to the House that the Canada Pension Plan was funded, that money was paid in by the workers and their employers and then lent out to the provinces. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Canada Pension Plan is not fully funded. It is far from being fully funded. At the present rate of funding, it would run out of money. In fact, I believe this is the first year the pension plan will pay out more money than it takes in, which is not to say that it is broke or bankrupt. It is merely to say that that is what was planned and that is what is now being reviewed since every so often the plan has to be refinanced.
The Hon. Member opposite also indicated that the interest rate which the provinces pay is very low. Again, I think that is an exaggeration which should be examined. I believe at the moment there is $25 billion in the fund over and above what has been paid out. The provinces have borrowed that money and given back so-called government promissory notes, if you like. They will begin to pay the interest on that money this year, or perhaps they have been paying the interest already. However, they are borrowing that back as well. The interest rates which are paid are adjusted each month to match the rate at which the Government of Canada borrows money on the 25-year bond rate. I admit that is not the market rate and there are higher rates that can be obtained. However, this is a large sum of money about which we are speaking and it is too much to expect to receive the highest rate of interest on that amount in view of the type of risk in which people are interested.
The problem that I see with the CPP is not the amount of interest which it brings in. One of the problems is that it is not fully funded. Right now, it is the best bargain in the world. We now pay only 3.6 per cent-1.8 per cent is paid by the employer and 1.8 per cent is paid by the employee. If the plan were fully funded and if a contributor had to pay for the benefits which he would eventually receive upon retirement, then he would be paying between 9 per cent and 10 per cent of his income. I wonder how many members of the labour force would want to increase their payments to the CPP to 10 per cent. I wonder how many would say: "The plan is getting too rich." That is really what I am saying. If we want to change the plan, then let us look very carefully at what it will cost us and what it will cost the person working in the field. There is no free lunch in this field. At the moment we are depending greatly on an inter-generational gift, as it were. We are hoping that our children will pay sufficient amounts into the fund to provide for us when we retire, just as we have done for past
Canada Pension Plan
generations. When considering this question, we must keep in mind that there are now six people working for every one who is not working, who is retired or who is of preschool age. In the year 2020, when the current workers move out of the workforce and start to look for payments under the Canada Pension Plan, we find that there will probably be only two workers for every person who is retired or is going to school. The question I believe we, as legislators, must ask ourselves is whether those two persons in the workforce would be prepared to pay the kind of money required to provide for all those persons who are not working. I believe that is why we saw in our last Budget a great emphasis on personal savings. That is why we announced plans to revise the RRSPs and other plans to improve private pensions, to provide for portability for two years so that Canadians can move from job to job. This Governemnt realizes the Canada Pension Plan will not be sufficient to really provide what will be expected by those people who retire in the coming years.
We are saying to Canadians that we will look after the Canada Pension Plan. We will continue to improve it but we are asking Canadians to look after their own pensions as well, which we are making possible through tax incentives. It is easy to say we can improve the Canada Pension Plan without looking at the cost. During the tour of our task force we heard from groups who suggested that we double the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan. They said they were prepared to pay 7 per cent, but it would not be 7 per cent. The real cost would be 20 per cent. We can examine the Canada Pension Plan and try to make improvements but let us not do it lightly and carelessly and let us not do it without a real concern for the ultimate cost to the worker and to the employer.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), for his interest in improving surviving spouse's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, and for introducing Bill C-247 to supress the age factor impact on those benefits.
My honourable colleague's proposal is no doubt well-intended and most progressive. However, it must be recognized that such a proposal concerns an important component of a very complex system of Government and private programs aimed at protecting widows and widowers.
This systems includes provincial assistance programs, the Federal Old Age Security program, the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, private pension plans, life insurance policies, and so on. Needless to say, before changing any of those components there should be a very serious study the implications thereof.
I consider it important, Mr. Speaker, to mention that this Government has already changed one of the components in that system. In fact, it has introduced and passed some time

