1985-10-31

Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette), on a point of order.


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the morning papers reported some reference I made to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), comments which are not on the record as such but which were heard via the sound system of the House of Commons. This morning, I immediately got in touch with the Hon. Member to express my sincere regrets and to apologize.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore wish to make a public apology to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and formally withdraw the comments attributed to me, although they do not appear in the official record of the proceedings of the House of Commons.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 30 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.
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that we have to join together in this debate on such an important Bill when only this week the all-Party committee, which involved members of the Conservative Party as well as the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, issued what, in a sense, is a rather stunning indictment of the Government's so-called initiatives in the area of employment equity. I refer to suggestions within the report Equality for all-Egalite pour tous-which was received in this House and, I think,
supported very strongly by Members on all sides. The Equality for All Report spoke not only to the need for fundamental legislative changes to incorporate the principles of the Charter of Rights and the Constitution into Canadian law, but also made some very specific recommendations directed at the current legislation before the House, the so-called Employment Equity Bill.
That all-Party committee, which I stress was attended by a majority of Members of the Conservative Party as well as representatives from the Liberal and the New Democratic Parties, pointed out some very serious flaws, flaws which are so serious that even the National Action Committee on the Status of Women-which represents more than three million Canadian women and notwithstanding its long-standing support for promotion of the Employment Equity Program both within the Government and in the private sector, federally and provincially-has been forced to repudiate Bill C-62 because it does not achieve in any small way what it claims to achieve.
Most specifically and ironically, and I think the public should be aware of this, Mr. Speaker, the legislation currently before the House which is being trumpeted by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) as a panacea for the women of Canada, will not apply to the federal Government as an employer. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration introducing a Bill which will not apply to the federal Government as an employer? It will apply only to Crown corporations and to federally regulated corporations with 100 or more employees.
We know that if Bill C-62 is not amended in the way that has been suggested by members of the Liberal Party, the exclusion factor with respect to this Employment Equity Program will mean that 82 per cent of companies under federal regulation will not be touched by the Employment Equity Program. Quite specifically, because the Government and the Minister of Employment have refused to include any provision for businesses with fewer than 100 employees, 3,700 out of 4,500 companies will be excluded; 82 per cent of companies under federal law will not be covered by this legislation. At the same time, the federal Government has excluded itself from the very limpid provisions of Bill C-62.
I believe this Bill irks not only the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, but also a rather rare coalition in Canada which was formed only two weeks ago. We saw major organizations representing women, disabled persons, visible minorities, multicultural minorities and labour getting together to hold a joint press conference to express their dismay at the so-called Employment Equity Bill, which is alleged to be a response to the Abella Report.

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
In my time in Parliament and in the Legislature of Ontario, I have spent a great many hours working toward the notion of equal pay for work of equal value, affirmative action and the over-all employment equity provisions that have been suggested by Judge Abella. However, Judge Abella makes it quite clear that if there is no proper enforcement mechanism, if there are no proper teeth in the law which alleges to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the right to include plans for employment equity of companies with more than 100 persons, then in fact the law is a fraud, the law is a sham and, in the words of George Bernard Shaw, "the law is an ass". In that particular case I think the Government made serious and believed promises when it entered the women's debate. We remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney); he was very strong and very forceful. He said to the Canadian people, in particular to the women of Can "As soon as this Government is elected, the very moment that we are elected, we are going to begin to force companies, which deal with the federal Government, to come into line when it comes to issues of employment equity and affirmative action". Yet, we see that the kind of watered-down version of contract compliance included in Bill C-62 does nothing to ensure the access to equal opportunity promised by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, we have here a situation where groups such as women, visible and other minorities, the handicapped and labour are getting together and telling the Government: The legislation introduced in the House is a fraud, because the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), that red Tory, is claiming to Canadians that here is a Bill that will help women, minorities and the handicapped. And at the same time, even the largely Conservative Committee that produced the report Equality for All is extensively criticizing the provisions of Bill C-62 now before the House. It is being suggested that certain amendments are needed that will, for instance, give the Human Rights Commission a chance to go to the companies and really make sure that even minor rules that will affect only companies with more than 100 employees, will have enough teeth so something can be done about the situation. Because what is happening now, according to this group of Conservative Members, which includes one Liberal and one New Democrat, is that since the Bill does not apply to the Federal Government, it does not apply to Federal employees, and since it only applies to companies with more than 100 employees, it applies only to about 18 per cent of the companies that are federally regulated.
Mr. Speaker, when women, the handicapped, Conservative Members, the public, labour and people belonging to visible and multicultural minorities all get together to tell the Government: What you are proposing is a fraud, what you are proposing to do is not a genuine response to the promises made by the Prime Minister to women in August 1984: "As soon as I am elected, we are going to start programs that will provide
employment equity for women" .. . Mr. Speaker, what we are seeking, is employment equity for everyone.
The Liberal document produced in the House this week . .. in any case, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62 provides no answers whatsoever with respect to women's rights, minority rights or rights for the handicapped, and that is why all Canadian men and women are rejecting this legislation, because it is a fraud and an attempt by the Government to live up to promises it never intended to-


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak today on Bill C-62, the employment equity Bill. This is a really inadequate Bill, I am terribly sorry to say. The need for strong action to guarantee genuine equality in the workplace for women, the handicapped, visible minorities and native people has long been recognized. Of course, we have had some very strong recommendations before us, such as those in the Abella Report. We do not see these recommendations being acted on in this legislation.
The NDP caucus has had meetings with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Action Committee and other groups that have told us that they are not even remotely satisfied with the action the Government has taken. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, speaking for millions of Canadian women, has very clearly indicated that the Bill is not adequate and that in principle it is wrong if a Bill is directed toward such a weak array of voluntary measures.
What is wrong with this Bill, Mr. Speaker? The program is voluntary and that is not acceptable at this time. Voluntary programs have been tried before and have been found wanting. They were deemed failures in the United States even though tougher measures were attached. The great wage and salary gaps between women and men are not closing.
The Bill does not provide an enforcement mechanism. This is absolutely crucial and Judge Abella recognized that it was not enough to have a program for affirmative action or employment equity or whatever it is called put in place; there has to be an enforcement mechanism. There is no provision in the Bill for the input of a union where there is an affirmative action or employment equity plan to be developed. Obviously the workers in the workplace would have excellent ideas to contribute. Since they are the ones who are going to be most affected, clearly they ought to have a say in the evolution of these plans.
The Bill does not provide goals and guidelines for affirmative action. It is very vague. It is not directed to anything specific, and not being directed to any specific goals or timetables, we can be jolly sure that nothing will be achieved. A comprehensive affirmative action program would include contract compliance, equal pay for work of equal value, adequate child care measures and a comprehensive education and training plan. This Bill addresses none of these related issues.
October 31, 1985

The whole subject of affirmative action has had a very long history in the United States and that is probably the model to which we have looked. It is not a very positive model for Canadians. In the United States, there were some contract compliance measures and so there were some teeth in the legislation. Companies would actually lose money if they did not come up with affirmative action plans. Here in Canada we have the same model being adopted without the enforcement mechanism, without the teeth and without the threat of lost business. Of course, that threat would be an incentive for a company to introduce a plan.
I suggest that we need to have very careful reporting provisions. There must be concrete guidelines for concrete reports so that we will not have just window dressing types of plans reported. I suggest, for example, that the very simple statistic that ought to be reported by every company doing business with the Government is the proportion of women in the workforce compared with the proportion of the payroll the women receive in the case of comparisons between men and women. Of course, one could do the same for other groups being tested. This statistic would give us a very good indication year after year of whether or not the gap between the two is being reduced. It is only with very firm and objective measures like that that we can ensure there will be real action and not just more window dressing plans allowing the Government to pretend to be doing something about the issue.
I would like to refer to the matter of visible minorities. In my own riding of Broadview-Greenwood, there is a sizeable community of members of visible minorities and many of them tell me about the discrimination they encounter when looking for jobs. They tell me that they are not considered fairly and do not get the same chances. Unfortunately, this has been all too well documented by actual studies. The Urban Alliance on Race Relations has conducted extremely interesting and objective studies. It sent actors and actresses with identical work histories and identical qualifications to potential employers. It was found that those who were members of the white majority were very much better received than members of visible minorities. In one-third of the workplaces tested preference was given to white applicants over non-white applicants who were equally qualified. Will the proposed legislation do anything to remedy this situation? Unfortunately not. Over 50 per cent of employers in this investigation, unsolicited, expressed negative views of racial minorities. Is there any way this legislation will help change that situation? The answer is no.
Some 49 per cent of the complaints by racial minorities of discriminatory behaviour and of racial harassment were dealt with by disciplining the victims, the non-white complainants. Will the proposed legislation in Bill C-62 change that situation? No.
Some 82 per cent of employers have no policy to deal with discrimination in their workplaces and, perhaps, the most disturbing statistic to come out of this study was that 78 per cent of employers do not want policy changes which will
Employment Equity
compel them to eliminate discriminatory practices. Since they are not willing to make these changes voluntarily we must say, as a society, that they do not have that option any more. Equality of our citizens is now written in our law. It is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not optional. It is not just a question of people following their own personal tastes in a matter as crucial as the right of other people to earn their livelihoods.
The measures which are before us today are just not remotely up to dealing with these issues. The same can be said for the question of disabled people looking for work. The report Obstacles, which is an excellent federal Government report, deals with the situation of the disabled. The recommendations in that report are much more specific as to what types of measures are needed. Recommendation No. 26 states that a policy should be established of contract compliance for Government contracts with firms employing 100 people or more and involving contracts of more than $20,000. The proposal in Bill C-62 is much less adequate than that. It deals with a much smaller number of firms with larger contracts. Thus the opportunity to bring a large number of businesses under contract compliance legislation has been lost as a result of the wording of the Bill before us.
Recommendation No. 27 of the report Obstacles is that the federal Government should establish an affirmative action compliance board or designate another existing board to develop guidelines and procedures for enforcement, to approve plans and monitor them. It is only with that type of concrete action, with specific plans, with a monitoring mechanism in place and some real penalties that we can ensure that the job will be done. Other countries have done a far better job than Canada has in providing job opportunities for the disabled. The United Kingdom has that type of legislation, as does West Germany and even the United States which is not a pillar in terms of social legislation.
It should be required that managers in the Public Service be accountable for their success in employing and promoting visible minorities, the disabled and women. That aspect should be built into the evaluation plans to ensure that there is action within the Public Service itself. Of course, that is not being done in terms of the Bill which is before us.
I might add that the Province of Saskatchewan, under an NDP Government, brought in such proposals and implemented them. There was beginning to be some movement toward seeing that visible minorities, women and native persons were being given job opportunities. Unfortunately, with the new Conservative Government, those provisions have been watered down. However, we can see that the example went on long enough to know that it was beginning to work, things were beginning to happen and justice was beginning to be done in the workplace.

We are asking for more concerted efforts and mandatory measures, not for the kind of propositions made by this Government in Bill C-62. The Government is advocating weak

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
and non-compulsory measures, but women, visible minorities, native people and disabled persons want-and have earned- equality in the workplace. This Bill falls far short of the mark.
That is why the New Democratic Party will vote against the Bill.

What we want are strong, concrete measures with enforcement, monitoring and evaluation. We really want to encourage the Government to come up with something which will do justice for women who are discriminated against, the handicapped, the disabled and native people. I regret to say that we are voting against Bill C-62 in principle because it does not go far enough. It is not a realistic attack on this problem.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, we would not want to vote on this issue without having the opportunity for a thorough debate on Bill C-62. I see the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in the Chamber and I am sure he would not want that, either. He would want us to discuss this issue fully and throughly in the House of Commons before we vote on this very important measure. We are talking, of course, about employment equity. For many of our constituents this is a relatively new term and perhaps we should identify what employment equity is. Employment equity is the elimination of discrimination and the promotion of employment opportunities among four specific target groups, according to Judge Abella. We are talking about women, native people, disabled persons and the visible minorities. Judge Abella in her report preferred the expression "employment equity" to "affirmative action" or other phrases which have been used in the past. What we all want to do, of course, is to promote and assist those people who need to be equal in relation to all others. In other words, we must put them in a more equitable position with other Canadians because those four target groups have traditionally been greatly disadvantaged.
The purpose of employment equity is to eventually ensure, through this process that we have true equality for all Canadians. We know that we in this country are all equal, at least in theory, according to our Charter of Rights. However, looking at this issue in a more realistic way, we know there is not equity in employment or salaries. For instance, a women earns on average 60 per cent of the salary earned by a man. I hope the day will come very soon when there is real equality in this country but, unfortunately, notwithstanding all of the good intentions which collectively we all have, we are not approaching that stage nearly soon enough.
I would like to refer to some of the background of this issue of employment equity. I referred a few moments ago to the report of Judge Rosalie Abella which was commissioned in June of 1983 by the then Minister of Employment and Immigration. A report was tabled in this House in November of 1984. I am sure you recall that day very vividly, Mr. Speaker. Judge Abella's recommendations to this House were, in brief, that we should bring forward legislation enacting mandatory
employment equity for employers under federal jurisdiction- all of them. She recommended that we should be persuading provincial Governments to adopt similar legislation in the areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the recommended contractual compliance for all federally-regulated employers. Finally, she recommended that we establish an agency to enforce mandatory employment equity, and four options were enumerated. But what have we done?
Let us review the Bill that we are talking about today. I want to remind Hon. Members across the way that the Bill has no mandatory enforcement of employment equity at all. There are no provisions for a separate monitoring agency. The responsibility has been conferred upon the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will have no power to enforce employment equity. There have been no targets set by the Government or the Minister, no standardization in reporting procedures, and no penalties for companies that do not comply. The Minister said that that is all right because public opinion will ultimately be the judge of those who do wrong. I ask Members across the way, since when do we as Canadians offer justice to our minorities based on a popularity contest? That is what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is asking us to do through this Bill.

In other words, the Minister seems to think that we will have to wait for the findings of a public opinion poll before the situation can be set straight-nothing will change unless the people voice their opposition, and then justice will flow from this measure. I have to ask the Hon. Member opposite whether he really believes a popularity constest is the best way to solve the problem.
Well, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what he might say now, I think he is a fair man and I wonder whether he would agree that the Bill should provide mechanisms to ensure full compliance with the new legislation on the part of Government agencies and the various companies which are awarded Government contracts. Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to say that Canadians need only be informed and that it will be up to them to judge whether an agency or company has failed to follow the ministerial directives.

During the last election campaign the Conservatives promised many things to many people.


Mr. Malone:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Someone says "hear, hear". I was not intending to go into great detail, but I will remind that Member that there is a little book containing 338 Tory promises which I have talked about in the House on one or two occasions. Anyone who wants a copy of the book need only contact my office and I will gladly send one. That offer includes Members across the way and Canadians across Canada as well.
October 31, 1985

I will outline some of the promises that the Tories made to Canadian women. The Conservatives said that they would institute major training and retaining programs to ensure that women are prepared for the new occupations of the technological era. What happened to that promise? They also said that they would make clear to companies doing business with the federal Government that their performance in hiring and promoting women will be a key factor in obtaining contracts for goods and services. What happened to that promise? Why is Bill C-62 based on public opinion, instead of making it clear as was promised in that commitment? Could it be that the Conservatives have broken a promise? Maybe it was a sacred trust, in which case we can be sure that it has been broken because all the sacred trusts were broken a long time ago.
Another sacred trust of the Tories was that they would make the federal public service a model to be followed with regard to the equality of women in the workplace. What happened to that promise? Why does this promise not coincide with what is included in Bill C-62? Mr. Speaker, as much as I have to say it, I think the Tories broke another promise. It does not surprise some of us that some promises have been broken. Why does the Minister not stand up in the House and tell us that she will improve this Bill and make it coincide with what the Conservative Party promised the women of Canada and others during the election campaign of last year? I urge her to do that now.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said, Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, is a Bill about opportunity. It demands that employers take special measures to ensure that our aboriginal people, our disabled, our women and our visible minorities will not be denied work opportunities because of their sex, colour or handicap. This debate reminds me of the time when a six-year old black girl on a very dirty, dusty road in her village in Tanzania adopted me as her white man. She had no fear, prejudice or discrimination. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) spoke on this Bill with regard to some of the acts of discrimination which he has experienced. I, for one, do not doubt him for a moment since he is black. I can relate closely to what he said because of my own African experiences. The incident with that little black girl, whose name I do not even know, has impressed me to this day so much that I now feel totally colour blind. I am proud to say that as a member of this truly great national Government I am making history, along with my colleagues, in ensuring that all our people-and I emphasize the word "all" -will now be treated equally with retard to opportunities in the workplace.
Equality is of paramount importance and concern to Canadians, especially new Canadians. The provisions of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which were entrenched in April of this year, state:
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.
Employment Equity
The royal commission report on equality in employment, more often referred to in this House as the Abella Report, noted that the hope of the four designated groups was that "as quickly as possible, they would be transformed from being objects in the political laboratory to being subjects of political action". Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62 shows a willingness on the part of the Government to do just that, and it has been done in record time. The Abella Report continues, on page 23, to say the following:
Yet for all their differences, the one issue about which there was general agreement among the groups was the need for strong government measures to ensure equality in employment.
This is exactly what we are doing with the targeted areas of federal responsibility. How many times have you heard an employer say that he would not hire a black, a Paki, a women or a disabled person? I think we have heard that all too often, Mr. Speaker. To me this attitude is mindless and it demonstates a degree of bigotry that is all too prevalent in Canada. Bill C-62 does not go all the way, but it is a pretty positive start to changing, not only the law, but the attitude of many Canadian employers.
There is a company in my riding called BDM Co Operative Warehouse Service of Canada Ltd. which does business with the Government and wants to do more. It is presently negotiating to buy or lease a vacant Government building in Ottawa-Carleton on Walkley Road. In so doing it will kill a number of birds with one stone. It intends to use the building to provide first class private sector services to the Government for storage facilities of files and documents. The beauty of the project, Mr. Speaker, is that the company intends to hire 40 or 50 disabled persons to do the work. That is very good news and that is why I am doing all I can to assist that company. That is an obvious immediate response to Bill C-62. That the arms and legs of handicapped persons do not function the same as those of more normal persons does not mean that their minds are poor. They cannot always work at the same speed as others, but they probably make fewer mistakes. There are many jobs that these people can do if given a fair chance. Some Members opposite have called for more affirmative action. There are Government programs in existence now that are tougher than Bill C-62 because departments must submit plans to Treasury Board for approval in advance with respect to hiring the four designated groups. Let me say, for the sake of the cynics, that we are not throwing the merit principle out of the window in the Public Service or federally regulated businesses. However, systemic discrimination and other forms of discrimination must be eradicated in all areas of federal jurisdiction as soon as possible.
I was proud to assist a young woman in her late twenties to find employment with Labour Canada recently. Her name is Janet. She suffers from cerebral palsy as a result of difficulties at birth. Today, she walks with the aid of two crutches.
Through the excellent co-operation of Diane Dufresne, who is a director in the National Capital Region's staffing office of the Public Service, and Suzanne Azzie, who is co-ordinator of

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
employment services for disabled persons, Janet is now working very well and is very happy as a full time clerk in the Public Service. In fact, for the first time in her life, she is living in her own apartment in Ottawa.
I liken this to one small step for Janet which will be translated into miles for many other deserving capable Canadians.
There has been much talk by the Opposition about the lack of enforcement mechanisms and penalties for companies that do not abide by Bill C-62. Let me assure you that we will not set up another bureaucracy to monitor results. We know that we have enough of that at the municipal, provincial, national and international levels. We do not want, nor do we need more bureaucracy.
With respect to enforcement, the Government is modelling its enforcement plans after what is called Model Four in the Abella Report. Guidelines are now being prepared by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, known as CEIC, and will be shared with employers along with free consultative assistants. Collection of data will be done by CEIC. Data will be made available to the Human Rights Commission as well as to individuals and groups.
Investigation and adjudication of disputes under Section 32.3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act empowers the commission to initiate complaints where reasonable grounds exist. The data will provide such grounds. The Human Rights Commission will be strengthened, if necessary, to enable it to carry out this role. Contract compliance is being introduced, along with enforcement mechanisms. CEIC will monitor contractors and advise the contracting Minister of companies who do not live up to their commitments. These companies may be barred from future contracts.
With respect to Labour Canada inspectors, the Government will ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the staff necessary to monitor their settlements. The Labour Canada inspectors now have the authority to refer complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the case of equal pay, and they have a specific mandate to do so under Section 38.1 of the Labour Code. It is thus clear that the Government's mechanisms for enforcement are consistent with those recommended by Judge Abella in Option Four. The specific organizations involved reflect the Government's desire to utilize existing mechanisms rather than create new ones.
Judge Abella has said that achievements will be measured by results, not quotas, as some have suggested. The affected companies will set their own goals to meet their particular situation, such as the case of BDM in my riding to which I referred.
The question of sanctions have been of some concern. I would like to address that question as well. Bill C-62, as recommended by Judge Abella, requires employers throughout the federal sector with 100 employees or more to implement employment equity programs. The Bill will also require them to demonstrate the results of their implementation by annually reporting their results.
The measures outlined in the Bill respond to Recommendation Nos. 3, 6 and 7 of the Abella Commission. Let me paraphrase those recommendations. They recommend that no quotas should be imposed, employers should be given flexibility in the redesign of their employment practices, and results, not systems, should be reviewed initially.
Employers now know that they need to identify and eliminate practices which discriminate against target group members. If one refers to Clause 5 and Clause 6 of the Bill, one can see quite clearly that clause 5 states that employers must file reports. In terms of sactions, Clause 6 reads:
An employer who fails to comply with section 5 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars.
Let us not forget that lobby groups will keep the pressure on business and Government and that this is to be encouraged. The potential for lawsuits on the entrenched rights in the Constitution maintain the pressure.
More important, Bill C-62 concerns fairness. Employment equity is a concept based on the belief of fairness and opportunity. Those realizing the economic benefits of employment should comprise all aspects of the Canadian population. The Bill aims to achieve results with the co-operation of employers in the federally regulated business sector. My Government and I believe that that approach can and will be effective.


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


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, you ask whether the House is ready for the question. I am certainly not ready for the question. A number of Members on this side of the House want to make a contribution to the debate on this legislation. I want to assure you that the House will not be ready for the question for some time.
The Bill before the House today concerns employment equity, or affirmative action. Let me commence by briefly explaining the importance of affirmative action and why we are urging the Government to implement a positive and effective affirmative action program. Affirmative action is fundamental to our values in a society which firmly believes in equality of opportunity and condition. Since we value the opportunity for people to participate in society as a whole, our citizens must have the fullest opportunity to develop as individuals and the community must have access to the full potential of its human resources. We do not want to see anyone in our society excluded from that participation. It is only on the basis of each person being given an opportunity to develop and become productive in society that we can have a community in which we can have pride and a sense of security.
Affirmative action is a means of confirming our value of equality in Canadian life. It has long been stated that Canadian society is far from equal and that a number of groups in Canadian society are far from reaching that goal of equality.
I want to refer to the status of women in our society. One glaring example of inequality is the fact that for each dollar earned by men, women earn only 60 cents. While women have
October 31, 1985

made significant advances in employment in the last couple of decades, the remuneration they receive is inadequate and far less than what a man would receive in similar circumstances. We must address this problem through affirmative action. Furthermore, it follows that women's pensions will be 60 per cent of the pension of their male counterparts. The vast majority of Canadians are not willing to tolerate this kind of inequality.
We have in our society a number of visible minorities, including black and Asian people.
The inequality of visible minorities in Canada is a worry which I am sure many Canadians have when they look south across the border and see what has happened with the black people, particularly in the cities. Not only to see the potential of individuals fulfilled, but also to see that our communities are ones in which we can live in peace, comfort and enjoyment, it is important that visible minorities be given full opportunity, particularly in the area of employment.
The same inequality exists for the handicapped. The handicapped are in many ways excluded from our society by architecture because few buildings are accessible to the handicapped, a situation that needs to be changed. Buildings are only a symbol of the way we bar access to equal opportunity for handicapped individuals. Other changes are needed, changes in employment policies and in recruitment procedures. What about opportunities for training? The vast majority of Canadians would like the Government to take effective action to ensure that handicapped people have equal access to opportunity and employment and to see that society benefits from the rich resources of the handicapped.
Another group of people who stand out in terms of inequality and call upon us to establish effective affirmative action programs are the native people. If we look at native people in the poor areas of cities, such as Winnipeg and other western cities, we find that poverty is intolerable. It is visible. People live in inadequate housing and have a low level of education. Unemployment is in the area of 60 per cent. These are not official statistics but educated guesses. If we look at native people in rural areas on reserves, we find that unemployment is in the area of 80 per cent to 90 per cent. Greater equality is needed.
The need for affirmative action is based upon lack of equality. Most Canadians want a society in which people have equality of opportunity and human condition.
This Bill before the House falls far short of what could be called effective affirmative action. The Bill is a voluntary program rather than a mandatory one. We know from the United States experience and from our own experience here with regard to voluntary programs that we need a mandatory program with deadlines, goals and specific objectives.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
Employment Equity
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-62, an Act respecting Employment Equity be not now read a second
time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
I move this motion, Mr. Speaker, because the Government needs more time to find out about why this Bill falls far short of an adequate affirmative action program. The Government needs to rethink its position. We need the six months for the Government to come up with an effective affirmative action program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) must realize that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) cannot second this motion because he has spoken to the main motion. Therefore, we will substitute the Hon. Member for the Beaches (Mr. Young).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). I think the purpose of his amendment, which is to give some time for the Government to come to its senses, is a very important one. Not that I have much confidence that that will happen because we have seen over the past 18 months that you cannot come to your senses if you do not have much sense to begin with. At the same time, being a Liberal I am an eternal optimist and live in hope that at some point in time Members opposite will understand fully what a serious betrayal they are perpetrating on the Canadian people by this Bill.
In the spring of 1983, I was engaged in what I thought was one of the more important initiatives as a Minister of the Crown. I received from my Cabinet the approval to establish the Abella Commission. It was important because at that time I saw it as a major turning point in the evolution that had been under way for the past two decades, which was to bring about a higher and greater sense of understanding and consciousness about the need for equality rights.
The Abella Commission was established for an important reason. In a simple way, the voluntary system to achieve affirmative action that had been put in place up to that time had failed. Every single Conservative speaker who has risen to speak in this House has said, "Let us give the voluntary system a chance", which shows that Conservatives are incapable of understanding history or they are blind to what went on before. There was a voluntary system, Mr. Speaker.
The Department of Employment and Immigration had a special division to provide assistance to private employers and municipalities to engage in the development of voluntary affirmative action programs. Four years of effort to achieve that
8198

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
resulted in something like 100 companies of the 50,000 or
60,000	companies in Canada showing any interest in signing up or developing an affirmative action program. They all had the resources they needed and all the support. All the things that are supposedly going to happep as a result of this Bill have happened before. This Bill simply puts up a masquerade instead of a program that has already ostensibly failed. That is why it is such a betrayal.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) knows full well that that method will not work. She was the critic from 1982 to 1983. She stood on her feet time and time again and said, with no sense of uncertainty, that we needed mandatory contract compliance to make it work. Now that she is the Minister, she totally denies a position which she held for many years. That is an act of betrayal by that Minister of a constituency which, as she said, she represented for many years. It is a betrayal of a clear understanding of the facts, and now it is a betrayal of what was to be an important achievement in terms of legislating the requirements at the federal level for private companies and Crown corporations to introduce a proper system of affirmative action.
I have gone over the Debates of the House carefully. It is an ironic tragedy that the Conservative Members of Parliament who have spoken on the Bill have been so blind and untrustworthy when it comes to the actual achievement of affirmative action. The Government is engaged in one of the most serious breaches of trust.
We can all remember the flourishing words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during debate in the summer of 1984 when he was asked about the Abella Commission and what he would do. He held his hand to his heart and with that incredible sense of insincerity, which we have now come to know, love and admire, said that he was fully committed to contract compliance. What a difference a year makes! What a difference an election makes! What has happened to those firm and unalterable words of the Prime Minister? I guess the same thing happened to them as has happened to almost every other commitment he has made.
The record and history of mandatory programs of affirmative action show that they work. Along with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), I, as Minister responsible, introduced into the Public Service the requirement for affirmative action in Departments. It was begun on a trial basis in 1981 with three Departments. The system and methodology were tested. We introduced it in 1980-81 to the Treasury Board, the Secretary of State Department and the Department of Employment and Immigration. We put in place a method to demonstrate clearly how such a system could work and be effective. Then, in 1983, the program was introduced to cover all government Departments.
The next step in the blueprint was to extend it to Crown corporations and all industries which were then under federal jurisdiction. The Abella Commission was established to determine the most effective formula for that third step. It was not
a commission of study. It was not established to ascertain the facts. We all knew that there was a continuing and unacceptable inequality when it came to the employment rights of women, the handicapped, native people and visible minorities. The Abella Commission did not have to ascertain those facts; they were known. The task of Judge Abella was to determine the most effective formula, based upon intensive consultation with private business, Crown corporation leaders and provincial Governments.
The report was tabled, and that formula was clearly accepted and applauded across the country. It was accepted because Judge Abella put her finger on one fundamental ingredient in any affirmative action program, that is, that we could not rely upon individual companies, corporations and organizations to introduce a program for their own organizations when they did not know whether their competitor across the street, or other organizations with which they did business, would do the same. Therefore they said: "Why would I accept an unfair advantage? Why would I go to the extra cost of introducing affirmative action when no one else is going to do it?" It does involve extra cost to introduce affirmative action. The basic, fundamental flaw in a voluntary program is that unless it is universal and unless the same rules apply to everyone, individual companies or organizations will not do it. Even those well-intentioned presidents of corporations who saw the necessity and the imperative need for affirmative action told me when I was Minister of Employment that they would like to do it, but that they would not do so because their competitors would not do it and therefore they would be unable to compete with them on an equal level. They said: "If we are going to do it, we all have to do it". That is also what Judge Abella said and, therefore, that it was essential to have a mandatory requirement. As well, she pointed out the importance of introducing the contract compliance ingredient.
It was clear that the provinces, particularly the Conservative Governments of those provinces, would not do it. A meeting of provincial Minister was convened in 1982 by the then Secretary of State to talk about the introduction of equality rights, and it was the provincial Governments which opposed it at that time. Judge Abella carefully said that if we were to provide for a further clear step forward, it must be done at the federal level.
The report was tabled. The recommendations were made. The Minister of Employment and Immigration rose in the House and declared with the greatest of flourish and fervor how wonderful the report was. What happened thereafter? Then the Government came out with Bill C-62, which is not even a pale imitation. It is a betrayal. It is a denial. It is a treasonous act against all those who have worked for years to try to bring about substantial improvement in the lives of many Canadian workers. There is nothing in Bill C-62 in which Parliament can take pride. Therefore, it makes eminent sense for us to support the amendment. Those Conservative Members who in their heart of hearts know that it is a Bill which is simply a paper masquerade, should try to put some pressure upon Cabinet, which has made the wrong choice, a
October 31, 1985

serious mistake and has betrayed women, the handicapped, native people and visible minorities. That is what the Bill is all about. It will go down in the long history of trying to achieve equality rights as one of the blackest moments.


