1985-10-23

Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, speak to that all important question which is the footwear industry. At this time, shoe importers are acting on the assumption that quotas will not be extended and are buying millions of pairs of shoes abroad.
As a result, we are now seeing factory shutdowns and the loss of hundreds of jobs, and this will continue in the months to come.
The Government's indifferent and passive attitude is causing irreparable harm to the footwear industry. Not only do we need minimum protection for 50 per cent of the market over a period of five years, but it is imperative and extremely urgent to take a position as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised a quota policy that would protect thousands of jobs. It is up to you to deliver the goods and to keep this promise, otherwise you will have lied once again to the people of this country.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, six months ago when the former Minister of the Environment said that by October she would be able to produce an American plan of action to clean up the chemical dumps on the American side of the Niagara, all Canadians hoped she was right, and even those like myself who were skeptical about the high expectations the Conservative Government had for its new "innocent friend" relationship with the United States hoped she was right. Now we see the fruit of her approach. What action there might be falls short of actually removing from those sites the toxic wastes which are slowly but surely leaching into the drinking water supply of several million Canadians. This is unacceptable.
This omission from the plan is something that we know, not by having seen the plan but by virtue of the remarks of Mr. Lee Thomas at the Ottawa press conference at which he appeared with the Minister last week. What we do not know is what he has actually proposed because the Minister will not make the plan public. I call on the Minister to make it public so that Canadians can know what our neighbour's intentions really are. Are they really serious about stopping poisoning us or not? Perhaps the innocent approach has not worked. Perhaps the Minister should be reminded that those who were admonished to be as innocent as doves were also admonished to be as wise as serpents.


APARTHEID
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be returning soon from a successful Commonwealth Conference. While the Opposition may wish to play down the Prime Minister's success in bringing well over 40 Commonwealth leaders together in an antiapartheid agreement, Canadians and the world recognize his valuable statesmanship at the conference.
The Accord which the Prime Minister was instrumental in securing calls on the Pretoria Government to dismantle apartheid, terminate the existing state of emergency, release Nelson Mandela, lift the ban on the African National Congress, and initiate dialogue across lines of colour, politics, and religion with a view to establishing a truly representative Government in South Africa.
The Prime Minister acted as a conciliator and mediator, and enhanced the cause of diplomacy and international co-operation. At the beginning of the conference there was disunity, disagreement, and positions on apartheid which were diametrically opposed to each other. Through the efforts of the Prime Minister there is now unity, co-operation, and a common front of pressure against the oppressive regime in South Africa. This House offers its appreciation to the Prime Minister for his statesmanship and for a job well done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 23, 1985
[Translation)


THE LATE ALFRED ROULEAU
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to pay tribute to Alfred Rouleau, former president of the Mouve-ment Desjardins, who died on October 19, 1985.
After founding the Caisse Populaire Notre-Dame du Chemin in 1943, where he was also the administrator, Mr. Rouleau started working for the Mouvement Desjardins in 1949, when he became the managing director and founder of Assurance-Vie Desjardins. His exceptional skills led to his being appointed as the first full-time president of the Mouvement Desjardins in 1972. Meanwhile, he also played a major role in creating the Institut cooperatif Desjardins and in purchasing La Sauvegarde and La Fiducie du Quebec for the Mouvement Desjardins.
His eminent qualifications as a dynamic manager and builder of great vision were even more apparent during the nine-year period when he was main spokesman for the Mouvement Desjardins. He had an abiding concern for the Mouvement's mission with respect to its members and especially its poorest members, but he also had confidence in the future and embarked on many new projects. Some examples are the Societe d'investissement Desjardins, the Credit industriel Desjardins and the Caisse centrale Desjardins du Quebec.
A passionate and popular speaker, and a tireless worker for all kinds of humanist causes, Mr. Rouleau dedicated his whole life to his democratic ideal and to the values of justice, equity, freedom and solidarity. His enthusiasm and commitment were contagious, and it is not surprising that he has been acclaimed as one of the great leaders of his generation in Quebec. He built an empire in Levis, in the province and across this country-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I must draw your attention to the Conservative Government's reprehensible manoeuvres directed at people who are fighting against family allowances deindexation.
Mr. Speaker, the hearings of the legislative committee on Bill C-70 were scheduled to last until November 22 this year, but they will be cut short on November 5. Obviously the Government seeks to gag lobby groups by preventing them from appearing or else limiting the time required for drafting their representations.
Worse still, Mr. Speaker, the legislative committee will not even hear evidence from a Pan-Canadian coalition against family allowances deindexation. The coalition is made up of over 80 groups of women, union members, Catholic parents, day care nursery workers, and others. The legislative committee ignores the coalition and would rather not entertain its representations.
It is clear that the Conservative Government was not quite prepared for the kind of flak it got from old age security pension deindexation opponents, and the Tories are now concerned that the family allowances issue might blow up in their face. Well, so they should, for Canadian men and women have no use at all for the Conservative Government's social policies, and elderly Canadians, women and families have spoken against them.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that all Hon. Members are pleased that Air Canada is again serving the people of Canada with union represented workers. It is good to see the regular flight attendants back at work. We are pleased to see that a settlement has also been reached with the support staff of Air Canada.
Labour disputes such as this one inconvenience many people, especially those who respect picket lines and are forced to go out of their way to find other travel arrangements. Some of us, in fact I think many of us in this House, had to go a long way out of our way in order to support Canadian workers while on a legal strike. However, Air Canada has chosen to reward those who crossed picket lines by giving all Aeroplan members who travelled during the strike an additional 3,000-mile bonus toward free travel. In addition, those who crossed the picket lines will receive extra point calculations for trips taken, as thanks for their support. Ironically, even in this issue, people who travelled out of Regina will receive fewer points than those who travelled out of Winnipeg.
My Party and I have and will continue to support a publicly owned national airline such as Air Canada, one of the top ten airlines in the world, as a Crown corporation, and to fight against those who would try to dismantle it. However, we will never hesitate to criticize bad-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
October 23, 1985


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, I met with the owners and workers of the G. A. Boulet plant located in my riding. The company is one of Canada's largest manufacturer of western boots.
Those people are very worried about what might happen soon with respect to import quotas. They are worried because they fear for their jobs. 1 share their concern because this company happens to be a major employer in the heart of my riding.
What has me wondering is that when the former Government negotiated footwear import quotas, it deemed advisable not to include western boots worth more than $50 and, as a result, American and foreign producers so flooded the Canadian market that footwear companies such as G. A. Boulet have had a hard time.
Those people are seeking the same market guarantees enjoyed by shoe manufacturers. They have been unfairly treated long enough as it is, and it is incumbent upon our Government to remedy this situation created by the former Government.
I would point out to the Minister for International Trade that the Americans are strong advocates of protectionist policies and that we might take a leaf from their book.
1 therefore voice my full support for our own people who have every right to be treated with fairness in this land of equal opportunities. May the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) heed these words of advice.


UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members know of my dedication to the consumer and to small and medium-sized business. Last week the petroleum inquiry reopened. It has been going on for over four years now and has cost everyone over $80 million. I wanted to do some research and took some of the transcripts home to read and study. This is what I found: blank pages, and more blank pages. I found out there were more than 4,000 blank pages in this inquiry.
What I also found out is that lawyers for the big oil companies time and time again turned this public inquiry into a private, secret, in camera inquiry, with the agreement of the commission. These big oil company lawyers did not want any member of the public to see evidence at their unfair trade practices toward independent petroleum marketers.
Oral Questions
I urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) not to wait for the final report of the petroleum inquiry before tabling his new anti-trust Bill. The big oil companies have controlled the evidence of the petroleum inquiry. Do not let the big oil companies control our political agenda. Bring in a strong law and table it now.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Today, more than one million Canadian children are living in poverty. More than one million!
My question is about a situation that should be a matter of serious concern to all the Members of this House. The Minister of Finance has just introduced new regressive taxes and above all, he has de-indexed family allowances.
Does the Minister intend to re-instate full indexation of family allowances in order to fight poverty in this country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me draw the attention of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to the fact that he has only picked one element of the child benefits. He asked if I am going to reindex the family allowance. We have increased the child tax credit significantly. We have reduced the child tax exemption which benefits upper income Canadians and we have just cut back on the growth of the family allowance-


Ms. Copps:: Child rip-off.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -but the combination of all of these factors has meant a significant shift in the value of the family benefits to those in lower-income brackets.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not so.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that statement of the Minister of Finance has been challenged by every national social agency. It just does not stand up.


FULL INDEXATION-REQUEST FOR RESTORATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at one school in Toronto 30 per cent of the children are going to school without breakfast because their parents cannot afford to give them three meals a day.

October 23, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where is David Peterson?


John Napier Turner: Would the Minister restore full indexation of family allowances which would allow parents to feed their children, and in the case of an individual family it would allow the purchase of one coat and a pair of boots per child in a family which cannot now afford it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not have a monopoly on the sensitivity and the feelings we have for those lower-income Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ms. Mitchell:: Why don't you do something about it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -who do need-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Prove it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My point is that we have done a considerable amount in the Budget which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition chooses to ignore.


Sheila Maureen Copps: One billion dollars for the banks.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to get out of kindergarten and listen to the answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: One billion dollars for the banks.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What we have done, both in the November statement and in the Budget, is to increase the child tax credit by a significant amount-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You ought to find out what life is all about.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -increase the exemption for disabled Canadians, which helps 180,000 disabled Canadians, increase the spousal allowance, which helps a considerable number of lower-income Canadians in the 60 years to 64 years bracket-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my final question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. What I am trying to get at here is that there are 75 Canadian cities with food banks. There are 31 food banks in British Columbia alone. The children of this country, one million of them, at the poverty level, should not have to depend
on foodbanks for their food. I ask the Minister once again, if he is not going to launch a major attack on poverty, will he at least restore full indexation to the family allowance to protect Canadian families?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have launched an upfront attack on poverty by creating jobs in this country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Oh, come on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have created 304,000 jobs in first 12 months to August.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That same report draws a very close link between unemployment and poverty. That is how we are attacking poverty, by introducing a Budget, by introducing a statement last fall-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: To starve kids.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -which is creating jobs, which is increasing the confidence of Canadian consumers and Canadian businesses-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Talk about children, the children of this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and they are creating those 304,000 jobs. And even the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -knows that in her riding jobs will be created.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


DEINDEXATION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance.
The Government has always defended deindexation of family allowances as being fair. Today, we know that several hundred thousand single-parent families headed by women are becoming poorer and poorer, and I wish the Minister would inform the House whether he thinks Canadian women do not realize what he is doing by deindexing family allowances.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are well aware, through the activities of Hon. Members opposite, that we have taken action to limit the growth of family allowances in conjunction with a drop in the child tax exemption, which is a benefit to upper income
October 23, 1985

Canadians, and a significant increase in the child tax credit. The result of that package-and you cannot look at one element of the package without looking at the other two; you have to look at them all-has been a major shift of benefits from upper income to lower-income Canadians. Anyone who wants to analyse that will agree with the statement I have just made.


BILL C-70-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary was for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, but in his absence, I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
We are aware that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence has now committed his Government to spending millions of dollars on the defence of our country. I would like to know whether the Minister is prepared to ask his Government today to withdraw Bill C-70 and allocate $55 million, over three years, to the family allowances program.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No answers from the Tories on child tax benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the question was addressed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women who is not in the Chamber at the present time.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Neither is the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Gauthier:: Where did you hide him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If a question was asked, surely it was intended to have an answer. If all the yelling prevents an answer, it leads one to wonder whether the question was asked to get an answer at all.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in answering that question. I do not know of any Government in modern Canadian history which has done more for the women of Canada, and more for the people of Canada in general, regarding job creation. I think the Liberal Party would have killed for the statistics we are producing on the economic front.


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


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE OF FULL INDEXATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister implied that poor people stood to gain a lot from his Budget. Experts throughout Canada have denied this, saying that his Budget is very unfair to the poor, and that is a fact.
My simple request to the Minister is this: Once the Prime Minister is back, would the Minister suggest to him that the Government ought to maintain full family allowances indexation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the reality of this Government is that 304,000 jobs have been created in our first 12 months in office. The report which has been referred to here draws a very clear think between poverty and job creation. We are creating jobs. We are attacking the causes of poverty head on. The Hon. Member should be congratulating us for that.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Don't hold your breath.


CORPORATE TAX LEVEL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the reality that Canadians know is that we have four million people in general living in poverty, and one million children. That is a disgrace for which the Government has to accept responsibility-
We also learned last Friday that in spite of profits the corporate sector in Canada is paying the smallest share of the total tax burden that it has paid in more than 10 years. Would the Minister show some concern about the poor and a sense of justice, by guaranteeing the people of Canada that he will bring in measures soon that will get the corporations to pay their share of taxes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot understand the basis for the Hon. Member's question. Actions speak louder than words. Let us go back and I will tell you what we have done.


John Edward Broadbent: What you have done for the banks.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In October we cancelled the Scientific Research Tax Credit which had resulted in over a $1 billion tax rip-off for the corporate side. We stopped limited partnerships. I announced carve-outs action this past summer. The Member for Kamloops-Shuswap asked me if I would table in the House the tax expenditure paper so that people could analyse the tax expenditures that corporations were getting. I have provided that information to the Hon.

October 23, 1985
Oral Questions
Member. I am still waiting to hear if the Hon. Member has any specific suggestions what we should do with that tax expenditure paper so that I can take those into account in advance of next Budget.
Some Hon. {Members: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has increased taxes for the average family by $1,000 and given the banks over $1 billion. That is his set of priorities and we all know that.


CORPORATIONS' SHARE OF TAXES
John Edward Broadbent: If corporations were paying taxes at the level they were paying in 1975-no more, but no less-we would have $3.5 billion in additional revenue. Would the Minister at least get the corporations to pay that share of taxes and then use that money to remove thousands of families from the poverty level?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the amount of money that has been given to banks. It has not been given to banks. It has been given to Canadians who have deposited money in banks; some of them individuals, some of them small businesses, some of them credit unions and caisses populates which are representative of what he likes to refer to as ordinary Canadians, right across this country. We had a great deal of concern for them in making that decision.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have cake all over your face.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I remind the Hon. Member of the actions that we have taken and the commitment that I have made directly to him that we are continually reviewing the corporate tax structure. I released a paper in the May Budget which sets out a proposal to take some of those tax expenditures away from the corporations so that we can broaden the tax base and address the problem that the Member is referring to in his questions.


