1985-04-01

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 29, 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.
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I confess to have been looking forward to debating the Government's proposal to implement the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights coming into effect, as they do, in the middle of this month.
In the previous Government we were at work on preparing to face up to the fact that many of our laws contain measures which create inequalities in our society. A project had begun where a group of law officers of the Crown had been given the task of reviewing statutes, over 1,000 in number, in light of the equality provisions of the Charter. They were to make recommendations to the Government for the removal of any aspect of discrimination, unfairness or inequality in those statutes. We did this because Parliament should act to remove these inequalities in order to bring our laws into compliance with the Charter to save ordinary citizens, particularly those who were disadvantaged under the present law, from the hardship, difficulty and costs of taking their cases to court. There is, of course, no doubt that they can take their cases to court because the Charter is now the law of Canada and the equality provisions will become part of that law as of April 18. In my submission and that of my Party it is not appropriate for Parliament to be engaged now in a decision about what the Charter should be. That is already settled, it is the law. How it is to be interpreted is a question for the courts to decide in the final analysis.
What we ought to have been doing is looking at all of the legislation in the country, following up on the project which had been begun, and changing that legislation to bring it up to the high standard which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has established. Well, the present Government recognized its
responsibility. If I can quote the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) in his discussion paper Equality Issues in Federal Law, and I intend to return to this again during the course of my remarks, the Minister noted at page 6:
Section 15 reinforces the responsibility that governments have to shape laws, policies and programs to the goal of equality-
I would have judged this legislation by the Minister's own standard, that is, the responsibility of governments to shape laws to the goal of equality. Let us look at Bill C-27 and discover how close the Government has come to achieving the goal of equality by way of its legislation.
I think I can sum it up with a statement made by the Minister himself in a speech in Quebec City. He was talking about the responsibilities of removing discrimination and bringing our laws up to the high standard required by the Charter. He ended on a wistful note quoting from Robert Browning, saying: "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" By that he meant that there will inevitably be a shortfall between what we would like to do with regard to removing discrimination and what we will actually achieve. According to Robert Browning and the Minister, that is sort of a good thing because it leaves room for progress and movement.
However, it is tragic that there is such a tremendous shortfall between what will be attainable and what the Government is required to do by the Charter. There is such a shortfall that Bill C-27 can only be called a cop-out and a very inadequate effort, if it can be called an effort at all to live up to the responsibilities imposed on government by the Charter.
The national Government should have assumed leadership in encouraging the provinces, which also have legislative responsibilities, to bring their own laws into compliance with the Charter. Far from providing leadership to the provinces, the Government seems to have reinforced a do-nothing approach. It has left it to the underprivileged groups in society which do not have equality under the law to go to court and argue their case.
I would like to remind Canadians that the national Government did not welcome the three-year period of time which was given to it and other governments to bring laws into compliance with the Charter. We would have preferred a shorter period of time, or no time at all, so that when the Charter was implemented in 1982 the process of bringing the laws into compliance with the Charter would have been overdue. We were pressured by the provinces to give them a period of time. Eventually three years was agreed to.

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
I would have hoped that the federal Government would have done its duty in that three-year period and would also have encouraged the provinces to do theirs. On the contrary, we now have legislation which does very little and which leaves private interest groups to continue to argue their cases. After I have gone through the legislation I want to turn to the other half of this package, the work of the parliamentary committee, and give my views and the views of my Party on its work.
What is in the Bill that has been put before us? Most of it is contained in Part V, the reform. This so-called reform is a very poor substitute for a true effort to bring the laws of Canada into compliance with the Charter equality provisions. Most of the changes are artificial, semantic, and without very much consequence. The greatest number of amendments are devoted to Acts governing merchant seaman, laker pilots and returned soldiers. Last week in the House one of the members of the Conservative Party argued that the very thickness of the Bill was some evidence of an effort by the Government to do something.
However, when you think of the small group of individuals in society that is affected by the merchant seamen legislation, the laker pilot legislation and the returned soldier legislation, you can see how very little has been done in the Bill. This is a group of Canadians who are entitled to have the laws that affect them brought into compliance with the Charter. However, when one looks at the amendments that are made in their interest, one can see how very little there is. Clause 74 and Clause 97 amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act and the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, adding widowers to those who can receive payments from the Fund. While that is fair, of course, it is very little.
Clauses 75 through 83 amend the Bankruptcy Act and present us with what can only be called non-amendments. Monumental and courageous changes are not to be found here. The Government has merely substituted the word "spouse" for the phrase "husband and wife" and the word "child" for the phrase "son and daughter". Clause 83, which amends subsection 190(2) of the Act, makes a recognition that debtors may be female as well as male and thus substitutes the phrase "debtors' creditors" for "his creditors". These are hardly what could be called the reform that the country was expecting when the Charter equality provisions were to come into effect.
Clauses 84 through 89 lower the minimum age for potential directors of co-op associations and applicants for farm syndicate loans from 21 years old to 18 years old. While this is a form of progress, these are changes which are nothing more than a recognition of the change of the age of majority which has been in effect in our country for the last 15 years. Such an amendment shows that the Government is lagging far behind the new realities brought forward in the implementation of the Charter. It would not be so bad to have these changes if some serious reform was also included in the legislation. However, it is obvious that nothing else has been added.
Clauses 90 to 93 amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act but they are also rather inconsequential. They substitute the phrase "surviving spouse" for the expression "widow or invalid widower". One must wonder if this is the limit of the imagination of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government in reforming the legislation. Where are the new ideas and new approaches that were promised by the Prime Minister?
Clauses 94 and 95 amend the Pilotage Act. Certain provisions have been deleted as a factor in the calculation of the interval between medical examinations. Now, pilots who are 55 years of age and over are required to submit to an examination only once every three years instead of once a year. We must note that no change is made in the rule which demands mandatory retirement of pilots at age 65.
Next, clauses 98 through 103, which amend the Canada Shipping Act, allow for the possibility that a woman who owns a ship will transfer it by marriage to her husband and that men may be mortgagees of the vessel transferred to them. Also, they substitute the words "mental disability" for "lunacy" and include "husband" in the definition of a near relative. In other words, it is a set of semantic changes that recognize that women, in relation to the Canada Shipping Act, may be carrying on the activities that are carried on by men.
We know that the rules of statutory interpretation recognize all of this anyway. Under the rules of statutory interpretation, "his" can be taken to mean "hers" where appropriate, such as in a case like this.
This is really a semantic exercise to which we have been treated by the Government. It is not at all an exercise in bringing the laws into compliance with the Charter requirement that there be no discrimination but fairness and equality.
Clause 104, which amends the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, eliminates the distinction between 16-year old boys and 17-year old girls, as far as the language of the statute is concerned. Again, it is not significant.
That is the sum and substance of the legislation. Taken as a whole, all of these changes show no attempt to instil our legislation with the same spirit that ensured the inclusion of Section 15 of the Charter. They mark a dismal failure on the part of the Government to perform its legislative duty. What is presented to the Canadian people is a mere recognition of language, semantic equality, and nothing of the social realities and possibilities. There is not to be found here any transformation of legislation which is commensurate with the high value placed by Canadians on the idea of equality.
The Government had an answer when it was criticized for doing pathetically little in the legislation: the Government not only prepared legislation but prepared a discussion paper. The Government established a subcommittee of the Justice Committee and I am pleased to be a member of that subcommittee. I can say that my Party intends to co-operate and support the work of that subcommittee. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) will be spending a lot of time working
April 1, 1985

on that committee and will be the lead spokesman for our Party. We continue to believe that the concept of setting up that committee, giving it such a short time limit and a wide mandate and keeping it in the dark about some very important questions, shows that the Government is not serious about wanting to achieve equality.
I want to elaborate for a moment on some of the problems we see with the committee. In the first place we wanted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians because we recognized that even with the fundamental decency that characterizes Canadian society, there are minority groups and groups with a minority perspective that do not have the total and absolute approval of Canadian public opinion. The battle of these groups to achieve equality will be a tough one. They will be battling against public opinion. There is an educational job, in a sense, to be done to inform the Canadian people about the meaning to these minority groups of the kind of discrimination and hardship which is part of their daily lives. I refer, for example, to the handicapped for whom a great deal needs to be done to bring them to a positon of fair equality and access with other Canadians, to the benefit of our Canadian society. We recognized that by entrenching rights in the Charter for minority groups, by providing that these are rights recognized by law, they cannot be taken away from these groups by Parliament or by the legislatures. One recalls the ringing statements of our former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau. We were telling the Canadian people that their legislators can go so far but no further in diminishing their rights. That is what the Charter is about.
What is the discussion paper about? What is the committee about? It is another round robin exercise where the very groups we want to protect from majority public opinion will be submitted to the pressure of majority public opinion in the analysis of their rights.
I talked about the handicapped a moment ago. Let me pursue that. One of the things we anticipate is that providing equality for handicapped groups in our society will cost and may cost some pretty big bucks. It may be, for example, that every public building in this country will have to have a ramp entrance provided so that the handicapped in wheelchairs will be able to enter. There are no entrances like that in the Parliament Buildings right now. If they are to be provided and if the law will require that, I can see a government as cost-conscious and as fanatically dedicated to deficit reduction as this Government wanting to deny that kind of construction program across the country or wanting to phase it in over an unfairly long period of time.
In light of this kind of consideration, the chance of handicapped groups doing well and getting their rights before the kind of committee and in the kind of process which will be set up is not very likely. I say the same in connection with retirees who are retiring because they are required to by law. Are those laws valid? A committee is being asked to look at the question. There will be a kind of controversy before the committee. I
Statute Law Amendment Act
suppose some groups will think about promotions which will not be available if mandatory retirement is removed. Some groups will be arguing that mandatory retirement should continue because of a vested interest. Others will see a vested interest on the other side. The decision will not be made on the basis of Charter principles. I am afraid a parliamentary committee will act the way a parliamentary committee should act. It will try to figure out what is public opinion. While I say that is the way it should act, in a sense it is regrettable that democracy works that way. It was because of a recognition that democracy works that way that we entrenched fundamental rights which are now for the courts to determine, not for legislatures, this Parliament or this parliamentary committee to determine.
I had a great deal more which I wanted to say, but in my remaining minute I want to indicate the wrong-headedness of dealing with this problem in the way the Government has. I call upon the Government to let us know what legal opinions it has received on the requirements to change legislation to comply with the Charter. That is really the way in which a parliamentary committee, if it is to operate, should operate. We are being kept in the dark about a process which I should like to describe in this thumbnail sketch. I think the law officers of the Crown did their job. They looked at over a thousand laws. They made legal opinions in many cases. Some of them might be deemed controversial, but in many cases they were able to give the Government advice that "this provision needs to be changed, that provision needs to be changed and probably this one does".
Did the Government bring forward the changes which were recommended? I do not think it did. I think it brought forward the absolute bare minimum and ignored the advice of the officers of the Crown. It will be one of our main purposes as a committee to try to find out from the Government what the law officers of the Crown have been saying and what are the many laws which ought to be changed. Let us go about doing our business, not just changing the grammar or gender in ways that really do not make any difference to anyone, given the Interpretation Act. Let us bring in the real changes which will make our laws comply with the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-27 because it has at least one provision which, if allowed to stand, will cause a very grave injustice. Generally, as previous speakers have said, this Bill does not do very much. The arrangement of three years ago was that three years after the Charter came into force the Government, having had time to review the laws, would bring them into line with all provisions of the Charter, particularly the equality ones. As has been said by our critic, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and by other speakers, very little was done on substantive questions such as the equality of women. There were just a few little word changes.
However, one change has been made which some people might have overlooked. It could endanger the lives of refugees or of their families back home. Clause 112 makes a change

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
which is against the interests and even the personal safety of refugees and their families.
First I refer to the old Subsections 29(2) and (3) of the Immigration Act. This is when a person has come to the airport and said "I am a refugee from another country". He then goes to an inquiry. In that inquiry he is supposed to make his claim to be a refugee. Subsection (2) states:
At the request or with the permission of the person with respect to whom an inquiry is to be held, an adjudicator shall allow any person to attend an inquiry if such attendance is not likely to impede the inquiry.
That is to say, at the request of the person who may be going to declare his refugee claim. If he or she wants other people to attend, they may be allowed to attend. Subsection (3) is very clear:
Except as provided in subsection (2), an inquiry by an adjudicator shall be held in camera.
There was good reason for that law. It was to protect the person who, as a result of his or her situation at that point, had to be one of the weakest and most defenceless people within our borders. That is being changed in this proposed law. It now reads:
An inquiry by an adjudicator may, on application therefor, be held in camera if it is established to the satisfaction of the adjudicator that the person with respect to whom the inquiry is to be held, or any interest of Her Majesty, as the case may be, would be adversely affected if the inquiry were conducted in public.
In other words, it is no longer given to the refugee claimant to say whether he wants the inquiry held in camera, whether he wants other people attending. How he or she may make that request and be overruled by the adjudicator.
I am not aware of any reason being given for this change. This is not one of the important changes, such as those previous speakers mentioned in the Shipping Act and so on. This change could cost the person his or her life or the life of a member of the family. It is very strange that, in the interest of justice, the Charter and equality, the Government should have chosen to make such a perverse and dangerous change in what was otherwise a satisfactory law.
The Government has a strange notion of equality. We see that illustrated in other sections of the Act; for example, with regard to women. With regard to the rights of a person applying for unemployment insurance while pregnant, we have the Bliss decision which says there is no discrimination against women on account of a decision against a person for being pregnant. You would think that the Supreme Court in that case was of the opinion that men or women could equally become pregnant. At any rate, there should have been an attempt to correct that in this law to make it clear that women should be protected fully, even when they are pregnant; but that was not done.
Likewise with the disabled, a committee had many hearings about the disabled and the disabled made many recommendations, some of them key recommendations; yet there is practically nothing reflecting that in this Act. The only thing that
affects it is the change of one word in the Shipping Act concerning lunacy. Nothing else was done for the disabled.
In those cases it appears there is a perverse concept of equality and equal justice. The concept allows for the strong to be aggressive towards the weak. It says the Government should not interfere, in a contest between the strong and the weak, on behalf of the weak. Whether a person is weak personally and individually, perhaps physically, or whether a person is weak through belonging to a group which is at a disadvantage in society, the principle of justice would be that the law would give special protection to the weak.
Our law does that very clearly in another matter, a matter that is not reflected in this law today. I want to give it as an example. Nobody in his right mind would challenge it. Our Criminal Code makes it an offence for an adult to seek sexual relations with a child in a manner which, if the adult sought sexual relations with another adult, would not violate the Criminal Code. In other words, there is a concept of free choice which it is considered can be made by an adult, but cannot clearly be made by a child because the child could be under pressure or, being a child, ignorant. Therefore, an adult is not entitled to take advantage of a child because in that sense the child is considered weaker than the adult. That concept is in our law. It is a sound principle, a principle of justice. It does not say that the strong, in that case the adult, has equal rights with the weak, in that case the child.
We have made some progress in the Criminal Code with regard to assault by men against women, even married men against their wives. It has been clarified. On the whole whatever is the wording, the clear indication was that what was being done was to protect the person who might be physically weaker than the other and who also might be at an economic disadvantage because of her membership in an economically disadvantaged group.
That is the correct way to go to protect the weak against the strong. If there is a conflict of rights, as there very often is, then the obligation of a just, honourable and humane society is to ensure that, above all, the rights of the weak are protected. This is a principle that has been put forward very eloquently in the last couple of years by the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada. They talked about the preferential option for the poor. They do not say that we have to give the rich and poor equal rights in all matters, or equal consideration, equal help or equal support. They say that the poor need special support, special protection because they are poor, because they do not have the strength of money and power.
In this case we are dealing with people who are extremely weak, extremely powerless. A man or woman may come here on the run from another country, perhaps with children, in fear of their lives. They come to Canada and they want to be refugees. If this law is adopted in the form asked for by the Government, they will have to make that declaration in an open court if the adjudicator decides that they do not have good reason for holding the inquiry in camera. The benefit of the doubt is with the adjudicator instead, as before, being with the refugee claimant.
April 1, 1985

What good purpose is served by this change? I cannot imagine that it benefits the adjudicator to have that power of choice absolutely in his or her hands and which originally was absolutely in the hands of the refugee claimant. I cannot see how the adjudicator loses by letting the refugee claimant make the decision whether others should be allowed in the hearing or not.
Perhaps a media reporter may want to come in. The media reporter might lose in the sense that on that day he or she may not be able to write a story about a human interest case. There might be some genuine loss or deprivation to a reporter in that sense, but consider the other side. If news of that person's refugee claim comes out in a public way and that person is known to have made certain accusations against the Government of his or her country, and if that person's refugee claim is not sustained in Canada, and many times that happens, that person must return to his or her country to a government that has learned that he or she made as unfavourable statement. That person might be persecuted or have his or her life endangered. I know Canada has a commitment not to refuse people who would be in danger if they were to return to their own country even when they are not accepted here. However, how does a refugee claimant know that he will be accorded that kind of protection? How does he know that that judgment will be made in his favour and that he will not be sent home? Further, how does he know that his wife, brother or sister back home may not be persecuted on account of the news that he made a refugee declaration in Canada? There is simply no comparison between the possibility of a media reporter being deprived of an interesting story and the possibility of a refugee or a refugee's relative being persecuted and perhaps killed because of a story that was published.
I have not heard anyone who deals with refugees, any of the lawyers, church people, ethnic, immigrant or community groups, make any complaint about the old Subsection 29(2) and (3) of this law. None of them has suggested that it is unjust. I have not heard any complaint from immigration officials indicating that that Section is unjust. I have not heard of any reason why that Section should be changed. I very much urge the Government, in committee, to reconsider Clause 112 of this law and delete it. Otherwise, the Government may have the blood of innocent refugee claimants or their families on its hands.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments regarding the Hon. Member's speech? Since there are no questions or comments, I would like to resume debate.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is with suitable humility that I address the House today on behalf of the people of Ottawa-Carleton. I am pleased to address a Bill of my choosing in this Chamber for the first time.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, my riding is not far from here. Some Hon. Members live in Ottawa-Carleton. For those who
Statute Law Amendment Act
do not, I can assure them that it represents a cross-section of Canada and has a challenging mixture of urban and rural areas. It has a linguistic balance of our two official languages that is a remarkable reflection of our country.
Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was first introduced to the House on January 31, 1985, along with a discussion paper entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law written by the Hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Crosbie), a man for whom my respect, esteem and personal indebtedness is second to none.

The Minister also announced the appointment of a special subcommittee of the House, before which Canadians across Canada will be able to express their views. This committee can and should serve as a privileged access to parliamentarians for minority groups who want to explain the kind of changes they would like to see in our legislation.

Bill C-27 proposes to bring 50 federal statutes into conformity with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that will come into effect on April 17, 1985. That date is an important one in Canadian history. On April 17, 1855, Charlottetown became a city. As we all know, the British North America Act evolved in Charlottetown a few years later.
In 1982 federal lawyers began a systematic review of the statutes to see where amendments were needed to ensure compliance. This was an enormous undertaking as there are more than 1,100 federal laws of general application. As did the Minister, I too offer them my congratulations for the success of their tedious task.

This Bill will amend the Bankruptcy Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Customs Act, the National Parks Act, the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act and other legislation.

In short, it will have an impact on the lives of the people of my riding as well as all Canadians. It will have an impact on the lives of my immediate family, some of whom are in the Chamber today. My pride in representing them is one that has taught me the importance of family, friends, loyalty and the determination to do what is right when it is right, at the right time. For this I am grateful.

The riding of Ottawa-Carleton has both rich and poor neighbourhoods, a number of small businesses, and a very substantial federal presence-the National Research Council, to be exact.

In recent times it has been represented by the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), Mrs. Jean Pigott and the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin. In fact, on February 17,

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
1977, in what she called her bachelor speech, Mrs. Pigott also addressed issues concerning Canadian human rights when she spoke so eloquently of the discrimination against handicapped Canadians. We have come some distance since then but there is much further to go. The Terry Foxes and Steve Fonyos of our country have made us acutely aware of the fact that our handicapped are also our people.
When you land at the Ottawa International Airport, Mr. Speaker, you are in my riding. As you taxi along the tarmac, I ask you to think of previous Tory candidates who paved the way for my political success, candidates like Colonel Strome Galloway, Bill Neville, Jean Pigott and Bert Lawrence.
In the area of equality rights, the review of federal statutes by Bill C-27 turned up some inconsistencies including, for example, inconsistencies in the age of majority. Some statutes require a person to be 18 years of age whereas others require the age of 21. It underlined some outworn assumptions, particularly the assumption that breadwinners are always men and dependants always women. It identified some social conventions that may or may not stand up to court challenges under Section 15 of the Charter; in particular, mandatory retirement at the age of 65.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), my eastern political neighbour, referred to mandatory retirement at age 65 as being discriminatory, and I agree with him. However, Senator Croll's study of a few years ago indicated that a very small percentage of Canadians wish to continue working at age 65. They should, however, be given that option. Our population is aging and we will need their presence, their experience, their skills and knowledge and their will to go on working in a meaningful way.

There is no easy answer. We must find out what Canadians want. First we will listen, then we shall act.

When I think of human rights and equality in Canada, I am reminded of the tremendous violent discriminations that are occurring in many countries of the world like the Republic of South Africa, Sri Lanka, the Soviet Union and many Latin American countries. I am also reminded of the peace, order and good government that is the general rule of law here at home. I will concede that we have our problems, such as discrimination in the Indian Act, but Bill C-31 is finally attempting to eliminate some of this discrimination. As a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I can testify to the intense effort that we are all making in that regard.
We can only have equality when we are all equal, and even our great democracy has some kilometres to run. Although I shall be out of the country on April 17, I will take time to pause for a few moments as Canada takes a large step in the maturing process of nationhood. I will also renew my pledge to this nation.

Although I am not a lawyer, I realize that action must be taken to improve the compliance of our laws with the Charter, and it must be done before April 17. Bill C-27 is an important step in the right direction.

It is also in accordance with one of the themes of social justice underlined in the Speech from the Throne of November 5, 1984, as read by Her Excellency the Governor General. She said:
My Government is determined to ensure that social justice in Canada keeps pace with the changing needs and circumstances of our people.
The new Government continues to pursue and support economic equality for women because we can only have equality when we are all equal in all respects. Let us replace the
expression vive la difference with vive I'egalite.
The new Government is increasing employment opportunities for women in government and its agencies. It is also preparing amendments to the Divorce Act. The new Government will seek provincial co-operation in providing additional assistance to the victims of family violence, including child abuse which is a most despicable and regrettably increasing human act.
On a recent visit to Quebec City, Mr. Speaker, during a tour of the new musee du Seminaire, I was warmly reminded of the fundamental importance of the family in a painting of the holy family with Jesus helping Mary and Joseph at the carpentry bench. Increased family violence is a clear signal that the most important foundation of our entire civilization is being threatened.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) said that his Party would vote in favour of Bill C-27. He also added-

We will continue to press for full equality. We want to ensure that equality becomes a reality in the very near future.
So does this Government and so do I. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who has also spoken during this debate, said that the disabled and handicapped-
-should demand that the Government finally accept its responsibility to change laws to implement full equality for the disabled.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, so let us not take forever to do this. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) indicated that Bill C-27 has been referred to as housekeeping legislation. Perhaps it is, but usually when one cleans a house very thoroughly, one has to first rearrange some furniture. Bill C-27 is doing just that. The special committee chaired by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), has been given a significant responsibility, as was described by the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) in this debate. He said, and I quote:
April 1, 1985

The Government considers it most important that we have the widest possible consultations with the people of Canada.
Sometimes our actions are better judged by the way outsiders see us, and I would like to read from an editorial entitled "A Better Canadian Way" which was reprinted from the Washington Post in the international Herald-Tribune on November 17, 1984, and I quote:
Mr. Mulroney is going to try another method, a series of consultations throughout his country to work toward a common purpose.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we shall soon be ratifying Bill C-27, but I sincerely hope that the special committee that will shortly be sitting in a number of Canadian cities will also reach its conclusions as soon as possible. We must get to work in order to give the word "equality" more meaning and adopt the amendments that Canadian women, the disabled, minority groups and others have been demanding so desperately. [English]
We are maturing as a nation, Mr. Speaker. We are growing as a people and we are able to stand up as an example to the whole world as a nation of honesty, integrity, compassion and fairness. The only limitations we have in this country are the ones we place upon ourselves. Let us speak more of our pride, of our successes and of our accomplishments, and let us learn from our shortcomings and our failures. Bill C-27 is paving part of a path to April 17 when every individual will become equal before and under the law. I am proud to have added in this small way to part of that pathway.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by telling you a true story. Fifteen years ago I was living and working in a village in northern Tanzania in East Africa. It was called Kiswani. As we drove by the village one day, we stopped at a water fountain to get something to drink. A young girl was standing there and she saw me get out of the Land Rover with my binoculars around my neck. She was somewhat fascinated by these binoculars as she had never seen any before. I bent down and let her look through them. All of a sudden the faraway village and houses became very close to her. She was fascinated by this. That young black girl clasped my hand and took me down a dusty road to her village. She was saying mzungu wangu which means "my white man". She had adopted me on the spot. I was indelibly impressed by that moment because that lovely innocent little child had no fear, no discrimination and no prejudices. That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is what life should be all about.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on his speech. His good faith and personal commitment to reform is obvious in the remarks he made. However, I cannot help but wonder whether he feels that the Bill which has been presented really achieves anything like the kind of goal which was expressed by the general tenor of his remarks. I want to ask the Hon. Member if he does not feel that the Government could have done a great deal more in the legislation to produce conditions of equality rather than just sending it off to a committee? Is he aware of any of the studies
Statute Law Amendment Act
which were done showing all of the laws which needed to be changed and which have not been embodied in Bill C-27? Is the Hon. Member willing to press for changes in the legislation now in some of these obvious other areas where the legal opinions clearly require that the laws be brought into conformance with the Charter?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Certainly the Bill is not as comprehensive as we would like it to be at this point in time. I mentioned it was dealing with certain housekeeping items, and that is a fact. I think we have to get some of those statutes cleaned up and that is the purpose of the Bill. As far as being aware of some of the other studies and recommendations which have been made over the years, yes, I am aware of them. I have read Equality Now and Obstacles. I am in full agreement with the Hon. Member that this House and the Government should be moving as quickly as it can to create the changes in our laws which will make all people of this country as equal as possible.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for his personal convictions. At the same time I would certainly like to pick up on the question asked by my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). A lot of talk has been bandied back and forth about what "we" did in the interim, but I would suggest that perhaps the debate should focus on who brought in the whole Charter of Rights and Freedoms, who began this process back in 1980-81, and who was against that process in 1980-81, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member made the analogy that we have to rearrange the furniture in the room first. I submit that in rearranging the furniture, the Conservative Government might have moved the coffee table here and there but it certainly left the sofas and the dining room table in the same place. I would ask the Hon. Member again-because I do not think he answered the Hon. Member for York Centre-why his Government chose to move on 50 statutes which were very minor, very clear, and about which there were certainly no differences among the three political Parties in this House? Why did the Government decide to sidestep the more real and sensitive issues facing minority groups across this country? Would the Hon. Member give me his information on that? Could he inform this House why his Government chose that path rather than the more comprehensive one alluded to in his speech?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to personal convictions. Without personal convictions, Mr. Speaker, I would not be in this Chamber and we would not be the Government of Canada. Without personal convictions, Mr. Speaker, I think our time here would be rather irrelevant. I believe I tried to give that message in what I said.
I would like to refer to Article 28 of the Charter. It was put there by our Party which is now the Government, and it was done with tremendous input from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Article 28 refers to the

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
equality of men and women. In that context, as Opposition members we had significant input into the creation of the Charter. We have not moved all of the furniture but we are certainly moving in that direction.


