1985-03-27

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Before September 4, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-then Leader of the Opposition-would visit the Eastern Townships and the Bois-Francs region, harping on his favourite theme: job creation.
He promised to spur the asbestos sector, spoke of more active development in forestry, guaranteed that textile and footwear industries would be protected, and committed himself to creating more jobs as a result of better promotion of agri-food business through more intensive research. Practically in the same breath, the Conservative Party emphasized the need to boost and support those sectors whose main objective is external trade-Domtar and asbestos, among others. This region was also slated to become a strategic centre since the cartographic institute was to become reality.
Here is the tally after six months in office. Jobs: hundreds have been lost, thousands more are about to disappear. Asbestos: nothing whatsoever has been done. Footwear: quotas have been slashed. Cartography: the project is under review. Agriculture: pork producers are still waiting for their cheques. Research: Victoriaville's $14 million research project has been cancelled. Domtar: not a single Quebec Minister knows what is going on.
Yet, we are amazed at the haste with which $40 million were handed out to Kruger in the Maritime Provinces, not to mention the $73 million to a western bank, and over $600 million in defence expenditures to please the Americans.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that Members of Parliament, and indeed all Canadians, will join in the appeal brought to us yesterday by the Jewish Students' Network in Canada on behalf of Soviet Jewry. With the emergence of the new Soviet leader, Mr. Gorbachev, we can be hopeful that there will now be an opportunity for a relaxation in the Soviet Union's policy which would permit the emigration of Jews who wish to go to Israel. A realistic goal would be the reinstatement of the Soviet policies of the late 1970s which permitted large numbers of Soviet Jews to leave for Israel.
We also welcome the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) indicating that he intends to take up the case of the Soviet Jews with Soviet authorities when he visits the U.S.S.R. next week. During his visit, I would urge him to endeavour to arrange to meet with the Jewish "Refusenik" groups so that he and we can be briefed on their present difficult situation.


AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the new agreement on oil and gas pricing in Canada initialled yesterday by the Minister of Energy (Miss Carney) and her provincial counterparts in western Canada is further evidence of the Government's positive record of success.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Pennock: This agreement, like the Atlantic Accord, is proof that consultation and co-operation are the way to achieve positive results. For over four years, agreements of this nature eluded the previous administration.
Since September Canada's economy has witnessed growing signs of strength. The unemployment rate has fallen. Investment confidence is strengthening. Consumer spending and manufacturing orders are rising, and interest rates have dropped.
There are tough economic decisions that lie ahead of us, but those decisions will be made after listening to the people of Canada and getting their advice and opinions. The recent

March 27, 1985
economic conference was an opportunity for Canadians to be heard and for politicians to listen.
On September 4 last, the people of Canada placed their confidence in this Government. We have achieved much in seven months. We will achieve more in the next four years.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to urge the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to hand in his resignation to the new Progressive Conservative Government. Requested by the Government to cut $75 million, the President failed to show any understanding for the plight of isolated areas where the service is inadequate and the unemployment rate has reached astronomical proportions as a result of Liberal waste and the absence of any economic policy for 20 years.
Unfortunately and predictably, the cutbacks were apparently not carefully considered, and I have the impression that the nonchalant way our region was dealt with is only the tip of the iceberg. I am therefore convinced that those who helped to "fatten" the system and expand this corporation cannot be expected to have the ability to manage negative growth and take a more reasonable approach.
Since the way the cutbacks are made is more important than the actual amounts involved, I think it would be perfectly legitimate to ask the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to give the new Progressive Conservative Government a chance to appoint a president more attuned to this country's new political and economic principles.
The President of the CBC should therefore have the courage to respond to the demands of a new Canadian reality, as of September 4, because in addition to the $75 million cutbacks, Canada needs an entirely new management style in public affairs, and the new Government should not be expected to take every manager by the hand to put Government spending in 400 Crown corporations and 40 departments on a more rational footing.


APPOINTMENT TO DECISION-MAKING POSITIONS
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is very fond of consultation as we all have noticed. Few major initiatives have been taken by a government paralyzed by indecision and uncertainty. However, there is a consensus in Canada the Government has not yet discovered, a consensus supported by all Canadians, and I am referring to the view that more women should be appointed to decision-making positions on the boards of Crown corporations, in government agencies and on commissions. This is a genuine consensus that is supported by all the polls.
Even if the Government keeps giving us the assurance that appointing women to management positions is one of its priorities, that is obviously not what is happening. Last week, at Air Canada, only one of thirteen appointees was a woman. That is 7 per cent, Mr. Speaker. On a committee of experts in botany, two out of eight appointees were women and this was two out of five at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Incredible!


Lucie Pépin: If the Government is so keen on governing by consensus, it should appoint women to decision-making positions, and it would certainly be a good thing for Canada.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, in 1981 Parks Canada initiated the Four Mountain Parks Planning Program to develop long-range management plans for Banff, Jasper, Kootenay, and Yoho National Parks. This program included extensive public consultation during which the vast majority of participants rejected wholesale tourist-oriented development within these parks in favour of little or no development, in keeping with Parks Canada's own mandate which puts first priority on ecological and historical integrity. The consensus in this regard was overwhelming, yet Parks Canada ignored popular will and recently proposed a prodevelopment management plan for the four mountain parks block. Is the new parks policy of the Conservative Government to ignore public opinion, to turn our national parks into Disneylands, and to sacrifice our environmental heritage to the market-place?
The year 1985 is the 100th anniversary of Parks Canada. All Canadians are justifiably proud of our national parks, and this should a be a year of celebration. Instead, ever since the election of the Tories, a dark, disturbing cloud of cut-backs, insensitivity, and uncertainty, has descended on our national parks system. I call on the Government to respect the mandate of Parks Canada, the wishes of the majority of Canadians, and our environmental heritage, by rejecting Parks Canada's prodevelopment scenario for Banff, Jasper, Kootenay, and Yoho National Parks.
March 27, 1985


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for over 100 years Canada has stood as a rock of freedom in an often troubled and tormented world. This country was built by hardworking, dedicated individuals who came to Canada because they could be free here, free to prosper, and free to speak out and participate in a democratic society that treated them as equals. For many, the greatest freedom of all was the freedom to worship in their own way.
Last week in my riding I met with a group of people whose friends and relatives, who live in another country, are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs. They spoke of the torture, killings, and beatings which have been perpetrated by the Government on these religious followers. All these people want is the freedom to worship God in their own way.
To us in Canada religious freedom is a basic and fundamental right. Yet, for millions of people around the world it is not. Let us always be mindful and thankful of the freedoms and rights for which this country has proudly stood. In addition, let us, as Canadians, remain committed to maintaining our freedoms and continuing to set an example for other countries of the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AID
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, the power of music is used to soothe, to uplift, and to seduce. Now, Canadian musical artists have combined their talents to use the power of music to persuade Canadians to help feed the starving people of Africa.
We have all heard the record Tears Are Not Enough, the Canadian music community's response to an international call for help. I am proud to inform the House that the genesis of this unique venture occurred in my riding of Capilano, British Columbia. There, world acclaimed producer David Foster wrote the words, while Bryan Adams and Jack Vallance created the music. Others such as Bruce Allen and Terry David Mulligan formed the Northern Lights for Africa Society which will donate the proceeds from the sales of the record, the video, and the CBC documentary on the making of this record, to the African Famine Relief.
Fifty-five Canadian artists gathered together in a studio on a cold February afternoon and spent 15 hours to record the song, without recompense, and forgoing other engagements. Anne Murray, Cory Hart, Robert Charlebois, and Liona Boyd are just some whose generosity is only exceeded by their artistry.
Yes, we have a new hit in the Canadian recording industry, but it will be Canadians across the country who support this venture and transform music into dollars for famine relief. In the words of the song:
We can learn to share
And show how much we care
We can make the difference
Don't you know that tears are not enough?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his annual report. At that time he stated:
The Canadian Government, indeed Canadians generally, need to wake up to the fact that progressive polarization threatens the probable extinction of most French-speaking minorities outside Quebec and, by ricochet, drastic reductions of the English freedoms within that province.
That is an alarming statement for both English and Frenchspeaking minorities. However, I would like to advise the House that the ricochet effect has already started.
For some time the Anglophone minority in Quebec have been subject to repeated attacks on their language rights. Since 1981, 90,000 Anglophones have left that province. The situation has been equally critical for our French-speaking brothers in other provinces.
As well, the Commissioner made the following pleas. He urged the new Tory Government to use its financial and regulatory clout to extend bilingualism in the private sector. He urged the Government to help Canadians who go to the courts seeking delivery of minority language rights under the Charter of Rights. Finally, he urged the Government not to undercut language reform through spending cuts in the Budget which is to be brought down in May.
We support these measures and we urge the Government to respond positively to these recommendations as soon as possible.

Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians watched with appreciation yesterday as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and her provincial counterparts announced in principle a new energy accord with the producing western provinces. This agreement is the result of skilful leadership by the Minister. It also fulfils another of my Party's election promises, that is, a new approach to energy development in Canada.
3408

March 27, 1985
Oral Questions
More important, however, it indicates the priority this Government places on the oil and gas industry and its importance to all Canadians. It recognizes the potential of this industry to grow, to be an economic multiplier, to help Canada become more energy self-sufficient and to create jobs in various parts of the economy.
Equally important, it sounds the death knell of that most devastating energy policy developed by the previous Government, which contributed so dramatically to the loss of jobs and the downturn in our economy, especially in western Canada. The Minister's announcement signals another step in Canada's road to economic recovery. It demonstrates the value of thoughtful progressive leadership.

[DOT] (MIS)


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Pat McGeer, Minister of Universities, Science and Communications in the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister not advise the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada had been asked to participate in star wars research? Why did the Prime Minister allow his Minister to hang in the wind yesterday, because he was not able to respond directly? Was it because there is a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Could the Prime Minister clarify the position of the Government on this issue?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the clarification, if required-and I think my right hon. friend would acknowledge this-is that a communication was delivered to the Deputy Prime Minister in Luxembourg. Given the different time zones and time frames, I think any fair minded person would agree that obviously net everything is instantaneous. Having said that, I think there is no doubt but
that the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has set out the position of this Government on that and other issues, with great courage, thoroughness, and dignity. I salute him for that because I know that that calm and reasoned approach finds favour with the Canadian people, and I hope with my right hon. friend.


YOUTH-USE OF FUNDS FOR JOB CREATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the Prime Minister did not answer the question. I have a supplementary.
If Canada were to participate in U.S. Star Wars research, this would oblige the Government to spend several billion dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money on a U.S. arms program. It would be naive to think otherwise. Would it not be better to spend those billions on creating jobs for our young Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that the Government is going to do what he probably would have done himself in similar circumstances. When we receive a request from our allies, we discuss it in Cabinet and make a decision as soon as our schedule permits. We have just received this invitation. I am now going to submit it to my Cabinet colleagues, and we shall announce our decision to the House in the near future.
For instance, we recently received a request from the Prime Minister of Israel and from Egypt, asking us to consider the possibility of replacing the Australian contingent on a peace mission in the Middle East. That is a proposal, an invitation we have just received. We are going to submit it to Cabinet and we shall announce our decision in due time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course the Secretary of State knew about Israel's invitation because it was made to him directly. I might say that this Party would support the Government's participation in replacing the Australians in that particular enterprise.


JOB CREATION FACTOR
John Napier Turner: The
Prime Minister said, or is reported to have said, that if star wars will create jobs then we should consider taking part. That is how he was reported. Does the Prime Minister think that there is some burning desire among Canadians, particularly young Canadians, to make a living off the escalation of the nuclear arms race?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that if a proposal were brought forward consistent with the requirements of the ABM Treaty which
March 27, 1985

could create, say, 10,000 jobs in Winnipeg-Fort Garry, we would take a look at it.
Unless my right hon. friend is saying that job creation and the dignity of human beings in Canada are unimportant, and I do not believe that, and unless he is suggesting that this Party is a Party of warmongers, after we fought off the Liberals on the question of nuclear arms-remember Mr. Diefenbaker fought you to a standstill and prevented nuclear arms from coming into this country. That is the position of this Party.
The last time nuclear arms were allowed on Canadian soil, it was by the Liberal Party of Canada, and Canadians will never forget it. That is the difference between you and I.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for the Prime Minister to rewrite history, but we are dealing with the problems of today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was there at that time. I was not a backroom boy; I got elected in those days.


CANADIAN POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is seriously considering the Americans' request for us to participate in star wars, will he live up to the reputation of Canadians, that we have always been on the side of peace, and not get into an adventure which will lead to escalation of the arms race around the world?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are very conscious of the tradition, in which this Party has played an honourable role, of searching for a durable peace in the world. I think my hon. friend would agree that it was not the most glorious moment in the distinguished history of the Liberal Party when it reversed itself and accepted nuclear arms on Canadian soil. I know you would be as ashamed of that today as you were then.


Miss MacDonald:: So was Pierre Trudeau.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact a very distinguished Canadian, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, then a very distinguished journalist, said that the Liberals were the defrocked princes of peace for what you did on the nuclear arms issue.
This Party will always be here to protect the integrity of Canada and make sure that our approach to the quest for a durable peace is always serious and at the top of our priorities.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was around in those days and 1 remember the Minister of Veterans Affairs having to resign because the Diefenbaker Government broke its word. The same thing happened with the resignation of Douglas Hark-ness, who had to resign because Mr. Diefenbaker was breaking his word.
Oral Questions


PARLIAMENTARY RESOLUTION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister if he is about to break the word of this Parliament, given a year ago when he was Leader of the Opposition, when all in this House agreed that Canada would never participate in any way, shape or form in star wars?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should go back-


Mr. McDermid:: Who is rewriting history now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, he is rewriting history, not of years ago but of months ago.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Three weeks ago he said they were against it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I take seriously the observations of my hon. friend. I think he would take seriously the fact that, because it is not a partisan matter, we have no lessons to learn from anyone in regard to our commitment to the strength of our allies and the sincerity of our desire to be of assistance in the procurement of a durable and honourable peace. There is nothing more important to Canadians, irrespective of their political views, and nothing brings Canadians together with more certainty than the assurance that this Government, any national Government, is deeply and irretrievably committed to a genuine search for a peaceful solution and de-escalation of nuclear tensions in the world. Nothing is more important, and we are committed to that to the fullest.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why are you reversing yourself?


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last year, following the patronage appointments by Messrs. Trudeau and Turner of over 200 Liberal individuals, the Prime Minister indicated that he had joined the majority of Canadians who were sick and tired of this kind of partisan appointment to serious jobs. At that time he said specifically that if he were elected he would make a basic change in the whole approach. Since then there have been Conservative appointees to Air Canada, Via Rail, the Senate, and Citizenship Courts, to name just a few. Instead of 200 appointees, we have now had over 1,000 Conservative appointees.


Some Hon. Members:: More! More!


John Edward Broadbent: They are yelling "more". More pigs at the trough, that is what they are yelling on the other side. Where is the change? Why is Conservative patronage any better than Liberal patronage?