REQUEST FOR FULL INDEXATION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance as well. As a result of the economic and social policies instituted in the May 23 Budget his Government will create, for the first time in Canadian history, a generation where children will be poorer than their parents. Knowing this, will he now reverse the Budget's direction and restore full indexation to family allowances?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clear that the members of the Liberal Party who did not attend the committee meetings, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said, are suddenly feeling the heat. They are suddenly feeling that they have not addressed this problem.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Where's the Minister today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Now they have to come and make a big display here in the House of Commons. I will repeat to the Hon. Member what I have said in previous answers. What Canadians want is more jobs, and 304,000 have been created in the last 12 months.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance not aware that every social council group that testified before the standing committee indicated that his social policy direction is Robin Hood in reverse, that the poor will get poorer and the rich richer? They would like to know why the Government has chosen to break its promise of last summer that it would never take out the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of poor and middle-income Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians do understand results rather than the words of the Hon. Member. The unemployment rate on September 1, 1984, was 11.6 per cent. It is now 10.1 per cent. The youth unemployment rate was 18.3 per cent and it is now down to
16.1	per cent. Interest rates have dropped over 3 percentage points. Housing starts have gone from a level of about 130,000 to about 170,000-


Mr. McKnight:: One hundred and eighty-five thousand.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: One hundred and eight-five thousand.


Sheila Maureen Copps: one in five children is living in poverty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


REPRESENTATIONS BY WOMENS' ORGANIZATIONS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Did he meet today with representatives of the many women's organizations that also represent many thousands of voters, who are demanding the reindexing of the family allowance? What does he say to those women and to Canadian women across the country who are demanding their right to fully indexed family allowance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Hon. Members that is behind the decision by the Government to reduce-


Carlo Rossi: Did you meet them? Yes or no.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would ask the Hon. Member to listen to the response. I ask Hon. Members to consider the reason behind the decision to reduce the growth rate of the family allowance. It is the deficit.
The burden of the deficit in this country will fall on those very Canadians, the younger Canadians whom the Hon.
October 23, 1985

Member seeks to protect. We are very concerned, as are younger Canadians, about the effect of that deficit and the burden that they will bear through high taxes and a reduction in Government programs over the years if we do not take action today. I ask her to take that into account when she considers this matter.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the Minister to listen to Canadian women, particularly to women who believe that by deindexing the family allowance he is taking milk out of the mouths of babies.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Dick:: There is more money going to them.


John Edward Broadbent: Look at the figures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know that it is Wednesday.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister can at least listen to what women across Canada are saying. Does he not realize that they are beginning to understand that by deindexing the family allowance and other benefits he is in effect taking money from their children in order to give $1 billion to the banks, not to mention all the oil companies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am starting to repeat myself because the questions are beginning to be the same. I will not repeat myself totally, but I would remind the Hon. Member that the action concerning the banks was not to help the banks but to help Canadians who have money on deposit in the banks.


John Edward Broadbent: Give us a list.


John Napier Turner: Give us the list and we will take a look at it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The point 1 have made in response to previous questions is that what the housewives, for whom she says she is speaking, want the most is a job themselves, or a job for their husbands, or jobs for their children.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Over the past year we have been able to generate the environment to produce 304,000 jobs, to produce a drop in bankruptcies for the first time in about five years, and to increase retail sales by some 13 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR FULL INDEXATION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of millions of Canadian mothers came to see the Minister of Finance-and of incompetence and lack of understanding.
Let us just say that not a single Cabinet Minister attended today's Conservative caucus to meet with them.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. In his Budget the Minister of Finance announced that the Government would reduce family allowances and the child tax credit by $55 million. Would the Deputy Prime Minister be prepared to reallocate the $56 million wasted to change the colour of military uniforms just so the Minister of Finance might restore full family allowances indexation?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why they are so feisty over there, particularly in view of the fact that it was this Party that went up 2 per cent in the polls and they who went down.
The Minister of Finance started to provide statistics with respect to the recovery of the economy which suffered so desperately for 20 years under the previous Government. Let me finish by comparing the mortgage rate reduction which has gone from 14.25 per cent under that administration to a low of 11.75 per cent in one year. The chartered bank rate went from 13 per cent a year ago down to 10 per cent now. It is a seven year low in the interest rate.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: The Bank of Canada rate went from 12.38 per cent a year ago to -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, Charlie Brown Junior who is substituting for our official Charlie Brown makes it quite clear that he does not know a thing. Mothers can hardly be expected to feed statistics to their children.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the question is directed-


REDISTRIBUTION OF BUDGET CREDITS
Jean-Claude Malépart: I will repeat my supplementary question. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether he is prepared to give back to the Minister of Finance the $56 million he has wasted to change the colour of our military uniforms just so he might restore full family allowances indexation, yes or no?

October 23, 1985
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this question is being asked very sincerely. I would ask Hon. Members to ask those who are raising this question with them to consider that the debt facing each family today is $26,000. If we do not take action on the national debt, the debt per family will be $54,000 in five years.
I ask Hon. Members to consider the impact of that on take-home pay if that increase is paid for by increased taxes on Canadians. That is why we must do this and why we are going to follow through with our commitment.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. All of the reports coming from eastern Canada indicate that the fishing season there is very poor and that fishermen will in fact not be able to work the minimum required weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. Last night we saw the spectacle of fishermen being forced on to the welfare rolls. Will the Minister tell the House what she intends to do specifically about that particular problem?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to tell the Hon. Member and Members of the House that toward the end of last week I met with the Minister of Career Development for Newfoundland, with the President of the Allied Workers and Fishermen's Union and, of course, with my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Justice. We have undertaken to look at ways in which both the federal and provincial Governments can be involved in addressing that very real problem in northeast Newfoundland. I expect to be able to make an announcement in that regard within a few days.


PLIGHT OF FAMILIES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are already 4 million people living below the poverty line and that 7,000 families in the fishing industry in eastern Canada are very anxious to know specifically what the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a preamble. Is there a question?


John R. Rodriguez: Why must these fisherpersons wait? The banks did not have to wait, and Gulf did not have to wait.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was asked by both the Government of Newfoundland, and indeed by the president of the union, to delay any final decision in order that they could provide their input to the solutions which we hope to bring
forward. I would simply tell the Hon. Member that the announcement about this is now being worked out. I would be glad to make that information available to him within a few days. I think he will be quite happy with the results.


BANKRUPTCY ACT
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I would like to direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary.
The efficient functioning of the credit market is key to a recovering economy. Despite this, our bankruptcy legislation gives harsh and unfair treatment to unsecured creditors, suppliers of inventory to an insolvent company, and to workers with unpaid wages. When will the Minister present specific legislative proposals for Bankruptcy Act reforms to correct these grave injustices?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concern of the Hon. Member for London East on this subject because of his active involvement in business before becoming a Member of Parliament.
Our report from the committee studying the issue of bankruptcy as it pertains to small businesses, accounts receivable, and employees, is to come down in approximately two weeks and legislation will be introduced in the House in the new year. This should have happened years ago under the former Government when bankruptcies were at an all-time high.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the former Communications Minister. I am sure the Solicitor General is aware of the principle in our justice system that says all persons should be treated equally before the law and there should not be any political interference.
By personally intervening in the investigation, the Solicitor General displayed abysmally poor judgment-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


John V. Nunziata: -and compromised this principle. In view of the fact that his predecessor-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now beginning a second preamble. Just a question please.
October 23, 1985


John V. Nunziata: In view of the fact that his predecessor was demoted for similar incompetence, will-


Mr. Crosbie:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Member please come right to his question?


John V. Nunziata: Will the Solicitor General do the honourable thing and admit here today that he was wrong to call the Commissioner? At the very least, will he admit that there is an appearance of interference?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can say as a former Minister of National Revenue that I certainly would not consider an appointment to that portfolio a demotion. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
The other question which the Hon. Member raised was whether there was a principle of equal justice under the law. Let me respond by saying, yes, there is. It is precisely for that reason the Solicitor General has the obligation, whenever there is an allegation of impropriety on the part of the RCMP or any other police agency, to ensure that the allegation is fully investigated.
It may be the policy of the Liberal Party that when allegations are made a Solicitor General has no responsibility to protect the rights of citizens. That is not my policy, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTER
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we all know why he made the telephone call. It seems that Boy Wonder's image is slightly tarnished.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


John V. Nunziata: Would the Solicitor General advise the House today whether he or any members of his staff communicated either directly or indirectly with the former Communications Minister, specifically with reference to the RCMP Investigation?


Henry Perrin Beatty: I will not respond in kind to the Hon. Member's assertion, Mr. Speaker. I think Canadians will consider the source when they judge that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I will respond directly to the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no.
Oral Questions SOCIAL AFFAIRS


INCREASED ROLE OF VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. According to the National Council of Welfare, the number of Canadians living in poverty has increased each year since 1980. This year over four million Canadians are living in poverty and over one million of those are children.
In every province there has been a sharp increase in the number of people getting essentials, such as food-


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


David Orlikow: -and used clothing from voluntary agencies.


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


Mr. Keeper:: He is asking it.


David Orlikow: Does the Government accept this development of the increasing role of charity as the way in which the needs of the poor will be met in the coming years?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sensitive and concerned about the increase in the level of poverty in Canada, just the same as the Hon. Member is. We, however, have a different approach to solving the problem.
Our primary approach is to set the groundwork so that more and more jobs are created so that people who are living in poverty today will no longer be in that situation because they will have found a job. There is a role to play for the volunteer agencies and for Government social programs.
1 should remind the Hon. Member that the social envelope this year, under this Government, is going up by a full $2 billion. It is not that we are neglecting our responsibilities. Far from that, we are increasing our responsibilities.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious with an increase in what the voluntary agencies are doing that the system is not working.
Will the Government consider discussing with its provincial counterparts what is wrong with the system, why we need increased charitable efforts, and what we need to make the system work as it should?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to bring the suggestion to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do ask the Hon. Member to remember that we are seeing real performance here. Three hundred and four thousand jobs is good performance. The figures to which the Hon. Member was referring were 1984 figures. If he has a look at the 1985 figures, I think he will be pretty happy with what he sees.

October 23, 1985
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


UNITED STATES PROGRAM TO EMPLOY INMATES
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and concerns prison reform.
A few weeks ago, Chief Justice Berger of the United States visited Canada. He talked about how in the U.S. the Americans are creating meaningful, market-oriented jobs and job training programs, rather than having prisoners work on rock piles. Does the Solicitor General see merit in this program and will he be making similar plans for our prisoners?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of talking about this particular proposal with Chief Justice Berger when he was in Canada. He is a very strong advocate of work as a form of rehabilitation. I firmly share his view that the single most important thing we can do to reform inmates is to use their time productively and prepare them for reintroduction into society.
The Correctional Service of Canada has a number of programs which are designed to do that. I think they can be improved upon, however. They can also bring great benefit to society in defraying some of the costs of running our prison system.

[ Translation]


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The epidemic of factory closings is continuing in Montreal East. Daoust, Lalonde and probably Chaussures La Parisette . . . 260 jobs are being theatened as a result of the Conservative Government's failure to reach a decision. Does the Minister realize that wholesalers are not buying at this time because they do not know whether the Government is going to maintain the quotas? Is the Government going to announce right now what its decision will be and so create a healthy climate in the footwear industry?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, that announcement will be made quite soon.


REQUEST THAT QUOTAS BE RETAINED
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Government's inaction has led footwear manufacturers and retailers to form a common front against the elimination of quotas. Is the Minister going to act responsibly and maintain
the quota system before the footwear industry becomes another Schefferville?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I know certain opposition Members like to dwell on what they think is unfavourable news.
It would be such a tonic to hear them dwell on the favourable news with respect to that fine Province of Quebec where unemployment is actually coming down, contrary to what happened under the former Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced a $1.5 million anti-smoking program. At the same time he acknowledged that compared to the multi-million dollars the tobacco industry has for advertising the $1.5 million is peanuts.
Could the Minister of Finance advise the House whether he is considering bringing an end to the huge tax subsidies, which the Government gives to the tobacco advertising companies, to make the competition a little fairer?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I make two comments on that suggestion. One is that I have received some complaints from the tobacco companies and the tobacco farmers and producers that the 25-cent-a-pack increase in the tax on cigarettes was excessive, so I think I am going the same way that the Hon. Member has suggested that I go, in opposition to the point of view of the companies. In addition to that, as he knows large corporations are all paying a surtax this year as part of the Budget proposals, to control the size of the Government debt.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, we are more concerned with the health of Canadians than we are with the tobacco companies. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he does not think it to be a complete contradiction, if not hyprocrisy, to say to Canadians that we will give them $1.5 million for an anti-smoking campaign while continuing to give the tobacco advertising companies $45 million of taxpayers' money.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would have to think back, but I believe that the money raised from the
October 23, 1985

increase in excise tax on tobacco is something like $250 million or $300 million. I think those numbers speak for themselves.


SHIPBUILDING
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
About ten days ago, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau, asked the Minister what the Government intended to do to give workers at Versatile Vickers in Montreal the assurance that the frigates ordered by National Defence would be built in Montreal at the Vickers yards.
The Minister said at the time that he would have to get legal advice before giving us an answer.
My question is quite straightforward. Now that the Minister has had ample time to get legal advice, could he let us in on the secret and inform the House what the Government intends to do to give workers at Vickers the assurance that the contract will be carried out in Montreal as planned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: The first point that I would like to bring to the Hon. Member's attention is that the jobs in question were never going to come into being until 1988. That was the date that the work on the frigates in the Montreal yard was going to commence. So, whatever happens we have two years' lead time to fill the gap, if indeed there is going to be a gap.
The second point is that the contract involves the Saint John Shipbuilding Company and Versatile Vickers Inc. The Government of Canada has no contract directly with Versatile. Therefore we have very limited room in which to manoeuvre.
Having said all that, we are continuing to investigate and to do everything we can to accommodate this situation.
[ Translation]


DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL PRIORITIES
Jacques Guilbault: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am not very happy with the Minister's vague reply, and I would like to put a very simple question to him as a supplementary.
Is he informing the House that from now on, the private sector is going to determine regional development priorities in this country? Is that what he was trying to explain?
Oral Questions


Stewart Donald McInnes: No, but what I am saying is that when two parties have made a contract the only two parties that can interfere are one and the other. The Government is not going to inject itself into a contract when it is not entitled to do so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the banks?