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he feels that the number of amendments which could have been brought forth, thereby saving tremendous time, energy and money by minority groups and women's groups, was affected by the Bill which is being proposed? Are there not holes that he feels require government action rather than forcing these groups back to the courts to insist upon their rights?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), particularly since I made a number of references to the women of Canada in my comments. No Bill is perfect. Certainly there may have been opportunities for more amendments, but I also referred to the tremendous effort that went into reviewing the statutes we are now discussing. This Bill was not designed to answer all of the problems of the minorities, the handicapped or women. That will come.
When the Minister introduced this Bill, he announced a committee of the House which is chaired by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), a man for whom all of us have tremendous respect, and I am convinced that as he travels across the country with the committee to get the input we feel we need, we will then bring in the legislation required to answer her concerns.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, April 17 will be a very important day in the history of Canada because on that day Section 15 of the Charter will come into effect. Because people follow this debate at different times, I think I should refer for a minute to Section 15. It will guarantee for Canadians equality before the law despite their race, religion, ethnic origin, sex, age and so on. It will assure that they will not be discriminated against on those bases. What is very important about Section 15 is that it is a constitutional provision, which means that it cannot be amended unless the federal Parliament and seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population agree to do it together. So that Section is very secure against hasty amendment.
Secondly, it is extremely important because, as it is in the Constitution, it prevails over every other federal and provincial law. This means that any ordinary law passed by a federal or provincial Parliament will be subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of Section 15. That section will strike down many of the discriminatory laws and regulations and practices we have had in this country for many years.
Many of those here now and who were here in the last Parliament will know that I voted against the Charter and the constitutional Bill on the final vote. I did so for very specific reasons, but not because I was against Section 15, an entrenched Charter of Rights or an amending formula. As a matter of fact, I was fully supportive of the constitutional package when it came out of the joint committee near the end of June, 1981. However, once the provinces got hold of that constitutional package in the early fall, they almost took apart many of its outstanding provisions and left it in a very weakened condition. In particular, it was the provinces which imposed the inclusion of the famous "notwithstanding" clause in Section 33. This meant, in effect, that a province or the federal Parliament can pass a law overriding Section 2 of the Charter, dealing with fundamental freedoms, as well as overriding Section 7 to Section 15, including Section 15, by simply saying in their ordinary statute: "Notwithstanding Section 7 or Section 8 or Section 15 of the Charter, we legislate as follows and our law will prevail". That sort of opting out of those provisions of the Charter is permitted for five years and can be repeated again.
That, Mr. Speaker, was one of the things which led me to vote against the final package. Despite the fact that I was in favour of many things in the Charter, I could not tolerate that and I thought some Members should rise and vote against it on that basis. I of course was also very disappointed with the amendment the provinces imposed with respect to aboriginal rights and language rights. As a matter of fact, in the Charter right now there is inequality in the sections respecting language rights.
The Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is here and I might say, because she intervened in this debate, that I think the House should know that most of the provinces who fought against an entrenched Charter of Rights were Conservative Governments; not the Government of Ontario or the Government of New Brunswick, but the western provinces and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland did oppose those sections. They were successful in knocking out the section dealing with women in the early fall of 1981, and successful in knocking out the aboriginal rights section. It was only after large demonstrations on Parliament Hill that compromise sections were put back in the Charter. We must remember that there were many, not her but many Members of her Party, who fought against entrenchment for many years. They were against it in principle. There were some Conservative Governments and Conservative Members in this House who favoured an entrenched Charter of Rights, but a lot of them did not and a lot of Conservative provincial premiers did not.
While Section 15 was passed into law in 1982, its implementation, was delayed for three years so that the provinces, the federal Government, private groups and associations and businesses could prepare for its implementation because it could and will have very far-ranging effects. That three years was to be used for preparation of such things as the provision of ramps and access for disabled people, and so on, which
April 1, 1985

requires time and money. It always had been the view of the previous Government to bring in a Bill which would bring all federal laws and ordinances into line with the equality provisions of the Charter.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs over the last four or five years and every time the Minister appeared on Estimates I asked him about the review which was underway to bring federal laws and regulations into accord with the Charter, especially with Section 15. He would report progress to me on every occasion. We were moving ahead. Of course, the reason for that, as has been mentioned, was that despite the fact that Section 15 would go into effect on April 17, 1985, we did not want to leave it to ordinary citizens and their small resources to go to court to prove that certain laws were ultra vires with respect to Section 15. We thought it would be better, and everybody agreed, to bring in a Bill which would bring into line our federal laws and thereby save individuals, businesses and groups from spending a lot of money on going to court to prove their point in accordance with the equality provisions of the Charter.
The present Government has brought in a similar type of Bill, the Bill we are discussing today, to amend 50 laws which require changes in accordance with the Charter. However, only 11 of those 50 relate to changes with respect to the equality section. The changes that Bill C-27 will implement are, for the most part, very minor. It changes the word "husband" to the word "spouse" and uses the word "persons". The Bill is very limited, timid and minimal. It does not attempt to bring into line many of the controversial laws of Canada which will probably be challenged in court unless something is done quickly.
Our position is that although the Bill moves in the right direction, making necessary amendments to federal laws, it does not go far enough. It does not cover many of the areas it should have. Rather than addressing those issues in the Bill, the Government has published Equality Issues in Federal Law: A Discussion Paper. This discussion paper lists most of the controversial issues. A Justice subcommittee has been asked to hear evidence across the country with respect to these issues and to produce a report.
I will mention some of the issues contained in this discussion paper, but which are not in the Bill, which that committee will deal with. They include discrimination on the basis of age, mandatory retirement provisions, and provisions for age of minority. Those issues are not dealt with in the Bill. They were left for the subcommittee to discuss across the country. Also left out of the Bill are issues relating to sexual discrimination. Those issues are subjected to discussion across the country. Also left out are issues with respect to disabled people.
It may be reasonable to have discussions across the country if we had not had them in recent years. However, several years ago the Royal Commission on the Status of Women dealt with many areas of discrimination against women. The evidence and report are still available to be examined. We had a report
Statute Law Amendment Act
entitled Obstacles which dealt with discrimination against disabled people. Parliamentarians in the last Parliament spent more than a year travelling across the country and listening to evidence with respect to discrimination against disabled people. A special task force of Parliament dealt with racial discrimination and discrimination against visible minorities. It produced an excellent report called Equality Now. The Special Committee on Indian Self-Government dealt with many issues of discrimination against Canadian Indians. There was a special committee in the Senate which dealt with the problems of the aged and aging just a few years ago.
These issues have been studied, discussed and consulted on. It is time to move ahead. The problem is that many of those issues require tough decisions. It seems that the Government does not want to make decisions. It is going to travel across the country and consult on these issues one more time and then make recommendations.
I wonder how credible the consultative process of the subcommittee will be. I am not casting aspersions on the Chairman who is sitting the House today. However, as the subcommittee travels across the country it will hear many of the same things that were heard by the Obstacles committee and the Equality Now committee. Will they take it seriously? Will the decisions be made by the members of the subcommittee on the basis of that evidence, or will the decisions be made by the Cabinet and caucus here in Ottawa, regardless of what is said to that committee in different parts of the country?
I hope that after listening to the evidence across the country the committee will recommend the tough choices to be made. So far I have been given no hope in that respect because we have not seen to many Conservative back-benchers coming forward with recommendations or conclusions which are at variance with the Government. We will wait and see what happens as a result of that committee.
I would like to put our position again very succinctly, Mr. Speaker. The Bill should have covered a much wider area in order to save Canadians from going to court to prove that they have equality rights such as will be implemented by Section 15 on April 17. The Bill should have covered a much wider area to save litigation fees and loss of time. In the last few years the court challenges program applied only to constitutional challenges with respect to language rights and minority education. Many of us hope that that program will be expanded to help people who have no means of raising funds to go to court to prove their case with respect to the equality provisions. That is very important.
What is the use of implementing charters of rights with entrenched rights and of having human rights and language rights legislation if the people who would benefit cannot go to court because they do not have the resources to make these challenges? If it is to be meaningful for the minorities in the country, something must be done to help them challenge laws, practices and regulations to allow them their rights and justice in accordance with Section 15.
I am pleased to note that the women of the country are organizing themselves very well. They are organizing a fund to

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
permit them to go to court when necessary to assure their rights in accordance with the Constitution. Many groups are able to do that because they are big enough and have the necessary connections. However, others do not, and I hope the Government will expand the court challenges program to enable people to take advantage of their rights in the Charter.
I urge the members of the Justice committee to consider expansion of Bill C-27 into areas it has not already addressed so that immediately after the passage of the Bill Canadians will understand where they stand with respect to their entrenched rights.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, where has the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) been for the last five years when people were pointing out the pitfalls that were arising from the very poorly phrased and not very well considered legislation which has generated this piece of legislation? Why were these speeches not made at that time rather than after the fact? These things should have been corrected at the time that that legislation was being introduced to form a new constitution. In spite of the fact that most of the items which are addressed in this Bill, and which have been addressed in the remarks in this House, were put forward to the government of that day, it was in a mobile situation with total resistance to recommendations for modification in that plan as it was introduced. Why are we finding fault with it now rather than at a time when we could have been contributing to a better structure than we have now?


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear as to the purport of the Hon. Member's question, but if he is asking why Section 15 of the Charter was not drafted in such a way as to avoid any misinterpretations of federal laws and statutes, then my answer is that the Constitution deals with general provisions. It does not deal with detailed provisions.
All constitutions are the same. The American and French Constitutions do not go into detail with respect to every situation in life. They pronounce on certain great principles. Section 15 pronounces on anti-discrimination situations and situations of equality before the law. It would have been completely unreasonable to refer to all the statutes that would be affected under Section 15 of the Charter. Section 15 of the Charter will apply to all federal laws, all situations and all practices.
That is the way it is in the United States. There are general provisions in the human rights amendments to the constitution. It was over many years that groups in the United States were able to prove that their rights were being violated by certain state and federal laws and that the constitution prevailed with respect to equality. Many laws in the United States discriminated with respect to the equality of black people. I believe it was only in 1954 that the famous Brown case was ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States in accordance with the general principles in the American Bill of Rights. The court said that those laws in the South which
segregated blacks and whites in education and socially were illegal.
My answer is that the Constitution cannot and should not get into the details of every federal law, statute, regulation and so on. The Constitution provides for principles in general terms and that is what we have done. As soon as this section was drafted and passed by the House, by Parliament and all but one of the provinces, the Government immediately took a review of all federal laws to see which ones might be in contravention of the principle enunciated in Section 15. It was the Government's intention to put forward a Bill which would remove those discriminatory sections. As a result of the leadership conventions and the election, the Bill was never passed.
While I am pleased that the Government is following this up, the Bill it has introduced is too limited in its scope. It is on that basis that I object to it.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect to hear the Hon. Member ever question the indirectness of an answer from a Cabinet Minister. He knew how to dog dance when he was a member of Cabinet. He was an artist at it and he has prolonged that art to this day, as shown by his answer.
All of the frailties, legislative changes and pitfalls of constitutional phraseology were placed before the House of Commons committee which undertook the study of that constitutional legislation. There is not one pitfall outlined in this Act or mentioned by the Hon. Member that was not addressed. There are many other pitfalls which still need to be addressed. We ignored the weaknesses in the phraseology of constitutions in other lands. The Government of the day assumed that it had perfection in its phraseology. Now we are quibbling over the legislation that is trying to amend a very poorly phrased Constitution. That is my point.
I expect that the time remaining to the House to question the Hon. Member will be taken up by his dog dancing.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Hon. Member is not familiar with what happened.


Fred Alward McCain: I am very familiar.


William Warren Allmand: Listen for a second and you might learn something. After the long hearings by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, a report was unanimously agreed upon by all Parties in the House. It was a good report to which the Government agreed. In other words, many of those changes that were recommended by witnesses from across the country were agreed to. The Government made many amendments. The Hon. Member says no, but the record will show that the Government made many amendments.


Fred Alward McCain: Capitulated.


William Warren Allmand: The members of his Party agreed to them. The point is that we had a good package as a result of the joint committee hearings. The reason that package is not good now is that the provinces got involved in the following summer and introduced many provisions which weakened the Charter. For
April 1, 1985

example, there is the notwithstanding clause and the clause respecting Indians in which we had to put in the word "existing", which made the clauses ambiguous.
We had a good resolution before the provinces became involved. The Members of the House and the Senate who listened to witnesses throughout the country put together a package that was not as ambiguous as the present package. Once we were able to get all the provinces but one to agree, the result was a package that has many ambiguities. It was not due to the consultative process or the wishes of the Government. As a matter of fact, as a result of the changes that had to be made in order to get the provinces on side, Prime Minister Trudeau said he would put it through, but holding his nose.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand) that the original proposals brought forward by the Liberal Government with respect to principles to be embodied in the Charter were a great deal different from what was finally adopted. It took great pressure on the part of native organizations, civil liberties organizations, church groups and women's groups to get the former Liberal Government to amend the original proposals for the Charter in order for it to become the worth-while Charter that the Hon. Member spoke about.
Why did his Government not deal with some of the very important restrictions on Canadians? According to the Charter, they can only be changed as a result of Canadians going to court. That will be a long and expensive process. For example, there are many provisions in the War Measures Act which violate the rights guaranteed under the Charter. The Hon. Member will recall when at least 350 people were incarcerated without cause and were never charged during the FLQ situation in Quebec. They were never charged, prosecuted or found guilty.
He knows that the Official Secrets Act provides for serious penalties against those who give out information which has been classified as confidential. He also knows that almost everything is classified as confidential. Will he explain why his Government did not take action to deal with many of these important civil rights principles?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked two questions. First, he pointed out that the original draft proposal for the Charter needed improvements. Many witnesses came before the committee to make recommendations for change. I was on the committee and I was involved in the process. The Government did accept many of those changes. By the time the committee had reported in January of 1981, I believe, it had developed a good package. It was the provinces that began taking it apart again. The Hon. Member should not be too critical.
It was the NDP Government in Saskatchewan that objected to many of the worth-while provisions. That Government was
Statute Law Amendment Act
at variance with the NDP caucus here in Ottawa. Premier Blakeney did a lot to knock out some of the worth-while provisions that were agreed to in this House by the entire House and the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. The Hon. Member was right. Improvements were made; the Government agreed to the improvements and it was the provinces that weakened the Charter.
With respect to all the other matters, I agree with him. There is much to be done. I campaigned myself against many of the issues that he raised today even though I was a Member on the Government side. I rose in this House on many occasions to bring out those very same issues. At the same time, progress was made. It was the Liberal Government that introduced the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It was the Liberal Government that set up the Obstacles and Equality Now committees, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and many of the other things that led to the equality rights provisions. There is still a lot to be done. A lot was done and we did not always have the co-operation of the Hon. Member's Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Party that I represent, the New Democratic Party, and its predecessor, the CCF, had from the beginning of its foundation back in the 1930s supported the idea that there should be inserted into Canada's Constitution a bill of rights. Although the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) indicated a moment or two ago the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan during the debate disagreed with that policy, it was a fundamental principle our Party had adopted and supported over these many years. Because we believed in it, we supported the inclusion during the constitutional debate in the Constitution of Canada of a Charter of Rights. We did so because we remembered so many instances in Canadian history when the rights of individuals or groups had been very seriously restricted.
Let me mention a few of those. We had the situation in the Province of Quebec when the then Union Nationale Government headed by Premier Duplessis persecuted and prosecuted the Jehovah's Witnesses. We had a situation in western Canada in my province of Manitoba, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta when numerous groups, including municipal leaders, had called for restrictions on the rights of the Hutterite communities to live as they wished and to expand their colonies as their populations grew.
We had a situation during World War II in which we are now all agreed that a tremendous injustice was done to the Japanese people then living in the Province of British Columbia. When Canada went to war with Japan, all people of Japanese origin, both citizens and non-citizens, none of whom had been involved in espionage or sabotage, were moved from their homes to other parts of Canada. They lost their

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
homes and businesses. They experienced tremendous difficulties. This move was made only because they were Japanese.
In the Province of Newfoundland when the International Woodworkers of America Union tried to organize the people who worked in the forests of Newfoundland, very repressive legislation was brought forward by then Premier Smallwood and that union was destroyed.
Because we knew Canada's record had not always been what it should be, we supported the proposal that the Charter of Rights be included in our Constitution. We did so particularly because we realized that in recent years there has been a tremendous movement into Canada of large numbers of immigrants from countries where the language spoken is neither English nor French. For example, from Italy, Spain, Portugal, from eastern European countries including Yugoslavia, Hungary and Poland, and even more so from countries in Asia and Africa with their non-white populations. We realize this movement has created and would create among many people living in Canada feelings of prejudice and discrimination. We all know about the feelings of prejudice and discrimination against the original habitants of Canada. I am referring to our native people, most of whom live in poverty. They have the poorest education, the poorest housing, the lowest health standards and the highest rate of unemployment of any Canadians. Because of those kinds of situations, we supported the passage of the Charter of Rights. We had hoped when it came to reviewing the legislation, which ought to be changed because their provisions are not in conformity with the principles included in the Charter, that the Government would recognize that many of our laws, regulations and policies conflict in important ways with the principles set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not just in Section 15, Mr. Speaker, but in many other sections.
We Find the Government and the Official Opposition have not dealt with these important questions that should have been dealt with. I refer to a few of them, such as freedom of association, freedom of speech and fundamental legal rights which our citizens should have. These are just a few issues that have to be dealt with but which are ignored in this Bill.
This Bill avoids dealing with the most important human rights issues which confront us. Essentially what we have is a housekeeping Bill. As my colleague the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has indicated, we will support it realizing that it is a very small step in the direction in which we must move.
Let me deal with some of the issues and problems not dealt with in this Bill and which I believe should have been dealt with. Unless they are dealt with and unless some of the laws are changed, what we will see in the next few years is a large number of important human rights cases that will wend their way from the lower courts up to the Supreme Court of Canada before they are decided. This will create difficulties for people who feel they are not being fairly treated, not being dealt with as the provisions of the Charter say they should be People will therefore have to take their cases to court, which will take years and tremendous expense will be involved.
Let me deal with a few of the issues which I believe should have been dealt with. First is the principle of freedom of speech. Most Canadians believe they have the right to say what they want to say, but there are important restrictions on what they can say. I should like to give a few illustrations of that fact.
It is still an offence to subject the courts to public contempt or ridicule. In 1969 a university student in the Maritimes went to jail for 10 days for writing and publishing an article indicating that a certain trial was a mockery of justice and that the courts were instruments of the corporate elite in the decisions which they made. The courts say that people who speak about them have to avoid invective. If someone writing about the courts avoids invective, readers will not even want to read it.
Defamatory libel is still in the Criminal Code. To injure a person's reputation by subjecting him or her to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, is an offence. In 1969 the Georgia Strait newspaper in Vancouver was prosecuted and convicted because it gave its Pontius Pilate award for justice to a judge and that was judged a criminal offence in Canada. I am not defending that newspaper, but when the courts can come down hard on such a newspaper, we know that our freedom of speech is restricted.
I remember a case which occurred in the first few years that I was a Member of Parliament, in about 1963. It involved a resident of Montreal who wrote a letter to the editor of La Presse, Gerard Pelletier. In that letter the resident was extremely critical of a sentence which a judge in Montreal had imposed on someone who was charged and convicted. I am not concerned about whether or not the decision of the judge was right or wrong, but if a person disagreeing with a sentence imposed can be prosecuted-and I think the person in this case spent a little time in jail and Mr. Pelletier had to apologize for the judge for printing the letter-it indicates that there are some pretty important restraints on the ability of people in Canada to say what they want and not fear being penalized.
I should like to point to the Official Secrets Act, which needs to be revised in a major way. In its provisions there are very wide prohibitions on the unauthorized disclosure of government information. We know how many documents produced by government have been marked secret or confidential. Also we know that on occasions when public servants felt that governments were doing things that were wrong, they leaked the documents and information either to members of the Opposition or to people in the media. That was very prevalent in the last year or two before the 1984 general election. The provisions of the Official Secrets Act cry out for major revision.
Let me look at the War Measures Act which has been used on a number of occasions in a Draconian way, to say the least. Many sections of that Act go beyond any suggestion of demonstrable justification. The Act needs to be drastically revised. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner),
April 1, 1985

when he was Minister of Justice, promised that there would be such a revision. Despite all the promises made by him, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and others in government, that was never done.
I do not want to refight the battles we fought at the time the War Measures Act was used by the former Government, nor do I want to debate at this time whether what it did was necessary. However, I remind Hon. Members that more than 350 people in the Province of Quebec were picked up, incarcerated and held without the opportunity to see their lawyers. After some time they were all released. Not a single one of them was charged or convicted of any offense. We all now agree that the War Measures Act should have been amended long before now. I call upon the Government to look at it and to bring in amendments to that Act in the very near future. The alternative to that would be, as I indicated earlier, court cases which may take years and cost a great deal of money, not to say a great deal of effort.
I want to deal with some other problems which are not dealt with and cannot be dealt with even if the Charter included every provision it should. I urge Hon. Members to look at the report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society entitled Equality Now! It was issued just about a year ago and looked into the problems of our visible minorities, namely the non-white minority citizens of Canada. It found that their situation was very difficult. It found that there was a great deal of prejudice and discrimination in employment, housing and education against the very large number of non-white Canadians, including many newer immigrants and, of course, the native population. That committee recommended that all roadblocks preventing full participation of these people in the cultural, social, economic and political life of the country be eliminated. We know we have a long way to go if we are to achieve that goal.
I ask Hon. Members to think about a very simple question and try to answer it. How many members of our visible minorities in any city in Canada represented by any Member of Parliament can be found in occupations such as police officer or firefighter? In the City of Winnipeg, which has a large native population, there is not a single native police officer or firefighter. There is a large population of non-white people and native people in my city. We have over 25,000 people of Philippine descent, as well as large East Indian, Sikh and black populations, but one would have to use a high-powered microscope to find any of them in the fields which I have mentioned. Sometimes their exclusion has been obtained by deliberate intent, sometimes through unintentional restrictions which restrict their rights; for example, height or weight regulations or requirements for formal education which they do not have. For these new immigrants, the Charter alone will not make them fit easily into our country as full partners. That report called for language training programs to be expanded. It called for funding for ethnic racial groups, for ethnic organizations, for broadly-based community organizations which provide a service to help make the transition and to integrate these newer Canadians.
Statute Law Amendment Act
In the field of employment we have to adopt an aggressive affirmative action program. I commend the Minister on the statement she made last week that the Government intends to proceed in this way. She knows, as I know, that some of the people in Government who do the actual hiring will not be enthused about her announcement. I hope she will keep the pressure on them to implement that program.
In conclusion, while we are going to vote for this Bill, we believe it is a very small step in the right direction. A great deal more needs to be done. Many other laws and programs of the Government need to be strengthened if we are going to attain the objectives enunciated in the Charter.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I know that for my good friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), 20 minutes is hardly enough time to set out an agenda of all of the things that this Government should have included in this legislation, an agenda that is 10 times as good as the agenda that the Government has put forward. The speech that we just heard would be a much more vital document to found a discussion on Charter equality than this blue paper Equality Issues in Federal Law. I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask the Hon. Member if there were any areas other than the many he has already mentioned that he thinks should have been in the law and should be covered in the discussion paper and the work of the committee.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, there are many other fields which I could have mentioned had I had time. Let me just say to the Hon. Member, who was a Minister in the former Government, that in the years I have been interested in these questions, and that goes back many years, I have come to the conclusion that we can have good legislation. However, if there is not much will to make it live and work, the legislation will not help. You can have the converse where you have a Government which wants to do things. Even if it does not have the legislation, it can find ways to do it. We did not need mandatory affirmative action legislation to increase the number of people from the minorities who work for government. I say to the Hon. Member with a great deal of regret that there was not much desire on the part of his Government to see that kind of thing happen.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly surprised to hear the Hon. Member attacking, as he seems to be by implication, the Government that did bring the Charter forward, convinced the country to support it and initiated the work which should have resulted from an effective piece of legislation now to bring all of the laws of Canada into compliance with the Charter. I know the NDP have a knack for claiming the credit for everything good that happens in the way of legislative reform in this country and for continuing to maintain criticism of things that do not.
I wonder whether he would want the opportunity, perhaps he does not, to recognize that we are here having a debate on the implementation of Charter equality provisions because the