October 3, 1985
Canada Pension Plan
ago Bill C-26, which amends the Old Age Security program to provide for benefit payments to widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 who have little or no income. Many studies had shown that that group of Canadian men and women were among the most in need.
Further, as announced in the Budget speech, the Government will introduce measures to improve minimum standards for private pension funds coming under the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act. Those measures will be of special benefit to the spouses of contributors to those plans.
Concerning such changes, let me refer specifically to the extension of benefits to the surviving spouse before or after the contributor's retirement; to maintaining the benefits in case of remarriage, and to the possibility of sharing pension credits between spouses in cases of regular or common-law marriage breakdown. Those proposals are the result of an extensive consultation process with employers, employees and the general public, undertaken by the Parliamentary Taskforce on Pension Reform. The Government is indeed proving its commitment to improve the income security system for widows and widowers.
I should at this point, Mr. Speaker, look at the surviving spouses' benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, and the importance of the age factor in their determination. Under the current system, once a spouse's qualifications for that benefit have been established, the amount to which the latter will be entitled is figured out on the basis of his or her age.
First, the survivor's pension payable to surviving spouses aged under 65 is determined on the direct basis of the spouse's age at the time the contributor deceased.
This means a surviving spouse aged 45 to 65 will get full benefits made up of two parts: a flat rate component, and a second one based on the deceased contributor's earnings. In 1985, the maximum benefit paid to those surviving spouses totals $250.84 per month.
On the other hand, a surviving spouse aged 35 to 45, having no disability or no dependent child, will have his or her pension reduced by 1/120 for each month short of his or her 45th birthday. A surviving spouse aged 35 or less will not qualify for the survivor's pension before reaching 65, unless he or she is disabled in the meantime.
Finally, when the surviving spouse reaches 65 and qualifies for the Old Age Security basic pension, the surviving spouse's benefit will be re-determined to equal 60 percent of the pension that was or would have been paid to the deceased contributor. The maximum monthly amount of that benefit is $261.25 in the current year.
It is only when we look, as we have just been doing, at the role of the age factor in determining what benefits the surviving spouse will receive that we can appreciate the significance of the reform proposed by the illustrious Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
The structure of this provision of the Canada Pension Plan can only be explained by the social climate which existed 20 years ago when the plan was created. Hon. Members will recall that, at the time, few women had a paying job outside the home. They lived in virtually absolute economic dependency and the death of the head of the family left them in a precarious economic position.
As women generally live longer than men and are younger than their husbands, the surviving spouses were at the time mostly women, and in fact, the situation is the same today.
In accordance with these social standards, the contributor had to support his dependents during his years of work. The survivor's pension was therefore considered an extension of this role of provider. Thus, a survivor's pension, a death benefit and an orphan's benefit were incorporated into the system.
However, the originators of the plan deemed it appropriate to limit this responsibility of the contributor to his family. Based on certain premises, an attempt was therefore made to develop an adequate measurement of the state of dependency or the need of the dependents of a contributor.
Based on the fact that it is more difficult to enter the labour market at a later age, it was determined that the older a spouse was, the more dependent she was on the provider.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I constantly hear a voice to my left and this disturbs my concentration a great deal.
As I was saying, since the possibilities of remarriage decrease with age, it was also determined that, the older the spouse was, the more her chances of finding another provider decreased. This is why the age factor is so important in setting the amount of the survivor's benefits. The older the survivor, the higher the benefits.
Added to the difficulty of entering the labour market because of age, the fact of having dependent children or of being an invalid means economic dependency as these two factors can also affect the possibility of finding a job.
The full pension of a surviving spouse is therefore paid to widows in this situation.
It should also be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that in the early days of the Plan, the survivor's pension was paid to all widows, but only to invalid widowers. There were therefore two sets of eligibility requirements for this benefit: on one hand, a set for women based on age, the presence of dependent children and invalidity, and on the other hand, a set for men based essentially on invalidity, which, as we have seen, reflected the social standards of the time.
Obviously, society has changed since the 60s, and so has the Canada Pension Plan. In fact, in 1974, the Government amended the Plan to allow a survivor's pension to be paid without regard for the sex of the recipient. There is now only one set of eligibility requirements, namely that which used to apply only to women.
October 3, 1985