Stewart Donald McInnes: The Government will endeavour to discuss, to encourage, and to do what it can in any situation, but it will not dictate.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Because of the Minister's interference the Port of Esquimalt and the Province of British Columbia stand to lose a multi-million-dollar contract for routine repairs and servicing of Polish fishing vessels.
I would like to ask why the Minister is deliberately frustrating this deal and allowing Americans to take away this contract and these jobs from British Columbians.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the allegations that are being made by the Hon. Member, there is no deliberate frustration of what he refers to as a deal. There are facilities elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia that can care for the needs as they arise, if he is speaking about the same thing that I think he is, which is the naval base at Esquimalt.


SECURITY CONSIDERATION
James Douglas Manly: I would like to ask why the Minister refuses to agree to this deal for security reasons when the Hon. Member for Victoria, who was a former Minister of National Defence, says that he sees no security risk involved and he claims that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in favour of allowing this deal to go through. Why is the Minister of National Defence more paranoid than his colleague?


Erik Nielsen: I really do not know whether the additional allegations of the Hon. Member with respect to conversations between the Hon. Member for Victoria and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are accurate or merely a product of his own frenzied imagination, but I will certainly consult with both hon. gentlemen on the question.

October 23, 1985
Oral Questions CANADA PENSION PLAN HOMEMAKERS' PENSION INQUIRY


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan, including the introduction of a homemaker's pension, are currently under review and being negotiated between the federal Government and the provinces. Could the Minister give the House an idea of when these negotiations are going to be concluded and when Canadians can really expect a homemaker's pension?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised on a couple of occasions recently at federal-provincial Ministers' meetings. The matter is under review. There are no negotiations under way, but consultations to review the options. At this point I have no timetable that I can give the Hon. Member, but I do advise you that things are continuing to be reviewed.
 * *


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the chronic unemployment situation in Newfoundland and other parts of Atlantic Canada where it exceeds 40 per cent to 50 per cent in some communities, based on the principle of fairness and need, what special measures would the Minister of Finance introduce to protect and enhance economic opportunities in those less fortunate regions of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of things that have been done over the past year: the Atlantic Accord; the assistance to the Fisheries Products International Company; the Cape Breton Island tax credit; the fact that we enhanced equalization payments to all of those provinces earlier this year. That is a pretty positive package that indicates our concern for those in Atlantic Canada who are suffering from higher levels of unemployment than other parts of the country.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURES
David Charles Dingwall: I would say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that that is a lot of concern but not much action. I remind the Minister that communities in northeastern New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Cape Breton are not impressed with the results to date. Would he not agree to implement the recommendations as advocated by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities for infrastructure moneys so that thousands of jobs can be created in those less fortunate regions of Canada? Will he do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the thing that puzzles me about this place is why Hon. Members deliberately distort the statements that have just been made by Members. The programs that I just set out in my previous answer amount to millions and millions of dollars that have been spent or will be spent under established programs in that part of the country.
I have said in this House on a previous occasion that I was open to suggestion from the municipalities, and I am still listening to what they have to say.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Minister knows that at least one shoe company in southern Ontario has closed a plant and is in the process of dismantling another one unless it gets an answer on the quotas forthwith.
Will the Minister give an undertaking now to bring forward the reply with regard to quotas within the next week?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Member knows full well the tribunal decision on this matter: the fact that no damage was found with respect to most of the footwear industry. This is what we are now working with, and I can assure the Hon. Member we have concern as far as these factories are involved and as far as the industry is concerned, and we will be taking effective steps as soon as possible.


TIMING OF DECISION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is it not possible to recognize that the industry must do its planning for next spring and summer now and that, if it does not do it now, it will lose its customers? With that in mind, how long will it take for the Minister to bring forward the proposal for the extension of the quotas or whatever other program he intends to implement?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be assured that we share his concern. We realize the need for an early decision, particularly in reference to the fact that planning must be done six to 12 months in advance. That is one of the reasons why we intend to make an early decision.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon.
October 23, 1985

Members on Tuesday, October 22, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to advise the House that prior to Question Period, I informed the Opposition House Leaders of the business for the next two days. It is my hope that today we will make progress on the Bill which we are now considering, the Bill dealing with employment equity. Tomorrow it is my intention to call as the first item of business, however, Bill C-80, a Bill respecting the Excise Tax Act, and I would like to designate this coming Friday as the first allotted day in this trimester. I will be making the conventional statement with respect to Business of the House tomorrow at the usual time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will be luckier this time. It is my privilege to table a petition signed by a number of individuals from the City of Toronto who call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of the residents of Rosemont-


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -to present a petition calling upon the Government to back off on its cut-back on family allowances and the deindexation of pensions.


John Carnell Crosbie: Sit down.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I realize that it hurts Government Members because most of them did not bother to show up at the meeting with the women of Canada but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Petitions


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 have here a petition against the federal Budget which was circulated by women who are opposed to the family allowances Budget provisions aimed at lessening the protection against inflation, and they request that those provisions be withdrawn without delay.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Women Against the Federal Budget who state that children are everyone's responsibility. They oppose the Budget proposal to reduce the cost of living protection for family allowances and demand that this proposal be withdrawn.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by University of Ottawa faculty and students who humbly declare that the American military research program on ballistic missiles is badly defined from a scientific viewpoint, that Canadian Government participation in this program would amount to a de facto endorsement of the arms race, and that Canadian participation in the SD1 test program would undermine the international political credibility of Canada.
Consequently they strongly urge the Government of Canada to turn down the invitation to participate in the American SDI research program.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition on behalf of a number of people from the fine Province of British Columbia. They make the point that accelerating cut-backs to child benefits on top of sales tax changes and increases, excise tax increases and stiff income tax increases are unfair and place an extraordinary burden on middle and low-income Canadians and they call upon Members of the House of Commons to reinstate the full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many women from

October 23, 1985
Petitions
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Women Against the Federal Budget, in which they decry and oppose the deindexing of the family allowances proposed in the Budget and call upon the Government to reintroduce full indexation of family allowances.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present another petition signed by many members of the National Federation of Nurses Union from Thompson, Manitoba and Winnipeg in which they call upon the Government to rescind the proposal which would see pension income being considered as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from members of Local 397 of the Office Professional Employees' Union, most of whom are women supporting families, in which they humbly sheweth that the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to remind the Hon. Member that the rules require one to eschew the reading of a petition.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from people from the Ottawa Valley and the Prince Albert area which call up the Government to recognize the inequitable and unbearable increased burden on poor families caused by the deindexation of family allowances, and which point out that this seems very unfair in light of the $9 billion that is handed out to oil companies and the $1 billion that was just received by the banks.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present, on behalf of a group of citizens of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, a petition which asks the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present petitions from over 400 persons resident in the City of Thunder Bay and the Indian reserve at Gull Bay protesting the decision of the Government to deindex the family allowance and to make other changes which represent a loss to even the poorest families in Canada. They pray that the House of Commons will cancel this deindexation and maintain the full indexation of family allowances which are so important to them.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of citizens, principally of the Montreal area, who call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 449 will be answered today.
[ Text]


Mr. Manly: From February to September 1985, was Canadian canned tuna purchased for or used in any programs of bilateral or multilateral food aid and, was any of the tuna from the batches which were rejected by inspectors from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, if so, which countries and/or programs received the tuna and in what quantities?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Canned tuna has not been purchased by the Canadian Government for use in either the bilateral or multilateral food aid program.


Mr. Speaker:: The question mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 438 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 438 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKinnon: From January 1985 to date, what were the names of individuals and companies and their addresses, who were given permits to import into Canada foreign cheese in excess of 25,000 kilograms?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 23, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 21, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to resume debate on Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, introduced by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my speech, I explained why our Government introduced this legislation, and I subsequently elaborated on the conditions for implementing its provisions. I also explained at that time why our Government had not imposed quotas.
I had started to say that as of 1988, employers affected by this legislation will be obliged to file a report in respect of the immediately preceding calendar year, containing the following information:
First, the industrial sectors in which employees of the employer are employed, the location of the employer and employees, the number of all employees of the employer and the number of persons in designated groups so employed;
Second, the occupational groups of the employer and the degree of representation of persons in designated groups in each occupational group;
Third, the salary ranges of employees and the degree of representation of persons in designated groups in each range and prescribed sub-division thereof; and finally,
The number of employees hired, promoted and terminated and the degree of representation in those numbers of persons in designated groups.
Employers who fail to comply with this obligation will be liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000.
Employment Equity
On the basis of the detailed information provided by employers, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be able to hear complaints it receives and conduct certain inquiries.
Since we wanted this legislation to be as flexible as possible, we decided not to impose enforcement mechanisms.
Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of this Government, setting up an enforcement agency would generate very high administrative costs. Moreover, it will be perceived by many employers as undue interference by the state in their personnel management policies.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that our Government has made a formal commitment to reducing administrative red tape, which more often than not tends to curb productivity.
Instead of an enforcement agency, our Government has opted for the even more redoubtable mechanism of public opinion.
As of June 1, 1988, all employers affected by this legislation will be obliged to file annual reports. The conclusions of these reports will be consolidated by the Department of Employment and Immigration and subsequently tabled in Parliament.
On the basis of the information contained in these annual reports, it will be possible to measure progress in the area of employment equity. The public will be invited to look at the results. Employers who fail to observe the equity principle will be clearly identified, and under the pressure of public opinion, they will be forced to change their personnel management policies so as to provide more jobs for the four groups designated in the Bill.
A number of my opposition colleagues feel that this surveillance mechanism does not go far enough, and that the pressure of public opinion is not strong enough to improve the conditions encountered by women, native peoples, visible minorities and the handicapped on the labour market.
I would remind these critics that public opinion is the most formidable tool we have for changing the behaviour of Canadian employers. Let us not forget the successful campaign organized by Canadian women in 1981 to urge the Government to include women's rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that Bill C-62 will affect more than 750,000 employees. In conjunction with other Government programs designed to stimulate labour market participation, Bill C-62 is a giant step forward towards social equity. From now on, the groups concerned by this legislation will be able to take their rightful place in Canadian society.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to refer this Bill to the Legislative Committee as soon as possible.

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) . . . Oh! Questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse).

Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse).


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, while I support the Bill and its objectives, I note that in spite of the clear and irenic exposition of the Bill by the Hon. Member there was no reference in her remarks, nor is there reference in the Bill, to a minority which requires recognition and defence, namely, those who are over 50 and who find it difficult if not impossible to obtain employment because of discrimination due to age. As I read this Bill it will not protect women over 50 because of their age however much it may give them protection because of their sex. I hope that when the Bill goes before a legislative committee there might be some recognition given to the significant hazard of age discrimination as it applies to women. I hope it will also be recognized that it applies to men so that the Bill, or other legislation, might be expanded to provide that type of protection.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to echo the concern just expressed by the Hon. Member from Scarborough. One of the more frustrating experiences I have encountered as a Member of Parliament has been the occasions on which older men, those who are 55, 56, or 57, have come into my office and, for one reason or another, have lost their jobs. They may still have children in university. They may still be supporting a family. Very often they have worked at jobs where there has not been any labour organization or trade union. Perhaps they have worked in warehouse work. They have been strong for 30 years and then they have developed a bad back problem or some other physical ailment which prevented them from being able to perform the type of work which they had performed for so many years. They are literally cast on to the scrap-heap of our economy. There is really no opportunity for them to retrain or find other jobs. I have had people in my office who have talked about suicide and who have openly cried about the situation in which they find themselves. I wish to say to the Minister, who happens to be in the House, that this is a desperate situation which a great many men in that particular age bracket who are too old to work, at least in the way in which our economy works, but too young to receive any income support. They are caught in a kind of twilight zone which the Government needs to address.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I agree. Thank you very much.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in my place to participate in the debate on Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity.
It must be said from the outset that I do not think there is a Member in the House who disagrees with the fundamental principle or purpose of what is to be attained by this piece of legislation, or any other legislation which we may be considering in the coming weeks, months and years ahead. 1 am speaking of the fundamental principle that every Canadian in this country ought to receive equality of opportunity in the workplace, that is not a fancy right. It is not a privilege. It is a basic, human and fundamental right.
The Bill before us has four target groups, namely, women, native people, the disabled and visible minorities. 1 would like to preface my remarks with respect to the latter group since our critic, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has indicated in broad terms how our Party views this Bill and has left it to a number of individual critics to look at the independent categories or target groups.
One has to look at this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and agree that the principle or purpose is good. Yet the follow through, the action taken to attain that principle, is far from perfect. It moves simply too slowly and is too weak in the ways proposed to attain employment equity for Canadians in all regions of the country. It is weak in the face of some landmark reports which this Parliament has recently received such as the Equality Now report and the Abella Commission report. I quote from the report of the Abella Commission which stated that "a Government genuinely committed to equality in the workplace will use law to accomplish it and therefore give the concept credibility and integrity."
1 do not think this piece of legislation gives credibility and integrity to that principle. Underlying the Abella Commission Report are two key focal points or concepts: mandatory and tough equity programs and the enforcement mechanism whereby those equity programs would be carried out. There is an absence in Bill C-62 of both those concepts. As Judge Abella stated in her report, "Unenforceable rights are no more satisfactory than unavailable right", and I think that speaks volumes to this piece of legislation. It is not a mandatory and tough equity program. It is a Bill which qualifies the program, is open-ended and not rigid, and does not set forth criteria with respect to'Government Departments, Crown corporations and companies doing business with the Government. It is not a mandatory program. Both the Abella Commission Report and the Equity Now Report suggested in very firm terms that voluntary and open-ended programs have not worked in the past, they have not attained the type of results which we, as a Parliament and as a country, should be aiming for.
I am quite surprised that the Hon. Member who spoke before me suggested that it is in public opinion and in voluntary programs taht we attain the best results. That is false. In certain instances which I will be outlining in my speech later on, public opinion is very lacking. We have to impose some sort of leadership and direction in a mandatory program so that equality in the workplace can in fact become a reality. We cannot leave it to the whims of the people involved. A mandatory program is the only route to go.
There is no enforcement mechanism specifically stated in the Bill. The Minister and Hon. Members on the Government
October 23, 1985