April 1, 1985
Liberal Government did bring forward the Charter and did manage to make a compromise, such as the three-year phase-in period that we are now dealing with, as well as other compromises. It at least brought Canada forward in the area of human rights and ensuring that discrimination and unfairness is revoked from our legislation by the process that is now being embarked on.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have to assume that the Hon. Member was not listening when I replied to the question from the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. I said then and say again that yes, the Charter would have been better if not for the objections of many of the provinces, including the Province of Saskatchewan which at that time had a NDP Government. I say to the Member again that the original proposals brought forward by his Government with respect to the Charter were not very good. It was not until very strong representations were made by women's groups, native groups, civil libertarians, churches and a host of other organizations that the provisions of the Charter began to have real meaning. It took a great deal of pressure on his Government to make the Charter what it is now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there further questions or comments? Since there are no more questions, we will proceed with debate.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, since it is a couple of minutes to one o'clock, I wonder if the House would consent to my calling it one o'clock and I would begin my remarks after the Question Period.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 12.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about a remarkable institution that I visited last Wednesday, the Law School at the University of Moncton. This is probably the smallest law school in
Canada. It has only 75 students in all of the three years, and it is only five or six years old.
I was invited there to spend a day talking to students and meeting with the faculty. What I found so impressive was the dynamism of the student body and the teachers, and the sense of mission that they have about the work they are doing.
In addition to being a legal resource for the community and to training lawyers for service in our country, the students and faculty are dedicated to developing the established common law of Canada in the French language and they do this very well. We can see the importance of this particular role. Northern New Brunswick is a place in which both common law and French are important.
I left the Law School with a strong feeling that I had been at one of the institutions which forms part of the fabric of the national unity of our country. I felt very proud of what I say, and I am sure my views would be shared by Members of the House and others.
Just as a remarkable footnote, this group entered a moot court, the Gale competition, with the 17 other law schools, and they won.


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



THUNDER BAY RINK WINS MEN'S CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, with A1 Hackner and his rink from Thunder Bay winning his second Silver Broom World Championship in four years, and with earlier victories by Canada's women's team and the men's junior team, Canada has become the undisputed champion of the curling world. Canada has a right to feel proud of the accomplishments of its curlers.
Our hats are off to Hackner, Lang, Perroud, and Tetley, the northwestern Ontario foursome representing a strong curling region which includes a number of great rinks found in my riding of Kenora-Rainy River. Yesterday's win by this foursome is another great demonstration of the tremendous talent found in northwestern Ontario, something of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and the Cabinet should be more aware when making Governor in Council appointments.



FAMILY VIOLENCE


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, private violence, in the form of battered women, rape, violent pornography, and child abuse, continues in this country at a level which we as parliamentarians should find totally unacceptable. We must explore this sensitive problem and speak for its silent
April 1, 1985

victims and survivors, most of whom are women and young children. We must break the pattern which breeds new violence from generation to generation. We must educate, inform, and investigate possible solutions.
The quality of life is deteriorating in our country because of inadequate legislation and lack of committed action. The victims and survivors of these crimes are from all walks of life, ranging from young children to senior citizens, from the disadvantaged to the more affluent. As Canadians and legislators we must act with compassion to prevent cruel and often savage physical and emotional crimes against so many helpless victims.
The quality of life is the cornerstone of our society. We must take measures to improve and protect the love, respect, and dignity of all members of our Canadian family.



NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the national energy policy created a veritable alphabet soup: CHIP, COOP, COSC, IORT, NORP, PGRT, PIP, PLOP, SOOP, and TAP. Today's $36.75 barrel of oil was supposed to cost $70.23. When your forecast is out by 91 per cent, you're in trouble.
What is the legacy of the NEP? Well, $4.1 billion was spent on PIP grants, yet only 59 out of 210 East Coast wells were drilled under this program, and many of them would have been drilled in any event as follow-ups to the pre-NEP discoveries of Hibernia and Venture.
The eventual termination of PGRT will cost the Government $2.4 billion, but the elimination of PIP, PCC, and other programs will save $2.7 billion. The price of natural gas in Ontario and Quebec is lower today because the industry forgoes a 10 per cent increase in price. That was part of the NEP. Americans will not be receiving our oil at a lower price than Canadians.
Most important, Mr. Speaker, the oil industry and the two levels of Government can down-size the bloated bureaucracy-


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



INDUSTRY


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, once again the prospect of creating a steel industry on the basis of markets is threatened. The issue for Cape Breton is the replacement of Sysco's antiquated hearth, the main ingredient of the steel making operation. The federal and provincial Governments that would share the bill must choose
between two steel-making technologies, electric arc or basic oxygen.
The Premier of the Province has publicly ruled out electric arc technology on the grounds that it would reduce employment in the primary operations, the blast furnace and the coke ovens. A senior federal government official who is on the management committee, under the auspices of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), is strongly in favour of the electric arc furnace and will recommend this method to the Minister. If this decision is taken, the consequences are grave and there is the possibility of crippling our industry and increasing the already high unemployment rate.
To echo the sentiments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), we are talking about the future of an entire area. I would ask the Minister responsible to reconsider the options and their consequences, and to come to a decision favourable to all Parties concerned. That decision is long overdue. It is time the federal Tory Government started taking seriously its responsibilities for the people of Cape Breton Island.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, does the Government of Canada care about the human rights of Chileans who are under attack by their dictator, Pinochet? At this very moment a funeral service is under way in Santiago, Chile, for men kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by Pinochet's secret police at the end of last week.
Eduardo and Raffael Vergara Toledo, two Church youths, were shot to death in an unprovoked attack Thursday. Manuel Guerrero, President of the Association of Professional Teachers, and Jose Manuel Parada, legal worker and founding member of the Vicariate of Solidarity, were kidnapped at gunpoint Friday morning.
Friday afternoon at about four o'clock Canada time, a representative of the Interchurch Committee on Human Rights in Latin America phoned the Deputy Director of the Latin American Desk in External Affairs to ask the Canadian Government to intervene on their behalf. The Deputy Director would do nothing but send a cable to the Canadian Embassy, which he knew was closed.
Early Saturday morning the bodies of Guerrero, Parada, and Santiago Nattino were found by a lonely road, with their throats slashed and showing signs of torture. Had Canada interceded with the Chilean Ambassador on Friday, these three men might be alive today rather than being buried today.
I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to tell the House what the Government has said to the Government of Chile about these savage police murders, what reply he has received, and what action the Department will take upon future appeals of this sort.

April 1, 1985



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to speak under an unusual set of circumstances. I would like to congratulate the New Democratic Party for its decision to support the federal Government's policy on the space station and the peaceful use of space. That change in NDP policy was articulated last week by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), in an exchange with the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon).
These NDP Members of Parliament acknowledged for the first time that we cannot oppose scientific research merely because it might have some hypothetical military application. As the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville said, Newton's experiments with gravity could not have been stopped just because they would some day be used to drop bombs. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre expressed his support for the photovoltaic research in space even though the fruits of this research could have a variety of applications. The only qualification these Members would make is that Canada's participation in the space station be for peaceful purposes.
This is exactly the position of the Minister of State for Science and Technology who has said repeatedly that Canada's involvement would be for peaceful, non-aggressive purposes, in accordance with our international treaty obligations. In fact, Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party, when pressed, would not say they opposed the decision of the Government to take part in the space station project. In the past the NDP have tried to create the impression that the only practical approach is the one taken by the federal Government. I suspect that even the Liberals-
O)


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



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome today's announcement by the Chairman of the Canada Post Corporation of the selection of a temporary site for the National Postal Museum. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the postal museum had been located for some years in the south block of the parliamentary precinct, in premises now required by the House of Commons.

The new premises will be located on the ground floor of the Journal Building at the corner of Kent and Laurier, in downtown Ottawa. The new museum will open its doors in time for the summer tourist season.

I am pleased that the Canada Post Corporation has responded to the representations made by Ottawa area members of this House and by the Ottawa and Canadian philatelic communities, and has announced the reopening of the museum. The temporary site will house the national stamp collection, the philatelic library, as well as a philatelic sales counter.
I also welcome the motion of the board of directors of the Corporation for the formation of a planning committee to organize the permanent relocation of the postal museum to a suitable, enlarged site in downtown Ottawa, within three years. I am sure the Canadian stamp collecting community joins me in applauding the Corporation for today's decision to open a temporary site for the museum, rather than waiting for the erection of new, permanent facilities in two or three years time.



MULTICULTURALISM


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, since September 4 a vibrant and meaningful multicultural policy has been painfully absent. As such, the profile and political clout of multiculturalism have suffered considerably. In the end, of course, it is the minority communities that are the real losers. In an attempt to safeguard and foster a more respectable and rightful place for multiculturalism, I urge the Government to establish a permanent and separate Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
Presently the multicultural Minister reports to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. The unfortunate and predictable result under this Tory Government, has been that the multicultural Minister has taken a third seat behind the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), who also report to the same standing committee. As a consequence, multiculturalism is a poor and dead last in this three-way shuffle.
A distinct standing committee would go a long way in protecting the multicultural policies which former Liberal Governments had fought so hard to attain. It would also enable the many significant issues to be properly addressed and examined. In keeping with the coming into effect on April 17 of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the timing of establishing a standing committee on multiculturalism could not be better. I only hope, as do our ethnocultural communities, that the Government does not kill this proposal through study and procrastination.
April 1, 1985



THE SENATE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Fathers of Confederation were wise men. In devising the form of government for the Canada they envisioned, they made sure the population of each province would be represented by Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and then, to prevent the MPs from the heavier populated provinces penalizing the lower populated provinces with legislation that would hurt those regions, they created a Senate. But after more than a century the Upper House is no longer protecting the regions and minorities, and Canadians throughout the nation are calling for reform or abolition.
Thousands of Canadians not only want an elected Senate, but also desire equal representation from all provinces. In a Triple E setup, Members of the House of Commons would represent the population of each province. The Senators would protect the regions and minorities. With that setup any Government would think twice about legislation that would hurt a region or the people. Canada is a great country. We have a Government oriented to the will of the people. With a Triple E Senate we can realize our great potential.
I believe such a reformed Senate, elected, equal, and efficient, in our far flung nation could mean the salvation of the Canada we have known.
* *
*



SOCIAL SECURITY


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, according to a report issued by the National Council on Welfare last week, one Canadian in six-over four million of our people-are living in poverty. This number has been going up steadily in recent years. It has been estimated that in 1983 almost one million families were living on low incomes. Almost 50 per cent of unattached women were living in poverty in 1983. Over one million children are in low income families, and their numbers have risen by one-third since 1980. In a country as wealthy as Canada this situation is a disgrace. The Government must take action to eliminate, or at least to reduce, the large numbers of Canadians who are suffering, as quickly as possible.
1 call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to meet with the provincial Ministers to discuss amending the Canada Assistance Plan and setting minimum standards of assistance to those in need, so that millions of Canadians will no longer suffer as a result of the neglect shown by Governments, federal and provincial.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week the Government decided to deregulate the price of oil. Of course that was easy to do because the international price and the Canadian price were virtually the same. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why, in respect to the agreement with the western provinces, it was not agreed to deregulate the price of natural gas and let the market forces decide the price? Every knowledgeable person in the field knows that if we have an agreement to deregulate the price of natural gas, the price for that resource paid by consumers in eastern Canada will go down.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to see the ferocity with which the Liberal Party attacked an accord which is good for western Canada and for the economy of all of Canada. But that is why the Liberal Party is wiped out in the West, and elsewhere as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The money which is spent on reinvigorating the energy industry finds its way in substantial measure back to Ontario and to other areas of the country, which is why we view a re-energized sector as a handsome instrument of national unity and prosperity. The talks are ongoing with regard to the item mentioned by my hon. friend. And I can tell him that the entire package is designed to be helpful to Canada, to reinvigorate an otherwise dormant part of our economy and, most of all, to create the jobs across this nation which our people need.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As usual, the Prime Minister did not answer my question. I asked him why the price of natural gas was not deregulated.


DEREGULATION INQUIRY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is now in her seat, I would like to direct the same question to her. She has deregulated the price of oil, but can she tell the House why there was no deregulation of the price of natural gas? Everyone knows that the price of natural gas, because it is controlled, is not going down. If the market forces which are so dear to the Government were to work in natural gas, the price would go down. Why did the Minister not try to get the deregulation of natural gas? And can she assure the House that the pipeline-I was in British Columbia last weekend-from the mainland to Vancouver Island will be built?

April 1, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member did find his way to British Columbia. I can answer the question with respect to natural gas. As the Hon. Member should know, since he did hold my portfolio, it is harder to deregulate natural gas than oil because oil works on short-term contracts and natural gas works on long-term contracts.


Mr. Waddell:: There is an Ontario election, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: There are contracts for pipelines, contracts with big suppliers, and it takes longer to work out a system within the legal framework of contracts in place to go to market sensitive natural gas pricing.
We have set up a new task force to look at this issue. It has promised us it will have a new regime in place by the start of the natural gas new year, which is November 1.


AID TO PETROMONT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Strangely enough, when de-regulating the price of natural gas means that prices will drop, the Minister does not act, but when oil prices are likely to remain at present levels or rise after deregulation, not the consumers but the oil companies are given a chance to benefit from the situation. Considering that last week, billions of dollars were made available to the oil industry and especially to the multinationals, could the Hon. Minister inform the House where the few million dollars are that Petromont needs today?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic that I get these questions from the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice. When he was the Minister he signed a deal with Alberta which were to lead to two natural gas price increases, one on February 1 of this year and one in August. He negotiated them in, we negotiated them out. We are the ones who care about natural gas price decreases.


INVESTMENT BY MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She has said she trust the multinational oil companies and will be monitoring their reinvestment in the energy sector in Canada. Yet no guidelines have been established for the degree of reinvestment required, nor will sanctions be imposed if the reinvestment is not sufficient. What does the Minister feel this type of monitoring will achieve?


Pat Carney: Success, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: What the Minister is giving the Canadian people is a lot of political sop.


OIL COMPANY PROFITS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, should this monitoring reveal that the reinvestment is not sufficient, whatever she determines it should be, what action would the Minister take before profits leave the country?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, that is a highly hypothetical question. I can only point out that the Hon. Member is a member of a Party which used the punitive, big stick, hit-them-when-they-are-down approach to an industry which creates jobs. We are working in the other direction. We are asking the industry to create the jobs which millions of Canadians need.


MONITORING OF COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this is not a hypothetical question. The Minister has just given a large windfall to the oil companies. The shares of Shell, Texaco, Gulf, and Imperial Oil went up dramatically to reflect that fact. Is the Minister aware that her own monitoring agency said that between 1974 and 1980, the pre-NEP golden age, the petroleum industry was a net exporter of capital to the tune of $4.1 billion, mainly because they were foreign controlled firms? In fact, foreign controlled firms have the worst reinvestment record as compared with Canadian controlled firms. In light of this experience, what is the Minister going to do to ensure that these companies reinvest that windfall in Canada to create jobs?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, our records show that before the NEP this industry reinvested 110 per cent of its cash flow. After the NEP that dropped, with the help of the NDP, to 65 per cent. We are trying to create a climate where the reinvestment will increase. That is the commitment I have undertaken, and that is the new world of jobs, energy security, and a united Canada, which this Government is trying to move us into, without the help of the Opposition.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to help the Minister. I will attend the next prayer breakfast with her, because she is going to have to attend.
April 1, 1985


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is quoted as having told Diane Francis of The Toronto Star, that the Government's goal is still to have 50 per cent of the petroleum industry Canadian controlled by 1990. Since foreign-owned firms have emerged as the principal beneficiaries of the new oil deal, can the Minister tell the House what mechanism, other than prayer, she will use to achieve Canadianization?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that when I had three western provinces initial our Accord, my prayers were answered.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We will wait and see.


BUDGET INQUIRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. While the Minister of Energy said oil prices would likely come down at the pump, he pointed to the $35 billion deficit and said that may not happen. What plans does he have, if any, to bring in taxes on consumers to pay for that huge windfall gift to the oil companies? If he does not have any such plans, would he rule out tax increases now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Finance will be responding to that query with his Budget. However, the principle which will govern our conduct is that of fairness. We tried to put forward that principle when we finally brought about an energy deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the Minister deserves your plaudits for having contributed so mightily to re-energizing the economy of western Canada which is of benefit to the entire nation. It will be the doctrine of fairness which applies.


EXCISE TAX
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the energy deal concluded last week, some $2.5 billion in revenue was lost by the federal Government. I am told by press reports that when they ran this through the federal government computers it worked out to exactly 18 cents a gallon to recoup those losses, which happens to be the same amount as the then Minister of Finance tried to impose in 1979. This will result in some 50,000 jobs lost in Ontario alone. Can the Minister assure ordinary working Canadians that in his Budget he will not be imposing an excise tax on gasoline such as the former Minister did in 1979, which would result in 50,000 jobs being lost in Ontario alone?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I can assure the average working Canadian, as the Hon. Member has referred to them, that we will be creating a very large number of jobs right across the country-not just in
Oral Questions
western Canada but right across the country-as a result of this agreement. I say to the Hon. Member in the back row who likes to talk a lot, that it will be done fast because the energy industry has indicated to the Minister of Energy, myself, and others, that it is going to be reinvesting these proceeds because of the positive effect the energy accord has on energy security as well as job creation.


CREATION OF JOBS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. During the election campaign she promised some 300,000 jobs. She put a little water in her wine last week and promised only 100,000 jobs. Last Friday she listed the five largest energy projects in Canada and came up with the marvellous total of 3,100 permanent jobs. Would the Minister table the other 97,000 jobs which are going to be created as a result of this energy deal with the western provinces?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, again I can only tell the Hon. Member that we saw what happened to jobs when his Party was in government. The jobs were shut down, moved south, vanished, and businesses went into bankruptcy as western Canada experienced some of its hardest times since the Depression. We have created the climate, and we have monitoring clauses to ensure that all benefits negotiated under the Accord must flow into jobs. That is our commitment, and that is what we are aiming to do.
When it comes down to forecasts, they are not my forecasts, and the Hon. Member ignores that. The forecasts we used come from independent agencies such as the Economic Council of Canada and others.


MEETING WITH PREMIER MILLER
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. The Premier of Ontario has indicated that he intends to meet with the Prime Minister this coming Wednesday for the purpose of discussing the impact of the new energy agreement on Ontario consumers. Is it possible that, as a result of that meeting, the energy agreement could be changed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be meeting with the Premier of Ontario this afternoon. He will, no doubt, want to share with me his views and concerns with regard to the Province of Ontario. I will listen to him with courtesy as befitting a man of the great substance and leadership that he is. I will listen very carefully. You can be certain that Premier Miller speaks very strongly for the interests of Ontario. He also takes the national view. He is a genuine, national statesman.
3568

April 1, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: He certainly has changed since I met him last.


BUDGET CONTENTS
Ian Deans: Since the Prime Minister did not answer my question about the possibility of a change in the energy agreement as a result of any representation made by the Prime Minister, I would like to ask him whether it is possible that the statement made by the Minister of Finance that there would be no tax increases in the forthcoming Budget may well be altered as a result of the new energy agreement.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am surprised. Premier Miller says such nice things about the Hon. Member, all the time!


Ian Deans: I'm surprised he does too. When I leave here you'll say nice things too.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He has fond memories ex post facto of the Hon. Member's time at Queen's Park.
The Member has inadvertently distorted the statement of the Minister of Finance. The budgetary documents will be consistent with what the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have said. They will be designed to bring about new growth and new jobs in Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is now April 1 and the Conservative Government has started to penalize those Canadians who were laid off and given some severance pay by their former employers. In doing so the Government has ignored the petition signed at its own economic conference, and many other petitions across the country. The Conservative Government is telling these people that they cannot use that severance pay for pension, to relocate to where business is better, or even to start their own businesses. The Government is saying that they must use it for the necessities of life because it is not going to give them any unemployment insurance until they have exhausted their severance pay.
Before that measure was announced by the Minister of Finance, were any impact studies made? If so, will the Minister make those impact studies public?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the Hon. Member just the other day when this measure Finally dawned on him, the measure was announced on November 8 last. There were consultations on its implementation between then
and December 21. There have been many discussions over the period of time since, so that it could begin to be phased in on March 31. That commenced as of last night, and those measures take place as of today. I can assure the Hon. Member that the work which went into this was done in consultation with a great many people.


IMPACT STUDY INQUIRY
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister has not answered my question. She has refused to answer it as she refused to answer it the other day. I have been putting this question to her in committee and in the House for several weeks and she still has not answered the question, but I will repeat it. All we get from the Government are quips, jokes, and a lot of non sequiturs whenever we put a question to it.
I will put the question to her again very clearly. Where any impact studies done before the measure was announced showing what the effects would be on these many Canadians? If so, will the Minister make them public? Don't answer another question; answer that question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the quips, jokes, and non sequiturs which come day after day from the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. Each day he outdoes himself.
The Hon. Member never thought to raise this particular issue in November, December, January, or February. It was only in the last week of March that he got around to thinking about it. That shows a singular lack of concern and interest on the part of the Hon. Member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Before taking office the Government assured Canadian farmers that, unlike the Liberals, it understood the role that agriculture can play as an engine of growth in the economy. The words "engine of growth" were also used to explain the recent generous price increases and tax cuts afforded to the oil companies.
The Government has reduced grain prices to farmers, and has increased taxes through the cost recovery program. Will the Minister tell the House why he has decided to ignore agriculture and abandon the nation's farmers?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that observation by the Hon. Member is complete nonsense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 1, 1985


John Wise: The Hon. Member knows that I could list more than 60 major provisions and measures that we have put into effect in the last six months. I do not have time to list all of those items at the moment, but I would be happy to meet with the Hon. Member after Question Period to advise him of certain measures that we have taken.


COSTS RECOVERY PROGRAM
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it is well known in the farm community that initial prices were cut last week, that the program for cost recovery is in place, and that a number of other items have increased the cost to farmers, thus reducing their net incomes. Why have the Minister and his Government selected agriculture to bear the brunt of cut-backs when the farming industry still generates far more jobs per dollar of net income than the oil industry? Why concentrate on the oil industry when the real income and job advantages are with agriculture?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have not concentrated on the agricultural industry at all.


Ian Deans: That is true.


John Wise: That is the first mistake. The second mistake is the fact that he indicated that the cost recovery measures are in place today. That is not the case. As I have indicated, we sent out a proposal and have reached an agreement in certain areas. In areas that are more sensitive than others we are continuing to negotiate, and will continue to negotiate until we arrive at a mutually satisfactory decision.