I suggest that the original purpose of the survivor's pension, which was to protect the family of a contributor against financial hardship resulting from his or her death, is still valid today. However, because of the increased presence of women in the labour force and the new economic weight of the wife both in the family and society, we must reconsider the validity of the age factor in computing the pension the surviving spouse should get. It should be emphasized, however, that the scales now in use are still adequate for a category of surviving spouses, that of generally older widows who have never been part of the labour force.
At first glance, the proposal put forward by my hon. friend would seem to correct an injustice. Its adoption, however, would raise several questions concerning the purpose of this pension which, as I said, is to protect the family of the contributor against any economic hardship resulting from his or her death. Because the age factor is there to determine the level of dependency or need, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that we could abolish this factor without updating the basic assumptions and the structure of the benefits to the surviving spouse to reflect today's economic and social reality.
I should mention at this point that even though the Federal Government may propose changes to the Canada Pension Plan, such changes could only come into force with the consent of two-thirds of the provinces that have two-thirds of the population of the country. Discussions between the two levels of Government are therefore necessary, particularly in view of the fact that in would be preferable to maintain a sort of parity between the Canadian Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. Such changes would therefore require a more in depth study of the benefits structure by the two levels of government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should act with utmost care, because this scheme and the Quebec Pension Plan affect the workers of the whole country. I am also convinced that, in co-operation with the provinces, we can meet the current needs of the surviving spouses and thus carry out successfully a major component of the pension reform.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will just say a few words because I would like to have this Bill voted upon in the House. The Speaker who was in the chair prior to you said that there was some doubt concerning the motion because it may involve a government prerogative. He meant that this entails an expenditure of government funds. If that is considered to be a Government prerogative, I am afraid that 99 per cent of the motions brought before the House would have to be disallowed. Practically every Bill introduced, if enacted, would involve an expenditure of Government funds.
The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who introduced this Bill asked what is so magical about the age 35. I think we have got off track today. This Bill is about disability benefits. I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree that the
Canada Pension Plan
section which he cited is about disability benefits. The Hon. Member is asking what is so magical about the age 35. If you are two or three days less than 35 you are treated differently than if you are 35.
I would like to add to what the hon. gentleman said and perhaps supply him with some more ammunition for this particular argument before the House today. The section which he wants to amend says:
-if the surviving spouse
(i)	has reached 65 years of age, or
(ii)	in the case of a surviving spouse who has not reached 65 years of age,
(A)	had at the time of the death of the contributor reached 35 years of age.
(B)	was at the time of the death of the contributor a surviving spouse with dependent children, or
(C)	is disabled;
The "or" does not come between (A) and (B). It says "or (C) is disabled". You must meet the above two conditions and then it says "or (C) is disabled". The question, Mr. Speaker, is what is so magical about the age of 35.
My point is that the hon. gentleman said that this will not involve an expenditure of Government funds because, as he so correctly pointed out, the Canada Pension Plan now has an overabundance of money in it, as it always has. What have they done with the money? There were new agreements signed recently to allow the provincial governments to borrow cheap money from that fund which is contibuted to by the workers of Canada.
Let us narrow it down to only the disability pension. I will alert the hon. gentleman to a fact that I am sure he is aware of, but which he can perhaps use in future arguments. We are talking about disability benefits. A person fighting for a disability pension has to go through quite a procedure before he establishes his entitlement. He must get letters from this doctor and that doctor and then an independent doctor and then another doctor and then another doctor. It is appealed and eventually the person, who may have been on his back in bed for many years and cannot move at all, gets his disability pension.
However, that person may have had to get social assistance to support his family, as most such people do. When it is determined that he was qualified for disability pension from the time that the applied, which may have been two or three years ago, the department sends his cheque to the provincial government to repay what he received while he was on his back having to draw that little amount of social assistance and welfare.


John R. Rodriguez: Shameful.


George Baker: In this new spirit of co-operation between the federal and provincial Governments it is easy. You do not even have to sign a form now. There is an agreement between the federal Government and the provincial Governments. All you need do is find out that he drew social assistance.

October 3, 1985
Canada Pension Plan
Some of the financial wizards in this Chamber should be asking another basic question about that. The federal Government pays 50 per cent of social assistance. We now get to the point. Half of the money that fellow on his back in bed received came from the federal treasury under the Canada Assistance Plan as every Member knows.


John R. Rodriguez: They got it twice.