March 27, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, before my hon. friend dissolves in exasperation, I would like to tell him that I have spent a very long weekend looking for Conservative appointments made by the NDP Government of Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Try as 1 might, Mr. Speaker, and I have a fine eye in this matter, I could not find a single one. In contrast, this Party has appointed distinguished people like Stephen Lewis, and Mrs. Gold to the chairmanship of the Committee on the Status of Women. Long after these people opposite should have done so, we recognized the distinguished service of Tommy Douglas and appointed him to the Privy Council of Canada. Many other distinguished NDP members have been appointed, and there will be more, because we believe that the Public Service and these appointments should reflect the best of Canada.
Having said that, I have been talking to my friend, a very distinguished parliamentarian, the Member for St. John's East, who, with his task force on parliamentary reform, will hopefully be bringing forward some mechanism that will allow us all to improve on what was a very sad and sorry Liberal record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the facts stand for themselves. To understate it, 95 per cent of the appointees whom the Government has named have been Conservatives. The Prime Minister knows it. The only reason they got the appointments was because they were Conservative, and the whole country knows that as well.


VIA RAIL CHAIRMAN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, last October the Government froze the wages of all the working people in VIA Rail so that they could make their contributions to the viability of the government of that entity. Having done that, how could the Government announce, just two days ago, that the new chairman of VIA Rail, a former Conservative candidate, would have his salary increased to $135,000? Why is there one sense of justice for ordinary workers and another for Tory patronage?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were to be fair, I think he would recognize that it has been my privilege, as Prime Minister, to make more non partisan appointments in six months than any of my predecessors whom anyone in this House can remember.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Lawrence Hanigan is widely regarded as an outstanding leader in mass transportation in Canada. If I
recollect accurately, the Montreal Gazette pointed out with considerable pride the accomplishments of Mr. Hanigan in this field. He is a very distinguished Canadian and Quebecer who, it is true, once stood for the Progressive Conservative Party. Given his remarkable record of accomplishments over a long period of time, I do not think that that should disqualify him from serving as chairman in an area of public endeavour where he has received such high marks over the years. 1 think you should be standing up and congratulating us for this fine public service appointment.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister should go to all the workers in VIA Rail and explain to them why they should have their wages frozen while this man gets an increase up to $135,000 a year. Let him explain that to the working people of Canada.


APPOINTMENT OF FORMER SPEAKER TO CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question concerns a sacred trust that the Prime Minister entered into during the television debates. He said: "A series of appointments should be looked at attentively by House of Commons committees." "I propose to you tonight," he said to the people of Canada, "that this notion be extended so that all political appointments, for example to the CTC, be approved by a House committee." A sacred trust. How could the Prime Minister make that commitment on the one hand and then, after he obtained office, appoint Marcel Lambert, a former Conservative MP, to the CTC? It is the CTC about which he said appointments should not be made unless approved by a committee of the House.
In addition to his response, will he tell us that there will be no more such appointments coming from the Government until he sets up a committee to vet all such appointments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at the splenetic observations of the Hon. Member. He disparages a former Speaker of the House who served here for 25 years.
If my hon. friend is going to criticize me for it, 1 will accept the criticism because it is true that we have appointed people with previous political backgrounds, including Marcel Lambert, Lloyd Francis, and Stephen Lewis, and I am proud of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Ed, stand up again.


An Hon. Member:: Let Ian ask the questions. He did so well yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We did so well yesterday.
March 27, 1985


AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN PROVINCES-MINISTER'S ROLE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources signed an agreement with the three oil producing provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I would not have done so, but I draw your attention to the fact that not one Member of the Tory caucus or the Cabinet, for that matter, knows what is in the agreement, and yet they have the audacity to stand here and insult their constituents who want them to act independently. They applaud an agreement-the form, not the substance. She could have sold the farm and they would still be standing up like trained seals applauding.
Let me refer to the text of a wire communique which I have in front of me. It says that the Minister said the Prime Minister gave her free rein to negotiate the agreement. "But before making the details of the pact public," she said, "I owe him the courtesy of telling him what I initialled." I ask the Prime Minister if it is true that he gave the Minister of Energy a free rein to negotiate an agreement which affects billions of dollars of federal government revenue and to initial what she pleased?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when he had the First Ministers' Conference the Hon. Member from Westmount went on TV and said that it made him ill. The last time there were energy negotiations, the Member for Saint-Maurice was on the phone to Marc Lalonde and Marc Lalonde was saying: "Don't do this or you are out."


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I signed twice, and no delays.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You signed all right-with invisible ink.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what you signed. We know all about your deals.
In point of fact, I see my hon. friend from Westmount is stumbling from success to success here.


Mr. Gauthier:: You are fumbling from joke to joke.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources goes with the full support of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues, with whom all of this was amply discussed.
The difference is that I have full confidence in my Ministers and I encourage them to go out and innovate, accept the responsibilities, and make deals that benefit western Canada and all of Canada.


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


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I recognize in the gallery the presence of the distinguished Mayor of Westmount. But that is no reason for the Prime Minister to insist on forgetting that my riding is Saint-Henri-Westmount. I am sure the mayor would agree with that.


TAX REVENUE INQUIRY
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Prime Minister's answer it seems to me that the Minister did not have a free rein. I am less nervous about the agreement as is the Minister of Finance, I suppose.
It is clear from the response of the producing provinces that the PGRT will be reduced or eliminated.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The rumour is that he is seriously examining a value added tax, which will affect every transaction of every Canadian in every walk of life, to replace the revenue that will be lost through the reduction or elimination of the PGRT. Will that happen? Yes or no?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I have been in close consultation on this on a regular basis in order to find a solution to the energy problems that the country has been beset with since October, 1980.
We feel that the result will be extremely good for western Canada, eastern Canada, and all Canadians, in terms of bringing this country together and creating the economic growth to create the jobs that are needed.


APPROACH TO WORLD PRICE LEVEL
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I would remind him that Premier Lougheed and Prime Minister Trudeau drank a champagne toast to the previous oil agreement. It did not work out exactly right.
While we do not know the details of the oil agreement, we know that the Government is moving to deregulate and go to world price. That has a potential short run effect of reducing the price at the gas pump for consumers. Will the Minister of Finance agree in principle that such benefits should be passed on to the consumers and not be absorbed by the Government through petroleum compensation charge collections, or by the oil companies pocketing windfall profits?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, I said in my statement last November that the petroleum compensation charge would be phased out. As far as the profitability of the oil companies is concerned, they have demonstrated a willingness to reinvest these profits in the Canadian economy to find oil and gas production, as well as to create the jobs that Hon. Members

March 27, 1985
Oral Questions
are asking us to encourage. Surely you cannot have it both ways. Either the oil companies will do what is right for the country and create jobs, or they will take their money and go elsewhere. We want them to leave their money here, create the jobs, and find the oil and gas production.


INVESTMENT BY FOREIGN OWNED OIL COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the majority of the oil industry is still foreign owned and those big multinationals will benefit by going to the world price because they will get a windfall when their old oil moves to the world oil price.
Is the Minister prepared to introduce real legislation that will require these foreign oil companies to reinvest the windfalls they will get, in Canada? Will he also indicate to the House whether he is prepared to protect the consumer in the long run when the price of oil is liable to skyrocket again if there is an OPEC oil crisis, now that we are dependent on the OPEC price? Will he protect the consumer in the long run from the effects of drastic increases in this free market for oil?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon. Member asked two questions. First, are we confident that the oil companies will reinvest their cash flows into the Canadian economy and create the jobs? Yes, we believe they will. My colleague, the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources, and I have had extensive discussions and we are confident that they will do that and that they will create the jobs that we need here in Canada.
The second part of the question, I believe, was whether there would be some protection for the consumer in the event that, under price decontrol, there was a spike in the oil and gas price. That is something we propose to do.

[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages was tabled in the House yesterday. The least that can be said is that it is an alarming report for francophones, for a bilingual Canada, and for those who believe in linguistic equity.
Considering that the Federal Government must set the example and be the driving force in linguistic matters, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to introduce a Bill in the not too distant future with a view to reinforcing the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to enable him to promote, encourage and even require linguistic equity, or, to put it another way, to meet the wishes of Canadians to have a public service sector that closely reflects the example they are giving?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is raising a very important issue. In the November Throne Speech, we indicated that as a Government we feel that bilingualism has to be a vital aspect of our national existence, a sentiment that is widely shared, 1 believe. Like my colleague, I am concerned about the undoubtedly justified remarks of the commissioner and, this morning, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister to make early arrangements to convene all Deputy Ministers in the Public Service so that we might undertake an operational analysis to enable us to define the parameters required for such a Bill.


FRENCH AS LANGUAGE OF WORK IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In his report the Commissioner of Official Languages mentions the progress we have made in Canada in the language of education and the language of communication, and he raises the important question of the language of work in the Public Service of Canada.
Is the Government prepared to explain to the Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs its policy concerning the important question of the language of work in the Public Service of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not look into that aspect of the question, but I think it is a very reasonable suggestion. If people cannot work in French, it is a myth, and everything must be done to maintain the integrity of that instrument, that cultural and linguistic wealth, either by coercion, or by making sure that it will be sought after as an instrument of work. The remarks of my colleague are quite appropriate and I will give them due consideration.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister who talked earlier about aspects of Canada's history as a promoter of peace, as a peacemaker and his wish to have his Government continue on this path. This is very commendable, and it would be even more commendable if the Prime Minister would say now, today, clearly, that Canada and the Canadian Government are opposed to the militarization of outer space and will not take any part whatsoever in research or otherwise in any development of an anti-ballistic missile system.
March 27, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I were to make that comment without consulting with my Cabinet colleagues, the Hon. Member would accuse me of running a presidential-style government. We are opposed to a presidential-style government. This is a parliamentary democracy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I believe in consulting with my colleagues before making statements. I do not think that my hon. friend would find in my background, or in the background of this Party, anything other than initiatives designed to assist in the achieving of a durable and helpful process that will result in peace for the world.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, we may have to treat the Prime Minister like a president because two of his Cabinet colleagues, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, are going in opposite directions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: We have to ask him what path it is we are to understand that Canada is following.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION INQUIRY
Pauline Jewett: I ask
the Prime Minister again will he support his Secretary of State for External Affairs who said last month that Canada would not participate in any way in the star wars project?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have to protect myself from time to time against misquotation. I have just been misquoted, I am sure inadvertently, by the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam.
The statement was that at the time the Government of Canada had no plans for any kind of involvement in any way with the Strategic Defence Initiative. As the Hon. Member will know, the Government of Canada, along with all of the other members of that alliance she now wants to join, NATO, has now received a formal invitation to consider participation in research that is consistent with the ABM treaty, under the Strategic Defence Initiative.


Pauline Jewett: You have heard about it? I am glad you have heard about it.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: We are going to consider that proposal.


Mr. Benjamin:: Send it back unopened.
Oral Questions


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada. Last Monday, the Telegraph Journal reported that the Solicitor General had decided to reduce the proportion of bilingual positions at the new penitentiary institution in Renous from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. In the light of statements by the Commissioner of Official Languages who deplores the state of bilingualism in Canada, and especially in the light of the Prime Minister's reply, to the effect that bilingualism is a vital issue, does the Minister intend to maintain his decision?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the measures taken with respect to hiring at the Atlantic Institution, or Renous as it is sometimes known, were designated in the light of the best interests of local residents for hiring purposes. These measures are not written in stone. For my hon. friend to raise it in this context shows that he lacks a certain appreciation of fairness and local conditions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nunziata:: Look who's talking. What about Hatfield? And you talk about fairness.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Since New Brunswick has been officially recognized as a bilingual province, and especially since the Solicitor General has a rather special relationship with our Premier, and Premier Hatfield, in his better moments, sees himself as the defender of Acadian rights, did the Minister consult the Premier prior to reaching this decision?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I am always prepared to listen to representations from my colleagues, or provincial Premiers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Which room in the Chateau?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I repeat to my friend opposite that this particular measure was taken after consultation with the Commissioner of CSC who is, himself, a Francophone from New Brunswick. It was not done with any intent to be unfair to anyone except to promote the best interests of local residents and to provide maximum utilization of local people at this new institution.

March 27, 1985
Oral Questions


FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
possibilities in this area, despite the heavy financial burden we have inherited. I hope to be able to make an announcement in this connection in the near future.
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Since forestry is important to Quebec's economy, and especially to the economy of a region like Abitibi-Temiscamingue, I would like to ask the Minister when, further to the general agreement signed with Quebec on regional economic development, he intends to sign a subsidiary agreement on the forestry industry?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, it is true that we are anticipating further arrangements with Quebec concerning the forestry industry in that province. When an announcement is to be made, it will be made by my colleague, the Minister of State for Forestry.


MAPPING INSTITUTE IN QUEBEC-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Prime Minister that we missed him during the past few days and that the people of the Eastern Townships were anxious to see him return to the House so they can get replies on two important issues, especially the one about the Mapping Institute. The Prime Minister, who has a good memory, will recall that last July he made a formal and solemn commitment to the people of the Eastern Townships that the Sherbrooke project to decentralize mapping activities would be carried out on schedule. Is the Prime Minister a man of his word and can we still take him at his word today?


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in very poor taste to make disparaging remarks about candidates who were beaten in the last election, because the Prime Minister's own people may well be up there in four years' time. Speaking of formal commitments ... last week, before the people from Domtar and representatives from the Eastern Townships, the Prime Minister made a formal commitment to start negotiations with Domtar within the next few days, and that is what he said last Tuesday. Considering this formal commitment, could the Prime Minister explain to the House why Domtar has not yet been contacted by his Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend misunderstood what I said. What I meant was that the good ones were beaten and the others turned up on the other side of the House. I was only pointing out the unfairness of it all, and I am sure the Hon. Member will agree with me.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind Hon. Members that any reference to the presence of anybody in the gallery is not permitted.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I can inform my hon. friend that negotiations are continuing, that progress is being made in the Domtar case, and that I hope to be able to make a statement on the progress of negotiations in the near future.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is somewhat mistaken. As far as formal commitments to move the Mapping Institute is concerned, those were made by the Liberal Party to Sherbrooke in four successive elections, and nothing ever came of it. The Liberal Party misled the people of the Eastern Townships during four successive elections. They misled those people and that is why former Liberal Members are sitting upstairs, not down here in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The people of Quebec knew where they belonged. We on this side of the House are considering several


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On March 15, in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the Prime Minister indicated that in a conversation with Prime Minister Nakasone, a topic of great interest to southwestern Ontario was discussed. I guess we can assume in context that that concerned the automobile industry. There are two possibilities that would interest the people of southwestern Ontario, one, that there is an agreement to continue the automobile quotas on Japanese manufactured
March 27, 1985

automobiles for an additional year, or that there will be a commitment to a level of Canadian manufacture of Japanese automobiles and job creation in Canada proportionate to the Canadian sales of Japanese automobiles. I would ask the Prime Minister which is it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had checked with his Leader yesterday, he would have found that similar questions were put and answers were given. I would suggest that he check Hansard to get the appropriate answer.