TERRORISM
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. In light of today's bomb threat in Toronto, allegedly by Armenian terrorists, could the Acting Secretary of State assure the House that the Government will do everything in its power to ensure that there is no public backlash against the Canadian Armenian community?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can immediately assure the Hon. Member that there should be no such backlash. This communique was referred to the media before being referred to the Government of Ontario. Rather than being signed, it had a label attached to it identifying a particular group in the country. These things make it questionable. The authors of the communique may or may not be those to whom it was attributed. There are a wide range of possibilities.
Oral Questions
It is notable that the Armenian community in Toronto has offered a reward of $25,000 for information leading to the identity of the authors of that communication.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is in Siberia, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs meets with Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko this week, the Secretary of State will press for an immediate settlement, satisfactory to Canada, of the claims for financial compensation for the deaths of Canadians when the Korean airliner was shot down by the Soviets in September, 1983?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the last time I looked, the Liberal Party was saying that it was an accident.


Mr. Berger:: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If you check Hansard, you will see that the people who pressed for compensation from the very beginning were the Progressive Conservative members of the Opposition, today the Government. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs will indeed pursue that with the Soviets.


POSSIBLE U.S.S.R. POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in 1983 the Prime Minister said that "the Soviet Union unfortunately does not respond to fine words, nor does it respond to philosophical musings". Exactly what will his Government do if the efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs do not result in an immediate and satisfactory settlement of the claim for compensation in question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course I will not respond to a clearly hypothetical question from the Member, who still has not come in from the cold. I can tell him that I think it would be untoward for me to do so except to advise that the Secretary of State for External Affairs carries a brief on behalf of Canadian families, and on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, which he will press with vigour, eloquence, and deep conviction. I am satisfied that the Soviet Union, in those circumstances, should begin the process of response favourably.

April 1, 1985
Oral Questions


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, pertains to his meeting this afternoon with the Premier of Ontario. The Prime Minister will be aware that the Premier of Ontario has requested that the Government of Canada retain its quotas on Japanese imports pending the negotiation of a new agreement. He will also be aware that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion announced in the House on Friday that the Government will not be keeping the quotas. During his meeting with the Premier of Ontario this afternoon, will the Prime Minister be prepared to change his mind in order to protect jobs in the Province of Ontario?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Premier of Ontario, Mr. Miller, and I, are of one mind. Our determination is to protect and create jobs in Ontario and throughout Canada. I think that is widely acknowledged. Mr. Miller has outstanding expertise in this particular area of job creation which the country cries out for at this particular time, and which is no doubt why he is doing extremely well in Ontario. You can be sure that I will co-operate fully with the Premier of Ontario in every reasonable way to create jobs in southwestern Ontario, using the instrument of the automobile industry as an important illustration.


John Edward Broadbent: All that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee, Mr. Speaker.


VOLUME OF JAPANESE EXPORTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the United States, within days of their announcement of the lifting of the quotas, a report came out of Japan saying that the Japanese would increase their exports to the United States by 25 per cent in the coming year. If they do that in Canada and begin that process in Canada between now and May, which happens to be when the Ontario election will take place, it could mean, on an annual basis, the loss of about 15,000 Canadian jobs. It is a serious matter. When will the Government stop acting like an international boy scout with respect to trade, and begin to protect Canadian jobs? Will it maintain the quotas until a new agreement is negotiated?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all that and 25 seats will get you the leadership of the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That's not one of your better ones.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is the only individual who can lead a national party into an election, lose seats, and cry "victory". That is exactly what will happen to his provincial cousins in Ontario when Frank Miller gets through with them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Wait until the next election.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We will co-operate fully and completely with the Government of Ontario to protect that tremendous engine of growth which is the automobile industry in Ontario. We will be negotiating very hard to protect the future of that industry, and to create new jobs in Ontario.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He has been involved with this concern of the agricultural community in my riding.
In the riding of Kent, in southwestern Ontario, we can produce more tonnes of sugar-beets per hectare without irrigation than anywhere in Canada, even when irrigation is implemented, yet we were the first to lose the industry because the federal Government, in the 1960s, would not adopt what is known as a sugar policy. Now the same sugar-beet industry in the West and in Quebec is in jeopardy, and the solution to the problem is the same-


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


Elliott William Hardey: Since Canada must sometime develop a policy that a percentage of sugar produced here is from a domestic source, for the welfare of both the Canadian farmer and the consumer, will the Minister assure me and my constituents, and indeed the sugar-beet farmers of Canada, that this item is placed high enough on the priority list to be dealt with thoroughly before 1986?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I understand that he had considerable experience and expertise in this matter.
On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture I have been attempting to see what we can do to provide some guarantees for financing so that farmers, this year, will plant their crop of sugar-beets. If they don't, we will not have an industry.
Second, again at the request of the Minister of Agriculture we have been attempting to look at a long range sugar policy. I might add that this is the first time, to my knowledge, that a federal Government has taken this industry seriously and looked at a long range policy. I believe that if one can be developed it will not only provide benefits to consumers, it will also provide considerable jobs and keep producers in business as well.
April 1, 1985


CITIZENSHIP COURTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who has the case of Judge Copps still ringing in his conscience, if not in his ears. Now, what about the case of Judge Alice McKeown of Kingston, who has served for 17 years as a Citizenship Judge, five years as a Chief Judge, whose term recently expired and who, last week, told the media that the Minister has not even advised her about her status or her future. The same complaint was expressed by Judge Una MacLean Evans of Edmonton, who was even told by a local MP to suggest her replacement as long as it was not a Liberal.
How can the Minister treat people who have served their country in this cavalier fashion? Or is this arrogant Tory patronage machine in such high gear that it does not care on whom it tramples?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the Hon. Member that his facts in relation to Judge McKeown are out of date. I have talked with her and in fact have taken a good deal of her advice about the restructuring of the Citizenship Court program. I have personally thanked her for her work and, in terms of her own future, she indicated that the work load in the Kingston area was not sufficient to warrant the continuation there of a full-time judge.


Roland de Corneille: I am glad that following the publicity by the media covering that subject in Kingston the Hon. Minister got around to speaking to her.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, with some 20,000 people unnecessarily and unjustly waiting anxiously for citizenship, how can the Secretary of State justify his failure to renew the appointments of such experienced Citizenship Judges as Copps, McKeown, and Evans, for the sake of purely petty, political party patronage?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, the intention of the program was to give outstanding Canadians who have experience in a wide range of Canadian life the opportunity to be involved in this important aspect of affirmation of Canadian citizenship. It is the intention of the Government to invite a number of outstanding Canadians with varied backgrounds to serve in this role in the future.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister about his partisan non answers
Oral Questions
with respect to our automobile trade agreement with Japan. Last year in a situation like this, where an agreement could not have been achieved before the end of March, the Minister of Trade sent a clear signal to Japan and to Canadians by saying at that point it was important that there continue to be quotas on the importation of Japanese cars. This was despite the fact that an agreement had not been reached.
Will the Prime Minister clearly, without qualification, state that his Government also believes that quotas have to be maintained to protect Canadian workers, and to give us the bargaining leverage with Japan that we require?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have done better than that, Mr. Speaker. I have conveyed a very strong view to the Prime Minister of Japan when I met with him in Moscow. We are hopeful that we will have an agreement that will be extremely beneficial to Canadian workers and to the Canadian automobile industry.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that finally we have a commitment that the Government wishes to see such an agreement.


LEVEL OF IMPORTS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister also give us the information clearly, and also without qualification, that he feels on behalf of his Government that there should not be an increase over and above the increase allowed lat year for the Japanese with respect to these imports into our country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, these matters have been very fully addressed by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in a full statement.


John Edward Broadbent: That is why we are asking the question.


Mr. Benjamin:: We could not get a word out of him last week.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The discussions are ongoing. I am satisfied that Canada will be able to resolve this in a manner that is helpful to our industry and to our automobile workers.
Our industry has to remain competitive. On the other hand there is a very low rate of investment, relatively speaking, by Japan in Canada in this sector. We want to see that attitude changed, and we want to make sure that Canada gets a fair break in its bilateral relations with Japan. This is why the negotiations have been unfolding, I think, well and on a progressive basis which will result in an agreement.

April 1, 1985
Oral Questions PORNOGRAPHY


IMPORTATION OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Minister is aware that I have voiced my concerns on the issue of pornography in this House and in committee. Following the Federal Court ruling, the Minister indicated on March 20 that he was concerned and that he would announce plans and action within two to three days to prevent the flooding of pornographic material degrading to men, women and children, into this country. Can the Minister tell us now what his decision has been in this important area? Is he going to appeal, or is he going to bring in an amendment?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. I am in the desert here as far as questions are concerned.


Mr. Boudria:: Imagine how we feel about your answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Member opposite is in a desert, mentally.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Minister of State-if I can be given the chance to answer, as I am somewhat timid-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -the Minister of State for Finance is giving notice today of a Bill to amend the Customs Tariff to replace the tariff item that was found to be contrary to the Charter of Rights by the Federal Court of Appeal. We are hoping that with the co-operation of the Official Opposition which has been promised-and we are waiting to have it confirmed, but we believe the New Democratic Party is also going to give its support although we are not yet sure of the NDP-to have the Bill introduced and passed through all stages this week.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear there is some action proposed. I certainly have not heard that was on the Order Paper. I am glad to hear it is.


FRASER REPORT
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Justice. Is the Minister using the Fraser Report as the background for the Bill that he is planning to deposit? Will that bring all the laws into concordance?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Fraser Report has not yet been received. It is still being put together. We are proceeding under our own steam in this matter-


Mr. Nunziata:: You have a lot of it, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are darn right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Hot air.


John Carnell Crosbie: Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a squeak from the rat pack.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The amendment proposed will have a sunset clause. We will ask the House to pass the amendment with a sunset clause, to hold the fort while we consider the complications of reforming the whole set of laws with respect to pornography. I think the Hon. Member will be satisfied with what we produce tomorrow.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns Challenge '85. Can the Minister let the House know how the private sector is reacting to this program? Can the Minister let us know how the many rural ridings throughout the country will be able to capitalize on this, because many of us do not have the career oriented jobs available for students, and also it is on a first come first served basis, which might leave some of us out in the cold?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I want to inform him that a record number of good applications have cone in for Challenge' 85. Of course they have not all been processed as yet. There will be many more accounted for.
I do want to assure the Hon. Member that in the over-all program all aspects of it have already been over-subscribed. I want to say as well that the private sector has been extremely co-operative in mounting programs and in putting in applications that will cover, as of last week, some 29,000 jobs. That is against 6,000 that were announced by the private sector last summer. It has gone from 6,000 to 29,000 jobs. I can also assure the Hon. Member that it is spread across all parts of the country.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board concerning the political rights of federal government employees who may wish to participate in the Ontario election. In view of the
April 1, 1985

promises made by the Progressive Conservatives in the election to grant political rights to federal employees, and since the Minister has been discussing this issue with the public service union since January, can the Minister assure the House that no disciplinary action will be taken against any federal bargaining unit employee who wants to work for a candidate or a political party in the Ontario election on the employee's own time?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member opposite has well stated, this is one of several issues dealing with commitments we made over the last campaign that are under very active discussion with the unions at the moment. 1 am very happy to report that those discussions are proceeding very well and to the satisfaction of both parties. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement to this House, or to the appropriate committee of this House, in the very near future.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, there is a very specific time related aspect to this because the Ontario election is on for the month of April and a number of people with whom 1 have been in communication have already in fact been told by their supervisors that they are breaching their job regulations as public service employees because they are participating in the campaign.
Can the Minister assure the House, prior to making that announcement, that no disciplinary action will be taken against employees who want to work in the election on their own time?
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the attitude the Hon. Member opposite takes. He was one of those who argued for a full discussion of this issue in the parliamentary committee, a procedure that could take months and months. We are trying to act in a very expeditious manner to come to an adequate resolution of the question, and so far, with the good cooperation of our unions in the spirit of healthy labour-management relations, we are making very quick progress. I hope to report on that in the very near future.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Over the weekend he promised the people in his riding that the Government would intervene to ensure that there is a project to create an imposing number of permanent jobs in the constituency where the high unemployment was created by himself when he was President of Iron Ore. In view of the fact that $10 million has already been poured into that riding and that there are promises of more to come, is the Prime Minister willing to
Business of the House
assure the House that he is prepared to do the same for the people of my riding and for the people of other constituencies who are faced with the same problem?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Liberal Party is taking a very firm stand against the the Government assistance this Government wishes to give Quebec. However, I can say that regardless of the Hon. Member's comments, the Conservative Government is going to help ridings in Quebec, including the riding of Manicouagan, including Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East and other ridings in Canada. I can inform the House that the people of the riding of Manicouagan want Government action and they will have it, regardless of what the Liberal Opposition has to say about it.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Friday, March 29, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what are the plans of the Government House Leader in terms of House business?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we will obviously continue this afternoon with the consideration of Bill C-27 which was under discussion prior to the luncheon break. It is my intention to continue with that Bill tomorrow, followed by Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada.
As the Hon. Member will know, I have asked both Opposition Parties to give serious consideration-this was raised by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) in Question Period today-to the Bill amending the Customs Tariff, which would have the effect of dealing with the decision of the Federal Court with respect to the importation into Canada of hate literature and obscene materials. It is my hope

April 1, 1985
3574___________________________________
Committee Reports that the Opposition Parties will see their way clear to passing this Bill, which contains a sunset clause. It will be introduced today by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. McDougall) for first reading. We could pass it through all stages tomorrow, so that the Senate may deal with it and we may have Royal Assent prior to Easter. That would be my hope for the business as far as tomorrow is concerned.
I also take this opportunity to designate this coming Wednesday, April 3, as the first allotted day in this supply period. This will allow the Opposition to wax eloquent or otherwise with respect to whatever happens to be on its collective mind before we depart this place for the Easter recess.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) rising on a point of order or to present a report?


Felix Holtmann: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my statement concerning the upgrading of defence research, I failed to point out and acknowledge the native veterans of Canada who are in our gallery.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. First, that is not a point of order; second, Hon. Members are not allowed to refer to the presence of people in the gallery. But it was a good try.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to present a report today on behalf of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. I think this is the second time in parliamentary history that a committee has used our new rules to conduct an investigation and to make a report.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, concerning future immigration levels.

In accordance with Standing Order 69(13), I request that the Government make a comprehensive response to this second report.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with an order of reference of Monday, February 25, 1985, I have the honour to present the third report in both official languages of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which deals with tax issues on agriculture.
[Editor's note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I am tabling two copies in both official languages of amendments to the unemployment insurance regulations and the administrative guidelines on changes to the earnings regulations.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS STATEMENT ON SUPPLEMENTARY EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice today of the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to resolve an issue with which I am sure all Hon. Members are familiar. The Government intends to table on Wednesday a Bill to make supplementary equalization payments to the six provinces which currently receive equalization payments. Members will ask why legislation is required to authorize these supplementary equalization payments. The Government must introduce new legislation because there is no legal requirement or obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to make these payments.
The obligation remains, however, to administer the system of equalization based upon the fundamental principle of fairness. This principle must govern our actions even while our own fiscal situation is difficult. It is this Government's recognition of the fundamental principle of fairness which signifies our unswerving desire to work with our partners in the provinces and to assist them wherever possible, for that is the essence of our Confederation.
April 1, 1985

Under existing legislation, equalization payments to some provinces will actually decline in 1985-86 as a result of the expiry of the three-year transitional payments that were provided for in 1982. I have carefully considered representations from these and other provinces which receive equalization payments. In addition, I have been governed by the prevailing necessity to control a crippling federal deficit which in paying the interest charges alone costs the people of Canada $1 out of every $3 they pay in federal taxes.
What we propose in the Bill under these circumstances is a fair and equitable solution to the issue of supplementary equalization. The amounts are substantial although some may have desired more. However the principle of fairness underlying our Confederation has been maintained.
I should like to indicate briefly some of the considerations that guided our decision in this matter. The primary consideration was the impact from the expiry of the three-year transitional provisions. When the new equalization formula was introduced in 1982, it was anticipated that some provinces might suffer a decline in their equalization entitlements, and it was expected that the transitional provisions would allow time for provinces to adapt to the new formula. There are also provisions in the current formula for floor payments to prevent severe year to year declines in equalization payments. Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were guaranteed a 95 per cent floor, and Nova Scotia, Quebec and Manitoba were guaranteed lesser amounts, given the relatively greater fiscal strength of these three provinces.
In determining the amounts of the supplementary equalization payments to be provided in this Bill, it was decided to calculate the payments to Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia as the additional equalization amounts they would receive if a 95 per cent floor applied to them over the next two fiscal years. It was further decided that Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island should receive the same per capita supplementary payments as the average for the other three recipient provinces.

This measure will consist in providing supplementary equalization payments for 1985-86 of $110 million for Quebec, $50 million for Manitoba, $20 million each for Nova Scotia and New Bruswick, $15 million for Newfoundland and $5 million for Prince Edward Island.
In addition, since present projections indicate that Manitoba will experience a further decline in its equalization payments in 1986-87, the Bill will contain provision to make a further payment of $65 million to Manitoba in that year.
The total supplementary payments in 1985-86 will amount to $220 million. This is in addition to the regular equalization payments of over $5 billion. This means that the total regular and supplementary equalization payments to provinces in 1985-86 will amount to almost $5.3 billion.
Supplementary Equalization Payments
These amounts are substantial and should help these provinces to meet their responsibilities in providing essential services. They will mean an increase in the deficit projected for the coming year, and given the Government's serious financial situation they are the most we can provide.
I should note that these payments are totally unconditional and are made in addition to the other substantial transfers to the provinces, particularly in respect of insured health services and post-secondary education under the established programs financing arrangements. The total fiscal transfers from the federal Government to provincial Governments for equalization and the established programs financing arrangements will amount to some $20.7 billion in 1985-86-some $1 billion higher than the $19.7 billion being transferred during the current fiscal year.
I reiterate that legislation to authorize these supplementary equalization payments is necessary because there is no legal obligation or requirement on the federal Government to make these payments under existing fiscal arrangements legislation. The necessity is one of fairness for all Canadians.
[ Translation]
The supplementary equalization payments measure taken by the Federal Government is an extremely generous one, considering the Government's present financial situation. It acknowledges the present financial situation of the provinces in question and reflects this Government's intention and desire to work together with the provinces and to assist them when possible.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the present equalization program expires on March 31, 1987. We recognize that the system is not perfect and we will be consulting with the provinces to establish a new formula for the period of 1987 to 1992. Such actions will be a major part of the general review of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements which will be undertaken over the next two years by both levels of government. I look forward to meeting with provincial Finance Ministers later this year to begin discussions of the fiscal arrangements that will apply during the 1987 to 1992 period.
We shall continue working together towards the common goal of making Canada a better and fairer place for Canadians from all regions, all provinces, all walks of life.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with the Minister's statement, although it is merely part of a program already included in the Canadian Constitution, which provides that the Federal Government has an obligation to help the provinces through equalization payments. Although the Minister is trying to take the credit today, he is only partially meeting the Government's obligations.

April 1, 1985
Supplementary Equalization Payments

I believe it is the first time in the history of Canada that we have had a Budget by instalments like the one we are now having, which began in November. They tested the water and went with the program. Rather than carrying on with making the same amount of equalization payments, the Government tried to cut more than the provinces could take. They come today to reinstate some of the money. However, there are still some major shortfalls. What is happening today re-establishes a little bit of the money that was taken away some months ago. When the mini-budget was proposed in November, the situation was very bleak.
[ Translation]
For instance, the Province of Quebec is being given $110 million today. However, the Quebec Government was asking for $163 million and is only getting $110 million more. In fact, under the formula we extended for one year last year, the Quebec Government should have received $273 million, but it is only going to get $110 million.
This is no big deal. They are being given $163 million. I am not saying that I am upset. The Government is restoring some of the funds it cut rather unrealistically last fall, but if we look at the cuts that affected Quebec last November, we see that $770 million worth of federal activities will not take place in Quebec because of the cutbacks. So if we add $163 million, this means nearly $1 billion Quebec has not been getting since the Progressive Conservatives have been in power.

The same situation applies in the Maritimes. The Maritimes gained back $80 million, but there is still a shortfall of $74 million. The cuts of November were $400 million as they affect the situation in the Maritimes. I could go on. They are reinstating some money for Manitoba, but not all the money to which that province is entitled if the federal Government were to fulfil its constitutional obligation.
As I said earlier, this is a budget by instalment. We now have something on equalization payments because the Minister is preparing the ground. Last week he lost some money to the oil industry. He is now preparing the ground for a big tax increase. We are waiting for that day. Some announcement will be made to try and consolidate their political position. The reality will come in May, if it is not postponed again.
It will be almost a year since this Party came to power and it has not yet been able to put all the pieces together. It made promises to everybody. It cut back some. It is a real show. The real strip-tease will be the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Today is a great day. They had to admit to the NDP House Leader that it is not true that they will not increase taxes. Get ready, guys, it is going to come to us soon, in the neck! They waited in order to try and consolidate their political base. The reality is they got elected by making all sorts of irresponsible promises. Today they are reinstating some but not all of the money.
The provinces do not have what the Constitution calls for, but it is an increase, a step in the right direction. I do not blame the Minister for that. I am just sorry that they are not giving the money to which the provinces are entitled under the Constitution. This is the problem. This test has not been met. I understand. I have a lot of sympathy for the Minister of Finance. He lost his battle with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), he lost his battle with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), and he lost his battle with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). A decent Minister of Finance would have resigned with so many lost battles, but we will give this Minister another chance. He is now preparing the ground for the budget. It is going to be his last day in the House of Commons when Canadians, especially the taxpayers, get it in the neck come the end of May. In the meantime, we keep smiling.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the last Member who spoke has to smile. He remembers that it was his Liberal Government which cut the entire amount of money from those provinces.
We welcome the Government's move, although we do recognize that it does not provide for the entire shortfall that the poorer provinces in this country are facing as a result of the equalization provision that was passed by the Liberal Government in 1982.
It is important that we all remember that when this Government came into power, it was not its intention to move on equalization payments. The briefing notes which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) left in Winnipeg indicated that he was prepared to give a negative repsonse to the people of that province. Later in this House, in answer to questions by myself, he tried to state that the federal Government's financial position was worse vis-a-vis that of the recipient provinces. I believe that is a position which is completely indefensible.
Throughout the period of this Conservative Government, it has pretended that it was some kind of surprise to find that there was an actual decline in the money that would be going to the provinces as a result of the 1982 legislation. Yet in 1982 Conservative Opposition Members stood with Members of the New Democratic Party like the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and fought against the equalization formula the Liberal Government had then introduced. Some of those Members are now members of the Cabinet and they must act upon the words they spoke in 1982. I for one am glad that the Government has made a partial reinstatement of the money to those provinces.
Although this announcement will benefit a number of provinces, it is obvious to all that it was the New Democratic Party Government of Manitoba that led and forced the fight on this issue. The Manitoba Government, along with a coalition of representatives from labour, health, education and social services groups, confronted the federal Government. To a degree, they were successful. It is their victory and we in the House
April 1, 1985

should give them that credit. When the legislation comes before the House, we will deal with it further.
At this time I would like to say that there are still concerns with which we must deal. We need more information about what the provinces will actually receive in 1986-87. We also need to know the effect of federal cut-backs, including those that will be in the upcoming Budget, and how that will affect the economic situation of the provinces. We must also have information on when there will actually be tax reform in t his nation so that those who can afford to pay will pay their fair share.
In closing, I must point out that we need to know the position of the Government with regard to negotiations that will be taking place for the 1987-92 agreement. Concerning this last point, it is essential that the federal Government not look only at its deficit position but also to providing those poor provinces with the ability to provide services to their citizens. That was the purpose of equalization payments and that is why it is in the Constitution.
This is a victory for the people of Manitoba, Quebec and the other provinces that will be receiving more funding as a result of this legislation about which we learned today, but we must also tell Canadians that they are entitled to a certain basic level of services regardless of where they live. That should be the underlying principle that the Government will take with it into the next round of negotiations.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister, but I have two things to say to him before I do. First, I congratulate him.

"Felicitations", in French.

Second, one political philosopher, and I think it was Pierre Trudeau, said that the world can learn from our federal-provincial relations system. It is a pretty complicated lesson and seems to be getting more complicated.
I come from British Columbia. The Province of British Columbia is bleeding post-secondary education funding. Students, colleges and universities are suffering. Federal money is being diverted to highways, big projects, coal holes and pipelines to islands when in fact we really need to be spending it on education. What can the Minister do to ensure that some of the money is spent on the things that are really needed in the provinces, things like education, given that it is part of a federal strategy for economic recovery to have a decently-educated future labour force?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) for his words of congratulations.