George Baker: The hon. gentleman is catching on. Now, along comes this disability pension which the man has been trying to get all along. What happens? The entire amount he gets is then transferred from the federal to the provincial treasury.


Mr. Brightwell:: So what is your point?


George Baker: The hon. gentleman is pretty slow. What you are doing is paying 50 per cent of what he got and then 100 per cent. What is more disgusting is that you look for a way that the money can be recovered and you cannot find one. It is a transfer from the Department of National Health and Welfare to the provincial Department of Finance.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: What has this got to do with the Bill?


George Baker: Very simply this. The Government of Canada cannot see that to do this would not cost any more than what it is already transferring directly from the CPP to the coffers of the provincial Department of Social Services. In other words, the whole thing would not cost the federal treasury anything at all. What is obvious here, however, is that someone involved in this new spirit of co-operation should explain how a disabled person can draw social assistance with the federal treasury paying 50 per cent, and then all of a sudden the federal treasury is reimbursing the provincial government for 150 per cent. It is an interesting question.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this Bill. Absolutely nothing at all. I think that we should vote on it and the Speaker will have to rule if this is a government prerogative or not, but it removes from the CPP a grave inequity based on age. It is not going to cost the Government of Canada anything at all if we pass this hon. gentleman's Bill and I congratulate him for bringing it to the Chamber.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a distinct pleasure to follow in debate such speakers as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), not to mention the excellent speakers from the Okanagan and Quebec. One cannot help reflecting on the fact that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has brought an important issue before us. I think all Members agree that the age related provision referred to may have had some wisdom 20 years ago, but that has clearly changed in 1985. It also struck me, speaking immediately after the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, that the provision was put in place 20 years ago by a Liberal Government. They had 20 years to correct it, but all of a sudden, early in the month of October, 1985, a Member discovers the legislation
was flawed from the beginning. It is still flawed today and he was part of the caucus which did nothing about it for such a long time.
I urge Members of this Chamber to take the concern raised by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt seriously, but at the same time I urge them not to pass this legislation. How can I have those two thoughts simultaneously? It is because I have thought about the concept of the stewardship which Members of Parliament have over public funds. The first question I ask myself is: Who are the owners of this fund? Do the Canadian taxpayers own the CPP fund? My conclusion is that they do not. Some Canadians, part of the workforce, contribute to this fund and, in the final analysis, they are in reality the owners of the fund.


John R. Rodriguez: So Canadians own it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is the stewardship of this fund in the hands of Members of the Parliament of Canada?


John R. Rodriguez: You lost me, brother.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I suggest it is not. The people who designed this fund some 20 years ago decided that the stewardship was to be in the hands of a combination of elected members from both provincial and federal legislatures. I lived through a period in this Chamber of some four and a half years under increasing distress over the trend in Canada to act unilaterally, to ignore the stewardship of the provinces, whether it was constitutional, agreed to, or whatever. I saw my country begin to fall apart economically, emotionally and in every other way, partly as a consequence of a House of Commons dominated by one Party dedicated to the principle of unilateral action rather than respect for provincial jurisdiction. If this Bill were the best idea in the world and completely unflawed-and I suggest it is flawed-it would still be wrong for members of this Chamber to act unilaterally to change these arrangements. Until there is an agreement between the federal and provincial Governments then we should be reluctant to act. The Government which was elected a year ago declared during the election campaign that it would act in a manner designed to restore respect between the two levels of Government, respect for jurisdiction and respect for agreements entered into. It has done that and done it well. Because that climate of confidence and co-operation has been restored there is every reason to believe that we will come to a collective decision on changes to the fund in a coherent and systematic way, changes for the better in the future. Until you have that kind of discussion, until you work in that way, there is always the danger of going off on a flight of fancy in the belief that you are doing good when in reality you are doing harm.
This particular proposal simply to drop the requirements for benefits puts financial strain on the fund. One of its consequences could be a reduction in the contribution to anyone who is entitled to it.
October 3, 1985