DISCUSSION WITH JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Prime Minister. He had the discussion with Prime Minister Nakasone. Did he discuss with the Prime Minister of Japan the issue of quotas being extended for Japanese manufactured automobiles imported into Canada, and did he discuss the imposition of the conditions of the auto pact on Japanese cars, as are imposed upon cars which are manufactured by North American manufacturers, or not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did. As I indicated to the House, I discussed with the Prime Minister the impact of this on Canada generally and southwestern Ontario in particular.


Mr. Deans:: Did he say anything back?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister has announced that since Ernst Zundel was sentenced to 15 months a determination must now be made about his possible deportation. Will the Minister please explain to the House what steps are involved in this process and how long it will take?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the order to launch an inquiry into deportation proceedings for Ernst Zundel was signed today. That inquiry will commence as soon as it is possible, given the arrangements that will have to be made by the adjudicator in this case. I would just add that any further judicial proceedings will depend upon the outcome of that inquiry.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the head clown is back in the House of Commons to get a round of applause from his 211 jerks.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour responsible for CMHC . .. Bissonnette, give him a shove and wake him up!
The Minister knows full well that the residential restoration program is very important to all Canadians and Quebecers alike. Can he tell us why he has decided to reduce Quebec's budget by 35.7 per cent, as compared with only 9 per cent in the case of Ontario?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to that question. For the first time since RRAP has been in place, a form of self-assessment, which was taken from the 1981 census form wherein individual Canadians declared whether they felt their housing was adequate, was used in distributing the dollars that all Canadians put forward as tax dollars for repair and renovation.


ALLEGED PENALIZING OF QUEBEC
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I think the Minister is not too familiar with this file, I am referring to the residential rehabilitation and restoration program, not to insulation.
If the Minister knows what I am talking about, can he tell me why Quebec has been penalized to the tune of 35 per cent, while the cut-back was only 9 per cent in Ontario? Is this another case like Domtar or Melchers, or is it another one of the Prime Minister's promises to be generous towards Quebec? We see now what he meant.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the Hon. Member did not understand repair and renovation. I do, and I know the people of Canada do. I say once more to the Quebec lieutenant of the Liberal Party that we now have in place in Canada a formula for the distribution of tax dollars for repair and renovation which was devised on a self-assessment done in the 1981 census in which individual Canadians said whether they felt their housing was adequate.

March 27, 1985
Petitions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Prime Minister which concern representatives of the Common Front and Domtar workers in Windsor, Quebec. When will the announcement on Domtar be made? And furthermore, could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that this announcement will ensure the continuation of this project which is to provide 5,000 jobs in the Windsor area, in Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think an announcement will be made in the near future, and second, I have every reason to believe that our involvement will be seen as a useful contribution towards reaching a settlement so that construction can proceed.


PROTECTION OF DOMTAR JOBS
Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Domtar is starting to lay off 100 employees working on these projects because of the delay? Bearing that in mind, will a decision be taken very shortly to ensure the continuation of present jobs and the upgrading of both plant and employment in the region?


Martin Brian Mulroney: A decision will be made at a time to be agreed upon by the Government of Quebec and this Government, with a view to promoting economic expansion in the Eastern Townships.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that, with the exception of three, the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, March 26, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), the Hon. Member for Megantic-Comp-ton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the House Leaders of the respective Parties in the House and I think you will find that there will be unanimous consent forthcoming to the following order:
That, in relation to its Order of Reference dated February 7, 1985 concerning the document entitled Child and Elderly Benefits-Consultation Paper, the deadline for submitting the final report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be extended to April 3, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has unanimous consent for the introduction of his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is the motion agreed to?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the petition of the undersigned 17,742 residents of western Canada calling for a free vote of the Members of Parliament on the issue of reinstating capital punishment for the conviction of premeditated murder or the killing of police officers and prison guards.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition of the undersigned 15,957 residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that whereas in the past year the lives of 11 police officers have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is reading the petition. Would the Hon. Member please summarize the petition?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, in the past year 11 police officers have lost their lives and the response of the Canadian public to these tragic events has been to call upon the Government of Canada to take proper action so that a free vote can be held in the House of Commons for the reinstatement of capital pun-
March 27, 1985

ishment for the killing of police officers and others protecting society. In duty bound, your petitioners ever pray. I have the honour to present this petition which was signed by 15,957 residents of Canada.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 17,756 Canadians who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to provide a remedy to prevent the premeditated murdering of human beings including police officers and guards who are in the front line trenches. They are calling on Parliament to hold a free vote to reinstate capital punishment. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition signed by 16,311 Canadians, over 5,000 of whom are from the area of Muskoka. The undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to hold a free vote of its Members on the issue of reinstating capital punishment for the conviction of premeditated murder or the killing of police officers and prison guards. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 44,721 residents of the constituency of Ontario and of Metropolitan Toronto requesting a free vote of the Members of the House of Commons on the reinstatement of capital punishment for the conviction of premeditated murder or the killing of police officers and prison guards.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present on behalf of independent groups, associations and individuals across Canada a petition with 16,486 signatures, bringing the total of signatures to 128,973. Combined with those petitions previously submitted, the total number is 168,250 signatories who are asking for a free vote on capital punishment. These petitions were organized by independent groups and individuals interested in seeing a return to capital punishment.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition presented to me yesterday by the North American Jewish Students' Network. This petition was signed by approximately 800 concerned Canadians who are asking that the Parliament of Canada urge the Soviet Union to release Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky, a Prisoner of Conscience, so that he can be reunited with his wife Avital in Jerusalem.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present signed by over 500 residents of Essex-Windsor requesting the Government to declare Canada
Order Paper Questions
a nuclear-free zone, to oppose Cruise testing and to make clear its commitment to peace in this country in the future.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to present to the House a petition signed by a group of constituents who strongly object to the fact that they have to pay more for gasoline than do Canadians in other provinces. I am tabling the petition.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 153 and 240.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	As of December 31, 1984, what is the total number of inmates in federal institutions?
2.	By Province, how many employees (wardens, assistant wardens, security officers, stenographers, clerks, etc.) are there in federal institutions?
3.	Per inmate, which is the most (a) cost effective (i) maximum (ii) medium security institution (b) expensive (i) maximum (ii) medium security institution?
4.	Was a decision made to install cablevision facilities in federal institutions and, if so, by region (a) on what date (b) at what cost?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1
am informed by the Correctional Service of Canada as follows:
1. As of December 31, 1984, 12,068 inmates were registered.
2. Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
British Columbia Northwest Territories & Yukon
3. (a) Most cost effective:
(i)	Maximum security institution-Saskatchewan Penitentiary
(ii)	Medium security institution-Drumheller Institution (b) Most expensive:
(i) Maximum security institution-Regional Psychiatric Centre, Prairies
-	nil
-	nil
-	311
-	451
-	2,708
-	2,017
-	357
-	686
-	903
-	1,411
nil

March 27, 1985
Order Paper Questions
(ii) Medium security institution-Mission Institution
4. A decision was made in June, 1982 by the senior management of the Correctional Service of Canada to proceed with an evaluation of TV reception in penitentiaries and to carry out, where necessary, the required modifications and installations in order to bring signal reception up to an acceptable standard by using the most cost-effective source. No priorities were established for the project which was to proceed according to available resources within each region.
(a)	Date of first project approved by each region for the installation of a cable distribution network:
Atlantic - April, 1984 Quebec - March, 1983 Ontario - October, 1984 Prairie - June, 1983 Pacific - January. 1984
(b)	Capital cost allocated and/or spent by region to install a cable distribution network and/or an antenna reception system by region:
Atlantic - S 27,065 Quebec - $168,616 Ontario - $ 85,000 Prairie - $208,600 Pacific - $268,348
Inmate labour has been utilized to the greatest extent possible with the limitations of technical expertise and security considerations.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1, 1984 to date, how many drillings have been carried out off the Atlantic coast in search of oil pools?
2.	Flow many of the drillings found an oil pool large enough to be financially feasible for future oil production?
3.	What is the anticipated yield, in barrels, of the oil reserves?


John Horton McDermid: 1. Seventeen exploratory (wildcat) wells (oil and gas) have been drilled, including nine offshore Nova Scotia and eight offshore Newfoundland.
2 and 3. Under Section 50 of the Canada Oil and Gas Act, information on exploratory wells is held confidential for a period of two years, and seismic information on the nature of the structures drilled is held confidential for five years. Therefore, the requested information cannot be released.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Government to move second reading of this Bill which I believe is an important and significant piece of legislation. The Bill is brought before the House as a result of the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which occurred in 1982. Also in 1982, certain provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms-which is now the ultimate law of the land in Canada-particularly those relating to equality matters, were not to come into full force and effect until April 17, 1985, in order to give Governments across the country an opportunity to prepare for the massive changes which will result in Canada and to the system of laws as a result of the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The federal Government, provincial Governments and territorial Governments, once the Charter had been proclaimed, undertook to review their legislation, regulations and administrative practices to ensure that they were consistent with the Charter as far as it could be determined. As a result of the review which has taken place in the Government of Canada, a broad range of federal initiatives were undertaken to bring about conformity with the Charter. This Government assumed office last September and it has moved as quickly as possible to ensure that Canadian laws reflect the values which are enshrined in the Charter.
There has been some cheap criticism of this Bill and the way in which we are dealing with the question of equality issues in the Charter from the spokesman of the Party which was formerly the Government.
March 27, 1985


Mr. Keeper:: Where are they?


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman from the unofficial opposition asks "Where are they?" I ask that question as well. On the day that a Bill is being introduced to amend Canadian laws to ensure that they comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is not one member of the Official Opposition in the House. Let the record show that. Not even the official critic is here! The rat pack has disappeared. They are gnawing away somewhere in the building. They are certainly not in the Chamber, so let the record show that. But in any event, there has been some cheap-


Cyril Keeper: Here they come.


John Carnell Crosbie: The rodents have their snouts coming from behind the curtains as a result of our call. I plead with them to take some interest in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There has been the criticism that we are not moving quickly enough. As a matter of fact, the critic for the Official Opposition wrote to people across Canada suggesting that they should not appear before the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which the House has appointed and requested to do the job of looking at Equality Issues in Federal Law: A Discussion Paper. That paper has been referred to the subcommittee in order that it can take representations from the public across Canada, to involve them in consultation, dialogue and what should be the answers to the policy issues which are raised in the paper. The critic of the Official Opposition actually wrote to groups across Canada suggesting that they not appear before the committee or give their views to the committee because the committee was unnecessary. As he is a member of that committee, I suppose he is hoping that he will have an easy time of it if no one appears before it.
I want to point out that the project of reviewing federal statutes to discover if they comply with the Charter commenced on April 1, 1982. That is when the human rights law section was established in the Department of Justice. For over two years our predecessors were in charge of the operation of reviewing federal statutes to discover whether they complied with the Charter in so far as that could be determined. Of course, the courts will ultimately determine whether they do or do not comply.
I can assure the House that there were no concrete proposals left behind by the predecessor Government with respect to that question. As well, there were no answers left behind by that Government to the questions which are raised in the discussion paper. I would say to the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), who is the official critic for the Official Opposition, that if he has any answers he should give them in committee. If he can give quick answers to these intricate quesions, then the committee can report very quickly if it decides that his answers are correct and can be acted upon. As a matter of fact, he said that the Liberal Government was ready to implement laws. The peculiar thing is that the Department of Justice was instructed by the Liberal Government to examine
Statute Law Amendment Act
issues and not to reach conclusions or suggest solutions. The Department was asked to examine the statutes of the Government of Canada to discover if they were in conflict, in any respect, with the Charter and not to provide conclusions as to how the policy questions which were involved were to be answered. I hope, if the Hon. Member for York Centre does have the answers, that he will present them to the committee and it can then report to us.
What is the Bill about? The Bill is to ensure that federal statutes which are obviously in conflict with the Charter will be amended so that the conflict will no longer exist. This Bill contains amendments to over 50 federal statutes. It is the result of the examination of more than 1,100 Canadian statutes.
Action has already been taken in certain areas. For example, the Criminal Code amendments, which are now under consideration by the Department of Justice, have already dealt with the issue of the abolishment of writs of assistance. Other initiatives are under way to ensure consistency with the Charter. As Members will know, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) introduced amendments to the Indian Act which will end discrimination, against Indian women. Those amendments are now before a standing committee of the House of Commons.
In addition, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) will be bringing forward amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. When that is done, certain provisions of that Act, which we feel are in breach of the Charter, will be amended.
The Chief Electoral Officer and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) are currently looking at the Canada Elections Act with respect to Charter concerns as well as other changes. That Act is now being considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Officials of the Departments of Finance and National Revenue are reviewing certain seizure provisions in the Income Tax Act and related statutes. When that legislation is brought before the House for amendment in connection with the next Budget, the legislation will also be amended in connection with any provisions of the legislation which we believe offend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Another statute which is being dealt with separately with reference to Charter concerns is the Emergency Powers Act. Obviously, that is a difficult area and a comprehensive review is required.
From time to time the Criminal Code of Canada will be amended and Charter issues will be part of that continuing review. By 1987 or 1988 we are aiming to have the project of reforming the Law Reform Commission study and the reformation of the Criminal Code of Canada complete. We intend to deal with Charter concerns in the ongoing Criminal Code review.
In the sphere of the promotion and protection of official languages of Canada, Charter concerns are also being looked at separately with reference to the present assessment of the