The question posed by the Hon. Members regarding the split in the expenditure of the funds under EPF between
Supplementary Equalization Payments
post-secondary education and health care is something that is under discussion between my colleague the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and her provincial counterparts, as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and his provincial colleagues.
This supplementary equalization payment or indeed the over-all equalization formula does not have any bearing on the ways in which the provinces spend money under the programs of post-secondary education and medical health care. These funds are unconditional and it is for that reason that there is no real relationship between the two. As the Hon. Member has pointed out, this money helps provide for a basic level of services in the provinces, and we are very pleased to demonstrate to Canadians that co-operative federalism does live in this country now, unlike under the previous Government.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by nothing with some satisfaction that the Government has finally moved on this issue. It is unfortunate that it has not offered the full amount, but it is fortunate for Manitoba and those other provinces that will be affected by the Minister's decision that they will have some of their shortfalls made up.
Before I ask a question of the Minister, I would like to note that six months ago today I first wrote the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on this issue. On October 1, I reminded him of when he and I together, in the Standing Committee on Finance, moved an amendment to Bill C-97 which was the unilateral Liberal legislation that changed the formula and brought about the situation that the Minister is now trying to correct.
Six months ago I reminded the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the way we had co-operated at that time to try to bring about that correction. Unfortunately, it has taken six months for action to be taken, but it is better late than never and we now have this action on the part of the federal Government. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has said that a great deal of the credit ought to be given to the many Manitobans who wrote and expressed their concerns, to the provincial Government, and to others involved in getting the Government to come to this decision, and I think he is right.
In preparing for the negotiations dealing with the fiscal period of 1987 to 1992, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he is considering doing what the previous Government did last time. Everyone thought that what the previous Government did was a good exercise, and that was to involve Parliament itself in the consideration of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
The Minister will probably recall the special parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements on which I had the opportunity to serve along with six other Members of Parliament. It was generally recognized that that was a good exercise. It involved Members of Parliament in the recommendations leading up to the negotiation process. I wonder if the Government is considering involving Parliamentarians again in a similar way.

April 1, 1985
Supplementary Equalization Payments


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I have spoken to the provincial Finance Ministers. I told them that the preliminary groundwork was going to be carried out by officials this spring and summer. I propose to bring provincial Ministers up to date regarding the progress of that and we will have a preliminary discussion at our meeting this fall. At this point I have not given a great deal of thought to the involvement of Parliamentarians in this process, but obviously that is a very important point made by the Hon. Member which I will take under consideration.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister to comment on the reasons why some of the provinces, as a result of the changes announced today, are receiving more money than they had requested while others are still left in a shortfall position?
The information that I have on which I would invite the Minister to comment is that in the case of Newfoundland, the equalization amounts of the 1985-86 estimates show a transfer of $617 million. With this addition of $15 million, there will be a bonus of $15 million that the province had not claimed as a shortfall. The Province of Prince Edward Island, which had claimed a shortfall of $4 million, is receiving $5 million and is therefore in a $1 million bonus situation. However, the Province of Nova Scotia had claimed a shortfall of $58 million but is to receive $20 million, which leaves it in a shortfall position of $38 million. New Brunswick as well is in a $20 million bonus situation whereas Quebec, which claimed a shortfall of $263 million, is receiving $110 million and is therefore still showing a shortfall of $163 million. Manitoba also claimed a shortfall of $72 million but receives $50 million and is in a $22 million shortfall. Would the Minister tell the House if this apparent discrepancy in the treatment of provinces is as a result of negotiations? And are we to understand that in each case the provinces concerned agreed to this?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that question by saying that what we were trying to do was to provide a fair resolution to a difficult problem and one which was considerably more difficult for the Provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia because they were going to suffer an absolute shortfall. In taking into account this principle of fairness, we decided that we should establish some rationale for dealing with the shortfall. That was, as I indicated in my remarks, to establish a 95 per cent floor for the three provinces which suffered the shortfall. But since they are the three richer provinces in the equalization receiving group, we felt we should do something to recognize the weaker position of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. For that reason, we chose, on a totally arbitrary basis-and I make no apologies for that-what we call an equivalency payment, to give them a payment equivalent to the per capita make-up which the Provinces of Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia received. It is for that reason that New Brunswick received a payment of $20 million; Newfoundland received $15 million; and Prince Edward Island received $5 million. It
is an arbitrary means of dealing with the problem but we feel there is a considerable degree of fairness in our approach since the payment on a per capita basis is equivalent for all the receiving equalization provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) and then the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), and that will be it.


Mr. Minaker:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister regards the unique situation with the Province of Manitoba. But before I ask the question I would like to commend the Minister for his fairness in the approach he has taken on this particular problem with which he has been faced. I know, as a Manitoban, that all we were asking for from our Government was to be treated fairly. I notice that the Minister has given additional funding next year to our province. I wonder if the Minister has had an opportunity to discuss the impact this will have on our province with the Premier of Manitoba or his Minnister of Finance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should first say that, unlike hon. members of the New Democratic Party who spend a lot of time crowing but get little action out of the noise they make, hon. members of the Conservative Party who reside in and represent Manitoba, have constantly dealt with me on a quiet basis on this issue. I can tell the Hon. Member that they were far more effective in their representations because they had substance and a good analytical basis for the statements they made, as opposed to the shrill rhetoric were ceived from the other Party.
Manitoba is in a most unusual position because of the nature of the equalization formula which was imposed by the Liberal Government in 1982. As a result of this, if there were no equalization payments, if no supplementary payment were made, as I have announced today, the equalization for the Province of Manitoba would drop from $480 million in the year just ended to $408 million and then to $367 million. That is our current estimate. So there is a substantial drop there, far greater than was the case in any of the other provinces. It was for that reason we felt it was important to carry through this 95 per cent floor provision into the next fiscal year. If we had not done that, there would have been a very substantial drop-off. We feel that that is a very fair way of dealing with the matter and also a way in which we have looked forward, in the interests of the province, to understanding the nature of the equalization payments.
I have discussed this with the provincial Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has discussed this as well with the Premier of Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: I realized when I said what I said earlier that I was not being entirely fair to Her Majesty's Official Opposition. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Trinity on one supplementary question, then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre on one final question.
April 1, 1985


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the moneys which were taken out of the provincial economies by the November cuts. For instance, although Quebec today receives an additional $110 million, the effect of the various programs which were cut in November is to take $770 million one way or another out of Quebec. Would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tell the House if this was taken into consideration? In his dealings with the provinces and his negotiations on the equalization payments, did he also take into account the $770 million which was cut one way or another from Quebec by his November statement, and the cuts of some $400 million from the Atlantic provinces which today receive $80 million?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was amused when listening to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), and now the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). It must be very difficult for them and must hurt them badly when the Government has a bit of good news and shows that co-operative federalism does work and can work, so they draw out every possible negative they can from this initiative by the Government, which I think is a very positive one and one which demonstrates that this Government is being fair, open and understanding of the problems of the provinces.
Let me say to the Hon. Member that, in the preamble to her question, she admitted noting that this Government has just signed the first economic and regional development agreement with the Province of Quebec since 1974. Surely, that demonstrates our ability to work with the province and also demonstrates a real understanding of the economic circumstances of the Province of Quebec.
This matter was discussed at some length with the Minister of Finance of the Province of Quebec. As well, the Prime Minister has discussed it at some length with the Premier of the province. I think that the proposition we have put forward today is a fair one and one which should be well received by all people in the Province of Quebec.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has applauded the effectiveness of the Tory Members of Parliament. I wonder if he remembers that it took a long time for the Conservative Opposition in the Province of Manitoba to come on board and call for fairness in equalization payments for Manitoba.
However, I do not want to dwell on that, Mr. Speaker. What I want to do is to give praise where it is deserving. Manitoba presented a bill for the shortfall in equalization payments, and the Minister deserves credit for having recognized that he owes the bill. What I would like to know from the Minister is why he has not paid the full bill. Why has he only paid some 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the bill? Why does he not go all the way, in the name of fairness, and pay the full bill he owes with regard to the shortfall in equalization payments in Manitoba?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have been in touch with the finance critic of the
Introduction of Bills
provincial Conservative Party in the Province of Manitoba on this issue long before it joined forces with the Government in making a joint representation. So the provincial Conservatives were not absent in any way from the representations being made, but made them in a very effective and quiet way, in dealing with the substance of the issue and not the rhetoric.
In response to the specific question the Hon. Member poses as to why did we not go the whole way, the simple fact of the matter is that we have a financial problem in the same way the Governments of Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia have financial problems. We all have financial problems. The question we had to ask ourselves is, who should do the borrowing? We are all borrowing to make these payments, whether to make up the shortfall at the provincial level or make up the amounts we are paying from the federal level as supplementary payments. We were under no legal obligation here. The transitional payments expired and we could have just walked away from it and done nothing. But we said, no, we should be fair, and we have demonstrated a degree of fairness by saying, let us go part way. I think the Hon. Member from Manitoba, if he looks at the figures and the treatment which Manitoba got relative to other provinces, will see that Manitoba was very well treated and should have no reasons for complaint.


PETITIONS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from some 1,290 citizens, most of whom are in my riding, calling for Canada to be declared a nuclear weap-ons-free zone. That has been defined as no nuclear weapons in Canada, no transit of nuclear weapons through Canadian territory, No Canadian support system for nuclear weapons and no Canadian production of components for nuclear weapons. To be fair, there were at least two people who signed this petition who were of a contrary mind, but over 1,200 people are calling for Canada to be declared a nuclear weapons-free zone.



CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 1, 1985
Order Paper Questions


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 118 and 252.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Did the Department of the Environment announce cut-backs in its Parks Canada Program and, if so (a) who decided that such cut-backs were necessary (b) were there consultations with the concerned groups?
2.	Will such cut-backs affect the conservation of our national parks?
3.	Will any employees lose their jobs and, if so (a) how many (b) will the jobs be replaced (c) will (i) full-time (ii) part-time jobs be abolished and, if so, in each case, how many?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes. (a) The Government of Canada, (b) No. The announced budgetary reductions, including those to Parks Canada's budget, were arrived at after a careful internal expenditure and program review.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. (a) 54 employees have been informed that they will lose their jobs, (b) The jobs will not be replaced; however, every effort is being made to relocate the incumbents to vacant positions within the Department of the Environment, (c) Yes. (i) 80 jobs (ii) 148 jobs.*
*It should be noted that question 3(a) deals with employees while 3(c) deals with jobs. The difference (174) relates to vacant positions and to term positions that would have expired in any event.


Mr. Heap: Does Section 56.1 of the National Housing Act require that non-profit housing groups return surplus funds over the amount of the subsidy surplus reserve and, if so, what amount was returned in (a) 1982 (b) 1983?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
Yes, non-profit housing groups are required to return surplus subsidy funds received under Section 56.1 of the National Housing Act, which are over the amount of the subsidy surplus reserve fund permitted under the program, (a) $1,075,603. (b) $6,525,087.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 210 could be made an order for return, this return will be tabled immediately.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ravis: 1.	By province, during each of the past five fiscal years, what were Canadian International Development Agency's (a) contract expenditures (b) consulting services (c) expenditures on materials and supplies made by the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	By province, during each of the past five years, what were the percentage of (a) contract expenditures (b) consulting services (c) expenditures on materials and supplies made by the Department of Supply and Services?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I had started to make a few comments on the Bill before the House today, namely, Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would like to start by reminding the House that when the Constitution Act, 1982, was proclaimed on April 17, 1982, the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms became effective. However, the provisions relating to equality rights as set forth in Section 15 of the Charter were not to come into effect until April 17 of this year. Section 32(2) reads as follows, and I quote:
April 1, 1985

Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Therefore, April 15 of this year will mark the anniversary of the proclamation of the Charter and the date on which Section 15 becomes effective.
Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the Liberal Government at the time had undertaken to examine and review all federal statutes to check their compliance with all provisions of the Charter.
Section 15 is a major provision of the Charter which must be interpreted within its general context. Section 15 acknowledges the right of every individual not to be exposed to any discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. The wording of Section 15 reads as follows, and I quote:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Mr. Speaker, these rights are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That is Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We can also refer to Section 27 which deals with multicul-turalism and its importance to this country, and to Section 28 by which rights are guaranteed equally to both sexes. Although hundreds of cases have been brought before the courts on the basis of various provisions of the Charter, Section 15, since it has yet to become effective, has not been the subject of any judicial interpretation. After the three-year waiting period ending on April 17, Canadians could expect the Federal Government would table a Bill providing appropriate amendments to laws that are not consistent with the Charter and especially with Section 15, so that the amendments could be adopted in time for the coming into effect of Section 15 on April 17 of this year, thus sparing Canadians the need to undertake costly court proceedings to have their rights recognized.
Mr. Speaker, these amendments are necessary to eliminate the discrepancies that exist in our federal and provincial statutes, to help Canadians avoid situations that may be humiliating and unfair in addition to being extremely costly, and to improve the clarity and fairness of Canadian laws.
Mr. Speaker, the burden of proof often lies with minority groups. These groups often have to prove they should be considered first-class citizens. All these groups, including the disabled, visible minorities and language minorities have, at some time, been exposed to the discrimination and racism that surface, from time to time and to our shame, in our society.
Statute Law Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker, I must remind the House that the language issue, for example, is in fact covered under Sections 133 and 93 of the BN A Act of 1867, not to mention Manitoba Act Section 23 which deals with the same rights as those included in Section 133 of the BN A Act of 1867, namely access to legislatures and courts. In addition, we have Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning linguistic rights. To this day, those four sections could be challenged before the courts for legal interpretation. We had the court challenges program funded by the Secretary of State which, along with legal advice from the Minister of Justice, enabled Canadians to test Canadian legislation or test the system to make sure that the various Acts were correctly interpreted.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will recall that less than ten days ago I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) what would replace the court challenges program on April 1 since, as we all know, this program ended March 31, yesterday. There is no money left, therefore no program, and that is unfortunate! Since 1978, Mr. Speaker, when the then Liberal Government had established the court challenges program, 14 cases have been accepted, which represents an over-all amount of $580,000, and during the fiscal year ended yesterday, we had $260,000 to help Canadians uphold their rights before the courts by contesting, if you will, the interpretation of Sections 133 and 93 of 1867, and Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is no longer available.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, I had asked the Secretary of State whether he was seriously considering the feasibility of expanding the court challenges program to include Charter Section 15. I, for one, am firmly convinced that it is essential to help those minority groups who may be among the most underprivileged, who do not always have enough money, and who must necessarily rely on federal Government financial assistance. I had asked the Minister if he thought the program might be expanded.
In his answer the Minister said:
-as the Hon. Member rightly notes, with the widened context of Section 15, there are a number of groups that are very anxious to pursue rights and to see that these are clarified. In the review that is on-going, the wider context is also being reviewed in terms of support that may be offered.
That is found at page 3292 of Hansard, March 22, 1985.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is important to us and, personally, I would not be against this Government helping minority groups and people who feel their rights are being infringed on in connection with the section on official languages and the provision dealing with equality, namely Charter Section 15.

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
Bill C-27 now under consideration amends fifty Acts. With respect to legal rights, there are Sections 7 to 9 and 11 of the Charter, fundamental freedoms under Section 2, mobility rights under Section 6, and minor amendments to Section 15, amendments which amount to revised wording rather than genuine implementation of the Charter or a clear indication of what it means. Mr. Speaker, instead of making comprehensive amendments to the most controversial measures concerning minority groups, the Government once again opts for further study, and a committee will go traipsing across the country to seek the views of Canadians, again forcing minority groups to defend anew the rights they had finally acquired in 1982.
This extra work, this requirement to appear before a committee means more briefs, more studies and lengthy proceedings during which a committee may listen with sympathy, but where the majority or any given lobby group can turn the whole exercise into what ends up being a very humiliating experience for many people. Minorities resent coming under public scrutiny over and over again to prove that they are right and to reconfirm whether the rights they thought they had acquired in 1982 are indeed equality rights, Canadian rights they do have and which should command full respect.
Mr. Speaker, here are some remarks made recently by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan):
The purpose of the Charter of Rights was indeed to protect minorities against pressure from the majority. By disregarding such considerations and shirking its responsibilities to give full force to the Charter, the Conservative Government violates the very spirit of that instrument.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty fair analysis of the situation. Minority groups will now have to appear before that parliamentary committee which, for many of us, had held hearings in 1981-82 here in Ottawa and elsewhere in the province. We were hoping and thinking that, by adopting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all Canadian legislation would have been reviewed after three years to eliminate discrepancies related to Section 15. Such is not the case. As I said earlier, the Bill introduced last January by the Conservative Government amends fifty Acts. It seems that the provinces are doing the same thing, and we are still waiting to see who will put and end to all this by finally settling this major issue.
Part V of the Bill concerning equality rights-there are 30 provisions out of a total of 120-amends eleven federal Acts. In most cases, these amendments do nothing more that than substitute the word "spouse" for the words "husband or wife", the word "child" for the words "son" or "daughter", the words "surviving spouse" for "widow" or "widower". Semantics, Mr. Speaker! The other categories of amendments relate to age, and one amendment to the Canada Shipping Act substitutes the expression "mental disability" for the word "lunacy". Mr. Speaker, none of those changes is controversial, of course. We have been doing that for years in an attempt to standardize our legislation and avoid anomalies.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the provincial legislatures were strongly opposed to the inclusion of the equality rights provision throughout the constitutional debate, finally relenting in November 1981, except for the Province of Quebec, of course. Well, those legislatures have not been in any particular hurry to amend Acts of theirs that might conflict with the Charter of Rights.
The Progressive Conservative Government in Ottawa now has the same attitude and, as far as I can see, is not providing any leadership at all, which might have the effect of strengthening the position of the provinces. Believe it or not, they have only reached the following stage: Ontario, for instance, has published a 400-page compilation of sections to be amended, while Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have published a white paper containing proposed amendments. Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for three years!
Quebec has systematically invoked the notwithstanding clause in Section 133-a clause I find abhorrent-thereby removing all legislation from the field of application of Sections 2, 7 and 15 of the Charter and giving only its own Charter force of law. New Brunswick has passed a law eliminating major problems of non-conformity for which, it deserves to be congratulated. British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have taken no public initiative, but we have been informed that working documents for the white paper are being drafted. Mr. Speaker, they all know that Section 15 will be proclaimed on April 17, 1985.
They are dragging their feet. They are waiting and examining and consulting! The Federal Government has started a consultation process through a parliamentary committee that will try to understand what Canadians think of all the grey areas referred to in the working document, the Minister's white paper: Equality Issues in Federal Law-distinctions made on the basis of age, mandatory retirement and economic and social problems. All these issues are of great concern to many Canadians but should have been dealt with by now, and a Bill tabled in this House that could stand the test and be used to consider in the House the intrinsic value of these issues. But no, they are going to let a committee find out what Canadians think about mandatory retirement, although Section 15 clearly prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. I think it is all quite clear and straightforward, Mr. Speaker. Why not let the courts decide? We have gone through the parliamentary process. We have done what was necessary. Let the courts and the legal experts tell us what the legislator had in mind. So much was clear to many of us. Why drag it all again in front of the general public to attract attention and possibly arouse public reaction? We see what is happening in New Brunswick with a document published by the Government. It is not easy to be a minority. It is not easy to be disabled. It is not easy to be one of those groups that are always being examined to death to find out whether they do or do not have this or that right, because the Charter is quite straightforward and quite clear.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are warning me that my time has expired or is about to expire. I would have a lot more to say about this subject. I am sorry the Government was unable to
April 1, 1985

table a general and comprehensive Bill that could be used as a working document to establish once and for all for Canadians that there is only one Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and one law for everyone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments on the speech by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is well known as a very active spokesman for Francophones outside Quebec, and he is well aware that when language rights were established three years ago and even well before that, the Federal Government set up a program to provide financial assistance for those Canadians who wanted to establish their rights before the courts.
Therefore, we are now in a rather similar situation where statutes relate to the issue of equality from a point of view other than language. But I would like to know from my colleague whether he now supports, as he did in the past, the fact that the Government is providing financial help to those who want to establish their rights before the courts. If not, I would simply state that the opponents, those who are not in favour of extending rights, as perhaps provincial governments or others, will raise the funds needed to appeal unfavourble decisions, but how can rights really be established before the courts without Government financial support?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for York Centre for his question. The issue is a major one because, as I said in my remarks, minority groups more often than not are destitute, without much money. Maybe the Government wants to terminate the legal assistance program. Last week, I asked the same question from the Secretary of State, I asked him as I said in my remarks, whether he could extend the program to cover Section 15. He answered he had that under consideration. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I feel that if our society is to be just and fair, it is imperative that the majority, that is the taxpayers should help by means of an administered program, if you wish, in an impartial way, in order that individuals and groups may submit their cases to the courts which are in my view the resource, the forum open to us when the validity of a statute is challenged. I think for instance that the Canadian Bar could be consulted by this Government. If the Government wants to stay away from the day-to-day administration of the program to avoid conflicts, I would be very reluctant to have the program extended and entrusted to the Minister of Justice. I do not think he can simultaneously act as solicitor and judge, as client and counsel, but I would be in favour of that Government having a legal assitance program that would cover not only Sections 133, 93 and 23 of the Constitution, but also Section 15, and having a board of directors set up with membership from the civil liberties union, for instance, or the Fondation des droits de l'homme, including one or two representatives from the Canadian Bar. The Government could also have a representative on that board which would be provided with government funding and would have
Statute Law Amendment Act
the responsibility and perhaps the duty to financially support legal cases of groups and individuals wanting to challenge certain constitutional sections-and I repeat certain constitutional sections-because not everyone is in a position to finance such important cases, like the Forest Case, for instance, in Manitoba, which has established that Section 133 and Section 23 were the same thing. That cost close to $75,000. The efforts and the money did not come from Mr. Forest personally, but this has established something. If someone is challenging for instance the right for the Government to enforce retirement at 65, and is suggesting that this is unconstitutional, I think that each and every Canadian is entitled to know exactly what the views of the courts are on that, and to know exactly and definitely that the courts are in agreement or disagreement with the Constitution and how the latter should be interpreted. To me, it is absolutely vital that we have an extended program, a program administered if you wish independently from the Government, but a well-funded and well-organized program.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)- Immigration-Ernst Zundel-Deportation proceedings; The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse)- Agriculture-Inspection service charges, b) Minister's position; The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Unemployment Insurance-Petition against calculation of severance pay. b) Discussion paper inquiry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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.
[Stage Direction]
April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on Bill C-27 is just one more step, perhaps a small step, in the long and enduring quest for equality. There can be no more important cause than that in a democratic society. That is why I am particularly honoured by Members of this House to have been chosen as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Equality Rights. Our committee will now be looking at the number of issues raised under federal statutes in light of Section 15 of the Charter. Because of that I have been present in the House for many speeches that have been given on Bill C-27.
I would like at this time to make some general observations and comments to put a number of the issues raised in context. I should preface this by saying that it has been my political credo and I believe very strongly in fair shares for all and special privileges for none. With that in mind, I think the current subject before us is one that gives an opportunity to make that principle an even greater reality. None of us should be so pretentious as to assert that any single Bill before the House or any single measure at one point in time or, indeed, anything such as Section 15 of the Charter is the be-all and end-all.
What we are engaged in is an enduring struggle to see that the ideals of our democracy, the equality of its citizens before and under the law, can be in fact a reality. As we know, under Section 15 of the Charter discrimination is prohibited, such as discrimination on the basis of sex and religion.
I would like to turn briefly to the pages of Canadian history to show how long this quest for equality has been. Dealing for a moment with the question of sexual discrimination, the right of women to be candidates for election at both the federal and provincial levels generally came with or followed the extension of the franchise to women. If we just look at the dates on which women were given the legal right to be candidates in Canada, we find a very important story there.
Manitoba was the first province giving women the right to be candidates for election to the Manitoba legislature on January 28, 1916; Saskatchewan followed on March 14, 1916; Alberta on April 19, 1916; British Columbia, the following year, in 1917; Nova Scotia in 1918; then Ontario in 1919. In that same year this Parliament passed a law entitling women to be candidates for election to Parliament. It was not until 1922 that Prince Edward Island came on board, and in 1925 Newfoundland, before its entry into Confederation, of course. New Brunswick passed such legislation in 1934, and Quebec on April 24, 1940. There is a 24-year period during which legislation was enacted to establish the legal right of women to be candidates seeking public office in the legislatures of this country and in Parliament. It says something about the nature of the country that it took virtually a quarter of a century for that right to be developed equally from coast to coast so that all women could share that right.
Another of the anti-discriminatory provisions now in the Charter deals with religion. I think here it is important to understand something of the background. I will do so by citing an example from my book entitled Political Rights which
looks back into the history of the qualifications required for people to be elected to our assemblies.
Since Confederation no religious qualification has been required of Members, nor have clergymen of any denomination been disqualified. Under the Constitution Act of 1791 clergymen were disqualified from becoming Members of the Assemblies of Upper and Lower Canada. In New Brunswick, even after the turn of this century, clergymen of all denominations were disqualified for election. Such provisions did not reflect an anti-clerical tradition so much as they manifested the principle of separation of church and state. That point alone is worth emphasizing because in the work that lies ahead of our Subcommittee on Equality Rights, we must not only look at the face of the law as we find it on the statute books but go beyond and behind it to try to understand the economic, the social, or the cultural policy on which those laws were enacted. It will be very important to ensure there is no unravelling of important social relationships or distortion of long-standing values that are important to the public of this country. I think the separation of church and state is a principle to which many held and still hold in some instances.
Certainly different was the case in Nova Scotia where an anti-Catholic legal requirement was emblazoned in the statute books of that province. Up to 1830 Members of both Houses of Nova Scotia's Legislature were required, before taking their seats, to make and to subscribe to declarations against tran-substantiation, the invocation of saints and the sacrifice of mass, as practised in the Church of Rome. This requirement was expressly remitted by the King in the case of a Member from Cape Breton who had been elected in 1820, and a decade later in 1830, such declarations renouncing the Roman Catholic religion were wholly abolished by an act of the legislature.
Those are but two of the many examples from the fabric of Canadian history that show that the struggle we now have to deal with discrimination and eradicate it from our statutes is something of a quest on which Canadians have been engaged from the time this nation first began.
Clearly the pace has been accelerating, Mr. Speaker. I would like to place the current Bill C-27 in a somewhat more recent historical context. If we look at the year 1947 and the post-war emphasis on reconstructing a new order out of the devastation left by World War II and on the importance of reasserting the roots of democratic societies, we find in the Province of Ontario in that year the introduction of a racial discrimination Act. Very shortly after that, other provinces followed suit. By 1951, provinces began legislating fair accommodation and fair employment practices Acts. In 1960 here in Parliament, the Canadian Bill of Rights was enacted. Fifteen years later, it could be said that by 1975, all provinces of this country had established Human Rights Commissions. The year after that, in 1976, Canada ratified two major United Nations' human rights covenants. It was in the following year, in 1977, that the Canadian Human Rights Act established a federal Human Rights Commission and consolidated other existing federal human rights legislation.
April 1, 1985