side have mentioned that the Human Rights Commission will be taking a look at enforcing the employment equity legislation. There are two things wrong with that. First, it is not indicated in any firm way in the Bill itself. There is no mention of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the legislation. It was only indicatetd in passing. It was only dumped on to the commission in an informal and very loose kind of way. Second, and most important, is it fair and is it within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do the kind of watchdog surveillance which this Government is imposing upon it? The Human Rights Commission, as we all know, is trapped for resources with respect to personnel and finances as it is. We all know that the Human Rights Commission is a reactionary body. It reacts on a one-on-one, a case-by-case basis. If we are talking about a national employment equity program which is going to ensure and guarantee that Canadians receive the equality which should be theirs, I feel it would be unfair to expect the commission to undertake this kind of enforcement mechanism.
There is a need for the Human Rights Commission. It is a body which is doing good work. But with respect to a national employment equity program, we need an enforcement body which will be somehow independent, active, full-time, and with enough staff who are qualified and familiar with labour relations, the employment system and human rights issues in general.
With respect to the voluntary nature of the legislation, the Minister in a press release announcing this Bill stated, and I quote:
The employment practices and policies of federally regulated businesses will go on public record, and these companies will have to answer to the people of Canada if they fail to achieve equity in employment.
Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. If we are to look at public opinion and voluntary action, we also have to look at a number of recent reports from Toronto with respect to the whole question of racism in the workplace. The report entitled "Who Gets the Work?", which was published in January-a study commissioned through federal funding and conducted by the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto- outlined some very serious concerns. It spoke forcefully against letting public opinion and voluntary mechanisms do the job for us. The author of the report said that "while whites were treated courteously, blacks applying for the same jobs were treated rudely, discourteously and with hostility." The report found that "in direct approaches on 36 jobs, white applicants received 27 offers and black applicants only nine." The report concluded "that the most significant amount of discrimination was directed at Indo-Pakistanis who were told that jobs were closed and no longer available in nearly 44 per cent of the cases." The report also indicated that "the black West Indians were told that jobs were closed to them in 36 per cent of the cases".
In the follow-up to that report, in May of 1985, it was found "that only 9 per cent of 200 large companies stated a firm belief in racial equality. Twenty-eight per cent of the employ-
Employment Equity
ers said they felt non-whites in general do not have the ability to meet job performance criteria compared with whites. Another 13 per cent saw non-whites as threatening, particularly if non-whites gained promotion over whites. Seven per cent expressed outright contempt for non-whites and 3 per cent viewed non-whites as a group to be justifiably exploited for low wages and long work hours."
I am not suggesting that those views reflect the views of all Canadians. But if we are to allow voluntary mechanisms, and the public will, to decide these matters, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that we will fail. We will fail as a Parliament and as a nation to address and correct some inequality and some wrongs which are happening in the workplace to ordinary Canadians. This Bill has failed to address those concerns in a very real and concrete manner.
There is no mention in the legislation about contract compliance. There is nothing in the legislation which says that any company doing business with this Government must submit to some stringent employment equity measures. Only several months ago, we had a perfect example of this when I repeatedly raised on the floor of the House of Commons instances of outright discrimination which were being encountered by Canadians of Haitian and black backgrounds in the taxi industry, particularly in Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton. That was a perfect example of where this Government could have put its foot down and addressed the issue of equality which should be everyone's right, by sending a clear and strong message to the taxi industry that if it is to do business at our federal airports, then the industry must reflect the equality which should be every Canadian's right. Yet this Government shied away. The former Minister for Multiculturalism, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) shied away from setting this example, which reflects the same philosophy this Bill reflects. That is, we are not doing enough. It would have been easy to have told those cab companies that they are not permitted to do business at our airports unless they clean up their act and provide equality for all their drivers regardless of colour or background. The Government could have done that but it did not.
When we talk about contract compliance, we can look to our neighbours down south. Sometimes we say that we as a nation are much better than they are regarding human rights. Yet it is interesting to note a report submitted by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council which made some very interesting observations about the United States concerning contract compliance. They said that in the U.S. contract compliance legislation exists under Order 11246 which requires that federal contractors and federally-assisted contractors implement affirmative action programs. This applies to contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts valued at $50,000 or more. The program must set significant, measurable and attainable goals for the hiring, training and promotion of minorities and women. The numerical goals and timetables are directed towards increasing the utilization of target group members.

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity
Violation of the contract's equal opportunity clause may result in the cancellation or termination of the contract.
What have been the results? In 1983, the U.S. Department of Labour released the results of a study of some 77,000 factories, offices and work sites representing in excess of 20 millions employees. Between 1974 and 1980 minority employment grew at a rate of 20 per cent among those companies holding federal contracts, compared with only 12 per cent for businesses not bound by contract compliance. In addition, minority workers also posted significantly greater upward mobility where affirmative action was enforced. Finally, large numbers of blacks and Hispanic peoples moved from service and low skilled blue-collar work to skilled production, craft and white-collar jobs.
That is a perfect example of contract compliance being used to improve the economic lot of American citizens who had faced discrimination for a number of years. We could have done the same thing. Yet there is no mention of contract compliance in this Bill. There is no mention of that leadership I was talking about regarding the cab industry. However, that is what the Bill should have been speaking to.
I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of this Bill is completely welcome in this House. There is not one Member who would disagree with it. However, it is the follow-through and the lack of real teeth in the Bill which lets down the target groups the Government is saying it is trying to help. If we are to increase the equality of these four target groups and other Canadians, as an Hon. Member mentioned previously, we need to have legislation which will not only speak to equality but which will deliver equality.
In a study conducted this year, Mr. Speaker, Canadians from visible minority groups represented only 1.7 per cent of all employees within the federal Public Service. This Bill does not speak to that. There has been some mention of programs being introduced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) but they, too, are statistics gathering, research and study oriented. Yet what Canadians from one coast to the other are calling for are some measures which will deliver equality and tear down that vertical mosaic which still exists and which says that only a select few might be able to make it to the top. Other Canadians, through no fault of their own and not because they are incompetent, have been unable to reach the roof-tops which other Canadians have reached. That is a shame.
We can also look at what other groups are saying about this Bill. The Urban Alliance on Race Relations says "that the focus of the legislation is on data collection rather than hiring and training in a workplace free of discrimination." The Canadian Ethnocultural Council said that "while it is encouraging to see movement towards employment equity, the present Bill appears rather anaemic. It is difficult to envision how a voluntary approach will substantially improve employment opportunities for visible minorities."
Those words, as well as the meetings I have had with a number of groups and individuals, reflect how Canadians at large have accepted this Bill. We have also had a large number
of women and disabled and handicapped groups saying the very same thing. Their wish and my wish and the wish of my Party is that the Government listen attentively to these descriptions of the shortcomings of this Bill. The Government has a huge majority and we all know it can push through any Bill it likes on any day of the week. So what we should be concerned about is passing legislation which will do what it is intended to do. In my opinion this Bill does not do that. There should be employment equity for all Canadians. It is not a privilege, it is a right. It is a necessary part of being a Canadian living in a tolerant society. We all know there are people out there who, through no fault of their own, are not being treated with equality in the way that perhaps you and I are. This Bill needs to be improved. It needs amendments. It needs to speak forcefully and boldly to employment equity, and not just go through the motions. We need to have mandatory equity programs in our Civil Service, Crown corporations and those companies doing business with the federal Government. There should be no qualification regarding the number of employees or the amount of business concerned. What difference does it make if you do $100,000 or $2 million of business with the Government of Canada? Equality must transcend the financial and political barriers we see being created in this Bill.
In closing, I would like to caution the Government and the Minister to beef up this Bill with amendments which will ensure that these four target groups, and any others as was suggested earlier, receive the employment equity which is theirs by right as Canadians. I urge the Government to take another look at Bill C-62 because it will not improve the lot of these four target groups quickly enough or well enough.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mrs. Landry).


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to clear up a few points and maybe respond to some of the objections raised by my colleague from York West (Mr. Marchi).
I would like to point out to him that compliance with Bill C-62 will be mandatory, not optional. That being so, the companies will have no choice but to abide by the legislation.
The other point I might clear up has to do with frequent references to the enforcement mechanism and the Abella report. I would like to stress that we fully endorse the Abella report, particularly with respect to the enforcement mechanism. The Abella report mentions four models and we are in favour of the fourth one since it relates to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we too are endorsing the Abella report recommendations.
October 23, 1985

The last argument regarding the enforcement mechanism is that the Government has decided not to set up another costly agency, which would only add to the existing bureaucracy. We suggest that the data contained in the reports submitted by the businesses will make it possible for the Human Rights Commission to take legal action. And we believe that this enforcement mechanism will meet adequately the requirements of the Bill.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in her previous speech the Member said that an enforcement mechanism and a mandatory program would be too cost prohibitive. I think that is what is wrong with this Bill and with the mind-set of the Government. It is putting dollar figures before fundamental human rights in the workplace.
The Member mentions that companies have to report. They do. It mentions that in the Bill. The Government says that each company that does not file a report will be fined up to $50,000. That is great, too, but why not fine the companies if they are not fulfilling the proper equity programs which the Government has not really outlined to start with? If the Government is prepared to fine them for lack of reporting, it seems to me somewhat silly not to fine the companies for failing to attain a certain figure as established by the Government. That is the wrong way of doing things, Mr. Speaker. If you are serious about ensuring that employment equity will be a reality in this country, you must show direction and criteria and you must have some targets. If we are going to lift the four target groups up to an even level, we need to provide direction and targets and be specific.
I, too, Mr. Speaker, am against quotas because in themselves they impose limitations. However, we need more than just words. We need a criterion that companies can follow in order to attain employment equity. It is not good enough to say simply that if you do not file a report you are going to be fined. You should be fined and lose the contract if you do not attain employment equity aside from reporting to the Government with a letter or a report. Any company could submit a nice letter or report, but how can the Government judge whether that is in fact happening when there is not an enforcement agency on a national scale which can assure us that those reports are legitimate and reflect the reality in that company?
Those are the things which the Hon. Member should be addressing in addition to looking simply at what the Bill contains. It contains a number of positive elements, but it moves too slowly, is too weak, and there is no real courage and guts underlying the Bill because it is rather soft.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who has just spoken. I feel he has made a good speech. I wish, however, to ask him a question, for he seems to be quite familiar with this issue. He seems bent on telling the Government what to do. He seems to be saying to the Government: Go ahead! Give more teeth to the legislation for a number of reason which he has enumerated. My question is quite simply
Employment Equity
this: As you seem to think that this bill should have more teeth, how long ago, in your opinion, should it have been implemented?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. I do not pretend to have all the answers or to speak with the authority of anyone else except that of a normal Member of Parliament doing his or her work. 1 am disappointed that every time a piece of legislation comes up, Hon. Members always look back to what happened five years ago or twenty years ago when the Liberal Government was in power. That argument can be used for the positive things that were done in this country, yet no one does that.
However, I am not prepared to get into that kind of debate, because I do not think it speaks to this Bill. That kind of debate, discussion and rhetoric does not speak to the four target groups; women, natives, the handicapped and visible minorities. When we have a Bill intended specifically for those four target groups, we should focus debate on how we can get a piece of legislation which is going to work through the House of Commons, on how we can improve the piece of legislation to the best of our ability, and how we can further improve the piece of legislation through liaison with the four target groups and other groups that parliamentarians may be meeting with.
That is the kind of discussion that we should be having and that is the kind of discussion that Canadians are expecting from the parliamentarians in this Chamber. That is what I was trying to do. I was trying to look at this piece of legislation rather than looking 20 years in the past. Rather than looking to the past, let us try to envision what will be happening 20 years in the future. Let us ask ourselves where these for target groups will be in five years because of this legislation. If the answer is that they will not be far ahead, we should have the courage and integrity to ensure that employment equity will be insured. However, I honestly do not feel that it will be achieved through this Bill.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Member on his speech about the four target groups and what we should be doing in this country in terms of equity and equality. My question is very simple. Where was the Liberal Party for the last 20 years?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I throw the question back and ask where the Hon. Member was two minutes ago when I was attempting to remove the partisanship with regard to this Bill. I think this is one of those Bills which should transcend the partisan nature which my hon. friend from Saskatchewan injects into the debate.
This Bill needs improving. It needs more teeth. I am prepared to stand in my place and suggest that the Government make those improvements. I am also prepared to say that if the improvements are made in the Bill, when it comes time to vote I would not be a hypocrite, just because I am on the other side, and not vote for it.

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity
We should recognize a good piece of legislation, but we should also be prepared to have the courage to recognize bad legislation.
[Translation\


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill respecting employment equity, the purpose of which is to ensure equal rights within the labour force, so that nobody can be deprived of employment or promotion opportunities for reasons other than his or her qualifications. It especially aims at correcting the wrongs suffered by women, the natives, the handicapped and the visible minorities.
Employment equity requires not only equal treatment for everybody but also special initiatives and arrangements aimed at specific groups.
My political credo can be summed up as, "Fair shares for all and special privileges for no one". This Bill on employment equity addressed the first part of that credo "Fair shares for all". Employment constitutes a key area in which the right to equality and the equal benefit of the law must be achieved. Employment is one way for Canadians to become fully contributing, independent members of society. Employment equity is a way of eliminating discrimination against some Canadians in the employment area.
Let me quote from the report of Judge Rosalie Abella on which most of the legislation before us is based. I note that in her words:
Employment equity is a strategy designed to obliterate the present and the residual effects of discrimination and to open equitably the competition for employment opportunities to those arbitrarily excluded. It requires a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair and what is workable.
I can think of no Minister of the Crown or member of the federal Government better able to bring legislation before this Paliament that combines those three goals-a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair and what is workable-than the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
I want to say much about this Bill. However, to begin on a personal level, I want to say for the record that I have had the pleasure of knowing the Hon. Minister since the 1960s. The discussion we have had on the role of Government and the importance of Canadians realizing their potential and overcoming the obstacles that face them, including the obstacles of discrimination in the workplace, are not new ideas to her. Although the Abella Report provides a great basis for this legislation, this was not an idea that occurred to our Minister for the first time on reading the Abella Report.
The Bill before us now is the outgrowth of a long and serious commitment to seeing that Canadians enjoy their fair share. I want to salute the Minister for bringing this legislation before the House and enabling Canadians to see again that they have a Government in office now that not only is prepared to listen
but prepared to act and redress some of the long accumulating inequities in Canadian society.
In the few moments available to me, 1 want to base my remarks on this legislation in the context of four areas. They are the historical context, the constitutional context, the parliamentary context and the philosophic context.
Let me begin with the historical context. This legislation clearly constitutes a special program to see that women, the handicapped, the visible minorities and native Canadians have greater access to jobs in the Canadian economy. However, it is not the first time that Parliament has seen fit to make a special effort to see that social justice is done and that equity is more than a glib expression, that it becomes a reality.
Let me cite two examples. The first example is the veterans legislation that was enacted at the conclusion of World War II. The purpose of that legislation was to give special advantage, frankly, to the men and women who had gone abroad to fight for and defend this nation and indeed preserve the freedom that we are enjoying in Parliament and across the country today. It was felt that those who had put their lives at risk for our defence and liberty certainly should get more than just a warm handshake on their return to this country. Therefore, special programs were put in place with respect to educational opportunities and housing for veterans.
In slightly more recent times we have seen a special program to redress the imbalance in a country with two major founding cultures. It was a program to redress an imbalance in the federal civil service and to see to it that over a period of approximately a decade Canadians whose first language is French have higher and more important positions in the federal service. Those are two examples of how Parliament has seen fit in the past to move where social justice demanded it.
We now have a third spcecial program, and it is the Bill before us today.
Let us turn to the constitutional context. I will simply note in passing that Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the legal equality of all Canadians and prohibits discrimination. Some might suggest that features of this legislation will be discriminatory in their effect. It is important to understand that Section 15(2) of the Charter anticipated that Parliament, on certain occasions, would have to redress historic imbalances and that special programs, such as this employment equity Bill, would be required. For that reason, in adopting the Charter several years ago, Parliament provided express exemptions, stating that programs aimed at ameliorating the conditions of those who had suffered past discrimination would not be unconstitutional under Section 15.
The third area is the parliamentary context. By that I am referring to all the other companion activities and legislation coming through this Chamber as part of the great outpouring of our Government's response to the long developing inequities in Canadian society. While the employment equity Bill is an important piece of legislation, it does not stand alone as the sole response of the Government to these problems. Contemporaneously with this we have passed amendments to the Indian
October 23, 1985