Arnold John Malone: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: And the only response we get from the Tories is that they laugh about it.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-62 and on the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).
This employment equity Bill is really a missed opportunity. Because that is so, we in the New Democratic Party have great difficulty supporting it. There are several reasons for that difficulty. The Bill really calls for a voluntary program, which is clearly unacceptable to my Party.
Voluntary affirmative action programs have been tried in several jurisdictions other than in Canada-most notably, in the United States, Germany and other European countries- and it was found that they simply did not work. In the United States, in particular, it was decided in the 1960s to come forward with mandatory programs, which have proven to be quite effective.
I, along with other Members from all sides of the House, had the opportunity in 1980, after the election campaign, to form an all-Party committee of the House of Commons to look into problems affecting the disabled population. We came up with a number of recommendations which, if implemented, could have been of great assistance to disabled Canadians in their attempt to participate in the mainstream of Canadian society.
I would like to centre my remarks on the disabled community rather than on women, natives or other groups as other members of my caucus have already addressed themselves to those groups. The committee recognized that most of the problems affecting the disabled community centred on the key issue of employment opportunity. One can talk about the social needs of that particular group in any terms one wishes, whether it be in terms of access to housing, access to transportation, education, recreation, information or even technical aids. These things cannot be separated one from the other. Each one is connected to the other. One cannot talk about providing an individual with access to education on all levels including post-secondary education without also talking about how that individual can be productively employed following the receipt of his or her education, and this is assuming that the individual can get into the educational system to begin with.
As the committee went across the country speaking to Canadians, it heard numerous stories indicating that there are literally thousands of children who are denied access to education because of their disabilities. This Bill does not address
Employment Equity
that problem. It does not address training opportunities for people who happened to be disabled. Unless we talk about that in a very real and concrete way, we cannot talk about employment opportunities because one is synonymous with the other.
We cannot talk about employment opportunities without talking about how we allow the individual to be moved from the place of residence to the place of employment. It must be recognized that most modes of transportation are not designed to be used by physically disabled people. We have to talk about these things in a very real and basic way. This Bill does not do that. It does not even touch upon that.
I find it surprising that the Government would introduce a measure like this. I can only conclude that the reason it did so was that it recognized there is a public sentiment in favour of providing equity to the various diverse groups in our society, but the Government did not want to go too far because of the pressures from other areas of society, primarily employers. I have been told that that is indeed the case. The Government has caved in to the pressure from that elite group of society against the best interests of those who really need society's help in order to move within the mainstream of society. I think that that is rather shameful. If I view this Bill as being purely a public relations effort rather than a real effort to help people, I am going to have great difficulty in supporting it, even though it goes a bit further than anything introduced by the previous Government.
I listened with some interest to the Member who just spoke, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). In his previous capacity as a Minister, he appeared before the committee to give testimony. I must say that he was generally sympathetic toward affirmative action programs. However, he could afford to be generally sympathetic because the rest of his Cabinet opposed them.


Miss Nicholson:: Come, come!


Neil Young: The Hon. Member scoffs. It is on the record. It is contained in the transcripts of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. It is recorded there for posterity and it cannot be disputed.
I am glad to hear that there are other members of that previous Government who now support mandatory affirmative action programs. They certainly did not do so before. If they had done so before, perhaps that influence would have been felt by the present Gouvernment, which indeed needs some education in this field. That is why I am pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, moved the amendment. If we give the Government another six months to give more thought to this Bill, I am sure it will do the right thing. The right thing is to bring in affirmative action programs that mean something.
There is a concern felt by the Government that if we were to bring in an affirmative action program, it would be disruptive to industry. That has not been the case where affirmative action programs exist. I will speak of those in the United States because it is of close relationship to our jurisdiction. When the special committee had the opportunity of speaking

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
to public figures and indeed members of the corporate sector in the United States, it found that they did not have any problems with affirmative action programs in so far as they concerned the disabled community. In fact, they found that as those programs worked, they allowed members of the disabled community to support themselves within society and to be productive members of society. In fact, they boasted to us on several occasions that a disabled individual was equal to or even a better productive worker than an able-bodied individual. That has been the experience in the United States. The Government of Canada should not have any great concern that affirmative action would be disruptive in some way. In fact, it would have a very beneficial and positive result.
An initiative on which the previous Government refused to act because of pressure from industry, and not even Canadian industry which supported the initiative, was to make telephones fully compatible with hearing aids. It requires only a small coil to be placed in a telephone to make it totally compatible with hearing aids. Bell Canada and other Canadian telephone manufacturers support that initiative. The problem is with imported telephones that are not compatible with hearing aids. This threatens the job security of people who are hard of hearing. If the Government wanted to do something before six months was up, it could move in that direction and order that all telephones coming into the country be compatible with hearing aids.
I see that you are signalling that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. That is very unfortunate. There is a great deal more that I would like to say on this subject.


Mr. Alfonso Gagiiano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a contribution to this debate on employment equity. I am in a good position to do so because the riding I represent, Saint-Leonard-Anjou, is home to many community groups who live and work there. Practically every Saturday morning many people and members of those cultural communities drop in my riding office to express their deep concern about their chances of getting good jobs and the possibility of their children ever being able to work in the Public Service of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62 does not give any assurance to those people, and that is why I rise in the House this morning to urge my colleagues on the Government benches to work with us so that we might indeed assure the various communities of a fair share in Canadian society, a fair share of Canadian jobs.
I was rather disappointed yesterday when I saw the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Jelinek) rise in the House and, instead of telling us more about those programs and what he is prepared to do for cultural communities in Canada, criticize my colleague from York West (Mr. Marchi) for allegedly wasting time to send out press releases instead of asking more questions in the House. It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker! Instead of telling us how he will convince his Cabinet colleagues to restore the confidence of our cultural communities by assuring them that they are equal partners and full-fledged members of Canadian society, our Minister responsible for those cultural communities stands up in the House to criticize and make fun of Members who are doing their job.
I have something else to say about this, Mr. Speaker. One of the Progressive Conservative Party's election campaign was to look after cultural communities but, at the first opportunity, the multiculturalism portfolio was given to a Minister with joint responsibilities. We have a Minister responsible for amateur sport and multiculturalism. That is how much importance this Government attaches to Canada's cultural communities!
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to another very important question which is not even mentioned in Bill C-62, yet it has been the subject of equality rights committee recommendations. I am talking about the question of the wife or spouse with respect to Revenue Canada. I am a strong supporter of institutional marriage, but still one must keep an open mind and face reality. A great many people live together in what is usually known as common law marriages. Mr. Speaker, those people cannot avail themselves of the various tax benefits which allow deductions, asset transfers and other arrangements. I should think that Canadian society is mature enough to take a close look at the situation and make it possible for those fellow citizens-regardless of their condition or marital status-to enjoy the same benefits as you and I and other Canadians take for granted.
Another point I want to make this morning relates to the case of disabled persons, for it is our responsibility to make sure they do have a place in our society. And this is why, Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that we have employment policies, that we help them get jobs and that we provide the means of transportation they need to go to work. Of course, our tax system fails to satisfy either the individual himself or the employer who is willing to hire the handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, as legislators, we must give a clear signal to all Canadians, to our employers, to our public servants and to our administrative officers that they must change their attitude in order to enable the handicapped, the people of various ethnic communities and the visible minorities to have access to all our programs and services as well as to our job opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my constituents of Saint-Leonard-Anjou that as their representative in this House, I will do my utmost to defend their rights so that they may always feel that they are full-fledged citizens of this great country we call Canada.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, we oppose Bill C-62 and we support the hoist motion for what I think are well documented and well established reasons. We do
October 31, 1985

not feel that the Bill takes the right type of action toward ensuring that we will have affirmative action.
By putting the hoist motion before the House we are giving the Government an opportunity to reassess the contents of its Bill. If it does not do that, then Bill C-62 can be dubbed the Bill of lost opportunity What the Government has here is an opportunity to do something about job equity in the country. We know from experience, not only in Canada but from all over the world, that it is quite a simple matter to pay lip service to changes in the type of structures which our country has developed.
After the Civil War in the United States the slaves were emancipated. However, it took another 100 years before there was any effect on changing discrimination against blacks. That only took place when legislation was put in place and the courts made decisions forcing people to adhere to the legislation. That is what the Government has the opportunity to do with respect to this particular Bill.
All of the Parties in the House gave major support to the Abella Report. However, Bill C-62 backs off from that report. In fact, one would think that the people who drafted the Bill forgot entirely about the Abella Report. In fact, one can easily recognize that the attempts here are simply a matter of paying lip service, a cosmetic move, to have something appear to be done. They also forgot about all the other reports of commissions which have been laid before the House and other public statements which have been made by a variety of public-oriented groups and organizations.
We are opposing the Bill and supporting the hoist motion for what we consider to be good and acceptable reasons. The first reason is that it is a voluntary program and we know that voluntary programs have not worked in the past. The Bill does not provide any type of enforcement mechanism. Surprisingly, it has an enforcement mechanism with respect to the gathering of data to ensure that corporation report. However, it does not put into place any type of penalty or any enforcement mechanism with regard to the actual affirmative action which it pretends to be putting into the employment structure of the country. If affirmative action is going to be developed, or is developed in a particular corporation, there is no suggestion in this Bill that the employees, the workers or the union should have a part in putting in place the kind of affirmative action which would work better. We have learned over the years that if we really want something to work, it must have the support of the employees as well as of management.
This Bill does not even give specific goals or objectives for companies which do start in this direction. It does not establish a level which they should be expected to achieve at any particular time. What is necessary is a program which would require contract compliance, equal pay for work of equal value, adequate job care measures and a comprehensive education and training plan. This legislation has none of these provisions.
Employment Equity
Many organizations have made this point to the Government. It is not as if the Government passed a Bill and then later found out that many organizations did not support it, all of the organizations which are involved have told the Government that the Bill is inadequate. It is not a matter of the Government not knowing. Since it has not taken action, the six-month hoist might possibly give it the opportunity to do so.
The United States, because it is close to us, is a good example of what does not happen if there is voluntary affirmative action. It was tried in the United States for years and it did not work. So why should we expect this Bill to work?
Women, the disabled and visible minorities have all indicated that they do not think this Bill will work. I suggest that this Bill flies in the face of the Abella Report which indicated that the voluntary element of this program with mandatory reporting requirements is nonetheless voluntary, therefore, it does not require a remedy to be put in place. It does not require a remedy to the discriminatory practice disclosed when the information comes in. When the reports come in from the corporations indicating that they have done something but have not done enough to satisfy the situation, there is no requirement that they produce a program which would have some impact on employment equity.
I have a number of letters, press releases and so on from a variety of groups. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women opposes the passage of Bill C-62 without previsions which guarantee mandatory affirmative action programs with targets. The Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women is concerned that Bill C-62 will not achieve its stated purpose to achieve equality in the workplace. The Coalition of Visible Minorities stated:
Clearly, the proposed legislation is not an effective vehicle for dismantling structural inequities.
Without an enforcement mechanism, without sanctions, there is simply no reason to expect that employment equity can be achieved.
I could refer to any one of those groups and spend 10 minutes in speaking about how they feel that Bill C-62 does not fulfil these requirements. Since I do not have the time to do so, I will conclude by saying that the Government has now before it a six-month hoist possibility. That could be a time in which the Government could make sure that the Bill does what it says it should do.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Clause 2 of Bill C-62, which is before us today, has as its purpose, and 1 quote:
-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 fulfillment of that goal, to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
That is a very laudable purpose, but when one looks through the Bill for ways in which this purpose is to be achieved, one finds that the only requirement is for reporting. Certain employers are required to report on their staffing patterns.

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
They are required to report on the industrial sector in which the employees are employed, the location, and the number of persons and designated groups so employed. There is a fine for not filing the report annually. So there is a fine for failing to report but there is no sanction whatsoever for failing to do. Nor is there any assistance offered or any clear guidelines. We read that the Minister "may" make guidelines.
I would assume that the reason we only have a reporting provision is that the Government is relying on the reporting and on the publication to create, perhaps, a certain climate of public opinion and certain public pressure on employers to come into line.
Ten years ago, I would have supported this kind of notion of voluntary sanctions or, at least, voluntary encouragement. Most Canadians generally, I think, respond to encouragement and persuasion rather than to coercion. However, we tried for over 10 years. We have had various systems of voluntary compliance and there has been very little progress. I am sure that most employers do not set out to discriminate against women, the handicapped, Canadian Indians and visible minorities, but it is often just more comfortable and simpler to hire the kind of person you know. It is often thoughtlessness rather than deliberate discrimination.
Financial factors enter into the case of the handicapped. To accommodate wheelchairs one must have wider doors, ramps instead of stairs and wider elevators. What one hears from employers-indeed, as my colleague from Winnipeg said earlier-is: "Why should I add to my cost of doing business if my competitors are not required to do so?" That is also an argument for mandatory requirements which apply equally to everyone.

I was in the House, Mr. Speaker, as you were, when the human rights code was amended to include the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. I believe that may have been the case in 1975. At that time we hoped that the amendments would lead to a considerable improvement in the economic status of women in the public service and of other disadvantaged groups. At that time we thought that giving the right of complaint and setting up procedures within the Human Rights Commission was an adequate way of redressing those grievances. It has not proved to be so, Mr. Speaker. It is now time to recognize that the complaints method has not worked. That method puts the onus on the employee to make the employer observe the law. It is now time to recognize that that puts an unfair load on the employee. It has not worked because the system is cumbersome. Many employees find it difficult and it is now time to make employers obey the law.
The commission headed by Judge Rosalie Abella, which examined the problems of employment equity, came up with some far-reaching recommendations. The Government has chosen not to adopt them, but to bring in a Bill which relies only on reporting. In terms of contract compliance, we are told that the employment equity requirements will apply only to contracts over $200,000. This includes only about 100 of the
25,000	to 30,000 companies with which the Government deals and it effectively excludes small business, the largest creator of jobs in Canada. The thinking may have been that if the 100 largest companies were required to set an example, other companies would follow them. Since voluntary measures of one kind and another relying on public opinion have not been effective until now, surely it is time to move on to new methods.
The only redress for an employee under Bill C-62 continues to be the Human Rights Commission, which is expected to monitor these reports without any formal extension of its mandate and without any increase in funding. We know that the Human Rights Commission has an enormous backlog at the moment. The Auditor General's Report which was tabled yesterday referred to it. It is simply not feasible to think that the Human Rights Commission will be able to do this additional work under those circumstances.
Let us look at some of the groups representing people covered by this Bill which have criticized the Bill as not going far enough. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, the National Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Association for Community Living, formerly the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, the Urban Alliance for Race Relations, and the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women are unanimous in saying that the Government's response to the Abella report, as represented in this Bill, is weak, ineffective, and a betrayal of the commitments and promises made to them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on this Bill and specifically on the amendment just introduced by the New Democratic Party to delay the implementation of the Bill until it can be changed. I want to take this opportunity to read into the record some suggestions for change from a group called S.U.C.C.E.S.S.


John Barry Turner: Are they Tories?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member asks whether they are Conservatives. I think this is a non-partisan group. It is the United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society. It was formed in 1973 to help members of the Vancouver and Lower Mainland Chinese community overcome language and cultural barriers, to assume greater responsibility toward selfreliance, and to contribute fully to Canadian society. Last year the group served 42,250 people, which is quite a record. They are interested in the creation of employment equity for disadvantaged groups in our society.
I have a copy of a letter written to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) by Sandra Wilking, who is the chairperson of the board of directors. She makes five suggestions which I would like to put on the record in order that they can be considered by the Government in
October 31, 1985

changing the Bill. First, she says that the possibility of expanding the definition of "designated groups" should be looked at to include minorities, for example, people from Mediterranean and Latin American backgrounds. These peole are just as disadvantaged as visible minority groups because, like the visible minority groups, they have limited knowledge of the English language with which to function in the workplace.
Second, she says that the Government should look at the possibility of including in the employer group unions that fall under federal jurisdiction. This group is also a potential group of employers.
Third, she says that they are concerned that the current proposed legislation remains silent on the enforcement factor. Who will be responsible for ensuring that there are positive results toward employment equity in the employer groups? Who will police the Act? The fine of $5,000 is not as effective as specific performance and other remedies, according to S.U.C.C.E.S.S.
The fourth point they make is that the current Bill is not clear on what types of relevant data would be required in the employers' reports. There may be data, for example on the number of applications from the designated group for a particular job opening and a number of appointments made in ratio with the number of application, and that data should be forthcoming.
Fifth, if an employer is to recruit for the various target groups, as outlined in the Act, it would seem that the relevant questions should be asked on the application form. This would include the ethnicity question and the group suggests that Anglo Saxon should be included as an ethnic background.
These are a number of interesting suggestions and I offer them to the Government. I certainly agree with one point in particular, that is, that there is no enforcement mechanism in this Bill. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, just to rely on reporting. We need some teeth. The subject is too important to ignore.
I would like to say something generally about employment equity. I would like to express some of my own views in this particular area. Employment equity is a polite way of saying equal pay for work of equal value. I think it is a good concept. Some of the recent reports recognize the reality that women will continue mainly to do women's work, but that women's work has been historically grossly undervalued and, therefore, should be much better paid. While we must make every effort to help women break into the traditional male jobs, it will be very difficult because it seems that our society is not set up to handle two-career families who must raise children at the same time. A sacrifice must be made and as a result of role conditioning and biology, to some extent, it is usually the woman who must make the sacrifice. Indeed, househusbands are rare.
Child rearing must be recognized as valuable labour in order to give women economic strength. Surely, parenting is the most important job in the world. Imagine a society which paid
Employment Equity
mothers the same amount as corporation presidents. That is not likely to happen but the difference between what mothers are paid-usually nothing-and what we pay corporate presidents shows how undervalued parenting is in our society. Parenting is a low status job and society must change its values in this regard.
The job of a Member of Parliament can only be carried out if that Member has a support person to look after the children and other household responsibilities. It is a job that is more easily carried out by a single person. One can see that a disproportionate number of women in the House of Commons are single or have no children. Of 282 Members of Parliament, only 28 are women, or 9.6 per cent. Of 39 chiefs of staff, only 4, or 10.3 per cent, are women.
The reason for this is that men have wives to look after the children. The problem is that the reverse does not occur. The real solution is not to have more househusbands but to provide for more work-sharing and to place a high value on child care so that families who choose to have children are not discriminated against economically in the workplace. For example, women who work in a law firm should not be forced to fit into the male mould but should have an equal footing with men. In this way, men will be just as interested in looking after the children after work rather than staying late to work on a case.
Employment equity is beneficial because it promotes women in the workplace and promotes equal pay for work of equal value. Placing a higher value on women's work gives women more economic strength. It lowers the barriers in job ghettos so as to make traditional women's work more financially attractive to men, thereby equalizing sex roles in our society.
I repeat that this Bill is inadequate because there is no enforcement mechanism. It is not sufficient to rely on a reporting system. The Bill must have more strength in order for it to work. That is why I commend to the House some of the suggestions made by my Party as well as some of the suggestions made by the United Chinese Community Services Society in Vancouver. I look forward to seeing some of those suggestions implemented.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate. In fact. Bill C-62, which is aimed at legislating employment equity, arises from a private Member's Bill.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the House is considering a motion to suspend consideration of the Bill and resume debate in six months' time, in other to give the Government a chance to reconsider and make the necessary changes.
Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, I do not think anyone in the House is against employment equity. It is a principle we accept and which we want to support. It is a principle that commands respect, and in any case, it is high time it was put into practice.

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
However, Bill C-62 now before the House is a clumsy and extremely ill-planned piece of legislation, drafted with ... It is almost amateurish, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry to have to say this, but any Member of Parliament, upon reading the Bill over, will say it is not only ambiguous but is often so difficult to understand that it undermines the very objective and principle of the Bill itself.
Hon. Members will recall that Bill C-62 supports the hiring of women, native people, handicapped persons and persons whose race or colour make them members of what we refer to as Canada's visible minorities. To reach its objective, Bill C-62 is proposing to eliminate employment barriers. It also proposes to provide for fair proportional representation of members of these groups in various jobs, and I quote Clause 4 (b):
(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.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62 proposes that every year, starting on or before June 1988, every employer shall file with the Minister of Employment and Immigration a report providing a profile of the employer's employees, an annual report that will be tabled in Parliament. That is in the Bill.
Upon summary conviction, if the employer concerned fails to comply with the legislation and does not file this report, he will be liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000. And speaking of employers, Mr. Speaker, these are federal enterprises with 100 employees or more, and any corporate entity employing 100 or more employees on, or in connection with, a federal work or undertaking or business.
The exception, Mr. Speaker-I realize I do not have much time left, but I do want to raise this particular point- departments are excluded under the provisions of Sections 2 of the Financial Administration Act. When we examine this Bill and read that Departments are excluded under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, we say to ourselves: Well of course, because several years ago, Treasury Board introduced an affirmative action program which, I think, reflects the intentions of the previous Liberal Government to set an example, at least with its own employees. So, in Bill C-62, departments are excluded. If we try and find out what is a department-

When we try to find out how that is defined, we look at the Financial Administration Act and note that those subject to Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 are exempted because they are covered by Treasury Board, which is the employer.
However, if one looks at others which may be Crown corporations or companies which have a mandate from Parliament, one finds that those are not covered by Bill C-62, nor by the Financial Administration Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member will have four minutes left in his speech when
he resumes after Orders of the Day. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House the Government's neglect in dealing with the concerns of those employees of Canadian National whose rights to union representation have been violated.
More than six months ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) became aware that 50 Ontario workers were in limbo because of a change in union membership from the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers to the Teamsters. These 50 workers were even denied the right to vote, and have been told that they have lost their right to seniority for modified jobs within the Canadian Brotherhood, and have further been denied representation by the Teamsters.
Workers like David Malcolmson and Henry Singleton of Hamilton have a combined service of 27 years with Canadian National, and have been told to quit their jobs and reapply in the normal fashion so they might be able to find modified work or to find the door.
When we inquired on their behalf, we were told to write a letter to the Minister. The Minister has had a letter on this subject for more than six months. David Malcolmson is about to lose his job because he remains in a state of limbo caused by the Government's inaction.
I call on the Minister of Transport to resolve this problem immediately and save the jobs of Canadian workers. These workers rightfully deserve better treatment. They deserve action on the part of the Minister of Transport, not letters and inaction.



EMPLOYMENT


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, many people are wondering how, if the Conservatives have
October 31, 1985

created so many jobs, the unemployment rate is still so outrageously high. I can give the House one example of Conservative job creation in Manitoba where they have robbed Peter to pay Paul.
This summer the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board announced a federal grant of $865,000 to a firm in his riding in order to build a new hog processing plant. It is supposed to create 70 jobs. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, there are already three hog processing plants in Winnipeg, all of which are operating at 50 per cent to 75 per cent of full capacity. They all employ unionized workers, but the new plant is not likely to do so. This will likely mean much lower wages and benefits for the 70 new workers.
The Conservatives should know that consumer demand for red meat is already on the decline, and farmers cannot produce enough hogs to keep existing hog processing plants going. But never did the Conservative Government consult with the workers. Never did the Conservative Government consult with the three meat packing plants in Winnipeg. Without listening to the local plants or the union, all of which are in opposition to the new plant, the Conservatives are prepared to throw 100 or more workers in Winnipeg out of a job to provide 70 new poorly paid jobs in the Minister's riding.
In other words, the Conservatives are not creating any new jobs, they are shuffling them around from non-Conservative ridings to Conservative ridings; from unionized shops to nonunionized shops. That is the Conservative idea of job creation. No consultation, no co-ordination


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



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the Arctic Biological Station at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, in the riding of Vaudreuil, celebrated its 20th anniversary. In fact, we could even say its 40th anniversary, since the origins of this institution go back to 1946, thanks to the efforts of Professor Max Dunbar of McGill University.
Mr. Speaker, the Arctic Biological Station is unique in this country. Over the years, the station has received international recognition for its work, and there is no other institution like it in Canada, especially if we consider the expertise of its staff, its specialized library and its location.

The Saint-Anne Arctic Biological Station, Mr. Speaker, has the mandate to study Arctic marine life. The importance of this mandate becomes abundantly clear when one realizes that
90 per cent of all Canadian waters are either Arctic or sub-Arctic.
In addition, current projections estimate that for the remainder of the 1980s and through the 1990s, 25 per cent of all major Canadian capital projects will be in our North. [Translation]
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that the excellent work done by all those either directly or indirectly concerned with the activities of the Station over the years deserved to be mentioned here in the House, and that we shall watch with interest as they continue in their quest to increase our knowledge and understanding of Canada's North.