By 1980 a movement had begun here to establish a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was included in the federal proposed resolution to amend the Canadian Constitution. The ins and outs of that battle are well known to all Members of the House. It was really two years there after, on April 17, 1982, that Her Majesty proclaimed the new Constitution Act, 1982 and that Section 15 of that Act would come into effect three years hence, which will be on April 17, just a few days away.
There has been much activity which can and should in the near term lead to further changes. We have had the report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society entitled Equality Now! It was tabled in the House in March, 1984. Also we received the Abella Commission report on equality in employment, as well as a discussion paper of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) on equality issues in federal law. It is clear in considering Bill C-27 that it is but one measure in an area which is exceedingly active in Canadian legislatures and in the minds and movements of those who care about developing a truly democratic society. We have never had a greater amount of activity than is the case today. Not only do we have Bill C-27 before us and the prospect of our parliamentary committee doing its work and reporting back to Parliament in the near future, but we have a criminal law review under way which is raising many Charter-based issues. As all Hon. Members of the House know, the Indian Act is now under revision aimed particularly at resolving a number of the sexual equality issues found there. Legislation is being challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the provisions of the Lord's Day Act in light of Charter provisions. The Unemployment Insurance Act is under review, also in relation to Charter provisions, as well as many other economic and relevant considerations. The list continues. I have marked at least seven major areas apart from the work now before the House in which the present Government is currently engaged, areas dealing with the quest for equality and fairness in Canadian public policy, Canadian law and the practices of the federal Government.
I have heard in the House statements by opposition Members to the effect that Bill C-27 is only a small step or a half-way measure. Rhetorically they have stated that it is too little in light of what must be done. I would certainly agree with those comments if Bill C-27 were all that we had before us. I hope what I have just said leaves the picture as clear as it can be. This is but one part of a great effort which is now being made by a new Government strengthened with a clear mandate from the people to make changes and to get on with implementing recommendations, policies and ideas which have been around for quite a while. That is most certainly what motivates me. If Hon. Members opposite can be supportive of this endeavour, let them join with us and avoid trying to score rather narrow partisan points on a matter as profoundly important as this one, because then we could really make great strides for the country.
Statute Law Amendment Act
Bill C-27 should not be diminished. As someone who has worked closely with over 140 statutes during the last five years in writing my books on election law, I readily appreciate the hours and hours which have gone into combing through federal statutes to pull out the discrepancies, distinctions and discriminatory provisions which exist on the face of the more than 1,100 statutes. This Bill therefore represents no small effort in and of itself. It justifiably represents an important first step. However, more important, it is fundamental to our approach that the solutions to the problems of equality in Canadian law not be dictated from Ottawa but, rather, be arrived at through speaking with and listening to the people of the country. If anything was said last September 4, I think it was a very clear statement that the era in which Ottawa knows best and Ottawa tells Canada that this and that is what the laws will be is an era which is over.
We will come forward with a program based upon a consultative process. We will try to relate the complexities of modern government to the realities we face and the continuing ideals of Canadians living in a democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, the in-depth review of Federal statutes to ensure that they reflect the equal status of all Canadians in accordance with Section 15 of the Charter has resulted, first, in the introduction of Bill C-27, and second, in the creation of the Committee on Equal Rights.
Bill C-27 proposes amendments to a number of Federal acts related to legal matters. Under its terms of reference the committee will examine the Federal statutes related to economic, social and cultural matters on which present legislation is based. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be interpreted on the basis of our social standards. We, as Members of the committee, must therefore allow every Canadian to express his views. We are now developing a participatory process, and our recommendations will have to reflect daily facts of life as well as the provisions of Section 15. In other words, Bill C-27 and the work of our committee will be the starting point in the recognition process of human rights. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we are favourably impressed with the mandate of our committee.

We have a task to find laws which will curb the powerful and will uphold the weak, laws which will give meaning to the principle stated in Section 15 of the Charter that all Canadians are equal before the law and equal under the law. Those who would lament the fact that today we do not have the last word or the definitive answer on all policies raised in the federal statutes, particularly those of the Liberal Party who have been critical of this, must in fairness recognize that the review in the Department of Justice was not begun on this subject until a mere seven months before that Party was driven from office. In short, there was a singular lack of dispatch in getting down to the task at hand. I do not wish to make any strong point on that score, any more than I wish members of

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
the Opposition to use it for their partisan advantage. The reality is that the task of understanding the ramifications of the Charter in light of the existing provisions of our law requires a long, careful and continuing effort by many of us.
In conclusion, I want to report to you, erudite Speaker that you are, that I have been rereading Gordon Allport's classical work on the nature of prejudice, to give some basis for the further work which we will now be doing. He asked whether discrimination and prejudice were facts of the social structure or of the personality structure, and his answer was that indeed they were the results of both.
We are looking here not at the matter of how individuals may in their personalities respond through prejudice in a way that results in discrimination, but at how in the social structure, which includes the laws of this country, the discriminatory provisions, the distinctions that are there, are now, in light of Section 15 of the Charter, eradicated for the betterment of this country and its citizens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-I'm sorry, Resti-gouche, (Mr. Girard).


Mr. Girard:: Mr. Speaker, what is the opinion of the Hon. Member of the criticism by the Opposition that the Government's approach will force people to go to court to assert their rights under Section 15 of the Charter?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I can say that whether they are from Restigouche or Moose Jaw, the view of Canadians on this will be quite the same. Those comments made by Members, particularly of the Liberal Party, that the approach which the Government is taking will force people to go to the courts to assert their remedies under Section 15 of the Charter is erroneous, misleading and disruptive to the process of this parliamentary committee.
In this country if you can make any statement with assurance, it is the following: nobody in Canada is forced into the courts. Our courts are there as a refuge for people who want to see that in the final analysis the rights and the remedies which they have can be interpreted. That is where they can turn to seek their remedy, if they so wish.
The context in which that has been raised is that the work of the parliamentary committee is now going to review the more complex social and policy issues, the cultural and economic dimensions of many of these issues before us as raised in the booklet Equality Issues in Federal Law. It was said that because this is not all in place and finalized prior to April 17, there will be a period during which people will have to turn to the courts. I just do not buy that. As long as Canada is a country and as long as we have a Charter of Rights, people will be going to the courts to assert their rights, and so it should be.
Everyone can recognize that the great body of complicated issues that are now before us are ones that are properly resting
with the parliamentary committee to deal with them. After all, we are the ones who can legislate. If we decide that mandatory retirement laws are something that should be changed, we can bring in measures to make all the consequent changes that flow from them dealing with the Canadian Pension Plan and other pension plans.
Those are not things the judges of this country can do. That is not their role. Traditionally, it has not been the role of judges in this country to be legislators. That is more the American approach. I believe that every Member of this House, duly elected, recognizing the supremacy of Parliament as the law-making body in our system, would welcome an approach which leaves the greatest amount of control in changing the laws with the duly elected Members representatives of the people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Supplementary. The Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Girard).


Albert Girard: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) told us the other day that the consultation approach of our Government showed that this Government did not take matters seriously. Does the Hon. Member have any comments to make about this statement?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, consultation with the Canadian public is a very important step in the work of our committee. I believe that, for cooperation between the Government and the Canadian people to be successful it has to be expressed in positive terms. I therefore think that the hearings held by our committee will be a very important part of the process. More important, the consultation process will allow us to discuss with the public major problems related to the social, cultural and economic policies on which our laws are based. Another very important fact is that the public will be made more aware of the complexity of the problems we are now discussing. I believe that it is very important and very useful to discuss these problems with the people.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment plus a question for the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer). He stated that no Bill introduced in this House is the be all and end all. Members from all sides can agree with that. On the other hand, Bill C-27 is a terrible start. Some Bills certainly attempt to address the issue or the area which the Bill tries to cover to find a solution in a more comprehensive, genuine and encompassing way. He also mentioned that perhaps in the backdrop of this Bill, there is a flurry of activity. He mentioned the Equality Now! report with respect to visible minorities, and the Abella Commission. Perhaps he should have mentioned to the Canadian public that those were Liberal initiatives, as was the whole constitutional process and the Charter of Rights.
Perhaps he should also mention to Canadians that most of the objections which came in 1981 and 1982 certainly came
April 1, 1985

from that side of the House and its provincial friends across the country.
The Hon. Member also mentioned the hours and hours that must have gone into amending those 50 federal statutes. He should also mention to Canadians that minority groups spent hours and hours in terms of preparing briefs. Also they spent a lot of money coming to Ottawa to present their views. We should also consider whether it is fair to encumber those individuals or groups throughout the country with having to repeat that performance. We should be asking Canadians whether we should in fact be reinventing the wheel today, April 1, in light of the April 17 deadline.
The Hon. Member talked about September 4 being the date on which this Government was given a clear mandate, a mandate for change. We all recognize what happened on September 4. It is all the more important that it does have the absolute majority, given the political will, that it does have the ability to give Canadians that change. In 1979, the Government acted as if it had a majority. In 1985, it is acting as if it were a minority. Its biggest desire is to be loved by everyone everywhere at the same time without affecting anyone's life, without saying that it is going to take a certain course.
Leadership also means giving direction with the full knowledge that that direction is not acceptable to everybody. By sitting on the fence and not trying to hurt anybody, you are not giving leadership.
I now come to my question. Given the fact that the Hon. Member, through this Bill, is looking at changing federal statutes, 50 pieces of legislation I believe, legislation with which everyone was in agreement, legislation which is purely cosmetic, why did it not tackle the other 950 statutes that need updating? Why stop at 50? Why did the Government not go further? Why create a parliamentary committee if we already have a standing committee that parliamentarians and minority groups can go to once we look at this legislation detail by detail? Why the parliamentary committee on the one hand and why, on the other stop at 50 pieces of legislation rather than taking a much broader look as a first step in bringing federal laws into compliance with Section 15?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the question just posed clearly reflects the Hon. Member's deep interest in the subject at hand. I welcome that interest. However, if he were to be fully fair-minded, he would not describe all the initiatives in the human rights field as being Liberal initiatives. In many respects, the reports which I cited were, in my understanding, parliamentary initiatives, initiatives taken by committees made up of Members of all three Parties of this House. Even the Constitution and the Charter to which the Hon. Member refers had success only because of support from two provincial Governments with complexions other than Liberal.
The Hon. Member then went on to refer to Bill C-27 as being merely cosmetic. I would think that the spouses whose rights are now for the first time to be protected by the
Statute Law Amendment Act
clarification of provisions in the existing law would not find that change cosmetic. When speaking in general terms, it is very easy to skip over glibly some very profound and important points. I am afraid that is what has happened.


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to one specific matter which, regrettably, was not covered by Bill C-27 but which, I believe, flows from the Charter of Rights. It is a matter on which urgent action is required and on which initiative has been taken not by the Liberals or Progressive Conservatives but by the New Democratic Party. I am speaking, of course, of the question of political rights or the right to participate in democratic elections and election campaigns of persons who work for the Public Service of Canada and of persons who may work for provincial legislatures.
My focus today is on the federal legislation. This is a matter of real and urgent importance. In fact, I raised this question in the House of Commons today. There are some 120,000 federal employees who live and work in the Province of Ontario. The provincial Government is now entering into an election campaign. Those federal employees were told last February that they were not to take any action which could give rise to the perception that they were acting in a manner which was partisan or which was not impartial during an election campaign. As a consequence, a number of employees, with great trepidation, backed away from participation in the federal election campaign and will in fact back away from participation in the current provincial election campaign. This has happened despite the fact that the Charter of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association as fundamental rights, despite the fact that the Charter of Rights, in Section 1, provides for exemptions on a very limited basis, and despite the fact that in Section 15, the Charter of Rights provides equality of rights which should surely ensure that people working for the Government of Canada are given the same kind of treatment in terms of freedom of speech and of association as are other citizens of the country.
This is an urgent matter. My friend, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), suggested that no one has to go before the courts. I have been before the courts. I am in fact before the Federal Court of Canada right now in conjunction with four federal Government employees regarding the interference with their rights of association and freedom of speech because of the lack of amendments to Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act and because of the actions of the Government of Canada as the employer which essentially interfered with basic political rights.
I think it is fair to say that this is an administrative as well as a legislative matter. There has been federal legislation for many years which has tended to interfere with what I believe are the basic democratic rights of federal Government employees just as such legislation exists at the provincial level. Beginning one year ago, guidelines issued by the Public Ser-

April 1, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
vice Commission had the effect of stepping up the heat very considerably. The guidelines transferred the enforcement of restrictions on federal employees from the provision in the Public Service Employment Act, which had not been used since 1967 because it required enforcement of a complaint by a political candidate, and no candidate has ever complained, to the internal disciplinary mechanisms of the Public Service. There, as some Hon. Members know, a number of disciplinary actions have been initiated or carried out. People have been suspended, called to account or have had black marks put on their records because of various participations in political life.
The reason I raise this issue now and the reason I raised this question earlier today is that there will possibly be elections later this year in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Yukon. There are two election campaigns under way right now. Even if the next federal election does not take place for another three or four years, the question of the rights of people who happen to work for the Government of Canada is one which I believe must be dealt with quite urgently.
I would like to suggest to my hon. friends from all Parties that we should look at the Charter of Rights as hard as we look at Bill C-27. Obviously Bill C-27 is designed to amplify and implement what was intended by the Charter. When looking at the Charter, we find that the Charter itself is rather weak when it comes to the question of democratic rights. Section 3 of the Charter refers to democratic rights and is in fact considerably more limited than I believe it ought to be. It guarantees every citizen of Canada the right to vote in an election for Members of the House of Commons and to be qualified to be a Member of the House of Commons. It also guarantees that no House of Commons will continue for more than five years save under certain narrowly defined emergency circumstances.
It is interesting to compare this with the enormous amount of detail into which the Charter goes with respect to the official languages and with respect to minority language educational rights. In fact, on those two issues, the Charter is almost as detailed as the Bill.
Regarding democratic rights, the Charter is silent on a number of things which I think are extremely important. The Charter does not guarantee citizens of Canada that there will be fair and impartial conduct of elections. It does not guarantee the right of candidates to communicate with their electors and of electors to communicate with their candidates. It will likely be tested in the courts as to whether or not such things as the gerrymandering that is now taking place in British Columbia is in fact forbidden under the equality provisions of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights. If the gerrymandering in that province is not governed by Section 15, I suspect that it will be possible for British Columbia to ensure that the Socreds can have three or four times the number of seats for each vote received compared to the New Democratic Party and not be in violation of the Charter. In other words, we have not thought this particular area through. I would ask my colleagues from all Parties to consider that question very seriously.
Of course, I am speaking initially of the status of people working for the Government of Canada, because it is a fact that promises were made by Progressive Conservative Members when they were running for office last summer and these promises have yet to be implemented. I understand that it takes time to move the wheels of Government and I am hopeful that the promise made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) that discussions with the Public Service union will yield a statement very soon will in fact come to pass.
Working under the guarantees which I believe are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I feel that I have no choice but to go to the courts to say that if the citizens of Canada are to have freedom of speech, it should not be denied to a person because of the fact that he happens to work for the Government of Canada, except in so far as Section 1 would apply, and that would be where a restriction is reasonable, where it is proscribed by law, and where it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The jurisprudence limits those restrictions under Section 1 very sharply. The jurisprudence effectively says that one cannot apply a blanket restriction on an entire class of individuals. One may be able to demonstrate that Deputy Ministers and other persons who are providing senior executive services to the Government of Canada might have their political rights restricted or even eliminated entirely because of the nature of their jobs. Surely that restriction should not apply to a truck driver in the Yukon, a secretary working in the Department of National Health and Welfare in Tunney's Pasture, or someone who is a fisheries enforcement officer riding around in a boat somewhere off the coast of Prince Edward Island. Surely that would not be a reasonable kind of restriction.
My problem is that the promise was made by the Government eight months ago as it was coming to office, but we are still to see that promise implemented. The reason I am going to court is that I have regard to the fact that the previous Liberal Government, when in opposition, promised the same thing as the present Government but did not implement it. In fact, there has been more said about the issue of the political rights of federal Government employees in the six months of this Parliament than during the entire four years or four and a half years of the previous Parliament. I would undertake, as the Member for Ottawa Centre who represents a lot of public employees, to continue to raise the issue in Parliament and to urge the Government to act.
I deplore the fact that action is not taken in Bill C-27 and I will take action, if necessary, in the courts if what the Government proposes is not satisfactory. I would argue as well, Mr. Speaker, contrary to my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), that it may well be, given the failure of the Government to act, that there is no choice but to go to the courts. There is legislation, I believe, in eight or nine provinces restricting the political rights of provincial
April 1, 1985

public employees. Once those restrictions crack somewhere because of court action, we will see the political rights of all federal and provincial employees enormously expanded. I believe that is very important in view of the guarantees of the Charter of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
1 have to report to you, Mr. Speaker, with regret, that in the court case which I undertook in conjunction with Randy Barnhart, Lynda Camponi, Ken Clavette and Heather Stevens, all employees of the federal Government and members of the Public Service Alliance-this case is in fact being supported financially by the Public Service Alliance-we have had what I think is a terribly retrograde and insensitive response from the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Crosbie) to the statement of claim we put forward. The gist of that statement is that the restrictions of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act on persons who work for the Government of Canada-those are the restrictions which say that if a person works for the Government of Canada, he will not work for a political Party or a candidate in an election-are on partisan political work for a political Party or a candidate in an election. The Attorney General states that the section does not prohibit, limit or infringe upon any person's right to associate with any other person or persons. A person in British Columbia who went to the federal leadership convention of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was suspended from working for five days. Public employees in Manitoba working for the Government of Canada were threatened with disciplinary action if they did not withdraw from accepting a delegateship they had been awarded to participate in that particular election campaign. In other words, what the Attorney General seems to be saying is that one can have freedom to associate so long as one does not associate with a political Party. I find that unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
The Attorney General also argues that entry into or departure from the Public Service of Canada, with all the rights, benefits, obligations and responsibility that entails, are matters of freely exercised choice, and each public servant is subject to the obligations imposed by Section 32 of the said Act only during tenure as an employee. In other words, it is argued that the freedom of speech and of association 250,000 employees of the Government of Canada is not impaired, according to the Charter, because in order to exercise freedom of speech, all they have to do is to quit their job or resign their position in the Public Service. I find that a very unacceptable position, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that during the election campaign the Progressive Conservative Party, at least on the campaign trail, seemed to accept that particular point of view. Those Hon. Members thought that it was an unreasonable kind of restriction. These days, the job market is not particularly good. The Government of Canada covers a wide range of topics, as it has done for a long time. I do not see why someone who is concerned with weights and measures should have to refrain from making a comment about whether Canada should be involved in the U.S. star wars initiative because he happens to be working for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That
Statute Law Amendment Act
seems like an unreasonable restriction on his opportunity to comment on a matter which is not only of vital public concern but is of crucial public concern to himself and his children since he, together with everyone else in Ottawa, stands to be blown to smithereens if we get into a nuclear shooting match and the bombs start to fall on our national capital. The Government is casting its nets extraordinarily widely when it says, "Well, you can talk about anything you want, just quit your job".
I think, in a broader sense, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the freedom of individuals to participate in democratic life, without being inhibited by the employer, is something we in this Parliament should look at. We must look at it in part because of the increasing imbalance between power these days between employees and employers, thanks to the high unemployment policy of the Liberal Government prior to September and the policies of the present Progressive Conservative Government. That imbalance gives employers a lot of power over employees. That power can extend to directing an employee to participate, shall we say, in a dinner for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or for some other Progressive Conservative luminary, or perhaps to contribute to the cost of a seat at a fund raising dinner for the Government in power. Perhaps it can even extend to directing an employee that if he wants to keep his job, he had better get out there and work for the local Progressive Conservative candidate, if he knows what is good for him. When a male supervisor harasses a female employee, it is called sexual harassment. But the doors are open to what I might call political harassment. There is no protection against that in terms of our concept of what a person's political rights should be.
I think it is commonly accepted that if a person works for an employer, he owes loyalty to that employer. If a person works for General Motors, that person does not go out after hours and say Chevrolets are lousy cars. If a person works for Beatrice Foods, that person does not tell the public that its yogurt is lousy yogurt. I think that is quite well understood. Likewise, if a person works for Weights and Measures Canada, that person does not go out and criticize the Government's program of metrication. If a person wants to do that, then he either changes his job or resigns. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unconscionable for General Motors to tell an employee that if he chooses to speak out politically after regular working hours, it will censor what he says to make sure that it is consistent with its views as a corporation or, perhaps, with the views of some right-wing shareholders of its company in the United States. I think that would be unconscionable. I believe we have to be aware of that problem, particularly now that the Government of Canada is beginning to put that forward as a position it chooses to take with regard to its employees.
What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the question of the political rights of federal Government employees should have been dealt with in Bill C-27. The political rights section or the democratic rights section of the Charter of Rights, is weak. The Charter of Rights suffers from a lack of coherent

April 1, 1985
The Senate
and consistent thinking. Perhaps we spent too much time wondering whether we should have a Charter at all and too little time looking at all the areas which should be covered in the Charter.
Failing an amendment to the Charter respecting democratic rights which would broaden the concept of democratic rights along the lines 1 have spoken of, it seems to me it is not fair to require that people test through Section 15, through Section 2, and through the fundamental freedoms sections freedom of speech and freedom of association so that people can involve themselves in political life. I would, therefore, strongly suggest to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and to all his colleagues from all Parties who will be taking part in the committee, that even if they cannot make the amendments to Bill C-27, they come back to this House very seriously with recommendations suggesting that further legislation should be embarked upon which would deal not only with the question of the political rights of federal employees. That may be dealt with by other means and in the near future. I suggest that the whole question of democratic rights, in so far as it can be addressed by legislation, flowing from the Charter of Rights in its present form should be addressed by this Parliament during the course of the current session.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Should we carry on with Bill C-27 tomorrow, the Hon. Member has two minutes remaining plus a ten-minute question and comment period.