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
Official Languages Act which is nearing completion. We expect to have a Bill before Parliament in the fall which will ensure that the Act is consistent with the Charter.
Of course, the last initiative is the one which I mentioned earlier, the document which is entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law: A Discussion Paper. That has been referred to the special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Charter guarantees equality, but it does not indicate how equality will be achieved. We believe that the people of Canada have a right to be heard on the complex policy issues which are outlined in this discussion paper and on other such issues which may be brought forward by anyone who appears before the committee. We think the public should be involved before changes are proposed in areas such as mandatory retirement and with respect to what should be done with pensions and annuities as a result of the fact that women generally live a longer life than men. The public should be involved in any decisions taken with respect to the question of gender discrimination-if that is the right description-in the armed services. The armed services have certain rules which do not permit persons to continue in the armed services who may be lesbian or homosexual. These are some of the difficult policy issues on which the committee will be asked to express an opinion.
In adopting this procedure, we are being the opposite of elitist. We are giving minorities a chance to be heard. I have heard some criticism, Mr. Speaker, from those who are active in women's groups and other groups that this is unnecessary. Well, it may be unnecessary for those particular persons. They are obviously interested in these kinds of public issues. They have studied them. They are at the forefront of the movements for women's rights, rights for the handicapped or visible minorities or whatever it may be. What we want to do through this committee, Mr. Speaker, is to involve the ordinary men and women of Canada in these issues. That is the purpose of having the committee. These persons have a right to be heard and we are giving them a chance to be heard.
There are some people who have said-I don't know how this twisted reasoning came about, how they could go from one supposition to the other-that we are permitting the majority to tyrannize the minorities. That would be a criticism, of course, of the whole parliamentary process and history certainly demonstrates that the reverse is true. It is Parliament, the House of Commons, which has responded to the needs of minorities throughout Canadian history. It is this House of Commons which responded to the needs of the minorities when the Charter and the revised Canadian Constitution was being considered in 1981-1982. The Charter itself was adopted through the parliamentary process. To suggest that we should not have a parliamentary committee consider equality issues which are controversial and raised by the Charter is certainly a peculiar bit of reasoning indeed.
I want to make it plain, Mr. Speaker, that we are not asking the committee for legal opinions. That is not what the committee was appointed for. The courts will give us the definitive legal opinions on matters which may arise under the Charter which are not clear or are in dispute. It is the Charter itself which raises the question, "What is reasonable in a free and democratic society?" We know that there are many situations of discrimination or discretion and choice throughout our legislation and our policy. The question is whether it is proper discrimination, discretion and choice. With respect to many of these issues the final question is going to be, "What is reasonable in a free and democratic society?"
In a free and democratic society, is a mandatory retirement age contrary or not to the Charter? On the face of it, it is contrary to the Charter because if there is a mandatory retirement age, it is a discrimination against those who are being forced to retire. The question then becomes, "Is that a reasonable rule in a free and democratic society"? That is not a legal question, Mr. Speaker. It is a question which anyone in the country can have an opinion on and your opinion, Mr. Speaker, is just as good as mine. Normally, I would not admit that, but today I do admit that anyone's opinion on issues like these are just as valuable as another person's. One doesn't have to be a Ph.D., a great lawyer at one of the bars of this country or particularly skilled in any direction to have a view as to whether mandatory retirement is a fair and reasonable rule in a free and democratic society.
Those are the kinds of questions which the committee, chaired by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), will have to seek answers to and make its recommendations. The other members of the committee, just for the record, are: the official critic for the Opposition, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan); the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the official justice critic for the New Democratic Party; the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes); the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch); the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins); and the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay). It is a seven-member committee and those members of the committee are going to have their hands full, Mr. Speaker, because these are pretty complex questions.
The paper sets out a number of programs and policies which are reflected in Canadian laws which may be flawed in light of the equality guarantees in the charter. We are asking the committee to get information and views from Canadians as to whether they think these laws should be changed and, if so, how they should be changed. It is the role of the committee in Parliament to make policy choices among the competing options, keeping in mind the charter guarantees. It is the views of individual Canadians which are essential if we are to make the best possible choices. This is for us to do, not the courts. We are not asking the parliamentary committee to do the job which the courts will be asked to do.
Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record the names of some of the people in the Department of Justice who did the hard and gruelling work of examining
March 27, 1985

1100 statutes to see where conflicts might be, making recommendations, preparing this equality paper and preparing the legislation. They are Clare Beckton, who is on loan to us from Dalhousie University; John Scratch; Carole Johnson; Stan Cohen; Stephen Sharzer; Barbara Hough and Michele Joub-ert; Lewis Seale looked after communications; Assistant Deputy Minister John Tait; and Martin Low, who is general counsel for human rights law in the Department.
The names of the drafters of this particular piece of legislation should be on the record as well and they are Guy Laurin and Francois Lafontaine. These are the people we have to thank for the hard work which has gone into this paper, Mr. Speaker, and it was very hard work. They had to deal with every other Department and agency in the Government of Canada in ways which are very complex.
I mentioned the criticism that somehow we were tyrannizing the minority by having this sub-committee. That is such a silly argument, I think it deals with itself. The committee is going to have to deal with the question of what is reasonable in a free and democratic society with reference to these particular issues. It is social policy which we are asking the committee to deal with. We are not suppressing minorities. The committee is giving the minorities a greater opportunity to put forward their views on these particular issues. In this Bill we are acting where it is wise to act. Through the discussion paper we are consulting where it is wise and necessary to consult.
With respect to the Department's review of the statutes, I am not claiming that this is some stroke of genius of mine. We have only been in the Government for the last six months. It was the decision of our Liberal predecessors, with which I agree, that the statutes should be reviewed based on the assumption that it was preferable to change questionable legislation rather than leave it to individual litigants to assert their rights in court. That involves costs, delay and hardships. So where it is clear that legislation is questionable, we are now changing it so it does not have to be challenged in court, and there are a lot of areas where it is not clear.
Of course, we want to avoid disruption of important government programs because of adverse court decisions. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in trying to decide whether or not some particular provision of the legislation is au fait with the Charter, there are very few decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to go by. So it is a difficult proposition because we do not have many precedents in Canada to go by, although you can look at the U.S. precedents for some assistance.
The provisions proposed for amendment here are clearly contrary to Section 15 and do not involve complex social and economic concerns. The complex concerns will be dealt with by the subcommittee. It is also worth keeping in mind that the Charter does not dictate solutions in this area. It sets certain minimum standards and our committee is going to have to consider taking those standards into account in deciding what substantive policy should be reflected in our laws.
Statute Law Amendment Act
What are some of the provisions dealt with in this legislation? We deal with powers of entry in federal statutes. Do not think this is an unimportant piece of legislation because it is not. It deals with many important areas. Powers of entry in federal statutes such as the National Defence Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act are dealt with. There are also provisions to ensure that all Bills the Government presents to the House, and all regulations, are examined to ensure that they are consistent with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter.
This is only one part of the over-all approach I described to try and ensure Charter conformity. There are a number of federal statutes which presently authorize entry to premises without a warrant, and other places, to ensure compliance with the regulations or evidence of contravention of statutes. The issue here is whether the guarantee in the Charter against unreasonable search and seizure in Section 8 is violated by these provisions.
In this Bill we are treating differently those powers of entry which authorize an inspection as against those which authorize a search. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in a routine matter an inspector will come to see if you are complying with some statutory regulation. It might have to do with agricultural or dairy products, or they might be coming in to examine the books. In those kinds of cases we believe a warrant should not be required unless the inspection is taking place in a private dwelling. If it does take place in a private dwelling, there should be a warrant. People who work in closely regulated activity expect to be inspected regularly, but there has always been a distinction between dwelling places and other premises.
So there are amendments in this Bill to statutes such as the Fish Inspection Act, the Canada Grain Act and the Textile Labelling Act which provide for a warrant when you are making a non-consensual entry for an inspection. That means that the person whose premises you are inspecting has not consented. A search will occur if an entry is made to seek evidence of a contravention of a statute. We are amending those federal statutes which contain search powers to provide that you must have a warrant when you wish to enter a building to seek evidence of a contravention of a statute.
We also spell out when a warrant will not be required. If a delay in obtaining a warrant will result in danger to human life and safety, or in the loss or destruction of evidence, then a warrant would not be required. The courts will, of course, have the opportunity to review whether or not those kinds of circumstances existed. There are changes to the Fisheries Act, the Environmental Contaminants Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act in connection with inspection powers in those Acts. So the purpose of these amendments is to provide for reasonable searches, but in the meantime to provide that legitimate inspection functions in agriculture, fisheries and the environment will not be hindered.
There are important amendments to the National Defence Act. For example, the major changes provide for a greater degree of equivalence between the code of service discipline and the criminal law. I would just give one example. The

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
amendments provide that any accused may have the benefit of any defence available under the Criminal Code or any other federal law if the person is being tried on a charge under the code of service discipline. That is a major change. The legislation will end double jeopardy. It will permit an accused to plead that he has previously been acquitted or convicted or punished by a service tribunal, a civil court in Canada or by a court of competent criminal jurisdiction in another country. That was not the case before. I will not mention some of the other changes because of the quick passage of time, and I do not want to be too long in introducing the Bill.
There are amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which reflect the Canadian tradition of procedural fairness. These changes have to do with a situation where the Commission finds a complaint to be substantiated and then appoints a tribunal to look into that particular complaint. Since the Commission presently makes a decision whether the complaint is substantiated and also appoints the tribunal, there is a possible perception that the Commission is making a finding of guilt before requesting the appointment of a tribunal. Now, under the new procedures and these amendments, the Human Rights Commission will screen complaints and determine whether a tribunal should be appointed. But we provide for an independent office, the president of the tribunal, who is independent of the rest of the Commission and he will now appoint a tribunal from persons listed and it will be done independently and appear to be done independently. It will give a better perception than the present provisions provide. By the way, the Human Rights Commission has been supportive of that amendment.
I am glad to see the official critic of the NDP is here even though his Official Opposition counterpart is not.
The Bill also deals with a number of areas where, quite clearly, equality provisions of the Charter were being violated; changing references to members of one sex, where there is no justification, to exclude members of the opposite sex; changing words such as "wife" to "spouse", "widow" to "surviving spouse", in various acts such as the Canada Shipping Act and so on. There is another group of amendments which deal with age. In the Canada Corporations Act the age 21 is replaced by age 18 as their criterion for pilotage and so on.
The Minister of Justice already has an obligation under the law to examine Bills and regulations to ensure they are consistent with the Bill of Rights. I am referring to the Bill of Rights enacted under the late great John Diefenbaker when his Government was in power. These amendments provide a similar obligation on the Minister of Justice to examine regulations and Government Bills to ensure they are consistent with the Charter. That is new. They also provide for the co-ordination of the examination of regulations under the Statutory Instruments Act, the Department of Justice Act and the Bill of Rights.
Then there are a whole set of other miscellaneous amendments. For example, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the power to suspend or cancel leases or licences. There is a change being made there. The right of the Minister to order
forfeiture is abolished. There are amendments to the Immigration Act to provide that when there is an inquiry of an adjudicator, and we heard of such as inquiry today, it will be held in public unless it is established that the person concerned or some Government interest would be adversely affected. The bar against action for false imprisonment in the Canada Shipping Act is removed and there are other amendments of that type.
Let me again emphasize that this Bill is not put forward as our sole initiative in ensuring consistency of federal laws with the Charter. There will be many other pieces of Government legislation in this session dealing with Charter issues. Of course, as decisions are made on the issues that come before the courts, we will have to act. One example which comes to mind is with respect to the Customs Tariff item which, about 10 or 12 days ago, was found by the federal Court of Appeal to be contrary to the Charter provisions with respect to the concept of immoral and indecent when people bring goods into the country. The House will have to amend the customs legislation in that respect.
As a result of court decisions, in the future the House will have to make changes in legislation from time to time. We also recognize that there may be aspects of federal legislation that we missed in this review. It is a continuing process to ensure conformity with the Charter. New problems will be identified from time to time. I have an open mind on the need for further changes and in connection with the nature of changes that we or other Members of the House may propose.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to move second reading of this Bill. I am a bit disappointed at the reaction of the Official Opposition to the steps we have taken, particularly since they were exactly the steps that they were going to take. They have not offered any suggestions for any different steps in the last six months. However, their ranks are rife with hypocrisy and hypocrisy is often their standard on issues such as this.
I was shocked by the actions taken by the Member for York Centre. As I mentioned earlier, he had the audacity to write to groups across the country suggesting that they not take an interest in this matter and not appear before a House of Commons subcommittee. I have never heard of any Members of the House writing to groups across the country trying to persuade them not to appear before a committee that the House had decided to set up. I am happy to realize that no one has paid any attention to his advice in that respect. I am delighted that other members of his Party, such as the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), are demonstrating more interest in the matter than is the official critic. 1 know the Hon. Member for Mount Royal will be following the issues closely.
If the official critic for the Opposition can give answers to the issues raised in the discussion paper or can persuade the subcommittee to accept some good, sound, sensible policy advice, then the committee can make interim reports from
March 27, 1985

time to time and we will be pleased to prepare the necessary amendments. The subcommittee has been asked to report at the end of August. It may find that it needs more time. If so it will have only to report to the Government and House asking for an extension of time. It can make an interim report and go on to deal with the matter in more depth.
Evidence of the seriousness with which we take this matter is shown by the calibre of the Members that we on this side have appointed to the committee. The Chairman himself is a distinguished lawyer with a great interest in this particular subject. We have appointed the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), who is one of our women Members. I suppose I am allowed to mention that without being held to be discriminatory. We also have the Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes), who is another of the Canadian women who were elected to the House in the last election of September, 1984. We on this side of the House are very glad to have a very healthy representation of women. We want more, of course, and will have more as the years go by. Two of the five Members whom we have on this subcommittee are women members of the PC caucus. We notice that the Opposition have appointed all male Members to represent them on the committee, although the Hon. Member for Mount Royal will be appearing in substitution.


John V. Nunziata: We're only entitled to one member. You only allowed one.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are only entitled to one member, but do you not trust the women members of your caucus?


John V. Nunziata: The official critic is our member.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if there is only one member allowed from the Official Opposition, surely they could appoint one of the lady Members if they feel I am making a valid point. Apparently the rat pack does not trust the lady members of their caucus. The official critic for the New Democratic Party is on the committee and I know he will make a distinguished contribution.
We have two other distinguished Members from our side of the House on this committee. They are going to give it their all. They want to work co-operatively with the Members of the Opposition. I am sure we will have great co-operation from them in travelling across Canada so that anyone who feels he has a contribution to make or an opinion to offer will have the opportunity to do so. I would like to tell the people of Canada who might be watching now that they do not have to have a Ph.D., a BA, an LLB, an MA or a B.Sc. You do not have to be a Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat. You do not have to be anything in particular. All you have to do is be interested and you can come before this committee and give your views on the issues it is raising. Believe me, there are many interesting issues that will be discussed before that committee.
I think I have gone on long enough, Mr. Speaker; I know other Members are anxious to speak. I look forward to hearing from the committee when it gives its first report. I know it will be a non-partisan committee engaged in the non-partisan
Statute Law Amendment Act
activity of protecting the rights of Canadians and giving us its views on how the Charter affects Canadians, particularly with respect to questions of equality, and pointing out how we should deal with some of the esoteric issues that are raised in the discussion paper. I can promise that once the committee reports we will move as quickly as possible to reach decisions on the matters it reports to us and then proceed with additional legislation. This will not be the last legislation to ensure compliance with the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills:
Bill C-34, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985; and
Bill C-35, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1986.


STATUTE LAW (CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) AMENDMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions. Under Standing Order 35(2) you are entitled, if you are going to be speaking for the Party, to speak for 40 minutes. There are no questions for the first three speakers. I can recognize you as the first official speaker, or I can recognize the Hon. Member for York-South Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps there might be a disposition within the House, if there is unanimous consent, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) may entertain a question, notwithstanding the purport of S.O. 35.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think there would be a great opportunity for you to bring that matter to the attention of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
Crosbie). However, we must proceed under rule 35(2) today. The first three speakers have 40 minutes with no questions. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for York-South Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are entirely right in saying that there is no provision under our rules for questions to the three first speakers who have a 40-minute period for their speeches. However, I thought I heard an Hon. Member requesting that you ask for unanimous consent. With all due respect, I think the Chair must ask if there is consent. If there is not, of course, we will forgo the questioning. However, there might be consent, and I would plead with the Chair to ask whether there is consent or not.