1 see that it is six o'clock. I hope to have an opportunity to finish my remarks on another occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the adjournment debate tonight. My question relates to a most unsatisfactory reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) on September 16, as reported at page 6644 of Hansard. At that time I asked why it was that the new conflict of interest guidelines for Cabinet Ministers were deficient. I brought two matters to his attention.
The new conflict of interest guidelines, which I have in my possession, are designed in such a way as to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Cabinet Ministers do not appoint their relatives to cushy jobs, as they have been doing in the most abominable way since last year. In their first six months in office the Tories have appointed no less than 1,200 hacks, flacks, bagmen and relatives to various jobs. They are all listed in the Black Paper on Tory patronage. Some of those 1,200 people were relatives of Cabinet Ministers. In the new conflict of fnterest guidelines, the Prime Minister indicated that in the future it would not be permissible for a Minister to hire his relatives or the relatives of his Cabinet colleagues. The biggest deficiency in the program is what happens to the relatives of Cabinet Ministers who have already been hired.
As we know, the brother of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has been appointed to a very lucrative position to do legal work for and on behalf of the Government of Canada or an agency of the Government, namely, the 1988 Olympics. This has happened in other areas as well.
It will not be possible in the future to appoint people such as those who were hired in the past. In other words, the Prime Minister said that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is wrong in trying to appoint his sons, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is wrong in practising this nepotism and that it could not happen in the future. If it is wrong in the future, why are those people permitted to keep their jobs now? I am sure you agree, Mr. Speaker, that they should not keep
Adjournment Debate
their jobs and that this is a terrible loophole in the conflict of interest guidelines.
There is another loophole as well, and it is an even more important one. I am referring to the entire means of reviewing political appointments. In his reply on September 16, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
-that the entire range of all appointments which have been made are going to be subject to a review by the parliamentary process to see how it works.
This is not the case. Only certain people who have been appointed will be reviewed by the parliamentary process, that is, those appointed by Order in Council. Those people on contracts are not reviewable. As a matter of fact, a large number of people on contract did not even tender for their jobs.
We heard of an instance lately where officials in the Prime Minister's Office are not on salary but are on contract. Therefore, people on contract do not have to adhere to the conflict of interest guidelines. That situation is not even covered in the new conflict of interest book. Of course this means that if a Cabinet Minister wants to hire someone and wants the person not to be subjected to the provisions of the conflict of interest guidelines, all the Minister has to do is say to his or her friend: "Get yourself a contracting business and then I will hire your business on contract". Of course the business may have only one person working in it. In that event, the conflict of interest guidelines are totally bypassed, thereby defeating what the Prime Minister said in the House. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that he was indicating that in good faith. He said in this House that he was going to end this kind of thing. He has not.
We need revisions to those guidelines to make sure that they work because there are these two gigantic loopholes which I have just described and about which the Deputy Prime Minister made a completely erroneous reply. He had it all backwards. He had assumed that everyone who was appointed would be up for review. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary sitting across from me would recognize that that is a mistake the Deputy Prime Minister made, so I will now give him the opportunity to correct the record and to state the truth. Hopefully he will state that the Prime Minister will review these conflict of interest guidelines to ensure that they work and put an end in the future to the nepotism practised in the past and the present and to ensure that people cannot bypass the guidelines by simply getting themselves hired by contract.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that this newfound interest of the Liberal Party in tight guidelines is very amusing to those of us who were here over the past five years.
The question which my hon. friend raised confuses several matters and I want to make four points.

October 3, 1985
Adjournment Debate
The Government, until the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) brought in his measures, has been operating under the regime established by its predecessor.


Don Boudria: And even it was broken.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I find that it is interesting that my friends who find themselves in opposition now have come to embrace as a virtue what they never practised in fact. None of the suggestions which they have advanced were adopted by the Liberal Party in the decades during which they were in office. I appreciate that had the Hon. Member been a member of the Liberal Party federally he would have made sure that those guidelines were tightened under the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau. I can just see the Hon. Member taking Prime Minister Trudeau to task on that; yes, I can just envision that.
The measures placed before the House by Prime Minister Mulroney on September 9 constituted the most comprehensive and far-reaching treatment of public sector ethics ever pronounced in a Canadian Parliament.