Order, please. It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a few moments in which to participate in this debate. I applaud the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) for bringing such a clean and concise resolution before the House to render the necessary death knell to an institution whose time has come and has long since gone.\nI know that we, as Members of the Lower House, must contain ourselves and our emotions on this subject. I know we must always speak with respect for the Senate or, as we are constrained in this Chamber, must refer to it as the other place. With all decorum possible and appropriate, I will try to address my remarks in the next few moments.\nThe one Party which is not present to speak to this resolution is the Liberal Party. That is ironic, as the Senate of Canada is the only legislative Chamber in the entire country where that Party has a majority. The movement toward Senate reform really began in 1873 when Liberal Prime Minister Sir Alexander Mackenzie was first elected. He learned to his dismay the uses to which the grand-daddy of our Party, Sir John A. Macdonald, had put the other place. He had applied his political wiles in getting this nation together. It was a difficult task, and part of the expedient which Sir John found necessary was in fact to put in the other place people who', 'April 1, 1985\nThe Senate\ncould only fit there and nowhere else in the political complexion of the country.\nAlso it is interesting to note, just as a preliminary observation, that indeed there may be a good measure of agreement between representatives of the New Democratic Party and of the Progressive Conservative Party on this movement. One could reflect upon the writings of Gad Horowitz who wrote about the different strains in Canadian political philosophy, how Conservatives come through a philosophical approach which recognizes the organic nature of society, and that indeed socialist Parties spring from the same basic formation and share that organic view of society, that collective perception of how society works. On a few issues such as the one before us, there may indeed be some basis for philosophical agreement between our two Parties. Particularly it is the Conservative instinct to look at the organic growth in this case, perhaps to compare it with a tree and to recognize that the time has come to lop off the moulded branch and by so doing leave the rest of the tree healthy and flourishing.\nThe movement toward Senate reform in recent years perhaps had its greatest impetus in 1983 when the Trudeau Government brought in a discussion booklet of some 44 pages-and I was just looking at it-outlining its view on Senate reform. It is clear that that discussion paper really represented a synthesis of the many proposals that have come along in recent years to try to breathe new life into a defunct institution. Indeed, I was interested in the comments of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) reporting on a proposal from Alberta as to how the second Chamber might be revived.\nWith great respect, all of these proposals strike me as being somewhat analogous to the homestead. Here is the old homestead that we started with. We have come a long way. We are now in a good building with all the modern facilities. But we are still proud of the old log cabin in the back. It was the first structure in which anything happened. We look at that old log cabin and, because of some sense of nostalgia, we do not want to let it go. We wonder what we can do to keep it relevant. We think that maybe we can put in a microwave oven or a television, or possibly a circular driveway. We feel that we might be able to do something to make the old log cabin relevant to the 1980s. Sometimes the best thing that can be done with something that has long outlived its function is simply to let it go the way of history and fade gloriously into the past.\nSome of the genesis of these proposals coming from western Canada originated a few years back when there was a feeling of alienation from the Government in the central part of the country. That was quite understandable. It was seen that Senate reform would be a vehicle for bringing western Canadian political imperatives back to the heart of the Government of this nation. That is no longer necessary. It was demonstrated last September 4 that the solution was not institutional change but political change.\nAgain we have western Canadians fully at the heart and functioning of the Government of Canada. The evidence is the great number of Cabinet Ministers from western Canada, the end of the National Energy Program and its divisive and economically destructive provisions as well as the signing of the Western Accord on energy policy. All of these show that western interests are strongly being represented, that they are being paid attention to and that it is not necessary to make any kind of institutional change such as foisting an elected Senate or any other kind of Senate on this country.\nTo put it charitably, throughout Canadian history the role of the Senate has been marginal. At sporadic intervals, there were proposals to reform or change the Senate. Those proposals were always met by a couple of arguments. The first was that the Senate provided a sober second thought, that we here in this Chamber, in the hurly-burly and rush of daily debate were too carried up and carried away really to make legislative enactments, but in the other place, the Senators, in the calm and cool interiors, the inner recesses of the time and reflective position, were able to see calmly the errors, omissions, the need for amendation and change, and they would fine tune, with that sober second thought, the legislative enactments.\nHistory has clearly shown that that has not been the case. Without any disrespect, the Senate has served largely as a rubber stamp, except in cases where it has chosen to be merely political and obstreperous.\nThe other great argument that was given was that the regional representation was manifested in the Senate, as if, by inference, it was not being manifested here in the elected Chamber. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) spoke in defence of the Senate a few moments ago. Nevertheless, in doing so he condemned the maritime Senators for their failure to observe regional interests and to represent effectively the interest of Atlantic Canada. Even from the mouths of those who would support the Senate, come words of condemnation for that second argument that is given to us in support of the Senate.\nThe sober second thought theory and the regional representation theory just do not wash when analysed in the hard reality of Canadian history. It is at this point that the defenders of the Senate traditionally rush in with the latest and best argument they can muster, that is, that the Senate does some great study, and that the Senate has benefited the nation by bringing forth documents that have painstakingly analysed issues such as poverty and many other topics that are important. The fact is that those studies are done by the staff that is hired by the Senate. There are committees to do that work. Any committee of this House can do likewise. It is the quality of the staff that is reflected directly in those great studies which the Senators from time to time are wont to pull out in their defence.\nI disagreed with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Keno-ra-Rainy River, when he alluded to those great studies done by Senators. In fact, it was the late Dr. John Deutsch who had much to do with the great study done there. Mr. Peter Dobell\nApril 1, 1985', 'of the parliamentary centre, William Hood, who went on to become a Deputy Minister of Finance, and others like that were really responsible for the great studies for which the Senators take claim. With great respect, that should be recognized. Therefore, we can put to an end once and for all that fallacious argument as a defence for maintaining the Senate any longer.\nThe end of the Senate will allow us to pass through an era where we no longer mislead our friends and allies abroad by the phenomenon whereby they think that when they are in the presence of a Senator they have with them the charismatic presence of someone like a United States Senator, those men of action and power in the United States of America. Our Canadian Senators are just not in the same league.\nWe have seen what was referred to as a haven for provincial Liberal Party leaders. I think of Senators such as Gildas Molgat, Louis Robichaud, Henry Hicks, Andy Thompson, David Steuart and so on. We are now in an era where the Liberal Party is a Party of yesterday. There are no longer any real provincial Party leaders to be appointed. The Liberal Party is talking of setting up a think-tank, some kind of institute. That would be a great place, when we abolish the Senate, to which those great thinkers of the Liberal Party, Senators Pitfield and Kirby, can go. Their role to the nation would not be denied. They will be able to carry on function as part of the Liberal think-tank.\nThe notion of the Senate being integral to the system of Government is erroneous. It may indeed be central to our system of Party Government, but even there we can render a great service to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has to make the appointments to the Senate. It is no secret or mystery around here that for every one person appointed to the Senate, 30, yea, 40, possibly 50 others are left in a state of disconsolateness and shock.\nI know a former Liberal Member who represented Sault Ste. Marie. He had been directly and expressly promised by a former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, that he would go to his great reward in the other place. It never happened. If we were to abolish the Senate, we would render a great service by bringing to an end the house of broken promises and shattered dreams.\nThese are but a few of the reasons that I think it is important, indeed incumbent upon us to be supportive of the move to abolish the Senate. If the Senate we must have, 1 would see a properly appointed Senate on the same basis that we appoint our judges. That would be far preferable to an elected Senate.\nAdjournment Debate']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to proceed to item No. 47?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



John Edmund Parry: That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, should be amended in order to abolish the Senate, and this House urges that the Senate and the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces pass similar resolutions, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to that effect.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion which I am proud and happy to say is very much in the mainstream tradition of my Party. I am hopeful, given some of the statements made in the last election and thereafter on all sides of this House, with the notable exception of the now decimated former Government, that this motion, while it may not lead to the arrival of the moving vans tomorrow, or even perhaps next week, will indeed assist in setting in motion those processes required to rid this country of an institution which once was an embellishment but which has now become an embarrassment.
In speaking today I would like to acknowledge the record of members of my Party, some of whom are no longer in this House, in proposing, promoting and arguing for the abolition of the Senate. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of former Leaders of this Party and its precursors and predecessors, and I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of our present Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I will quote briefly from a motion which my Leader sought leave to introduce in the House on March 11. Rather than cite it completely, I think the key phrase in the motion is this:
Whereas the Senate of Canada enjoys legislative powers, but exercises these powers without popular mandate;
If I were asked to make a one-sentence summary of my case for abolition of the Senate, I think those are the words I would choose. The Senate of Canada operates within the Canadian parliamentary framework without a popular mandate.
I would like to take note of the exchange which took place in this House last month in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was asked by my Leader if he would introduce legislation to abolish the Senate. He replied that he would do so if it were supported by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). The Prime Minister, of course, in making that tongue-in-cheek request, was acting within his powers but he was not, I think, acting fully in the tradition of this House in seeking the consent of the Leader of the Official Opposition for a legislative measure which, if he, the Prime Minister, and his caucus were fully behind, would require the consent of no other Parties in this House owing to the size of the Government's majority. But, characteristically, the Prime Minister was faster on his feet than his official opponent who did not take him up on the offer. Had he called the Prime Minister's bluff, he could have embarrassed the Government because then they would have had to do something instead of relying merely on rhetoric, wit and evasion to accomplish their objectives within the parliamentary process.
It is not my purpose here today to provide a historical survey or narrative as to the procedures which led to the establishment of the Canadian Senate.

Moreover, I would not want to get into personalities. I understand that there exist rules of mutual respect between members of the House and those of the Senate. And although it might be difficult to deal with either assembly without referring to individuals or general practices, I will try to carry



April 1, 1985

on just the same, and I ask you to correct me if I happen to break the rule.

It matters little, in the context of a resolution to abolish the Senate, what the personal habits, personal worth or strength, or indeed the shortcomings, real, imagined or alleged, of the Members of the other House are. It matters little what the level of their income from their official duties, and I use the term loosely, might be. It matters little what their income from other activities may be, whether it be simply an old age security pension, for which many of them qualify, or indeed pensions and directors' fees and residual income in the hundreds of thousands of dollars which it is alleged pertain to some Members of that other place. I would try to avoid the employment of arguments ad hominem or ad feminem in this respect. While of course those who delight in deductive reasoning can deduce from the general remarks a number of particular allegations, I would ask for their forebearance in that respect. I ask Hon. Members to believe me when I say that I do not intend to offer insult or disrespect to any Member of that other place whose abolition I am advocating.
I would like to discuss the background of second chambers in general. In western constitutional history, bicameralism was originally justified by the need to represent the needs of the aristocratic element of society in a distinctive way within Parliament. The classical theory was expressed by Montesquieu in his The Spirit of Laws. Second chambers have indeed been passionately decried. The objection of Sieyes in the French Revolution is well known: if it contradicts the popular chamber, then it is not democratic. If it merely agrees with the popular chamber, it is then unnecessary. Harold Laskey said that anyone who examines the nature and history of second chambers in general will discover that their main purpose is at least to delay and, if possible, to prevent the disturbance of the status quo. They are in fact part of the general tactics of conservatism. I would point out that the conservatism instanced is of the small "c" variety, and I would acknowledge that many of my friends from the Conservative caucus also find the continued existence of the Senate at variance with the fundamental principles of democracy.
Since World War II second chambers have been abolished in Demark, Sweden and New Zealand, as well as in the Province of Quebec in 1968, which removed the last provincial second chamber from the Canadian scene. According to a survey carried out a decade ago, unicameralism, the function of a single elected chamber, prevails in 84 countries, and bicameralism, two chambers, in only 55.
The faults of the institution were in my Leader's remarks as being those of an institution which was established in an immature phase of Canadian democracy, a phase which has long since passed. The Senate was modelled, as were many Canadian institutions, on a British constitutional model. It is hardly radical to say that in Canada in 1985 we are at a very different phase of our development than we were in 1867 when we still functioned very much as an appendage of the mother country, in this case Great Britain. Canada's Senate was
The Senate
modelled on the House of Lords. The principle of the House of Lords in the British system, though not explicitly stated, was to provide a break for the powerful, the privileged, and the landed on the initiatives of the democratic society which they had historically governed. Second chambers were considered necessary to protect business and commercial interests from the workings of popular government.
In its concept and operation the Senate is neither regionally representative in the sense we understand today, nor is it democratic. It is in fact, as a former Member of this place and the next Premier of Ontario stated, "an undemocratic institution working at the heart of democratic government". I refer, of course, to an article by Bob Rae.
During its history the Senate has served mainly as a tool of patronage for the Party of power and as such has attracted continued criticism from my Party. It is, in a sense, a sort of escape hatch, a promotion alley, or a retirement institution for the two major Parties which have held the Government of this country over the last 117 years. It is, I believe, discredited in the eyes of the public. Of course, we must consider that simply by abolishing the Senate we will not necessarily accomplish an increase in public esteem for the House of Commons. We must look to ourselves to accomplish that.
It is difficult for me to see how any authentically Canadian institution could be established which would fulfil, in a democratic way and context, the role that the Senate is presently supposed to fill. It is not hard to understand that, since the governing elite of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties are the potential candidates in this cash for life bonanza, they too will find it difficult to be driving forces behind a move for reform. It is, therefore, all the more commendable that there are some members of the Government Party who are prepared to speak in favour of this Bill.
The faults of usage of the Senate are indeed legion. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) referred to it as a home for hacks, flacks, and bagmen. I had to question why he was less than all-encompassing and did not mention bagwomen, or indeed why he was so generous. It is a prime instrument of patronage. It is a way of keeping retired politicians in the style to which they have become accustomed. I think the real question is why they should have become accustomed to such a high style in the first place, rather than why such a style should not be continued. It has been used as a repository for fired Ministers. The well-known term is "kicked upstairs".
I think the most obnoxious abuse of the Senate over the last few years has been that pioneered by the late, totally unlamented, ancien regime and its Leader, in that they made the Senate into a holding tank for their campaign teams. I am pleased to say, though I wish the proportions had been different, that the Canadian people decisively repudiated that back-slapping, basically venal and mercenary approach in the last election. I think it does great credit to the people of Canada that they did see through it.

April 1, 1985
The Senate
1 would contrast the situation in our provinces and municipalities, which have no second chamber, with that in the federal Government and state my belief that, in the eyes of most Canadians, municipal and provincial Governments function in a more efficient fashion and relate better to the people they represent than does the federal Government. It is my belief that approximately 85 per cent of the legislation in Canada, including provincial legislation and municipal by-laws, goes through without benefit of the attention of a second chamber. My belief is that that legislation is not evidently or markedly inferior for the fact of being considered only by a single chamber.
While the Senate has no direct contact with money Bills, it is nevertheless true that approximately 85 per cent of the decision on spending, that which is subject to examination and not mandatory by legislation or program, goes through the provincial and municipal legislatures and councils.
The prime functions of government are three, Mr. Speaker. They are to establish laws, to spend money on purposes seen as legitimate, and to establish and promote a political ethos, ethic or culture within the country and society. I believe that Canada is not advantaged or benefited in any of those three prime purposes by the presence and intervention of the Senate.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, lest it be said that I did not have a good word for the Senate, I would say that we do acknowledge that there have been some valuable reports and long-term studies carried out by that institution in the last few years. They have been thought-provoking, intelligent, and, in many cases, marked by sound analysis and sound recommendations. In acknowledging that small praise we must turn to the overwhelming drawbacks of this institution, not the least of which is money. There is $27 million budgeted for 1985-86. I feel that we must acknowledge that the functions which it carries out could be carried out more effectively, efficiently, economically, and with less offence to the people and public of Canada, by the hiring of additional parliamentary draftsmen, additional staff for paliamentary committees, and even by the Members themselves.
The Senate of Canada is an idea whose time has passed, Mr. Speaker. We have the opportunity in this Parliament to make it what it truly deserves to be, a part of history. I hope we will not let that opportunity pass.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) did point out that there has been some good work done in the Senate. For that I commend him. With regard to the balance of his remarks, 1 suggest that a little more study and a little more analysis of what must be done by the Government of Canada should reveal to him that perhaps the House of Commons, in some regards, is already overloaded. Perhaps there is a very good reason, as I believe there to be, to divide an element of that load between the upper Chamber and the House of Commons.
I suppose if the Senate has a bad name, it is because it has been abused by some Prime Ministers of the past, and particularly by the Prime Minister who was most recently removed from office. It was abused when legislation was passed to it at three o'clock in the afternoon with orders that that legislation must be back for Royal Assent by five o'clock at the latest. It must not keep the House of Commons waiting. That certainly deprived that Chamber of any opportunity to give any thought, let alone sober second thought, to the performance of the House of Commons.
Today we discussed a Bill dealing with the Constitution. It is an example of an issue that would have benefited from some extended sober second thought. If that had taken place earlier, it would not have been necessary to debate the Bill which was before us today and which must be passed in order to accommodate the Constitution. The Constitution was not properly planned, and the Senators were capable of doing that study.


Cyril Keeper: They didn't do it.


Fred Alward McCain: They did not have the time to do it. Members will know that the constitutional legislation was introduced to the House with a time limit attached to it. It was not here for in-depth consideration and the subject matter was not placed before the committee for the purpose of hearing recommendations from the people. It was there purely for show.
The committee was shown the frailties which existed in constitutions in other jurisdictions. It heard recommendations for a constitution that would not make the court the legislator while depriving the House of Commons of its legislative capabilities. Some of those recommendations came from some Members of the other place.
I suggest that the House of Commons is already overburdened with work. There are complaints from Members of all Parties about inadequate time for debate and that the committees of the House do not have the time, under the present structure, to give proper consideration to all the items that are placed before it. Therefore, I suggest that there is more reason today for a bicameral government than ever before. I realize that this view conflicts with that of many Members from all Parties. I understand that the reputation of the Senate has been shaped not only by its historic performance but also by the abuse it has suffered from Governments that did not want sober second thought or interference with their own legislative agenda.
I submit that there is no better example of the abuse of the present structure as occasionally imposed upon the House than the filibuster undertaken by the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada against the budgetary requirements of Canada which occurred at a very inopportune moment. He perpetrated another another disfavour to the Senate to which he was appointed with the full knowledge of the consequence of the extension of that debate.
As the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) said, the Agriculture Committee of the Senate has provided Canada with a study of soil erosion and deterioration that 1 believe other jurisdictions will want to examine carefully. It is in that
April 1, 1985

way, in addition to the study of a government's legislative program, that the Senate should function.
There is room for change and a review of the method of appointments. There may be room for change in the duration of an appointment, all of which may be very constructive for an improved Senate. However, I believe the Senate should exist.
In the time I have been here since 1972, the work-load of a Member of Parliament has more than doubled. There is no longer enough time for Members of the House of Commons to fulfill their committee responsibilities and constituency responsibilities within the framework in which we now exist. I believe there is room for the Senate within that structure.
Let us consider one situation that was addressed during the last election campaign. It concerns the regulatory structure that is imposed upon Canada. During the last ten years, government Departments have had what is essentially a blank cheque to make regulations to govern, not necessarily by law but by their regulatory capability. I believe that the Senate could undertake to remove some of those regulations that are imposed by that departmental structure. The committee which presently reviews these regulations has been ineffective in the past and is unlikely to have enough time to study all the regulations now in place or being proposed. Furthermore, my experience with that committee from attending its meetings indicates that it does not have the time to understand the consequences of the regulations that are made. I believe this is a function which the Senate could undertake very well.
Let me say that I would abhor an elected Senate. An elected Senate would increase the number of elections to be held in Canada. Moreover, if there were to be a Senate election shortly after a national election, historical evidence would suggest that the Senate would be politically opposite to the Government of the day. That is the case at the moment, but it will be corrected in time. Nothing could be more confusing or condemnatory than an elected Senate opposing the government of the day and the policies on which it was elected.
While the Senate has its weaknesses and there is room for change, there is no room for abolition. It would be acceptable to review Senate appointments and its relationship to the Government.
According to the Constitution, the purpose of Senate appointments is to provide regional representation. I condemn those Senators from Atlantic Canada who have failed to recognize their regional responsibility, regardless of Party, affiliation. Not only Altantic Canada has suffered seriously but other regions have equally suffered because senators have put their political affiliation ahead of the well-being of their region. If there is a reason to condemn the Senate, that is it. We saw evidence of that irresponsibility in the Senate in the last few weeks. No one should be appointed to the Senate without recognizing his or her regional responsibilities. Under those circumstances, I believe the Government would consider legislative amendments when they impact a particular region unfavourably.
The Senate
While the Senate may need some redirection, I believe it is necessary. I am a strong proponent of the bicameral system, particularly in view of the load that Members of the House must carry.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate my support for the motion by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) to abolish the Senate. My personal view is that the Senate should be abolished immediately. We should start all over again with a clean slate. I believe that most Canadians would agree that the Senate of Canada has not done the job for which it was intended.
Canadians have little faith in the Senate today primarily because of its method of appointment. Recently, the Senate has been called the most expensive daycare centre in the world. This resplendent centre features doormen, security guards and a rumpus room with dazzling chandeliers. It is the safe rest haven for so-called lottery-for-life winners until they are generously pensioned off-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We do not show disrespect for the other place, even though Members may want to abolish it. I hope the Hon. Member will remember that during his speech.


Murray Dorin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will refrain from those kinds of remarks. Today, I essentially wanted to draw the attention of the House to a very recent report on Senate reform by the Alberta Legislature Select Special Committee on Senate Reform, released on March 22. Before I summarize the report's main recommendations, let me mention that the report demonstrates a strong belief in the need for and potential value of a reformed Senate. In the words of the report, the Alberta Legislative Assembly
-rose to the challenge to study Senate reform because of the feelings of Albertans toward the Senate of Canada.
The report goes on:
In the last few years Albertans have experienced feelings of alienation unmatched in past decades of Confederation. These heightened feelings of alienation resulted primarily from the contentious energy and constitutional discussions of the past few years with the former government in Ottawa. Albertans reacted vigorously against a federal government which was clearly insensitive to this province's needs.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Party in government in Ottawa is no longer the same. However, the Alberta Committee does not believe that the results of last year's election made Senate reform unnecessary.
The recommendations of the committee follow what has come to be known, particularly in Alberta, as the "Triple-E" model for a reformed Senate. According to the report, the Senate should be directly elected, with each province represented by an equal number of Senators. In addition, "Senators should have powers which would allow them to be effective in providing the regional voice envisioned by the Fathers of Confederation".

April 1, 1985
The Senate
The principal purpose of the reformed Senate envisaged by the Alberta Committee would be "to represent the regions in the federal decision-making process". The report notes, however, that the term "region" should be synonymous with the term province. The Committee believes the role of sober second thought should be the Senate's second most important function. I suggest it is not as relevant today because communication is almost instantaneous as opposed to what we might have seen in the 1800s or 1900s when communication was by pony express. Unlike the Alberta Government's 1982 discussion paper, the report does not propose that the Senate have an intergovernmental role. On this count, the report is very clear when it states:
To give the directly elected Canadian Senate even limited authority in the area of intergovernmental negotiations could complicate and blur the Canadian governmental process rather than encourage smooth intergovernmental negotiations.
A unique feature of the report is its call that the election be held during provincial elections. Senators would be elected during provincial elections for terms equal to the life of two legislatures, according to the first-past-the-post system now used for this House and other elected legislatures in Canada. Senators' terms would be staggered, that is, one-half would be elected during each provincial election. Senators would represent the province as a whole, as do American and Australian Senators. They would not represent a particular district within a province, as, for example, the report of the Special Joint Committee recommended a little over a year ago.
I have already noted that the Alberta Committee proposes equal provincial representation in the reformed Senate. I should add that each province would have six Senators and the Territories two each, for a total membership of 64.
As for the powers of the reformed Senate, the report makes the following general comment:
In Canada today, the Senate possesses power but does not exercise it because Members and non-Members regard it as lacking credibility. As a result, Canadians are witnessing an imbalance in the federal system of government. The Committee strongly recommends that a reformed Senate must be provided with "power" in order to live up to its purposes.
More specifically, the Alberta Committee recommends that the Senate have the power to initiate all legislation except money or taxation Bills; that the Senate have the power to amend any Bill, after which the House of Commons would consider the amendment; that the Senate retain the existing 180-day suspensive veto over constitutional amendments; that the Senate have the power to veto any Bill except a supply Bill; that the House of Commons have the power to override a Senate veto of money or taxation Bills by a simple majority; that the House of Commons be able to override any Senate veto or amendment of a Bill, other than a money or taxation Bill, by a vote that is greater in percentage terms than the Senate's vote to amend; that the Senate vote on a money or taxation Bill within 90 days and on other Bills within 180 days after passage by the House of Commons; that non-military treaties be subject to Senate ratification; and that all changes affecting the French and English languages be subject to a double majority veto, that is, a majority of all Senators
combined with a majority of French-speaking Senators or English-speaking Senators, depending on the issue.
The final set of recommendations in the Alberta Committee's report concerns the Senate's internal organization. It is clear that the main purpose of those recommendations is to reduce the influence of political Parties in a reformed Senate. In the words of the report:
The Committee noted an absence of recommendations in other reports and studies on how the internal organizational structure of the Senate might be set in order to reduce potential party influence of Senators .. . The Committee recognizes that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate party influence over Senators. However, changes can be made to the internal organizational structure which will go a long way towards lessening this influence.
The specific changes proposed in the report are the following: that the traditional opposition and government roles in the current Senate be abolished, including the positions of Government Leader and Opposition Leader; that Senators be seated in provincial delegations, regardless of Party affiliation; that each provincial delegation select from its membership a chairman who should sit at the pleasure of the provincial delegation; that the Speaker be elected by a majority of the Senate at a specified time every four years, and that there be a provision for the Senate, at any time, to initiate an election of the Speaker by a two-thirds vote; that the ten provincial chairmen, headed by the Speaker of the Senate, constitute a Senate Executive Council; and that the Senate Executive Council determine the order of business of the Senate and appoint committee chairmen and committee members. In addition, the Committee recommended that the determination of whether a Bill is or is not a money or taxation Bill be carried out by joint agreement of the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate; that Senate Executive Council members receive remuneration and staff assistance in addition to that received by other Senators; and that Senators not be eligible for appointments to Cabinet. This would keep them out of the difficulty of being in a situation where they have to assume collective responsibility for the Government.
I would simply say that, in my own view, the Select Committee of the Alberta Legislative Assembly should be given a good deal of credit for its thorough study. I believe its report will be discussed widely, both in Alberta and at the national level, and will be a useful contribution to the examination of the future of the Canadian Senate.
I would like to examine quickly two of the proposals. The first is, if we consider the purpose of the Senate, that we add two additional proposes. First, that the Senate try to take a longer term view, with longer term objectives in a less partisan way. Second, that the Senate have the opportunity to review federal appointments which have significant regional impact.
Finally, I would like to suggest that while it has been suggested in the report that the Senate should be elected, I think we should consider that election might not necessarily be essential. I believe the call for election has come recently because of the current situation and the view of the public with regard to the Senate. If the Senate were reorganized, we might look at some of the other options that have been put forward for appointment, either federal appointments, provincial
April 1, 1985

appointments, a selection by one government or the other of a short list presented by the other government, or some combination of these factors. Elections, Mr. Speaker, have their pitfalls. One of them is that there will continue to be a short-term partisan view if it were necessary to seek re-election even for a second term. Beyond that I would suggest that with the elected requirement, people in the Senate would be looking, even if they were not personally seeking re-election, to try to present the views of their Party to ensure that a member of their Party was elected later. I do not think we would be able to keep partisan politics out of it.
In any event, I just wanted to try to outline some of those viewpoints. I think it is a good report, I think we should examine it and other reports that undoubtedly will be coming forward, but I do endorse the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River's (Mr. Parry) stand that the way to get the ball rolling might be to call initially for abolition of the current Senate.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly on the motion before us because I would like to see it go to committee to be dealt with and become law. I should like to begin by acknowledging the contribution of the Hon. Member opposite. He agrees with abolition. He took the position which our Leader took, that abolishing the undemocratic and non-representative Senate which exists today would really open the door to various possibilities for the creation of another institution that could be truly representative of Canadians. The abolition of the Senate as it exists today should not in any way cut off any options of Canadians to have a second chamber that represents regional interests or minority interests, and it should have a reasonable structure to it.
My comments will not have much to do with the Senate itself, as I do not want to be disrespectful of the other place. My comments will not really be aimed at it but at how it has been used, particularly by Prime Ministers. They have used the Senate as their personal plaything, as a place in which to put old political war-horses. That is an abuse of the Senate and is not the fault of the institution itself. Even our new Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recognizes that the Senate has been abused and used by Prime Ministers as a place of patronage. He recognizes it more than anyone else. During the last election campaign, he very effectively condemned the Liberals for their flood of patronage appointments, including those to the Senate. He pointed out how wrong and how abusive that was of the institution, of the public and of the powers of the Prime Minister.
It is sad that once the hon. gentleman assumed office he did not go down a new road or find non-partisan ways of making appointments. He started by making a few good appointments, such as that of Stephen Lewis. That was an excellent appointment. He will do a good job at the United Nations for Canadians. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is hiding behind that good appointment and other good ones. He is using them as a smoke-screen for the patronage appointments in which he has been indulging to an extent unheard of in Canadian
The Senate
history. The Prime Minister has achieved a new record of the number of patronage appointments.