ABORTION


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, there has been concern recently about funding levels for Planned Parenthood, both nationally and at the provincial level in Saskatchewan.
As one who supports the principle of public education on family planning and birth control, I agree with the general objectives of an organization like Planned Parenthood. However, there is one very objectionable aspect of Planned Parenthood's philosophy that cannot be tolerated by people of conscience. It is Planned Parenthood's stand on abortion.
Regardless of one's view on the subject, abortion is prohibited in the Criminal Code, except under certain circumstances. Yet Planned Parenthood continues to counsel that abortion is an equal alternative to women facing the birth of a child.
Planned Parenthood counsellors are instructed to state that an expectant woman has three options: carry a child to term and retain custody, place the child for adoption, or have an abortion. By doing this, Planned Parenthood is openly promoting an act which is illegal. Further, this counselling relegates Planned Parenthood to the role of an abortion referral agency.
I join with millions of Canadian taxpayers who feel that their tax dollars might be used for birth control information, but must not be used for the promotion of abortion.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to condemn the shortsighted and demagogic attitude of the executive of the Canadian Shoe Retailers' Association.

October 31, 1985
Despite huge profits as a result of the fact that more than 60 per cent of shoes sold to consumers are imported, the Association has the unmitigated gall to demand more imports.
These demands, made on the basis of a very poor interpretation by the Anti-dumping Tribunal, are just a way of seeking more and more profits, which are already exorbitant.
The demands being made by the Association are oblivious to the real interests of consumers, a large majority of whom are in favour of consolidating and expanding employment in the shoe manufacturing sector. The Association wants to wipe out
20.000	jobs in the shoe industry for the sole purpose of increasing the profits of a few big retail importers.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this shortsighted attitude is not being used by the Government to legitimize its next decision.
The situation is quite simple: Five-year quotas and 50 per cent of the market mean 20,000 jobs, the possibility of creating
6.000	more jobs and fully safeguarding the interests of the consumer. No quotas means these jobs will disappear and increased profits for a few big retail importers.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, there are some things that take place in this House that drive one to distraction, even to the point of using unparliamentary language.
In over 20 years the most direct action the Liberal Government took in relation to the environment was a former Prime Minister writing a letter to a local Liberal candidate stating that he would urge the United States authorities to stop polluting the Niagara River. The present Liberal environment critic, who was once the Liberal Minister of the Environment, did not even do that much. If he had been serious about the concerns of those millions of people living within the Niagara River-Great Lakes basin, instead of writing about it now, he would have then improved the Canada-U.S. Water Quality Agreement; he would have then joined with the provincial Government in taking legal action against U.S. polluters; and he sould have then been working with the people in the municipalities of Niagara to fund the elimination of Canadian pollutants. However, he did none of those things. His response to questions at the time was: "The Government is monitoring the situation".
* *
*



FOOTWEAR IMPORT QUOTAS-CALL FOR FIVE-YEAR RENEWAL

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, across the country 14,000 footwear workers anxiously await the Government's decision on extending footwear quotas. Our caucus has considered this question carefully, and now calls on the Government to renew these quotas for five years.
The process of restructuring to modernize the Canadian industry is lengthy. Restructuring assistance given by the previous Government was late in coming. Only $2.2 million of the $14 million in earmarked funds from CIRB was actually handed out by December, 1984.
Clearly the restructuring effort has only just begun. It would be grossly irresponsible to end quota protection at this time. Thousands of jobs would be lost and the Government would have wasted its restructuring assistance.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we call for the tightening of the quotas and for their reallocation away from importers and retailers who now get most of the benefits. Most quotas should go instead to manufacturers and to retailers who are prepared to carry 50 per cent Canadian content in their stores. This strategy will revive-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.
Now that the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) works to clean up the mess which was left by 20 years of Liberal inaction, the Liberal critic stands by and says: "Not enough, not enough". This simply shows his Liberal roots and why they will be sitting on the sidelines for many years to come.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in April of this year the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced that an agreement had been reached with the unions representing Public Service employees on the principles to govern the introduction of pension plan revisions. Both the Government and the unions agreed that Public Service pension plans would be funded and administered in accordance with accepted practices of major private-sector employers.
This means that current indexing of pensions would be replaced by an inflation protection feature based upon the earnings of the fund. Placing Public Service pension arrangements on a sound financial basis is a proposal with much merit.
I hope that an agreement can be made which would allow the retention of current indexing for those federal employees who have retired from the Public Service. This latter statement is one which I made public to federal superannuates in


October 31, 1985

my constituency on June 21 this year. 1 now state it again. My stand on this issue has not changed.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Members of the House will want to join with me in condemning the decision of CP Rail to cancel the rail passes of CP pensioners who retired prior to 1978. 1 remind the House that these pensioners are not represented at the table for purposes of collective bargaining. They are appealing to us to be their voice in reversing a decision which is both unjust and unfair.
Many of these CP pensioners have very meagre pensions. In many cases the widows of these men receive barely enough to make ends meet. I know this for a fact, as many of them reside in the constituency which I represent.
The CP rail pass was considered to be part of the retirement package prior to 1978. Now it is being unilaterally withdrawn by the company. This is shameful, and it means that in many cases retired CP workers and their spouses will be unable to visit family and friends. They will be prevented from taking some kind of modest vacation.
I ask all Hon. Members to protest and insist that CP Rail squelch this policy which punishes its pensioners.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be a special day for the people of Alberta: We will have a new Premier.

On the eve of Mr. Don Getty's swearing in as Alberta's eleventh Premier, I would like to welcome him back to the political arena. Of course Mr. Getty is no stranger to politics. He will bring to his office experience as Minister of Inter-Governmental Affairs and Energy during the Lougheed era.
Mr. Getty's first involvement was in 1967. He was one of the six Conservative candidates to win in the election of that year. History has proven that this victory was only the beginning. In 1971 he was part of the Lougheed team which broke the Social Credit dynasty after 36 years in office.
The Getty style is one of conciliation. He has always been in favour of federal-provincial negotiation and consultation. He is a man worthy not only of the office he has attained, but of our support as well. He has proven his commitment to the people of Alberta and of Canada in his capacity as Minister responsible for inter-governmental affairs. He is supportive of the
Oral Questions
initiative of the federal Government to seek a new trade agreement with the United States.
As an Albertan and as a Member of Parliament, I welcome the opportunity to work with the new Premier. He will bring to our Confederation a voice and spirit for Alberta of which we can all be proud.
*
* *



PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support strongly the call by literally millions of Canadians for increased funding to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. That Federation is in the forefront in Canada of the struggle for safe and effective birth control and sex education. 1 could think of no more positive and appropriate means of reducing the number of abortions in Canada than ensuring that our young people, particularly, have access to proper sex education and to safe and effective contraceptives.


John Kenneth Gormley: You are kidding.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I suggest as well that the Planned Parenthood Federation has called for additional research into proper and effective forms of contraception.
Instead of accepting the counsel of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley), which will result in an increase in the number of abortions in Canada, and instead of accepting his suggestion that we cut off the funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation, which is what he is saying, I suggest that we should increase the level of funding to that Federation and thank it for the outstanding service it is providing to Canadians in promoting safe, effective birth control, and preventing unwanted pregnancies.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In her announcement yesterday affecting the oil industry, she hurt that part of the country which is already the most economically depressed, namely, the Atlantic Provinces. Offshore drilling off the coasts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is already drastically down, yet her decision yesterday made the situation worse. Why did she decide to cut the Atlantic Provinces adrift?

October 31, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: -the fact that drilling is down in the offshore under the present grant-rich PIP program is the reason we brought in our new frontier policy yesterday. It provides a very handsome package of incentives, better management, and new royalty regimes, which will assist in the maintenance and the development of the offshore in the Atlantic region, will create jobs, and will benefit the region as a whole.
[Translation\


INQUIRY WHY NEW OIL PLAN FAVOURS MULTINATIONALS RATHER THAN CANADIAN COMPANIES
John Napier Turner: would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The new oil plan announced yesterday by the Minister will benefit the multinationals at the expense of Canadian companies. Here is my question to the Minister: Why did she introduce a plan which will favour foreign companies rather than Canadian companies?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, our program is aimed at both the multinationals and Canadian companies which are interested in exploring in the offshore. However, the Right Hon. Member should be aware that 65 per cent of the exploration being undertaken in the frontier regions is by Canadian companies which pay taxes.


Some Hon. Members:: Was!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that is that it was, but she killed it yesterday.


NATURAL GAS PRICING-EFFECT ON ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
John Napier Turner: On
June 17, the Minister told the Canadian Gas Association that any gas pricing scheme, and I use her words deliberately, "that is not supported by the buyer and the seller will be unacceptable". Why, then, did the Minister exclude from her discussions on natural gas pricing the two largest consuming provinces, namely, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I will be announcing the new natural gas pricing agreement with the western provinces this afternoon, after Question Period, on Statements by Ministers.
I can assure the Right Hon. Member that consultations with the consuming provinces have taken place. I have personally spoken with or seen the Energy Ministers of the consuming provinces. We have had their principles and their concerns at the table with us, and they have both been briefed on the
contents of the agreement which I will be tabling later this afternoon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How about the consumers?


OFFSHORE DRILLING ACTIVITY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister has said that she has put the last nail in the coffin of the National Energy Program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Come on over.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: She has put the last nail in the coffin of the offshore exploration program. Drilling rigs are going to other areas like the North Sea. People are losing their jobs. Why does the Minister think that with a reduced incentive she can maintain activity in the offshore?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, our new frontier program has been welcomed by the Energy Ministers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland who have benefited more from our policies than from the policies of any Liberal Government. Nova Scotia, for instance, can look forward to between six and eight wells being drilled in the next year, a very healthy level of development.
I do not understand why an Hon. Member from Nova Scotia would criticize a policy which is aimed at creating jobs and maintaining an oil and gas industry in his home province.


CANCELLATION OF PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the wells to be drilled next year are because of the grandfathering of the PIP program and have nothing to do with this program that the Minister has introduced. The President of the Canadian Petroleum Association said that the cancellation of the Petroleum Incentives Program makes drilling in the offshore unprofitable. How can the Minister give billions of dollars to the multinational oil companies through the Western Accord without giving equal consideration to the East Coast and frontier areas?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member is, without intent but probably in ignorance, misleading the House when he suggests that the President of the Canadian Petroleum Association has attacked our program. The CPA was consulted throughout the development of the program and


October 31, 1985

has endorsed the program as being a clear statement of policy and an incentive package which will benefit the offshore area.


OFFSHORE EXPLORATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister that follows up on that. If Nova Scotia is benefiting so much from the present policies, can she explain to the House why there are only three offshore drilling rigs currently operating off Nova Scotia while there were nine a year ago, why offshore employment has gone from 3,300 to half of that, and why Nova Scotia's unemployment rate has gone up from 11 per cent to 13 per cent? Why are those things happening if Nova Scotia is benefiting from the present policies? Can the Minister also tell the House how many jobs will be created through her new offshore policy?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has failed to point out that the decline in offshore drilling activities has taken place under the present PIP program under which taxpayers' money, sometimes as much as 90 cents on every dollar, is being given to oil and gas companies. All the Government grants in the world cannot guarantee geology. We want oil and gas companies to drill for oil and gas, not for Government grants. That is what our program is designed to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think the Minister is using my line about drilling in Ottawa.


EFFECT OF NEW POLICY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister think we can benefit from returning to a policy like the one we had before the 1970s when American companies were sitting on their butts not exploring, while benefiting from a tax based regime that they were ripping off through tax deductions? How does she think that we will help Atlantic Canada by going back to that regime? How is she going to encourage Canadian companies to get back into play? They will be completely lost under this new regime.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we are not returning to any past regime, and particularly not to one of a Liberal Government. We are putting in place a Conservative regime which is using energy as the engine of growth to create jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: May I point out, in regard to the Hon. Member's concern over the multinational oil companies, that the four biggest operators in the offshore are Shell, Mobil, Canterra, and Petro-Canada. Two of them are Canadian companies and two of them are multinational companies. The Government did more to create a Canadian oil industry owned by Canadians through the acquisition of Gulf Canada, and
Oral Questions
other measures that we have taken, than any other Government.


GAS AND PETROLEUM INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the Minister tell the House whether the Government has shelved its policy aimed at giving back to Canadians up to 50 per cent control over the gas and oil industry, as provided under the previous policy endorsed by the House of Commons?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the policy clearly states that we are maintaining and strengthening the provision for 50 per cent Canadian ownership in the oil and gas industry. Not only do we say it, but we have done more to Canadianize the oil and gas industry in the last year than was done in the previous three years.
[ Translation]


SECURITY OF PETROLEUM SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister bring the House up to date on the energy policy goal, namely that Canadians must have security of petroleum supply should another oil crisis break out in future?
Will that goal be achieved now that drilling operations will be reduced on the Atlantic coast and in the Northwest Territories?


Pat Carney: No, Mr. Speaker, our policy is aimed at enhancing energy security for all Canadians. That is why we brought in a clear and efficient frontier policy. That is why we are maintaining the 50 per cent Canadian content. That is why we have created the conditions for the development of Hibernia, our largest oil field. That is why we are working on the development of Venture.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister indicated that the Government was in favour of moving toward a system in which the public would have the right to know if large sums of money would be going to corporations. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced a new tax regime for the oil industry which includes a system of tax credits which will ensure that many millions of dollars will be going to multinational oil companies as well as others, while

October 31, 1985
Oral Questions
remaining secret. Since the tax credit is calculated on an annual basis, will the Minister live up to what he has indicated in the past few days, by ensuring that we will have tabled in the House on an annual basis a list of the companies that receive tax credits and the precise amounts of the tax credits?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw a distinction for the Hon. Member. I was referring to remission orders yesterday when I said that I would consider whether or not it was appropriate to provide information on those orders to the House. Now the Hon. Member is asking for information on specific tax incentives. That is a very far-reaching question because he is saying that, in addition to the provision of broad information such as that which I provided during the summer, he wants individual taxpayer's personal tax information to be placed before the House. I think he should rethink his question. That is something that goes totally contrary to the intent of the Income Tax Act as it stands today.


REQUEST FOR ABOLITION OF TAX LOOPHOLE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Conservatives were elected to effect some changes, not to maintain the status quo. That is what Conservative Members promised to do. We are not talking about individual taxpayers, we are talking about corporations. We on this side of the House happen to think that if Shell, Imperial Oil, or a Canadian company receives millions of dollars in taxpayers' money, the taxpayers of Canada have the right to know about it.
Since the Minister obviously does not want to do anything about that special tax provision, I would like to ask him about another one. This concerns the well known Little Egypt Bump that has been used at least six times-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Hon. Member come to a question?


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that there is a specific loophole known as the Little Egypt Bump that has provided windfall profits without benefits in terms of jobs, particularly to oil firms, will the Minister abolish that particular loophole?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the Hon. Member that we have abolished a number of tax incentives which were not performing the job that had previously been expected of them. I released a booklet this month-this past summer-


John Edward Broadbent: In August.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: -in August, which indicated the cost of a wide range of tax incentives. I was calling on Hon. Members to give me some comment with respect to whether or not they should be maintained. I will continue to look at all of these in the context of a continuing
reform of the corporate tax system and the personal tax system.


CALL FOR FREEZE ON LITTLE EGYPT BUMP
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a month before his last Budget I provided the Minister with a list of such loopholes which we thought should be omitted, and I gave the reasons. Since the Minister says he is willing to look at this matter and its impacts, will he turn it around? Is he prepared to place a six-month freeze on this particular benefit, which we contend has no net gain for Canada but which simply provides a tax windfall to companies? Will he place a six-month freeze on it for the time being, look into it and then, if it turns out to have benefit in his judgment, he could restore it some time down the road? Will he save the taxpayers money now by doing that?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Very good thinking.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again I believe the Hon. Member should think carefully about the type of question he is asking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: What condescending nonsense, Michael.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You speak of nonsense?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member suggests we should just stop the clock and have a total review of everything then, sure, we can do that. However, I think there are a great many people whose jobs could be destroyed if that clock is stopped. I have said on many occasions-


John Edward Broadbent: Name one!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -both to him and to other Members of the House, and many times publicly, that we have a continuing review of a broad range of corporate tax measures. I have indicated that I am very prepared to make those changes, have done so with the carve-outs, the scientific research tax credits, income splitting, limited partnerships-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a speech.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SCOTTISH DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of a delegation from Scotland led by Lord Gray, Minister of State, Scottish Office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 31, 1985


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance) or the Minister of Finance.
The Northland Bank has been under the control of a curator since September 1 and, in addition, 45 Royal Bank employees have analyzed the institution's loan portfolio. As a result of that analysis the Minister asked the court to initiate liquidation proceedings, a decision she announced last September 30.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to what extent the Northland Bank was insolvent. To put it another way, the specific question I want to ask her is this: What was the amount of potential losses on loans outstanding? What was the figure given the Minister which prompted her to make the decision she announced on September 30?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I spent two and a half hours in committee yesterday and I have agreed to go back to committee. I have said in the House on many occasions that this is not the place or the forum to try to discuss numbers in 30-second clips. I will be very happy to discuss the bank at the next committee meeting. That is exactly why we have an inquiry where all these facts will come out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE A DOCUMENT
Raymond Garneau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have no idea to what extent one can refer to the committee, but we cannot get answers there. I had to leave the committee room this morning to object and indicate my dissatisfaction about the fact that the witnesses do not want to answer.
I would ask the Minister whether she would be prepared to enlighten Hon. Members by tabling in the House the document on which she based her September 30 decision, for we would be better informed when she appears again before the committee.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not regard walking out of committee as a very useful way to get information.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns a very serious charge by RCMP Superintendent A1 Nowlan that in 1977 Commissioner Simmonds deliberately lied to the then Solicitor General, Francis Fox, over the extent of RCMP illegality and wrongdoing by the security service. What action is the Solicitor General taking to investigate these very serious allegations that, in effect, the Commissioner lied to his political masters? Has the Minister asked the Commissioner on how many other occasions since 1977 he has deliberately covered up or lied to his political masters, either Ministers, or Members of Parliament?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I take very strong exception to the tone of the question which leaves the strong implication that the Hon. Member has come to the conclusion that Commissioner Simmonds has possibly lied on a number of occasions to members of Cabinet. I believe there is no basis for that, and the Hon. Member should retract it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Now answer the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Leader of the NDP says: "Now answer the question." The question being asked was premised on a statement in the newspaper today by a man who, according to the Leader of the NDP, as reported in Hansard on January 30, 1978:
-conducted the internal inquiry established last June into wrongdoings of the RCMP, was personally and deeply implicated in the illegal break-in to obtain information about the Parti Quebecois in January, 1973-
And who, he alleged, withheld information from the then Solicitor General and who, the Leader of the NDP said, should be fired by the Solicitor General.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Remember that, Ed?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that is the approach which the NDP took then. That is the sort of approach which they are taking toward the Commissioner of the RCM Police today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to this question-


An Hon. Member:: Well, do it!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -because I think it is an important one to which Canadians are entitled to have an answer.
As the Hon. Member will know, this allegation dates back to 1977-eight years ago. The allegation deals with events which allegedly took place prior to the McDonald Commission which came down with a three-volume, two million-word report on the allegations into the RCM Police's activities. Mr. Nowlan was one of the witnesses before the McDonald Commission. If he had any evidence of any wrongdoing on the part

Oral Questions
of the RCMP it was his obligation to bring that forward before Mr. Justice McDonald.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it may have been eight years ago, but he is still the Commissioner of the RCMP today and there should be an inquiry.


Mr. Andre:: Slander somebody else now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't talk to us about slander.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. In view of the fact that this unprecedented charge by Superintendent Nowlan of lies and deception by the current RCMP Commissioner raises a very fundamental question about his ability to continue in his capacity as Commissioner-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -will the Minister immediately suspend the Commissioner from his duties pending a full inquiry into these very serious charges?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the tactics of the NDP are these. Just as the Leader of the NDP in 1978 attempted to attack the reputation of Superintendent Nowlan, now that it is convenient for the NDP they chose to use what Superintendent Nowlan says today to discredit the Commissioner of the RCMP.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I had the opportunity this morning to speak with the Hon. Francis Fox who was Solicitor General of the day. He agrees with me that the appropriate forum to have considered any allegations of wrongdoing, the forum which had the ability to subpoena witnesses and to look at every single file and record within the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy, was the McDonald Inquiry. He has no evidence to indicate that he was misled by Commissioner Simmonds who then, at that point, was Deputy Commissioner for Administration and was not even the individual who answered for the RCM Police to the Solicitor General of the day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism I would
like to direct my question to the Secretary of State. The Minister is aware that the equality of rights report endorsed all the recommendations of an earlier report on visible minorities entitled Equality Now. Yet in discussions with national organizations and his own officials it is very clear that the race relations unit within the Ministry has been allowed to wither away and has been rendered largely non-operational at the very time that its strength is urgently needed. Therefore, given the magnitude of the recommendations in the Equality Now report on the problems faced by visible minorities, is the Government prepared to endorse fully and restore the race relations unit to its former and proper functions so that the rights of visible minorities can be realized in fact, and indeed be protected?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the report has just been tabled. We will refer the matter to the Minister of State (Multiculturalism), hold discussions and take the appropriate steps in due time.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary question.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY INQUIRY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the same Minister. Given that countless organizations, including the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the Alliance on Race Relations, have rejected out of hand the spineless-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member had a long preamble to his first question. Does he have a question, please?


Sergio Marchi: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister prepared to support the organizations which are calling for a mandatory program in the employment equity legislation and a viable employment enforcement mechanism which will ensure that all Canadians, regardless of race and colour, will indeed have employment equity in the workplace? Or is the Minister prepared to buckle under to the whims of the Minister of Employment and Immigration?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the answer, if the Hon. Member cares to listen. I would remind the Hon. Member that he directed his question to me, so I will answer if he wants to listen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All the interjections do not help, wherever they come from.
October 31, 1985


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, and I said so a moment ago, that along with the Minister of State (Multicul-turalism) we will review or analyze the policies concerning .. . right now I simply do not feel any inclination to make a specific commitment with respect to the Hon. Member's request, we shall see. We will weigh the pros and cons of the various policies. One thing for sure is that we do not have to take any lesson from Members opposite concerning that question.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns a meeting which took place on September 10 here in the City of Ottawa between Edgar Gallant, the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Associate Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration, and Peter White, who is the "prince of patronage" in the Office of the Prime Minister, two Conservative Members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island, and the Chief of Staff to the Minister of the Environment. The result of the meeting was that the Prince Edward Island Conservative Members of Parliament were to be notified of DVA and Canada Employment job vacancies seven days in advance of those vacancies being posted, in other words, before they were posted through the Public Service. Would the Minister tell the House whether or not he was aware of that meeting? And did he approve of this procedure of undercutting the merit principle in favour of blatant political patronage by the Conservative Party?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first, to answer very directly the question put by the Hon. Member, I was not aware of that meeting. Quite honestly, this is the first I have heard of this meeting.


John Edward Broadbent: Check with your staff.


Robert René de Cotret: I would also like to remind the Hon. Member that the Public Service Commission does not report to the President of the Treasury Board. The Public Service Commission reports to Parliament. It does not have to report to me and tell me what meetings it has, and with whom it has them.
I will be happy to look into the matter, but it is certainly not the responsibility of the Government to follow the Public Service Commission's activities in that way.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have minutes of a meeting in my hand which state that the open competitions to be held in DVA and CEIC will be sent to
Oral Questions
local Members of Parliament seven days in advance of being posted in the Canada Employment Centres. Will the Minister investigate this matter-


Charles Joseph Clark: He just said he would.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -or is this the new policy of the Conservative Party in terms of patronage in the Public Service of Canada?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my first answer that I would be happy to look into the allegations made by the Hon. Member. Once again, in terms of patronage, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the reason the Public Service Commission reports directly to Parliament as a whole rather than to the Government is to make sure that staffing decisions are outside the realm of direct political control.
I will be happy to look into the matter. I will talk to the chairman and try to get whatever information 1 can about that meeting, and report back to the House.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The Minister will know that his Department's mandate gives it the central point of reference for domestic human rights issues. In that capacity, could the Minister explain why the Human Rights Program in his Department has suffered reductions in both personnel and budget at the very time when the Government should be implementing the recommendations of the Equality Rights Committee?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, actually, I have not yet had time to consider the matter of staff and resources assigned to deal with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and report my findings at a later date.


DUTIES OF PROGRAM MANAGER
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, this is the Minister's portfolio. It is the Human Rights Section of his Department. In fact I must point out to the Minister that not only has the Human Rights Program been downgraded in his Department-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Roland de Corneille: -but its manager-


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

October 31, 1985
Oral Questions


Roland de Corneille: How does the Minister square his rhetoric of pious intentions when not only has the Human Rights Program been downgraded but its manager is now expected also to run the very important Secretariat for the Disabled, and this is happening at a time when it has not even finished the work it was assigned, never mind about the new work which will be assigned to it now by the Equality Rights report?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we can confirm there has been a certain amount of internal reorganization at the Department of the Secretary of State. This does not mean that work formerly done by a person who has now been displaced will not be done by someone else. Reorganization does not necessarily mean reducing the number of employees. I said that we were evaluating our resources. As soon as the process is finished, you may start criticizing.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday's Le Soleil reported that Mr. Tingsley, President of CN Marine, is considering the purchase in Europe of a ship, the Viking Saga. Is the Minister of Transport disappointed, and is he going to do everything he can to prevent this, so that Canadian workers can have jobs before foreign workers are considered?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: 
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
The Quebec City Armory has been identified by the city's tourist industry, and by the Pluram group in its study, as
having excellent potential as a tourism reception and interpretation centre.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Associate Minister what strategic, tactical or operational requirements are making his department retain use of the armory.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Department has been approached in terms of the Department of National Defence giving up this facility for some community use in Quebec City. While I appreciate and agree that it would be useful to Quebec City, it is also very useful to the military. It is military property which is used on an ongoing basis. For the Department to give it up for this purpose would require the taking on of additional costs and inconvenience, and at this point in time we really cannot reach that decision.


UTILIZATION OF QUEBEC CITY ARMORY-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of State (Tourism) and I want to ask him whether he is prepared to support this project and to pursue the matter with his colleague?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to pursue discussions on this particular matter with anyone who is interested and willing to talk to us. The Hon. Member surely knows that all monies going into any province-Quebec not an exception-go through the joint federal-in this case-Quebec Tourism agreement.
We are certainly prepared to talk, but until the issue with the Department of National Defence is ironed out, we are not prepared to do anything unilaterally on our own.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. There is considerable interest on the part of Canadians in the Government's planned changes to RHOSP contributions and deductions announced in the May Budget. There exists at this time only a Ways and Means motion affecting this subject. Could the Minister indicate to the House and to Canadians when the legislation amending the Income Tax Act will be introducted? Could he be specific enough to predict if this will take place before the Christmas break?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a precise date, but I am hoping that the income tax legislation will be before the House toward the end of November.

October 31, 1985


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We are informed that Fonderie CSW in Montreal East will be laying off 125 people on November 8, which is one more example of how Montreal's industrial base is continuing to erode.
In view of the urgency of the situation, I would like to ask the Minister whether she is prepared to consult with other Cabinet Members, and especially the Minister of State (Transport), with a view to announcing some concrete measures, such as orders from CN or VIA Rail, that will provide job security for 125 workers who will soon be out on the street.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we announced the creation of an adjustment committee. The purpose of this committee is to examine existing problems and provide solutions. I think the Hon. Member should give the committee some time to do its work and submit recommendations.


