1985-04-17

Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the Order made Tuesday, April 16, 1985, the House will now proceed to hear statements with regard to the Charter of Rights equality provisions.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Government of Canada to celebrate the coming into effect of the equality rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As of today the Constitution of Canada guarantees that every individual in Canada is equal before and under the law, and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
This is an important milestone in the evolution of Canada and Canadian values. It is furthermore the constitutional extension of the 1960 Bill of Rights championed by the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker and which formed an important part of the Progressive Conservative record of concern for and commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Hon. Members will no doubt recall that during the historic debate in Parliament on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our Party made every effort to have Canadians from all walks of life participate in the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution.
Equality rights, which from now on are enshrined in our Constitution, enjoy the support of Canadians in every part of this country and the support of all the parties represented in this House.
The coming into effect of the provisions of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is for Canada an important step towards the full recognition and broad application of equality rights. That does not mean that our work is done. Today, we are being asked to start a new phase.

The attainment of equality is an evolving process. It is not always easy to make adjustments to the complex inheritance of the past in order to accommodate changing values. It is for this reason that the coming into effect of Section 15 was delayed for three years, so that Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces and Territories could bring about conformity between current laws and policies and the requirements of the equality provisions of the Charter.
This required that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) review over 1,100 federal statutes, an unprecedented task. As a result of this review, the Minister introduced the first Charter Compliance Bill in the House of Commons on January 31 of this year. Published at the same time was a discussion paper on equality issues in federal laws. A special subcommittee of this House has been established to examine this paper and to consult with Canadians. The work of this Committee will be vital in ensuring the conformity of our laws with the equality provisions of the Charter. One such further change is now before the House. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has introduced Bill C-31 to remove sexual discrimination from the Indian Act. [Translation]
However, I must point out that it is not enough to review certain rights and to eliminate certain legal obstacles to equality. We must also, where necessary, adopt a new attitude and modify our policies, programs and practices.
In certain areas, it will be necessary to take measures for affirmative action or social development, in order to correct the inequities resulting from various forms of discrimination practised in the past.

In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate solemnly the commitment of the Government to pursue meaningful equality. Since we took office we have acted as vigorously and as expeditiously as possible to honour this commitment. That is why the Government adopted a dynamic approach to selfgovernment for aboriginal peoples. That is why, in our response to the Abella Report, we accepted the concept of employment equity. That is why we are moving to implement the Obstacles report respecting the disabled, and that is why government commitments arising from the Equality Now! report on visible minorities are being fulfilled.
Hon. Members will no doubt recall the following words from the November 5 Speech from the Throne:
As the women of Canada know, there is some distance between the principle of equality, widely accepted, and its reality, still far short of achievement.
We are acting as quickly as possible to close this gap. Since this Government took office the number of women in Cabinet has risen to the highest level ever, and the percentage of Order in Council appointments held by women has risen from 15 to 22 per cent-a substantial increase in a brief period of time, but one that will be improved upon continually.

April 17, 1985
Charter of Rights

Parliament and the Government of Canada will have a duty to help Canadians progress towards full compliance with equality rights, both in our legislation and in practice. It was in that perspective that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) recently announced the very substantial grants to be made to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Coalition of Provincial Organizations for the Disabled.
I said earlier that the event we celebrate today is not the end of a process but an important watershed, an opportunity for a new beginning. In the area of human rights, Canada has a record of which it can be proud, and the capacity to do even better and thus serve as a model society for others to emulate.
Creating an open, free, and egalitarian society, however, requires more than constitutional provisions, sound laws, and effective government programs. It requires a deep and abiding sense of fairness on the part of all Canadians. It is within our reach as a people to ensure that all our acts are guided by generosity and tolerance, fraternity and understanding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for all Canadians as a result of the coming into force of the equality rights Section of the Charter. As a Liberal, I am proud that my Party fought long and hard not only to patriate the Constitution but also to include in the Constitution a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is of fundamental importance to all Canadians.
The history of mankind has been the struggle of civilized people against the forces od darkness and evil to defend the rights, liberties, and dignities of their fellow human beings. In a global sense we are all part of a minority, and thus subject to the tyranny of the majority. If we are not protected by the rule of the law which is embedded in the rock of our Constitution, what is left?
Today equality becomes not merely protected by law; it becomes the very foundation stone upon which all laws must either stand or fall. But we cannot rely only on laws and courts to end discrimination in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we have come a very long way since 1867. Perhaps all the values we have acquired in this country over the past 118 years may be summed up today as we formally acknowledge that all citizens are equal before the law in Canada, that there are no longer any second-class citizens in our society, and that our land no longer harbours people who cannot clearly express their religious, cultural and linguistic differences, while at the same time standing as proud citizens of the country which is perhaps the freest in the world.
The progress we have made in this House in recent years as a result of the new Constitution ranks us among the world's
leading countries, but even though we do have today a constitutional statute under which all citizens enjoy rights, it is imperative that Canadians too adopt a new attitude. Generosity, tolerance, understanding and frankness must become national virtues. We must be able to show respect for every region of this country, for every individual in our society, because when we travel we find out that Canada is known the world over as a country which has shown that building a great nation in such a diversified world is not an impossible endeavour. Canada stands for two official languages and comprises a myriad of religious groups. It is also home to different cultural communities, yet more and more we realize that no matter where one may be, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, one can rest assured that one's francophone fellow Canadians are respected, that if one is a Quebecer, one knows that women, the handicapped and the elderly are treated with equality in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that all Hon. Members of the House are justified in rejoicing today. Of course, this achievement did not come about without difficulty.
We have had a lot of fights over these things. A lot of speeches were made; there was a lot of emotion, and a lot of delays. But today, whoever is in this House who was here some years ago, will realize that out of the struggle of the mind and the spirit of this House came the equality rights which guarantee that all Canadians are equal. For that, Canada is a better country. I hope that all Canadians will apply the virtue of the equality clause in their daily lives. It is for all Canadians an achievement of greatness. Canada is the land of opportunity, the land of equality, and the land of tolerance par excellence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, there can be few days more significant in the history of a nation than today, the day upon which Section 15, the equality rights Section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, comes into effect.
The NDP, and the CCF before it, have always solidly supported the concept of an effectively entrenched Charter of Rights without the possibility of override. Indeed, it was a distinguished lawyer and former judge, Thomas Berger, who perhaps put it best in his book Fragile Freedoms, when he wrote:
Judges may not always be wiser than politicians, but they should be able to stand more firmly against angry winds blowing in the streets.
Therefore, today should be a day for rejoicing and celebrating, particularly by those groups which have been most affected by decades of inequality, be they women's groups or minorities.
The passage of the Constitution three years ago gave rise to tremendous hopes and expectations by millions of Canadians that Governments, both federal and provincial, would take
April 17, 1985

seriously their obligations to amend legislation to bring it into compliance with the provisions of the Charter.

I am sure that we all deeply regret the fact that the Province of Quebec was not signatory to the constitutional agreement. That is why Quebec chose to avail itself of the notwithstanding clause in Section 33 of the Charter, with the result that Quebecers are being denied important rights under the Charter, including equality rights under Section 15. We all hope that, before too long, a new formula will be found to enable six million Quebecers to become full-fledged participants under the terms of the Constitution of Canada.

What should have been a day of rejoicing and celebrating is instead, unfortunately, also tinged with a sense of anger and betrayal-betrayal of the hopes and dreams of women and minorities for real legislative change, and anger that Governments have not yet made a reality of the promise of full equality. Three years have passed, many studies have been done, and there is still no legislation of substance to implement real equality.
How can we possibly explain to two million disabled Canadians that the only change in laws affecting them was a change in the wording in the Canada Shipping Act, which changed the word "lunacy" to the words "mental disability"? How do we defend before Canadian women, who fought with incredible energy and strength for real and meaningful equality and who continue to be the victims of discrimination at home and at work, the failure of Governments to make long overdue changes in areas such as pension legislation and unemployment insurance provisions? Can we really say there exists full equality in Canada when five women lost their jobs in the Canadian Armed Forces solely on the basis of sexual orientation? The inaction of Governments means that women and minorities will be forced into the courts to define and defend their rights.
Despite the promises by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the election campaign to provide financial assistance for important litigation under the equality rights Section of the Charter of Rights, no funding announcement has been made so far. Declarations of rights, without adequate enforcement mechanisms, make a mockery of the concept of full equality. As Frank Scott said so eloquently:
The trappings of democracy hang loosely on an emaciated body politic.
As the role of the judiciary is significantly enhanced and strengthened, the time has come to make fundamental changes to the way in which judges are appointed, to ensure an independent and outstanding bench, with far more women and minorities represented-judges who display sensitivity to the complex and often novel rights issues which are raised in the context of the Charter of Rights.
Let us take this opportunity, on the date of the coming into force of the equality rights Section, to rededicate ourselves as parliamentarians and Canadians to the creation of full equality for all in Canada, using strong affirmative action where
necessary. Let us not wait for the courts to speak but rather let us move forward now to make that promise of equality, received with such hope and such optimism in 1982, a reality in 1985.

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ELLEN FAIRCLOUGH, RENAUDE LAPOINTE, AND GRACE MacINNIS


Mr. Speaker:: Out of respect for the day, and respect for their contributions to this day, may I signal the presence in our gallery of three distinguised Canadian parliamentarians; the Hon. Ellen Fairclough, the Hon. Senator Renaude Lapointe, and Mrs. Grace Maclnnis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have just learned that an opinion poll was published in Britain this morning on the attitude of the British public toward acid rain. The poll found that 55 per cent of the British people are prepared to pay the additional hydro costs which would be incurred by the United Kingdom if they were to join the 30 per cent club initiated by Canada in March, 1984, when ten like-minded nations committed themselves to a 30 per cent reduction of S02 emissions by 1983.
There are now 20 nations, including Canada, which have joined the 30 per cent club, but seven European countries, namely, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Turkey, have still to join. The United Kingdom is responsible for the creation of European acid rain in the amount of 4 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide annually, or one-fifth of western Europe's total. This opinion poll demonstrates significant public awareness of the problems concerning acid rain.
I am sure that Hon. Members of this House, and Canadians at large, welcome the news that the British public supports the need for action on acid rain. In addition, we hope that this poll will motivate the British Government to join the 30 per cent club and become a signatory of the Helsinki Agreement in July of this year. This, for us in Canada, would be a desirable development because we will then be looking south to the United States Government to follow suit-

April 17, 1985


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



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's The Globe and Mail, the Prime Minister's Office boasted about the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has kept an earlier promise to pay for his family's food bills. We are informed that he wrote a cheque for $4,000 covering the period from September 17, 1984, to March 31, 1985. Canadians should take a close look at these figures because, if they do, they will be surprised at what they discover. If you cover the 170-day period and multiply it by three meals a day for the five-person Mulroney family, you will generate a total of 2,550 meals over this period-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Malone:: Tell us what Trudeau did.


Sergio Marchi: Accordingly, when one divides the $4,000 by the amount of meals consumed, the average cost of the Mulroney meal, per person, is $1.50. The Prime Minister is certainly the winner of today's "The Price is Right" game. A coffee and a bologna sandwich cost more. This even beats the parliamentary cafeteria prices which the Prime Minister complained about only months ago. 1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, what average Canadian family pays as little as $1.50 per meal? The attempt of the Prime Minister to be perceived as paying his way is a complete sham, and it underestimates people's intelligence. He should fully honour his earlier commitment and not play his familiar deception game.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Sergio Marchi: The Prime Minister's latest food for thought to Canadians is insulting. His menu is completely unappetizing and distasteful-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the women of Canada join all Canadians in celebrating the enactment of the equality Section of the Charter of Rights. I salute the many talented and determined women who came together in 1982 in the ad hoc committee to educate, lobby, formulate, and demand inclusion of Sections 15 and 28 in our Charter of Rights. Their efforts, supported by women parliamentarians, overcame many obstacles to achieve the beginnings of equality. But this is only a beginning. Unfortunately, Governments have
not amended legislation to conform to Charter requirements. As a result, women, native people, the disabled, and other minority groups will be forced to fight for their rights through skilful lobbying, negotiations and litigation.
1 urge the Government, on this momentous day, to prove its commitment to Section 15 by contributing to an independent, non-political endowment being established for legal action. We will truly celebrate equality when women have equal opportunities for full employment, equal pay for work of equal value, paid parental leave, universal day care, reproductive choice, and an end to violence and poverty in all our communities.



THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House on the very day that Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms becomes effective.
Section 15 contains only two sentences, but those two sentences enshrine equality rights for all Canadians in the Canadian Constitution. Furthermore, Section 15 affirms the legal right of Canadian women to full equality with their male counterparts in all areas of our society.
Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that this section becomes effective this year is particularly significant, since 1985 marks the end of the United Nations decade for women, and Canada has taken an active part in all the activities organized around this decade.
We can be proud of what we have accomplished during the past ten years in promoting the rights of Canadian women and improving the status of women throughout the world.
Furthermore, on November 5, the Federal Government made a firm commitment in the Speech from the Throne to close the gap that exists between the principle of equality and its application. Legislation has already been tabled in the House to respond to women's needs, and today, Mr. Speaker, the Charter has launched a major challenge to Canadian men and women. With the help of the Federal Government...


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 am sorry to inform the Hon. Member that her time has expired.
April 17, 1985



CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, today is the third anniversary of the coming into effect of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it will be today, April 17, 1985, that will be recorded in history as the day the Charter truly came into effect, for what is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms without guarantees of equality?
Today I want to pay special tribute to Canadian women who took a special interest in constitutional reform. They took the issue of equality rights and made it their personal cause. Because of their investment of time, energy, and hope, it is paying off for all of us today. Later today many of those women will join together in Room 200 of the West Block, a room of historic significance, where the Constitutional Committee held its hearings and where the ad hoc women's meetings were held in February, 1981.
Tonight we shall remember the dedication of the women of the past, women such as Nellie McClung and Agnes McPhail, who pioneered equality for women in Canada. We shall honour the women of today who played such an important role in ensuring the inclusion of equality provisions for women in the Charter, who shall continue that determined struggle in their presentations to our parliamentary committee on equality rights, and before the courts with the help of the legal education and action fund.
Finally, tonight we shall pause for a moment in anticipation of the success of the women of the future, your daughters and mine, who can grow and prosper in a country and society which respect differences but demand equality-


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



VISIBLE MINORITIES

[Stage Direction]
ANGUS MacINNIS'S DEFENCE OF JAPANESE CANADIANS IN 1941
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), and other Members who saw the exchange yesterday in this House on the subject of Canadians of Japanese origin, to these words spoken in this House on February 25, 1941, by Angus Mac-Innis, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and I quote:
If we are to have harmonious and friendly relations between the oriental population and the rest of our British Columbia citizens, we must stop discriminating against and abusing the orientals. We must find some common ground on which we can work, and I think it can be found ... I am satisfied that if we treat the Japanese and our other oriental citizens right, we shall get their loyalty, because they are no longer orientals in the accepted sense of that term. They would feel as much out of place in Japan as we would. I know them, speak to them; I visit them and have them in my home, and I have not the slightest doubt that what I say is correct. If we are to avoid the troubles that other
countries have had with racial minorities, then we must take a realistic view of the situation in British Columbia and attempt to make these people feel at home among us. We will secure their loyalty by fairness and kindness and by the practice of those other attributes which we exercise in our relations with other people.
Let us evoke that spirit and have genuine negotiations for an apology and appropriate compensation to Canadians of Japanese origin.



THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS


Mr. Roger Clinch (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Sub-committee on Rights and Freedoms, 1 welcome this opportunity today to comment on Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The work performed by the Sub-committee will give the people of Canada a chance to shape and influence the practical applications of these fundamental rights and freedoms. These will include equality before the law, equality under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law.

Today we celebrate the entrenchment of equality rights in the Charter. The implementation of this clause signals a commitment by Governments to move at full speed toward the goal of full equality for all Canadians. This is a date with equality. All individuals are now guaranteed equality, not as a right to be acquired but as a state that exists, not just in the laws themselves, but also in their administration. From this day on all Canadians can be assured that the Government's commitment to equality is more than an enunciation of principle. It has become the instrument to address actively injustices that have prevailed far too long.




Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for women, as a number of my female colleagues have already said. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now in effect.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the initiative was taken under a Liberal Government. On April 17, 1982-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucie Pépin: -the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was officially proclaimed. However, Section 15 did not come into effect until three years later, since a large number of laws had to be amended to comply with this section.

April 17, 1985
The search for equality for women, native peoples, visible minorities and the disabled is a long and complicated process. It is not enough to have this one section of the Charter come into effect. We must also make it possible for groups that so desire to use the tools or laws by which they are governed and which the Government makes available to them.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian men and women have been anxiously awaiting these tools. They include research funds to help people pay the cost of litigation before the courts, for instance. That is why I would urge this Government to reflect on various ways to help Canadian men and women achieve true equality.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: As equality rights committee co-chairman, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss indeed were I to remain silent on this day, April 17, 1985, a milestone in the evolution of all Canadian men and women. Unfortunately, this kind of evolution does have ups and downs, so our Government took the initiative of establishing this equality rights committee.
May all Canadians, men and women alike, make the best of this consultation process to pursue the debate which began a long time ago and which must go on until our institutions, our policies, our commitments, our actions and our attitudes fully reflect not so much the right to equality as respect for the right to be different.
Mr. Speaker, on this day when Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 comes into effect, let us hope that our conception of human rights will encourage Canadian men and women to fulfil their aspirations.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, today is the fiftieth anniversary of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. It was on April 17, 1935, that Royal Assent was given to the Act setting up the agency that did so much to rescue the Prairies from a crisis of drought and soil erosion. This agency, a vital part of the federal Agriculture Department, is still hard at work at soil and water conservation on the Prairies. A great deal has been done, but much remains to be done.
Our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) recognizes soil erosion as a most serious problem facing Canadian agriculture today, second only to farm financing. The future demands a
great deal more public awareness of the need to conserve our soils, not only on the Prairies but throughout Canada. Farmers lose significantly when the quality of their soil deteriorates. When soil is blowing or washing away, money is always lost.
A public education program could help the PFRA, other public and private organizations and, most important, the farmers of Canada, to build on the past and increase their efforts to preserve and protect our threatened soils.
I know that our Minister of Agriculture is interested in taking steps toward setting up a national public education program to address this critical issue. I know he will need the co-operation and support of his provincial-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. As I said earlier, today is a great day for all Canadians with the coming into effect of the equality clause in the Constitution. I presume that the Prime Minister agrees with the generous statement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration about Section 15 and what it means for Canada. I only hope that the Minister of Justice, whose job it is to uphold our Constitution, will agree.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the very sad and very wrong comment of the Minister of Justice in a CBC radio interview this morning, in which the Minister said: "It is too bad that the Constitution allows courts to determine what constitutes discrimination"? Will the Prime Minister tell his Minister of Justice that the Constitution is supposed to protect minorities from the abuse of the majority, if necessary, through the courts? Will the Prime Minister tell his Minister of Justice that we would have a lot less court cases if the Government would start making changes in our laws now so that Canadians will not have to go to court to fight for their rights?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is wrong with the hon. gentleman. He is certainly quoting me out of context. It would be a lot better for the political system of the country if Hon. Members opposite could stop twisting and turning the truth in the wind every time they get up to speak.
April 17, 1985


DECLARATION BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have here the text of the statement made on radio this morning by the Hon. Member in which he made very derogatory comments on activists among groups of women and disabled persons, and among visible minorities. In fact, the Hon. Minister of Justice said that Section 15 of the Constitution was a program aimed at creating jobs for lawyers only.
Is it not true that if he were doing his job right now, if Parliament were to amend forthwith all relevant statutes, fewer lawyers would have to defend minority groups?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have already had an opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice on his outstanding contribution earlier today. As a long standing Member of Parliament, he should know that the Minister of Justice is always in an open and democratic frame of mind. He should know to what extent the Minister of Justice stands as a champion of the interests of our minorities. He has always behaved with dignity, as a strong supporter of the Charter and its implementation. He has indicated to what extent-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I see that the Liberal backbenchers, when we are worrying about equality, are worrying about my food bills. 1 know that it shocks a Liberal to find a Prime Minister who is paying for his own food.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In paying deserved tribute to a former Minister of Justice who did a tremendous amount to bring about the constitutional arrangement-for which I salute him-I know that he would do no less to a distinguished colleague, the present Minister of Justice, who is equally committed to the advancement of the cause of equality and the attainment of fairness for all Canadians. I think that is widely recognized, and indeed by the Hon. Member himself.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF STATEMENT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Prime Minister. 1 only hope that he will tell the Minister of Justice that if he was making a joke it was not the time to make jokes about the rights of minorities, and that he should withdraw his statement and carry on with his responsibilities.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will act more in sorrow than in anger and will accept the hon. gentleman's apology for this nonsense later, when he comes to his senses.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


FORTHCOMING BUDGET-EFFECT ON INFLATION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Acting Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that as a result of the Government's upcoming Budget, Canadians should expect the inflation rate to go up. In doing so, the Minister is fuelling inflationary expectations. By musing out loud, the Minister is personally making inflation worse at the time when the Government may decide to de-index certain social programs. Why does the Government want to introduce policies that will fuel inflation and damage the buying power of low and middle-income Canadians?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is obviously making inferences from the statement. Let me underline the fact that in the last three months the inflation rate has been 3.7 per cent. It is a record with which we are pleased and quite happy to have achieved.
I would only reassure the Hon. Member that the policies that will be introduced by this Government will be directed toward maintaining a level of inflation that is low and acceptable to all Canadians.


Raymond Garneau: I am amazed that the Acting Minister of Linance is talking about anti-inflation measures. The fact is that it is the six and five measure that really brought inflation down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance declared yesterday that inflation will go up as a result of the Budget. It is common knowledge that energy prices are a very important element in the consumer price index. After having given away $2.4 billion to the oil multinationals, is the Government prepared to increase gas taxes at the pump so that the real reason for inflation rising will depend on the taxes imposed by the Government?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to his question, my colleague suggests a significant lag before the effects of government policies are felt. I can say to the House that the inflation performance during the last month could hardly be ascribed to policies going back several years.
With respect to policies which could be introduced, we certainly want to stimulate the economy and create jobs. In a system such as ours, some pressures will necessarily be felt. However, I think that the government intends, as stated by the Minister of Finance, to establish policies aimed at keeping the

April 17, 1985
Oral Questions
inflation rate at an acceptable level for Canadians and carry on the outstanding performance experienced during these past months.


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. There is wide recognition that many claims under the Charter will be required by necessity to go before the courts for a resolution, to be brought by many women's groups, organizations of the disabled, and many visible minority groups. Do the Prime Minister and the Government continue to stand by their commitment which they made to the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped on August 14 last, to establish a rights and freedom defence fund, when he wrote to that organization and said: "A Progressive Conservative Government will financially assist all Charter of Rights cases deemed to be of national importance"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the Government's position. The question of court challenges and funding appears to presume a failure of the legislatures of Canada to bring existing laws in line with the Charter.
We are committed as a Government, and as a political Party we are no less committed than the NDP. I suppose that if there were a special area of responsibility-all areas are deserving-it would be with regard to the handicapped. 1 can assure you that we will not flag in our determination to ensure justice and fairness for those who deserve it under the Charter.


FUNDING OF LITIGATION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, specifically, could the Prime Minister assure the House that any claims brought before the courts by disability organizations, women's groups, or visible minorities, that those cases will receive the financial support of the Government, because there is absolutely no question that they will be very expensive?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member to reflect for a moment on the possible significance of that question. As I understood it, the Hon. Member is not asking me to ensure that worthy and deserving causes of those who perhaps, lack the necessary resources, are placed in a position where they can bring worthy litigation forward. The Hon. Member appears to be asking whether the Government of Canada will not fund, willy-nilly, holus-bolus, every conceivable challenge that will be brought under the statutes.


Mr. Deans:: He is not asking that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now the leader of the Ian Deans club says he is not asking that.


Ian Deans: No, he is not. You know what he is asking. You can't obfuscate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will go back and look at the question as asked. If I am wrong, I will apologize to my hon. friend.
The question, as I understood it, seemed to imply an absolutely impossible situation of impending litigation. Our situation is that in those areas where the Government of Canada can and should act to be helpful in ensuring that litigants are capable of exercising their rights before the law, and they are in any way precluded from doing so, we shall act.
I cannot give a guarantee that we will finance every case that arises in every conceivable manner against every conceivable cause, under the Charter.


CENTRAL FUND INQUIRY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, since that was not the question I asked, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether the Government of Canada intends to establish a fund that will be of assistance to groups who cannot afford to go through the courts on their own, so that they can effectively fight for their rights before the courts? I am talking about a fund, not specific cases, but a central fund that groups can draw upon?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it was one of the amendments put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party that ensured the creation of such funds to ensure that certain groups would be able to bring forward their rights. I salute my colleagues and those other Members of the House who supported that amendment at the time. I think it was extremely worth while, and we shall honour it.


WOMEN'S REMUNERATION-ROLE OF PROVINCES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Ninety per cent of workers are covered under provincial, not federal law. At the current rate of salary catch-up, Canadian women can expect equal pay with Canadian men in 97 years. Has the Prime Minister received assurances from the provinces that all Canadian women will be protected by the introduction of equal pay for work of equal value laws in every province?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received such assurances. I committed the Party and the Government to placing that question, and others involving dignity and equal opportunity for women, at the head of the list in terms of the premiers' conference in Regina, and I did precisely that. It remains a key item of all federal-provincial negotiations. This Party is deeply committed to that
April 17, 1985

spirit of fairness and justice. I know the Hon. Member will be supportive of me and the Government as we proceed in this vital area of fairness to women.


REQUEST FOR FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in light of the importance of this issue, will the Prime Minister immediately call a First Ministers' conference on employment equity, or is he prepared to leave the question to people like the Premier of Ontario who is so out of touch with Canadian women-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -that when he was Treasurer he introduced a tax on tampons as a non-essential item?


Martin Brian Mulroney: May I say
with respect, Mr. Speaker, that I am somewhat dismayed that on a day of such importance to women the object of the exercise would be clearly to score some cheap political points on behalf of the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Hon. Member inelegantly bailed out of the Liberal Party in opposition in Ontario, to wind up in an equally inelegant position here in Ottawa. We are here to defend and protect the rights of women. We want the advancement of women across the country, and that kind of attitude does not help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPICTION OF INDIANS IN DEPARTMENTAL PAMPHLET
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Secretary of State. Unfortunately the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect aboriginal peoples against any biased and distorted version of history, particularly when it is in a government publication. The 1985 Canada Day application form, A Salute to Youth, says that colonists represent the youth of Canada's past, but it makes no mention of the fact that aboriginal peoples were here before.
Is the Minister aware that Indians are pictured as the enemy of Canadian youth when the pamphlet tells about a 15 year old girl, Madeleine de Vercheres, who fought against Indian attacks for eight days to save her family seigneury? Was the Minister aware of these distortions? Will he withdraw this pamphlet, and will he apologize to the Indian, Inuit, and Metis people of Canada for this biased and unfair version of their history?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, I will certainly look at the document. I was not aware of that, but I will look at it. However, let me make this assertion to the Hon. Member. He may choose to pick one area which is an illustration of the whole question of stereotyping that affects not only women but many of our visible minorities and our native people. Part of
Oral Questions
the citizenship directory responsibility of the Secretary of State's Department is to tackle this, and to work along with Canada's indigenous group in order that together we can carry out community education. Today's celebrations are a part of that over-all sensitizing of the Canadian public.


STEREOTYPED VERSION OF HISTORY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will first of all attack this in his own Department with the people who are responsible for this kind of publication.
Does the Minister recognize that this type of stereotyped version of Canadian history has given false justification to our past denial of aboriginal rights, and that it is still operative in the case of Premiers such as Devine, Lougheed and Bennett? 1 ask him to look closely at this. What action is he prepared to take to ensure that a balanced view of Canadian history is given to Canadians so that we understand the basis of aboriginal rights?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, whatever the faults of my Department may be, one of them is not insensitivity in this area. There are committed men and women who are sensitive to this and are doing their best across the country to provide that type of education. I think the Hon. Member will agree that at the First Ministers' conference there was a further illustration of the sincerity of the Government to deal effectively with Canada's first peoples.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister deals with the systemic discrimination against women, that is, unintentional discrimination through the application of legislation and regulations. An increasing number of people concerned with equality in employment agree that this systemic discrimination remains one of the major obstacles to employment not only for women, but for native peoples, the visible minorities and the handicapped as well. Does the Prime Minister recognize that there is such a thing as systemic discrimination?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a most important issue. There is in our economy a built-in and progressive discrimination which victimizes women. There is for instance the so-called technological breakthrough which, by the end of this decade, will jeopardize over one million jobs held by women in the service industry, a far greater number than in the case of men. I can understand the hon. member's concern and, together with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I have

April 17, 1985
Oral Questions
already taken some serious initiatives in the hope of reaching an agreement in order to improve the lot of the many women who are caught in this unfortunate and unfair predicament. I am grateful to the hon. member for raising this issue of vital importance for both Canadian men and women.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister apparently realizes the existence of discrimination within the system. This is by far the best kept secret in the marketplace.
Elowever, I have a second question: In order to provide these groups with greater protection against this type of discrimina-ton and against poverty, would the Prime Minister commit himself today to take the necessary remedial action and advise the House as to exactly when he intends to do so?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we had already taken a number of initiatives while in the opposition, because my colleagues and I had experienced in the private sector the well-founded claims the hon. member is making. Yes, we will indeed be faced within the foreseeable future with a human tragedy of major proportion. We have already implemented a number of manpower retraining schemes, created many new openings within small- and medium-size businesses to benefit women mostly, in order to do something useful and hopefully solve this problem. This is not something that can be done overnight, but I think we have taken a number of steps in the right direction and eventually will solve this most serious problem.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment about whether, in light of the PCB spill, she intended to reinstate the four or five programs concerning research into the effects of PCBs, which were cancelled. However, she is not here again today, for the second time, and my question is directed to either the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister, whomever would clear up the question of federal responsibility as it affects this PCB spill.
We have the Minister of the Environment announcing regulations which properly come under the Minister of Transport. Would the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport indicate, if indeed there is a federal responsibility in this area, as I believe there is, why there is no one on the scene from Environment Canada; no one on the scene from the Canadian Transport Commission, Dangerous Goods Division; and only one person on the scene from Transport Canada, who is there
for a purely technical assessment of the transformer which leaked? We had an announcement this morning having to do with regulations that will affect this kind of incident. Why do we have no federal people on the scene to speak of, except the one I mentioned?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to inform the House that the Minister of the Environment is in Burlington and Toronto for two very full days of meetings with respect to acid rain and toxic materials. These are long standing commitments. I think the Hon. Member will recognize this is an obligation on her part to honour that invitation.
With respect to the other part of the question, within less than two hours of the incident, the Canutec organization of Transport Canada was informed. There has been collaboration on an ongoing basis. There is a representative on site. There has been collaboration with the federal Department of the Environment. We are working very closely together. The investigation is being spearheaded by the Ontario Department of the Environment, but in very close collaboration with both federal Departments. The Hon. Member should recognize that we recognize the gravity of the situation and are working very closely with the Department of the Environment of Ontario.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to get the impression of the gravity with which the Government considers this matter when the first person to arrive on the scene federally arrived this morning, not two hours but four days after the event. There is still no one on the scene from Environment Canada or the CTC. When will the Government take its responsibility, not just in this instance but in the over-all, ensuring that there is a federal responsibility in this area, not just by announcing regulations for July 1, but by stepping in and not relying on the Ontario Government to do this, and claiming a federal responsibility for preventing these kinds of incidents?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again that the Province of Ontario has primary jurisdiction over this matter. It has taken the leadership role. The federal Departments of Transport and the Environment are collaborating and working together very closely. We will take whatever corrective action is necessary. We are now exploring the possibility of providing for a protection directive under Section 28 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.