Don Boudria: How can you state that with a straight face?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: After great research, my friend.
The new conflict of interest code makes specific provision to ensure that those working for the Government under contract are bound by the appropriate provisions respecting both conflict of interest and post-employment considerations. I refer to Section 10 of the code.
My friend, Mr. Speaker, suggests that we are closing the barn door after the horses have gone. Under the Liberal Party the barn never had a door, and we have taken steps to refine the appointment process. My colleague refers to it as a loophole. Nonsense. We have brought in a review process which was not there during all the years of the previous Liberal Government.


Don Boudria: What about the relations?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Where was the appointments process under the previous Liberal Government? Obviously it was not there. I remind my hon. friend that we are a Government which has come to office with the support of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We have 211 seats from across the country and naturally we are going to find ourselves with many friends. This is a Party with many friends. We make no apologies for that. Because the Hon. Member across the way finds himself without friends, that is the a difficulty he is going to have, not only for the balance of this Parliament but probably for years to come.
I suggest to him that our process of political accountability and the regime that we have set in place for outreaches anything ever done under the previous Liberal Government. We suggest that there is some room for improvement. We are going to try the process. We will look for improvement. However, under the previous Liberal Government, there was never any suggestion of this kind of accountability.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-COMMISSIONER'S REPORT (A) REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION (B) FRENCH AS LANGUAGE OF WORK IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on March 27 of this year, nearly six months ago, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about a very important matter, namely the Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the need to amend the legislation in order to broaden the Commissioner's powers.
Mr. Speaker, in the Fifth Report of the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages, recommendations 12 to 18 were aimed precisely at strengthening the role of the Commissioner and giving him more power, thus enabling him to carry out his parliamentary mandate in an effective and efficient manner.
Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the Prime Minister answered, as reported in Hansard on page 3412, that he considered this a very important issue, extremement impor-tante, to quote him directly, and he reminded me that in the Throne Speech, the Government had announced its intention to take action, and he then informed the House that he had that very morning asked a committee of deputy ministers to examine the entire question of amendments to the legislation, amendments which had, in fact, been proposed by the Committee on Official Languages.
Mr. Speaker, the result was that in May, I believe, the committee was established under the chairmanship of Mrs. Huguette Labelle, who is now Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The committee included several deputy ministers from Treasury Board, the Department of the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council. The Committee referred to by the Prime Minister was set up, I am told, in April, met from that time until July, with a mandate to examine the recommendations of the Committee on Official Languages and also, probably as part of a broader mandate, to examine relations between the federal Government and official language groups and groups that were basically the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
As far as I know, the committee's meetings were held in camera. To date, none of us know what transpired during those meetings, and this evening, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary the following: Could he give us a report on the proceedings to date, and perhaps on any recommendations made by the committee? Who is the chairman, now that Mrs. Huguette Labelle has left? Is it Mr. Gerard Veilleux? There is a rather important question which should be answered: What have been the results of the committee's work to date, and is there perhaps a possibility that the committee of deputy ministers could appear before the Committee on Official Languages to provide some clarification and
October 3, 1985