POSSIBLE LOSS OF 125 JOBS  MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister probably already knows how the Montreal East Survival Committee reacted to this announcement. It's like prescribing aspirin for a cancer patient. I would like to ask the Minister what concrete measures she intends to take, and this is important, before November 8, to keep another 125 families from losing their breadwinners.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member's question, because the unions, the private sector and the municipal authorities have expressed an interest in the committee. I would also invite the Hon. Member to pass on suggestions to this committee, for consideration.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today 200 people are occupying the Metropolitan Cathedral in Guatemala City to demand that before the military leaves power it gives answers about the disappeared, and also to demand a commitment from the group that will assume power after the elections that they will get answers about the disappeared. Where are they? What happened?
Oral Questions
Will the Minister ask the Hon. Gordon Fairweather, Canada's Human Rights Commissioner, who arrives today in Guatemala City for the elections, to visit this group in the Cathedral and to give them what aid he can to get the answers to their questions?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I take it that question is directed to me.
I will see if it is appropriate to do what the Member requested and, if it is, I will so request Mr. Fairweather.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I thank the Hon. Minister for noticing my little slip in not directing it to him.


HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER'S REPORT ON ELECTIONS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I would ask the Minister again, will he also direct the Hon. Gordon Fairweather, in his report on Guatemala's elections, to tell us which candidates or parties show the honest courage to challenge the decree of President Mejia Victores that, as he said: "To take steps toward the reappearance alive of the disappeared is a subversive act and will be treated as such"? Will the Hon. Gordon Fairweather pursue that question?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, whenever the Hon. Member rises in his place I get ready to answer questions because very often they are directed to me. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate and consistent with Mr. Fairweather's activities to act upon the second request. I will look into it. If it would be appropriate and consistent, I will ask him to do that, but if not, I won't.


DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister is aware that the United States House of Representatives has voted to extend Daylight Savings Time for four extra weeks starting next spring. Will the Minister and the Government urge the provinces to adopt a similar change, bearing in mind the fact that the National Research Council has indicated that it would result in a savings of some $24 million a year in energy costs for Canadians?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Move to Saskatchewan and save.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Saskatchewan is very progressive, Mr. Speaker.
The suggestion of my hon. friend indeed makes eminent good sense. I should point out that the proposal, which has passed the United States House of Representatives, has yet to pass the U.S. Senate, but indeed is widely supported in

October 31, 1985
Oral Questions
Canada and the United States for some of the reasons upon which he elaborated. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine presented a motion to the House in May of 1984 a motion that this matter be addressed with our provincial colleagues because it is indeed a matter which, under convention, falls within provincial and municipal jurisdictions, but I will take it up with my counterparts at the earliest opportunity.


AGRICULTURE
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In June 1984 the Minister in the previous Government was in Victoriaville, in Quebec, to announce the construction of a $13 million agricultural research laboratory which was to create a number of good job openings. In November 1984 the project was put on the back burner because you thought there had not been enough studies.
Does your Department now have sufficient information to make a decision and, if so, what is the decision and, if not, when will you be in a position to make a decision?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not have sufficient information to respond specifically about the project to which the Hon. Member refers. I am very happy to take notice of the question and will get back to the Hon. Member.


BRIEF PRESENTED BY CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD GRADES 2 AND 3 WHEAT QUOTAS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board. Many wheat producers in the northern Prairies are still in the process of harvesting and drying grain. The Canadian Wheat Board has had a five-bushel quota on dry grades 2 and 3 wheat. The quota expires tomorrow. Would the Minister prevail upon the Canadian Wheat Board to extend that quota for a week or so to give all farmers a fair opportunity to deliver their grain?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Member raises a very fair and serious question of concern to a lot of prairie producers. I am happy to tell him that as of Tuesday the Board decided to terminate the quota, but to reinstate it as quickly as possible after November 1 to allow producers who did not have a chance to deliver prior to the termination date an opportunity to deliver after that date. As far as the Board is concerned, that will assist all producers in being able to manage the stocks that come into the system. Those concerns will be looked after, Mr. Speaker.


PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It relates to his meeting yesterday with the provincial Minister of Transportation on the Port of Churchill. In a press release issued by his Department earlier today the Minister said that the only thing the Government is guaranteeing is that it will meet with Manitoba Hydro and provincial officials by the end of November. When will we finally get action? Why are we only having a meeting? Why will the Government not live up to the agreement which was signed over a year ago?


Alain Tardif: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to meet with spokesmen for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a major part of their brief stressed the need for massive research investments.
Can the Minister make the firm commitment that he will support this specific and well structured research project which is ready to proceed?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member cannot read, because the press release clearly says that the issue will be resolved by November 30. That means that we will not only have a meeting, we will have a resolution to the problem.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that dollars invested in research and development have always been a very high priority of the Government. I can assure the Hon. Member that as far as the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, over which I have some control, is concerned, that will continue to be a number one priority.


TAX TREATMENT OF OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday, when referring to the incentive grants for petroleum exploration, the Minister said: "There are other
October 31, 1985

ways in Canada to spend money than giving it to oil and gas companies".
If the Minister really believes that, why did she reduce the taxes to oil companies last spring by $2.4 billion a year and increase the value of their reserves by $800 million? Could she explain why she made that statement?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member why we reduced taxes on the oil and gas industry and would now follow that up with reducing cash incentives. It is because we want an oil and gas industry that is economically viable and will create jobs for all Canadians.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, October 30, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by Hon. Members by filing with the Clerk of the House also meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Government House Leader for the customary statement on the business of the House for the coming week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report on the legislative platter, appealing as it is, for the next few days.
We are now dealing with Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity. The back-up Bill is Bill C-42, respecting the dissolution of Canagrex. We will continue with Bill C-62, notwithstanding the motions that have been put forward by the Opposition today, and I hope opposition Members will allow second reading to take place early. We have had a very substantial and long debate at second reading stage and it would be appropriate to move along.
I indicated earlier this week, certainly to House Leaders if not publicly, that it is my intention to initiate second reading debate on Bill C-45 tomorrow, which is the Bill relating to employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons. I hope that we will have a good debate tomorrow and possibly see that Bill go to committee.
The House will know that I have given notice with respect to Bill C-80 and I hope to deal with the time allocatio motion on Monday. I also want to deal with Ways and Means motions on Monday. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson),
Committee Reports
will be tabling certain motions which we will want to have brought forward so that the details will be made public. We will attempt to deal with that on Monday. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to see the contents of those Ways and Means motions over the weekend. Depending on our progress, it might be appropriate to deal with Bill C-45 if there is some time left on Monday.
On Tuesday we will probably deal with Bill C-80, if that is appropriate. I am not anticipating the vote of the House on the time allocation motion, but assuming that we win that vote, we might proceed with that final day of debate.
For the remainder of the week there is the report stage of Bill C-66, the reorganization of Canada Development Corporation; and Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to lotteries. There are other items of legislation coming out of legislative committees. I want to consult with my colleagues and the opposition House Leaders to see if we can deal with these matters at report stage and third reading. As always, I will give as much notice as possible to Hon. Members if there is any change. I will monitor progress to make sure that the people of Canada are well served.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that no mention was made of any allotted days for this coming week. Am I to assume from that that there will be no allotted days during the course of next week?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there is the possibility of allotted days next week. As the Hon. Member knows, we have had some discussion about that. I am just looking ahead at the conventional week. As I have indicated, on the basis of what progress is made, there may indeed be an allotted day if not more, next week. I would certainly give adequate advance notice to the Hon. Members so that they can give some consideration to an appropriate form of motion, in the event there is an allotted day. However, that is a distinct possibility.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-59, I have the honour to report the Bill, with amendments, in both official languages.

October 31, 1985
Tabling of Documents


SEEDS ACT AND CANADA GRAIN ACT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Seeds Act and the Canada Grain Act, in both official languages.


STRIKING COMMITTEE-PRESENTATION OF TENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, before presenting my report, I would like to preface it with a brief remark. I have had questions from some Hon. Members and the public with regard to why I am on my feet each week as the Chairman of the Striking Committee.
I would simply bring to the attention of the House that it is an onerous and difficult task involving all Parties that meet each week to decide who will be sitting on what committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will know that the Speaker is going to cope with bootlegging, wherever it comes from.


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


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), I would like to table copies, in both official languages, of the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act and relevant provisions of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act dated March 31, 1982.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 47(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the annual report on future levels of immigration.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(4), this report is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.



Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that the Government is today signalling that Canada is once again welcoming immigrants. [Translation]
Today the Government reiterates its intention of welcoming immigrants.

I have tabled in the House the report on future immigration levels for the next two calendar years. Immigration levels are being increased to 105,000 to 115,000 in 1986 and 115,000 to
125,000	in 1987. This is up from the 85,000 to 90,000 announced for 1985. The Government believes that, contrary to myths, immigrants do not take jobs away from Canadians but instead contribute positively to our economic and social development. This view has been confirmed by comprehensive consultations undertaken this year, by reports of the parliamentary Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, and by the recent report of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects.
The two-year plan announced today represents a new era for immigration policy and stresses the postive longer term impact of the program. During this period, the level will be rebuilt in a moderate, controlled manner which will, in a balanced way, support the reunion of families, the admission of humanitarian immigrants and the selection of economic immigrants. Taken as a whole, this plan will place the immigration program back on the path of the more traditional and widely accepted post-war levels.
Taken as a whole this plan will place the immigration program back on the path of the more traditional and widely accepted post-war levels.

Specifically, the Government will be implementing the policy through its major programs.
First, family class. The family class will remain the cornerstone of immigration policy, and we will continue to process applications on demand.

The family class will remain the cornerstone of immigration policy, and we will continue to process applications on demand.

Government projections suggest that 45,000 landings may occur next year. But I want to stress that this is not a quota or a ceiling, and this projection may be exceeded if demand rises.
October 31, 1985

Second, the humanitarian program. Canada will increase its growth of Government assisted refugees in 1986 by 1,000 from
11,000	to 12,000. This is at a time when many refugee receiving nations are becoming more restrictive.

Canada will increase its growth of Government assisted refugees in 1986 from 11,000 to 12,000. This at a time when many refugees receiving nations are becoming more restrictive. [English]
These refugees will be aided by an additional provision of $3 million to the Adjustment Assistance Program. An additional $750,000 is being provided to agencies to provide direct aid to refugees and other needy immigrants. In total, the 1986 plan allows for some 20,000 to 23,000 humanitarian landings, the second largest plan in the world next to the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Third, Mr. Speaker, we have independent immigration. The Government is going to emphasize increasing the number of assisted relatives and other independent applicants who have, since May, 1982, been unable to immigrate without a validated job.

The Government is going to emphasize increasing the number of assisted relatives and other independent applicants who have, since May 1982, been unable to immigrate without a validated job.

These individuals will be admitted on the basis of a revised selection system. Qualifications and skills will be stressed. Preference will be given, however, to assisted relatives through the allocation of bonus points. Landings for this group are projected to double in 1986 to 12,000 to 15,000 applicants, and to increase somewhat more in 1987. This contrasts with the 1985 level of 5,500 to 6,500.
Fourth, business immigration. The business immigration program stands out in terms of its direct impact on job creation and investment in Canada.

The business immigration program is limited but stands out in terms of its direct impact on job creation and investment in Canada.

We are setting a goal of 4,000 landings in this program in 1986, an 83 per cent increase over the 1985 announced level of 2,200 landings. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this increase will not be at the expense of family or humanitarian immigrants.
The creation of a new investors program will encourage immigration of business people with proven track records, who have resources to invest in Canada. This new program will directly support the efforts of Investment Canada.
Statements by Ministers
These changes represent an important first step in revitalizing the immigration program on a longer term basis. They recognize the important contribution that immigrants make to national economic development. This rationale was easily understood by our forebears but it has been all too quickly forgotten in an era when we have become overly preoccupied in solving our short-term problems. The Government is committed to a longer term role for immigration and, as the Minister responsible, I intend to engage Canadians in a dialogue to develop the next steps of this program.

The Government is committed to a longer term role for immigration and, as Minister responsible, I intend to engage Canadians in a dialogue to develop the next steps of this program.

We may need to consider in the next two years significantly higher levels of immigration if we are to sustain our population growth and economic development.
Today, the Government has presented a plan which will restore the balance among the major immigration themes in a moderate, controlled way. It will also be conducting a demographic review under the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). We will be closely monitoring these changes to ensure their effectiveness and, if needed, I will bring further revisions to the House next fall.
I trust all Members of the House will join with me in supporting these positive changes, which the Government is introducing today. Canada is sending a message world-wide that from now on this country will be welcoming more immigrants to support its longer term economic and social goals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Government's position on future immigration levels for the coming year. I am also happy to recognize, with the Minister, the contribution made by immigrants to the economic development of this country, and to hear that immigrants are not taking jobs away from Canadians.
However, I am also happy to see that the Conservative Government is going back to the immigration levels set by the Liberal Government a few years ago, because quite frankly, legislation passed by the Liberal Government made it possible for such large numbers of immigrants to settle in Canada.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister when he says that Canada intends to admit more immigrants to help support the longer term social and economic goals of this country.
I would also like to point out that recent improvements in our economy are also due to long-term policies established by the Liberal Government.

October 31, 1985
Statements by Ministers
Actually I would like the Minister to give particular consideration to visa procedures. It is a fact that some immigrants, depending on the standards in their countries of origin, have trouble obtaining immigration visas for Canada. Further more, I would like to see the Minister make it easier for handicapped persons to immigrate to Canada and set standards based on ability, not on their handicaps.
In concluding, I want to wish the Minister the best of luck and say that we, as Opposition Members, intend to watch carefully and make sure that the new levels of immigration established by the Government are well received.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to welcome this report to the extent that it does increase our immigration levels in the areas that are needed, to a small extent. It is a very small extent. As the Minister knows, because of the studies done this year with the aid of his Department and through the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, the figure he quotes is nowhere near enough even to maintain the existing population level of Canada. We would need between 150,000 and 175,000 just to stay where we are, according to the information received by the parliamentary committee and tabled this spring. However, granted, it is a move in the right direction, and the Minister says that there will be further moves in other years, which is also encouraging, although it is unnecessarily slow for the reasons I will point out.
The category of families and the category of assisted relatives are being unnecessarily held back by the practices of the Employment and Immigration Commission. They are being held back in three ways. One is that excessively high incomes are demanded of Canadians who wish to bring over, to sponsor an assisted relative. During the past year when the cost of living went up 4 per cent, the amount of income required of a sponsoring relative here went up 9 per cent. This was similar to increases in previous years, but this is the one for which the Minister's Government is responsible, and I think it is very regrettable.
There is also the matter of the visa offices which are very poorly distributed in the countries from which many of our immigrants come, and it takes sometimes years to process an application because there is one office for India, two offices for all of Africa, two offices for all of Central America, and those have to go through Trinidad. The third way it is limited is that the health and welfare requirements are becoming more and more nit-picking. When a whole family is kept out because a 12-year old child has a speech impediment, then it is clear that it is something that happens to Third World immigrants and would not happen to somebody from my old country, that is to say, Great Britain.
The figures are royally confusing because the Minister's figures do not jibe with the figures in the report which was distributed about five minutes ago. Apparently he has only
selected some of the items, but they are also confusing because of their comparison with the report of a year ago. He has implied that there might be an increase-he has not stated it-in the family class. In fact, there is no increase. He has given a figure for refugees and humanitarian immigration which is, at maximum, 23,000, the same as the maximum for last year. There is no increased for family immigration, no increase for refugees, members of designated classes and people who are landed under special humanitarian measures.
There is an increase for selected workers, principal applicants and their spouses and dependents. That is where the main increase comes. That is nearly doubled from about
13,000	last year to perhaps-it is more than doubled-13,000, depending on which figures one uses, to about twice that or a little more for this year. Then there is a doubling-more than a doubling, really-of the figures for business immigrants. No, perhaps it is not more than a doubling-I just had these figures a few minutes ago-but they are up from 7,000, including the families, to 12,000 now.
The Minister's figures given in his statement would total
97,000.	The figures in his report total 105,000 to 115,000, so I do hope the Minister will disregard his statement and act according to his report, and I do hope he understands that there has been no increase in humanitarian immigration this year.
I have one further point, and that is, I welcome the statement by the Minister that there will be an increase of, I think it is, $3 million in the Adjustment Assistance Program. This is long overdue and very welcome. He also says there will be $750,000 to agencies providing direct aid to refugees. I hope that will cure some of the difficulties now provided by lack of counsel to immigrants arriving at Toronto and Montreal.
All in all, the improvements are very small, most of them are in the right direction, and we hope that they indicate that the administration of immigration will be much more humane in the coming year.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NATURAL GAS AGREEMENT-STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as I announced in the House yesterday, the Government of Canada has reached agreement with British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan on a new domestic pricing and marketing formula for natural gas.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: This agreement, achieved after weeks of intensive negotiations, completes a task which we set for ourselves when we signed the Western Accord last March. It was concluded in the spirit of co-operation and national reconciliation our Progressive Conservative Government set out to achieve when it was elected to power nearly 14 months ago.
October 31, 1985


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It seems like 14 years.


Pat Carney: Our Government promised to use Canada's vast energy resources as the engine of economic growth, to create new jobs and bring unity to a nation divided by past energy policies.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Nonsense.


Pat Carney: One of the opposition Members says that it seems like 14 years instead of 14 months since we assumed power. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we expect to be here for 14 years because of policies like this one.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Double nonsense.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Don't brag; you will be the next one to resign.


Pat Carney: We have now created the conditions to stimulate economic renewal throughout Canada.


Mr. Tobin:: There will be only 14 of you left when it is all over.


Pat Carney: The Atlantic Accord, the Western Accord, the frontier energy policy which I announced yesterday, and this latest agreement on natural gas, represent the beginning of a new era for consumers and producers. We have moved Canada into an environment which is free of excessive regulation, unfair taxes and intervention in the market-place. It will be an era of economic promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: I would like to point out that it is a policy of the Government to make important ministerial statements in the House instead of in press conferences outside the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: If we are to continue that practice, which is in the interests of the House of Commons and of our parliamentary tradition, I would suggest that Opposition Members allow me to read the statement.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Where were you yesterday?


An Hon. Member:: She was right in the House making a statement.


Brian Vincent Tobin: She ran away yesterday.


Cyril Keeper: Let her speak.


Pat Carney: Our achievements have been of historic significance. Our first step toward market-sensitive pricing came last November when we lifted restrictions on the sale of Canadian natural gas in international markets. This step increased our volume of natural gas exports in the current gas year by 23 per cent and increased our share of the important U.S. market. That was our first step toward removing Government from the natural gas market-place.
Statements by Ministers
Our next step was the deregulation of oil prices on June 1 under the terms of the Western Accord. We promised to let industry get on with the job of exploring, producing and selling its product.
The agreement which I am tabling today completes the task we imposed on ourselves. Canada and the producing provinces have reached an agreement which is fair to both consumers and producers. We expect the agreement to have favourable regional and national effects on investment, employment and trade.
For the first time in a decade, all Canadians should benefit from an industry which is free of unnecessary Government intervention and is responsive to market conditions. Consumers will have freer access to supplies, and producers will have freer access to both domestic and international markets.
Because of complexities such as existing contractual arrangements in moving to a market-oriented pricing system, the agreement provides for a one-year transition period between the old regime and the new. This agreement is an excellent example of balanced compromise in the national interest.
During a transition period between tomorrow, which is the start of the new gas year, and November 1, 1986, the cost of natural gas will be frozen at both the Alberta border price and the Toronto wholesale price. As markets adjust to our new regime, the Alberta border price will remain at $2.79 per gigajoule, and the Toronto wholesale price will be frozen at its current level of $3.79 per gigajoule, which includes the costs of transportation from Alberta.
The price freeze at the wholesale level will mean that price levels for eastern Canadian consumers should decline as distributors pass on benefits provided to them through provisions contained in the Western Accord. Residential consumers will pay lower gas costs this winter than last as they benefit from the removal of the Canadian ownership charge of 8 cents per gigajoule due to be applied on November 1.
Under our new gas agreement, further benefits should result to consumers as producers, absorb the November 1 rise in the TransCanada Pipelines' transportation toll for the transition period. This was an important contribution by the producers which will benefit consumers. In return, the producers will get increased access to export markets.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: In addition, the agreement calls for direct sales at prices and terms freely negotiated between producers and distributors or large industrial users provided transportation is made available by the consuming provinces' regulatory bodies. That will exert downward pressure on prices during the transition year.
Competitive marketing programs under which distributors will be permitted to offer discounts to meet competition will also be available. Export floor prices based on a regional price

October 31, 1985
Statements by Ministers
test rather than a single Toronto price will go into effect, and we have promised a National Energy Board review of TCPL's services in light of the new pricing system in order to ensure that there will be equitable access to this system.
We are also removing volume restrictions on short-term natural gas exports. That will lead to an immediate increase in spot sales. We are also proposing a comprehensive review of the role and operations of interprovincial and international pipelines.
In addition, arrangements have been made to provide equitable access for British Columbia gas through the Alberta pipeline system to new markets both in the U.S. and eastern Canada. As a Minister from British Columbia, I must say that that gives my province enormous opportunities. Similarly, the agreement leaves room for consuming provinces such as Quebec to deal with regulatory issues that are within provincial jurisdiction. Nothing in our agreement intrudes on provincial jurisdiction.
Effective tomorrow, the Government of Canada will amend its policy on conditions for natural gas exports to ensure that the price of exported natural gas recovers its appropriate share of production and transportation costs incurred, that the price of exported natural gas shall not be less than the price charged to Canadians for similar types of service in the area or zone adjacent to the export point. Canadians will never pay more for gas than their American neighbours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Export contracts will have to contain provisions which permit adjustments to reflect changing market conditions.
I believe that we have reached an agreement that will benefit all Canadians. The Government was guided in these negotiations by its non-interventionist philosophy, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the summit group, which was a group representing all of the elements of the natural gas industry and which helped over the last few months-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Except the consumers.


Pat Carney: And the consumers were consulted as well. They helped me over the last few months to focus on the important elements. At the same time, we were compelled to honour contracts that were freely entered into by producers and distributors and also to recognize that the regulations controlling the industry are complex and that a transition period is required to change them.
We have also put an immediate stop to what would have been a guarantee of rising prices scheduled by our Liberal predecessor in its National Energy Program.


Mr. McDermid:: Fifty-six cents a gigajoule by now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: This agreement hails the birth of a revitalized domestic natural gas industry. Above all, it is fair to both consumeres and producers. Again, this agreement is also a measure of our Government's commitment to restoring national unity through co-operation and harmony in this vital economic sector.
With the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 47(2), in both official languages, a copy of the agreement between the Governments of Canada, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan on natural gas markets and prices.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention the fact that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), and I did not receive a copy of this document until five minutes to three. I know the Minister is sorry about that.


Pat Carney: Neither did I.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to apologize to me on her behalf. I can see from this document that the Minister has not lost her recipe for failure.
The natural gas supplies to this country are tremendously important. They provide 25 per cent of our energy needs. It is an important export as well for western Canada. Western Canadians and in fact the entire country depend on these natural gas exports. They have brought into the country approximately $4 billion worth of benefit each year. It is one of our greatest resources. As such, this statement is tremendously important for all Canadians.


Pat Carney: Particularly for Nova Scotia.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Obviously the Minister does not know the difference between exploration and prices to the consumer. 1 think this is the reason she has failed to come through with a program in either case that will be beneficial to the country. In fact, she has come up with programs that are detrimental to the country.
The Minister has gone back on her own promises to consumers. On June 17, she said that the Government's constituency includes producers, transporters, distributors and consumers of gas and that there are more than two million households out there using natural gas which will be looking for a fair price this November. They did not get a fair price this November. The Minister had the audacity to say that she was cancelling the price increase that was the responsibility of the former Liberal Government under the National Energy Program. The price that the consumers in Ontario paid was a good price at a time when there was a much higher world market price for natural gas than there is at the present time. The Minister did not lower this price. She backed out, she copped out and she froze this price.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Shame.

^I
October 31, 1985


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: One June 17, the Minister said as well that she wanted to see the details on domestic gas pricing worked out before any more changes were made to export pricing. The details on domestic pricing were not worked out. The Government and the Minister are great at making easy decisions but when they get points of view from more than one source, they freeze at the switch. That is what the consumers who cannot afford these prices and who are depending on the Government for reduced natural gas prices will be doing this winter.


John Horton McDermid: Your Government was going to put them up by 56 cents.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: This is not to say that a deadline of November I was heaped upon the Minister and that she was a victim of some unfriendly source or alien from another world who said she had to have this agreement in place by November 1. She imposed this deadline on herself. She said that she would be ready by this date. She said that she would have a consumer price by November 1.


Pat Carney: Wrong, wrong.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: What happened? After seven months of waltzing around the negotiation table, she has come up with nothing for consumers. It is a disgrace.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Right. Deregulation frozen up.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Minister says that the price of exported natural gas shall be less than the price charged to Canadians for similar types of service in the area or zone adjacent to the export point.


John Horton McDermid: It could never be less.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: How is the Minister going to enforce this by freezing the price at the same time? The price in those areas by certain indexes in the United States is higher than it is for Canadian consumers. If the price is frozen for the year, we will have the same problem. The Minister will not be able to live up to the promise and she will break the promise she made to the consumers. Canadian consumers will be paying more for natural gas than their American neighbours, even with the formula that she has put into place today. The Minister says that export contracts will have to contain certain provisions which permit adjustments to reflect changing market conditions. It will be interesting to see how the Minister works that one out. What does she mean by that? They are nice words if one does not have to place any meaning on them. They are nice words if they do not have to be acted upon to the benefit of the consumer. The consumer is receiving nothing except a frozen price for one year. It is a disgrace.


Pat Carney: You don't understand it.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It is a disgrace to leave consumers in this country with nothing more than that.
Statements by Ministers
On June 17 the Minister said that she wanted to see the details on a domestic-


Some Hon. Members:: You don't understand.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Listen to the ducks quacking over there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to hear the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that it can be a little quieter. I cannot seem to hear the Hon. Member. I do not know what it is. Is it because it is Hollowe'en or something? I do not understand it.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The trouble is that this arrangement was prepared by the goblins on the other side.
On June 17 the Minister said she wanted to see the details where more charges are made on export prices. She then went on to say that what will be part of any new export price test is the fundamental principle that domestic consumers will not pay more for Canadian gas than their American neighbours. She admits that she has said that. It will be interesting to see, as the year goes along, how many times she will repeat that. There should be a lottery with respect to how many times that particular phrase will be thrown up by the Minister as her promise to Canadian consumers is broken.
She then goes to say that she must tell us frankly that she stops at proposing a partial solution which is not supported by both buyers and sellers. It certainly was not supported by the buyers because the consuming provinces of Ontario and Quebec were not represented at the bargaining table.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: She said it would be unacceptable to not have the support of both buyers and sellers. She has said that half measures will simply bring governments reluctantly back into the pricing game after a short recess.
The Government had better come in tomorrow with a better arrangement than it has given to the people of Canada here today. There was not a reduction for consumers in the country. Consumers know it. The Minister insults their intelligence on top of that by saying that the price levels for eastern Canadian consumers should decline as distributors pass on benefits provided to them through provisions contained in the Western Accord. Those benefits are the Canadian Ownership Special Charge, the credit for which was taken by the Government when the Western Accord was announced. The Government is now trying to take credit for the same thing again. What has happened is that this whole thing was negotiated in the Western Accord and the benefits have not been passed on. These charges are still being collected by Ontario utilities. This is a travesty to consumers and to the natural gas industry in the country.
What about the request to have something said about the 25-year reserve level? What has the Government said about

October 31, 1985
Statements by Ministers
that? Not one thing. It is just one other thing on which it has bailed out. The whole question is just left up in the air.
The Minister says that for the first time in a decade all Canadians should benefit from an industry which is free of unnecessary Government intervention and is responsive to market conditions. I tell Members of the House that this is not such an agreement. The conditions which have been imposed on the consumers of the country are to their detriment. This is a far worse scenario for consumers in Canada than was the case under the former Liberal Government. The people know that. The Minister will not be able to sell this program in her own constituency of Vancouver Centre.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Minister's statement on behalf of the New Democratic Party. First, I would like to thank the Minister and her Parliamentary Secretary for making their best efforts to get me a copy of the statement before it was given. I understand the difficulty in doing that. However, I only received it somewhere between 2.30 and 3 p.m.