Mr. Baker:: The Minister is leaving. He's afraid to answer questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Minister has left the House. We will forgo that opportunity at this time and perhaps the Hon. Member could bring it up with the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in order to change the rules under Standing Order 35(2) to permit a question and answer period after 40-minute speeches.


David Charles Dingwall: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It concerns this ruling, I cannot recognize the Hon. Member. I have already mentioned that.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to question your ruling but I thought that a Member has a right to ask for unanimous consent in order to question a Minister who has just made a very important statement which was flippant in its content. Perhaps the Speaker would be so accommodating and put forward the question to see if there is unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the record will show that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) did not have the common decency to remain in the House to listen to Hon. Members speak on Bill C-27.


Mr. Speyer:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is correct that it is a tradition for a Minister to stay in the House to hear the critics reply to an initial speech introducing a piece of legislation. Regrettably in this instance, the Minister of Justice is now briefing the Prime Minister. He was supposed to do that at 3.15 today but he gave the speech that I was going to give so that I could be in committee with both critics.
I think everyone can understand that in these circumstances the Minister of Justice came here to give a speech but regrets that he is not here. I certainly will be listening with great attentiveness to the speeches given by both critics.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the Parliamentary Secretary has had to say, it is obvious where the priorities of the Minister lie. The Minister had the unmitigated gall and audacity-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Where were you?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is that Bill C-27, an act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to comment on the fact that the Minister has shown disinterest in this particular piece of legislation, but the Minister himself-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will the Hon. Member please carry on with his speech on the Bill?


Mr. Rossi:: Listen, you clown on the other side who does not know anything!
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a point of order to explain the absence of a colleague. That Member was not in the House when the same Member for-I forget the name of his riding-pointed out that our critic was not in the House. So he explains-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member was in the Chamber when the Minister was here. He understands what is going on in the House. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has the floor for debate on Bill C-27.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I fully intend to debate Bill C-27. It is important to note with respect to Bill C-27 that the Minister is not here. As I indicated, it shows a lack of interest on behalf of the Minister of Justice and I did intend-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the Hon. Member keeps sounding off, I think he should explain where he was for the first three-quarters of the speech by the Minister of Justice.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Where is the critic?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. This is exactly
why I do not want to hear debate about who is in the House and what is happening here. The debate is on Bill C-27. The Hon. Member has been around for six or seven months and I hope he understands the situation. I do not want to get into
March 27, 1985

this wrangle of who is in the House and who is not in the House.
I hope the Hon. Member will take part in the debate in which he has 40 minutes. He has 40 minutes on Bill C-27. Approximately five minutes have been deducted from that since the points of order have come up. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston has the floor on Bill C-27.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order, not to speak on Bill C-27. My point of order is that the Minister of Justice, in his opening comments, commented on the absence of the official critic for the Official Opposition. He also commented on the fact that 1 was absent for the first five minutes-


Chris Speyer: Twenty-five minutes.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that it was because there was an urgent meeting of the Justice Committee to deal with some very urgent matters.
My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that you permitted the Minister of Justice to comment on the absence of the official critic for the Official Opposition. Now you are denying the Opposition the same right to comment. In fairness, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We should have every right to comment on his absence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The goose and the gander have had their say. The Hon. Member has the floor to speak on Bill C-27.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, could I have an indication as to how much time I have to speak on this Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member may carry on. He has plenty of time and I will give adequate warning. 1 will give the Hon. Member the full time that he requires. He may carry on with his debate.


John V. Nunziata: Can I have an assurance that the time occupied by the points of order will not be deducted from my time?


Mr. Andre:: Get up and give a speech or sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has until 4.36.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The official critic for the Liberal Party has considerable interest in this Bill, considerable interest in the whole question of equality rights and considerable interest in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was totally unfair of the Minister of Justice to comment on the fact that the Hon. Member is absent. At least the official critic for the Opposition is monitoring the situation. The Minister of Justice does not even have the common decency to stay and listen to Opposition critics explain their position on this Bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You haven't said anything yet.
Statute Law Amendment Act


John V. Nunziata: It is obvious that Hon. Members opposite are very sensitive about this Bill. It is quite obvious why they are sensitive.
It is also interesting to note that the Minister of Justice spent a great deal of time defending Bill C-27. He was correct in doing so because, in my respectful submission, Bill C-27 is quite simply a cop-out. It is a cowardly act on behalf of the Government because it is afraid to make tough decisions that are necessary with respect to equality in this country. Rather than providing the necessary leadership, the Government has introduced a Bill that basically does very little. In effect, all the Bill does-and is there any wonder why the Minister had to go on the defensive because he had nothing good to talk about with respect to this Bill-is change the language in the various pieces of legislation. I believe the Minister indicated there are about 50 pieces. It changes "husband" and "wife" to "spouse". It changes the words "son" and "daughter" to "child". What it does not do is address the very important issues facing this country concerning equality rights.
This Government had a choice. This Government could have taken definitive action as a result of the extensive audit initiated by the previous Government and as a result of the work done by the Justice Department to indicate the inequities and parts of the various pieces of legislation that do not conform to the Charter. The Government could have made a decision on issues such as mandatory retirement, sexual orientation, combat roles in the Canadian Armed Forces and whether those roles should be open to women. But this Government refused on the pretext that it had to consult and on the pretext that it wanted more information from the Canadian people.
In my submission the Government was afraid to lead, it was afraid to make decisions. Instead, it opted for a consultation process which, in my view, is a cop out. It appears the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are afraid to make those very important decisions. The Government is afraid to alienate any individual in society. Therefore it has decided to put off the issue of equality rights for many months, if not years. April 17, 1985 will be upon us in a few short weeks. The supreme law in this country, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will be law. No federal majority, not even the Conservative majority we have today, can over-rule the supreme law of this country.
Of course, there is the over-ride provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I would hope this Government will not exercise that over-ride position, as the Government of Quebec has done consistently since 1982.
What does Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide? There are 46 words in Section 15, a mere 46 words, but the importance of those words is indeed tremendous. Section 15(1) reads as follows:
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

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
That will become law on April 17. At the Constitutional Conference of 1982, as a result of compromises and considerable conflict resulting from the compromises, it was decided to put off the implementation or proclamation of Section 15 for three years. This was in order to give the federal Government and the 10 provincial Governments the opportunity to audit their respective legislation and there was the understanding that that legislation would be brought into conformity with Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker? You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that there were certain Conservative provincial Governments that fought tooth and nail for the entrenchment of rights and freedoms in the Constitution. Those same Governments are continuing to procrastinate and delay and are doing everything in their power to obstruct the implementation of this section.
Specifically, what have the provinces done since 1982? We know the province from which I come, Ontario, which has a Conservative Government for a few short weeks longer-


Jack Wendele Shields: You dreamer.


John V. Nunziata: -has put together a 400 page document. Has that province taken definitive action? No, Mr. Speaker. The Ontario Government has not amended its legislation to conform with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will be a long time before we get some definitive action out of that Government as long as it continues to be the Government of Ontario.
What has Quebec done? Quebec claims a blanket exemption from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all of its laws because of certain conflicts that existed at the time, and Hon. Members are aware that Quebec was not part of the constitutional accord.
Much to the credit of the Province of New Brunswick, that province has passed a law to eradicate the worst clashes between provincial laws and the Charter. I am proud to say that Government has taken definitive action and it was supportive of the Charter right from the start.


Mr. Valcourt:: That was Premier Hatfield.


John V. Nunziata: What is happening in Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan? Precious little is happening in those provinces. All they are doing is what this federal Government is proposing, and that is to encourage further debate on this important subject.
What has British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island done? Those Governments have done absolutely nothing. This suggests to me and to the people of Canada that those Governments are not sincerely interested in or concerned about equality rights in Canada.
What has the federal Government done? As I indicated previously, the previous federal Government initiated an audit of the approximately 1,100 federal statutes in order to determine the extent to which those statutes would contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was the intention of the previous Government to make the tough decisions and to implement the laws that would change the old laws to bring federal legislation in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Unfortunately for the issue of equality in this country, the Conservative Government came to power on September 4 with an overwhelming majority, with a mandate from the Canadian people to make decisions, with a mandate from the Canadian people to provide the leadership that they were promised. What do we have, Mr. Speaker? We have a total lack of leadership with respect to the issue of equality rights in this country. This Government has opted basically to do nothing. This Government has opted to force the minority groups, the women, the visible minorities, the young, the disadvantaged and the disabled to fight their battles again when all these groups in 1982 came forward and fought. They fought hard. They got their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They thought the battle was fought and won. They thought the wounds of discrimination that have existed for so long were beginning to heal. They thought that discrimination was coming to a rapid and quick end. What has happened? This Government is intentionally reopening those wounds of discrimination. This insensitive Conservative Government is forcing those groups, the women, the visible minorities, the disadvantaged, the young, the old and the Indian groups to come forward and fight their battles again. That is totally unfair.
I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who said to those groups that this Government is not interested in the issue of equality. If you want to ensure and protect your right, Mr. Speaker, you must go to court and let the courts determine what equality means. Let the courts define what Section 15 means.
Those people have been provided with no alternative. This Government is continuing to procrastinate on these very fundamental and very important issues facing the country. The sad part is that the Government is forcing these people to litigate, which is not a desirable consequence. We, the 282 elected Members of Parliament, should be making the decisions, not the courts of law. We represent all the good people of Canada and we should be the advocates of civil rights, human rights and equality. We should protect the minority groups. It is the 282 individuals in this House of Commons who should be making the decision, not having the courts defining Section 15 in a purely legalistic manner.
These people have no option but to go to court. There is no option but to have a court of law make a decision to interpret equality in their particular case based on a particular set of circumstances. What makes matters worse is that the Government refuses to establish a fund. It will not put money aside to assist these people, who for the most part are not affluent, so that they can litigate.
March 27, 1985

The Minister indicated that he will think about it, but he has not provided money. It costs money to litigate. The Minister is forcing these people to litigate, but is not providing them with money. It is a strange and ironic situation. Equal opportunity to litigate does not exist. The poor minority groups do not have that opportunity. If someone affluent wants to exercise his right and have a legal determination of what equality means in his particular circumstance, he can have that opportunity. He has the resources. He can go to court and get a legal interpretation.
The Government has provided us with a do-nothing piece of legislation. It refuses to provide leadership. It has established a subcommittee of the Justice Committee, a travelling road show, a make-work program for the Tory back-benchers. It will go across this country to again hear the interest groups, the minority groups. It will hear what they have already said.
I have a bit of advice for Members opposite. All they need do is look at the minutes of the various committees which dealt with the Constitution, including the Justice Committee in 1982. Read what those groups had to say. What they tell the committee today will be the same as they told the committee three years ago. They want equality, an end to discrimination. Members opposite can save a lot of time and effort by simply reading Hansard and reading the minutes of the Justice Committee two, three or four years ago to see what these groups had to say.
What could possibly be expected of this travelling road show, this subcommittee? It is a farce and a camouflage because this Government is too cowardly-


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member might indicate why, if this travelling committee is a farce, his Party will be participating in the committee?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is debate. I know the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) will have the opportunity to reply.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that that is not a point of order, I think it is important to reply to the question of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I will tell him why we intend to participate in this committee. It is because the Government has decided that it wants to be the champion of popular causes. It wants to champion the views of the majority in this country. Notwithstanding our profound disagreement with the procedure that is being followed by the Government, we want to monitor this committee. We want to speak out for the minority groups in this country. We will again go to bat for them, as we did a few short years ago. This committee will soon be hitting the road. It will be packing its gear.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the Hon. Member expressing the views of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) or his own views?
Statute Law Amendment Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would have expected the Hon. Member to know better. This troupe will be travelling across the country. What can result from this exercise in futility? As Shelagh Day, a community activist, said, you do not define minority rights by majoritarian views and values. That is not the way to do things.
What will happen as a result of this committee? The majority of Canadians might say that they do not believe in mandatory retirement. There may be a minority which says that mandatory retirement is necessary. They might talk about combat roles for women in the Armed Forces. The majority of Canadians might believe that women should not be enlisted in the Armed Forces. Precious little comfort that is to the women who want equality in the Armed Forces. Precious comfort that is to the women who want the right to get involved in combat roles.
What is this committee going to do? Will the committee say that because the majority of Canadians say no, therefore equality does not mean that women are entitled to get involved in combat roles in the Armed Forces; or is the Government going to say that, notwithstanding what the majority says, it believes women should have full equality when it comes to the Armed Forces? Given its actions, I believe this Government will opt for the former rather than the latter option. It is afraid to offend people. It believes that minority rights in this country are defined by majoritarian views and values.
The Charter is important because it involves the protection of individual rights. Although Canada has one of the best records anywhere in terms of safeguarding the rights of its citizens, we must never become complacent. In many places around the world it is a sad fact that rights are too often proclaimed and too seldom protected. Countries that have constitutions with glowing affirmations of human rights are often the same countries where violations of basic rights are an every day occurrence. It has been said many times that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The protection of rights is indeed one of the most solemn duties we face in a free and democratic society.
As I indicated previously, on April 17, 1982 the Constitution Act was proclaimed in this country. A tremendous step forward was taken at the time in terms of protecting the rights of future generations. The Act provided for the patriation of the British North America Act from the United Kingdom but, more importantly, it included a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In my respectful opinion that Charter is second to none in the world.
The patriation of our Constitution was largely a symbolic gesture since Canada has long been regarded as a sovereign and independent nation. However, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was intended to have a more direct impact on our daily lives. Why was the Charter necessary? The answer is