release or provide details and perhaps inform Hon. Members of the important work they have done?
I therefore invite the Parliamentary Secretary to answer this question: Is he prepared to give the House the assurance this evening that the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Gerard Veilleux, or someone else, will appear before the Committee to explain what they have accomplished to date?
In the second part of my question I dealt with another aspect of the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is indeed a very important issue-the language of work in the Public Service of Canada. God knows, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Committee on Official Languages had been concerned over that matter for a long time. We had asked the Government for clear and specific directives with respect to the Government's political intentions, the real intentions of this Government to assist, encourage and even prod certain departments so that public employees might be able to work in the language of their choice, their mother tongue normally being the one they know best!
In answer to my question the Prime Minister said, and I quote from page 3412:
If people cannot work in French, it is a myth, and everything must be done to maintain the integrity of that instrument, that cultural and linguistic wealth, either by coercion, or by making sure that it will be sought after as an instrument of work.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct another question to the Parliamentary Secretary and ask him whether the Government is through studying the question of language of work, whether it is prepared to share once again with the Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs its expertise and knowledge, and tell us which way it is headed. Hon. Members are interested in knowing what this Government intends to do about the official languages. We want to know where we stand and what we should do to uphold, promote and expand this right which I consider important to public employees, namely to receive communications from their superiors in their own language, to be able to work in French or in English in their office and thus meet the basic criterion of the Act: Not only must the public be served in English and French in this country, but public employees must also enjoy the right and privilege to be able to work in their mother tongue.
Mr. Speaker, I might point out that 90 per cent of Government working documents are in English. It will take some political will to change the bad habit of thinking that everybody speaks the majority language, which is English.
Let us not forget either how awkward it is for Francophones, and not just unilingual Francophones but also Anglophones who speak French well, when a unilingual Anglophone joins a group of bilingual Anglophones and Francophones who are having a conversation in French in an office situation and all the participants in the conversation adopt the language of the single non bilingual person in the group. This often happens whenever a unilingual Anglophone joins a group of 8, 9 or 10 Francophone civil servants who are having a conversation in French in an office situation; everybody switches to English.
Adjournment Debate
Such an attitude is not conducive to making French a language of work in the Public Service.
In bilingual areas, Mr. Speaker, and this is the last point I should like to make, the use of French at the work place has not increased much since 1978. I should like, therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary to advise us whether the Government intends to amend the legislation to make French a language of work in the Public Service.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to first suggest to my hon. friend that I am not able at this time to bring him up to date with respect to the deliberations of the committee to which he refers. However, I will make inquiries to see what additional information can be sent to him.
As far as his comments are concerned with respect to the language of work, I will also ask that any further information in that regard be brought to his attention.
In reply to the Hon. Member's question, I wish to state that we are proud of the efforts this Government has made with respect to the official languages program. The Speech from the Throne of November 5, 1984, on the first day of the Thirty-third Session of Parliament, placed the issue in the context of national unity. We indicated our commitment as a Government to ensuring that the equality of the two official languages so vital to our national character and our identity is respected in fact as well as in law. At that time, the Government acknowledged the need for ongoing improvements and for vigilance in this crucial area of our national life.
With respect to the question of law, I suggest that the equality of English and French are already recognized by the Constitution of Canada, as well as by the Official Languages Act. As far as the question of implementation is concerned, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) in speaking before the Joint Committee on Official Languages last May made it clear that the Government intends to review all aspects of the official languages program, to reassess the priorities and improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
When it comes to the language of work we are dealing with a longstanding and difficult issue which, as my hon. friend knows as a result of his interest and involvement in the Official Language Committee, is not amenable to simple or quick solutions.
Having said that, I am pleased to inform the House that the Treasury Board is taking measures to improve the language of work situation in the federal Public Service. We published a catalogue of departmental language of work initiatives in March of this year. It was distributed to departments to suggest ways and means of improving the use of both official languages in the workplace.
Furthermore, the secretariat's analysis of the 1985-86 official languages plan provided evidence that senior departmental managers are giving increasing consideration to

October 3, 1985
Adjournment Debate
measures which would improve opportunities for their employees to work in their preferred official language.
Mr. Speaker, I have further notes with respect to this matter which I will be pleased to provide to my hon. colleague.


TRANSPORT-(A) CLOSING OF A PLANT IN MONTREAL BY BOMBARDIER (B) PURCHASE OF LOCOMOTIVES FROM BOMBARDIER-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked a question from the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), concerning the Bombardier company, which has not received any help from the Government of Canada and which must now close its locomotive manufacturing plant.
The answer given by the Minister of State, the Hon. Member for Rosemont, is utterly disgraceful. My colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), shares my views on the subject and this is why I am challenging immediately tonight in this adjournment debate, the answer given by the Minister. She said, and I quote:
The Bombardier decisions in this case were made in accordance with the best industrial development criteria.
In other words, the lay off of some 1,000 employees in the east end of Montreal does not trouble the Minister, because it follows the best criteria from industrial development.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Schefferville formula.