EFFECT ON HIGHWAY
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to my hon. friend, the Acting Minister of the Environment. I want the Minister to know that the people of northern Ontario are frightened and are very
April 17, 1985

angry about the recent PCB spillage. Quite frankly, we have had enough. We have had mercury in the water, we have acid rain, and now we have a PCB spillage on the Trans-Canada Highway. The people of northern Ontario feel betrayed by this Government and by the Government of Ontario. What can the Minister tell us today to assure us that the Trans-Canada Highway is not going to become a path of poison?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Hon. Member rising here on behalf of people in his constituency and expressing, as is appropriate, the outrage and dismay that follow for all decent Canadians as a result of this incident. It is a very serious one. However, I have to say in response, as I said yesterday, that there is mixed jurisdiction in this. The federal Government is coming in with new regulations in July. One can say that they should have been here before. One can also say that perhaps somebody who was here before should have passed them.
People are on the site, and were on the site immediately. This is not a situation where no one did anything. You can ask federal legislators or federal administrators to go there, but in fact in practical terms the responsibility for looking after the traffic, assessing the damage, and doing something about the clean-up, happens to be with Ministry of the Environment of the Province of Ontario. That is our system, and there is nothing wrong with that. I say to the Hon. Member that the federal Government takes this matter very seriously. I would ask the Hon. Member to convey that very clearly to the people that he represents, and represents so adequately.


REQUEST FOR PREVENTIVE MEASURES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are tired of hearing about jurisdiction, responsibility, guidelines, and regulations. They feel that this Government and the Government of Ontario have betrayed them. PCBs were spilled. How can we be assured that this will not happen again, that there will not be another failure? What action does the Minister propose? People in northern Ontario want to know that this kind of avoidable accident will never happen again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, particularly the transportation of dangerous substances, our departmental officials are currently exploring the possibility of a protection directive under the provisions of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, Section 28, which may be implemented. It would provide for a kind of regulatory control and/or moratorium on the transportation of these substances. That is being looked into. If it is necessary to move in that direction, this Government will move in that direction.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTERPROVINCIAL TRUCKING
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the Minister of Transport. It would appear that there is nobody in charge of this matter. Do the Minister of Trans-
Ora/ Questions
port and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not know that interprovincial and international trucking under the Constitution of Canada are totally the responsibility of the federal Government? Is it not correct that the Minister of Transport has allowed provincial Departments to move in and, as a result, there is a hodge-podge? Will the Minister agree that it is time for him to exercise the constitutional authority he has over interprovincial trucking, particularly in the case of the transportation of dangerous goods?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member, given his experience in the field of transportation. He should know better than to make the statement that he did. Truck transportation, both intra and extra-provincial, is a provincial matter. The Hon. Member can shake his head in the negative, but he knows darn well that that is the case. Under the transportation of dangerous goods regulations, and the need to promulgate regulations, that is exactly where the difficulty has arisen because there needs to be the capability and the cohesiveness of a regulatory system right across the country. We have been working with the provinces, trying to work out that kind of uniform system. On July 1 these regulations will be in effect. Having said that, there still is a code with respect to the handling and the manufacturing of these substances which is provided for by the Department of the Environment which is being followed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Minister of Transport knows perfectly well that the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada has been abrogated by the provinces. He still has the constitutional authority on interprovincial and international trucking. Because nobody is in charge, will the Minister take charge (a) on the investigation and (b), if he will not go for a moratorium on movements between now and July 1, will he ensure that any transportation of dangerous goods is convoyed, with inspections at least every 50 miles? Will he do that under the constitutional authority that he has under the Constitution of Canada and the National Transportation Act?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the New Democratic Party came very close to asking for a moratorium on the movement of all dangerous goods in Canada. The Member is now backing off. That would have even included farm chemicals, and the farmers might not get in a crop this year. I have indicated that the federal Departments of Transport and the Environment are very closely involved with the Department of the Environment of the Province of Ontario in monitoring and assessing this situation and investigating the accident. I said earlier that we are exploring the possibilities of providing for a protection directive under Section 28 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act which could have the effect of meeting the request

April 17, 1985
Oral Questions
that the Hon. Member has submitted to the House this afternoon.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, today is a very special and important day in the history of Canada as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms becomes law. My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. There exists today within the Armed Forces a situation that blatantly discriminates against pregnant service personnel who must take leave without pay or use vacation time during their time of confinement. What action will the Minister take to redress this discrimination that exists within his Department and to bring the Armed Forces into line with the non-discriminatory provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I believe the Hon. Member is aware, regulations now exist in the Armed Forces accommodating the pregnancies of female personnel. It may well be that there are some deficiencies in those regulations. I have asked for an analysis and careful study to be done, and of course, at the same time, under Section 15, the Subcommittee of the Justice and Legal Affairs Standing Committee will undoubtedly be inquiring into these areas in its studies of the reference made to that committee by the Minister of Justice.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is not enough, of course, to give lip service today to equality. In the spirit of the Charter of Rights and to bring about employment equity, the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Disabled of the previous Liberal Government recommended that private sector companies doing more than $20,000 worth of business with the Government be required to take affirmative action and hire the handicapped. The Prime Minister, during the election campaign, assured handicapped persons that he would support this measure. However, in her recent reply to the Abella report, the Minister of Employment and Immigration only requires compliance by companies receiving contracts worth over $200,000. How can the Minister shortchange disabled and handicapped people in this way by leaving out thousands upon thousands of companies from compliance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the provisions we have announced and the work that is being undertaken apply to 85 per cent of the business that is done with the Government by companies all across the country. We figured that 85 per cent, although not totally inclusive, is nevertheless a good beginning, and we will see that those measures are put in place so that there is equality for those persons who are handicapped, for visible minorities, for native groups, and for women.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister knows that a contract for $1 million can be let through five contracts worth $200,000 each and the companies would be exempt. I am amazed that she would say what she has said. Nevertheless, since the Minister of Employment and Immigration said that people in business who have already adopted employment equity have seen substantial growth in their productivity, profits, and people, why did she not give this wonderful opportunity to all companies that receive contracts worth $20,000 and allow them to enjoy these benefits which she herself has outlined?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in my response I said that we were taking a first step. I think it is an important and very valuable first step. It is a first step, however, because we are at the beginning of a process. Had the previous Government thought it was worth while to do anything at all in this field, the women of Canada, the disabled, the native people, and the visible minorities would have been much further along the road. We are overcoming those obstacles. I trust the Hon. Member will give the provisions we have introduced the support they merit.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the Minister aware that this spring, prairie farmers will face the possibility of the worst grasshopper outbreak in several decades? Will the Minister inform the House of what steps his Department is taking to join with provincial Governments in preparing for that outbreak?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, spray them with PCBs.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that I am aware of and deeply concerned over the potential outbreak of grasshopper infestations in western Canada during the 1985 season. According to surveys done in the latter part of 1984, the potential is much greater in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In the Hon. Member's home province of Manitoba, the possibility
April 17, 1985

may be that the infestation there might well exceed the 1984 infestation by two and a half times.
I would like to assure the Hon. Member that our researchers and scientists throughout the network of research stations in western Canada are working in consultation and co-operation with the provincial Governments and the producer organizations. We have an alert system in place, and we will be able to inform producers of the day-to-day situation with respect to grasshopper infestations.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The very distinguished former Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, has written a devastating critique of star wars in this week's The New York Review of Books. Perhaps the Prime Minister may have seen it. It describes star wars as being deceptive, confused, and ill-considered, and as undermining deterrence and threatening to escalate the arms race to an unmanageable spiral. Has the Prime Minister read Mr. Ball's critique? Has he been listening to the concerns of ordinary Canadians, including those in the peace camp outside this building, about the devastating implications of star wars? If so, why has the Canadian Government not yet given an emphatic no to the whole concept of star wars, and an emphatic no to any Canadian participation in it whatsoever?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. As the only Party Leader to be present in the House of Commons on such an important day for women, I want to thank her as well for her contribution to the progress that has been made.
In point of fact, I did see the review written by Mr. Ball. He is a man of considerable reputation. The Hon. Member will recall that he held an important position in the U.S. administration. Mr. Ball held an important position in the administration when it was involved in Vietnam. He held certain views then that have not been borne out over the years. He now holds this view. I respect him for his analysis and for his point of view. I can tell the Hon. Member that it is not shared by our NATO allies. It is not shared by the Secretary-General of NATO. However, it is a view, and Mr. Ball is an outstanding person. It is a view that we will consider, along with many others.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must know that it is not only George Ball who holds this view. I only quoted him because I thought the Prime Minister might have respected his opinion. May I then ask the Prime Minister directly, since the Minister of National Defence is keeping so quiet about this, if the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister believes that the whole star wars concept does undermine deterrence and changes the whole strategic doctrine? Does he share that view? Does he think the star wars concept has been ill-considered and ill-thought out? I would like to know upon what the Prime Minister bases his favourable view of star wars.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would just tell the Hon. Member that there are about half a dozen hypothetical questions locked into that one question. There is a position that the Secretary of State for External Affairs set out with great clarity and maturity on January 21 last, and it is the position of the Government. I suppose that if we were as sure as the Hon. Member opposite that there was no threat and no possibility of similar developments on the other side, we might be inclined to take a different view of certain developments. However, as the Secretary-General of NATO said, and the Hon. Member herself expressed respect for his view, it would be the height of imprudence not to proceed with research at this particular time.
We believe that there is a fundamental difference between the two sides. This one speaks to the moral issues of freedom, justice, and democracy, and that is where we stand. Those are the values that we will uphold while searching for a durable peace. The Hon. Member can be certain of that.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I think that the Minister will agree that today is a great day for all Canadian men and women, as Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is intended to force all governments, at both the federal and provincial levels, to eliminate all discrimination against any individual, is coming into force.
In addition, to meet the commitments of the Conservative Party as expressed this afternoon by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare assure us immediately that he will introduce an amendment to Bill C-26 to provide for equality and true social justice, since he is well aware of the fact that, at the present time, Bill C-26 discriminates against 80,000 needy senior citizens in Canada, the great majority of whom are women? On this historic day, is the Minister willing to announce immediately such an amendment?

April 17, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Epp (Provencher)


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Member should re-examine his own past. He sat in a Government that did nothing for the widows and widowers, which Bill C-26 does.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We should also consider on this day that, under the Bill itself, 85 per cent of the potential recipients are women. I wish he would support it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Claude Malépart: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: No, I am sorry, the time has expired. [Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the rules indicate that Question Period is 45 minutes in length and we have now had 46 minutes. I tried to help the Hon. Member by allowing him one question.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) on Tuesday, April 16, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we all have rules in this House and there is a certain requirement for decorum. When a serious question is asked, such as that asked by the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) regarding the potential grasshopper infestation on the Prairies this year, I do not think it was proper for the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) to have said that they should be sprayed with PCBs.
There are certain things which are not covered by the rules, but decorum does dictate other action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may have that view, but it is not a point of order.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, you should know that in the back benches on this side, PCB means "Progressive Conservative Bull". That is what we were talking about when we said PCBs.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to announce to the Hon. Members that the Government has reached an understanding with the Public Service unions on a number of issues that are important both to our employees and to the Treasury Board as the employer.
In recent months, I have had several meetings with union representatives to discuss these issues which had been pending for a number of years. The Government firmly believes that it must work together with the Public Service unions to get our economy going again and improve the standard of living of all Canadians, and it intends to succeed. It has always been our contention that the problems we are facing today can be solved. We know that our public administration must be made to function more effectively. We can improve it by making the Public Service more sensitive to the public's needs and also more effective. We can improve it by introducing new guidelines for co-operation, by holding consultations before making decisions and by setting common goals for settling important matters. The system adopted by this Government can serve as a model, and its aim is to create fair, effective and responsible labour-management relations in Canada.

As a result of the meetings which I held with Public Service union representatives, this Government has agreed to introduce in the Public Service a system of master agreement bargaining, a dental plan, a revised pension plan and improved workforce adjustment procedures.
On the issue of master agreement bargaining, I signed memoranda of understanding last week with representatives of the two major Public Service unions, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public
April 17, 1985

Service of Canada. The memoranda provide terms of reference under which it will be possible to negotiate master agreements covering approximately 80 per cent of the terms and conditions of employment which are now found in individual collective agreements.
Under the present system, negotiated terms and conditions of employment are bargained for each bargaining unit represented by each union. Some of the terms and conditions are unique to a bargaining unit, but in many cases similar collective agreement articles can be found in many agreements, often using exactly the same language. Yet, until now, those articles had to be negotiated separately for each collective agreement. For example, in the case of the Alliance, they would be negotiated for each of the 39 collective agreements. Under the master agreement system, such articles would be negotiated only once with the Alliance at a master table.
The master agreement approach to collective bargaining is much more efficient. Not only will we be required to spend less time at the bargaining table, thereby ultimately reducing the cost of the bargaining process, but collective agreements will be easier to administer and interpret.
Any impasses at the master agreement bargaining table will be resolved through a process of binding conciliation. Thus, the right to strike will not apply to items which will be included in master agreements.