Mr. Dick:: An hour ago.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is right, about an hour ago. I will do my best to respond to it in short detail.
First, I want to explain to Canadians generally how important natural gas is. I suppose it is only Canadians who could feel that this is a fundamental debate. However, it is in Canada because next to oil natural gas in Canada's most important fuel. There has been a growth in its use to 25 per cent in the three decades since the trans-Canada pipeline was built to bring gas from western Canada to the East. By the year 2005 gas will catch up with oil as Canada's top home heating, cooking, industrial and transportation fuel. We will even be fueling some of our cars with natural gas. The National Energy Board estimates that oil and gas will each fill 31 per cent of Canada's energy needs in the year 2005. That is quite incredible, which is why this measure is so important. What we are discussing today may be the policy for the next decade.
On top of that, we are seeing a tremendous growth, according to Oilweek magazine, of gas exports to the United States. Somewhere between 15 per cent and 22 per cent of our production is exported. I would ask Members of the House to keep that in mind as we discuss this document today.
I can sum it up this way, Mr. Speaker. The mountain has laboured and brought forward a mouse. After a year of different committees, meetings of different groups, a year of consideration, this is what has been brought forward. If one looks at this document one will see that it is all shoulds, all reviews-it is all fudge. In effect, there is no real deregulation at all if one really looks at it. Perhaps it is impossible to deregulate the gas market because it is such a complicated one. It is much more complicated than oil.
However, the fact is that there is not much deregulation here. As a matter of fact, there is a retention of monopolistic practices by gas distribution Firms, the established intermediaries in the market which have exclusive rights of sales and services. They have long-standing regional franchises and contracts. There has been no effort to break up TransCanada Pipelines, the monopolistic carrier, which really could have brought lower prices for eastern consumers rather than fudging it with an announcement that the producers will absorb the recent increase in the transportation costs.


Pat Carney: A $100 billion gift.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister could have taken that out of the hide of some of those transportation companies which are big, fat-cat transportation companies which deserve to be broken up. I am not just saying that, the Economic Council of Canada has said that. The Minister could have taken that action.
If one looks at what the Minister said one will see that she said that this is a new era for consumers and producers. Even as a westerner I have to say: Who was making this deal? Who was sitting down at the table? It seems to me that it is a deal of four Tory Energy Ministers, three from the western provinces and one from the federal Cabinet. It seems to me that in the interests of fairness and equality there should have been some representation from the Governments of Quebec and Ontario which are the largest consumers, especially the Government of Ontario. I know Mr. Kerrio, the Energy Minister of Ontario, is sometimes given to making absurd pronouncements. Sometimes he flies off the handle. For example, he has said that Ontario should buy gas from the United States. That is not the way Canada should work. Ontario should buy gas from Alberta and there should be a fair deal. However, Ontario should be consulted.


Pat Carney: They were.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I see the Conservatives applauding whenever there is any mention of putting the nails into the National Energy Program. I would like to warn them that the constituency they are looking to is a very narrow one. It is a couple of special interest groups in western Canada, the oil industry and some Tory Governments in western Canada. They are forgetting the consumers which are the majority, even in my constituency, and in the constituency of Vancouver Centre. I am concerned that the consumers and the consuming provinces were not sitting down at that table. I think that is wrong.
The Minister says there should be no intervention in the market-place. That is nonsense. Of course, there is intervention in the market-place. There are decisions with respect to exports. There are decisions with respect to prices. The Minister is interfering. She is freezing the prices for one year. Let us be realistic.
When the Minister says that the agreement she is detailing today completes the task which we imposed on ourselves, I do not think it does that at all. If one looks at the Western Accord one will see that it spoke about deregulation of natural gas on November 1. This is not complete deregulation. In fact, this is
October 31, 1985

a holding action for about a year. That is what I see in this agreement. The Minister says on page 3 that the price levels for eastern consumers should decline as distributors pass on benefits. I have two comments to make on that. The Minister says: "should". I prefer "will". Let's have some guarantees that they will decline. After all, if we go by the market-as I am constantly told by the Conservative Members opposite and all around me-if we have a surplus then prices, it seems to me, should decline. They should and they would decline, but here we are dealing with simply a hope that they may decline. Prices would decline in a free market but we are just hoping they may decline.
There is something else which causes me problems. Were we not promised this with the Western Accord? Were we not going to have declining oil prices? Were not the consumers going to benefit? All we saw was more federal Government taxes and more money to the oil industry. The consumers did not benefit. I warn the Minister that consumers at the pump are starting to write. They are asking where are the reductions in prices.
The Minister says that the Canadian ownership charge of 8 cents per gigajoule due to be applied on November 1 will not be applied, it will be removed. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), dealt with that matter. The Government is really foregoing an old tax. 1 think that is again a fudging of the situation.
The Minister says further benefits should result to consumers as producers absorb the November 1 rise in the Trans-Canada Pipelines transportation toll. I hope that benefits will result to consumers because I believe there is room for that. If that is so, why does the Minister not say that?
The Minister says that export floor prices are based on regional price tests rather than a single Toronto price test. This is a complicated issue and I think the Minister has fudged her promise. She basically said that Canadians would not pay any more than Americans. Now it is that Canadians will not pay any more than their American "neighbours".


Pat Carney: I have always said that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Whether that is a good or bad policy remains to be seen. There are certain arguments for it as long as it is just the transportation charges. However, we will be in a situation where people in California will be paying less, perhaps, than people in Toronto. We have to look at those transportation charges very closely. The Minister says that the NEB will review TransCanada Pipelines services in light of the new pricing system to ensure equitable access to this system. The Government has had about a year to look at this. It should have deregulated the TransCanada Pipelines. It should have given a real commitment to consumers that prices would decline. It should have given a commitment to the industry that there would be freer access to the producers in western Canada if it broke up TransCanada Pipelines. It should have given a commitment to the Canadian people that
Order Paper Questions
for sure there would be a 25-year supply of gas before there are any exports because we are going to export all of our cheap gas and in the future consumers in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal are going to have to take gas from the Arctic. This is what the largely American-dominated gas industry is trying to do to Canadians. The Minister is going blindly into a continental energy policy in which we are going to be exporting to beat hell our natural gas today and we are going to have a problem tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, may I say one last sentence?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Go ahead, quickly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I trust we will have further debate on this matter. I appreciate that all of us were under some sort of time handicap today. I think there is a lot of fudging in the Minister's statement which is going to come to light in the near future.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, question No. 411 will be answered today.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Does Tourism Canada have a marketing program and, if so, what amount was (a) spent in 1984 (6) allocated for 1985, and will additional amounts be allocated?
2.	Will Tourism Canada allocate additional funds to compensate losses caused by the devaluation of the Canadian dollar and, if so, in what amount?


Jack Burnett Murta: 1. Yes. (a) $31,286,000 was spent in 1984/85. (6) $30,000,000 has been allocated in 1985/86. In addition, for the fiscal years 1984/85 to 1989/90, an amount of $28.71 million is available under the Economic and Regional Development Agreement (ERDA) tourism subsidiary agreements signed with all the provinces and territories.
2. No.


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

October 31, 1985
Petitions


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 46 minutes this day-you lucky people. Therefore, Private Members' hour will begin at 5.46 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you will be in the chair for the almost hour and that your enthusiasm will be forthcoming.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite willing to be subject to correction but I don't think I heard the Chair call Petitions.


PETITIONS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition today signed by residents of the communities of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Fort Frances, Stratton, Devlin and Black Hawk, Ontario, who call upon the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to end the testing of Cruise missiles in Canada.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of retired Canadian Pacific Railway employees in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, who protest the loss of their travel passes and request the assistance of this honourable House in securing the reinstatement of those passes.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition in which the petitioners state that the deindexation of the universal family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families. They further state that this attack will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and other tax increases in the May Budget, and will place an unfair burden on low and middle-income earners.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of people of the federal riding of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle in the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from a number of citizens of the federal riding of La Prairie, in the Province of Quebec.
I have the honour to present a petition from a number of people of the federal riding of Montmorency-Orleans in the Province of Quebec.
I also have the honour to present another petition from the federal riding of Regina East in the Province of Saskatchewan.
I have the honour to present a petition from a number of citizens of the federal ridings of Montreal-Sainte-Marie and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
I also have the Honour to present a petition from a number of citizens of the federal riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, in the Province of Quebec.
And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of people of the federal riding of Louis-Hebert, in the Province of Quebec.
And those undersigned, Mr. Speaker, urge the Government of Canada to restore full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of people from British Columbia, particularly Vancouver, who say that the present Government is launching an unfair attack on women and families by deindexing the family allowance, that this will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that the sales tax changes and excise tax increases in the Budget will put another burden on middle and low income families. They call on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition signed by a number of citizens concerned about two issues. The first is the deindexation of family allowances and the second is the unfair tax increases in the last Budget. They are telling the Government to reindex the family allowances for the kids of the country and also to rescind the unfair tax increases.

And I know, Mr. Speaker, that you approve of such a proposal.
October 31, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in speaking once again to Bill C-62, I just want to say that although I agree with the principle of the Bill, I am against buying a "pig in a poke". The Bill's substance is weak, its presentation is clumsy, it is poorly drafted, and I think it should go back to the drawing board and be redone and re-thought and submitted again to the House, so that we can then adopt a Bill that is truly positive and constructive. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am glad of this chance to speak to the motion to postpone adoption of the Bill for six months, so as to give the Government a chance to reconsider, re-think and re-draft the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to discuss a few provisions of the Bill which are basically quite valid but which are poorly defined and as such unsatisfactory. In the Bill it says that the purpose is to give Canadians who suffer some form of discrimination, the right to be hired by Canadian employers, whether they are handicapped, aboriginal peoples, women or, as it says in the Bill, people who because of their race or colour, the so-called visible minorities, have until now been discriminated against.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill does not define these terms. It does not say what an aboriginal person is, but Hon. Members will recall that Section 35(2) of the Canadian Constitution gives a very clear definition of what "aboriginal person" means. So what definition are we to use when we read this Bill? I really do not know. And if we consider the handicapped, for instance, how should we define a handicapped person? Is it someone who wears glasses, like me, or someone who wears a hearing aid, like you, Mr. Speaker, or is it someone who by definition should be recognized as having a physical problem, some kind of difficulty, a handicap that prevents him from finding a job? I think the program we had under the previous Liberal Government, set up by Treasury Board for federal employees, is an excellent program, an affirmative action program for hiring handicapped persons. I think we could agree on something like that. The Government could call Mrs. Suzanne Azzie at the Public Service Commission, for instance, and she could explain, Mr. Speaker, what she is doing at the Commission to promote and support the hiring of handicapped persons. I think that we would get a far more appropriate and a fairer and more precise definition.
Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker, the Bill also covers people suffering from congenital or acquired deficiencies and mental or physical disabilities which prevent them from working normally. Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government to give us a clear and specific definition of a handicapped person.
I said so and again I repeat that the Bill is ill-defined and restrictive. For instance, why is there no reference to the various religious groups? Are they not entitled as well to employment equity? Clause 3 of the Bill excludes departments as defined in the Financial Administration Act, federal departments are excluded, the House of Commons is excluded, the Senate is excluded, separate employers are excluded. I appreciate that the Treasury Board has a good law, a good regulation concerning affirmative action, but I wonder how a Minister can be excluded under this Bill C-62 which does not come under the Treasury Board because it is not an employer, how anyone is justified to tell the House: Pass a piece of legislation, but as a Minister you will have to exclude me. Mr. Speaker, I find it totally unacceptable that a Minister would come to the House without being able to give us a more serious and more reasonable argument in favour of this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Crown corporations and a good many important agencies which are excluded under Bill C-62, they are not covered under the affirmative action program proposed in Bill C-62.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are getting impatient and prepared to cut me off, but I would simply like to say that some of the provisions of this Bill are unacceptable. We will vote against the Bill, not because the principle is bad, on the contrary, but the Bill is deficient. We simply cannot support this Bill, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order I just want to say to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that I am not impatient. I do not have a hearing aid, but I appreciate his comments. I did cut him off because I gave him an extra minute.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Public Service (a) Resignation of woman manager, (b) Request for independent inquiry; the Hon. Member for

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture (a) Saskatchewan farmers' losses, (b) Request for assistance payments; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Shipbuilding (a) Construction of frigates in Montreal, (b) Situation in East Montreal-Prime Minister'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; and the amendment of Mr. Keeper (p. 8197).
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I know you do not have a hearing aid and I am glad you gave the Liberal Member an extra minute. He needs an extra minute to explain his position. It is part of your western generosity, I am sure, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It has nothing to do with that. He forgot.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I guess we should not reflect on a decision made by the Chair. I want to say a few words on the motion before the House, specifically, a motion for a six-month hoist. I want to direct my comments specifically to why I support the idea of delaying the Bill for an extra six months. Bill C-62 supposedly would provide for employment equity for four target groups in our society; namely, women, the native people of Canada, visible minorities and Canadians who are disabled. We have heard from organizations representing all these groups. They are all saying that even though they like the idea of Parliament talking about employment equity, the problem is that the Bill before the House is strictly a voluntary measure. A voluntary measure is not good enough to ensure employment equity, Mr. Speaker. We need mandatory action. I have copies of various statements made by organizations representing the four target groups. They are all telling us that we need mandatory affirmative action. They are telling us that good sentiments and voluntary measures are not enough, that we need targets, goals, specific action and timetabling by the Government of Canada.
For that reason the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) this morning moved a motion for a six-month hoist. He said that Conservative Members of Parliament need an extra six months to think this over. I am pleased to see the Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) in the House. He chaired a subcommittee on equality in recent months and did a superb job, along with the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), a Member of the Liberal Party and other Members of his Party. After a great deal of work they issued a unanimous report along with recommendations to the House of Commons on equality.
One of their comments was that Bill C-62, introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), was not adequate. They said that rather than leaving this strive for equality to the goodwill of Government and big business, mandatory rules, laws and regulations were needed in this country. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee for that recommendation.
By moving this motion for a six-month hoist, we are helping the Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore to persuade his colleagues that the Bill must be changed. We are helping him persuade his colleagues that they must listen to native Canadians, to women, to the disabled and visible minorities in this country who need specific goals, targets and mandatory action to provide equality in the workplace. That is why we have moved this motion for a six-month hoist. I know that you and many Members of the Conservative Party are intelligent and can understand this quickly but there are many Members of that Party who need another six months to catch up to the Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and the subcommittee in order to understand what these four target groups are saying about this Bill.
I appeal to Canadians to telephone their local Member of Parliament in the Conservative Party and ask them to support this motion to delay the Bill an extra six months so that the Minister of Employment and Immigration can introduce a new Bill that reflects the four groups in society whom this Bill is supposed to help. That is specifically what we are debating this afternoon and specifically the reason why we are attempting to delay this piece of legislation for an extra six months. I wish we were dealing now with a Bill that those people want and could pass it quickly so that we could make sure there is equity in this country. However, that is not the case with the Bill before us.
I will not go through the statistics again relating to discrimination against women in this country and the fact that their pensions and salaries are much lower than those of men. We know that their opportunity for advancement is much lower than that of men. In this very House of Commons, there are only 28 female Members of Parliament and well over 250 male Members of Parliament. There is great inequality even in this Chamber. There are very few female chiefs of staff of cabinet Ministers. There are very few women who have important functions in the Public Service.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Look at the proportions in my office.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) may be different, I do not know. If it is different in his office I wish he would take some time to enlighten the House and perhaps some fellow Ministers about how he does it. Certainly people like the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and told to make sure they have more women with important
October 31, 1985

positions in their office. Perhaps by delaying this Bill for six months that equality can take place in the offices of cabinet Ministers in Canada. If you were a cabinet Minister, Mr. Speaker, I know that you would have equity in your office and that you would employ women and people from different minority groups in this country. That is what Conservative members of the subcommittee are saying, what our Party is saying and what the four target groups are saying. On my left we have-

-another Conservative member who is sitting on a quality committee who supports the notion of equality within our society for all Canadian women, our native people, our visible minorities and our handicapped. I am in favour of that and so is he. Unfortunately, his Minister does not agree at all with the means to achieve equality in this country. The Hon. Member should read over and over again Judge Abella's report where it is stated that what is needed in this country is compulsory affirmative action.

We must go in that direction. I invite the Member to join us in trying to persuade the Minister of Employment and Immigration to make those changes in her Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that she is a woman of goodwill who would like to do more. I am sure that she has made these arguments in Cabinet, but has lost. She has lost because she is outnumbered in that Cabinet.
The back-benchers of the Conservative Party should rise up, like the Member of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and demand a tougher Bill that will implement employment equity in this country with no reservations. Let some Conservative back-benchers have the courage to say so because Conservatives are supposed to be rugged individuals.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of National Health and Welfare says: "We are". I recall some courageous stands he has taken and that is a reason why he is a prominent cabinet Minister. I want to see other Conservative Members of Parliament have the courage of their convictions and take a stand to fight for real equality in this country. In that way they will back up the Minister of Health and Parliament will have the kind of Bill that is demanded by women, native people, visible minorities and disabled Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you agree with this position and I know that a lot of Progressive Conservative members do too. But, unfortunately, they are all scared of the Prime Minister, even those representing Quebec ridings . .. They are all scared. [English]
However, they should not forget what happens to a backbencher who is afraid to speak out. We saw what happened to Liberals when they lost in the 1984 election.
Employment Equity
I invite my friends in the Conservative Party back-benches to make a name for themselves, fulfil their election commitments and speak up on behalf of their constituents. They should follow the example of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and some of his colleagues, along with the Member for Burnaby and the Member from the Liberal Party and take a stand on behalf of equality, fairness and justice in this country.
You are holding your hands like you are about to pray, Mr. Speaker. 1 agree with you. If we take a stand on behalf of fairness and justice in this country we will have a society that is better for everyone. That is why we were elected and I invite my friends in the Conservative Party to take that stand now. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is tough, sometimes vindictive, sometimes very unfair and he may by-pass some of those Members for a Cabinet position. However, that is not the most important thing in life. It is more important for those Members to say what they believe and represent their constituents. I ask them to take a position of conscience and not forget that the Prime Minister will not be around for very long, considering the tradition of getting rid-


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) speak about fairness, equality and equity. I would suggest that he did not have that in mind in his reference to the Prime Minister. I am sure he understands that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) stood up to talk about equity and fairness. I am glad we are talking about a Bill dealing with employment equity because we want to remind the Minister of Labour that the federal minimum wage is $3.50 an hour. The minimum wage in all of the provinces is more than $3.50 an hour. In fact, the difference is some provinces is a dollar an hour.
When talking about employment equity and equal pay for work of equal value, the Minister should listen because someone can be working for a federal Government Department in Ottawa on one floor, making $3.50 an hour, and the next day go to the next floor to work for a private enterprise or the provincial Government and make $4 an hour. In another province, you could make $3.50 an hour on federal property under the Canada Labour Code, on any contract that is awarded. You could have minimum wage for doing the same work one week and about a dollar an hour less for doing exactly the same job the next week.


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: In your province does an MLA get the same salary as yours?


George Baker: I just bring that to the attention of the House because the difference is getting greater.
8230

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity


Maurice Tremblay: A provincial Member in Newfoundland is paid less than you are.


George Baker: I did not hear the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: The Hon. Member, 1 presume, is in favour of a low minimum wage for the federal Government and a higher minimum wage for the provincial administration. When you talk about equal pay for work of equal value, Mr. Speaker, it is a very important point for the Minister of Labour to keep in mind.
Let me get back to the Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The Bill before the Chamber is flawed in certain areas. We have the Government of Canada saying it is bringing in a Bill to force employers to hire women and to hire people in the other designated groups. That is what the Governmenmt is saying. That is what the Minister said in her speech when she introduced the Bill. Then you have the Opposition saying that the Bill does not go far enough.
What is the truth in the Bill, Mr. Speaker? I had a look at the Bill a moment ago to see what was in it. I suppose the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is correct when he says that the Bill is perhaps poorly drafted. I would not say that exactly, Mr. Speaker, because drafting of a Bill is a very specialized field of work. People who draft legislation are specialized people. We in Canada have some of the best drafters of legislation. Years ago provincial administrations had to bring people from Britain or Scotland just to fulfil those functions. What you give the drafter to put in the legislation is the problem. How can you be specific and write a law that a judge is going to look at and give the proper interpretation to, saying that this was the intention of Parliament when it passed that law?
Some things are quite obvious in the Bill, as the Hon. Member pointed out. The Bill excludes "Department" as defined under the Financial Administration Act. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that when you look at the Financial Administration Act and you look at "Department", it does not define Government "Department". That is a part of the definition, yes, in Schedule A, but you have Schedule B and Schedule C which are not Government Departments at all. The definition of Department comes under the Financial Administration Act. As the Member for Ottawa Vanier pointed out, it excludes the House of Commons, the Senate, commissions of inquiry and all kinds of agencies of the federal Government. That is not a flaw by the drafter. That is what was fed into the Bill by the Department, I believe, intentionally.
The important clause and the important words are "that the various positions of employment with the employer are proportionate to the representation in the workforce or in segments of the workforce. If you have a law, Mr. Speaker, which says that you must hire proportionate to, then the numbers never
change, do they? In other words, if you have B.C. Tel hiring telephone operators and its percentage of women is 90 per cent hiring and B.C. Tel is going on an average of Bell Telephone which is 99 per cent average, then B.C. Tel would feel when it looked at this Bill that it would have to hire more women.
If Bell were hiring the women and the situation were reversed, that the average number of women was more than it had, the company would have to say: "To comply with this legislation, we have to hire less women as telephone operators". Do you get my point, Mr. Speaker? It is a very important point.
What should be inserted there to satisfy the Minister's demands is that: "it is at least proportionate to" a percentage of their representation. I do not think this is the fault of the drafter, but I think some of it is actual intent.
One section says that the Minister "may" issue guidelines. The Minister demands of an employer that you have to do this, that or something else, but you do not then turn around and say the Minister "may" issue some guidelines to the employer. What is the employer supposed to do? He has this Bill and he says "I have to comply with this Bill. I have a contract from Supply and Services." The Government better listen to this because it is important. What if you have a contract from Supply and Services and your first clause in the contract is that you must abide by all laws and regulations of the federal Government and the provincial Government where the work is being carried out? If this is the law, a person has to look at it and say: "What am I supposed to do? To whom am 1 supposed to go to get the information on the number of women to hire and the number of people in the other categories? The word should not be that the Minister may issue guidelines directed to employers. It should be that she must issue.
There are other mistakes in the Bill, such as the occupational groups of the employer and the degree of representation of persons in the designated groups in each occupational group- the occupational groups of the employees, not the employer. There are obvious small errors in the Bill, perhaps some of them typographical.
Let me get back to the Minister of Labour and the minimum wage when you list salary differences and so on. I believe the federal legislation on the minimum wage is in the regulation. It states that it should approximate the provincial minimum wage as an understanding, which it presently does not. I know what the Minister is talking about. I have been searching for something, and I think I have found it in the general guidelines. It says the federal Government should have increased the minimum wage. The Liberal Government always did prior to that, Mr. Speaker. It always did, but the Conservatives do not.
I have one minute left, so let me tell the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) that the most discriminatory rules and regulations as they relate to employment are in the Minister's own direct employment programs in the federal Government this year. For example, you have to be out of work 24 of the previous 30 weeks to get work in the biggest employment program of this Minister.
October 31, 1985

That excludes all students coming out of school, all new entrants and all re-entrants. If a woman is out of the workforce for a year trying to get back in, she has not been unemployed for 30 months because she has not been registered for employment. It excludes people who actually work seven weeks for the previous seven months.
When you talk about equity in employment, Mr. Speaker, equity means fairness. I suppose any dictionary would say that. The Minister should look right in her own back yard and see how unfair she is being to people who want jobs and want training programs in Canada.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the very wise motion to delay this Bill. It is very important that there be a redraft of the Bill so we can all support employment equity in the real sense and have it implemented and enforced in a way that will not only be possible within designated companies but within society as a whole.
The New Democratic Party cannot support the Bill as it is because we believe it will not achieve the goals we all desire. We all want women, minority groups, native people and disabled persons to have equal opportunities in the workplace to get a job in the first place, and equal opportunities to have decent rates of pay, equal pay for work of equal value, to training opportunities and promotions. We are concerned that there is not the enforcement mechanism in the Bill as it stands now to achieve this important goal.
Experience has shown that voluntary affirmative action, which is really what the Bill is advocating, will not achieve this goal. I refer particularly to a study of affirmative action in Canada called Ten Years After. It was a summary prepared by the Department of the Secretary of State. The consultant who prepared the report said that voluntary affirmative action had not worked and that the observable and measureable results after 10 years must be classed as disappointing. This was a study of voluntary affirmative action in the provinces of Canada and in the federal Government to date. Surely the Conservatives do not want to be the same as the Liberals, and just leave this to chance.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is what you are really doing. The Conservatives are suggesting a voluntary kind of employment equity. Changing the name does not change the nature of it, and we are very concerned.
To those colleagues who are in support of business, I want to say that the heads of a number of notable corporations in the United States have supported mandatory affirmative action. They have not done it just because they feel it is better for their employees, but because they have found, through experience, that it is productive and gives economic results within their companies. Let us not have any more of this hog-wash about being afraid to make the business community conform.
Employment Equity


Mr. Holtmann:: That is my line.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We are not dealing with hogs; we are dealing with employment equity.
We are opposed to the Bill in principle because it is based upon voluntary employment equity rather than mandatory employment equity. As I said before, employers are not required to impose clear goals, targets and timetables for change. Only record keeping is required, not necessarily change. There is no independent enforcement agency named which can really do a job in establishing what changes are needed in given corporations and in enforcing them. There are no sanctions for compliance. Also there is no reference to equal pay for work of equal value. That is a very significant omission.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been named-and the Minister has referred to this several times- as the agency which would evaluate programs and take individual complaints from employees. I want to stress again that the problem with that is that it is individual complaints. It is up to a woman somehow to find the resources to document here case, endanger her job, obtain the necessary information and go to the Human Rights Commission if she has a complaint. That is not the way it should be. It should be systemic change. It should be built into the system what changes are necessary to make employment equal in a given field or place of employment.
Also I should like to point out that this will place an impossible load upon an already overloaded Human Rights Commission. I have referred to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on October 30 by Michael Harris indicating that there was a two-year backlog in the work-load of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Also it indicated that the backlog was caused by heavy work-load and staff changes. Last spring the Minister said in the House that she would make extra resources available and that the commission would be able to deal with these matters. It is six months later, and it still has a two-year backlog. There is no way the commission can take on the extra load expected in the Bill. Even if it did, it does not have the power to enforce, as I have already said.
I should like to refer to the recently tabled report Equality for All of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights. It contains a very detailed section on employment equity. The Bill was out when the committee looked at the matter. Unfortunately I do not have the time to refer to all its recommendations, but quite a number of improvements were recommended. It would only make sense to take the time to look at these, to have another look at the Bill and to try to redraft it so that it will get at these things. I should like to mention two or three points which I feel are particularly important. Recommendation No. 61 reads:
We recommend that representatives of the appropriate designated groups (women, underrepresented visible minorities, native peoples and disabled people) be involved ... with management and labour in developing employment equity programs.
There is nothing in the Bill about that or about collective bargaining. Recommendation No. 62 reads:

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
We recommend that legislation on employment equity contain enforcement mechanisms providing for the review of special programs by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and that the Commission be given additional financial and human resources for this purpose.
1 have just referred to how inadequate we are in that area. Recommendation No. 63 reads:
We recommend that, to assure employment equity, a contract compliance program be established by legislation and that it apply to all firms providing goods and services to the Government of Canada-
There is no contract compliance in the Bill. Recommendation No. 66 reads:
We recommend that federal training and education programs be made accessible to women, disabled people, native people and members of underrepresented visible minorities to assist in achieving employment equity.
There is no reference to that in the Bill. We know that the Abella Commission strongly recommended training opportunities so that people in disadvantaged groups could move into jobs and upward in an equal way.
I am rushing because I want to put several recommendations on the record. I should like to refer to a group in Vancouver East, the United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society, an agency which is particularly concerned with services and advocacy for Chinese Canadian people in Vancouver, and indeed in the province. It has reviewed the Bill very carefully, as it always does, and the chairperson, Sandra Wilking, recommended the following:
We agree with the spirit of the legislation. However, we would like the Legislative Review Committee to reconsider the following areas... (1) The possibility of expanding the definition of "designated groups" to include "minorities-
These are not necessarily visible minorities. That is a very interesting point. I do not think many of us have considered it. She continued by indicating, for example, that people from Mediterranean and Latin American backgrounds who do not speak English face considerable discrimination in the workplace and that they should be included. I think it was particularly sensitive to suggest an expansion of the groups which should be included.
Her second point on behalf of the society referred to including unions in the employer group which falls under federal jurisdiction for example, that the Public Service Alliance, which is responsible for employing quite a number of staff, should be considered in this employment equity jurisdiction. That was another sensible point. Her third recommendation was:
We are concerned that the current proposed legislation remains silent on the enforcement factor. Who will be responsible for ensuring that there are positive results toward employment equity in the employer group? Who will police the Act?
That is a very good question. She continued:
The fine of $5,000 is not as efficient as specific performance and other remedies.
I see your signal, Mr. Speaker. Her fourth point was that the Bill was not clear on what types of relevant data would be required in employers' reports. Her fifth point was that if employers were to recruit for various target groups, they should look at the ethnicity question. It is very interesting that
this visible minority group would suggest that Anglo-Saxons be included as an ethnic group to be considered. Perhaps we Anglo-Saxons are very patronizing in what we think of as the majority, which perhaps is the minority. We tend to think that we are not ethnic, that everyone else is ethnic.
I ask that these matters be referred to committee for consideration. I urge all Hon. Members of the House, particularly Conservative Members who have the power to make changes, if they would only use it, to consider seriously a delay in the Bill and trying to improve it so that there will be true equality for women and minority groups in employment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion which would have the effect of sending this Bill back for further consideration. The motion is very important and worthy of support, because even a superficial reading of the Bill shows clearly that it is deeply flawed. Whatever the worthy intention or purpose of this Bill may be, the Bill is so flawed and is so far from meeting that worthy purpose that it does not deserve second reading in its present form.
On June 23, 1983, the Minister of Employment and Immigration under the previous Liberal Government appointed Judge Rosalie Abella to head a royal commission on equity in employment. Judge Abella tabled her report last November. The principal recommendations of the report were that legislation enacting mandatory employment equity for employers under federal jurisdiction be presented to the House and adopted by Parliament; second, that provincial Governments be persuaded to adopt similar legislation in the areas of provincial jurisdiction; third, that contractual compliance be established for all federally regulated employers; and finally that an agency be established to enforce mandatory employment equity.
What does the Abella Commission mean by employment equity? As defined by Judge Abella, employment equity is the elimination of discrimination and the promotion of employment opportunities among four target groups representing 60 per cent of the population: women, native people, disabled persons and visible minorities. By the way, Judge Abella preferred the expression "employment equity" to the one that had previously been in use. "affirmative action".
The Government, under the rules of the House, is required to respond to reports like the report of the Abella Commission that are tabled in the House. The response by the Government to the Abella Commission Report gave the impression that the Government was going to respond meaningfully and to some substantial degree to the recommendations of the Abella Commission. First, the Government said it would extend employment equity to federally regulated businesses with more than 100 employees, although it would not deal with the smaller firms, even though they are large in number and may well be the place where many women and visible minorities are employed. Second, the response spoke of extending employment equity to government purchasing. It indicated that the Government would be committing its contractors to employ-
October 31, 1985

merit equity and that those not meeting the commitment, provided the contracts were for over $200,000 for goods and services, would not be given future contracts. Furthermore, the response of the Government indicated that the Canadian Human Rights Commission would be responsible for seeing that the provisions the Government would put in place in response to the Abella Report were followed.
The Government finally presented a Bill to the House on June 27. That is the Bill we have been debating for some days now and the Bill to which this motion applies. As 1 suggested when I began my remarks, the Bill has a very worthy purpose. Clause 2 of the Bill reads:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place so that no person will be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
When I read that Clause at the beginning of the Bill, I said to myself that that sounded great. But then I asked myself what the Government was going to do as spelled out in the rest of the Bill to make this purpose come true in a meaningful and significant way. I read the Bill and I re-read the Bill and I read the Bill again. 1 found absolutely nothing in it to assure that the laudable purpose of the Bill as set out in Clause 2 could be put into effect.
The Bill says nothing whatsoever about contract compliance even though the Government promised in its response to the Abella Report that contract compliance would be part of its policy on employment equity. The Government, in its response, created the general impression that there would be something meaningful in its legislation to carry out what 1 think we all agree is a very worthy purpose. However, this measure contains nothing whatsoever regarding mandatory enforcement of employment equity. There is nothing about it that is compulsory. No matter how flagrantly an employer may ignore its provisions, there is no way that the Canadian Human Rights Commission or any other body can issue an order that the Bill's provisions be carried out and, that if they are not carried out pursuant to that order, that proper charges can be laid.
The Bill has no provision for a separate monitoring agency. 1 have already said that according to the initial response of the Government, the responsibility will be conferred on the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Minister has said something about promising additional resources for the commission but there has been no indication of the additional amount of money and staff members to be provided.
The Auditor General's Report tabled just the other day made very clear that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is simply overloaded with work under its existing jurisdiction. There is no way, even with the best will in the world, that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, even with additional staff, resources and budgets, can monitor the provisions of this Bill. In any event, the monitoring would be without any meaning, purpose or effect because the Canadian Human
Employment Equity
Rights Commission wil not have any authority to enforce the provisions of this Bill over any employer who wants to ignore it even though the Bill nominally may apply to such an employer.
The Bill sets no targets or guidelines for employers to follow. The Bill contains some very vague wording. The Bill has a laudable purpose, but even for employers who have the best will in the world and want to live up to the purpose of this Bill, there is nothing for them to do by way of seeking advice or guidance on how to live up to the purpose of the Bill in a meaningful, binding and significant way. As I have already said, there will be no penalties whatsoever when, as is bound to occur, there is an unwillingness on the part of employers to conform to the Bill.
I think we have learned over the years that when it comes to setting standards of acceptable conduct on behalf of the community, these standards are not going to be followed and do not have any meaning unless there are sanctions applied to those who do not live up to them. That is a great flaw in this Bill among other flaws. In fact, the Bill does not provide for definitive standards of conduct. It simply sets out a purpose which we all consider laudable.
We in the Official Opposition have been urging the Government to implement fully and promptly the recommendations of the Abella Report concerning employment equity as they affect federal agencies and Crown corporations. We say that the Government must ensure that the legislation is mandatory, comprehensive and enforced. This is exactly what is not contained in this Bill. Therefore, no matter how laudable its purpose or intention, the Bill is fundamentally flawed and must be sent back to the drawing-board.
The motion before the House to give the Bill the six-month hoist should be adopted by the House in the interests of the important objective of employment equity. If we do not adopt this motion and the Bill goes forward, we will be perpetrating a cruel deception bound to lead to frustration and disappointment on the part of the target groups designed to be helped by the concept of employment equity. They deserve better. The country deserves better. As a result, this Bill should not be given second reading. It should be sent back to the drawing-board for a complete redrafting. Therefore, this motion should be adopted and we should get on to some other business rather than continue with this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, you will not be surprised to see me entering this debate. You and I, Mr. Speaker, belong to that very large number of Canadians who have been described, quite correctly, as ethnics. "Ethnics", in Canada has come to mean people who are neither of Anglo-Saxon nor Francophone origin.
Mr. Speaker, I know that over the years, you and I have seen in many places, until very recently, large employers who would not hire ethnics. I am speaking of some of the largest

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
retail and sales organizations in Canada. I am speaking of the banks and the trust companies which were, until not so many years ago, forbidden territory for those who were not white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. It took a long time for us ethnics-and I am now speaking about the older ones whose parents came before or just after World War I-to be accepted for employment in some of the largest business organizations in Canada. Similarly, accommodations in terms of housing and apartments for rent were areas in which people from certain groups, from various ethnic origins, were not acceptable. There were summer resorts where people of certain religious or racial affiliations were not acceptable. To a large extent for the older ethnics that type of discrimination has disappeared. Unfortunately, however, that discrimination which we experienced years ago is now here, prevalent and active for newer ethnics, the non-white people who have come from Asia, Africa and the West Indies. Studies have been conducted which show that their chances of gaining a job are probably one-third of what the job opportunities are for people who are part of the majority. I spoke about this matter several days ago and other Members have put a great deal of the evidence on the record.
We now know that there are other groups which are discriminated against. For example, the handicapped. I have in my hand a telex from Mr. Jim Derksen, Chairperson of the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped in Winnipeg, which states as follows:
The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, Canada's major coalition of disabled persons, feels betrayed by the employment equity legislation being proposed by the Progressive Conservative Government. The legislation, as presented, bears no resemblance to the election promise made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the 1984 election campaign. Canadians with disabilities were promised contract compliance affirmative action along the lines proposed in recommendation 26 and 27 of the Obstacles report. This commitment has not been kept in the proposed legislation which does not include any legally binding contract language.
We received the same response from women's organizations which have also reacted sharply. They know that despite the gains which have been made by some women others are still discriminated against. Women are still second class citizens. I would like to put just a few facts about the situation pertaining to women on the record. The average earnings of a woman in the paid workforce are only 60 per cent of the average earnings of a man. Women workers are still confined to job ghettos. Some three out of five work in clerical, sales or service occupations. Some 42 per cent of families headed by women have incomes below the poverty line, while 62 per cent of single elderly women live below it.
The best way to deal with this matter is to refer Hon. Members to the reply given to me by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who when 1 challenged him to do something about the increasing number of Canadians-more than four million who, in 1984, live in poverty-said that we are going to do that by finding jobs for them. Jobs will help but not jobs at the lowest end of the scale.
In recent years we have educated and trained more women in professions than ever before. There are now more women doctors, lawyers, architects and engineers than there ever were
before. However, the number of them who are working for the Government has not increased by very much. The number has not increased because we do not have a mandatory equity program. The federal Government Departments, the people in charge of the employment offices of the Government, have not been instructed that it is a high priority for them to employ women who are qualified.
I would like to mention just one other group which is really at the bottom of the ladder in every situation, whether it be education, health, housing or employment. I speak of our native people. In cities in western Canada, in Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Vancouver, there is a rapidly increasing number of native people. They are moving into the cities because the economic base on most of their reserves does not permit them to earn a living which will keep them in comfort. We have schools in the core area of the city in which 95 per cent of the students are native. Their opportunities to gain employment, even if they are qualified, are very slight.
Some studies have been done with respect to this situation and we have some facts and figures with regard to it. They show very conclusively, as far as the federal Government is concerned, that the need for an affirmative action program for indigenous peoples which was first identified in 1973 has not worked. The program has not met the objectives. The problem is simple. The Departments did not follow the voluntary guidelines of 1978 because they were voluntary. They were not held accountable for the lack of progress. Since the Office of Native Employment was set up hirings have increased; but they still fall below the 4 per cent level identified by the program. Indeed, the current level of native people in the Civil Service is just over 1 per cent and hardly any have jobs which are of any importance.
OO)
This program will not work on a voluntary basis as is proposed in this Bill. This program will only work if we have mandatory programs and if those public servants, those who are involved in the hiring for the federal Government-and I say the same about the provincial Governemnts-are given targets. We are not saying to hire people just because they come from minorities. We are saying hire minority people who have the qualifications. It has not happened up to now and it will not unless we have mandatory programs.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the decision of my Party to support the motion to hoist Bill C-62 was not done without considerable thought and deep and careful consideration. I might say that that attitude seems to be in contrast with the great regulatory with which closure is being imposed on the House these days, even on Bills which will be of enormous cost to the taxpayers. However, let us leave that for another day and another opportunity.
We have decided to support a motion to hoist this legislation because it is a small and very thin Bill, and I do not mean only in its pages, words and clauses, but a very thin Bill in substance. It is a vessel which contains next to nothing. It largely ignores the much-heralded Abella report. The Abella
October 31, 1985

royal commission and the recommendations contained therein are not reflected in this legislation.
It has been said on more than one occasion that a Bill like this cannot rely upon voluntary compliance. There has to be some mandatory program for affirmative action or employment equity. There must be some compliance provision, some mechanism to enforce the provisions of this Bill. The only way one can get into trouble with Bill C-62 is if one fails to fill out a report. What if one reports no action at all? If it is a large company doing business with a Government, perhaps the Government may take some action but then again it may not.
The Obstacles report stated that the net should be much more extensive than simply the large companies which do business with the Government, that it should include even small companies, for instance, those doing about $20,000 worth of business a year with the Government. Without trying to sound unkind or unduly critical, I have to agree with a colleague who said that Bill C-62 represents a lip-service approach to employment equity. It wants to make use of the Human Rights Commission in order to carry out what is somewhere behind the Bill, a long way behind it, and that is good intentions. The Human Rights Commission of Canada, as we all know, is a very over-taxed institution. It needs more resources and needs them now. The Minister has promised these resources some day in the future but it needs them now in order to deal with the backlog of work it faces.
All that is really required in Bill C-62 is for a company to declare that it is an equal opportunity employer. Voluntary action in a field like this, as you and I both know, Mr. Speaker, is next to useless. We need something which has the possibility of giving effect to the ideals we love to espouse in this Chamber.
Kathleen Ruff, a spokesperson for the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, stated on June 12, 1985, and 1 quote:
This is not employment equity, this is misleading advertising, this is a dishonest statement on the part of the government. It is a broken promise.
Mr. Jim. Derksen, national chairman of the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, who has been quoted in this debate, said that this legislation is a betrayal of election promises.
It is interesting to contrast the Bill with the fanfare which accompanied the introduction of it. This Bill was supposed to do quite remarkable things in terms of rights for Canadians. It was to remove employment barriers, not shift them gently aside, and to promote equality, not take a small modest step in the direction of equality. The employment equity working paper went even further in telling us what this legislation was going to do, and I quote:
Employment equity constitutes a major step in the efforts to ensure that women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities participate fully in the economic life of this nation.
What an outrageous assertion of what this legislation was to accomplish. One would think from all of the promotion that what we had here was a bold new move. I do not believe it is even one small step. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it bothers
Employment Equity
me in no small measure to see that one of the designated target groups within this legislation are the aboriginal peoples of Canada. It is very far-fetched indeed to believe that Bill C-62 is going to provide equality of opportunity for the aboriginal peoples of Canada and will allow them to participate fully in the economic life of this nation. Judge Abella knew that and told us that quite clearly. In her report, Judge Abella demonstrated that she had grasped very quickly and very well the magnitude of the problems facing Canada's aboriginal peoples. She looked at the date-and it has been quoted in this House and in many Government reports-which clearly indicated that native people have the lowest participation rates in the labour force of any group of people in the country. They have the highest unemployment. Did Judge Abella say to us that to help the aboriginal peoples we must bring in a modest, meek, mild, little piece of legislation which says to the companies which do business with a Government: "On a voluntary basis, give them the chance for an interview"? Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? Most aboriginal peoples do not even get inside the building much less past the receptionist and into the office where the interviews are given. They never get that far. How is Bill C-62 going to help them?
Judge Abella stated on page 4 of her report, and I quote:
For native people, equality in employment means effective and relevant education and training, accommodation to cultural and geographic realities, a primary voice in the design of the education, training, and funding programs established for their benefit, meaningful support systems, and the delivery of services through native-run institutions.
That is where I would take my stand, Mr. Speaker. If this Government would bring in a separate Bill-let us call it "equity employment opportunity for aboriginal peoples in Canada" or "access to employment" based on that recommendation-there would be something to support. The Government knows this because the National Economic Conference, which was a very worth-while undertaking-I am sorry it turned out to be more fanfare than substance-and the papers which were submitted to that conference are valid. In one of the papers submitted regarding access to employment for native people, the first sentence reads: "Access to employment for native people is a complex and difficult issue to address". It goes on to say:
Severe social and economic problems are compounded by the realization that the majority of Native people have lower education levels than most Canadians, are unskilled and generally have inadequate opportunities that would allow for positive changes.
Our paper attempts to highlight these problems with a view to identifying some alternatives that, if undertaken, would increase the opportunities for more Native people to acquire higher education, adequate and relevant training, and ultimately, create the access to employment.
Although Bill C-62 claims that it will do something in this regard, it is because it does nothing that we have introduced this motion. We want the Government to take the solid and commendable motivations of the other side and put them to work in order to give us a Bill with some teeth. We want the Government to up-grade the quality of this Bill and give us a

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
separate piece of legislation to meet the very complicated needs of the aboriginal people.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am proud to support Bill C-62 as it shows the tremendous progress made by the Government to ensure equity in the Canadian labour force. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill does not deal with all the problems related to employment equity, but it is still a good starting point. This initiative will have a substantial impact on the human resources and the economy of our country. It will also be a basis for the development of our human resources, which will have surprising results within a few years. In addition, this development will take place in a context of economic renewal.
I say this because, in my opinion, the principle of employment equity makes perfect sense economically. Indeed, by implementing effective mechanisms, we shall be able to a great extent to meet our economic objectives. The competitiveness of Canada will depend on its ability to adjust to any future change. Our productivity will depend not only on technology, but also on the extent to which the employers are able to manage their human resources. Productivity will increase if the members of the designated groups can be trained and integrated into the labour force. Nowadays, the Government must put its resources to the test if it wants to stimulate the economy while bearing the social costs resulting from the problems of disadvantaged workers. By continuing to underutilize our human resources, we are jeopardizing our own future. We can no longer afford to ignore the skills available to us, to import an unprofitable labour force and to tolerate the high rollover of manpower or an inadequate matching of required qualifications and available skills. Such an attitude hinders our productivity.
Our country is facing a dilemma: Either we continue not to develop our human resources and to bear the costs of the transfer payments and social upheavals caused by our failure to face international competition, or else we take a concerted approach to ensure employment equity and harmony between the labour force and the labour market. Ensuring employment equity will cost money, Mr. Speaker. We shall need resources to make an exhaustive analysis, to amend and adjust our present employment systems or to create more equitable ones. However, if we consider that employment equity is a valid effort to improve the productivity of our labour force and to appease the general controversy, the results achieved should be positive as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, we must take steps in order that women, native people, the handicapped, and visible minorities learn the skills needed to be competitive on the market-place, if we are to make major changes over the next decade.
This is why employment planning has such an important role in the overall plan to ensure employment equity. It provides us with a perfect opportunity to devote money, time
and effort to human resources. It puts the accent on training and employment development which are closely related to the private sector.
Further, each of the six programs under it fulfills the needs of target groups.
Bill C-62, as I said, Mr. Speaker, is but a first step. This Government has not been in power for very long, but we have identified the problem and have acted accordingly.
Also time is ripe for requesting the co-operation of the industrial sector and special interest groups. We must choose between thinking that no major choice is required, and seriously considering the opportunities offered by human resource management and employment equity.
The opportunity to put our economy back on course is there. Let us make sure that the recovery benefits all Canadian men and women.
I also listened closely to the comments-if the word is right-made by the Opposition parties. What I find interesting is that they even slap themselves on the back about a report entitled Equality for All to try and put forward an interpretation that no one ever had in mind. Mr. Speaker, in case you were not aware of it, I personally was a member of that Committee. When, in her introductory paragraph to the chapter dealing with employment equity, Judge Rosalie Abella defined the phrase "employment equity", she had this to say:
Employment equity is a means of eliminating discrimination faced by many Canadians in that area. According to Judge Rosalie Abella, it is a strategy designed to do away with the present and residual effects of discriminatory actions and to establish equity in competition for employment opportunities for those men and women who have been arbitrarily excluded. It requires-
And this is very important-
-a special blend of various components, namely what is essential, what is fair and what is practical in the work place.
Mr. Speaker, we have the first recommendation in that chapter, Recommendation No. 59, which states, and I quote:
We recommend that legislative measures be implemented to establish equity employment programs at the federal level to require employers: (a) to set up and maintain employment practices aimed at abolishing discriminatory obstacles; and (b) to increase the proportion of women, natives, handicapped persons and members of visible minorities in the work place, without however imposing mandatory quotas.
This indeed is exactly what Bill C-62 is all about. We never said, when we referred to mandatory measures, how to go about making them mandatory.
Mr. Speaker, if that committee was established, the subcommittee on equality rights, it is because there was a problem. Yet, in private discussions with various people, everyone supports motherhood, everyone supports equity. But when at the collective level it comes to ensuring that such a concept will be implemented, then things are different. It is for that reason that a committee was set up, it is for that reason that the committee made its recommendations, although its membership was aware that the way to solve this long-standing

October 31, 1985

problem was not to impose penalties for non-compliance, but rather to prompt people to change their views through incitations, and that if this does fail, we could then impose penalties.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I will say this, because enough is enough. I was listening to a comment from the Opposition-I do not remember exactly who was speaking-the reference being that this was a Liberal report. This is false, Mr. Speaker. It is not a Liberal report, but a forward looking report that was supported by a majority of Conservative Members.
Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that my time has expired, because 1 would have more to say.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, today's debate goes to the heart of the kind of society in which we, as Canadians, want to live in the future. As 1 think about that society and consider the questions we are attempting to deal with in Bill C-62, there are four occasions that stand out in my mind that I would like to share with the House of Commons.
One occasion which strikes home in a particularly strong way occurred during the election campaign last year in the debate that was organized by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. I recall watching the debate and noting the interesting exchange which raised many important questions. There was one question in particular which I believe would strike all Members of the House of Commons very hard. This very tough question on behalf of women in Canada was: "Why should we trust any of you politicians to put into effect the measures that you have talked about to us here tonight? Why should we trust you?" While that is a tough question, it is one to which we must respond not through words but through action.
As 1 think about this piece of legislation before us today I cannot help but consider that this Bill represents a failure to respond through action. It is this failure that the women of Canada were making us face in their tough questions last year.
1 also think of a visit to my office by the committee of the people representing handicapped Canadians across the country shortly after I was elected to the House of Commons. They put a strong case to me that the battle for equity in our society is not just a battle that affects women. I was told that it is a battle that is equally important to those who must live their lives in wheelchairs and must face major physical handicaps that constrain and diminish their lives. As legislators we obviously cannot entirely overcome these constraints but we can take serious steps to establish equity in the workplace for these people who are physically handicapped.
1 think of the presentation made to our action group on jobs in Toronto this past March by Carol Tator of the Urban Alliance. That group, drawing together black Torontonians in particular, talked to us about the absolutely incredible results of a study they had conducted in Toronto to test the depth of discrimination within perhaps the most liberal of our cities.
Employment Equity
They found that 28 per cent of employers felt that non-whites simply could not meet job performance criteria compared to whites. Some 82 per cent of employers had no policy to deal with discrimination in the workplace, and, in one-third of the 438 work-places tested, preference was given to white applicants over non-white applicants who were equally qualified. This revealed a systematic discrimination against visible minorities that is simply not acceptable in Canada in 1985.
I think of another occasion during that action group trip when representatives of Indian groups, native groups in northern Ontario, spoke to us about their efforts to establish training systems which would provide for their special training needs. Each of these occasions brought home to me the sense of a Canada of inequity, unfairness and inequality, which is not a part of the Canada in which 1 want my children to grow. It is not part of the Canada in which 1 want to live.
I believe we all must have a commitment to equality, not only because it will give a chance for a fair life to those who presently experience inequality but because it will give all of us in this society the experience of living in a community in which equality does exist. It will give us a sense of human solidarity in a society in which there is fairness for all. That is what equity in a society is all about.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), for whom 1 have special regard, brought forward this Bill and introduced it for first reading, I applauded vigorously. I hoped that it would be a Bill that would achieve this vision of an equal place for all of us as human beings. It was a great disappointment to read the details of the Bill and see its inability to implement this vision of equity. That disappointment has been shared by all of those groups which feel this inequality the greatest in our society.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has condemned the Bill as not meeting the promises that had to be met. The Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women says that an enforcement mechanism is crucial. The conclusion of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations about this Bill is that the reality of the Government's response simply does not take into account the complexity, the pervasiveness and the intractable nature of discriminatory barriers. I could quote from the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped who say that this Bill leaves this group of perhaps the most disadvantaged of our countrymen feeling betrayed by this proposed employment equity legislation. That sense of betrayal is not what we should be supporting as a House.
I urge the Government to withdraw this Bill, to rethink it and to bring back a Bill that will put affirmative action into place with tough enforcement mechanisms to make it work.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate for what is the second time for me on Bill C-62. I am pleased about my second opportunity. Perhaps