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
quite simply that Canadians wanted their rights enshrined in the Constitution. It was recognized at the time that full equality was not a reality in this country. In a great many cases only lip service was paid to the concept.
We wanted a Charter because we as a nation believe in freedom and equality and we believe profoundly in justice. The Charter is merely and affirmation of that fact. It is a statement of principles entrenched in our most basic law. It is intended to protect individual rights and freedoms each and every day as part of a living, breathing constitutional document.
As Hon. Members know, when the Constitution Act was proclaimed in 1982, the implementation of this part of it was delayed for three years. That was one of the political compromises that was necessary in order to entrench the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution. April 17 of this year could be a more historic and momentous day if the Government opposite would take the definitive action necessary to ensure that full equality becomes a reality in this country.
The implementation of Section 15 attests to our full maturity as a free and democratic nation. The words of Section 15 form the core of one of the most significant parts of the resolution, a part that former Prime Minister Trudeau called the people's package. Canadians have cause to be proud of this Charter because it is indeed one of the best in the world. It is the legacy of Mr. Trudeau, a testament to his political courage and determination.
Much more could have and should have been done by this Government to enshrine full equality in the laws of Canada. There was a great deal of hope and anticipation on April 17, 1982 when the constitutional resolution was proclaimed by the Queen. We all recall that very momentous and historic day.
I sense none of that same mood as we approach the date for the proclamation of equality rights. At the end of three years, Canadians were expecting the federal Government to present a Bill containing the necessary amendments to the laws that fail to comply with the provisions of the Charter. What Canadians expected and what the Government is offering through Bill C-27 are two different things. Many laws, both provincial and federal, still to this day contravene the equality rights provisions contained in Section 15.
In some respects, the foot dragging on equality rights on the part of the federal and provincial Tories should not come as a surprise. As I indicated previously, five of the Tory provincial Governments opposed the constitutional resolution and fought against it tooth and nail. Sterling Lyon of Manitoba was particularly adamant that there should be no constitutional guarantees of any rights whatsoever. There were many supporters of his point of view among Conservative Members of this House, many of whom are still here today. 1 take comfort in the knowledge that Hansard faithfully recorded their remarks. Indeed, it must be difficult for these Members who opposed the Constitution to witness their own Tory Government carrying on where Mr. Trudeau left off with respect to enshrining equality rights provisions, albeit the Government is
carrying on meagrely and modestly, as shown by this proposed legislation.
We all know that the dinosaurs within the Tory caucus were brought into line once a deal had been struck with nine of the ten provinces. One of the aspects of that deal between the federal Government and the provincial Governments was the three-year delay. Those Governments are continuing to procrastinate and delay. Where there should have been substantive measures put forward, we have a Bill that falls desperately short of the mark. Bill C-27 falls far short of what is necessary in order to guarantee full equality in the Constitution. The Bill constitutes an exercise in language reform rather than a true application of the spirit of the Charter.
The policy questions that were raised in the document entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law are the policy questions that should have been decided by the Government. This legislation does not address age discrimination as it relates to mandatory retirement or sexual discrimination as it relates to pension contributions for women in the Public Service. It does not address the issue of whether requirements relating to the length of employment or maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act should remain greater than requirements for regular benefits. It does not deal with the issue of whether combat roles in the Canadian Armed Forces should be open to women. It does not address the question of whether mental or physical disability ought to be a bar to immigration in some circumstances. It does not come to grips with whether native Canadians should remain effectively excluded from participation in the Canada Pension Plan because participation is tied to income as defined in the Income Tax Act and earnings on a reserve are non-taxable. Bill C-27 does not deal with whether persons should continue to be excluded from the Canadian Armed Forces on the basis of their sexual orientation.
There are many, many unresolved issues in many areas of discrimination based on race, ethnic origin and physical disability that remain completely untouched by Bill C-27. In many respects, April 17, 1985 will be a sad day for justice and equality in this country.
The Government could have corrected the inequities and injustices that continue to exist in our free and democratic society. It could have dealt bigotry and racism a body blow. It could have told the provinces to bring their legislation into line and it could have led by example. Instead, it has left all of the tough decisions out of Bill C-27. It has put them off into yet another subcommittee and discussion paper for further review and further public hearings.
I was not present in the House three years ago as were many Members opposite. They know about the many hours of debate that took place with respect to the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They know and will remember well representatives of dozens and dozens of different organizations coming to Ottawa to make their views known. Now the Tories want to repeat a significant portion of that process. The purpose of this exercise is questionable but we all know what the results will be. The results will be more
March 27, 1985

procrastination and more delay. Delay is a key word because justice delayed is justice denied, and justice is being denied to all those groups that are suffering from discrimination in this country.
The Tories are paralysed with fear about doing the wrong thing. So they do nothing so as not to offend anyone. They are afraid to lose a seat or two. They are afraid to go to bat for minority groups. They are prepared to take on popular causes, but they are afraid to go to bat for the people who are suffering. We all know that consultation is important. It is a vital element in the legislative process. Governments should not take precipitous or hasty action for the sake of appearing decisive. That was the fatal flaw of the nine-month Tory Government. Neither should Governments let consultation be an end in itself. A balance must be struck, otherwise the consultative process becomes like molasses in the decisionmaking machinery of Government. It gums up the works and nothing gets done.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate the serious concerns which my Party has with respect to this legislation. We will, of course, support the legislation because it will tidy up some of the language in the legislation which now exists. However, we will continue to press for full equality. We want to ensure that equality becomes a reality in the very near future. We disagree profoundly with the procedure which is being proposed by the Conservative Government. If it were truly interested and sincere about equality, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) would be in the House to listen, and the Government would take the definitive action which is so necessary.
I look forward to further discussions with respect to this legislation in committee. I am sure that other members of the Official Opposition will have more to say on Bill C-27.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour four years ago, as a relatively new and young Member of Parliament, to sit on an historic committee. That committee was the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada. That committee was charged with the responsibility of reviewing a proposed constitutional resolution and hearing not only witnesses with respect to the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also the provinces and other concerned groups about the constitutional process.
I recall vividly the fact that witness after witness came before the committee-whether they were representatives of native people, minorities, women's groups, or the disabled-to urge the Government to strengthen the resolution which had been tabled in the House. That resolution was strengthened. The equality rights section of the Constitution was improved significantly.
The constitutional package came into effect on April 17, 1982. It was felt that Governments needed three years, until April 17 of this year, to bring their legislation into compliance with the provisions of Section 15, the section which deals with equality rights. We waited three years, but I would suggest
Statute Law Amendment Act
that when this Government finally moved on January 31 it was a black day for human rights in Canada. What it constituted was a bitter betrayal of the hopes of women and minority groups in Canada who had hoped that the Government would take its responsibilities seriously, not simply to review legislation, but where the review showed that the legislation was in conflict with the fundamental principles of equality, that the Government would bring forward changes.
I would like deal briefly with the arguments which were made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). I appreciate that he is a new Member and that he was not present for some of the debates which took place subsequent to the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As Members, we have been witness to the most extraordinary rewriting of history which this Chamber has probably ever seen. That Member stood and attacked the Government for refusing to move on issues of concern to minorities. He attacked the Government for listening to the majority and refusing to heed the concerns of minorities, including the disabled and the minority which is discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.
I would like to remind Members of what really happened and of the history of the Liberal Party after the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The history of his Party, when it was in Government, was a history of explicitly and deliberately denying the claims to full equality for the groups which the Hon. Member for York South-Weston now stands up self-righteously to defend. What is the record? I would like to give the House a couple of examples.
A special parliamentary committee was struck to look into discrimination against the disabled. That committee tabled in the House a report which was entitled Obstacles. That report very eloquently documented the history of abuse and inequality. I would like to salute the members of that committee. In my view they did an outstanding job of bringing to the attention of Parliament and the Canadian people discrimination, both economic and social, against the physically and mentally disabled people of Canada.
That report was tabled in 1981. I would remind Members of the House that the Liberal Party was in Government from 1981 until 1984. I would ask the Hon. Member for York South-Weston-who has attacked the Conservatives for doing nothing to assist the disabled in the country-where was he and his Party when the disabled people said that it was time for action? For him to suggest that they were prepared to take action to remedy the historic injustices against the disabled, when they did nothing for three years after the tabling of the report, surely to goodness Canadian people must recognize that something is wrong.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston said that this Government was copping out on human rights and fundamental justice. He accused the Government of listening to the views of the majority. Both of those criticisms, Mr. Speaker, may be well founded but, I recall vividly, as a member of the Justice Committee-and the Hon. Member suggested we should look at the records of the justice committee-hearing

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
the Liberal Minister of Justice, Mark MacGuigan-who got his reward in the Federal Court-refuse to move on amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which would strengthen the protection of minorities in this country. I proposed those amendments to strengthen the Canadian Human Rights Act, but the Minister of Justice of the day said, no, there was not a consensus of the majority to move forward on those amendments. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston says that the Tories are waiting for the majority, that they are abandoning the minorities to the will of the majority. Where on earth was he when his Minister of Justice stood up before the Justice Committee and made exactly that argument? He said he was not prepared to amend the human rights legislation because the majority was not ready. What utter hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, on the part of that Party and that Hon. Member.
I would like to deal with some of the concerns which we in this Party have with respect to the process which the Government has undertaken in the area of equality rights. We strongly support, and historically have always supported, the concept of a charter of rights entrenched in the Constitution. We fundamentally disagree with the inclusion of Section 33 of the Charter which allows any Government, provincial or federal, to override the most basic and fundamental rights in this country at the stroke of a legislative pen. However, we recognize that in the contest between the judiciary and Parliaments, as former Justice Tom Berger put it so eloquently in his book Fragile Freedoms, "Judges may not always be wiser than politicians but they should be able to stand more firmly against angry winds blowing in the streets". It was that philosophy which very much guided this Parliament and members of this Party in supporting the concept of an entrenched Charter of Rights.
Following the passage of the Charter, one would have hoped that the Government would be moving forward very quickly to review legislation-there were some 1100 federal statutes and many more regulations and policies-to bring it into compliance not just with Section 15 of the Charter of Rights but with the other section of the Charter as well. I note that the spokesperson for the Official Opposition was silent with respect to all of those other vital sections of the Charter: freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom in terms of the media and fundamental legal rights. I would have hoped that this Government, in reviewing its legislation, would have recognized that many of its statutes and policies conflict, and conflict seriously, with the values set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and not just in Section 15 but in other sections as well.
I might note as well, Mr. Speaker, that it was not until January of 1984, some two years after the Charter of Rights came into effect, that the Liberal Government finally got around to starting its review of equality rights. One must question, then, the seriousness with which it approached that very fundamental review process. But the review was undertaken and on January 31, Bill C-27 was tabled in the House of
Commons along with a discussion paper. The Bill is a thick Bill but there is very little of substance in the legislation. The fact is that in issue after issue that the Government should have addressed directly by way of legislation, it has copped out. It has abrogated its responsibility and has called for further study.
What does the Bill do, Mr. Speaker? There are a whole series of changes to the legislation dealing with inspection and powers of entry and search. I do not believe anyone would disagree with the direction the Government is taking in those sections. Then there are some proposed changes to the National Defence Act. I would note that the National Defence Act was the subject of extensive challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada and the majority of the Supreme Court in the decision in McKay v. the Queen upheld the validity of that Act. But that was before the Charter of Rights came into effect. A concurring minority of judges in the McKay decision found that the provisions of the National Defence Act were inoperative as being in breach of the Bill of Rights in so far as they purported to deal with defences which might not have a military connection. One would have thought and hoped that this Government would have been at least prepared to strike down those provisions of the National Defence Act which permit the trial of members of the Armed Forces, civilians and others without any kind of military connection for the offence. One would have hoped, in short, Mr. Speaker, that the Government would at least have gone so far as to adopt the reasoning of Mr. Justice McIntyre in the McKay decision. There are some of us who found the very powerful dissent of former Chief Justice Laskin persuasive. However, at the very least, one would have hoped that this Government would have accepted that far more fundamental changes in the National Defence Act were required than the changes which were brought forward in this Bill. Certainly, we will look forward to hearing from witnesses from the Department of National Defence as well as from the Department of Justice on that question.
The amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which restore some semblance of independence to the process of appointment of tribunals are certainly unobjectionable. I would have hoped the Government would have gone further and accepted the recommendations of the Special Committee on Discrimination Against Visible Minorities in the report Equality Now! and had the Canadian Human Right Commis-sin reporting directly to Parliament, but that was not to be.
There are amendments as well, Mr. Speaker, in some other relatively non-controversial areas, although I would note that one amendment to the Immigration Act of 1976 gives rise to very serious questions. Under the proposals in Bill C-27, an adjudicator in an immigratin hearing is given for the first time discretionary power to decide if a hearing is going to be open to the public. In the past it has always been the prerogative of the immigrant to ask for a closed hearing. It is most important, in my view, that this prerogative continue, because in many cases a refugee from another country who is seeking refugee status may have very sensitive issues to raise. He may,
March 27, 1985

for example, wish to make some very strong statements about the country he is leaving and does not want himself or his family to be prejudiced by the statements he is making. I would suggest that this change, instead of promoting equality, is a step backward. There is no requirement whatsoever for us to deny the right of a potential immigrant or refugee to have a closed hearing at the option of that individual.
However, it is in the area of equality rights that this Bill is most lacking in substance. Indeed, tremendous work was done by women right across this country to persuade the Government to strengthen the provisions of the Charter of Rights, not just in Section 15 but to include as well a very clear statement in Section 28 of the Constitution. Hopes arose that there might actually be some real equality, a real equal rights amendment in Canada for women. But this Government has come forward with a shocking betrayal of the hopes of Canadian women for equality.
1 know a number of my colleagues are going to be addressing this question in greater depth, including the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who has worked very hard on this question, both as a Member of Parliament and, before she was elected, in promoting euqality for women in her capacity as Chairperson of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. I know that she and other members of my caucus share my concern, my anger, my sense of betrayal because this Government has not moved further.
What has the Government done to promote equality of women in Canada? What it has done in this Bill is to change a total of nine laws. The irony of this approach is that the majority of those changes do not enhance the rights of women, they enhance the rights of men. For example, the amendments would offer the same benefits to husbands and widowers to which wives and widows are now entitled under a number of Acts, including the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, and several others. It would give marriage settlements made on men the same protection under the Bankruptcy Act from a spouse's creditors as that which women now have. It would remove the possibility of preferred treatment for women under the National Defence Act; that is, the application of the code of service discipline. In short, there is but a single change, one piece of legislation which is being changed by this Government to benefit women, and only one. That change is to the Canada Shipping Act so that a woman who works aboard a ship will have part of her earnings payable to dependants at home, just as a man can do now. That is it. That is the sum total of this Government's response to the demand of Canadian women that they be granted equality- one change in one Act which is virtually of no consequence. What an incredible failure by this Government to take seriously its responsibilities for the promotion of equality of women in Canada today.
I am not going to take a great deal of time to emphasize some of the areas that we in this Party believe this Government should have moved forward in. Some of my colleagues will be elaborating on that point. However, I would remind
Statute Law Amendment Act
Members of this House that women continue to be the victims of discrimination, economically and socially, in many different spheres. A report released just a couple of weeks ago clearly documents the fact that a woman in 1982, working full time, earned on average about 60 per cent of the wage of a working man. This wage gap has not closed, it has become bigger. Federal legislation continues to discriminate against women in many respects. The Unemployment Insurance Act continues to discriminate against pregnant women. I might say that one of the concerns of this House was to overrule the absurd decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bliss which said that discrimination against people who were pregnant was not discrimination on the basis of sex, even though the only people who can become pregnant are women. Well, we in this Parliament made it very clear that we did not accept that logic, and we had hoped that this Government would have come forward with meaningful legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and other legislation with respect to pensions to deal with the fact that two thirds of the elderly women in Canada today live in conditions of poverty. But this Government has done nothing.
With respect to discrimination against women, the Government has again moved in a manner which is almost worse than not having moved at all because it gives Canadians the illusion of action, but in fact no meaningful action whatsoever has been taken.
What about the disabled? There is no excuse for further study of the issues of concern to the disabled community of Canada. One of the finest reports ever tabled in this House was the unanimous report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. I want to salute the contribution of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who will be speaking in the course of this debate and who was a member of that committee. The committee tabled a report which made a whole series of very important recommendations for changes in policy and federal legislation and for encouragement of independent living as well as an end to discrimination in the workplace. There were many other similar recommendations. The studies have been done but what is this Government proposing? The disabled community in Canada appeared before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, and I recall vividly as a member of that committee how, day in and day out, they would come to our committee until finally the Government was forced to respond to their cry for full equality. Following the entrenchment of the rights of the disabled in Section 15, this special committee held hearings in cities and towns right across this country. It heard from the disabled and submitted a unanimous report recommending action and changes in the law. We waited with great interest and great hope for the response of this Government to those recommendations. But what did it do? Did it in fact implement, let us say, 50 per cent of the changes recommended? Did it implement three or four of the key recommendations made by the committee? No. The single change made by this Government to assist the two million Canadians who are