It will be impossible to negotiate all conditions at the master table, Mr. Speaker, owing to the diversity of professional groups in the Public Service. This difficulty is acknowledged in the concept of second tier bargaining where the collective agreements of professional groups will be negotiated on an individual basis so as to settle clearly monetary issues such as rate of pay, benefits, working hours and paid holidays.
The second tier-bargaining of individual collective agreements-will operate much as it does now and will include staggered expiry dates and recourse to binding arbitration or conciliation-strike in case of deadlock.
Since the Public Service Staff Relations Act now provides for bargaining units negotiating on an individual basis, it will have to be amended to implement the system of master agreement bargaining. Both parts will be more effective and enjoy more freedom of action to solve labour issues.
Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Staff Relations Act has practically remained unchanged since it came into effect in 1967, and the Government will hold consultations on this issue with labour representatives and other interested parties.
With respect to Public Service pensions, the Government believes that contributors to the Public Service pension plan should have their say in the decision-making process which leads eventually to the definition and administration of policy. We are quite agreeable to the establishment of a joint management system. The system provides for the creation of a management committee chaired by an independent person and will
Statement by Minister
be made up of at least twelve members representing the employer and the employees, on an equal basis. It will answer to me in my capacity as President of the Treasury Board. [English]
It is our intention to bring the Public Service pension schemes more in line with those in the private sector. As a result, and in response to concerns expressed by employees, the public sector and the Auditor General, we will fund and finance Public Service pension plans in accordance with the accepted practices and standards of the major employers in the private sector.
I would like to underline four points. The current indexing will be replaced by an inflation protection feature dependent upon the earnings of the fund. The management board will review contribution rates and the plan features periodically and recommend adjustments. Unfunded actuarial liabilities resulting from past practices will be amortized within the plan in an orderly fashion over a period of not less than 25 years. Under the new proposals, benefits will be funded in advance. The fund will not accumulate further actuarial deficits.
Finally, pension accounts will be credited with interest earnings based on returns achieved in a representative sample of private sector plans. In all other aspects the Public Service plans will, as a minimum, generally meet the requirements of the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act. These changes will require legislative amendments which will be brought before this House following further consultation with the advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act.
On the subject of a Public Service dental plan, I have signed an agreement setting out the principles under which a moderate plan will be introduced. A board of trustees will be appointed consisting of an independent chairperson and equal representation from the unions and the employer. This board of trustees will be responsible for the sound financial administration of the plan, which is to be self-insured.
An agreement has been reached on improvements to the workforce adjustment policy. The Government's policy is that employees whose jobs are no longer required will, as far as possible, be redeployed within the Public Service with retraining, if necessary. Briefly, major improvements to the policy include; first, the minimum notice to an employee whose job is being abolished will be increased from three months to four months, although Departments will endeavour to give at least six months' notice. Second, laid off persons will be eligible for retraining, and those accepting lower level positions will be provided with up to one year's salary protection.
The understanding reached on these issues, Mr. Speaker, goes a long way toward fulfilling the promises we made last summer during the federal election campaign. Two other issues will require further consultation. I have already mentioned one, the amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The other involves the political rights of public servants which need further careful consideration to ensure

April 17, 1985
Statement by Minister
fairness and equity to all concerned. I am confident that these matters will also be satisfactorily resolved.

Collective efforts have led to those achievements of which Canadians are proudest. This Government listens, consults, finds innovative solutions to national problems. Genuine efforts are made to achieve results. The Progressive Conservative Government will reach its targets and live up to its commitments, for it has every intention of calling upon Canadians to help it meet all challenges.
Mr. Speaker, the measures announced today are the starting point of a new era in the field of labour-management relations in the federal administration. Those issues had been upsetting labour-management relations for many years. Yet, in the short time since this Government took office, it has succeeded in bargaining in a spirit of co-operation and, in so doing, finding responsible solutions.
In that same spirit, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be open about our concerns and to keep those of our employees in mind. In our opinion, the employees, the federal Government as employer, and the people of Canada all stand to benefit.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) on having provided us with a copy of his statement a few hours before it was presented in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is the employer that has the largest labour force in the country and it is therefore important, and even very important that the issues pertaining to the way the Government manages its human resources be discussed in this House, and if possible settled amicably.

There are four items in this statement, Mr. Speaker, which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) addresses. I would just like to repeat them: the system of master agreement bargaining, a dental plan, a revised pension plan and improved workforce adjustment procedures.
The system of master agreement, of course, is the same as that which was called either a common language agreement or a master wording agreement when the previous administration was negotiating for an agreement on this matter. I do not think the semantics are very important. The fact is that the previous Liberal administration for years had been talking with the unions about this process and had come to a certain understanding. The apple was ripe, the Minister picked it and I congratulate him for doing so. I believe it is a step in the right direction. However, I would like to remind him that humility sometimes helps and that he has to agree that past Presidents of the Treasury Board did accomplish a lot of work on this matter. I congratulate also the unions. The important part of this agreement is their acceptance of this master agreement. I take some joy in congratulating the Minister on his success in
picking the apple, as I said, and bringing it forth in such a short time. The Minister talked about amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I would imagine that he will be coming forth soon with the required amendments to put in force a master agreement bargaining process.
There are certain things that we have addressed over the years-and when I say "we" I mean this Parliament and the employee organizations-in trying to improve employer-employee relations. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the long discussions which were held in regard to the designation process of employees; who designates them, how many are going to be designated, and what is the process which is to be used. I believe that has been an important factor in years gone by in preventing what I would call "amicable relations" from existing between the Treasury Board as an employer and the unions. I hope that anything which is done in terms of a master agreement will encourage public servants and their representatives, the negotiating and bargaining agents, to take the route of arbitration, that is the binding arbitration route, rather than to choose the conciliation-strike route. That is, 1 suppose, the main purpose of my comments with regards to the master contract and the amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. There is nothing in this declaration today, Mr. Speaker, which would lead, at least the public servants or myself at this time, to think that we can read into this announcement anything that will accomplish this. So I hope that the Minister will keep in mind that what we actually look for is an improved negotiating atmosphere in public servants' relations through that designation process, which indeed, in my short time here, has been a thorn in the side of the unions, and justifiably so.
The second question, of course, deals with the dental plan. The Minister talked about a new moderate dental plan. This is something for which, indeed, the Public Service of Canada has been asking for a long time. This is a major announcement and it is welcomed by this Party. But, again, it would have been appreciated if we could have had more specific information. There are an awful lot of questions to be asked, and a major statement of this importance without any financial details appended thereto leaves one wondering about the financial implications. What are the modalities of its application? Who pays for what? Is it pay-as-you-go, cost sharing, voluntary or optional? I would have appreciated at least some ballpark figures from the Minister in terms of the financial commitment, who pays what and who gets what. Nevertheless, I would again like to congratulate the Government and the unions and I say that it is a step in the right direction.
Before I get to the third item, I understand there is to be a board of trustees, which is a nice way of administering such a dental plan. I take it it will be looking into the costs and contributions from members. But what does self-insured mean? What does it mean to public servants? There are all kinds of ways and means of addressing this question, but I will have to wait for the Minister to table further information.
April 17, 1985

The pension issue, of course, is something that I like, having had very deep involvement and interest in the matter over the years. I will not expand on that too much because 1 think Members of the House understand that I could probably take up the rest of the afternoon in talking about indexing of Public Service pensions and probably bore you all to death with the subject. But I am pleased to see that the current problems of the so-called pension funds are going to be addressed. 1 am somewhat mystified by the pay-as-you-go basis which the Minister is taking. What exactly does it mean to public servants in terms of their contributions? It will be interesting to study that matter with him in due course when he comes forward with the legislation amending the pension fund legislation. We will wait for it before congratulating the Minister because it is a real hornet's nest, and he knows it too, I think.

The pension plan management system is interesting. However, I have some doubts about it. For instance, the Minister has said that he will be responsible for the management committee, which will include one chairman and twelve directors, at least twelve directors as stated in the press release, which suggests that there will be fair and equitable representation from both sides to be chosen and appointed by the Minister or by Order in Council following consultations with the unions, or rather, this is not explained in the-


Robert René de Cotret: Six to be appointed by the employer and six by the unions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister has specified that six will be appointed by the employer, that is the Government, and six by the unions. This is one thing that the unions will find satisfactory. In any case, they will have their say on how the plan will be administered.
Now we have to determine how the monies due to the pension plan will be contributed within less than 25 years. Will the indexation fund and the pension fund be put together? Will this huge amount of money, the billions of dollars invested in those funds, be used to finance the whole plan or will the funds remain separate? The pension fund has well above $20 billion, but the indexation fund, which of course was set up more recently, is smaller and is the one which most often creates the actuarial problems we have discussed many times in this House.
The fourth point is-

-the workforce adjustment policies. There is nothing very new in this except that I applaud the commitment made by the Government to retrain those people who, through no fault of their own, because of modernization, technological change, and economic adjustments have been laid off or asked to leave.
As to the four-month extension, well, most Departments had three months and were asked to grant six months, and so now we have four months and we are going to ask them for at least
Statement by Minister
six months. That is not a very big change but it is something in the bank and it will help public servants in adjusting to work changes in the Public Service.
The amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act are interesting. The House of Commons will recall that in 1976 a joint committee of this House and the Senate sat for close to a year and a half reviewing employer-employee relations in the Public Service of Canada following Jacob Finkelman's report to the House of Commons. 1 thought he did a very thorough and interesting study of this relationship. I would like to ask the Minister again to show celerity on this matter of bringing in amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. There are difficult problems at hand and 1 would like to see them resolved, so I am sure he can count on our support and co-operation in trying to come to grips with these amendments.

Concerning the promises made by the Government to the Public Service and the Canadian people during the electoral campaign, true enough, the Minister has kept four out of six of his own promises. This is a very good record, but the Minister has not dealt with the six or seven other interesting matters which were also the subject of promises. What about classification of positions, staffing, and a whole gamut of issues, such as technological changes, job designations which 1 mentioned earlier, and certain other things that are negotiable?
There certainly remains a lot to be done. The Minister will have a chance to examine these issues carefully and perhaps to propose changes shortly to render classification standards negotiable. In my opinion, this question is rather important at this time.
I therefore want to tell the Minister that he has shown that he is capable of doing something meaningful. We shall now see whether his legislation is adequate, and if I may speak for my colleagues in this House, I hope that the Minister will soon be in a position to introduce the amendments needed to implement the dental plan and bring about the required changes to the Act. If he has enough time, he may want to reply to some of the questions I have asked him.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this important announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I congratulate him, his officials and the Public Service union representatives who worked long and hard with the Minister and his staff since January in coming to agreement in four of the six important areas which were on the table at the commencement of the discussions. It is true that not every promise made by the Progressive Conservatives during the election has been fulfilled, and some have been forgotten. Therefore, there is absolutely no question that this announcement is welcomed. It is a very positive announcement for the 250,000 men and women who work for the people of Canada, and it is very

April 17, 1985
Statement by Minister
much, I believe, in the spirit of the commitment made by the Progressive Conservatives last year.
I recognize that there has been some give and take by the unions in their discussions with the Government. Specifically, in return for a master agreement, the unions have given up the right to strike regarding those items that are covered by the master agreement. These items will be refereed by a compulsory conciliation or arbitration process, and that is obviously a major concession on the part of the unions. I think they recognize that there were gains to be had, and I think that there are very positive gains in having common conditions for the most part for all people working in the Public Service of Canada.
I think it is important to free up the time of people who administer labour relations, both on the side of management of the civil service and on the side of public sector unions. If that time is used constructively I think it can lead to a much better climate for labour relations and to more positive and co-operative work arrangements. I think that is very important and I would like to see it copied in the private sector as well. This spirit is not entirely abroad in terms of labour management relations across the country.
The Minister is aware, for example, of the contrary position taken by the Governments of the Provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, both of which have acted to attempt to demean workers in the Public Service and to take their rights away. Those are very negative actions. In the private sector as well there have been many instances when employers have not been prepared to recognize the rights of workers to have unions and to participate in decisions. In effect, they have been trying to go back to the 19th century rather than to move forward into the 21st century.
I am sure the Minister is storing this up to be used perhaps in communications to his Party from time to time. I think it is fair to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. [Translation]
This will depend on the manner in which the promises are kept. The spirit of the agreement is quite positive, but we will have to wait and see how the agreements that have been promised as well as the four other points the Minister has mentioned are implemented.

We certainly hope and expect that this will be carried out in the same spirit. I would personally like to congratulate the Minister because I think he has probably had something of a sticky wicket in terms of dealing with members of the senior civil service who were perhaps not totally in accord with what the Minister was putting forward in seeking to implement promises made by his Party last summer. I would ask those senior civil service employees who have to negotiate the agreements to recognize that at least two Parties in the House of Commons are very much committed to what the Minister has said today.
With regard to the Liberal Party, I welcome the comments of my friend from Ottawa-Vanier. It is true that while they were in power since 1968 they had the chance to bring in a dental plan, but they resisted it. They had the chance to move to a master agreement, but they refused to go along with that. They had the chance to reform pension arrangements, but they did not do it. If they have come around to that point of view now, I welcome that. I certainly hope that people in the Public Service recognize that there is a very strong political commitment to have these things translated into specific actions.
When the Minister sat down with the unions in January there were six different areas of concern. One of the areas not yet resolved is that of political rights. The Minister is confident that this matter "will be satisfactorily resolved". He states that the question of political rights "needs careful consideration to ensure fairness and equity to all concerned".
As the Minister knows, on Monday I initiated a debate on this particular question in the House of Commons. I initiated it because of my commitment and that of my Party to the question of winning political rights for people working for the Public Service of Canada. I was pleased to hear the positive comments of government Members such as the Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister (Mr. Lewis), as well as the positive comments of my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
1 understand that some 50 Members of Parliament have now indicated in writing to the Public Service Alliance that they endorse the positions taken in favour of political rights by their respective Parties. Last summer, in response to the Alliance, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated quite explicitly that the Progressive Conservatives favour a general removal of the restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants who are covered by collective agreements. Perhaps the Minister will agree with me that in the spirit of what is being done today we can, in the future, refer to the people working for the Public Service of Canada as public sector workers rather than public servants, which may have a demeaning connotation. They are workers who do a very important job.
The excellent t.v. advertisements which have been put out by the Alliance over the last month or so have been surprising and positive for people in the country. They showed the range of occupations of Public Service employees working for the people of Canada. They are meteorologists, truck drivers, coast guards and those who do scientific work. It is certainly a far cry from the image of public employees as parasites drawing fancy salaries and sitting in fancy offices in Ottawa effectively doing nothing but conspiring to learn how they can get their next promotion. There may be one or two people like that, as there are in any organization, Mr. Speaker. However, the skill, commitment and engagement of the people who work for the people of Canada as public sector employees should be commended in the House of Commons in this particular discussion. I think it is reflected in what the Minister has done today.
April 17, 1985