October 31, 1985
Employment Equity
1 can use the seven or eight of my 10 minute allotment on a more specific focus than my first participation on this Bill.
I am pleased to support the amendment moved by my friend in the New Democratic Party that will have this Bill hoisted for six months so that the Government, and particularly the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), can have another go at the blackboard. It is important this Bill receive extra work and a finishing on two accounts. First, it is a poor Bill and a weak one. It lacks the courage I would have loved to have seen in it. Having said that, let me preface those remarks by saying I do not think there is a Member in this House, regardless of political stripe, who does not agree that the Bill is a timely one in the sense of trying to achieve equality for all and in trying to achieve for all Canadians equality in the workplace. That principle is shared by all Members. What we should be asking as parliamentarians is whether this piece of legislation will simply speak to equality or deliver equality to the Canadians mentioned in the four target groups.
It is my opinion, and one shared by a number of different organizations from the target groups right across the country that the Bill will not deliver the equality it was intended to deliver. The purpose is far nobler than the process or the mechanism incorporated within Bill C-62. The programs are not stringent. They are not mandatory. There is no specific mention of an enforcement mechanism in the Bill.
The Minister and the Government have said since its introduction that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will have the opportunity to be the watch-dog on a national basis for an employment equity program. We all know that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is very busy these days. It is a body that reacts on a one to one, case by case basis. It is also a commission, as highlighted by the Auditor General's report, that is backlogged with a huge number of complaints from Canadians whose rights have been abused.
I must ask you, Mr. Speaker, and this House whether it is fair and proper to put the watch-dog mechanism to the Canadian Human Rights Commission when it is already strapped for financial and human resources. There should have been an enforcement mechanism, provided independent of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and this Government, to ensure that the words in the Bill would be reality.
There is no mention in the Bill of contract compliance. There is no mention of the federal Department and bureaucracy where visible minorities are reflected in the bureaucracy only to the tune of 1.2 per cent. Yet we have what the Government says is a monumental Bill on employment equity and it lacks all the various sectors I have outlined.
There is no criteria for the programs to be carried out by the different entities announced in the Bill. There are no penalties going to the firms or Crown corporations that do not attain employment equity. However, there is a penalty that if you do not report, you can face a fine of up to $50,000. If we are to fine anybody, we should be fining on the basis of not achieving what this Bill wants to achieve rather than saying that if you
do not submit a monthly or a yearly report, a letter or a document, you will be fined. That is a perverse sense of logic.
On the second aspect, Mr. Speaker, we should be holding off this Bill for another six months because introduced in this House the other day we had the Equality Rights Report which speaks boldly to the rights of Canadians in the four target groups. This report accepted the visible minorities report, Equality Now and it reflects the Abella Commission. It was the Abella Commission which triggered this piece of legislation. The Abella Report said two fundamental things. First, you need a mandatory program, one that will deliver equality rather than only speak to it. The second thing Judge Abella mentioned was an enforcement agency. Both these central elements in the Judge's report which triggered this legislation are missing.
Expectations were raised upon receipt of the Abella Report that the Government would move swiftly on its recommendations. The Government did not do that. We should be reviewing and rethinking what Judge Abella said, what Equality Now recommended and more recently, what the equality rights committee said, a committee made up of Members from all sides of the House who removed the partisan element that is always alive and well in every issue. We should be paying attention to those three landmark pieces of work, and we should reflect those recommendations in Bill C-62. As a Parliament, we should be united in trying to improve this Bill.
I rise not to see the defeat of this Bill from a partisan view- that is the furthest thing from the truth-but I rise on this occasion to urge my colleagues on all sides that the Bill merits a review and a strong number of amendments to ensure that employment equity will be delivered, will be a reality and that Canadians from the four target groups receive not a special privilege or a gift but receive what is yours, mine and dutifully theirs as Canadians, namely equality for one and all.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: In referring to visible minorities, I should like to indicate that 1 have the good fortune of having a large Sikh community in my constituency. Not many weekends go past when I do not spend a few moments speaking with individuals and small groups that lay out in a very precise way the discrimination which they face on a regular basis in the workplace and, actually in some cases, before the courts of the land. It is a sad situation.
Many of us hoped that Bill C-62 would go a long way toward alleviating some of these problems and removing discriminatory practices by requiring firms, which do business with the federal Government, to enact affirmative action programs that provide equal opportunity for all workers doing business with the federal Government. It is a small step in that direction in that the Bill itself, by its presence, recognizes that discrimination exists. However, the disappointing aspect is that it will only relate to those companies with more than 100 employees, bidding on contracts of $200,000 or more. In other words, it is too restricted. It is restricted to a handful of firms doing business with the federal Government. What about those firms not doing business with the federal Government? It does not require firms to introduce affirmative action programs to assist the disabled, native people, visible minority groups or women. It simply requires them to keep statistics on the numbers of women, disabled, visible minorities and natives on staff and to keep lists of the positions they hold. This will be reviewed on an annual basis. It is a very watered-down version of any kind of action which the Government may be taking to eliminate discrimination in the workplace.
However, what I find amazing is that not many days ago an article appeared in The Globe and Mail headlined "United States big business bullish on affirmative action laws". Large corporations in the United States have found that if they introduce mandatory affirmative action programs, it is actually good for business, is good for the economy and is good for their corporations. They have done well and, in the end, it has been to their advantage in a variety of ways.
We have to ask our friends in the Government to take note of the fact that the corporate sector in the United States is bullish on affirmative action programs. Hopefully it will motivate Hon. Members opposite to go into committee with an open mind, if it ever gets to committee. We felt that it was so weak and inappropriate at second reading stage that it should be hoisted for six months and hopefully come back in a form which is affirmative action, which has some teeth and requires firms doing business with the federal Government, as a starting point, to provide equal opportunity for visible minorities, women, native people and the disabled. In other words, it would really do something, as opposed to this "limp wrist, Milquetoast, Casper the Ghost approach" to affirmative action programs.
I want to indicate for the record that there is no shortage of statistics which describe the situation faced by women in the workplace of a discriminatory nature. I should like to read a few statistics which are relevant to women. The average
Copyright Act
earnings of women in the paid workforce are only 60 per cent of the average earnings of men in the workforce. Therein lies, I suppose, one of the most obvious areas of discrimination. By and large, women workers are still confined to work ghettos. Three out of five work in clerical, sales or service occupations. The best example can be found by walking into one of the banks in Ottawa. As one walks through the door, one notices that all persons doing the public relations work for the bank are low-paid women or poorly paid, one might say. If we ask bank tellers what they are paid after five years or ten years of employment, I do not think we would feel proud of the salaries which they are receiving. However, if one looks through the doorways into the back rooms, one finds that the management positions are filled by men. It is probably the best example or model of the discriminatory workplace.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not necessarily true.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Perhaps 3 per cent of the people involved in bank management are women, but that certainly does not reflect what ought to be happening. Those major institutions ought to be providing some leadership as opposed to being perhaps one of the most outmoded, medieval types of work structures when it comes to equality.
The statistics indicate that 42 per cent of families headed by women have incomes below the poverty line and that 62 per cent of single, elderly women live below the poverty line. If we look down the list, we find that over the last 10 years the average unemployment rate for women was 9 per cent, whereas the average unemployment rate for men was just over 7 per cent.
I notice that you are signalling, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope to have an opportunity to continue when this matter comes before the House once again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.46 o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENTS RESPECTING AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: that Bill C-227, an Act to amend the Copyright Act (private recordings), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill C-227, an Act to amend the Copyright Act in respect of private recordings. The purpose of the Bill is

October 31, 1985
Copyright Act
to allow the making of a recording through the use of home video recorders and tape recorders by individuals for their personal use, where such recording is made from a public broadcast, noting that any compensation under the Copyright Act has previously been made to the holder of the copyright by the public broadcasting system used for the original broadcast.
Subsection 17(2) of the present Copyright Act reads in part as follows:
The following acts do not constitute an infringement of copyright-
(c)	the making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings-
(d)	the publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter,
bona fide intended for the use of schools-
This Bill would add the following section: aedlO
-the making of an audio or video recording of a work, where such recording is made by an individual from a public broadcast for his or her private use, and the recording is not used in a commercial nature, nor sold, exchanged, bartered or given as a gift.
In other words, the Bill would add to the Copyright Act something which will please thousands of people throughout the country.
In March, 1984, Statistics Canada carried out a survey of home appliances, in which survey forms were sent to 8,857,000 residents in Canada. The results of this survey showed that 1,104,000 VCRs were already in use. I might add that if members of the general public in a country respect the law, they will obey it. If the law is not respected, more and more will disobey it. Bill C-227 will correct that error.
In The Globe and Mail of July 12, 1984, a story appeared under the headline: "Copyright Jungle: Which way out?". It was written by Paul McGrath, a Toronto freelance writer and broadcaster. In the story, the following appeared:
-out of this miasma has recently come the first clear suggestion of proposed government action: From Gutenberg to Telidon, a federal White Paper on copyright. The title suggests that the Government has looked closely at the entire range of intellectual property and the document is as thorough an outline of the proprietary rights as could be expected. Based on a five-year series of background papers, the White Paper deals, most importantly, with the urgent copyright issues that have been the topic of public debate.
I would draw your attention to this sentence in particular, Mr. Speaker:
-duplication of film and video material for private use will not be an offence under the new Act-
That was from the White Paper issued in 1984 by the previous Government. Surely this makes common sense when a tape is made for a family's own personal use. The actors, performers and producers of a television broadcast have been financially compensated by the broadcasting company and therefore should not be entitled to additional funds if their broadcast is viewed at 4 p.m. or 10 p.m. rather than at 3 a.m.
It must be kept in mind that this amendment will not allow recordings to be made for rebroadcast, sale, gift or trade but for personal viewing only. This Bill makes copying legal for personal use.
Why do people make copies? First, it may be that a particular program is being shown at a time that is inconvenient for the family to watch. Rather than racing away from work 30 minutes before quitting time in order to catch a continuing soap opera or rather than staying up until 3 a.m. to see a particular program, it is far easier to record the program and view it at a time suitable to their schedule. Second, with the rapid changes in today's technology, it may be that a copy of a program was legally purchased by an individual but machinery or equipment on which to play it has become defunct or non-existent. This happened with 8-track tape players. In this case, it is necessary to duplicate the program onto a new format in order to continue enjoying same. Many citizens would carry out such a duplication but would not repurchase the same old recordings in a new format, nor should they.
In today's society, we encourage science and technology to create new devices in order to speed up the processing of information. The present Government has even appointed a Minister of State for Science and Technology. This is good. Yet existing copyright laws penalize the public for using the very devices we are encouraging our scientists and technologists to create. Video recorders and tapes have become a multimillion dollar industry employing thousands of Canadians in what is, because of an antiquated law, an illegal and improper business under existing legislation. This Bill would change that.
For any Member of Parliament who may not think that this is a serious matter or feels that it may be dealt with at a later date, may I point out that this Bill also covers an illegal activity that Members of Parliament may well be performing in their own offices right here on Parliament Hill. If a Member of Parliament makes a recording at home or in his or her office of any proceedings of the House of Commons, he or she breaks the law even when recording his or her own speech and even when he or she did not know that the broadcast of the House of Commons is covered by copyright. Ignorance of the law, they say, is no defence.
Through some special arrangements which state that the House of Commons is not subject to the Copyright Act, the OASIS Network is able to record and show Video Quorum each day so that Members of Parliament can see how statements made by the leaders of all three political Parties are carried in the press. Do that at home and you break the law. It is time the law changed to keep pace with today's society.
Up until five years ago, 8-track tapes and players were very popular. Many people purchased pre-recorded 8-track tapes. Today it is almost impossible to find 8-track tapes or players on the market. Most recording studios and stereo systems have changed to the cassette format. As a result of this, thousands of members of the public are left with hundreds of 8-track tapes. I was once in a home where there must have been 300 of them on the shelves. The entertainer or composer was paid a fee by the individual consumer at the time the 8-track tape was purchased. Whether the song or recording is now played directly by means of an 8-track player or converted to a
October 31, 1985

cassette and played by means of a cassette player will have no effect on the composer or producer provided that the converted tape is not publicly sold.
Many of today, modern hits are sold on long-play records. These are recordings on which there may be up to 12 songs or numbers on each. In most cases, the LP was purchased in order to listen to one or two songs only. For a member of the public to purchase the LP and then record one or two songs from each LP onto a cassette tape for his own personal listening should not be an offence as the performing artist was paid under the Copyright Act at the time the LP was purchased. Further, in most cases, the finished cassette tape would not be available through the market-place.
Since technology is constantly changing entertainment systems as it did when it changed from mono to stereo, 8-track to cassette and LP to the new laser discs, these changes are making existing systems for playing recordings obsolete. The composer has absolutely nothing to do with technological changeover from one type of stereo system to another. For members of the public to be able to continue to enjoy the works of art they have already purchased, they must be able to convert the recordings they own to a system that can be played on the machinery they own without fear of having broken the laws of Canada.
At the present time, there is on the market a device which allows a consumer to play cassette tapes in an 8-track player. There is not, however, any device which enables the consumer to play 8-track tapes in a cassette player. Surely no one is suggesting that a cheque should be sent to a composer when an individual consumer plays a cassette tape in an 8-track player. Why then should it be illegal to re-record an 8-track tape onto a cassette tape for playing in today's modern equipment?
In the field of video recordings, there are presently four formats on the market: VHS, Beta, disk and the new eight millimetre format. Already the disk format has lost popularity with the consumer and the Beta format may be following the same route. It is expected that within the next decade, at least two of the other formats will disappear from the market-place. There is also the possibility that all four formats will vanish from the market-place and be replaced by a new type of format not yet introduced as changes in this field are taking place almost daily.
Members of the public should not be condemned to breaking the law if they use copying devices to change movies they have legally purchased from one format to another. As I previously mentioned regarding cassette and 8-track tapes, there is presently a device on the market which allows the consumer to play a Beta tape in a VHS player. There is no logical reason why the producer of a movie should be paid an additional royalty simply because the film was viewed by playing it in a machine of a different format.
It may be argued that the Copyright Act is coming before the House of Commons at some time in the future and that all changes should be made at that time. We have been waiting for changes to the Copyright Act for many years. I suggest that even though the Act may come before us shortly, that is
Copyright Act
no reason for refusing to make the Act sensible and reasonable at the present time by passing this Bill. As a matter of fact, it could well be that the discussion in committee of this particular Bill would be assurance that when the total Copyright Act comes before the House, we would be better prepared to handle it in a sensible and logical way.
In closing, I again emphasize that the making of audio or visual recordings of broadcasts for the personal use of the individual family must not be used in any way in a commercial nature or sold, exchanged, bartered or given as a gift. I have never made any such recordings but some one million people in Canada have. I suggest that the House would be wise to give reason to their voices by sending this Bill to committee.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is before us this evening. Bill C-227, is effectively a Bill to make an exemption from the Copyright Act for home copying purposes. The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of home copying in Canada. Canadians are pirates, outlaws and criminals in terms of stealing intellectual property from creators. Most Canadians are copyright pirates in some way or another, be it the Sunday school teacher who xeroxes her lessons for her Sunday school class or an ordinary Canadian who tapes programs from the CBC on a home video cassette recorder. Common as this is I suggest it does not make it a good enough reason to change the law in the direction proposed by the Hon. Member. Just because a great many Canadians are breaking the law does not mean that we do not need that law at all. That law is there for a purpose.
We know that artists receive a bad deal from our country. They serve the country well. They subsidize the creative lives of Canadians to an enormous extent, far more than they should. Burdens are being placed on them to give of their services voluntarily; and when they are not recompensed by royalties for their work it means they have to suffer unduly. It seems extremely unfair. They have to pay the same for their groceries, their rent and mortgages, and they have a tougher time doing it. In fact, a much higher proportion of our artists live in poverty than people in other occupations.
Copyright does entail intellectual property. This property is created by people using their minds or their hands. It can be stolen just as other types of property can be stolen. I suggest that the consequences of this type of theft are not altogether harmless, even though the crime may take place in the home and it may be something which has the most innocent of purposes. Indeed, the type of uses which the Hon. Member has pointed out are quite proper and reasonable forms of use for entertainment. There is no suggestion that there should be an exemption which would allow anyone to take commercial advantage of this form of copying. However, even this use in the home has consequences for the owners of copyright material.
I had the pleasure of sitting on the Copyright Committee for the better part of last year. In the committee artists told us

October 31, 1985
Copyright Act
that they did not want to see any exemptions in the Copyright Act which would impair their very precarious livelihoods. They did not want to see any further exemptions. Indeed, they asked us to close the loopholes where exemptions already exist.
The whole thrust of the Bill which is before us is to take us in the opposite direction from-


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member should recognize that I was not saying that they should not have to pay. They have already paid for these cassettes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is argument and not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the extent of violation of copyright is enormous. This is a question in which technology has created problems which we never imagined it would. More than one million households in Canada now have copying equipment, VCRs, of some sort or another. It is expected that that number will increase greatly every year and that very soon half of the households of Canada will have some type of recording equipment. This means that there will be an enormous use of this type of equipment. We do not know to what extent it is being used to copy material for which other copyright royalties might have been paid. However, we do know that a great deal of it is. It is estimated that as high as 90 to 95 per cent of the machines are used to some extent for copying copyrighted materials. They are not just being used to delay, to take out commercials or to switch times in order for a family to watch a program later in the day than its airing time. A lot of this use is to replace what might otherwise have been purchased. People go out and buy a record, a video cassette, or whatever, and when that happens the artist concerned receives a royalty. However, if there is another recording made then the artist does not receive that royalty.
The effect of this new technology can be seen in a Quebec study which shows that revenues from video rentals are now greater than revenues from movie attendance. So people who are showing movies are getting away from paying royalties and, as a consequence, artists are suffering.
There is clearly no way to control home copying and there is no suggestion that we should try to think of any way to control it. I suggest that the right proposal is to not forget about the problem and say: "Go ahead and do it," but to institute a practice such as the one proposed in the copyright report. That is a matter I deal with in my own minority report because I think I have a slightly better way of dealing with it. In either case, the idea is to allow for a levy on the tapes, on the cassettes and the equipment itself. The moneys thus collected-and there is some dispute as to how it should be collected-would be in lieu of royalties. This would mean that artists would receive some compensation to make up for the loss of royalties they do not receive as a result of home copying. Perhaps this compensation would only be a small part of the royalties which artists might have received if they had sold
their works directly and if there had not been any home copying. However, it is at least a recognition that they have a right to be paid for their work and that they need money to pay for their groceries the same as everyone else needs money. It is at least a partial recognition of this fact and it seems to me to be a reasonable one.
Artists have been asking for this type of provision and, indeed, it became clear in testimony to the subcommittee that a great many Canadians are concerned about the difficult lives artists lead and that they are ready to see that there is more compensation paid to them. Even though people recognize that they would have to pay more money there was a great deal of acceptance of this principle. It was felt that it is time we stopped making artists pay all the subsidies for our culture. It is time for the burden to be more equitably borne by Canadians in order to get artists out of poverty and in order to give them more recognition for the work which they do.
I think there is a great deal of public support for measures such as the ones proposed in the copyright report. That is to say, in lieu of royalties being paid for home copying there should be a levy on all of the equipment for making the recordings and all of the mechanisms needed for doing it, be they tapes, cassettes or whatever new technology brings us. It has been recognized that this money should somehow go to the artists.
The way I propose it be done is by way of a tax because that is money which can be directed. We received a recommendation from the National Film Board to the effect that the money should go into Telefilm Canada and be directed toward further production works. That is certainly a good recommendation. The majority report for the committee on copyright recommended a straight royalty. My concern in that respect is that there would be a large outflow of funds from Canada as a result because so much of the copying which is being done is copying of material of a foreign origin. That would mean another burden being placed on the arts community with respect to money leaving the country. In a period in which we have had substantial cut-backs, it did not seem to me to be the best procedure to follow. Nevertheless, it is a clear recognition that artists deserve to be paid for the work which they do. I support that move as such, although I would prefer to see a different method put in place.
The idea of providing compensation by way of levy has been accepted in a number of other countries. We are not the only country considering this move. Nor are we the only country where artists have been demanding that such a move be implemented. We are not the only country where the public has reached the state in which they consider it an acceptable and fair provision.
Legislation to compensate copyright owners for home copying has been enacted, or is in the process of being enacted, in Austria, West Germany, Hungary, Norway, Sweden, the Congo, Finland, Iceland, Turkey and France. That is a sizeable number of countries. Further, legislation is under consideration in Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom. In Canada itself
October 31, 1985

we have the beginning of a recognition. It has not worked out well, I might add, but nevertheless, there is the beginning of a recognition in Quebec with a tax of $2 on blank tapes.
The delivery of this money into the arts community has been fouled up rather seriously and we very much regret that. Nevertheless, it is a recognition and the principle is the right one. Clearly, the mechanism to get the money delivered to the artists should be put in place immediately.
As to the amounts, there is debate as to what would be a reasonable compensation to the artists concerned. In the United Kingdom, the recommendation is up to 10 per cent for audio tapes; and 5 per cent for video tapes. In France it is 56 cents per playing hour. In Finland it is up to 60 cents. West Germany it is down to 7 cents. This is just to give an idea of the amount of money which consumers might expect to have to pay in addition in order to see that artists are compensated.
With respect to machinery, in the case of Iceland, it is 4 per cent. The United States is considering levies in the order of 10 per cent to 25 per cent. In Canada, the recommendation is that the tariffs would be established by the Copyright Board.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that we do have other options. This ongoing problem of artists not being compensated-and with home copying going on in great numbers-can be dealt with in a reasonable way. We are Canadians. We are masters at practical compromise. We should not just ignore the problem and put in an exemption in the Copyright Act, but we should make the exemption contingent on there being another and fair method of compensation for our artists. They have been serving us very well and I ask that we in this House give them the support they deserve. They have been paying the way for Canadian culture all too long. Let us share the burden with them and see that their needs are really justly met.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The great Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards).


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask that Hansard be amended to excise that word. I am not sure that it is parliamentary.
The distinguished Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has introduced a Bill in this House to amend the Copyright Act and it is a great privilege for me to speak to his Bill. I have followed the career of this distinguished parliamentarian for many of the 45 years he has served the public and I admire his initiatives and vigour very much.

Bill C-227 aims at allowing private recordings of a public broadcast for personal use.
I would like to thank the Hon. Member for having supported the motion. This issue is very important and complex.
Copyright Act

At first, the provisions of this Bill appear straightforward. However, the Bill provides an excellent example of a problem of immense proportions which affects the life of every Canadian. The problem concerns the law of copyright. At the consumer level it is copyright law which sets the rules under which market forces determine what music is heard, what records are made, what film are seen, what books are published, and what programs are seen on television.
The problem can best be described in terms of two ends of a spectrum. At one end there is the creative talent of this country such as authors, poets, composers, film producers, script-writers and publishers. In order to earn a living, creative interests depend upon copyright royalties being paid for the use of their creations. At the other end of the spectrum there is the user of these creations, the general public, who pay royalties by buying books, sound recordings, and theatre tickets but who also want to be able to copy these works with a variety of recording devices.
There is a dual purpose in the copyright system. On one hand, copyright stimulates creativity by granting exclusive rights to creators. On the other hand copyright responds to the public interest in the widest possible availability and dissemination of the subject matter of copyright. New copyright legislation is required to restore the balance between the legitimate interests of creators to be paid for the use of their works and the needs of users to have access to those works.
Before individual recording devices were available, creators were able to control, and be paid, for the use of their creations. For example, a broadcasting station would pay for the right to broadcast a program and the owner of the program would license the broadcast. Modern reproduction technology, which is used in individual homes, cannot be licensed in the same way. Now creators do not have control over their works and, in the case of home taping, are not being paid for their use.
The solution proposed in Bill C-227, although direct and relatively simple, does not address the need of copyright owners to be compensated for the copying of their works. The owner of the copyright in a film or television program has the right to authorize the broadcast and the right to authorize the reproduction or copying of the film or program. When a broadcaster pays a royalty to broadcast, the payment is for broadcast only. The royalty does not cover what would be paid to copy the film or program. Copying is a separate use from broadcasting which requires a separate payment.
Bill C-227 proposes that no compensation should be made for copying at home. That is one solution. However, it is not the only one. Another solution would be to pay compensation to copyright owners on the basis of a levy or tax on blank tape or recording equipment. As my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) said, this solution to the home taping problem is used in a great number of countries and others are contemplating doing so. Right here in Canada, the Province of Quebec introduced, in 1983, a tax of $2 on each blank tape sold to compensate for royalties lost due to home copying. My information is that, unfortunately for

October 31, 1985
Copyright Act
creators in the Province of Quebec, that money finds its way into general revenue and not into the hands of the creators.
When the magnitude of the problem is assessed the solution proposed in Bill C-227 may not be the most appropriate. It is estimated that 1.8 million Canadian homes have a video cassette recorder. Home taping is no longer an isolated activity. As home taping grows in magnitude so too does the damage to creators. In a larger context home taping is just one particular example of revising the copyright law to balance the needs of creators and the public.
New reproduction technologies are one of the reasons why the Government is committed to a complete revision of the law. The law in question is the Copyright Act which was first enacted in 1924. This law is hopelessly inadequate to deal with new technologies such as home taping, computers, satellites and photocopying machines.
Because of the inadequacy the Government has already taken steps to completely revise the law to bring it up to needs of the present day. In January of this year the Minister of Communications referred all matters of copyright revision to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture for a complete and thorough review. Its subcommittee has considered over 300 briefs and submissions from interested parties and has heard 111 witnesses at public hearings. The subcommittee filed its report to this House on October 10. It contained recommendations for appropriate solutions to the problem addressed in Bill C-227 as well as to the many other problems involved in copyright revision. The report recommends that a compensation system be introduced together with an exception from copyright liability which would permit home copying. The system which has been proposed will be considered by the Government. When a copyright Bill is introduced in the House full debate on the most appropriate solution to home copying will take place in the context of the overall revision of the copyright law.
To prejudge this involved an complex work by proceeding to deal with one of many related problems in isolation would be ill-advised. First, it would be a duplication of effort to have two separate parliamentary debates to consider the same problem. Second, the complexity of revision of the copyright law requires a concentrated and intense intellectual effort. All of the many issues are interrelated. The selection of a particular solution to one problem will dictate the choice of similar solutions to other similar problems. Without a consistent approach the revision of the law will be a hodge-podge of unrelated solutions with no central policy to further the cultural goals of the Government, or the country.
The issue of home taping addressed in Bill C-227 illustrates the complexity of copyright revision and the consequential need for the already completed committee work on revision. The Bill proposes one particular solution to the home taping problem. The committee has proposed another. An examination of the issue reveals not only the complexity of the problem but also alternative solutions to it. I have already stated that modern technological development has called into question the ability of existing copyright legislation to adequately protect
the interests of copyright owners. This had led to appeals for revision of the Copyright Act to incorporate the same form of compensation for copyright owners for use being made of their works. In contrast, Bill C-227 proposes that no compensation be paid.
The present copyright law provides copyright owners with the exclusive right to reproduce a work. There are some exceptions to this exclusive right, the purpose of which is to strike a balance between the needs of creators and the needs of users. There is no specific limitation in the existing copyright law relating to the copying of copyright works for personal use. It is not certain whether some limited personal use might be permitted as falling within the exemption for fair dealing set out in the Copyright Act. In any event, it has been generally concluded that the concept of fair dealing is no longer able to deal with the new reproduction technologies such as home video recorders and photocopying machines which involve, in the aggregate, multiple reproduction of entire works. Consequently, it is generally concluded that the issue of copying for personal use should be dealt with in its own right.
Two polarized solutions are possible. One is to exclude home taping from the category of infringing actions by means of a specific exemption. The other is to construct a system which would provide for reproduction with compensation paid to copyright owners by either the manufacturers of the reproduction equipment or those who purchase blank tape.
The amount of home taping is increasing. Statistics tell us that the number of people purchasing video recorders has increased enormously over the past few years. Opponents of a compensation scheme for home taping argue that the amount of home taping cannot be quantified. It is true that the extent to which copyright owners have been harmed by home taping is disputed. But, however large or small the harm, it is clear that home taping is a major use of copyright works for which creators receive no payment.
The inability of copyright owners to control or to receive fair compensation for copying may disrupt the economic foundation of the motion picture and television production industries. Copyright owners face an even greater risk of economic loss than they did before in a competitive market-place. Their works are subject to widespread, uncompensated copying. Many directors, writers, actors, cinematographers, craftsmen and others depend for their livelihood on revenues earned by copyright works. They are harmed, as are many others, as a result of home taping. The loss is also occurring in many segments of the market-place: displaced attendance at movie theatres, prerecorded cassette sales lost to home-made copies, displaced viewing of cable and television transmissions and reduced royalties from broadcasters due to the adverse effects of time shifting. This amounts to direct economic harm to Canadian creators and copyright owners.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-227 would deprive copyright owners of any compensation for home taping. From what I have just outlined, it is apparent that the enactment of
October 31, 1985

legislation, which would deny copyright compensation for home taping, requires a thorough and careful examination. The issue is complex and its solution is far from clear. A parliamentary reference of this problem, as well as the whole matter of copyright revision, to the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has recommended that compensation should be paid. When the copyright revision Bill is tabled in the House a full debate on the very complex problem of home taping will take place. Mr. Speaker, any further debate should be postponed until the complete copyright revision Bill is introduced.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-227 proposed by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), I would like to bring to the attention of the House certain broad public policy considerations and some particular aspects of the Bill which must be taken into account. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the Member for Bow River, for flagging the attention of the Department of Communications and the House of Commons to his particular concerns which I know are shared by many Canadians. The Member for Bow River has done the House a considerable service in bringing to our attention an issue which is of significant interest to consumers, creators, the film and sound recording industries, and those charged with developing a national copyright policy and legislation.
The Hon. Member for Bow River will know that in Canada today national copyright legislation is ridiculously outdated and is unresponsive to the needs of creators, entrepreneurs and users of copyright material. While the Copyright Act of 1924 was perfectly suited to such mechanical devices as player piano rolls and wet photography, it is totally inadequate for today's electronic communications age. Technological developments and advances are not addressed in the present law, nor is any provision made to accommodate change. I refer to television, cable systems, photocopiers, computers, satellites and video machines by way of example.
When we speak of the need to revise the legislation dealing with copyright, and indeed the Government has announced its intention to do so at the earliest possible opportunity, we must not forget the principle upon which the present law is founded. The present Act grants to creators exclusive private property rights in their works. These rights provide the legal foundations for industries which rely on the property rights of creators. Copyright legislation enables creators to exploit their works through the publishing, film production, sound recording and broadcasting industries. In turn, it is copyright which provides the legal basis for the creation and operation of these industries.
By licensing their rights to these industries creators make it possible for consumers to read books, see films, listen to music and enjoy television. Consumers and users have a wide choice of cultural material available to them through the operations of the market-place. However, because of the technological change the present law has become more and more unsatisfactory to creators, the industries using copyright material and,
Copyright Act
indeed, to consumers. This is because the law is uncertain and those who wish to benefit from the law or to use copyright works are uncertain as to their rights and obligations, particularly in the context of using the new devices made possible by technical advances.
Since 1977 the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Communications have been engaged in studying and reporting on the necessity and urgency of revising copyright legislation. In May of 1984 the former Government tabled in the House of Commons a White Paper on copyright revision entitled From Gutenberg to Telidon. That paper discussed revisions and advanced certain proposals based on the considerations of protecting creativity and responding to technological change. A major shortcoming of the copyright White Paper, Mr. Speaker, was its failure to identify the significant relationship that copyright legislation has to economic growth.
That deficiency was rectified on November 8, 1984 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in delivering his address on the economy in the House, tabled the document A New Direction for Canada-An Agenda for Economic Renewal. In that document the Minister of Finance identified and underscored the particular and strong importance that copyright legislation has for economic growth, particularly with respect to the creation, transmission and processing of information. The Minister said:
Canada's Copyright Act, unchanged since 1921, has been overtaken by new technologies. This has created abiguities and uncertainties and has, in some cases, left Canadian copyright owners with less protection or compensation than would be available to them in other countries which have more modern copyright laws. Impacts are particularly significant for the vitality of our cultural and computer services industries. This is a real obstacle to economic growth, particularly in an economy which is increasingly service-oriented, with a growing role for the creation, transmission and processing of information, and in which automation may be a powerful source of productivity gains.
A broad-based update of Canadian copyright legislaton is needed to create an appropriate and balanced copyright environment. Much preparatory work has already been done and extensive consultation will continue.
It is manifest that it is a central policy concern of the present Government to address and resolve the issues created by technological developments. These developments represent major challenges to the interest of creators and the industries based on copyright.
Technological advances have made it possible to use copyright materials in ways not envisaged in 1924. Copyright works which are broadcast can be picked up and delivered around the world by satellites, and photocopying machines can reproduce books at the touch of a button.
It is because of these changes and the legal uncertainty of the present law that revision of the legislation is urgent. I recall that the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) moved a motion in the House on January 24 that all matters of copyright revision, including the White Paper on Copyright be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture for examination and report. The motion received