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
disabled was an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act to change the word "lunacy" to "mental disability". Shameful, absolutely shameful. After years of study, after unanimous recommendations for change, after the disabled had got their hopes up that this Government might just take seriously its obligations-and I stress that, its obligations-to respond to the call for equality as set out in the Charter, what does this Government come forward with? An amendment to the Canada Shipping Act to change the word "lunacy" to "mental disability".
If I were a member of the disabled community today and looked back at the promises that were made, the hearings that were held and the recommendations that were made, I would ask how much longer we must wait, how many more studies there must be, and how many more hearings must be held before the Government will finally realize that a disabled person in the country is entitled to full equality rather than to having a single word in the Canada Shipping Act changed from "lunacy" to "mentally disabled". What a cynical cop-out on the part of a Government which purports to be concerned about the rights of the disabled.
The Official Opposition is urging all of the groups that appeared before the Constitution Committee to boycott the deliberations of the special committee on equality. Their official critic has actually sent out a letter to every group that appeared before the Constitution Committee urging them not to appear. I suggest that that response is totally wrong. Every group that appeared before the Constitution Committee in 1980 and 1981 and before the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped should appear once again before this committee. They should demand that the Government finally accept its responsibility to change laws to implement full equality for the disabled.
I suggest that that is a more appropriate response than that of the Official Opposition which is telling those groups to stay away and have nothing whatsoever to do with the committee. Those groups should come to the committee and demand that the Government explain to the disabled community why it refused to take action, why it labelled the disabled in the country as a grey area, and why it did not change the laws that it should have changed.
There have been other studies done by the House. A Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian society was struck. It produced an excellent and very strong report clearly documenting the extent of discrimination against visible minorities in Canada. Your Honour was a prominent member of that committee and is well aware of the fact that that committee made many important recommendations for legislative change to improve the position of visible minorities in Canada. I looked with great care through the Bill that was tabled by the Government. There was not a single amendment which responded to the report, Equality Now! So much for the concern of the Government for the recommendations to improve the position of visible minorities. So much for the
concern of the Government to respond to the cry for equality from the disabled. So much for the response of the Government to the cry of Canadian women for equality. There was nothing, silence, abdication.
One of the recommendations that was made by the Special Committee on Visible Minorities, which held hearings across Canada, was that the War Measures Act be reviewed so that never again would 20,000 Canadians be uprooted from their homes and have their property confiscated as occurred during World War II to Canadians of Japanese origin. Never again at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning would Canadians, who have broken no law whatsoever, be scooped from their homes in the Province of Quebec under the provisions of the War Measures Act. Where is the response of the Government to the suggested changes to the War Measures Act? There is silence, nothing at all.
Another recommendation made by the Special Committee on Visible Minorities was that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to cover systemic discrimination, in other words, discrimination which may not be intentional, but practices which might have the effect of discriminating against minorities in Canada. There are two cases, one of Bhinder and the other of O'Malley, before the Supreme Court. In both of those cases the federal Government stood deaf, dumb and mute and refused to say before the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada that it does not accept systemic discrimination and that it believes that that kind of discrimination should be barred by the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I checked with care the legislation that was tabled by the Government hoping that it may have accepted the recommendation of the Committee on Visible Minorities to make it very clear that the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to systemic discrimination. You will know, Mr. Speaker, of the issues that I am referring to here such as job requirements in terms of height, for example, that might discriminate against women, or the wearing of a turban which might discriminate against Sikhs. I looked in vain. Nowhere did the Government deal with that question. Not only did the Government refuse to deal with the question in the context of this Bill, but it refused to stand before the court and argue in support of that broad interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In the event that the Supreme Court of Canada does uphold the decisions in the cases of Bhinder and O'Malley, I hope that the Government will move very quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The other very important issue which the Government has refused to come to grips with is that of financial aid for groups and individuals who want to challenge various federal legislation and policies as being in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am sure there will be many such challenges, because the Bill which was tabled in the House certainly has no substance. The effect of the Government's response to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights is to force minority groups and women into the courts to defend their rights and freedoms. Indeed, the Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer),
March 27, 1985

who chairs the Special Subcommittee on Equality Rights, described the Government's effort as a housekeeping Bill. 1 think that is an accurate description of the Bill.
The fact is that so far the Government has refused to accept its responsibility to establish financial aid for individuals who do seek to challenge legislation that may be in breach of the Charter. This is in direct violation of a promise that was made by the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) before he became Prime Minister. On August 14, 1984 he was asked by the coalition of provincial organizations for the Handicapped whether he supported the provision of resources by the federal Government to disabled Canadians for the establishment of a rights and freedoms defence fund. The Prime Minister said that a Progressive Conservative Government would financially assist all Charter of Rights cases deemed to be of national importance. He said that cases involving rights of the handicapped and disabled would certainly fall into this category. Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that the promise was fairly clear and one would have hoped that the Prime Minister of the country, being a man of his word, would have fulfilled that promise to the disabled, other minorities, and women. Yet the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), in reply to a question which I put to him in the Justice Committee, indicated that he personally did not mind making a contribution to funds established by private groups such as the women's groups that are establishing a fund now. He said, "I personally feel that is the best way to go about this. Then they have independence and no one is interfering". He went on to say, "You are suggesting the Government should do all this, the Government should finance it all, but I say that is very much open to argument".
O)
During the election campaign in August the Prime Minister promised that he would establish a fund to assist litigants who want to challenge legislation. In the next breath, when he is in government, his Minister of Justice refuses to establish that essential fund. To suggest that groups and individuals have rights but to deny them the tools with which to fight for those rights, is a hollow remedy.
You are signalling that my time is coming to an end on this speech and I will draw my remarks to a close. Once again, I want to register my profound concern and anger at the fact that the Government has refused to take seriously the challenge which Parliament set forth in passing the Charter of Rights. That Charter does not belong to governments, it belongs to people. The effect of the Government's inaction is to force women and minorities into the courts but to refuse to assure them that they have the financial resources to defend their rights.
Women, the disabled and other minorities are gravely disappointed with the approach that the Government has taken, and I hope that they will make their views known loudly and clearly to the special committee that has been established to consider Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Statute Law Amendment Act
In closing, I am reminded of the somewhat mocking words of the great British poet, A. E. Housman, who said, "Be still my soul, it is but for a season. Let us endure an hour and see injustice done". There has been too much injustice and too many hours have passed. The time to promote full equality is now. I appeal to the Government to recognize that and to move forward quickly to comply both with the spirit and the letter of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights.
[Translation\


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Madawaska-Victoria, I welcome this opportunity to rise in support of the motion by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) for second reading of Bill C-27, legislation aimed at amending certain federal Acts to bring them into line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, Mr. Speaker, although I have already had an opportunity, as Parliamentary Secretary, to take part in the adjournment debate, this is the first time in this House, that I have a chance to speak to my constituents, and I want to take advantage of this opportunity to thank the people of Madawaska-Victoria for having given me the privilege of representing them here in Parliament, and also to describe briefly for my hon. colleagues the riding of Madawaska-Victoria.
My riding is located in the northwestern part of New Brunswick. To the west it borders on the Province of Quebec and to the south on the State of Maine, in the United States. My riding extends along the St. John River from the Quebec border to Perth, Andover, and has a population of about 57,000. Seventy-five per cent are Francophones and of French ethnic origin, while 25 per cent have English as their mother tongue. The federal riding of Madawaska-Victoria covers six provincial ridings, five of which are represented by provincial Members in the Government of the Hon. Richard Hatfield.
Mr. Speaker, following the example of some of my colleagues, I would like to explain to the Members of this House that Madawaska-Victoria is a very special riding, because the people belong to what we refer to as the legendary republic of Madawaska, and also because of those hardworking people in the Victoria, Tobique area.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents are mainly engaged in the agro-food business and forestry. I wish I could be as eloquent as some of my colleagues have been with respect to their own ridings, in describing Madawaska-Victoria as a region with warmhearted people, beautiful rivers and marvelous landscapes. However, the people of Madawaska-Victoria also have some major problems. The statistics are nothing to be particularly proud about, but I feel they reflect the legacy we received from the previous Government.
My riding's per capita income is lower than the provincial average, and need I add, Mr. Speaker, that the average per capita income in New Brunswick is much lower than the Canadian average. The unemployment rate in my riding is

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
very high, in fact it is higher than the provincial and national average.
We hope this situation, which has existed for a long time in Madawaska-Victoria, is going to change, and we are confident that by electing this Government on September 4 we are now on the right track.
The people of Madawaska-Victoria have traditionally supported the Official Opposition in federal elections, and they have seen what good this has done them. Mr. Speaker, that is the context in which should be considered my election on September 4 and for which I am truly grateful to my constituents in Madawaska-Victoria. They gave a massive support to the Progressive Conservative Party at the last election and gave their confidence to a team led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). During my mandate and during this Parliament, I really intend to prove worthy of their confidence by discharging my responsibilities as best I can.
Mr. Speaker, after being in power for almost seven months, even if we are young and inexperienced members, we follow the proceedings in the House and we are tempted to make some comments ... I listened carefully to the comments made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) a while ago in reply to the speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). I also heard the criticisms of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Certain things were brought out in the speech made by the spokesman of the official opposition.
It is clear from their speeches since September 4 that they are frustrated after being decimated throughout the country, but when I see in this House the logic and rhetoric of the Liberal Party, I am grateful that my electors had enough wisdom to elect a member of the Progressive Conservative party. I thank the Canadian people for having elected a government which has avoided the Liberal Party rhetoric.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. I thought he was making his maiden speech and I did allow him a few minutes to speak about his constituency, but I must now ask him to speak on Bill C-27.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, that is what I am going to do. I listened with attention to the comments made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) in reply to the speech of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and I was saying how amazed I was at the rhetoric.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I understand. I heard the Hon. Member repeating the same thing in French. I would like him now to carry on with Bill C-27.
[ Translation]


Bernard Valcourt: Of course, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 now being considered comes under attack by the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. I do not want to prolong the debate, but the Opposition is trying to prove that Bill C-27 is a very minor piece of legislation which is not quite in the same league as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Well, Mr. Speaker, they have to admit that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in 1982 does enshrine the rights and freedoms of all Canadians and did make radical changes in our society. Courts, provincial legislatures, the Federal Government and all citizens are affected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the Constitution, our most basic law, acknowledges those rights in no uncertain terms.
They now claim that the Government is not doing anything. Well, none of the critics has mentioned the fact, among others, that as recently as September 14, 1984 the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision in the Southam-Hunter case with respect to the powers of entry and inspection provided under some federal Acts. In less than four months the Government took into consideration the principles of that decision and embodied them in Bill C-27 which contains amendments related to powers of entry and search as well as powers of entry and inspection.
As a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleagues in the House that those amendments stemming from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Southam case are more than welcome. The critics of the Official Opposition or of the New Democratic Party can say what they like, but the fact is that the Government did not wait for years before taking action, with the result that the amendments can now be found in Bill C-27.
Mr. Speaker, I also deplore the fact that the official critic of the Liberal Party has urged all Canadians from coast to coast to boycott the hearings of the major committee duly appointed to look into the document entitled "Equity Issues in Federal Law, A discussion paper", that was recently published and tabled by the Minister of Justice. This committee, made up of representatives from the Government, the Official Opposition and the NDP, was asked to consider some truly important issues in the light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, our hon. friends from the Liberal Party will regard that as evidence of inaction and lack of leadership, claiming that the Government should put an end to its consultations and take some strong positive action. What the Official Opposition critic is saying is that we should not seek the Canadian public's views on the important issues raised in this document, including retirement, status, age of majority, sexual preferences of individuals. These critics are consistent with the philosophy of the Liberal Party which claims to be the sole possessor of all knowledge and the supreme judge of all truth
March 27, 1985

and virtue ... Yet, the very first lines in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide, under Section 1, that these rights and freedoms are-
-subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Mr. Speaker, no government, even one controlling 211 seats in the House, can rightfully claim that it has the exclusive knowledge of what is good for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I am about to run out of time. I urge all my hon. colleagues, irrespective of their party affiliation, and even my learned friend the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) to contribute positively to this debate on Bill C-27 and to refer it without delay to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for further study and possible improvements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments?
Since there are no questions or comments, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, as April 17 approaches, I take great pride in both my country and my Party.
Three years ago the Liberal Government and its provincial counterparts brought to Canada the guarantees that are so vital to life in a democratic society such as ours. The Canadian Constitution with its entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms expresses in legal language the values that we hold dear, the values we proudly stand for on the world stage, the values we wish to protect and pass down to our children and to our children's children.