Act, thereby removing over a century of discrimination against Indian women.
In another development a few weeks ago, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) announced in the House a Charter litigation fund to ensure that Canadians who want and need to challenge existing laws and programs, because they are not constitutional under our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would not be precluded from doing so because of a lack of financial ability. Indeed, a few months ago, in the same parliamentary context, Bill C-27 went through Parliament. It was an early initiative of the Hon. Minister of Justice to eliminate a number of the obvious inequities in existing federal statutes in light of the equality provisions of Section 15 of the Charter. Bill C-62 is but a companion piece of legislation in an over-all attempt by the Government to fulfil its commitment to social justice in Canada which was one of the three goals that were enunciated in the Throne Speech as a hallmark of our Government.
That brings me to the fourth context in which I would like to consider this employment equity Bill-the philosophic context. This is the context in which I speak about the merit system or about meritocracy. I believe that the ideal system is the one in wjiich people are hired and promoted on the basis of their merit. You write the job description setting out the bona fide requirements for whatever the task might be, a transportation shipper, a gunner in an aircraft, a lawyer, a bus driver, and then you hire the person most qualified. That is what I call meritocracy.
In a country such as ours, with people from so many different national backgrounds, different religions, walks of life and political belief, you really cannot have any other system. What we want to see is the very best for our country. We want Canada to realize its full potential by having individuals realize their full potential. Let us not see discrimination against anyone. Let us see only hiring of the best. That is the ideal. We must always keep that in mind. Even when special programs are brought in, such as in this Bill, it is not to detract from that ideal but to work closer toward it.
As a Conservative, I believe philosophically that human institutions reflect the human frailties that we ourselves possess and that it is not a perfect world. I accept that the old boy network operates when people are hired and promoted. I remember and take to heart the expression often heard when people are being hired for jobs that it is not what you know but who you know that counts. It is in that context that we see this legislation introduce a concept that can redress and do some fine tuning in the working of meritocracy. It is unquestionably the case that native Canadians, disabled Canadians and visible minorities have not had their fair share of jobs.
I would like now to address some of the specific reasons that I think this is a good Bill and, in many respects, an historic breakthrough. Let us consider first the gathering of data.
I have heard and listened with careful attention to spokesmen for the Opposition Parties being critical of the reporting
Employment Equity
requirements. I thought I was perhaps hearing comments that could have been made by people who escaped from the Titanic as it was going down who found themselves in a lifeboat and who were criticizing the lifeboat. You have to take it step by step and view the value of what we are doing on its own merit. There can be no question that the compiling of data is fundamental to the evaluation of not only why this legislation should be brought in but of how well it is achieving its goal. When it has achieved its goal, we can revert to the working of the meritocracy system without any of these special programs. Until we have the data lines and the information that can say, yes, a fair share is now being won by those who, in the past received the butt end in Canadian society, a lot of the debate and discussion is more rhetoric than genuine concern for seeing true human progress.
I should note that some of those who have criticized this legislation feel it is not the desire, the will, the interest or the wont of the corporations, the business community, to see special programs that would encourage women, the handicapped or other disadvantaged groups to get a fair share of the jobs.
It was, therefore, revealing to me to have had a number of conversations recently with corporate executives, particularly those responsible for personnel policy, men in their fifties in most cases, who are speaking with a new-found glee, the kind of enthusiasm that comes to a born-again reformer part way through life on discovering that something formerly being opposed was not only positive but did not hurt. By recruiting women, formerly having excluded them, they found far better, more motivated people coming to companies and doing a much better job. I do not want to generalize on the basis of perhaps half a dozen or more conversations, but I put that before the House as a straw in the wind. There is an increasing recognition that things are changing on the part of those who once opposed or just dug in their heels on the basis of stereotypical notions of who should be doing what, where and under what circumstances.
We spoke a year and a few months ago that it was time for a change. That message has gone deep not only with the Government of the country but in the way we are thinking, in the way we can reform and introduce new programs, such as the program contemplated by this employment equity Bill, to see that all Canadians get their fair share.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) has, in the course of his comments in praise of the Government Bill before us, suggested that institutions reflect the imperfections of humanity. This is one of the more interesting dodges that Conservatives use for their own slow action.
Is it not a necessity for institutions to seek to transcend the imperfections of humanity? Is it not the responsibility of Government, recognizing the shortcomings in employment equity that exist, to get on with the task actively and not give us half-baked measures of the sort we are debating in Bill C-62?

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's comment and question has two parts to it. One having to do with the speed with which our Government is responding. The second is a more interesting philosophic question. First, on the question of speed, I do not think anybody on this side of the House has to apologize for speed. Has the Hon. Member counted the number of days from the time the Abella Report came out to the time that the legislation came into this House? Compare that with the record of any Government, including provincial Governments and New Democratic Governments, and Members will see that the Progressive Conservative Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration do not have to apologize to anyone in terms of getting on with social justice. I always love to hear from the New Democrats when it comes to seeing someone other than a New Democrat doing something that is for the good of the people, because they feel that that area is their own private, protected preserve. We Progressive Conservatives are here because the Canadian people know that they can look for us for action, and they are getting it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Boyer: The second point in his question had to do with the philosophic nature of human imperfection and whether institutions reflect that or not. I think this is perhaps long going to be a point of discussion between socialists and members of the Progressive Conservative Party. My view is that human nature is flawed, that we are not perfect on this earth and therefore our creations reflect that, be they reports that are written, be it legislation that is introduced, be they speeches given by Members in the House. No matter what we turn to, we can always think later how it might have been better. When 1 am talking about institutions reflecting human imperfection it is not because I do not think they can be improved. I think that is the continuing struggle that particularly we in politics are engaged in, to pursue that endless quest to find the golden mean. But if the Hon. Member thinks that in one single Bill perfection can be achieved, then I suggest that he remain in the New Democratic caucus. For our part we are going to stay on this side of the House and support the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is bringing in legislation that is a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair and what is workable.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: While my friend is waxing eloquent over there, in his capacity not only as a Member of this House but, I gather, as chairman of the subcommittee on equality, he is talking about the imperfection of institutions and so on and how great this particular Bill is in terms of the four targeted groups. I wonder if he would be prepared to entertain the idea perhaps of recommending to the Government that we extend equality to this institution and perhaps have an equal number of men and women Members of Parliament, have two-member ridings where there must be at least one woman and one man, therefore we would have gender equality in the House of Commons. The Minister said she would come and run in
Yorkton-Melville. We would then of course have two very excellent Members from that riding, as she is such a red Tory.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment on that. I do not make the suggestion in a frivolous way. Also I know our native people have said many times that perhaps we should look at the possibility of direct elections to the House of Commons of the native people of Canada. They represent such and such a percentage of the population. They are unique people with a distinct and special status in this country. What about the possibility of direct elections so that they could come here and represent native people?
What about those two ideas in terms of promoting equality in this country? I understand, Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a departure, but second reading is debate on principle.


Patrick Boyer: Nobody is perfect.
Dealing with the two points, I have already explained what 1 believe very strongly is important in Canada, namely, a system of merit, a meritocracy. I apply that not only to the job market or to other institutions but indeed to this very special institution, our Parliament. I think that those who are elected here should be elected on the basis of their merit, what they stand for, what they are prepared to stand for, their Party's record and what the Party stands for.
I would like to note for the record that, based on merit, we are getting an increasing number of women Members of Parliament in this Chamber. I would hate to see any kind of quota or artifical system introduced in our election procedures that would say that the people who come here are not the 282 who fought the hardest and fought the best and did the best they humanly knew how to, to come here and represent the people. I would not want anyone, including the Hon. Member, to think that he was here simply because he was filling a quota and not because his electors saw him to be eminently qualified to represent them.
As to his second point, it is interesting that one other country has tried that, and I refer to New Zealand, where they have the four Maori seats in their Parliament. In addition to all the other MPs, there are four who are elected to represent the Maori population. That system of course requires voters to register as either Maori or non-Maori voters, and then they have the choice of voting in one of those four Maori constituencies or indeed in the regular constituencies.
What has struck me as being somewhat anomalous in that is that it really gives the Maoris a bit of a special advantage because they know that they are going to get their four Maori seats anyway, so in the other seats they would probably vote for the candidates who would most likely be supporting and advancing the cause of the Maoris. I do not have any problem with that, but I just say that I think it introduces an anomalous feature into the electoral system. There are Maoris being elected in New Zealand through other than the four Maori constituencies, and I think that they are viewing this in New Zealand now as being the historic phase in which they find themselves now and that perhaps the time has come to end that artificial provision in their elections and to revert to a
October 23, 1985

system such as we have here. With regard to the New Zealand experience, I do not know that it would be an improvement here. I certainly can think of native Canadians who have been in this Chamber as well as in the upper House and who are here now and are contributing in a very fine fashion. They are here on their own merit as well.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member uses the arguement of merit, and of course that is always the argument, between affirmative action and merit. I guess we could go on at great length as to why we need some affirmative action programs. Accepting what he says about merit, is it not so that the Conservative Party has in its constitution for conventions, certainly at different levels, a parity principle whereby a certain number of delegates must be women at a leadership convention or a national convention of the Party must be women. It is certainly the case in our Party. Relating to our national council of the Party, we now have a parity provision whereby there must be an equal number of males and females.
I guess my question is very simply then, if we accept the concept of parity through affirmative action within our Parties: What is the difference when it comes to this institution, in terms of the Hon. Member's argument?


Patrick Boyer: That is a good question. I would add that there is indeed a third dimension within the constitution that you could call affirmative action, special treatment, because there is a requirement that there be a certain number of youth delegates as well. Just before I answer the question let me say that I wonder if the Hon. Member was studying the Progressive Conservative constitution so intently perhaps at one time recently when he was thinking that this Party was doing so well that he would look at the constitution to see what if anything prevented him from joining this Party.


An Hon. Member:: Even he is welcome.


Patrick Boyer: We keep a light in the window for everyone.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would never get elected.


Patrick Boyer: Strange things happen and strange things happen in terms of Party constitutions as well. I think that, historically, that would have been a strange thing in terms of any Party's constitution. I am glad the Hon. Member raised it because it brings into sharp relief the importance of having, at different stages in our evolution as a country, programs that will help offset the workings of a system that, by any objective criterion, are not really fair to the over-all community. I think that is perhaps the one shared basis of philosophical agreement between socialists and Progressive Conservatives, our overriding concern for the community.
That, of course, goes back to where we both come from, from the 19th century, tracing back our philosophical origins and realizing the overriding concern for the well-being of the community in ensuring that there are no groups, be they women, be they youth, be they visible minorities or any other groups, that are being excluded on the basis of prejudice or discrimination. There is then clearly a role for the Government
Employment Equity
to step in, as we are doing now in this legislation, just as political Parties have stepped in in terms of those constitutional amendments or provisions that the Hon. Member so properly referred to in this context.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-62 with a deep sense of disappointment which has been expressed by various groups and many Canadians when they have contemplated this Bill. The Bill is described as an Act respecting employment equity. In Clause 2 of this quite short Bill, the purpose of the Act is stated as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
This Bill is part of an historic evolution of the employment practices of this country which calls for the action of Government. The Bill points us to developments which have taken place over the preceding years in opening up employment possibilities for women, and the federal Government has played its part in that, in creating federal and provincial programs to sensitize employers to the potential that exists in persons with disabilities, in creating programs which are designed to open employment possibilities for aboriginal peoples and in opening up employment opportunities for persons who are members of visible minority groups. I am particularly concerned with the last area to which I referred as I am the NDP critic for multiculturalism.
In the case of visible minorities in which I am particularly involved, the last Parliament saw significant developments in the form of a special committee which dealt with the participation of visible minority groups in Canadian society and also saw the Government of the day appoint a commissioner to consider the question of employment possibilities for members of that group as well as for members of the other three groups with which the Act deals. One could take time to explore the ways in which Canadian society has been sensitized somewhat to the problems of members of each of these four groups. Governments have come to recognize that it is necessary to develop legislation to ensure that progress can be made.
It seems to me that the present Conservative Government has now an historic opportunity to ensure that there will be real action taken to achieve equity in employment. I submit that Bill C-62 is a deeply disappointing piece of legislation in its approach to that goal. At best, one would have to say that the Bill is a truncated piece of legislation. At best, it is the first part of what the Government should have put before us.
The Bill could be defended if it were made clear that the Government planned within months to follow through on other