However, public sector employees are not equal with regard to the question of political rights. The Minister's statement comes on the day when the equality section of the Charter has come into force. I hope that he will indicate today that he is now prepared, on behalf of the Government, to commit the Government to providing political rights to make public sector employees equal to all other Canadians.
While speaking in the debate on Monday I suggested very specifically that all people working for the Public Service of Canada who are in bargaining units-which would include over 200,000 of our public sector employees-should enjoy political rights on the same basis as all other Canadians, except perhaps with respect to the specific areas in which they are engaged. I suggested that the exclusion from political activity should only apply to the very senior civil service workers. There should perhaps be a system of qualified rights, as suggested in the D'Avignon report, for those management employees who are not in bargaining units but who are not in the top mandarin positions. In that case we may need a case-by-case means of determining which of those persons should have political rights and which should not.
People who ran in the federal election by taking leave from the Public Service were allowed to take leave, stand as candidates, and return to their former jobs in most cases without a political taint accompanying the fact that they were candidates for a particular political Party. Given those circumstances, I find it hard to understand why we cannot allow those public sector employees to enjoy full political rights. Their votes indicate that many of them support my Party, many support the Liberal Party, and a substantial number support the Progressive Conservative Party. In other words, public sector employees are a mirror of the country. By allowing a group of people who mirror the country to enjoy political rights we will not undermine impartiality.
With regard to specifics, we welcome the dental plan which had been so short-sightedly rejected by the Liberals. We will have to study the details, but it will certainly be welcomed by large numbers of people working in the Public Service. We welcome the new arrangement with respect to the pension plan provisions. I hope that the provisions for joint management will spread to the private sector. I would welcome legislation being put forward by one of the Minister's colleagues requiring that that be done with respect to pension plans in the private sector.
I would like to remind the Minister of the concerns of retirees about their pensions being rolled back under the six and five program of the previous Government. That represents a loss of an average of $1,000 a year for the superannuated federal Government employees. I hope that before the new regime comes into effect the Government will act in order to restore the base and indexation that were lost by those particular employees so that it will not be a lifetime loss.
In conclusion I would like to speak on the question of workforce redeployment. I hope that the retraining facilities and the management of lay-offs will be considered much more
Statement by Minister
seriously than they have been in the past. I will comment on that later.
Finally, I hope that this does not represent a carrot on the stick and that the Budget and the Nielsen committee do not crack down on the public sector employees after what has been achieved today. I want to assure the Minister that if the Government plans to take after it has given, we will fight all the way and stand up for those public sector employees against arbitrary cuts and lay-offs. That being said, I welcome the announcement made today.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have some rather specific questions. My first question concerns political rights. Is the Minister prepared to undertake now that in principle the Government will at least provide virtually full political rights to all public sector employees in the Government of Canada who are members of bargaining units, recognizing that there may be some difficulty in defining what political rights may be provided to personnel in management categories?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would have been the happiest person in the House had I been able to announce today an agreement and the resolution of all six issues that we have been discussing with the unions in such a co-operative and consultative fashion over the last six months.
As I mentioned today, we have reached agreement on four issues. One remaining issue concerns the PSSRA amendments which are more detailed and specific and take longer to negotiate. There is nothing ideological about that issue.
The other issue concerns a more difficult question. Even my hon. colleague, in his statement, raised a number of questions about how one defines certain things. All that I can assure my hon. friend is that discussions on this issue are under way. It is our commitment to pursue those discussions with the representatives of our various labour movements.
With respect to the question of political rights for public servants, as well as the amendments, globally, to the PSSRA, hopefully I will be in a position to make a statement in the House as soon as possible.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the Public Service Alliance last summer, the Prime Minister stated that the Progressive Conservative Party favours a general removal of the restrictions to political activity, especially for those public sector workers who are covered by collective agreements. That is essentially what I was talking about.
Can we expect legislation that would essentially implement that commitment by the Progressive Conservatives during the election campaign before the House rises for the summer recess on June 28?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, once again, I would have been very happy to announce something today. It is an issue that is
3824

April 17, 1985
Statement by Minister
under active consideration by Government and by the representatives of all our public sector unions.
I believe that after having dealt successfully and very cooperatively on the first four issues, we will be able to do the same with the other issues.
The Hon. Member is asking me to give a definite date. I cannot give my hon. colleague a definitive date. All I can assure him of is that the fact that this was not announced today should not be seen as any indication that the Government does not accord this issue a high priority. It is just a matter of discussions and of reaching a mutual understanding with our colleagues on the labour side. This will continue very actively. What I have announced today is not the end but the beginning on a new era in labour relations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of pensions, will the Minister undertake to supply both opposition Parties with the necessary documentation to study the subject matter so that we can understand and discuss this matter openly and also talk about the same questions?
As he knows, there are actuarial considerations and other economic factors involved in the whole question of pensions. It is an important subject and one which is very confusing. In order to allow time for us to look into it, will he give us the benefit of the information he has before him so that we can deal with it?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the House with all the necessary information on this issue. I have indicated today the major principles on which the employer and employee representatives have reached an agreement. Of course, there remain many details which will have to be finalized. A number of actuarial studies will have to be completed. But as soon as representatives from both sides have negotiated and approved the last details, I will be pleased to table them in the House for all to see and make appropriate comments. There are no problems.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. I have a Private Members' Bill on the Order Paper, with respect to political nights, and there is an amendment by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) which says that the Bill be not now read a second time but the subject matter be referred to the appropriate committee of the House. Would the Minister prevail upon his House Leader to agree that that matter be called again and dealt with without further debate, in order that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to the appropriate committee, thus providing a vehicle for the Government and the Public Service unions to make their views known?
Second, does the Minister propose to continue the option of the right to strike, or will there be compulsory arbitration? Which route will he take?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question, I am well aware of the Hon. Member's views with regard to referring this issue to a parliamentary committee. It is certainly something that I am more than happy to consider. However, I do take some objection to his suggestion that this would be necessary in order to provide a vehicle so that views can be made known. We have a vehicle which today has produced four very major amendments to the way we deal with labour-management relations.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am trying to be helpful.


Robert René de Cotret: I appreciate that. That is why I am saying that in view of the Hon. Member's attempt to be helpful I will consider his point of view. I would like to pursue all the other methods of resolving this complex issue. We want it resolved and I believe that we are all working toward the same goal.
It is certainly something that I will consider and I will attempt to respond to the Hon. Member shortly on which way we would prefer to proceed.
The second point raised by the Hon. Member concerns the right to strike. It is not a question of giving up the right to strike or taking away the right to strike. I do not think that is an issue. We are essentially saying that the new scheme of bargaining at the master table was accepted mutually and was not something imposed by the Government. It was a question of both parties arriving at a mutually agreeable solution as to how to resolve an impasse should it arise at the master table. It is not arbitration, it is binding conciliation.
Perhaps I can give the Hon. Member some details about the way it would work. Rather than arbitration, there would be a system of binding conciliation whereby both the union involved, be it PIPS or PSAC, would appoint a conciliator and management would appointment a conciliator. They would be asked to agree jointly on an independent chairperson within a given period of time yet to be determined. Should those two appointed members, one from labour and one from management, not reach agreement within that time period, the chairperson would then be appointed by the chairman of the PSSRB.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why not by you?


Robert René de Cotret: No, then it becomes too one-sided. I am sorry, but I think a fair deal has to be a fair deal. At that point, obviously, if the three agree it is binding. If there is a majority agreement it is binding. If the three agree to disagree, the chairperson's decision is the one that is binding on all parties.
From a legislative point of view, that is a very significant departure from the arbitration process we now have, because it gives a much more direct say to labour and to the employer in the selection of a panel.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A very short question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister indicate whether there is a time schedule for
April 17, 1985

implementing the four points he has mentioned today? Is there one for possible amendments? Will it take place during this session? Will it be completed within the present session? Can we expect the Minister to give us information about the dental plan? In other words, could the minister give us an idea of the time schedule agreed upon with the unions?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when our negotiations started with labour associations, I expected that an agreement in principle would be reached for Easter. It was reached on Easter Monday; we unfortunately missed our goal by a day.
Obviously, it will take time to put into law what I announced today, and there will be unavoidable delays that should be respected in the House. For example, when we refer to the master agreement, the legislation must be amended and I think that it is useless to present only amendments concerning the master agreement when there is a long list of changes which are now being negotiated on other issues already mentioned by my colleague.
That is why we would like to introduce a series of amendments to the legislation. In the meantime, with respect to the master agreement, if my legal advice is correct, under a joint agreement with the unions, we can negotiate on that basis just the same. The unions have accepted the principle which must be ratified under the agreement and are willing, despite any amendment to the legislation, to proceed quickly with the negotiations on the master agreement.
The dental plan does not give rise to any legal problem, so we will carry on. It is merely a matter of mechanism to be determined.
As for adjustments to the labour force, they have already been approved and no amendment to the legislation is necessary; some change is needed but with agreement it could be done immediately. This means that pensions will be the issue which will require more consideration on the legislative level.
A calendar ? I should like of course to introduce a bill as soon as possible. Some actuarial studies will be done by both parties to enable us to come to an agreement about the provisions of the bill, but I surely hope that a bill will be introduced before the end of this session.



CUSTOMS ACT


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-40, an Act to confirm certain acts or things done on behalf of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise and to amend the Customs Act and the Special Import Measures Act.
Order Paper Questions


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 281, 282, and 283.



Mr. Stackhouse: For the years (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 how many persons paid no income tax with income of (i) $100,000 or more (ii) $50,000 to $99,999 (iii) $40,000 to $49,999 (iv) $30,000 to $39,999 (v) $20,000 to $29,999 (vi) $10,000 to $19,999?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Number of Non-taxablc Tl Returns*1*
Total I ncomc
Assessed*-*	1980	1981	1982	I983*3*(i)	830	1,490	836	1.120(ii)	4.020	6,541	4.679	6,662(iii)	4.335	5,774	5,201	6.760(iv)	8.651	11.086	10.803	11.310(v)	19.610	22.794	22.699	24.507(vi)	91,859	114.269	187.476	256,681
Notes: I. An individual's return is non-taxablc when no tax federal and/or provincial) is assessed.
2.	Total income assessed is the total of income from all sources (page I of Tl return) before subtracting allowable deductions or exemptions.
3.	Data for 1983 tax year is preliminary. It reflects approximately 96 per cent of returns filed.


CORPORATE DEFERRAL OF INCOME TAX
Mr. Stackhouse: For the years (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 how many corporations were permitted to defer the payment of all or part of their income tax with a gross income of (i) $100,000,000 or more (ii) $50,000,000 to $99,999,999 (iii) $40,000,000 to $49,999,999 (iv) $30,000,000 to $39,999,999 (v) $20,000,000 to $29,999,999 (vi) $10,000,000 to $19,999,999 (vii) $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 (viii) $5,000,000 and under?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The
Income Tax Act does not allow corporations to defer the payment of income taxes. However, there is a quite separate item known as the "Provision for Deferred Income Taxes" that is often reported in a corporation statement as an expense. The amount shown is an estimate of taxes payable in future years

April 17, 1985
Business of the House
because of timing differences in accounting for book purposes and taxation purposes. This amount is accumulated over the years and reported as a liability item "Reserve for future income tax" in the company's balance sheet.
1980	1981
Number of corporations with "Provision for
Deferred Income Taxes"	73.029	72.968
There are no statistics currently available on the number of these corporations by range of gross income or for years subsequent to 1981.


DEFERRAL OF INCOME TAX BY INDIVIDUALS
Mr. Stackhouse: For the years (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 how many individuals were allowed to defer payment of their income tax?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The
Income Tax Act does not allow individuals to defer payment of their income taxes.
[ Translation]


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to rise briefly at this time with respect to the business of the House. Yesterday I alluded to the fact that I anticipated that Government Motion No. 17 respecting the reference of CN pensions to the Standing Committee on Transport would be dealt with today. Indeed that will be the first item of business.
There have been consultations between the Parties. If Your Honour places this matter before the House, there will be a disposition to accept the following motion:
That the motion appearing under Government Order No. 17 be amended by deleting all the words after the word "stafF'.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is unanimous consent for that procedure.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study all matters related to the Canadian National Railways' pension system;
That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the proposed order of reference and the amendment to which all the Parties unanimously agreed. The issue relates to the terms of reference with respect to CN pensions. I know many Hon. Members who have been in the House for quite some time have a particular interest in this issue, as do I. It has been around for a long time. I know they share a concern for the inadequacy of pensions for CN retirees. I think I can say quite safely that this extends beyond the ambit of CNR. Perhaps it would be more proper to address this question both to CN and to CP. Since CN is a Crown corporation, we have a responsibility to try to examine this issue in detail and, hopefully, reach a satisfactory conclusion.
It is in that spirit that I look forward to the comments of members of the New Democratic Party and of the Liberal Party. I am confident that they will find support for this measure and I hope that they will be able to support the reference. It is an issue which affects some 47,000 CN pensioners. Perhaps the implications will apply to other railway pensioners as well; let us hope so.
The Government is committed to ensuring that the matter of CN pensions receives the appropriate consideration of the Parliament of Canada. 1 say that because, as I indicated earlier, Members on all sides of the House for many years have had an abiding interest in this. There are Members here today who have participated in this issue before the standing committee. There have been many inquiries, such as the Hall inquiry on railway pensions in the mid-seventies and there was work following that.
April 17, 1985