October 31, 1985
Copyright Act
unanimous consent, thus approving the urgent need to get on with the revision.
1 lay stress on what I consider to be a key phrase contained in the November 8, 1984 statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) almost a year ago on the need for copyright revision. Ele said:
Much preparatory work has already been done and extensive consultation will continue.
Given the necessity of taking into account a range of factors and considerations in revision of copyright legislation, I believe fully consultation is fundamental to arrive at a consensus which will permit an equitable revision of the law. The committee report represents another stage of consultation which will receive a full debate when a copyright Bill is tabled in the House as soon as possible.
In considering particular proposals to revise the law to permit certain things to be done, it is my view that the broadest possible approach should be adopted. That approach should include taking into account not only the views of those affected by any change in the law, but the results which would flow from adopting any change. Here, in dealing with the possibility of making recordings or of certain works, the interests involved appear to be those of the creators of the work being broadcast, the owners of the copyright in the work being broadcast, the broadcasters themselves, and the individuals who make the recordings.
This activity, popularly called "home-taping", is an issue of some importance as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has pointed out. The omnipresent video-tape recorder has made possible the recording of broadcast material an everyday occurrence.
The issue has been litigated in other jurisdictions with varying results. Indeed, the Committee on Copyright Revision of which I had the honour to be a member, had representations made to it that the incidence of home taping is seriously affecting the interests of copyright owners. By attempting to make copying a non-infringing activity, are we saying, in effect, that technology which makes copying possible should prevail over the rights of those who create works of the mind? Is such an exception compatible with Canada's international responsibilities? Is it in the public interest to provide such an exception? If the exception is enacted, what principle can be derived in order that it may be applied in other instances where similar or even different exceptions are sought?
These are very important questions which are at the heart of the many issues that will be debated when the copyright Bill is introduced in the House. It is my view that this particular matter before us cannot be addressed and answered in the narrow confines of a Bill designed to address a particular issue. Rather, I think that the answer has to be sought in the broadest context of the committee's report and the soon to be introduced copyright Bill where the many and manifold aspects of this question can be fully addressed.
I sympathize with the Hon. Member for Bow River and the sentiments behind this particular Bill. As I said earlier, I know
that he shares the concerns of many Canadians about what is to happen regarding this particularly important aspect of home taping, which is among the some 137 recommendations we made in the Subcommittee on the Revision of Copyright. We received more than 300 applications and heard from 111 different witnesses. Many of them were speaking on the same topic that the Hon. Member for Bow River has raised this afternoon. Hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of words were submitted to the five members of the subcommittee, three of whom have spoken in this debate this afternoon. It was an enormous job in the course of 10 months, even through the summer, to come up with recommendations which we believed would update the copyright legislation from the archaic law that has existed since 1924 up to the 1980s to the end of this century, until some other parliamentary subcommittee will have to meet in the year 2035 or 2050 A.D. to deal with the technological developments that will have taken place.
As the Minister of Finance and I have pointed out and as the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) have made clear, it is not possible to consider one aspect of copyright revision in isolation. It must be put into the context of those 137 recommendations made by our subcommittee. We must ensure that whatever is enacted in the form of legislation is consistent with the economic statements that have been made by the Government.
If the Hon. Member for Bow River and his friends have any concerns that the home-taping regulations are not fairly dealt with in those recommendations of the subcommittee he will know that once the legislation comes before the House of Commons it will go through the normal legislative process and back to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
I say for the benefit of any hon. Member who is concerned about any of the recommendations which are made by the Government of Canada in that legislation, it is in that legislation where amendments can be brought forward. That is when we can debate all of the matters we have been discussing in the last 10 months. That is how we can bring about true copyright revision for the people of Canada, legislation which we believe to be a charter of rights for creators.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the issue of legalization of home taping of audio and video material is one which certainly warrants discussion. However, with utmost respect for my hon. colleague, the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), it would be premature to adopt the solutions proposed in Bill C-227.
In January of this year the issue of copyright reform was referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture which, in turn, formed the Subcommittee on the Revision of Copyright to examine all aspects of copyright revision, including the issue of home taping. In referring to that subcommittee, I cannot help but congratulate the participants who spent many long hours this past summer hearing many presentations. That subcommittee advertised for submissions and held public hearings in June. A number of submis-
October 31, 1985

sions addressed the issue of home taping and the subcommittee issued its report on October 10. The report contained 137 recommendations dealing with virtually all aspects of copyright law reform. Recommendations 93 to 96, both inclusive, addressed the issue of home taping or home copying in particular. The report dealt with all forms of home copying, not just recording from public broadcast.
The subcommittee recommended that audio and video home taping be permitted, subject to a royalty on the blank tapes and the recording equipment. This royalty would be paid to domestic and foreign copyright owners on the basis of tariffs approved by the Copyright Appeal Board. It did not recommend compensation for broadcasters. The minority opinion, while it agreed that copyright owners should in some way be compensated for home taping, felt that the compensation should be on the basis of a tax on blank tapes and equipment as opposed to a royalty. It favoured the tax approach because it was concerned with the outflow of royalties, while a tax would allow revenues to be channelled to creators and copyright owners in Canada.
Under Item 70(16) of the Standing Orders, the subcommittee requested the Government to respond to its report. It would be premature to act on this very complex issue until we have had the benefit of the Government's response.
The following are some of the points which must be considered in developing a policy on home taping. I will expand on some of them in a few moments. Audio home taping from broadcasts is a fact of life, Mr. Speaker. Many Canadian households have an audio cassette recorder that can make reasonable, and even high fidelity recordings, from FM broadcasts which can be used in personal stereos, cars, boats and at home. Such devices have been available for many years.
Video home taping is also commonplace. Somewhere between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of Canadian households now have a VCR, depending on what figures you use. Many studies have confirmed that these machines are mostly used for time shifting or library purposes. In either case, copyright owners are not pleased with the result.
How does one balance the realities of newly available technology in private households and traditional compensation to copyright owners? This is a delicate balance and any discussion must take both factors into account.
Because of this balance, one must examine carefully changing the law in the way the Hon. Member for Bow River suggests. The problem is that copyright owners and broadcasters would demand some sort of compensation for any such change in the law. Many experts will support them. To accomplish this, as we will see, is extremely complex and may or may not even be desirable.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the Government's commitment reiterated here this evening to an overall revision of the law, I recommend that we wait until the Government has responded to the report of the subcommittee before acting.
Copyright Act
I would like to expand on a couple of these points. Home taping is a fact of life. It takes place in several ways; for example, video taping for time shifting purposes. A recent study in the United States showed that, as the largest single use of VCR was the recording of afternoon soap operas so that they could be viewed in the evening. Of course, many people time shift other types of programs as well. Perhaps someone somewhere might even time shift proceedings such as these.
Second, we have library or collection purposes. Many viewers tape TV broadcasts for repeated viewing or permanent storage. This type of taping typically involves movies or collectable dramas or comedies, such as Star Trek or M.A.S.H. Radio broadcasts are also taped, not so much for time shifting as for more or less permanent collection purposes. Many young people tape FM broadcasts of new hit records and thereby avoid, so the argument goes, having to buy the record. In fact, for less than $300 one can now buy a portable mini studio that will play and record FM and cassettes in stereo and even duplicate the cassettes for a friend, and I might add, with surprisingly good quality.
Some would say that this proliferation of emerging technology may actually be beneficial to copyright owners. This theory works in the following way. By creating new uses for recordings, technology has encouraged consumers to buy them. Indeed, this makes some sense. A consumer can purchase a record and make a copy of it to use in the car or personal stereo. If, on the other hand, a person makes copies directly from the radio, at some point the user has to hear the inevitable commercial message, which is how everyone in the system gets paid. Although there are studies that indicate that this is the case, most copyright owners, broadcasters and advertisers loudly disagree.
I wish now to summarize possible problems with Bill C-227 and then explain some of the points in greater detail.
The solution may be too simple. It fails to reflect that certain home taping off the air is seen by some as an illegal act, while on the other hand some types of home taping off the air may actually benefit copyright owners.
Second, the Bill is based upon the premise, as stated in the explanatory note that:
-compensation under the Copyright Act has previously been made to the holder of the Copyright by the Public Broadcasting System used for the original broadcast.
Most copyright owners, broadcasters and advertisers would strenuously disagree with that assumption.
Third, there is considerable evidence that most types of home taping material off the air are harmful to copyright owners.
Fourth, creator interests would argue that if any type of home taping of copyrighted material is to be legalized, it is only fair that there be some kind of tax or royalty on blank tape or recording equipment, or both. The implications of such a compensatory tax or royalty would have to be studied to determine whether it is feasible.

October 31, 1985
Adjournment Debate


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

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the case of Isobel Goligher is representative of those of a large number of Canadian women. When an injustice is done to any person it is wrong and it should be resisted. I would be speaking today as if Isobel Goligher were the only person to be affected by the kind of discrimination she has experienced. But, she stands for many women, which is one of the reasons she is continuing her fight.
Let me explain the facts. Ms. Goligher was made chief of the EDP Section of Supply and Services in the London district office on September 22, 1980. This was the first time a woman had achieved a post this high in that Department. Within a year, on August 25, 1981, she resigned from that position under duress. What happened in that time?
Ms. Goligher was very competent; she proved her competence. The information we have from her evaluation, for example, indicates that she was evaluated at her probation period, six months afterward, and that Ms. Goligher's progress to date in adapting to her computer operation had been excellent. "She exhibits sound administrative qualities and I consider her a pleasure to work with". She passed her probation exceeding the Department's expectations. Yet one would wonder how a person doing this good a job could, six months later, be out of that same job.
One of the reasons her reports were so good was that she had a non-adversarial management style. This is something which makes the case a woman's case. Isobel Goligher did not have the same kind of confrontational tactics which apparently had been rife in that Department. Productivity went up and complaints went down. Morale was much better and staff worked harder as a result and felt happy about their jobs.
We might think the Government would be pleased with these developments. These are the kinds of managerial skills we want to encourage. Indeed, it is one of the hopes of the women's movement that as women move into management positions the beneficial aspects of a different kind of socialization and a more co-operative spirit, could be achieved.
Let me note, and let me be very clear, that productivity did go up. It is curious that she should be told later that she was not managerial material, evidently because she was not adversaria! enough. She was too chummy with members of the union, for example, a statement made about her. What a curious thing to say when the evidence is so strong that all the results of this chumminess were better morale and a better job done for the people of Canada.
Ms. Goligher was told when she was promoted that her case would be a test and that people would be looking at her. What the Department failed to do, I regret to say, is look at the managers around her to be sure that she got the back-up she needed.
We do not need to have women tested when they are promoted to managerial positions. It should not be surprising that a women can handle such a position. This is not the first time a woman has been in a managerial position. That should not have been a matter for the test. We do know that in some work environments they are not ready for women yet.
Perhaps there should have been more back-up to ensure that she was accepted and that she would be able to continue in the job. That is why this is an important case for us today. If we are to have employment equity, if women are indeed to be promoted, they must get that back-up. It is not good enough to have a program on paper which indicates that women will be promoted in the Public Service; it is extremely important that there be adequate back-up and that their competence and participation are treated on a reasonable basis. If there are problems, they should be looked into promptly and solved, so that ill will does not develop.
What can be done about it? The only remedy available at this point is to have an independent inquiry established by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Ms. Goligher has exhausted all means at her disposal. She has tried a grievance and the Public Service Commission. No other remedies are available to her. This is why she and the Public Service Alliance of Canada have asked for an independent inquiry.
There has been much correspondence, including correspondence with the present Prime Minister and when he was Leader of the Opposition. He took some interest in the case and hoped that it would be resolved. I would suggest that it is not good enough to take an interest or to say, as he said: "Over 30 months have passed since Mrs. Goligher's resignation and, as public interest in this case appears to be increasing over time, 1 hope that you"-and this was directed to the Minister in question-"will personally give this case the consideration it merits".
I will tell the House what consideration this case merits. It merits an independent inquiry and action accordingly. There should be a possibility of this inquiry establishing, as I expect it would, that Ms. Goligher is perfectly competent and should be in that position. The relevant authorities should be given the option of putting her back into that position, or another suitable position should be found for her.
October 31, 1985

It is important that justice be done. It is important for us in Canada, now that we are beginning to see women treated equally in the workplace and beginning to get promotions, that women be able to do their jobs. This is why I call upon the Government this evening to set up an independent inquiry to make employment equity a reality, not make it mere rhetoric.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member bringing this matter forward. I want her to know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) are concerned about it, and I want to put some facts on the record.
The Hon. Member made the point that the Prime Minister has taken an interest in the matter. I think it is important for that to be on the record. The Prime Minister and the Government are adamant about equality for women in the Public Service.
My information is that Mrs. Goligher joined the Public Service in July, 1976. In September, 1980, she was promoted to the position of Chief of Eletronic Processing Section in the London regional office of the Department of Supply and Services. Obviously that was a responsible supervisory position. My information is that she was a competent employee and that management, at no time, had any intention of dismissing her for any reason.
On August 10, 1981, she submitted her resignation without reasons, and this took effect on August 24, 1981. Since that time she has made considerable efforts to convince Members of Parliament, union officials, departmental management and independent tribunals that her resignation was submitted under duress, at a time of emotional stress, that it should be rescinded and that she should be reinstated to her position.
Ms. Goligher has made the following formal applications to independent bodies, in each case alleging that her resignation was submitted under duress and should be rescinded. The formal bodies are the following: the Public Service Commission Investigations Directorate, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court Trial Division and the Public Service Commission Anti-Discrimination Directorate. In every case the independent body dismissed her complaint, finding no evidence of duress or disciplinary motive on the part of management.
The Hon. Member, who in my experience does not bring forward these matters, lightly, has asked for an independent inquiry. I submit that these inquiries are about as independent as one can get. If there is some reason that they are not independent, I would like to know. In fact, I think every Member of the House would like to know. Mr. Speaker, do I have 10 minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You have three minutes.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am trying to do something here, and I do not need to be heckled. I would like to talk to the Hon. Member
Adjournment Debate
afterwards because if there is a case, I want to hear about it. If those five bodies are not independent, I want to hear about it, as do the Government and every Member of the House. I think that is the important thing which the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) should realize.
We have tried to find her alternate employment in the London area, and I think that is the productive solution in this case. However, if there is any question that those inquiries were not independent, I want to know, and I want to follow up on that particular aspect with the Hon. Member right now.


AGRICULTURE-SASKATCHEWAN FARMERS' LOSSES. (B) REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on October 16 I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) inquiring as to when the Government would come forward with financial assistance for the people in Saskatchewan and Alberta who suffered as a result of the worst drought in the history of western Canada, certainly since 1937. I had an opportunity to visit Assiniboia this summer and to see some of the devastation which was clearly biblical in proportions.
On September 10, I put a question to the Minister. It was the first day Parliament came back after the summer recess. He said at that time that he was waiting for the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) to make a report and that he would have it in a couple of weeks. I put another question to him some two weeks ago, and he said that he would be taking it to Cabinet.
The real problem with the Minister is that he has no clout. I do not doubt for a moment that he wants to do something, but he has zero impact on his cabinet colleagues and on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), because he never gets an answer to anything. I could run through a list of at least a half dozen items. Canadian farmers are waiting for stabilization payments and stabilization agreements. They are waiting for action on the part of the Government, whether it be on potatoes, sugar-beets or the farm debt crisis. The new Government of Ontario which was elected in July brought down its Budget this past week and announced a $50 million program to assist with the farm debt crisis.
It is not only that the Minister cannot get decisions; when he makes up his mind to do something he proceeds to change it. This summer he announced that he would bring in legislation fearlessly dealing with a pre-foreclosure arbitration procedure for farmers facing foreclosures or bankruptcies. He backed down on that this week right here on the floor of the House of Commons.
The disaster faced in western Canada and in terms of the agricultural portfolios of the Government are not only apparent to Hon. Members on this side of the House. I should like to refer to a Canadian Press report out of Saskatoon earlier this week which indicated:
A conference involving a who's who of Saskatchewan agriculture evolved into an Ottawa-bashing session Monday.

October 31, 1985
Adjournment Debate
I point out that this conference was sponsored by Grant Devine, the Tory Premier of Saskatchewan. It continued:
About 450 producers, grain and chemical company officials, farm leaders and a smattering of provincial politicians attended the Toward a National Agriculture Policy Conference.
Just to show that the agricultural community is totally fed up with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), 1 will read into the record what Lome Hehn, President of the United Grain Growers, a farmer-owned grain company, had to say, according to a Canadian Press telex:
Federal Agriculture Minister John Wise and Charles Mayer, Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, are not the men who can make fundamental changes in Canadian agriculture policy, Hehn said:
"Our lobby should be with (Prime Minister) Mulroney and (Deputy Prime Minister) Nielsen, not with Mr. Mayer and Mr. Wise," Hehn said.
Hehn went on to say that that is why it is so fitting that we have this conference with Premier Devine. Obviously the problem is a massive one. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deliver to the Minister that message from the farmers of western Canada who are totally fed up with the inaction and lack of decision by the Government.
Clearly there is a massive agricultural disaster in western Canada costing somewhere in the order of $2 billion. The Saskatchewan western wheat pools have called on the Government for an assistance program of $50 per seeded acre in order to help get the producers through this disastrous situation. It is time the Government stopped hobbling around on this matter and made it clear to the agricultural producers on the Prairies and in the drought regions that it will come forward and provide this assistance which is simply desperately needed in western Canada today.
There is no excuse for putting this matter off any longer. The report the Hon. Member for Assiniboia was working on last summer was brought before the Government a month and a half ago. It went to the Cabinet a couple of weeks ago. It is time the Government made a decision and announced the assistance it will make available to the literally thousands of farmers, many of whom are already in a difficult financial position. It is time the Government got those cheques in the mail.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to reply to my hon. colleague for Algoma (Mr. Foster) about the problem he has raised. It is not the first time that we deal with the issue in this House, and if we put both the question and the situation in their proper context, I think that the Hon. Member will have to admit that our Government has assumed its responsibilities and responded as diligently as possible to the requests of producers affected by the drought.

The Hon. Member asked if the Government can give any hope at all to the young farmers who are suffering severe
financial difficulties as a result of the drought and in particular what the Government is doing about the request for an acreage payment. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) replied at the time, Cabinet is now considering the recommendations made by the task force headed by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). My hon. friend knows that.
In further response to the first question put by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) regarding the over-all problem of farm income on the Prairies, I would like to remind the Hon. Member and the House of the many concrete actions that have in fact been taken by the Government to assist western farmers in the past years.
One of our first actions on October 1, 1984, was to implement a $60 million Livestock Drought Assistance Program in co-operation with the prairie provinces. That is a great deal of money.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It was Liberal money.


Pierre Blais: You speak about Liberal money. Do you also speak about the Liberal deficit? Do you talk about the $200 billion deficit? We do not speak of that. It is your deficit and not ours.
A month later we announced a $123 million final payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Program. That is a great deal of money as well. I am sure the Hon. Member opposite will say that it too is Liberal money. It is always Liberal money. When we give something it is Liberal money and when we spend money it is Progressive Conservative money; is that what the Hon. Member would suggest? We cannot understand that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Tell us what you are going to do this fall.


Pierre Blais: Also, in November we provided emergency cash advances under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act to help farmers in the Peace River district of British Columbia who could not harvest their grain because of snow cover. We could give a great many examples with respect to other years and the help we gave to farmers everywhere in Canada. [Translation]
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr, Foster) will recognize that our Government has taken a stand on this issue, which is more than his colleagues did for twenty years.


SHIPBUILDING (A) CONSTRUCTION OF FRIGATES IN MONTREAL. (B) THE SITUATION IN EAST MONTREAL-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who spoke before me took a stand, but it was down on his knees. That is normal for him.
October 31, 1985

1 think that everyone is aware of the problem which now exists in Montreal East. Because of the inertia of this Conservative Government, Montreal East could lose 5,000 jobs. At this very moment, they are 5,000 workers who are unable to decide whether they can buy Christmas presents for their children.
1 know that the Parliamentary Secretary will read me a text prepared by officials and tell me that so many thousands of jobs have been created.
Mr. Speaker, my question was addressed mainly to the Minister of Supply and Services and concerned the risk of a close-down by the Vickers plant in Montreal. The problem is that, in a spirit of equity and to distribute jobs equitably in Quebec and the rest of Canada, the previous Government has decided to grant contracts for the manufacture of three frigates to the Versatile Vickers shipyards in Montreal to ensure employment equity with the Lauzon shipyards in Levis, and as they were not on the list of accepted bidders for the building of the frigates, the previous Government had decided to grant them a contract to repair five ships under the TRUMP Program. This was a political decision, a contract without a call for tenders, for the purpose of distributing jobs throughout Quebec and Canada and in the Maritime provinces.
Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, Versatile Vickers decided to purchase the Lauzon shipyards and to cancel the previous contract and have the frigates built in Lauzon rather than in Montreal.
The Parliamentary Secretary will say that there is nothing legally binding in the contract. This was a political decision to create jobs in the three Quebec shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, if the Government had wanted these frigates to be built in Quebec, it would not have asked Paramax to set up shop in Montreal, but in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, let us say that this Conservative Government is so very much afraid of employers, so very much dependent on their party contributions, that it will not have the guts to compel the Vickers management to live up to its previous commitments. Supposing that it cannot do that, it can say: OK. The Vickers firm has decided to build the frigates in Lauzon. The $650 million contract which the previous Government had adjudicated to the Lauzon shipbuilding yards to repair the five ships, together with the other $500 million, you are going to execute in Montreal, where it is not going to cost taxpayers a cent, the contract is not yet signed, and we are going to save directly 650 jobs at the Vickers shipbuilding plant.
Mr. Speaker, let us say that they lack the courage to talk to the company management-perhaps they are too deeply involved with the election funds-they can adjudicate the contract to Versatile Vickers in Montreal for the next ships which would require repair jobs, and the Minister had forbiden all shipbuilding firms to bid, supposedly because of the ice on
Adjournment Debate
the river .. . And we know there were underhand dealings for the benefit of. .. because the decision was made after the new Minister was appointed.
Mr. Speaker, it is a human problem and a human tragedy. It is not a matter of statistics or unemployment, not a matter of principle. It is a human problem.
My colleague from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was with me when we met the employees of Vickers. All those people are between 50 and 55 years of age, Mr. Speaker. They all learned their trades on the job and not at school. They worked strenuously to obtain what they have today, to raise their children and look after their family.
They are proud. And I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if this Government does not move in to save the jobs of those people, their life will be shattered. They want to work, they do not want to be on welfare or live on unemployment insurance benefits. They do not want, as was announced yesterday, to pay $500 per day to have an expert look into the problem. There is no need for research, for any scientist or economist. There is only one organization in Canada which can let contracts for boat repairs and it is the Government of Canada.
The Prime Minister of Canada during the election campaign in Montreal promised publicly before a large crowd that Montreal would become an international city. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister actually closed down Schefferville, but I can tell him that the people in Eastern Montreal will not let him shut their place down.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is doing this on purpose, but I think that under the circumstances . .. Even before answering his question I would like to congratulate him on his decision to stay with us. Apparently provincial powers had been arguing over him, they simply had to have him, but his ultimate reaction and soul-searching decision was to stay here in Ottawa with us and forego a provincial career. But considering this is October 31, Mr. Speaker, he seems to be changing and I almost see him as a witch with a pumpkin walking the streets of Montreal East. He talks about electoral slush funds and suggests that is exactly what is involved in this case, yet he knows full well his own Government got mixed up in this contract with the St. John's shipyards, that a subcontract was awarded, he knows that. He spoke about it. Never did his Government have anything to do with this. When it was time, his Government did not even bother to ask for a special provision as they could have done. No, Sir, it did not matter in those days!


Jean-Claude Malépart: It was decided a month ago!

October 31, 1985
Adjournment Debate


Pierre Blais: All you had to do was to provide for that in the contract. You did not, so now there is no provision for that in the contract. We cannot... I wish the Elon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) would stop action up with his pumpkin! Let me speak. 1 listened to you, so hear me out. It is my turn. We each have our turn here!
What strikes me as being rather obvious in all this, Mr. Speaker, is that when we needed those people a few years ago they were not there, they were not there to create the 300,000-odd jobs that we have created in one year. That is what the Government has done, Mr. Speaker. In this case, he knows very well that there is nothing we can do from a legal standpoint. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) responded to the appeal of Members of our Party from the Montreal region who got together. The Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) held
the first meeting with his colleagues and the Minister. On a few hours' notice, the Minister met with union and management representatives and did everything he could legally do in the circumstances.
However, since the previous Government had failed to take the most elementary precautions, the company has the right to do what it wants to do, to deal with whom it wishes, in a country where free enterprise reigns. Those are the facts, my hon. friend, and you ought to know, though you said nothing during all those years. You could have said so that your Minister at the time. You had the power, but you did nothing!


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 1, 1985