For the first time, the Charter was entrenched in the Constitution to fight against oppression and discrimination. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms asserts the basic freedoms and rights to equality of every Canadian. Section 15 of the Charter lists these rights:
-the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination .. . discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
We are all aware that Section 15 of the Charter comes into force on April 17. Unfortunately, we will not be able to greet the present Government's treatment of Section 15 with the enthusiasm that we should have for the Charter as a whole or that which we were able to show and demonstrate for this Charter. There will be small reason for us to celebrate that day. The present Government has done less than half its job. Almost two months ago, it introduced Bill C-27 into this House. The Bill was to ensure that federal legislation complied with the Charter. In part, it sought to ensure compliance with the forthcoming implementation of the equality rights provisions of this Charter by amending only 50 pieces of federal legislation out of 1,100 statutes which they had to look at,
Statute Law Amendment Act
including legislation in the Livestock Pedigree Act and the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
I really do not think that these were the major issues that the Coalition of Women's Groups had in mind when they fought so hard to ensure that this vital section found its place in the Charter reflecting our value system. In fact, it is a tremendous disappointment.
What the present Government failed woefully to do in Bill C-27 was to bite the bullet. It failed to bite the bullet on a score of other equality issues that it is obliged to address in order to ensure compliance with the grounds outlined in Section 15. Instead, it has chosen to introduce partial and cosmetic changes. It has merely tinkered with language and delayed decisions on a number of truly critical equality issues through the mechanism of another discussion paper.
I suggest that the Government is afraid to address too many of the hard issues of the day. It lacks the political will to treat unpopular issues. Governing a country of over 25 million people is not a popularity contest. Canada prides itself on its multicultural nature and, therefore, it makes it an even more complex society, along with its bilingual character. Unfortunately, this Government has not yet learned really to face the facts. Perhaps it will one day realize that it cannot have everyone love it all the time. This Government is busy perfecting the art of protracted consultants and is confirming to everyone what the initials PC really stand for. In the meantime, it subsists on language doctoring to appease the requirements of Section 15 in the few pieces of federal legislation that it proposes to amend with this Bill. The present Government's treatment of the obligations imposed upon it by this Charter, particularly the equality provisions, show too clearly its timidity and its inability to face the hard facts of political life.
The Liberal Government set in motion an audit of federal statutes almost two years ago. Its purpose was to determine whether those statutes contained provisions that would be discriminatory, that is, whether the distinctions were made in legislation for irrelevant or capricious reasons or whether the legislation contained valid distinctions that would not amount to a denial of the equality rights and thereby create unexpected and unlawful discrimination practices.
[ Translation]
I am well aware that a complete review of all the federal statutes is a monstrous task. I am also aware of the complexity of the decisions required to determine whether this or that order includes a denial of the rights to equality, or, to go even further, a recognition of these rights.

For example, a straightforward statute audit would probably be inadequate to examine equality issues in areas such as criminal law, the legislative treatment of reproductive capacity, pensions, and the position of Indian women, but even here the Government did not respect its own constituency or intentions. Here something more than a statute audit is needed.

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
We will need to see a very sophisticated level of constitutional analysis, argumentation and policy review. We will need to examine laws and other jurisdictions such as international jurisdictions that we have signed. We will also need to give in depth consideration to numerous law reform proposals in light of the equality provisions of the Charter.
The parliamentary Subcommittee on Equality Rights proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is an appropriate vehicle in these very limited cases for determining whether certain federal laws need to be amended to conform with the Charter. In these limited areas, I support the naming of that subcommittee. This subcommittee will have the delicate task of balancing social, economic, political and constitutional considerations as it examines our federal laws.
This Government has gone beyond simply delaying decisions on some of the more difficult questions. It has avoided its responsibility to make the hard decisions of political life by not introducing more comprehensive legislation on equality. It could have ensured that all distinctions be given the broadest and largest interpretation, thus setting the appropriate tone and sending out the kind of message of openness to our visible minorities, to the native people, women, the handicapped and the courts of this land. Instead, it has tossed the bulk of equality issues, equality issues that need no more discussion and which should be legislated immediately, into a discussion paper.
The Charter of Rights educational fund, a volunteer group of women lawyers, certainly gave us something as a model, for they produced a 2,000-page document addressing and recommending in great and minute detail the needed changes. How can the Minister of Justice with all his staff and all their resources not feel both embarrassed and irresponsible when he presents such meagre, almost unimportant technical changes as his response to the April 17 deadline? I think it is a shame.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), expressed their concerns for the present Government's action. Only the least controversial amendments have been introduced, they noted. All the issues that dealt with unpopular groups or were controversial or expensive to implement have not obtained justice from the Department of Justice. My confreres feared that the neglect of the Government to implement the Charter fully might result in the Government's relying on public opinion, which can be very insensitive to women, minorities and to the determination of their rights. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if the Government allows the general public to make the decisions about these rights instead of acting itself to entrench vested rights in the Charter, the Conservatives could be allowing the majority to determine the rights of the minority. I should not have to remind the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) of the danger of this. Unfortunately, this must be done, and urgently, because I am very much afraid that this discussion paper will give the Government an excuse to blame the so-called majority for any possible irresponsibility.

If this Government is afraid to bite the legislative bullet, those in this country who are minorities or disadvantaged groups will have no recourse but to go through a prohibitively expensive court process to see non-complying legislation tested and struck down.
I listened to the comments of a number of Members here with respect to Obstacles and the document Equality Now! I remind Hon. Members that Equality Now! was just recently tabled and was in the process of being addressed by our Government. With respect to Obstacles, 116 of the 145 recommendations have been implemented, and follow-up responses and meetings have been taking place. Is this Government going to treat its women and its minorities fairly, without forcing them to undertake expensive, unnecessary and timeconsuming court challenges? Actions to date lead me to assume that the Government is going to let these groups incur incredible costs. It is patently clear from the the limited actions taken in Bill C-27 to correct inequalities that the Government is unresponsive to the handicapped, visible minorities, and native and women's groups it was elected to serve. Time, effort, thought, new directions and legislative change recommendations went into the report, but they were not heard. The Government has made many promises. The time for action is now.
I would suggest that the voices of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) and the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) have not been heard in an appropriate manner, and I think that is a shame. Why did they not insist on appropriate legislative change?

Let me give you an example. Bill C-27 does not deal with the issue of sexual orientation. Quebec is the only province to have shown enough courage to guarantee non-discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indeed, what has the Federal Government done until now? Has it acted fairly to provide true equality, especially for women? Has it taken its responsibilities seriously? I do not think so. We can look in particular at their actions on the issues of sexual orientation, the disabled, visible minorities and women. The Government has suggested a discussion on these issues so that it would not have to make a decision which the public might not like.
Mr. Speaker, we have had enough rhetoric. The Charter on equality deserves better than to be evaluated on the basis of its popularity at the polls.

Surely the Government could have opened its mind a little further and accepted certain legislative provisions that contained distinctions between the treatment of certain sectors of society, distinctions that the needs of society and the welfare of its members will support. I am referring specifically to the handicapped, to older workers and to maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
March 27, 1985

With respect to the latter, maternity benefits have been called into question by the discussion paper. The legislation that permits pregnant women maternity leave benefits is not discriminatory but, rather, provides distinct treatment on the basis that it is conducive to the welfare of our society as a whole, recognizes women's attachment to the labour force and makes a place for them. It is also in keeping with our signature on international covenants. Yet the Hon. Minister of Justice has chosen not to make a decision in time for the coming into force of the equality section. He has let the issue sit on the discussion paper.
Dealing as I do with a variety of portfolios, 1 am aware of the complexities of some of the decisions we must make when squaring the equality provisions of the Charter with our existing and future federal legislation. As I stated a few moments ago, 1 cannot fault the Government for reflecting carefully on the implications of the Charter, but I absolutely deplore, first, the Minister's cynicism and, second, the Government's seeming inability to make a number of straightforward decisions about straightforward laws, whether they deal with unemployment insurance benefits for pregnant women, family allowance cheques, mandatory retirement, needs of the handicapped or equality needs of the visible minorities.
Rather than proceeding with an abundance of caution, the Government has demonstrated an abundance of paralysis. It has cast the bulk of equality issues into the public arena when it should instead act as the Liberal Government was prepared to act. Perhaps it is time to see a little more courage coming from the other side of the House, a little less rhetoric and a little more keeping of the promises that were in the hearts and minds of the men and women who elected the Government with such a great majority. It should begin to live up to the things it promised the country.


Mr. Corbett:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has gone to great lengths to criticize the Government for its handling of this issue. A criticism was levelled at the inaction and inappropriate direction that has been taken. The Hon. Member reminds me somewhat of the justice critic of her Party whom I understand she may possibly have replaced as a member on the subcommittee.
In his comments, the justice critic of the Official Opposition has been even more harshly critical of the Government's handling of the entire affair and indeed has even made the comment in committee that the interest groups to which the Hon. Member has referred should boycott the hearings. Of course, the opinions he expresses in committee and beyond committee are substantially felt and we have heard them in the House. Does the Hon. Member support the justice critic of the Official Opposition in his position that interest groups should indeed boycott the hearings of the subcommittee?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the Hon. Member did not bother to listen to what I said. If he had, he would have been somewhat clearer in his ability to question our direction.
Statute Law Amendment Act
First, I would like to advise the Hon. Member and the Minister of Justice, who did not seem to know it that I am very pleased to be sitting on the subcommittee. I am even more pleased because the Government did not take into its hands the decisions that it should have taken. It left some of the thorny issues which I had said needed to be addressed by the subcommittee for the subcommittee to consider, and it is for that reason that I am pleased to be sitting on that subcommittee. However, it left a great many other questions to that subcommittee which it did not need to leave.
There were reams and reams of real documentary evidence presented in the documents Equality Now! and Obstacles as well as evidence obtained through hearings that had been taking place from 1980 to 1981 on which the Government could easily have acted and shown the courage of leadership. That was the issue addressed by our critic. That is why I believe the Hon. Member for York Centre was perfectly right. I have not seen the document to which the Hon. Member refers but I believe the intent behind the Hon. Member's action was that those groups that have spent much time, money and effort to enunciate their plans are asking what the point of returning is because the Government did not listen to them in the first place.
The reason other groups should come, and I would encourage them to come, is that there are other thorny issues that have social, economic and political consequences which go beyond the limits of discrimination as we understand it and which have very serious social impacts. Those are the things at which we should look and those are the things I think we will address with a great deal of care at the same time as we will insist on looking through the documents that were already tabled, so that in committee we may make some of the hard decisions the brave Minister of Justice was not prepared to make regarding his over-all responsibility.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the privilege of meeting the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) but I have had the great pleasure of listening to her on a number of occasions. Then as now, I have listened with interest and benefit. I have always admired the graceful way in which she addresses the House. It sets an example that I wish some of her fellow members of the Opposition might emulate.
I would like to focus attention for few moments on one theme that ran throughout the Hon. Member's remarks. Indeed, this theme began almost at the beginning of her speech. She was referring to the Constitution and her own Party's share in bringing that Constitution and the Charter into existence as the basis of government in this country. I quite agree that her Party and its then Leader deserve great credit. They certainly took what could be called the lion's share in initiating that great development. But we must recognize that the Constitution belongs to all of us. Both sides of the House of Commons participated in the leadership which made the Constitution possible and all of the provinces engaged actively in the process. The courts were involved. Ultimately, the Constitution became the achievement of all Canadians. It

March 27, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
was not due to what the Liberal Government did, but in spite
of it.
The Constitution Act was initiated as a partisan venture which expressed the views of the then Government. But it had to become bigger than that. There had to be consulation with the nation which the Government had not intended. That consultation was forced on the Government by provincial Governments, the strong and courageous stand of the Opposition Parties and, finally, it was forced on it by the courts. In that great constitutional debate we have an example of what we were trying to achieve through the process which is under consideration in this legislation, that is, to bring the entire nation into the discussion and to involve all interested parties.
Over and over again the Hon. Member said that this Government wants to maintain its popularity and that democratic government is not a popularity contest. I believe that the Hon. Member is misreading the situation. The word "popularity" originates from the word "populus". It involves the populace of the country. This Government is striving to involve the population of Canada in a Bill which is vital to all groups. Surely, the wisdom in that is that the Government should not attempt to set forth the rights of certain minority groups and risk polarization in society. Very frequently that has been the result, because social change has been made without the widest consensus possible.
1 would hope that the Hon. Member would see the merits and the value of the process in which we are engaged. In spite of the credit which is due to her former Leader, the former Prime Minister of Canada, I have to believe that no one ever talked so much about unity and no one ever did so much to polarize the country. With the style of government in which we are now engaged, we are striving to avoid polarization by bringing the people of Canada together to express their consensus in legislation which will achieve their common aspirations.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his observations as they give me an opportunity to express my point of view. He spoke about vox populi. It was the vox populi that said they were going to elect a large and strong Conservative majority. Every Tory Member is a representative of a riding and the people who live in it. The people have given them a mandate and have shown trust. The issues before this House-when it comes to minority and majority responsibilities and how a Government must respond-are the responsibilities of those Members. Government Members will have to face their electors. If the electors do not like what they are going to do, they will let their Members know. The electors certainly let them know when the universality issue arose. Government Members changed their view.
I am not concerned. This is a consultation with the public. Members of the Government have come into the House to put into operation a new form of government and a new direction. They can go back and consult their constituents one by one if
they wish, but not when it comes to legislating the kind of values which stand behind the people who are the most vulnerable and weak in our society.
I am a new Member and I am learning lots of things. I do not know if he is a new Member, but I look forward to meeting him. I would like to bring to his attention-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I would like to indicate that she has 30 seconds remaining.


Sheila Finestone: I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member a list of very important witnesses who represent the grass roots all the way along the political spectrum. Those witnesses came, in 1980 and 1981, to the constitutional hearings to express their concerns and to indicate what needed to be done to put Section 15 into application. All the texts of the drafts of law were there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allowed for questions and comments has now terminated. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on debate.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is nothing very objectionable about the Bill. What is wrong with it is the omissions. The Bill consists of a lot of trivial points. Certainly, amendments are required. But the really important issues were not dealt with in the Bill. Those issues appear in the discussion paper.
The Bill has been referred to as housekeeping legislation. If it had really been housekeeping, it would have been much better. It is no better than a lick and a promise. With regard to justice and equality, what is needed is a good spring cleaning. That, we do not have.

What is scandalous is that, instead of introducing legislation to ensure equality with regard to pensions, equal opportunities in the labour market and maternity leave, the Government wants to have a discussion. It has raised the question of equality on the matter of pensions, but is it fair that women should receive a lower pension because they live longer than men on the average? It is obvious that women need the same pensions as men. They pay the same for housing, food and transport. Their pension is lower because pensions are linked to wages and women do not earn as much as men.

Instead of dealing with that very important matter in a concrete manner, it has been relegated to discussion. The sex-based mortality tables are used to compute annuities, which will mean that women will get lower amounts than men. There is no discrimination on the basis of race or any other behaviourial characteristic in the tables. Simply, women get lower annuities than men because they live longer. However,
March 27, 1985

there is no discrimination between the different races because they have different mortality rates. There was a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women as far back as 1970 on this matter. It appeared in the green paper on pensions, and women's groups have lobbied for that reform for years. The women will have to raise this matter again and again. But the Government only wants to discuss the matter.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) showed a decided lack of enthusiasm when he introduced the Bill. It is clear that the Government feels that we have to have equality because it is in the Charter and something has to be done. Certainly, the Government will do the absolute minimum. The Minister said that he wanted to hear the groups and that they would be given an opportunity to be heard. However, he has not been listening because groups, individuals, experts and people from across the country have been saying that they want equality, justice and specific amendments to legislation without further delay.
Statute Law Amendment Act
The Charter of Rights Educational Fund has recently released a report which has a much more ambitious and to-the-point approach to the issue of equality. That group raises the real issues. It points out that there is discrimination against women on matters such as the lack of protection for women's health products. That is a hidden form of discrimination which has not been raised. The old boys' network in employment matters discriminates against women with respect to employment. That matter has not been raised for discussion. Unemployment insurance limits against women-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. When debate resumes on Bill C-27, the Hon. Member will have 16 minutes remaining for debate, plus the ten-minute question period.

It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
12
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 28, 1985