I believe it is fair to say that Members have pursued this issue with a great amount of sincerity. We are trying to capitalize on that goodwill and sincerity to try and reach a fair and equitable solution by having this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. I believe that the Standing Committee on Transport is really the appropriate vehicle to examine this issue. It is the appropriate forum for a number of reasons. First, it is a parliamentary body. I believe the committee will ensure that there are proper public hearings, which I believe is one of the things that is uppermost in the minds of pensioners. Representations that I have received indicate that the pensioners want the opportunity to discuss this issue in a public forum. They want the opportunity to present their concerns and grievances, and to hear the response of CN in front of their elected representatives in a duly constituted public forum. That is very important.
We on this side of the House believe that it is incumbent upon us to provide them with that opportunity. While there are some spokesmen from the Liberal Party, not necessarily in this Chamber today, who might take exception to the forum, I believe it is fair to say that the pensioners have recommended this kind of forum. I was pleased to note that in a CP article just recently Mr. J. Earl White, who has been referred to as the champion of the railway pensioners, said he was very encouraged by the action that the Government was taking. He is the head of the Vancouver based Canadian Railways Employees' Pension Association. He retired in 1974 after 46 years of railway service and has been in the forefront of the battle for better pensions ever since. The article reads:
He said in a telephone interview he asked Mazankowski for the committee study because the issue has been studied enough by outside experts .... Mazankowski understands the issue and will understand the committee's recommendation, White said, adding the committee study is needed to clear away any doubts of how the national railways have abused their employees' pension plan.
I cite that not only because he says some very flattering words about yours truly, but as well because we have captured the essence of what the pensioners want. I think they are pleased with the forum that we are proposing here today.
As I said earlier, we believe that this is the right forum. We know that there was an inquiry proposed by the last administration. It was in recognition of these representations that I felt that the inquiry that was proposed by the previous administration would not necessarily meet the concerns of the pensioners. Therefore, we decided to cancel the inquiry that was set up by the previous Government.
I want to say to all Members of the House, and indeed to Mr. Brian Williams, that in making the decision I certainly in no way want to cast any reflection upon the integrity, reputation or ability of the commissioner who was appointed, namely Mr. Brian Williams of Vancouver. My decision to cancel that procedure should in no way be construed as a reflection upon his competence, but rather it was a decision based upon the desire to proceed in a more direct public manner in tune with the issues and the desires of the pensioners, the people who feel
Canadian National Pensions
aggrieved by the way in which their pensions had been handled.
The second reason for choosing the Standing Committee on Transport is that, as well as being a pension issue, this is a matter which involves Canada's railways. There has always been a special relationship in Canada between the railways and Parliament. I think that is recognized by the fact that we have a Railway Committee Room in this building. The Railway Committee Room stands as the permanent room for the activities of the Standing Committee on Transport.
Those of us who have been a part of this committee for many years are very proud of that fact. I guess that in a technical sense I am not a member of that committee, but I still feel very much a part of it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is still your home.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I feel very much at home when I go to meetings of the standing committee. The railways have a special place in the history of our country. I believe that the people who work for the railways deserve special recognition.
I know that in my days as a member of the standing committee, the concerns of railway employees were always of interest and concern to all members who sat on that committee, particularly those who were former railroaders and never ceased their efforts on behalf of their co-workers.
I can certainly single out the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who has been a champion on behalf of not only the current railway workers, but of the pensioners; his former colleague from Moose Jaw, Mr. Skoberg; and, of course, the eminent Member of the other place, the former Whip of the Liberal Party, Senator Charlie Turner, who certainly distinguished himself in terms of representing the interests of the railway workers and pensioners. I guess if I had one regret, it is that Mr. Turner will not be a member of that committee. I am sure that he will find the occasion to come in from time to time and give the committee any advice it may wish to extract from him.
I am sure as well that the present committee will benefit from many of the new members. The new membership on that committee is made up of a very talented group of Canadians. That new blood and expertise, combined with the stability, wisdom and commitment of veterans like the chief spokesman for the Official Opposition Party and the chief spokesman for the New Democratic Party and others, that blend will augur well in coming up with a real set of balanced recommendations that we can follow.
I urge all Members of the House and the standing committee to remember that we are dealing with an issue that affects the lives of some 47,000 former CN employees and their dependants. It may very well have implications beyond that. These people have provided years of dedicated service to our country, many for as long as 30 or 40 years. They are now senior citizens and do not have the sophisticated computers or lawyers to argue their case. I believe that their views must be

April 17, 1985
Canadian National Pensions
heard and that in the standing committee they will find a responsive and sympathetic listener.
Third, and this relates to my previous comments, the standing committee has shown considerable interest in this matter in the past and has acquired a knowledge and understanding that should be utilized. As recently as in the spring of 1984, the standing committee was seized with this particular issue. The committee had the opportunity, at least in part, to hear from the Pensioners' Association and CN. Unfortunately, we were not able to complete a thorough examination such as today we are proposing to do.
Previous to that in June, 1982 the standing committee adopted the motion of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) to consider the issue. Regrettably, that examination was also not concluded. Given the historical work of the committee, its interest in railway issues and the desire of the pensioners for a proper public hearing, I think that the broad order of reference to the committee which we have put forward is the most appropriate approach to this long-standing and very complex matter.
I must emphasize that the decision to bring forward an order of reference is consistent with the Government's interest in an over-all approach to Canada's pension and retirement income system. We are fully aware of the importance of the whole pension question and the great deal of work and examination that has been undertaken recently. Our Government is committed to assisting all Canadians in preparing for retirement that would allow them to live in dignity and security. I believe that the efforts of the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to CN pensions will provide valuable information and insight regarding retirement income arrangements for all Canadians.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House by discussing the specific issues of concern to the pensioners. I believe we should leave it to the wisdom of the committee to determine the best manner in which to proceed on those questions which might require special attention. We deliberately tried to shape the order of reference to permit this sort of flexibility. At the same time, notwithstanding the committee's own expertise, we have recognized that this issue contains many complex technical, legal and financial elements. Accordingly, we believe that the committee will benefit from the assistance of various experts such as actuaries and pension fund analysts, and that the terms of reference provide the committee with the ability to engage such assistance as it may require. Again, that expertise and background competence that will be required combined with the expertise and the political judgment of the members of the committee will, I am sure, give us the ingredients to come forth with what I would hope to be fair, equitable and practical recommendations.
If I might, I would like to say that I think this reflects the kind of faith that we as a Government place in the institutions and instruments of Parliament, and that faith is shared by all Members on this side of the House. We are committed to
restoring the role of Parliament and parliamentarians and in particular we believe that committees can play a valuable role in the exploration of issues and the formulation of public policy. I say to the members of the Standing Committee on Transport that I intend to seek their advice on a wide range of issues and policy matters. I hope to count upon their advice and good counsel on these issues. They have already provided valuable advice and recommendations in several areas and I look forward to their efforts with regard to the CN pensions and to other matters.
If I may indulge in a moment of flattery, I would like to state that in my years as a parliamentarian, there has been no finer committee in the House than the Standing Committee on Transport. I have witnessed, as I am sure have many Hon. Members, some very remarkable and fascinating debates around that committee table. A great deal of thoughtful analysis has provided many outstanding and constructive reports and pieces of legislation to this House. I know that that tradition will be hard to live up to, but I am confident that the present membership is equal to that task. I sincerely look forward to their positive efforts on behalf of CN's 47,000 pensioners and I urge the House to give its approval to the order of reference so that the committee can get down to work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to infringe upon the time allotted for the reply by my hon. friend from the Official Opposition. However, I would like to point out to the Minister that it seems to me that there is an omission in the order of reference. I would like to know what his view is regarding the matter of the committee's right to travel. If the Minister will recall, in 1970 we went to six cities because the pensioners could not afford to come to Ottawa. Will the committee have the right to travel? If not, will the committee have the right to provide funds for those witnesses who are pensioners to come to Ottawa?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the case of providing funds for witnesses to come to Ottawa, I think that has always been a standard procedure. If the committee desires to cover the costs of witnesses whom it wants to bring to Ottawa, that is certainly within its power. I am not sure about the committee's mandate to travel. I had sensed that it was considered more appropriate, given the fact that there was going to be a considerable battery of expertise required, to conduct most of the hearings in Ottawa and to bring to Ottawa those witnesses whom the committee deemed necessary. If there are extenuating circumstances and travel arrangements may be required, I would in no way want to impair the ability of the committee to do its job simply by denying it the right to travel. I am sure that that is something that can be arranged.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, further to that, should the committee decide that there is a need to travel to one or more places, will the Minister and the Government be willing to bring in an amended or additional order of reference?
April 17, 1985


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if that provision is not provided for in the terms of reference, I would certainly take it up with the House Leader if a representation were to be made to me.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support a motion presented by the Government on behalf of my Party, the Liberal Party of Canada, a motion that will empower the Standing Committee on Transport to study the very important question of the Canadian National Railways' pension plan. It is a question that, as the Minister said earlier, affects some 45,000 CN pensioners, and as such, it is extremely important but also extremely complex and should be examined forthwith by the Members of this House, since it has already been the subject of discussions and in-depth studies for a number of years. These pensioners want action, and they want that action to be taken as soon as possible in this case.
I noticed that the Minister said the motion will empower committee members to retain the services of experts, professional technical staff, actuaries and other professionals to help them in their work. The Minister has therefore realized that this is a very complex matter. In fact, although I can give the House the assurance that the Members of the Official Opposition are prepared to give their full co-operation and support for this study, there are nevertheless two things that I regret. First of all, I think this Government has taken far too long since the opening of the new session to decide what it was going to do, before it finally referred this question to the Standing Committee on Transport. It is a decision I can accept, and I congratulate the Minister for having made the decision. However, I would have preferred the Committee to have been better prepared to do its work. The Minister mentioned earlier that he had to cancel a study by an expert who had been selected to examine the question by the previous, Liberal, Government. 1 maintain that if the study by this independent expert had been done, the Members of the Standing Committee who must examine this matter today would have been better prepared to do their work quickly, incisively and effectively.
I think it would be in order to recall a few historical facts. The Minister mentioned the name of Mr. Earl White, the National President of the Canadian Railways Employees' Pension Association. The House will recall that Mr. White appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport on June 7, 1984. I am going to quote a short passage from the statement made by Mr. White at that time. He said that they examined the pensions being paid by the CN pension fund and concluded that CN were using an inappropriate or unsound mathematical equation to calculate pensions. This had led to massive gains to the fund at the expense of pensioners.
Mr. White went on to say in his statement before the Standing Committee on Transport, and I quote:
Canadian National Pensions
CN chose to use an inappropriate equation and have continued to use it for 19 years of highcr-than-normal inflation. As a result, it is estimated that about 20 per cent of the pension that pensioners should have received has stayed in the fund. Some pensioners will receive in 1984 only about half the pension they should receive. Others will receive about 17 per cent more than they should receive, but that is a short-term gain.

Mr. Speaker, this was indeed a very serious charge which caused some commotion among members of the Standing Committee on Transport.
Following Mr. White's testimony, the President of Canadian National, Dr. Maurice LeClair, wrote a letter to the Minister of Transport at the time in which he made the following comments, which I also would like to quote very briefly. Mr. LeClair said the following, and I quote:

The most recent evidence of this concern is a submission presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport by the President of the Canadian Railways Employees' Pension Association, Mr. J. Earl White. The Association's brief was provided to the Committee members on 28 May, and Mr. White appeared as a witness before the Committee on 7 June.
We are prepared to appear before the Standing Committee to respond to the statements made in the brief and to answer any other questions concerning the Company's management of its pension plans.
However, it seems to me that the interests of all parties involved in this debate would be better served by some new initiative designed to remove the mistrust which appears to exist at the present time.
I am suggesting that you consider the appointment of an independent consultant or advisor to review CN's stewardship of its pension plans and pension trust fund and report to you on his/her findings. The examination should include an analysis of the matters contained in the submission presented to the Parliamentary Committee by Mr. White on behalf of the Canadian Railways Employees' Pension Association.
At the same time, we believe it would be useful to report on the adequacy of the ad hoc adjustments provided to our pensioners. It is our opinion that our actions in this regard should be assessed in comparison with other "commercial" Crown corporations and large private sector employers, especially those of our main competitor, and with appropriate recognition to the level of initial benefit provided by our pension plans and the ratio of pensioners to active members of our workforce.

Subsequently, after hearing these widely divergent points of view, the Minister of Transport appointed on August 21, 1984, Mr. Bryan Williams of Vancouver as special adviser responsible for examining the financing and administration of Canadian National's pension plan. This independent commissioner could obtain the views of both parties and be instrumental in neutralizing the atmosphere of suspicion that seemed to prevail on both sides, and he would be able to review the structure, policy and administration of CN pension plans as well as the pension fund itself. The commissioner was to include a detailed analysis of the claims presented by the Pensioners' Association before the Standing Committee on Transport on May 28, 1984. He was to have meetings with most of the parties concerned in this case, including CN authorities, the Pensioners' Association, the unions, government representatives and pensions experts. Everyone had

April 17, 1985
Canadian National Pensions
approved and applauded this initiative by the Minister of Transport at the time. Everyone acknowledged the competence and impartiality of the expert in question, and 1 was glad to hear the Minister earlier this afternoon when he recognized the qualifications and impartiality of Mr. Williams, whose competence and ability to examine such issues are certainly not in doubt. In fact, Mr. Williams had already started on his study. He had several meetings with the President of Canadian National and his immediate staff. He also met with union representatives and already started to do some very important and very useful work. All of a sudden, however, he received a letter, a notice, a telex in fact, announcing that his services were no longer required by the new Minister of Transport.
1 think this was a rather hasty decision on the part of the new Minister, because it will cause the Members who are to examine this question to lose more time. The fact that the Minister, in his motion, recommends retaining the services of consultants, actuaries and specialists to help Members in the work they will have to do in the weeks to come clearly indicates how important it would be to have this impartial, independent and objective study to give Members some clarification regarding the recommendations and the decisions they will have to make. 1 say that if Mr. Williams had been allowed to continue his work, we would now, on this very day, have a thorough study of the issues that would help us understand and analyze what we can and what we should decide on the Standing Committee on Transport. And we would not have to start from scratch as will now probably be the case, and hear testimony and get the advice and information of all parties concerned, consult the experts and finally make recommendations. All this work would have been done in recent months, and we would now, in Committee, have been able to proceed with an analysis of the expert's recommendations after examining any testimony he would have been able to collect, and in a few weeks we would have been able to proceed and give satisfaction to the parties concerned.
1 believe that the task that awaits the Committee on Transport is a very difficult one that will take several weeks and that will require a great deal of attention and a great deal of study on the part of the members of this Committee. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Members who sit on the committee will be unremitting and unrelenting in their work on behalf of those pensioners, for it is obvious that we consider this to be a vital matter for thousands of CN pensioners who have been urging all along that something be done about it. I give them the assurance that we will give our undivided attention to this new mandate of the Standing Committee on Transport.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we fully support the motion, but we believe that the work will take more time and be more difficult because Mr. Bryan Williams was not allowed to do the preliminary work required to find acceptable solutions to this problem. I hope we come up with the answers
and find a satisfactory solution to this question of retired CN workers' pensions. The recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport will also be useful to Canadian Pacific pensioners because, although the Canadian National is a Crown corporation and our duty is to look after Government employees or CN pensioners, I would suggest that our work will serve the interests of CP pensioners. That is the hope I express, Mr. Speaker, as I give you the assurance that the representatives of the Official Opposition will do their utmost to find a viable solution to this problem.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the observations and intervention by the transport critic of the Official Opposition go by without at least a brief comment. The distinguished Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) should know better than to attempt to mislead this chamber and the pensioners. The Hon. Member for Papineau is fully aware that this matter was before the Standing Committee as early as 1982. The committee at that time was prepared to go ahead with it. The then Minister of Transport was not prepared to let us go ahead, and I can assume that was because of a government decision.
The second comment I would like to make is, the Hon. Member will be fully aware that it was in early November when the first draft of the terms of reference for this very matter with which we are dealing today was presented to the Official Opposition for its consideration. It was rejected at that time by the House Leader of the Official Opposition and by the transport critic.
My third brief comment has to do with the single commissioner named by the former Minister of Transport. When was he named and under what circumstances? It was in the heat of an election in response to pressures being brought to bear upon him, when, Mr. Speaker, in fact that Party had two and a half years to deal with it. It had been aware of the issue for four or five years. I have no specific questions to ask the Hon. Member, but I wanted the record very clear with respect to that matter. Don't start us out this way. We have a good committee. Perhaps if I have a question for the distinguished Hon. Member, it would be to ask whether or not his views could lead the committee to believe that he might grace the meetings once in a while with his presence.