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity
actions that are required in order to ensure that there will be real progress made toward equity in employment. However, there has not been any real indication of that.
Since the Bill before us is supposedly complete in itself, we are waiting for the next Government to come in, as reporting will have to take place over several years before problems become clear, and only at that point will the next Government, in its wisdom, spend months deciding what should be done and creating the mechanisms that have been called for. Perhaps I concede too much in suggesting that several years will be required.
I would like to put before the House this afternoon the facts of the situation as they are spotlighted in Canada's largest city, namely, Toronto. Toronto is not an unusual city for these purposes. Its society reflects the nature of Canada in many ways. Employment practices which were found to exist in the City of Toronto as they relate to members of visible minority groups can surely provide us with adequate reason to think that the Government should take strong action.
I am focusing particularly on the report of the Urban Alliance on Racee Relations and the Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto which was published earlier this year under the title No Discrimination Here? This report indicates that a survey of personnel managers of 199 Metro Toronto organizations suggested that employers are doing very little about racial discrimination in that city. The large majority of Toronto employers have no policies to prevent discrimination or promote employment equity. They do not want such policies and claim that they are unneeded. However, the study concludes that race-related policies are indeed needed. Widespread use of informal personnel systems provides ample opportunity for exercising racial bias and unfortunately racial bias is often expressed by key decision-makers.
Some remarkable facts were elicited by the authors of this study in their consideration of how employers discriminate against non-whites in the Toronto labour force. There were in fact significant opportunities for discrimination, particularly in recruitment. There was a high degree of informality in the recruitment systems, and a correlation between the use of these informal practices by the employers and low representation of non-whites can be made.
Eighty-two per cent of the employers studied had no special policies to address race-related employment issues. Those who did have a policy, most commonly depended on a passive approach which was expressed in a statement of compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Commission guidelines. Only 3 per cent of this group of almost 200 organizations had developed systematic affirmative action plans at a time when surely the activities of Human Rights Commissions would have demonstrated the need in Canada for organized action if there is to be a real change in pattern.
Among the evidence of this unfortunate situation that the report put before the Canadian public was the fact that many employers overlooked or discounted the existence of interracial tensions in their workforces. On the one hand, there were complaints from whites in which derogatory race-based generalizations about work habits, hygiene and the like were being made. These were clearly expressions of how people felt in an aesthetic sense. On the other hand, complaints of non-whites focused on racially discriminatory employment decisions and practices ands race-based harassment in the workplace. One of the most remarkable statistics that came out of this study was the evidence that half of those non-whites who complained about these procedures ended up suffering from the fact that they had complained by being disciplined in some way or other. In such circumstances, it is obvious why employers do not want affirmative action guidelines developed.
It is clear that the reporting provision contained in this Bill will not make employers' lives very difficult. They will in fact be able to go on with the imperfections that exist, as the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) suggested a few moments ago, because they are not required to do anything beyond reporting on the situation that exists in their workplaces.
These features of the employment situation facing persons from visible minority groups in the City of Toronto would, I think, be matched across the country as well as would the features of the employment situation facing other target groups with which this legislation purports to deal and for which I would suggest it provides no effective means to ensure that progress will actually be made. I dare say it is no secret to any Member who has looked into the matter by now, and the Conservative Members will make brave speeches in support of the legislation, that various groups which have considered the legislation have found it quite inadequate. The study from which I have been drawing was sponsored by the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. The alliance has made its criticisms quite clear with respect to the equity in employment Bill. There are a number of shortcomings which the Bill fails to address.
First, what is missing in the legislation is a central enforcement and standard-setting agency for all four sectors, that is, Government departments, federally-chartered Crown corporations, contractors who do business with the Government and federally-regulated businesses. In fact, there is a very real possibility that the lack of any central enforcement agency will lead to various organizations or businesses falling under the sway of one or other of several different agencies. Our expectation is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will have the primary responsibility. However, there is a possibility that other agencies, too, will become involved in this matter. As several agencies become active with various groups of employers, it is quite possible that different standards will develop. All we need is that type of additional inequity to open opportunities for lawyers to involve themselves and for judicial actions to begin which will further encumber the progress which so badly needs to be made in the country.
If there is one central failing in the Bill it is the failure to establish any central mechanism with adequate resources to the task. If there is any fundamental reason for asserting that
October 23, 1985

the Government blew it with respect to this particular Bill and that it in fact spoke brave words but refused to bite the bullet, refusing to rise to the challenge and get on with the job of moving toward equity in employment, it is in the failure to establish an agency which would have the responsibility for ensuring that real progress is made. It is not just a central and independent agency that is required. What is also called for is mandatory programs for the four sectors of employment to which I have already alluded. What is needed are mandatory programs which will ensure that progress is made by the four target groups with which we are concerned. Again, pursuant to this legislation, employers will be required to report. However, the hope that reporting, even publicly, will make any significant difference is an old-fashioned, small "1" liberal hope. I would have thought that the Conservatives, who know about human imperfection, would have seen this through and realized that they had to do much more than just ensure that information came in. Given the imperfection of humanity, what is required of employers if we are to have real employment equity is the establishment of plans, the setting of goals and the establishment of time-frames within which progress has to be made. It is by such means that this Government could have demonstrated that it was really prepared to do something about it and that it was prepared to act in areas in which it states its principles so bravely.
As far as contract compliance is concerned, which is one of the provisions by which Government can affect employment patterns in businesses which hope to sell to Government, what we need is contract compliance for all Government contractors with over 50 employees and $200,000 worth of Government contracts per year, not just undefined commitments as a condition of tendering. That is surely part of the same process of ensuring that enforceable plans are developed and that goals are set. With the figures in place, the possibility exists for the enforcement agency, which is imperative, to ensure that we are really seeing some progress made.
One of the basic principles which should underlie these new contractual arrangements is the provision that equal pay should be the basis for work or should result from work of equal value. There, too, this Bill fails in what has been one of the key concerns of all who are in support of the improvement of the economic position of women in our workforce.
Finally, as one other criticism which the Urban Alliance on Race Relations stated as far as this Bill is concerned, there is not an employment equity program requirement as a condition of all loans, grants and receipts of cost-sharing moneys. These several failings which the alliance raises with respect to a number of specific points were also expressed by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, a national umbrella organization which is becoming more and more well known in the way in which it brings together various ethnocultural groups in the country and speaks for them nationally.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council filed an extensive response to issues in equality rights with the subcommittee which was looking into the matter of equality rights over the summer and into the early fall. In its extensive report in
Employment Equity
commenting on Judge Abella's employment equity report specifically it said that a review of the United States experience with mandatory affirmative action confirmed the commission's view that legislated enforceable requirements are critical to the success of affirmative action programs. It also said that the commission concluded that the enforcement of employment equity requires an agency which is independent and which has a qualified staff familiar with labour relations, employment systems and human rights issues. If that is the requirement, what does this employment equity Bill do? The council suggests that the Bill is rather anaemic and that it does not provide any enforcement component in the area of contract compliance. There is little to ensure the contractor's commitment to equity programs. There is a lack of any enforcement mechanism. There is also an absence of guidelines to promote participation by visible minorities.
Those points underscore what the Urban Alliance on Race Relations said for its part as far as the shortcomings of the Bill are concerned. The fact of the matter is Governments, when they are determined, can make real progress. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind considering the Public Service of Canada that the 1969 passage of the Official Languages Act and the establishment of the Commissioner of Official Languages and a joint committee to oversee the matter led to action. Of course, there can be no doubt that the Government of the day lead by Prime Minister Trudeau was determined to see the institutions of this country become bilingual. As a member of the joint committee 1 am keenly aware of the shortcomings which still exist in the actual operations of Government and the existence of French as a language of work in Government. For example, in various areas of the country Canadians still find it difficult to be served in the language of their choice. All that after a decade and a half of determined action.
In these other areas legislation dealing with employment equity, pulling its punches the way this one does and failing to establish the mechanisms which are required of various sorts in order to make employment equity a result, can only leave one convinced that this Government is not really serious about the matter. It will talk about the matter but it will not take the action which is required to transform our society. It leaves all of those who watch convinced that society will not change very significantly. Certainly, if it is to change it will only be slowly. As I suggested when I spoke on The Nation's Business last Wednesday morning, it is that conviction held by so many Canadians that in time everything will be fine which I want to challenge. In fact, it requires the real determination of Government. This Government has not in fact followed through in a convincing way in demonstrating that it intends to do something, that it wants society to be changed in accordance with the principles of full involvement. I think we are all involved, including every Conservative Member of Parliament, in the kind of betrayal of principle by a Government which had the challenge in its hands and failed to do anything, which reflects very ill on the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Each time the reports came out in

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity
Toronto last winter and spring, I wrote to express my very real concern about what Government could do, but the Minister has in fact failed to follow through-and I am sorry she is not in the Elouse to hear me say that-and that is cause for the deepest disappointment and a real sense of betrayal.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe any of us in this House of whatever Party would want to deny employment to anyone who is capable of doing the work just because he belongs to a visible minority. I believe we all want to see that every person who is impaired physically or mentally has a job. It has been shown that many of these people can do a worth-while job. I do not believe anyone would want to destroy the life of any person because of the colour of their skin when he or she is capable of doing something. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I was rather amazed this afternoon listening to Hon. Members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party opposing this Bill because the legislation is not compulsory. The Hon. Member who just spoke talked about doing something compulsory, that we must tell the employer what he has to do and whom he has to hire. It is not the Canadian way of life for Government to run the businesses of the country. This Government was elected because the people were tired of the Liberal Government trying to run everyone's business and destroying the businesses in that way. Compulsion is not the way of Canadian life. I am happy to see the Hon. Minister bring in a Bill which is not compulsory.
There is another way to do it, the Canadian way, and that is inducement. By inducement we can provide work for those who are in wheelchairs and those who are mentally retarded. I will give you a quick example, Mr. Speaker. There is a school in my home riding of Drumheller because some splendid citizens decided that a number of people who were mentally retarded and some who were physically retarded should not be on welfare. They believed these people could be trained to do things. It would do your heart good, Mr. Speaker, to go to that school and see how these people have made toys and benches. There are some men there of 25 years or 30 years who were formerly on welfare but who are now making a living building things. They showed that they could do it. They were not compelled to do it. It was inducement. I think we can do that throughout this entire country.
Canadian employers are not arrogant. They want to employ those who are handicapped. There has to be some inducement, not compulsion. Would the Hon. Member not agree that the Progressive Conservative way of doing this by inducement is far better than the way of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of doing it by compulsion?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I wonder how many other of the Hon. Member's colleagues would like to make similar comments because I feel that underscores everything I said about our deep disappointment and betrayed hope. The kind of
conviction that the old Canadian way will do it and so on, is going to leave-


Gordon Edward Taylor: The new Canadian way, not the old.


Abram Ernest Epp: -one very large proportion of the Canadian population deeply disappointed and convinced that this Government is just making protestations and does not have the guts to follow through. Certainly, where community effort to achieve something exists, it is only to be applauded. I would wonder what kind of employment these people are able to find and what kind of wages they would earn. I trust that they would work their way into jobs which moved them above the poverty line in the Hon. Member's community of Drumheller and I hope very devoutly that occurs. However, I do not believe there is any point in subscribing to the conviction of the good sense of employers as does the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I believe the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore had a much better sense of where humanity is actually at, and that includes a lot of Canadian employers. There is no particular desire in their hearts to have members of visible minority groups in their workforce. In fact, if those persons were in the workforce complaining about discrimination against them in some aspect or other, including promotions, I dare say, the best thing to do is to keep them out of there. In those various cases, to think that voluntary action will solve the problem is naive, or worse.
In terms of the general sense of being able to get somewhere by depending on voluntary action, I did not suggest that the Government should tell employers who to hire. 1 never suggested anything of the sort in terms of any particular individuals. I do think, as the new Democratic Government in Manitoba has also concluded, that the employment by the Government, and presumably by large employers, should reflect the composition of its workforce. With respect to persons in these four target groups, who probably, in terms of their actual ability to do work, are similar enough to the mainstream white and male population, we can only gain by ensuring that all of those persons are employed. That surely is the basic economic rationale for achieving this social justice policy of employment equity.
The Manitoba Government has carried through something else which is not in this Bill and that is to negotiate arrangements with the provincial Government employees union under which, over a period of time-and it is quite a long period of time, I concede-the employment composition of the Manitoba provincial Government will come to reflect the labour force composition of the province. Therefore, women, aboriginal people, the disabled and visible minority groups will in fact find employment in the Manitoba Government in proportionate numbers to what they exist in the workforce. That kind of provision which was negotiated with the union representing the present employees of the Government of Manitoba-or under the legislation, whatever organization we are dealing with from Government Department to business seeking Government contracts-would ensure that the ability which exists in our society in each of the target areas would in fact find full
October 23, 1985

employment in the Government and an opportunity to exercise there the talents which God gave them. That has to be done, I suggest, by requiring enforceable programs be undertaken by employers and that will ensure they move in that direction.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentions what might happen in Manitoba. We will see what the people think about that shortly. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that in Alberta, inducement was used and provided work for not only women, aboriginal people, handicapped and mentally retarded people from Alberta, but from several provinces. Under the Progressive Conservative Government we are using the policy of inducement. The only thing which destroyed it was the National Energy Program brought in by the Liberals, part of which was supported by the New Democratic Party. If I have to tell an employer who invests his money in his now business who he has to hire, I will move to Moscow. We expect compulsion there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry, the period for questions and comments is now over, enlightening as it may
be.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in connection with Bill C-62, which is an Act respecting employment equity. Unlike the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), I am not disappointed in the least with Bill C-62. In fact, I am very pleased with Bill C-62. Bearing that in mind, and since the Hon. Member seemed to indicate his disappointment when he read Clause 2, the purpose of the Bill, I would just read it myself because I think there is a great deal we can take pleasure from in that clause. It states that:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
This Bill impacts on four very particular groups: women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and persons who, because of race or colour, are part of a visible minority group. When we reflect on that, it is obvious indeed that this Bill will affect the vast majority of people in this country. In fact, it will affect every family in this country. I fail to see how the Hon. Member can be disappointed by a Bill which is going to have such wide implications for in effect virtually every family of every Member of this House. Certainly this Bill will affect my own family. I very much wish that it had been in place some years ago because it would have had a very beneficial effect on one member of my family in particular. I refer to a first cousin of my father's by the name of Ted. Unfortunately, Ted suffered disabilities at birth which affected and impaired his speech and movements throughout his entire life. However, after Ted left school, and with the assistance of a family friend
Employment Equity
who happened to be the Chairman of the City of Toronto Board of Education, he got a job as a custodian in a Toronto school. He worked all of his working days until he retired. In that way he was able to support and look after himself. He was able to make a useful and beneficial contribution not only to himself but to society. It is quite clear that he was able to benefit from having that job, and benefit not only himself but his family and the whole of society. If he had not been fortunate enough to have had some assistance in getting that job, undoubtedly he would have been on social assistance during his lifetime and the taxpayers of this country would have had to have helped support him.
This Bill will make sure that sort of situation will not happen in the future. In the past people like my cousin Ted had to rely on some sort of helping hand, perhaps with political assistance of political friends. That sort of thing is not acceptable today, but if we do not have something to take its place we are going to be in great trouble in this country. Fortunately, what has come along for people like my cousin, people like visible minorities, native people and women, is this Bill on employment equity. How is this Bill going to benefit people like my cousin and others in the position referred to in this Bill? The Bill points out in Clause 4 that employers who are governed by the Canada Labour Relations Code are going to have to identify and eliminate all employment practices which present barriers to the employment of people in those four categories. Not only that, they are going to have to institute positive policies and practices to make sure that we eliminate these barriers. The specific policies, goals and time limits are not spelled out in the Bill in black and white. However, Clause 10 does provide for the Minister to issue guidelines to direct employers pertaining to any of these matters. That is, to set out goals, targets and time limits with respect to hiring, promotion, training and pay practices. All of these things can be covered by the guidelines the Minister will be setting out under Clause 3.
These guidelines will no doubt change from time to time. I have heard criticism in this House today and on other occasions from Members of the Opposition who have indicated that we should have in black and white in this Bill those specific guidelines. They should be set out once and for all, for all time, unchangeable and unchanging. However, all of us know that these things to change from time to time. There is no question that if we looked at employment practices at the turn of this century, they would be different from employment practices in the 1930s. Employment practices in the 1930s would be different from those in the 1950s. Employment practices in the 1950s are different from those today. Therefore, there has to be some flexibility in the Bill and some room to make adjustments which will keep the law current. We have to make sure it applies to present day conditions, which conditions are always changing. We have seen, for example, that a lot of civil rights legislation in other countries has not worked because conditions constantly change. If we sat back and did not make any changes we would have problems and we would be justifiably criticized by the Opposition. On the other hand, if we set