André Ouellet: Exactly. My colleague, who is in charge of labour questions, is here tonight and shares my view. We are reminded of the attitude held by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he shut down the Schefferville plant after reaping millions for the American company and firing hundreds of workers. This is according to the best criteria for industrial development.
And the Minister of State for Transport has the gall to add;
We had lengthy discussions with Bombardier representatives who pointed out to us that there was no other solution.
Mr. Speaker, certainly there were alternatives because this industry, which has been in operation in Montreal since the turn of this century, has always been a viable and profitable industry providing jobs to thousands of workers in the east end of Montreal. And the previous Government never hesitated to prescribe guidelines to railways such as the CN, the Canadian National Railways, a Crown corporation that can get its guidelines from the Government, or give instructions in particular to VIA Rail which has recently bought locomotives from General Motors instead of Bombardier.
If those two Crown corporations, VIA Rail and CN, which further have their headquarters in Montreal, had received
instructions from the Minister of State for Transport or the Prime Minister of Canada, the company would not be about to shut down its plant. Hundreds of workers who have been working for years in that plant would not now be forced to look for other jobs.
The steelworkers' union, under the good guidance of their director, Mr. Clement Godbout, has issued a very outspoken press release. It stated: We have had here in the Bombardier plant two and three successive generations of workers who have acquired an outstanding expertise in the area of freight locomotives. We have a manpower that is qualified, available and responsible. Bombardier's proposal to shut down the plant must be stifled." And the steelworkers' union is asking the Government to meet its responsibilities and help them save their plant. This is exactly what I was asking the Minister of State for Transport today, since she has the means and the time to travel to Europe at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
If the Minister had taken it upon herself this summer to go to Paris or Stockholm to sell Bombardier locomotives, I would have been the first to congratulate her today. However, the Minister strutted about in Europe at the expense of the Crown and the Canadian taxpayers and did not bother about the workers of her own constituency and the ridings of Eastern Montreal, who are now unemployed because the Progressive Conservative Government has abandoned the Bombardier Company.
Jean-Guy Dubuc, editorial writer of La Presse, spoke about this issue in an article titled:
If only Bombardier been helped ... Bombardier will stop making freight locomotives.
Which means hundreds of jobs lost and hundreds more unemployed in Eastern Montreal.
As though Canada, the country with the second longest railways in the world, could afford to lose such a technology and such an industry.
Indeed, the question is: Does the Government-
-the Conservative Government, that is-
-have the right to close down a major industrial sector by refusing to support a company faced with American competition?
The answer is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The Conservative Government has no right to abandon Bombardier, it has no right to put out of work some 1,000 workers who have been earning an honest living by manufacturing locomotives, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that this Government will accept its responsibilities and instruct VIA Rail and the Canadian National to purchase good locomotives made in Montreal by good specialized workers.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I regret that there were not more people in the House to hear a vintage speech by my

October 3, 1985

colleague who is a much better speaker in Opposition than he was as a Minister. However, I am surprised that he is playing politics with this very serious matter. I know that I speak for all Members of the House when I state that we share the concern that has been raised by my colleague for those workers at Bombardier who have been displaced by the company's decision-and I emphasize that it was the company's decision-not to continue its operations in the heavy locomotive field and to focus its attention on other markets. I will discuss the assistance that is coming to those other markets in a minute.
It is worth noting that the problems encountered by Bombardier in supplying a technologically efficient diesel locomotive did not occur overnight. This is a field in which technology is always advancing. As a matter of form, I would like to ask the Member what the Liberal Government did during the past 17 years to assist Bombardier in acquiring or developing the technological expertise to compete in Canadian and international diesel locomotive markets. I am not speaking only of directives but of technological improvements, because directives come easy to some political parties. It is technological improvements that will help this country to proceed.
I point out to my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker, that Bombardier was consulted on the possibility of participating in VIA
Adjournment Debate
Rail's recent order for new locomotives. I am advised as well that in 1984 Canadian National offered Bombardier the opportunity to build 15 new locomotives. CN was going to work with Bombardier in developing an acceptable design. Once again in 1985 CN asked Bombardier to quote on the design and construction of 20 locomotives. The Government cannot force a company to quote on business.
The decision to close the Bombardier locomotive plant reflected the company's decision not to compete with the other domestic locomotive companies. It did not in any way represent an abandonment by the Government of any of our commitments to this industry.
Finally, I would point out to my colleagues that VIA Rail's pending order for new rail passenger rolling stock will be procured exclusively from a consortium made up of Bombardier and UTDC companies. There is no question that the Government is continuing its commitment to give the workers of Bombardier every opportunity to keep their jobs.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 4, 1985