André Ouellet: In connection with the comments the Parliamentary Secretary has just made, I should like to say very briefly that the representations made last November to the House Leader of the Official Opposition clearly referred to the vast number of subcommittees which the government wanted to establish to meet the aspirations and frustrations of its crushing majority of backbenchers which it wanted to keep busy. Neither the House Leader of the Official Opposition nor the House Leader of the New Democratic Party could accept
April 17, 1985

the large number of subcommittees the government was recommending.
We received only recently its recommendation to refer the matter to a standing committee, not a special committee or a subcommittee, and we accepted it immediately.
Also, the Hon. Member has regards for no comments but his own. I have listened to him most attentively and I should appreciate it if he acted likewise.
Finally, he stated that Mr. Williams had been appointed during the election campaign. Let me tell him this: The impartiality and competence of the independent expert who was appointed at the time by the former Minister of Transport were recognized by all interested parties. Because the appointment of this highly qualified expert took place during the election campaign, the Parliamentary Secretary feels it is a political one.
So I understand why the new Minister of Transport has hurriedly cancelled that appointment which he considered a political one. I think it is regrettable, notwithstanding the fact that the appointment took place last August, during the election campaign. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if he had not been fired by the new minister, Mr. Williams would probably have already completed his study, informed us of the results of his investigations and conversations with CN pensioners and officials, as well as with union representatives and Canadian pension plans administrators. But someone else will have to do that job all over again. I suggest, therefore, that the new Minister of Transports' ill-advised decision will only delay the work which, I think, we are all anxious to start.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) for a question or a comment.


Mr. Bissonnette:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Papi-neau (Mr. Ouellet) is trying to tell us that no political appointments were made by his party before the last election. Are you aware that you lost loads of votes in Canada because of what you did? Have you not realized that yet? I would advise the Hon. Member for Papineau to come to the House once in a while and see what is going on and see how many people his party has in this House. This is the result of what you have done. You may have appointed people whom you should not have. You have to face the facts and I think that this is altogether obvious. What the Minister of Transport has done, I believe, he has done in good conscience and with integrity.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) had better keep silent and see to his own affairs instead of getting mixed up in something which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. I can hardly wait to hear him talk about the fate of the Federal Business Development Bank the headquarters of which are located in Montreal, and which is also about to be phased out. That was another one of the major achievements of the
Canadian National Pensions
previous Government which is being sabotaged by the Progressive Conservative Government.
I maintain that Mr. Williams' appointment was not of a political nature. This man is a commissioner with the Law Reform Commission; he is one of the senior officials of the Advocacy Public Interest Center in British Columbia, his actuarial abilities are well known and respected, and he was appointed to do a job. The Minister of Transport is doing his best to repeal all the appointments made by his predecessor throughout the years. Not only has he fired Mr. Williams, but he has also, in a manner quite unprecedented in Canada, massively hired all the directors of the Crown corporations under his jurisdiction. As far as partisanry is concerned, we definitely will not accept being lectured by the Hon. Minister who has just risen. He has only to look at the shameful patronage schemes being carried out by his colleague, the Minister of Transport, who has appointed friends of the Prime Minister to Air Canada's board of directors without doing anything to keep the board representative of the various groups in Canada. Friends of the Prime Minister and no one else have been appointed to Air Canada by the Minister of Transport, and unfortunately, I am afraid that Canadian National pensioners will have to wait several months before we, in the Standing Committee on Transport, can make recommendations to help solve their problems. They will have to wait several months because Mr. Williams was prevented from doing his work last summer, last fall and last winter by the Minister of Transport.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I find it most amusing listening to kettles calling pots black and pots calling kettles black when they are both black.
I want to congratulate the Minister for bringing in this order of reference. I know he and his colleagues were working on this back in November and they were good enough to show me a first and second draft. 1 do not know what happened in between times, but we have the order of reference in this motion and I want to say that Members of the committee, the chairman, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), and the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), as well as the Minister, have been most helpful and co-operative in this matter and I give them full marks and full credit for it because those three, myself and one or two others who are still Members of this House have been faced with this issue of railway pensions every darn year, several times a year since 1968 when I first came here. Frankly, we are all sick and tired of getting this thrown at us every year.
I want to tell you a little bit about the history of this matter starting in 1968. My friend from Vegreville will remember the way we finally got the matter of CNR pensions referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. We filibustered the old

April 17, 1985
Canadian National Pensions
style CNR financing Bill for two sessions to the point where the CNR had run out of money and had to go to the private market because the Government could not give them any. Then and only then did we get the CNR pensions and the matter of the CNR debt referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the former Hon. Member for London East, now in the other place, was an active Member of that committee. The then chairman of the committee from the Government side, plus the Members I have already mentioned, as well as myself and the former Hon. Member for Moose Jaw, spent months digging into this issue. It was one of those rare occasions when a committee came up with a unanimous report and it was unanimously adopted by Parliament which, in essence, said that those CN pensioners should get a 2 per cent per year increase retroactive for 20 years.
In effect, this meant a 40 per cent increase. Now, for many of them it was no big deal. Three thousand of them were getting $25 a month or less so all we accomplished was to get them boosted up to $40. Well, it was better than nothing. A little over 10,000 of them were getting less than $100 a month, so we got another 40 bucks for them. But when Parliament had unanimously adopted the unanimous report of the committee, the CNR refused to do it. So we had to go back to filibustering the CNR financing Bill until finally the then Minister of Transport made the CNR do it by 1971 or 1972. Then the CPR had to follow suit.
If I have a criticism of this order of reference, it is that I think it should include Canadian Pacific as well as Canadian National because, in many respects, Sir, their pension plan is even worse. Their pensioners get an even worse deal than those of the CN. However, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary and the chairman of the steering committee will agree that we are going to invite Canadian Pacific to appear voluntarily. If they refuse to do so, that is their problem, but maybe we can come back to the House and ask for the power to subpoena them. But if they choose not to appear voluntarily, I am hoping the committee will choose to invite CPR pensioner associations as well as the CNs, because many of them are in even worse shape.
There is something else about railway pension plans, and this also applies to a lot of other public and private pension plans. In the years when I was on the railroad I was always under the impression, which turned out to be a delusion, that the company deducted 6 per cent or 7 per cent a month from my pay cheque, contributed an equal amount and at the end of every month they took that money and sent it to the pension plan. Well, Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Ottawa as a new, green and stupid MP, and I am not green any more, the first time we had to deal with the CNRs annual report, it said the pension liability was about $1.5 billion. It said in the annual report what was in the CN pension fund. Well, I thought, if there is $1.5 billion in the damn thing, they should be able to double the pensions just on the earnings of the pension fund. Well, that was when I found out the difference
between funded and unfunded liability. I am just an ordinary country innocent, a prairie boy, and did not know the difference, never heard of such a thing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I thought you were a railroader.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Same thing. I found out that what an unfunded liability of $1.5 billion means is that the money is not there. It is just a liability on paper. That is when I found out that my contributions and the company's contribution did not go into the pension fund every month. They did not put my money, any railroader's money, or even their own money into the pension fund until the employee retired.
Those contributions are part of the cost of labour for the railroads, for which they take full tax deductions. That money belongs to the employees and the pensioners and to no one else. All these decades both railroads have had unfunded liabilities. There were some steps taken by a previous Minister of Transport requiring that they bring these pension plans into a funded liability state. I think CN has until the year 2006 and CP has until the year 2025. In the meantime, they are using those employee contributions and the money they should be putting in for other purposes until they catch up with the funded liability. In other circles, that would be called theft or fraud, but I am not suggesting for one minute that the officers and management of the pension plan of CN and CP are crooks. Not at all. They are doing it according to the law, the way the law lets them do it, so they are no different than any other taxpayer in this country. But that means there is something wrong with the law and it is the job of the Standing Committee on Transport and the job of Parliament to change that once and for all so we do not have this every darned year for the next 25 years. I, of course, will not be here then, but maybe the Hon. Member for Vegreville will be, although he looks older than me. We should once and for all establish a fully funded regime for a pension plan of this, Corwn corporation which sets an example for all other public and private pension plans.
The Minister mentioned 47,000 CN pensioners. That is another reason I wish that the order of reference included Canadian Pacific, because that would include at least another
30,000	or 35,000. We must hear from them. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Much has been said by the rail pensioners associations. Their major premise was that those on pensions do not get adequate increases from excess earnings which amount to tens of millions of dollars. There has been no orderly, regular increase in existing railway pensions. It has been done as and when the railway pension board got around to doing it. There was no systematic built-in increase, even for the cost of living.
Between the two railroads there is something close to $4 billion in liabilities tor those two pension funds. That money belongs to all employees; union, non-union, and management. That money does not belong to the companies. That is why it is imperative that we get those pension plans on a fully funded
April 17, 1985

basis. If the CNR or CPR want to borrow the money back from the pension fund for use for capital expenditures or cash flow, that is fine. Those pension funds invest in a host of things including government bonds and annuities. They get a return on those investments. The companies must be made to put the employees' share and their share into the fund in cash at the end of every month. There is nothing wrong with them borrowing it back from the fund, but a pension fund must be a fully funded liability. There must be one, two, or three railway pensioners on the Pension board. There must be adequate representation from the organizations representing present employees.
I would like to say that I appreciate the lifting of the deadline on the committee. With the amount of work which was on the plate of the Transport Committee there was no way in which we could have completed this work by the end of June. We now have no deadline. I am confident that the committee will report back no later than the day we adjourn for the Christmas break, and hopefully a month or two sooner than that. I would even be willing to spend a week in the summer travelling and hearing witnesses.
As something of a compromise between the other side of the House and the Official Opposition, perhaps we should ask Mr. Williams to appear as a witness. He has the expertise and I am sure he would be welcome. In that way we will get the benefit of his views and have the best of both worlds. The job was initially done by the Transport Committee in 1969 and 1970 and we can do it again.
In addition to any recommendations that we may make regarding increases and benefits for those already on pension, I hope that we will make unanimous recommendations requiring fully funded pension plans which will put an end to this continuous pressure on Members of Parliament from pensioners. If we can set that example in the railway field the other public and private pension plans will have to measure up. The pressure on them will become so horrendous that they will have to do better jobs in funding pension plans and in the treatment of pensioners.
I know railroaders who worked for 40 or 45 years and got $400 or $500 a month pensions when they retired 15 years ago. They had planned ahead to the day they would retire. That looked like a good deal. Those are the ones from whom we are getting letters now. What was a comfortable living 15 years ago is not adequate now. It costs that much to rent a half decent apartment. It costs twice that much to go into a privately run senior citizens home. Even adding veterans pension, old age pension, and Guaranteed Income Supplement together, it is not sufficient for a retired couple to keep their bills paid and have enough money left over to bury them. They need at least $2,000 or $2,400 a month just to be comfortable.
I welcome this move by the Government, Mr. Speaker. If the committee finds it needs an extension of the order of reference I hope the Government will be co-operative. I am confident that the Minister will fight for the needs of the committee. I would like to duplicate what we did in 1969 and 1970 in terms of hearing witnesses. I believe we went to
Canadian National Pensions
Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver. We then paid travel expenses for pension groups to come in from other places. Some of the railway pensioner associations dug into their own savings to cover the cost of printing and duplicating their submissions to the Transport Committee. Last year we were able to allot some money to them to cover those costs. The steering committee will have to decide which is the most economical, efficient and fair method. Most of the witnesses and their associations cannot afford the expenses.
I would again like to thank the Minister for finally getting this to us. We support the motion and look forward to a successful series of hearings, a unanimous report from the committee, and the unanimous agreement of the Parliament of Canada to enable us to do something about this, once and for all.


Mr. Dorin:: Mr. Speaker, first, I would acknowledge that as a general rule pension plans should be funded. However, funding them implies that there must be funding from some source. What does the Hon. Member believe should be the source of the funds? Would he specifically comment on whether he believes the railways should increase freight rates to cover them?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When one looks at the profit and loss statement of the railways for the last couple of years, one knows where it can come from. However, the contributions to a pension plan from the employees' wages and the company's equal contribution I believe are considered, under the tax law, as part of the cost of labour and fringe benefits for which the company may deduct from their corporate tax liability. That means that the money is there to be put into a pension fund. If it is not there, of course the railroads would have to raise their charges. What else is new? They have raised their freight rates about 40 times in the last 15 or 20 years and they sure did not raise the pension plans as often. Rather than raise the service, they reduced it and laid off their employees. But they are making more money.
When the Western Grain Transportation Act was passed in 1983, much to the disgrace of that Parliament, the best bet in the world was to buy 100 shares of CPR stock. It went up $4 in the first week, and has stayed up.
According to a collective agreement it is the obligation of the employer to match the contribution made by the employees. It is that money which must go into the fund at the end of every month.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows: Mr. Mazankowski, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study all matters related to the Canadian National Railways' pension

April 17, 1985
Aeronautics Act
system; That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski, that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are eight minutes remaining for questions and comments on the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall). Are there any questions concerning the member's speech?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with respect to the matter of a tribunal. According to the Bill there is an appeal procedure by the tribunal which will be welcomed by all licensed holders in the aviation sector. Suspensions have been issued in the past by individuals who acted as both the investigator and the judge. If it is not already available in the Bill, is the Government willing to amend it so that under the new regime these people will be able to start again with a clean slate? Previously there was no provision for appeals, and while some suspensions were deserved, others were not. We would not want those with unfair suspensions to come into the new regime with what is the equivalent of a criminal record. Would it be possible to allow everyone to have their licence in good standing under the new regime so they can start off with a clean slate?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) puts forward a very interesting proposition. It is a matter being examined by the Department. Generally, it is a legal question about which I am at somewhat of a loss to answer, except hypothetically, perhaps. The Department is studying the legal implications of this question.
Hypothetically, should there be no way around the dilemma, it could be resolved by reinstating everyone and immediately cancelling the licences so they would have immediate access to the appeal procedures through the tribunal, either singularly or by a panel. I assure the Hon. Member that the matter is under active consideration.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the matter of medical examinations. I appreciate that there are difficulties in the whole question of confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship, however, the Canadian Medical Association is concerned about the Bill's potential threat to that traditional doctor-patient relationship, as well as its effect on the confidentiality of medical records. Doctors
from the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association have also expressed the same concerns.
In the Armed Forces, pilots are compelled to have a full medical examination on a regular basis. Would it be possible to provide for similar examinations that would be carried out by a medical practitioner who is appointed and mutually agreed to by the pilots, the airlines, air traffic controllers, the ministry and others? There could be a panel of doctors in cities across the country, similar to the Department of Veterans Affairs medical examiners who report not only to the applicants but make a report to the Department. These are kept completely confidential. Would that not be a way to alleviate the concerns of the pilots' association, medical practitioners in the CMA and the doctors who examine pilots in COPA?