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity
out in the Act the specifics of these goals, targets and time limits, we would find it necessary to make changes through legislation. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, how difficult it is to make changes in any legislation once it is enacted by this House.
The second aspect of the Bill, then, is the requirement under Clause 5 for employers to prepare and file reports with the Minister. Those reports will outline, of course, what they had been doing in order to eliminate the barriers of discrimination in employment and what new targets and goals they have set forth, as well as time limits within which they accomplish those targets and goals. Clause 5 sets a date of on or before June 1, 1988, for the first of these reports to be filed. We have heard a lot of criticism from our hon. friends in the Opposition about the fact the date was not set sooner than that. The whole process of setting a target date for commencing the filing of reports is to ensure that we give employers a reasonable opportunity to comply and put their plans and policies in place and then to make sure that they are complying with them. From listening to Opposition members talk, one gets the impression that perhaps they are more interested in prosecuting employers and making sure they are hauled before the courts, made an example of, fined, or perhaps even sent to jail. One gets the impression that they are not really interested in seeing the goal of employment equity achieved. That, of course, is really what the Bill is trying to achieve. It is not trying to punish people. It is trying to ensure that Canadian society moves along and that we do attain employment equity. The date and the goals which are set out in the Bill make a lot of sense to most Canadians, if not to the Opposition.
If the reports referred to in the Bill are not filed in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time, it is an offence under Clause 6 of the Bill which says:
An employer who fails to comply with section 5 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars.
There is that portion of enforcement quite clearly in the Bill which sets out that any employer who fails to report is going to be subject to conviction and to a fine. What is going to happen to the reports themselves seems to be the source of a good deal of criticism by my hon. friends in the Opposition. They have indicated that there is no enforcement mechanism in the Bill whatsoever, that these reports will be filed and that will be the end of it. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. The Human Rights Commission of Canada is set up to deal with this type of situation. The Human Rights Commission has the ability and authority to either institute proceedings on its own under Section 32.3 of the Human Rights Commission legislation, or to instigate the proceedings on a complaint by any individual who feels that he or she may be aggrieved and that there may be a breach of the intention of this employment equity Bill.
That was the great problem in the past. The average or ordinary citizen has had the ability to lay a complaint and the Commission has had the ability to proceed on its own, but
there has not been evidence available on which to prosecute these complaints and proceed with them. Now, through Bill C-62, there will be this information in the form of reports that will be filed by the Minister and will be available to individuals and employers in order to proceed in laying the complaints and getting results because the evidence will be forthcoming.
The whole employment equity Bill applies to a certain segment of jobs in Canada. It applies, in effect, to all of those jobs that are subject to the Canada Labour Code other than those jobs which are included in the federal civil service and federal Crown corporations. In fact, the total number of jobs to which the Canada Labour Code applies is approximately 1 million. About 500,000, of the jobs will be covered by this Act. Of the other 500,000, 250,000 of the jobs are in the federal civil service itself. There are already, as you know, Mr. Speaker, guidelines, targets and time limits in place for employment equity in the federal civil service. I hope that is taking place. We trust that it is coming to pass. However, if it is not, once again the Human Rights Commission has the right to proceed. Under Section 32.3 of the Act it has the power to initiate complaints.
The same is true of the remaining 250,000 jobs which are in federal Crown corporations. There, too, the Government is issuing guidelines, setting targets and setting time limits. Once again failure to follow through on those goals and objectives will be subject to complaints being laid in front of the Human Rights Commission, either by individuals or on the initiative of the Human Rights Commission itself. Therefore, all of the 1 million jobs that are covered by the Canada Labour Code are going to be subject to this employment equity legislation or to very similar guidelines imposed by the Government itself. There is a mandatory enforcement agency in place which will ensure that employment equity, as outlined in this Bill and in those Government rules and regulations is going to be enforced.
That leaves us with the other group of jobs that is not governed by the Canada Labour Code, those that fall under provincial jurisdiction and are governed by provincial labour codes. With regard to those we have to look to the provinces to implement similar legislation to attain employment equity. There is one other area in which the federal Government can and is getting involved, and that is with employers who have 200 employees or more and have contracts with the federal Government for $200,000 or more. Those employers are also going to be subject to the same guidelines, enforcement provisions and mandatory provisions that are in this Act.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this Bill and with the companion approaches that the Government is taking to ensure that there will be employment equity in this country. If I am disappointed at all, it is that the Opposition is not whole-heartedly embracing this Bill and passing it as quickly as possible. I am sure that after hearing the points raised by Government speakers this afternoon we will find that at the end of the debate today all Opposition members will join with us in passing second reading of this Bill right away.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, when the time comes to vote on Bill C-62 which we are
October 23, 1985

debating here today, I think it will present a problem for many Members of this House to decide what to do. The purpose of this Bill as indicated in the preamble is very high sounding and the kind of thing that we would all applaud. It says:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability-
In other words, aside from the important question of merit, no one should be denied the opportunity to equal access to a position or a job. Another valuable goal of this legislation is to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada. It continues on in the same vein as to its purpose.
I believe that all of us would find great value in the purpose of Bill C-62. Some may say that even though the Bill is not perfect in all its detail, it should be supported because it has some genuine impact on the community. However, the problem arises when one seeks the opinion of those most affected by discrimination. They are most able to know through experience whether such a measure will protect them. That is why I believe we should be hesitant in acting on this legislation. There are those who believe that even though this Bill is inconsequential, it is a slight contribution to our attempt to bring about social justice and, therefore, should be supported. However, there are many organizations interested in employment equity which are denouncing this Bill and saying that it is worse than nothing. Those groups are suggesting that this legislation is so flimsy in its content and ability to achieve moral and legal justice for organizations related to women, the handicapped, native people and visible minorities, that it should be rejected. Such an argument puts a Member of Parliament in a very difficult bind.
It would be unfair and unjust to assume that Members from one side of the House are champions of human rights, equality and social justice. I know that there are individuals from the Conservative benches who have just as much desire to see human rights, justice and equality in the workplace as Members in the opposition. I want to emphasize that it is not acceptable, at this critical moment in our history, to devise a measure that is totally inadequate and only gives lip service to equality. This is not the time to take such action. I hope that Members of the Government as well as the opposition are courageous enough to re-examine this legislation in light of the criticisms made by the visible minority groups, the handicapped groups, native people and women's organization who want to defend their equality rights. We must listen to their concerns.
Those of us who care about human rights have witnessed the long struggle of mankind from the primeval ooze of barbarism and despotism evolve into the faith and democracy in which we live. We are very proud of this country and have seen it evolve over the years through the establishment of commissions to protect the rights of individuals.
Employment Equity
Previous Governments have established a sense of equality not only in terms of language but for all cultures so that they may share equally in this land. Governments have passed legislation that effectively deals with human rights, language equality and the role to be played by multicultural groups. After the struggle to bring the Constitution from England we saw the battle that took place in Parliament to establish a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that Constitution which would guarantee in law the right of equality before the courts.
The constant struggle upward has been based on the fact that Parliament has had the courage to pass strong laws, regulations and rules that set out the values in our society which must be met. These laws came about as a result of Governments appointing commissions such as the Abella Commission and the Committee on the Disabled. That committee produced the Obstacles Report. That report made recommendations on how the handicapped might overcome the obstacles which were placed before them and left standing by society over the centuries. It was made clear that those obstacles must be eliminated because the time has come to ensure that all people who live in this country will be treated equally by their Governments and society. Those who are unfortunate enough to be handicapped-as could happen to anyone at any time- should continue to enjoy equal opportunity. A committee of the House of Commons was established to study how we would ensure that those who are handicapped and those who do not have these rights would indeed have equality of opportunity and access as well as human rights.
The Abella Commission was established to study the matter of equality in the workplace. It heard from handicapped groups and other organizations about equality in the workplace. It heard from companies and Governments throughout the country about how these people were being treated and if they had equal access. That committee also made its report.
It is the fact that these committees made clear and concise recommendations that we can question whether the Government has read those reports and really responded to them, or is this merely lip service in order to find a compromise with various groups? Is the Government dealing with this issue and acting to bring about fairness in the workplace or is it simply introducing this legislation to get it off the political agenda and show that the Government has taken action? 1 am sure that that is not good enough for the Canadian people and it is certainly not good enough for the people in those four groups we have mentioned.
Women constitute over half of the population of this country. It is not as if we are talking about a small insignificant group which will eventually require attention. Every group is signficant to us in Canada, but certainly when you get a group representing 51 per cent or 52 per cent, it is pretty significant. When you add to the numbers of people involved in that group called women, the native peoples, and you add to that the handicapped and the disabled, then you have a fairly large number of people about whom we are talking. They deserve very serious attention by this Government.

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity
We have worked our way through difficulties throughout these decades. At last we have a report. The Abella Report made it clear what it expected was the sine qua non of an effective policy on this subject. The sine qua non, according to that report, was some kind of teeth, something other than reporting, something other than depending upon public opinion. There has to be in the final analysis a crunch, a bite, a law, a rule, something you can understand and not something that was another step of side-stepping the issue.
It is sad to see the broken promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) which are like a broken record. In fact they are a broken record. Once again these broken promises will impact on those less advantaged in our society. They are the ones who will have to wait for social justice.
I was disappointed to hear one member of the Government praise his Government for bringing about such wonderful steps toward social justice since coming into power. The prime basic tool of this Government to deal with society is a budget but the budget gives to the rich and takes from the poor. That cannot be social justice. Here we see that what is important to this Government is rushing to the rescue of banks and large oil companies. It is not rushing to the rescue with meaningful legislation to those who need it most, those who need jobs, those who want to work who are disabled or who want to have equality of salary. It is not fair to the women who were promised by this Prime Minister in the election campaign that they would get equal pay for work of equal value. The Prime Minister also promised that private companies wanting to do business with the Government would have to produce affirmative action plans before they would be awarded contracts.
What happened to those promises made during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker? What have we got? We read in Bill C-62 that after all this labour, effort, groaning and travail that companies need only declare themselves equal opportunity employers to be among those who are eligible for contracts. They make out their own report card. They are for quite some time the judge and the jury of their own abilities. Companies with more than 100 employees who deal with the Government need only sign a document saying they agree to implement some kind of employment equity plan, and there is no definition of what that plan must be in this Bill, at least as I read it. It could be almost anything. This is incredible. In the light of the Abella Commission, it is a joke. I am not laughing, Mr. Speaker, because the Prime Minister is refusing to guarantee that the handicapped, for example, will have better jobs now through a better employment and equity program. If companies can write out their own tickets, and there is no criteria, it seems there is nothing on which to rely for a long time to come. What is more, these reports do not have to be effective until 1988. It does not guarantee to women equal pay for work of equal value.
On March 3, 1984 the Prime Minister in a speech said:
We will ask these firms to show us as part of their tendering responsibilities-
Let me emphasize what he said "to show us"-
-how many women will be hired to fill those contracts. There is nothing alien about that. It is just good sense.
Where is the good sense now, Mr. Speaker? If there is nothing alien about it, why is the Prime Minister alienating those organizations which represent the natives, the handicapped and the women? These organizations are speaking up. If we in the Opposition have to be left to raise our voices on their behalf because the backbenchers in the Tory Party will not do it, then so be it. Let them at least open their eyes and ears to see and hear what these organizations are saying.
Why has the Prime Minister not produced what he promised? The Prime Minister even repeated his promise in Conservative policy papers in the 1984 election campaign during a TV debate, which some of us may remember. He said that private companies doing business with Ottawa will be required to adopt the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Where is that in this Bill? Where is there equality in the workplace? What an empty thing in a Bill respecting employment equity. Something as fundamental as that promise does not appear.
Under which Minister of the Tory Government does this happen? The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), who was always a staunch and vocal supporter of rights for women, natives and minorities while in Opposition. Where is her strong voice in this situation now, Mr. Speaker? I am sure she can rationalize and feel that she has done her best. I am sure she has done her best in view of some of the comments we have heard in the debates from some of her colleagues. She probably had some stiff opposition. At the same time, that does not solve the problem for the people who belong to these groups. Instead of submitting action plans as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration promised, companies we are told will be:
-spot checked to determine if these companies are at least beginning to take such basic steps as making up an inventory of their workforce.
Marnie Clarke, Director General of the Employment and Equity Branch of the Department of Employment and Immigration said that. That is bold action, Mr. Speaker. There are going to be spot checks to see if the companies are making up an inventory of their workforce. What a courageous move. Only after three years will more thorough checks be undertaken. After three years, Mr. Speaker, and what does "more thorough checks" really mean? What kind of assurance does this give women, the natives or handicapped? The answer to that is none, Mr. Speaker because this law is not specific. That is why people like Marnie Clarke can talk the way they do. She is not required to lay down any real rules and regulations that will be clear guidelines of what is expected. She says:
We would never stop a contract midway. That would only put people out of work.
That sounds like the approach to South Africa. We do not want to put the blacks out of work in South Africa so, therefore, we will not impose any sanctions. We have heard that argument before. We really will not take any steps against these companies because we do not want to stop them midway
October 23, 1985

through a contract. My goodness, no. That might mean people being thrown out of work. What an amazing way to approach this subject.
I would like to point out one other major concern in this Bill. We are told that the legislation will apply only to companies with more than 100 employees. This winds up including about 100 of 25,000 to 30,000 companies doing business with this Government. That is a very small number of organizations to which this law will apply. It is a lot of noise about nothing.