An Hon. Member:: You ain't seen nothin yet!


Cyril Keeper: I am sure that is true. Quite naturally the Prime Minister was somewhat teed off with the Senate when it held up his money Bill, and when he returned to the House of Commons he said that he would reform the other place. Unfortunately he did not bring forward any specific reform proposals. However, he has let it be known that he intends to limit the powers of the other place.
Our fear is that he will limit the powers of the other place but preserve it as a place in which to put old political war-horses, that he will preserve it as a patronage tool. If he had good intentions with regard to the Senate, if he wanted to change the method of appointment and make it non-partisan, he should have held off on any appointments to that place until he had brought forward his reform package to the House of Commons. He failed to do that.
As I said, the Senate has been much abused. We could start all over by abolishing it now. If we want a second chamber, we could have some real negotiations as to what it could be, what functions it could serve, how it could acquire its political legitimacy and what interests it could represent. It is not good enough to treat the Senate as a patronage tool, nor is it good enough to simply limit its powers so that it can continue to play that role in Canadian history.
I hope Hon. Members will adopt the resolution of my colleague. If we want a second chamber, we should approach the matter with a clean slate, as the Hon. Member opposite said.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a few moments in which to participate in this debate. I applaud the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) for bringing such a clean and concise resolution before the House to render the necessary death knell to an institution whose time has come and has long since gone.
I know that we, as Members of the Lower House, must contain ourselves and our emotions on this subject. I know we must always speak with respect for the Senate or, as we are constrained in this Chamber, must refer to it as the other place. With all decorum possible and appropriate, I will try to address my remarks in the next few moments.
The one Party which is not present to speak to this resolution is the Liberal Party. That is ironic, as the Senate of Canada is the only legislative Chamber in the entire country where that Party has a majority. The movement toward Senate reform really began in 1873 when Liberal Prime Minister Sir Alexander Mackenzie was first elected. He learned to his dismay the uses to which the grand-daddy of our Party, Sir John A. Macdonald, had put the other place. He had applied his political wiles in getting this nation together. It was a difficult task, and part of the expedient which Sir John found necessary was in fact to put in the other place people who

April 1, 1985
The Senate
could only fit there and nowhere else in the political complexion of the country.
Also it is interesting to note, just as a preliminary observation, that indeed there may be a good measure of agreement between representatives of the New Democratic Party and of the Progressive Conservative Party on this movement. One could reflect upon the writings of Gad Horowitz who wrote about the different strains in Canadian political philosophy, how Conservatives come through a philosophical approach which recognizes the organic nature of society, and that indeed socialist Parties spring from the same basic formation and share that organic view of society, that collective perception of how society works. On a few issues such as the one before us, there may indeed be some basis for philosophical agreement between our two Parties. Particularly it is the Conservative instinct to look at the organic growth in this case, perhaps to compare it with a tree and to recognize that the time has come to lop off the moulded branch and by so doing leave the rest of the tree healthy and flourishing.
The movement toward Senate reform in recent years perhaps had its greatest impetus in 1983 when the Trudeau Government brought in a discussion booklet of some 44 pages-and I was just looking at it-outlining its view on Senate reform. It is clear that that discussion paper really represented a synthesis of the many proposals that have come along in recent years to try to breathe new life into a defunct institution. Indeed, I was interested in the comments of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) reporting on a proposal from Alberta as to how the second Chamber might be revived.
With great respect, all of these proposals strike me as being somewhat analogous to the homestead. Here is the old homestead that we started with. We have come a long way. We are now in a good building with all the modern facilities. But we are still proud of the old log cabin in the back. It was the first structure in which anything happened. We look at that old log cabin and, because of some sense of nostalgia, we do not want to let it go. We wonder what we can do to keep it relevant. We think that maybe we can put in a microwave oven or a television, or possibly a circular driveway. We feel that we might be able to do something to make the old log cabin relevant to the 1980s. Sometimes the best thing that can be done with something that has long outlived its function is simply to let it go the way of history and fade gloriously into the past.
Some of the genesis of these proposals coming from western Canada originated a few years back when there was a feeling of alienation from the Government in the central part of the country. That was quite understandable. It was seen that Senate reform would be a vehicle for bringing western Canadian political imperatives back to the heart of the Government of this nation. That is no longer necessary. It was demonstrated last September 4 that the solution was not institutional change but political change.
Again we have western Canadians fully at the heart and functioning of the Government of Canada. The evidence is the great number of Cabinet Ministers from western Canada, the end of the National Energy Program and its divisive and economically destructive provisions as well as the signing of the Western Accord on energy policy. All of these show that western interests are strongly being represented, that they are being paid attention to and that it is not necessary to make any kind of institutional change such as foisting an elected Senate or any other kind of Senate on this country.
To put it charitably, throughout Canadian history the role of the Senate has been marginal. At sporadic intervals, there were proposals to reform or change the Senate. Those proposals were always met by a couple of arguments. The first was that the Senate provided a sober second thought, that we here in this Chamber, in the hurly-burly and rush of daily debate were too carried up and carried away really to make legislative enactments, but in the other place, the Senators, in the calm and cool interiors, the inner recesses of the time and reflective position, were able to see calmly the errors, omissions, the need for amendation and change, and they would fine tune, with that sober second thought, the legislative enactments.
History has clearly shown that that has not been the case. Without any disrespect, the Senate has served largely as a rubber stamp, except in cases where it has chosen to be merely political and obstreperous.
The other great argument that was given was that the regional representation was manifested in the Senate, as if, by inference, it was not being manifested here in the elected Chamber. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) spoke in defence of the Senate a few moments ago. Nevertheless, in doing so he condemned the maritime Senators for their failure to observe regional interests and to represent effectively the interest of Atlantic Canada. Even from the mouths of those who would support the Senate, come words of condemnation for that second argument that is given to us in support of the Senate.
The sober second thought theory and the regional representation theory just do not wash when analysed in the hard reality of Canadian history. It is at this point that the defenders of the Senate traditionally rush in with the latest and best argument they can muster, that is, that the Senate does some great study, and that the Senate has benefited the nation by bringing forth documents that have painstakingly analysed issues such as poverty and many other topics that are important. The fact is that those studies are done by the staff that is hired by the Senate. There are committees to do that work. Any committee of this House can do likewise. It is the quality of the staff that is reflected directly in those great studies which the Senators from time to time are wont to pull out in their defence.
I disagreed with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Keno-ra-Rainy River, when he alluded to those great studies done by Senators. In fact, it was the late Dr. John Deutsch who had much to do with the great study done there. Mr. Peter Dobell
April 1, 1985

of the parliamentary centre, William Hood, who went on to become a Deputy Minister of Finance, and others like that were really responsible for the great studies for which the Senators take claim. With great respect, that should be recognized. Therefore, we can put to an end once and for all that fallacious argument as a defence for maintaining the Senate any longer.
The end of the Senate will allow us to pass through an era where we no longer mislead our friends and allies abroad by the phenomenon whereby they think that when they are in the presence of a Senator they have with them the charismatic presence of someone like a United States Senator, those men of action and power in the United States of America. Our Canadian Senators are just not in the same league.
We have seen what was referred to as a haven for provincial Liberal Party leaders. I think of Senators such as Gildas Molgat, Louis Robichaud, Henry Hicks, Andy Thompson, David Steuart and so on. We are now in an era where the Liberal Party is a Party of yesterday. There are no longer any real provincial Party leaders to be appointed. The Liberal Party is talking of setting up a think-tank, some kind of institute. That would be a great place, when we abolish the Senate, to which those great thinkers of the Liberal Party, Senators Pitfield and Kirby, can go. Their role to the nation would not be denied. They will be able to carry on function as part of the Liberal think-tank.
The notion of the Senate being integral to the system of Government is erroneous. It may indeed be central to our system of Party Government, but even there we can render a great service to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has to make the appointments to the Senate. It is no secret or mystery around here that for every one person appointed to the Senate, 30, yea, 40, possibly 50 others are left in a state of disconsolateness and shock.
I know a former Liberal Member who represented Sault Ste. Marie. He had been directly and expressly promised by a former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, that he would go to his great reward in the other place. It never happened. If we were to abolish the Senate, we would render a great service by bringing to an end the house of broken promises and shattered dreams.
These are but a few of the reasons that I think it is important, indeed incumbent upon us to be supportive of the move to abolish the Senate. If the Senate we must have, 1 would see a properly appointed Senate on the same basis that we appoint our judges. That would be far preferable to an elected Senate.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 45. In the House on March 27, I asked the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about the Ernst Zundel case. Since Mr. Zundel had been sentenced to 15 months, I asked how a determination would be made about whether or not to begin deportation proceedings. The Minister mentioned that an inquiry had begun that very day.
I would like to make a few comments about this most serious situation because we are dealing with the entire climate of freedom and goodwill in this country. I understand that the review to which the Minister referred is relatively automatic if a person is sentenced to six or more months' imprisonment or if a person is convicted of a crime that has a maximum penalty of at least five years' imprisonment.
Mr. Zundel was convicted under Criminal Code Section 177 which indicates that it is a criminal offence to knowingly-and that is the operative word-publish a false statement that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest. I think there is something wrong when a situation as serious as this must be dealt with under an almost obscure law such as this one. We need more meaningful laws that deal more directly with a matter as serious as the Zundel case.
Mr. Zundel arrived in this country some 27 years ago. He still enjoys landed immigrant status. It is clear from what has been said that he is not contrite in any way. I will likely hear from the Parliamentary Secretary about just how long these proceedings may be dragged out, but normally one of the things we look for is the assurance of an attitude of rehabilitation. To be very frank about it, I do not see anything even approaching that in this case.
I have made the point that we are using the wrong law for a case like this. One of the real tragedies is that the approach taken in this case ended up with the victims on trial and not the perpetrator. I have spoken out on this on a number of occasions. On March 3, I was at a Toronto regional annual meeting of the B'nai, B'rith held at a synagogue in central Toronto. On Sunday, March 10, along with a number of other colleagues I attended a service for the Jewish war veterans, and I had the opportunity to express views at that time. On the same day I attended a meeting at the O'Keefe Centre where about 5,000 people from the Jewish community got together to think, talk and pray about this most regrettable situation that was allowed to develop in this country. At the afternoon session, Mr. Speaker, we visited with the Jewish war veterans

April 1, 1985
Adjournment Debate
and had a special service. Mr. Ernst Koch, the Consulate General from West Germany, was present. In the course of his remarks he said:
The issue of redress of wrongs committed during Germany's nazi regime has been dealt with.
It is clear from his remarks-and I believe it took a lot of courage and dignity for that gentleman to attend that particular service-that Mr. Zundel himself may not be welcome back in Germany itself. I would just like to quote a couple of comments from The Gazette of March 27, 1985:
Canada would be a better place wihtout Ernst Zundel.
Mr. Zundel fancies himself a martyr on behalf of free speech, but he is a sorry example of the values upon which this country is founded.
The Jewish community itself, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, was divided on the issue of whether further action should have been taken. Since the action was initiated by Mrs. Sabrena Citron, and since Mr. Zundel has now been sentenced, I believe it is largely the view of the Community that this gentleman should be dealt with effectively and quickly, and not over what I would call a protracted period of time.
I visited Israel in January of this year, and I spent an hour and a half with a group at Yad Vashem. Anyone with any sensitivity would know that the holocaust did indeed happen. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if there are any precedents to deal more expeditiously with a situation like this? How many legat steps are there? How can we deal with this man in a strong yet thoughtful way? We all pride ourselves on our freedom in this country. However, there are extremes and they must be dealt with.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to complete the reply which the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) made to the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) on March 27, 1985.
A report pursuant to the Immigration Act was prepared by an immigration officer and submitted to the Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration on March 26, 1985, following the reception on that date of a certificate of conviction to the effect that Mr. Zundel had been sentenced to 15 months in jail.
As early as March 27, upon the initiative of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Deputy Minister issued an instruction to a senior immigration officer to carry out an inquiry pursuant to Section 27(3) of the Act. The proper instructions were given to the senior immigration officer the next day. This senior officer will initiate the inquiry shortly. A notice of inquiry will be sent to Mr. Zundel. He will be advised of his right to be represented by a legal counsel or any other person he should deem qualified.
The inquiry will be conducted by an adjudicator in the presence of Mr. Zundel and his counsel. The duration of the inquiry may vary, depending on the legal recourse Mr. Zundel might seek, including the adjournment he might ask for to prepare his case, motions to the Federal Court and so on. During the inquiry and before the adjudicator should render his decision, Mr. Zundel may seek refugee status. The processing of such an application could take as much as a year.
Should a deportation order be issued against Mr. Zundel, he would be entitled, as a permanent resident, to appeal to the Appeal Board of Immigration. This could take six months. Mr. Zundel could also appeal to the Federal Appeal Court or the Supreme Court of Canada of the decision rendered by the adjudicator or the Appeal Board of Immigration, which would require another year.


AGRICULTURE-INSPECTION SERVICE CHARGES. (B) MINISTER'S POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, on March 20 I rose in my place and asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) concerning his attempts to implement a cost recovery program against farmers for the inspection services traditionally performed at Agriculture Canada. This change came about because of the economic statement of November 8 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that the budget for Agriculture Canada would be cut by some $65 million. Some $23 million of those cuts would be in inspection services. The Department would then be charging farmers an additional $33 million for the inspection services eliminated because of the $23 million cut.
I suppose one could ask where is the efficiency of getting the Government out of inspection services since the new services are obviously going to cost at least $10 million more. However, the focus of my questions on March 20 had to do with the fact which had come to light that the Minister knew that the ultimate result would be to inflict harm on Canadian farmers, not only by increasing the operating costs of a whole industry, which has essentially had its net income frozen for the last 10 years at about $3.5 billion, but in addition, and this is even more damning evidence as the Minister knew this quite clearly from his briefing notes, this particular set of proposals would reduce the output of grain in this country. Yet, despite that, he deliberately went ahead with the proposals to reduce the output of farm products in this country.
The Minister knew from his briefing notes that a great many small plants processing hogs, cattle, and sheep in this country would not be able to continue operation under the new proposals as many of them could not afford to stay in business with the daily total charge of $125 for inspection. A lot of small towns and villages have processing or slaughtering plants which process a few dozen animals. This would increase their costs of inspection per animal far beyond anything their
April 1, 1985

competition has to put up with in the larger centres. It would eventually push these people out of business. Jobs would be lost in these small communities, and a service which people in these small communities take advantage of would disappear.
The Minister in responding tried to pretend that what we had heard was not an economic statement but simply a proposal to begin negotiations. That is so much claptrap. It is very clear that the Minister of Finance intends to achieve a saving of $65 million in the expenditures of the Department of Agriculture, and has every intention of collecting $33 million in so-called cost-recovery, but which is simply an extra tax on agricultural production. There is nothing there to negotiate, yet the Minister gives the impression that he is prepared to do some negotiating.
His own briefing notes point out that they should work with the industry towards agreement on these proposals. While remaining firm on questions of policy, they can be flexible as to the mechanics of the application. For example, the industry may have valid reasons for preferring a particular basis of payment on recovery, such as a per hour or per head or per lot basis. The notes also said they can be flexible regarding who in future might perform the work or how it might be done. For example, an industry group might suggest that at some future date they provide the service themselves. The nature of the meetings should be informative and consultative. Under no circumstances should there be confrontation. They say they should emphasize that fees are based on the nature and cost of each program. Avoid industry to industry or program to program comparisons.
They were very careful to make certain, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed fee charges were not generally known. Each industry got its specific proposal. They knew they were being charged 10 or 15 times more than had been the practice in the past, but they did not know how they stacked up against other sectors in the industry. The horticulture industry found out what its proposed charges will be; the Canadian seedgrowers found out what its proposed charges will be; and the small meat processors found out what its proposed charges will be, but there is no method for them to consult to discover whether they are all being charged 10 or 15 times more, or whether some are being charged only three or four times more.
The Department ensured that the information that went out was very limited. As a result, I contend that proper consultation cannot take place. I contend that it is the intention of the Government to charge this tax. There is no consultation on that. The parameters in which the consultation takes place are very limited. Therefore, real consultation cannot take place, so it is simply a sham.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member pointed out earlier, the new inspection services fee schedule is not yet in itself a proposition; one should look
Adjournment Debate
up in the dictionary the meaning of a proposition which is the object of consultation, and one ought to be careful when talking about a firm intention. The whole matter is now under consideration by the people concerned.
We made a proposition and the industry took it under advisement. We are now discussing every detail of this matter with the groups involved, and we know there might be some difficulties. That is why we meet with the major national associations to seek their views and suggestions. We have said many times, and I say again, that we are consulting the industry before implementing new charges.
The Hon. Member is asking me why we are undertaking this cost-recovery program. It is quite simple, Mr. Speaker, and the answer is obvious-the deficit has to come down. From our discussions with the industry, we know that the agricultural community shares this concern and is anxious to cooperate to reduce the national debt, and that protects them, as it does the consumer and the agricultural production industry. They agree they have their share of responsibilities.
We are therefore convinced that together we can find an acceptable solution which will help us lower the deficit while at the same time cushioning its impact on Canadian producers. If we refer to the November 8 economic statement, it is true that some measures have been adopted, but the Government is now in a consultation process concerning various measures with a view to adapting the general principle to each specific case.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-PETITION AGAINST CALCULATION OF SEVERANCE PAY. (B) DISCUSSION PAPER INQUIRY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) on March 25 concerning changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The November 8 economic statement included an announcement that severance pay and accumulated pension income would be considered as earnings when people apply for unemployment insurance benefits. This would have the effect of delaying, for many weeks, the time when a person could begin to draw unemployment insurance. At that time the Government reckoned that these changes would save it $90 million.
I have great difficulty with this, Mr. Speaker. While I recognize the Government's concern about the deficit and its desire to move on that in a responsible fashion, I cannot see these particular measures as responsible in our particular situation of high unemployment. Until now a person could receive income amounting to up to 25 per cent of their UI benefits. It may seem logical, to a point, that people be required to use severance pay to deal with their expenses until they relocate. However, in times of high unemployment one would question the wisdom of requiring people to use up their severance pay before claiming for unemployment insurance.
3600

April 1, 1985
Adjournment Debate
In these times of high unemployment, people must be mobile and resourceful. Given a little freedom to use their severance pay, some people would probably relocate to an area where they may have a better chance of finding employment. They might use it in some other way to help become re-employed, such as by investing in tools or other work related equipment.
Under the present situation, when people become unemployed and know they will be unemployed for some time, the Government is essentially forcing them to use all of their severance pay to deal with the necessities of life, and thereby perhaps inadvertently interfere with their opportunity to become re-employed.
There were many complaints after the economic statement of November 8 and the Minister has made some adjustments. For instance, there will be exceptions in cases where severance pay is part of a collective agreement or written employee-employer's policy within certain dates. The question of using returned pension contributions has been postponed to January 1. However, this is a matter about which I feel most strongly, a matter which I hope the Minister will not only postpone but will eliminate completely.
According to the new policy, a person who is under 45 years of age and loses his or her job will have pension contributions returned. Obviously, pension contributions for people over 45 are locked in, or vested. If a person receives $3,000 back from a pension fund and his or her normal earnings were $300 a week, that person is now deemed to have ten weeks income. Therefore, the claim for unemployment insurance is postponed for ten weeks.
Surely this is very unwise because we expect people to save for their future. When most people become unemployed they do all they can to make the severance pay and unemployment insurance cover current expenses until they get rehired. They try to keep the returned pension contributions for investment either in a new employer plan or an RRSP in order to provide for their future.
When this plan was originally announced by the Government on November 8, there were many vigorous complaints; complaints from unions, and complaints from companies in the process of negotiating early retirement packages for their employees. They saw their plans thrown into turmoil because these changes amount to a disincentive to early retirement.
The Minister has agreed to postpone to January 1 the Implementation of the requirement that people use up their interim pension contributions. I am sure that the Minister,
who is a compassionate woman, does not have her heart in this requirement. I am sure it is the hawks in her Cabinet who are forcing this measure on her. I sincerely hope some way will be found to drop this measure.
We all know that Canada is a nation of savers. It is difficult to get by if one is over 65 and must rely on government assistance. It is unacceptable for the government to expect people who are out of work to mortgage their futures, to use for the necessities of life that money they are contributing to a pension fund for their retirement. How many will be deprived of a dignified retirement by this ill-considered measure if it is enforced? I sincerely hope that after January 1 wisdom will prevail and we will see the end of it.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is concerned about changes in connection with unemployment insurance and about the many complaints he has received. I think all Members in this House have received a number of complaints, further to a decision that was announced in the economic message on November 8, which in turn was further to a Cabinet decision.
Considering these complaints and especially the negotiations in progress for a number of collective bargaining agreements, the Minister decided on December 21 to introduce transitional measures that would give employees a chance to readjust, except that there is a deadline, and today the Minister has tabled a document to that effect in the House.
The main principle is to avoid duplication. My hon. friend referred to situations which, I must admit, may be very difficult for people in their forties, but we can hardly apply the same argument to individuals who are receiving pension benefits. Unemployment insurance was instituted to cushion the effects of unemployment. However, people must be available for employment. At the present time, considering the enormous national deficit and more particularly, the deficit in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, we must take measures that will preclude people from having two or three jobs. Mr. Speaker, we know how difficult it is in cases . . . because unemployment insurance was introduced to deal with emergencies. Among the various changes or amendments to be proposed, we will have to see which proposals are urgently required and which are not. This does not mean that in every case, a complaint is necessarily urgent. I admit that in the case of people in their forties who are working full time, this may
April 1, 1985

5 seem a discriminatory measure and it may seen inequitable, l but what we want to avoid is duplication of income.	Adjournment Debate the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
1 The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): The motion to adjourn the Elouse is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly,	The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.

Tuesday, April 2, 1985