J. Michael Forrestall: The fact is that there are appointed aviation medical practitioners in the field of optometry and medicine across Canada. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that standard procedure requires regular medical evaluations to be carried out to maintain certificates of a wide nature, particularly pilots' licences.
When an optometrist or medical practitioner who is not a designated transport examiner for these purposes believes a condition might be hazardous, the Bill requires him to advise the patient. The patient must advise the ministry within 72 hours. It is also the further responsibility of that doctor to ensure that that report was made by the person in question. The Ministry would then order that person to appear before a qualified medical practitioner who is authorized by the Department to conduct medical examinations.
The Hon. Member raised some concern about the Canadian Medical Association with respect to the privacy of the relationships between doctors and their patients. I might just say in that regard that the Ontario Medical Association in 1983 passed a resolution which in effect called for this type of procedure.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was supported by many other associations.


J. Michael Forrestall: Recently there was publicity, press attention as a result of a coroner's inquiry following an accident. In fact, we have come to understand that lives were lost as a result of a heart attack occurring while in flight. There is no doubt at all about the necessity for this type of protection, or going to this extent with respect to safety in the air.
I should like to make a very brief final point which in a sense flows from that. Many provincial jurisdictions have similar or like requirements with respect to the safe operation of motor vehicles. There is a tendency on the part of society, on the one hand, to want to maintain the privilege which exists between doctors and patients and, at the same time, to recognize that we must move ahead in the interests of safety.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has terminated.
April 17, 1985


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could commence my remarks by asking a couple of questions which the Minister might pick up when and if he closes the debate.
My first question deals with the cost of flying. I am thinking about the private area of general aviation. In the past the costs have been reasonable. Generally there is a misunderstanding about flying. I own a small aircraft. Its cost of acquisition was about the same as that of a car. Over the past few years operating costs of aircraft, whether for business activities or pleasure, have sky-rocketed. When I learned that I would have an opportunity to speak on this Bill I obtained some figures to illustrate this particular problem.
Ten years ago at a particular flying club the cost of solo flying was $18 per hour and the cost of dual flying was $24 per hour. That happened to be at that time a non-approved school, and it required 45 hours to obtain a private pilot's licence. For a reasonable amount of money an individual could become licensed.
Today that same flying club is not doing well charging $45 per hour solo and $65 per hour dual. It is certainly not a commercial operation in the sense of trying to earn revenue. It is simply trying to provide a service to club members in pilot training and licensing. With that charge of $65 per hour it is just making it, and no more.
I would like to ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, whoever will be wrapping this up, would it be possible for the Department of Transport within its aviation group to put together a group to look at ways of cutting costs to people involved in private aviation? Over the years-and I know that both government Members who spoke on this will agree-government-administered fuel cost increases have been enormous. The price of aviation fuel has sky-rocketed, largely as a result of government administered tax increases.
There is also the problem of private concessions at airports. At most airports in the country there is no competition whatsoever, and the cheapest grade of gas starts at 60 cents per litre and works up from there. In more remote communities or less populated areas there is more difficulty obtaining gas, certainly at reasonable prices. However, the combined effect of those fuel increases, coupled with import duties and normal inflated cost increases, has been devasting upon many small flying operations. As well, direct component costs have been a problem.
Another area of concern has been the administrative costs of the Government through the philosophy of user-pay. I use the example of airport parking fees which have risen dramatically. An average fee in many places would be $40 per month for parking small aircraft. There has been a determination by the Department of Transport that it wants to become involved in cost recovery. It is also involved in charging landing fees in many areas. There has been talk of charging for a variety of different services. Eventually people will be driven right off airports and instead of being able to obtain some revenue there will be no revenue at all.
Aeronautics Act
The way in which this selectively affects the population is interesting, if one's income level is fairly average, one will simply be unable to fly. The only people who will have the benefit of those services at government airports will be those with substantial incomes who can afford any price, either for recreation or for business. The only other way one could own and operate an aircraft is if one is able to write it off against some other income and gain a tax benefit.
By continuing to press the user-fee idea, only a very select group of people will be entitled to use those services. Those services are paid for by all Canadians. Airport facilities, air traffic systems and support services are used by all people. Eventually I suspect only a small number of select individuals will be able to use them. Even though the cost recovery will be neglible, many people will be driven off the airports. For example, all private aircraft actually moved off an airport in my riding, administered by the federal Department of Transport, because of the difficulties in meeting increased parking fees.
There are serious problems as a result of the ordinary costs associated with flying. Also there are problems in that the Government of Canada is looking at more and more ways of becoming involved in cost recovery. It is my hope that the Minister will request his departmental officials to find a way of reducing those costs, or to find out whether it is really necessary for things such as radio licence fees suddenly to jump to $40 annually. The administrative renewal of a licence fee certainly would not cost that. The Minister should become involved in setting up a group of people within his Department charged with the responsibility of finding ways of cutting costs to general aviation so that people could remain in it, and possibly look into expanding small businesses, with some beneficial effect on local economies.
I have another area of serious concern in terms of cost problems associated with private aviation. I am referring to the administrative burden which the Government of Canada places upon pilots. Anyone involved in the business is seriously concerned about safety. An individual who goes out on his own takes a chance. It is a serious problem if he does not operate by the rules. It is even more serious when he takes up a load of people. He jeopardizes their lives. Often people load their families and their close friends and take them out. They take responsibility for the well-being and lives of those individuals. There must be some serious conditions met with regard to safety. That was the purpose of the Dubin commission.
Somewhere things seem to have gone amok. The private aviation area has found itself burdened with administrative problems that do not relate to the key questions with which Dubin was dealing. People now seem to be imposing conditions that are not related to safety or accidents. Those conditions are activities on the ground level. It is difficult to tell where they come from.
I will use an example of an RCMP officer responding to what he feels is the needs of Dubin. He is at the airport,

April 17, 1985
Aeronautics Act
someone has just landed, the person is checked. He may not have his pilot's licence, or the logbook entries may not be up to scratch. The logbook may not be there. That person may end up with a $100 fine. Normally that person would have to go to the local RCMP detachment within 24 hours to show that he is properly licensed. If that were a motor vehicle, that would certainly be the case. That is not what Dubin was getting at. This does indicate law enforcement statistic. However, when you look behind the statistics, those are not the things which he was looking at, and they do little for private aviation.
The second matter is flight training. I talked to a CFI the other day who had recommended two people for flight tests. Both failed. He has been teaching people to fly for 25 years. He is a good instructor, a former Designated Flight Test Examiner, and one of the most conscientious people that I have known in the business. I have had instruction from him.
This person said there is a real problem. The MOT has come into the area. They are doing the flight testing according to their standards. He told me that one of the people who went up was a good pilot. He said he may have been spooked with someone else in the airplane, made two serious mistakes and had to go back to the barn. Unfortunately, that goes on his instructor's licence. My understanding is that a licence can be downgraded with enough failures. It reflects directly on the instructor.
With regard to that particular flying club, I only recall two accidents in the more than 10 years I have been around that area. Both of those accidents involved former members of that club. The club had had one accident years and years ago in which two individuals were killed. A qualified flight instructor made an error and the two were killed. Those are the only two examples. Years after they left the club, two commercial pilots died in accidents related to the commercial field. To my knowledge, those are the only accidents that ever happened involving in any way that flying club and I have been closely associated with that club for years. I have also been associated with five other flying clubs.
It appears that the Department of Transport is loading on administrative problems, and there will be an increase. I understand they are looking at an additional five hours of instrument time. At $65 an hour, that will cost $325, depending on the kind of standards they insist on. If an instructor takes up a student whom he knows is competent to fly, but knows that the flight examiners are going to be checking his students and checking him and there may be problems, he will give another five hours in order to protect his licence. He will do that to make sure the student knows it inside and outside. That will add on another $325. That is only one example of additional costs that will occur. If a flying school had only one accident which had nothing to do with the Dubin problem or anything else, a very unique situation, should you continue to impose administrative requirements?
The Bill before us today is very general. It allows the Department to propose regulations to the Governor in Council in a broad range of areas. Ultimately those will go through. I guess the large groups like COPA, CALPA and some others
will examine it. CALPA is not really concerned with trying to keep down the costs for private aviation. COPA should be more articulate in trying to work with the Minister. Possibly the Minister can give us some idea how to get those costs down.
I know there are others who want to speak, so I will leave it at that. Can the Minister indicate what is being done, if anything, to try and bring down the costs for private aviation, to see that they level off at some point? Can he indicate ways to try and bring the costs down?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Mr. Hovdebo:: I was going to speak, Mr. Speaker, but 1 will defer to the Minister and speak at report stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. Members realize that if the Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: We can direct questions to the Minister after he speaks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to all Members of the House how much I appreciate their comments, goodwill, support and co-operation in moving this piece of legislation ahead. I will respond to as many points that have been raised as I can, recognizing that there is a disposition to have this Bill move to committee prior to the adjournment today.
I particularly appreciate the comments, support and the spirit of co-operation that was prevalent in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). He raised a couple of issues that I would like to talk about. He questioned the issue of the Gimli report. That has to do with the inquiry into the Air Canada Boeing 767 which was forced to land in Gimli because it ran out of fuel. That report has been referred to me. It is being translated at the present time. Under the normal course of events, it will probably be made public.
Respecting the specific question that the Member raised, which had to do with whether there was provision within this legislation to incorporate any recommendations that may flow from that report, the departmental officials have generally looked at that. It appears, based upon the terms of reference that were enshrined in the inquiry, there is sufficient latitude within this piece of legislation to incorporate any recommendations that may flow therefrom.
He also mentioned the technical briefing which we had talked about unofficially. I would leave that to the discretion of the committee. I can say to all Hon. Members, if it is the wish of the committee to have an informal technical briefing by Transport Department officials on the over-all aspects of the Bill, that could be arranged either informally or through the aegis of the committee structure through which everything would be on the record.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) raised a number of points. I want to preface my remarks with respect
April 17, 1985

to his intervention by saying that I appreciate the spirit of goodwill and co-operation that was evident in his remarks. He got off on a bit of a tangent talking about the views he holds with respect to economic regulation. We all know where he stands on that issue. I am sure there will be another appropriate time when we can get into that debate more fully.
I would like to reiterate that the major thrust of this Bill is an attempt to provide for a safe and secure environment for civil aviation in Canada. I think any regulation or legislation that is inherent in this Bill has one common goal and objective, and that is to enhance the environment for civil aviation from a safety and security point of view.
The Hon. Member spoke to a great extent about regulations. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) also alluded to regulations. If I interpreted the Hon. Member correctly, he wanted some assurance that the regulations that would have to accompany this Bill


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Draft regulations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -draft regulations could be made available to the committee. I cannot give an outright assurance on that, but I can say that in principle, I certainly have no objection to that.
I realize that the legislation provides rather broad enabling powers for the proclamation of regulations. Of course, the principle is enshrined in the legislation. The regulations are really the guts of the Bill. They are what makes it work. To the extent that I can, I will certainly co-operate with the committee, to the extent that regulations are drafted. Of course, I must say that in the context of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) I am sure he would not want me to present a fait accompli to the House. I cannot draft regulations on the basis of this Bill because that would be presuming there will be no amendments or changes to the Bill. Given the wisdom, good advice and counsel of the members of the committee, I think there may very well be some very valid amendments that may have to be considered. To the extent that we possibly can, we will try to co-operate with the Hon. Member and with other Hon. Members as well.
I really appreciate the tone of today's debate. Safety and security, whether it is in the air, on the sea or on the roads, is not a partisan issue. I do not think anyone in the House has a monopoly on good intentions to promote a safe environment for the transportation of people or goods in this country. I will provide all the information I can to make the work of the committee easier.
The Hon. Member took issue with the establishment of the tribunal. We took the position that this legislation, as with other legislation that emanated from the recommendations of the Dubin Inquiry, should be treated as a package. A clear and very integral recommendation was advanced by Justice Dubin. We thought that if we did not follow that particular recommendation, we would certainly be deviating from the basic
Aeronautics Act
thrust of his recommendations. We are looking at this legislation in terms of a total package.
The establishment of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board was another vital element of the recommendations that were advanced by Justice Dubin. If we were to take away those two very important elements of his recommendations, we would in essence be gutting the bulk of his recommendations.
I am not sure about this, but I think the Hon. Member suggested that the CTC might be a better body to act as a tribunal. I think there is the possibility of a perceived conflict of interest there, because to some extent the CTC does engage in regulation of aviation. Perhaps it does not deal with safety per se, but it does deal with forms of the regulatory environment of civil aviation in this country. I think we are really trying to set up an independent tribunal to ensure that the adjudication of safety is done in such a way that there is no real or perceived conflict of interest in terms of its handling.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) wanted to know whether the legislation would provide for an independent review process with respect to the establishment of aerodromes. He specifically mentioned social and economic considerations. Fortunately, or unfortunately, this Bill does not provide for that. It basically provides for legislative and regulation authority with regard to all elements affecting safety in aviation and the safety of the public. To that extent, the legislation provides for some power over the location of airports and aerodromes.
A very interesting point was injected into the debate by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River. I sympathize with his comments regarding the high cost of aviation, particularly private or general aviation. I certainly have recognized the acceleration of cost involved in owning and operating an aircraft and in acquiring the expertise necessary to fly an aircraft and become licenced as a pilot. The Hon. Member would be the first one to tell the House that, from his point of view, private aviation is not a luxury. In many areas it is a necessity. In the area in which he lives, and in areas in the North, it is in many respects the only mode of transportation.
The Hon. Member asked that we consider ways and means of cutting costs and ensuring that the burden on the private pilot and general aviator is reduced. To some extent-and the Hon. Member may find it difficult to follow this logic-that is really what we are doing in this Bill. We are tightening up the procedures for collection. At any one given time, approximately $10 million is owing in overdue fees. Collections are not being made for services provided to people who use the airport system because there is no provision for the application of interest and, it is very difficult to collect. Of course, this Bill will tighten up that procedure. I think we would all support the idea that everyone should pay his or her own fair share. By providing a more effective collecting regime we may very well be able to reduce the burden on those who do pay.
We have to strike a balance. One of the ways of cutting costs is by cutting services. The Hon. Member has more knowledge about private or general aviation than perhaps anyone else here. I hope he will come before the committee as

April 17, 1985
Aeronautics Act
often as he can. I know he is occupied in other areas, but 1 hope he will be able to come forth to give us the benefit of his own personal experience in these matters. I am certainly sympathetic to the private pilot, the private aircraft owner and the general aviator. I can assure the Hon. Member that we will do whatever we can to ease their burden.
The Hon. Member also spoke of the excessive growing administrative burden imposed upon air travel in this country. I think the Hon. Member knows me well enough to know that I by nature am not one who willy-nilly promotes more regulation and more legislation. In fact, it is quite the contrary. I think he recognizes that there has to be a balance; a certain element of judgment and a certain amount of common sense has to be exercised. We are really trying to put in place a mechanism or legislative framework that will provide for that kind of discretion, common sense and practical application of good rules of airmanship. We have to be fair, we have to be firm, and from the federal point of view, we have a responsibility. I recognize that we should not encourage harassment, but we should encourage the kinds of balanced judgment, fair
play, common sense and practicality that are required. With that in mind, perhaps we could put the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Mazankowski, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 18, 1985