Alan Redway: I was most interested in the Hon. Member's comments, particularly about the crticism levelled against this Bill by a number of groups representing women, visible minorities, disabled and native people. I have heard those criticisms as well but I also know a good many people who fall into those categories; people who are members of some of those organizations. In speaking with them about this subject they said to me "Look, the Liberal Party was in Government for years and years and we did not see anything like this come about, but in less than 12 months with the Progressive Conservative Government we have seen some really significant action and we are very pleased with that significant action and we feel that in fairness we should be giving this legislation a chance to see how it works. We as members of visible minorities, women's groups, native people and disabled are prepared to give this legislation a chance because we think it is good legislation and we know that the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government that was in power for some 20 years did not do anything of this sort".
1 would like to ask the Hon. Member why the Government that he supported and that was in power for some 20 years did not do anything and left it to the current Government to act, just a few months after the Abella Report was tabled? It was tabled in March and the response came in June with the first reading of this Bill. Why, when this Government acted so quickly on the matter of employment equity, was it that his Government did not act in 20 years?


Roland de Corneille: I thank the Hon. Member for his, I think, sincere question. First of all, when he asks about the record of the past Governments, of which I was proud to be a part, I have recited already in my speech a litany of steps that have been taking place throughout decades to move toward human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If he had been in the last House he would have realized how hard we had to fight against the dinosaurs of his Party who were trying to obstruct the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from becoming part of the Constitution.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that if he sticks around until a little later the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) will be making some comments that will, I think, add to that litany and reply to his question in further detail.
What I would like to come back to in the time allotted to me is a point that the Hon. Member brought up relating to how it
Employment Equity
is that some people who are members of some of these groups that are disadvantaged nonetheless seem to favour this legislation. As I said at the outset of my remarks, many of us are torn as to what to do in terms of voting because, as I said, on the one hand the preamble, the setting out of the purpose, sets forth a very noble purpose. One finds it very heart-rending not to then lend one's support. On the other hand, those organizations that look at this Bill, not the individual members of the group, but those whose business it is in those organizations because they were elected to represent these people, and have studied this, say "This is no good; this is worse than nothing because actually it is toothless and it will give the impression that something is being done when really nothing has been done yet". They are disappointed. I would challenge my hon. friend to please, please seriously look at this and see whether in some way this can be strengthened through amendments, whether this can be looked at in his caucus and explored further in order to give some kind of content to it because these constituent organizations, who are his constituents as well as mine, are saying it is not good enough. They are saying please don't vote for it although they too feel the ultimate purpose is just and desirable.


David Orlikow: I would like to address two short questions to the Hon. Member. First of all, it was suggested by the Conservative Member a few moments ago that he has heard from women, handicapped, native people and people who are part of the visible minorities in this country that they like this legislation. I wonder if the Hon. Member would confirm my understanding that the representations made on behalf of all these organizations representing the women's groups, the natives, the handicapped and the visible minorities all make it very clear that they believe that without mandatory provisions, without targets, that this will not work.
The second question I want to ask the Hon. Member is this. Is it not true that under the former Government there were statements of principle endorsing affirmative action and certain specific Departments targetted but in fact very little was accomplished? The number from these disadvantaged groups who actually found employment was very small because again the Departments were not given a target of specific numbers which they should aim to achieve each year.


Roland de Corneille: I thank the Hon. Member for his questions. Certainly I can confirm that all of the major groups which I know relating to women, minority groups and the handicapped and native peoples have in fact condemned this as being inadequate and in most cases hope that we will not pass this because it is just a symbolic gesture and in fact will make some people think that something has been done.
Hon. Members may have seen some of the reports that review all of the organizations that have indicated their displeasure with this, and this has appeared in the media. I urge all Members in this House to look at these reports and at the promises made by the Government before it was elected to see what it said it would do and to see if it could improve on this Bill to include those qualifications which these organizations
7938

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity
feel are a minimum essential in order to reach a level where they could say that we should support it.
In reference to the second part of the question as to whether the last Government failed to adequately deal with the question of equality, as a member in that organization I want to say that, number one, we were engaged in the very long war of attrition to try to bring about a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To say that it set back our legislative program a year is putting it mildly. Yet I have to confess that despite the fact that that left us in a very difficult hole in terms of getting through other important legislation which was very urgent, it was not enough reason for me to say that I was satisfied that we did all we should have done. I think if we as Members were prepared as Hon. Members from time to time to admit that we could do better or that we could have done better, it would be better for this House and especially for the people of Canada.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Eglington-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) said he liked legislation with teeth. I believe him. His Party certainly brought in legislation with teeth. For example, the national energy policy. It had teeth. It destroyed, masticated an entire industry in Alberta. It threw hundreds of women, native people, handicapped people and people from other countries out of work. It destroyed the hopes of a province. It was designed to destroy a province. Yes, I can believe that the Hon. Member wants legislation with teeth.
With the Hon. Member's record and the record of his Government which he supported when it brought in the national energy policy, I marvel that he now talks about equality. I wish he had talked about equality before he destroyed an industry in Canada.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in this debate today in support of Bill C-62. I believe this is a Bill that is progressive in nature and I am very pleased to be part of a Government that has brought forth this progressive legislation.
Employment equity in this country is long overdue. With more and more women and minorities entering the labour force the need for equal employment opportunity has increased rapidly. In the next decade, as many as 70 per cent of all new workers in Canada will be women, native people and people with physical handicaps.
As the birth rate and the number of immigrant workers declines, employers will have to turn to women and other minorities. Canadian businesses simply cannot afford to ignore such a vast pool of talent and ability. As a vice president of a large corporation said, in the decades ahead, any organization that ignores or underestimates the potential of women or overlooks any source of talent for that matter will be making a fatal mistake. No truer words have ever been spoken.
By eliminating barriers to equal opportunity in policy, training programs, pay scales and company practices, employees will be better motivated and more productive. Employment
equity will increase productivity, reduce the high job turnover that now exists and eliminate dead-end jobs.
The Bill that is before Parliament today represents a practical and reasonable approach to employment equity. Its purpose is to encourage equality in employment by eliminating barriers to hiring, promotion, salaries and many other areas. All federally regulated companies with over 100 employees and any private firm that tenders on Government contracts worth over $200,000 will be subject to the measures contained in this Bill. Under this criteria, Bill C-62 affects not only all Crown corporations and federal agencies but 500 private government suppliers as well.
Employers will be required to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity. Annual reports providing a detailed breakdown of the labour force by designated groups will also be required. These reports will give a listing of occupations within the employer's business showing where designated group members are represented. They will also show salary ranges, hirings, promotions and terminations of designated group members relative to the employer's total number of employees. Employers who fail to report will be subject to a fine.
We on this side of the House believe that this is the kind of workable approach to employment equity that Canadians want. Forcing companies to maintain quotas or subscribe to unmanageable guidelines in order to comply with Government regulations is not the way to promote employment equity. Instead, the Government must create a positive, constructive atmosphere to change. This cannot be done by enforcing quotas but by setting workable goals and attainable targets.
Business leaders must be awakened to the potential of all participants in the labour force. They need to see that by denying one segment of a society a role in their companies, they are damaging their own economic interests and the economic interests of Canada as a whole. Changes in attitude will take place but they will take place slowly.
In the past decade, many progressive steps have been taken. Let me cite a few. Since 1969, at least as many women as men have entered management positions in the Government. There are four times as many women attending professional schools now than there were in 1971.
A recent survey conducted by the Harvard Business Review found that attitudes toward and about women in businesses have changed dramatically in the past 20 years. In 1965, for example, one-half of the man and women surveyed agreed that women rarely expected or wanted positions of authority. Today, fewer than 10 per cent believe this to be true. In 1961, 61 per cent of the men surveyed believed that the business community would never wholly accept women. Today, that figure stands at 20 per cent. Perhaps the most notable quote that came from this survey came from a woman who said, "The biggest factor in the acceptance of women executives is the simple passage of time and the passing of the old boys in the good old boys network''.
October 23, 1985

Members opposite do not believe that voluntary or nonquota employment equity legislation can work. Let me provide the House with an example of an outstanding affirmative action program for women. A company located in my riding of Scarborough Centre has had an affirmative action program in place for 10 years. In 1975, 10 years ago, Warner-Lambert, a large pharmaceutical and confectionery company in Scarborough employing nearly 2,000 people, initiated a formal affirmative action program for women with the following central objective:
To assess the current status of women at Warner-Lambert... to recommend the most effective ways to remedy any existing negatives found in our policies, practices and attitudes, respecting employment or promotion opportunities for female employees.
This is a program that was set up 10 years ago without legislation. The company established a volunteer committee. The only criteria for joining this committee was an interest and a willingness to serve. The committee examined seven key issues: job access, compensation, employee benefits, the company policy manual, maternity leave, day care and communications. The success of this program has been remarkable. Female representation in management positions has increased by 202 per cent. Women now represent 34 per cent of the company's supervisory management group compared to 18 per cent in 1975. Application forms were redrawn to remove old biases. Annual studies are now done to guarantee fairness of compensation levels. Specific benefit plan clauses which were discriminatory have been removed. The company policy was rewritten and a counselling service for employees who are mothers-to-be was established. Female turnover in this company has been reduced by 20 per cent and recruitment and orientation costs are lower because more vacancies are filled from within.
Warner-Lambert represents a successful, voluntary approach to employment equity. Its program for women was not established as a response to pressure from special interest groups or government regulation but from a sincere desire to better the conditions of its workers and to obtain the maximum input possible from all its employees. This is the type of positive, constructive approach this Government wants to initiate in the private sector. I am proud that this particular company which I have cited is in the riding of Scarborough Centre.
Employment equity will come to Canada. However, it will come not from quotas or restrictive legislation; it will come from the type of enlightened programs such as those at Warner-Lambert and the progressive legislation of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
Employment Equity


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. I think we all join in praising and congratulating any company which voluntarily implements a policy to increase the number of people employed and the responsibility of the positions which they hold from groups which have traditionally not been able to obtain those types of jobs. I wish to ask the Hon. Member whether or not she is aware of the fact that studies conducted by Government and organizations such as the organization respecting the status of women have clearly indicated that despite everything being done the percentage of women who hold executive positions is still very small. Is she aware that even for those who hold executive positions the income they earn is substantially lower by thousands of dollars than that earned by men holding similar positions?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's question. As the Vice-Chairman of the Equality Rights Committee, which will be reporting to the House this week, we had the opportunity to travel across Canada to listen to groups. Of course, the National Action Committee made representation in nearly every city across the country. We heard of the need for opportunities, the need for employment equity and the need to implement the Abella Report. What I believe we have in Canada is an awareness to the point that what we need is not quotas, which I believe the Hon. Member and his Party recommend, but opportunities. We know that in order to achieve equity between men and women we need financial equity. However, in order to achieve financial equity we have to have opportunities. I am speaking of opportunities in the workplace-the opportunities for jobs. The fact that over one million people are unemployed does not help women. What we need is a buoyant economy. That is what will help women.
There are a number of other provisions which need to be put in place. I would like to refer to the need for child care and family care with respect to the question of employment equity and employment opportunities for women. As I understand it, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) will be setting up a task force shortly which will be dealing with the question of child care. The setting up of that task force, along with establishing opportunities, will provide a big boost for women in order to achieve the type of equity which is so long overdue. I have been waiting for it in Scarborough, as have women all across the country. We have been waiting for the federal Government to bring forward some type of legislation. Here we are in 1985, 10 years after Warner-Lambert started its programs, finally at a point at which we are bringing forward this type of legislation which I believe is extremely progressive. I am pleased to support it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests the way to overcome the tremendous difficulties which various minority groups have faced in achieving employment is to have a buoyant economy. I remind the Hon. Member that from 1945 to approximately 1960 we had virtually full employment in the country. However, the target groups including women,

October 23, 1985
Employment Equity
handicapped and the visible minorities, did not obtain jobs even though there was full employment.
It seems that the Hon. Member and so many of her colleagues on the Government side have endorsed the idea that we must not have compulsion. They believe that we must do these things through voluntary actions. I wish to remind the Hon. Member that in the 1940s and the 1950s when it became apparent across the country that certain groups were not welcome in certain jobs or in certain hotels and restaurants that the Governments, federal and provincial, brought in legislation with respect to fair employment and fair accommodation practices. In this respect I give credit to the Ontario Conservative Government of the day which brought in the first legislation with respect to fair employment and fair accommodation practices. The Conservative Government of Ontario brought in that legislation because it realized that appealing to the goodwill of those who were discriminating would not work. I ask the Hon. Member why she is now adopting an approach which the Conservative Government of many years ago found did not work. Why is she rejecting that experience and the policies of the Conservative Government of Ontario which it adopted with respect to the concept of voluntary action bringing about real change?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the Hon. Member would compare 1985 to 1945.


David Orlikow: It is not much different!


Pauline Browes: It is a completely different situation today. As we will recall, veterans came home from the war in 1945 when there was a completely different type of mentality. Women were so pleased to have the men home that they were willing to give up jobs. The same holds true with respect to the conclusion of the First World War. We obtained the vote in 1917. What happened after that? The war was over and women went back to looking after their children, their homes and so on. It was the same type of situation in 1945. However, in 1985, we find ourselves in a different situation. Since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1971, there has been a real awakening within the country that employment equity is here to stay.
Since the Hon. Member brought up the hotel business, I would like to tell him what the Personnel Director of the Westin Bayshore Hotel in Vancouver who employs 500 people said:
Affirmative action is not the monster we thought it was going to be ... Once set up, the program doesn't take much time to operate-
I think voluntary employment equity is exactly what we need. It is a progressive move.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being 6 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 24, 1985