1986-04-22

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 331-45, 331-88, 331-360 and 331-391.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from the people of Florence, Nova Scotia which calls upon the Government to force Canada Post to restore twice-a-day postal delivery service to the Florence, Nova Scotia post office.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, once again I have the honour and privilege to present a petition which has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. It is signed by residents of southeastern New Brunswick and expresses their concern with regard to the Canadian National shops in Moncton and the effect that the current assessment being conducted by CN may have upon that facility.
There is a group in town today which is also in support of this petition. I am pleased to present the petition to the House at this time.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussion with Members opposite and one of the reports which follows the one on which I would like to move concurrence today is urgent. Therefore, I am prepared, if Your Honour would so allow, to have the motion precede my own.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to stand his motion for the moment. The Chair accepts that. The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I move that the thirtieth report of the Striking Committee tabled in the House on April 18 be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments presented to the House on Wednesday, April 16, 1986, be concurred in. As Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, I am pleased to ask for the concurrence of this report of the committee.
The purpose of the report is to draw to the attention of the House certain amendments to the regulations governing the Canadian Home Insulation Program, amendments which, in the view of the joint committee, were not authorized by the enabling legislation and which resulted in considerable unfairness to Canadians.
Before I deal with the report at greater length, I would like to comment briefly on a reply of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) given last Friday to a question by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). In her reply the Minister stated that the report of the joint committee was:
-based on misleading and inaccurate analyses of the situation.
The Minister went on to state that criticisms by the committee were directed at measures which she said were announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8 on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). Finally, the Minister questioned the correctness of the committee's conclusion that some homeowners were

April 22, 1986
Motions
unfairly treated. As to the last point, I believe that the House will be the judge of the correctness of the report.
Concerning the other two matters, I point out to the Minister that the only announcement made on November 8 was that the Canadian Home Insulation Program would gradually be phased out. This was a budgetary decision of the Government with which the report does not take issue. It is the process that was followed in implementing this decision with which the joint committee takes issue. I believe the Minister must accept responsibility for this aspect of the situation.
I have in hand the press release issued by the Minister announcing that starting on January 1, 1985, until termination:
The CHIP contribution to eligible costs will be reduced from 60 per cent to 33-1/3 per cent.
The press release, which is the one mentioned in our sixth report, goes on to state:
Miss Carney stated that the 60 per cent contribution by CHIP will apply to all commitments to purchase eligible conservation materials and services signed by applicants before January 1, 1985, if the related conservation work is completed by March 31,1985.
As for the report being based on inaccurate or misleading information, I think this is an assertion upon which the Minister should reflect. It is a rather serious matter to charge a committee of the House with misleading Members of Parliament. In any event, the factual information contained in the committee's report comes from the Minister's own officials and press releases. If our committee has been misled by these, it is up to the Minister to explain.
O)
I would now like to turn to the Sixth Report of the Joint Committee. I want to emphasize that this is a unanimous report of a committee on which members of all Parties and both Houses are represented. It is not a partisan report.
I would like to explain the factual situations in terms of the report. Until January 18, 1985, applicants under the Canadian Home Insulation Program were entitled to a payment representing 60 per cent of the cost of insulating a family housing unit or residential building. As part of the phasing out of the program, which was a policy of the new Government, it was decided to reduce the level of contributions from 60 per cent to 33-1/3 per cent of insulating costs. Applicants could maintain their entitlement to the higher rate of contribution if they met two conditions: first, they had to register a purchase commitment by December 31, 1984; and second, they had to complete the insulation work on their residences by the end of March 1985.
Lest the Minister misunderstand the purpose of our report, permit me to emphasize that these policy decisions are not objected to as such by the committee. The committee recognizes that these are decisions which are for the Government and its Ministers to make. However, the decisions that were announced on November 16, 1984, were not reflected in the regulations governing the payment of CHIP grants until some
three months later; that is, on January 17, 1985. On that date, two amendments were made to the regulations and were later registered as SOR/85-85 and SOR/85-86. It is to these amendments that the joint committee objects.
Although the amendments were adopted some 17 days after December 31, 1984, they nevertheless required applicants to meet the two conditions I outlined earlier in order to obtain a grant representing the full 60 per cent of insulating costs. The joint committee had before it two regulatory amendments which were made on January 17, 1985, but which required CHIP applicants to have registered their purchase commitments 17 days before the date of the regulations as a legal condition of obtaining the higher contribution. In effect, these amendments imposed a retroactive requirement on home owners.
Members of the House will agree that retroactive regulations are undesirable. Not only are they undesirable and offensive but by clear precedent they are also illegal unless they are sanctioned clearly by Parliament. The relevant legislation did not give any authority to make retroactive regulations. It is an established principle of law that subordinate laws made by the executive may not have a retroactive application unless this is expressly authorized by the Statutes pursuant to which they are made. If the condition according to which an applicant had to register a purchase commitment was illegal, it follows then that applicants who met the second condition, the completion of the insulation work by the end of March 1985, were entitled to the higher rate of contribution after January 17 irrespective of whether or not they had registered a purchase commitment.
The Department took the position in defence of what it had done that most applicants were aware before December 31 that they should register a commitment. The only place where such a requirement was expressed, however, was in the Minister's press release. A press release is not a legal instrument. As the committee said in its report:
Citizens have a right to rely exclusively on the laws adopted by Parliament and its delegates and should not be made to govern their conduct and affairs in accordance with press releases and other public announcements. The right of all to the equal protection and benefit of the law must always come ahead of administrative convenience or expediency and in no circumstances should citizens be expected or compelled to obey anything but the published laws of Canada.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what the report of the joint committee is all about. When our committee sought an explanation from the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, it was assured in a letter received from the Deputy Minister the following:
The 83,950 signed commitments which were registered with CHIP by December 31st, 1984, are evidence that the Minister's announcement was effectively communicated to the public.
I want to reiterate that citizens cannot, in a society founded on the rule of law, be expected to obey announcements that have no legal force whatsoever.
April 22, 1986

In committee, when we asked the representative of the Department how many applicants had missed the deadline of December 31, 1984, we were informed of the following:
Unfortunately, statistics were not kept on the number of registrations that were rejected.
This is indeed unfortunate. You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that an injustice done to a few is just as serious as an injustice done to the many. As we put it in our report, that many applicants knew of the Minister's intention to modify the law will not mask the failure in fairness to those who did not. These applicants were never even given the chance to preserve their entitlement to the higher rate of contribution. By the time the regulations were amended, it was too late.
This problem is entirely the result of the executive's failure to amend the regulations in good time. If the Minister's officials had time to draft a series of press releases as early as November, 1984, surely they had enough time to draft the appropriate amendments to the regulations. These amendments could then have been adopted before December 31 so as to give the applicants adequate notice of the new requirements. Because they were not, a distinction was made between two groups of applicants: those who chose to register their purchase commitment on the basis of the Minister's announcement and thereby preserved their entitlement to a 60 per cent contribution and those who did not hear of that requirement until it was too late and thereby lost their entitlement to the higher contribution.
In itself, the imposition of a registration requirement retroactively was illegal and a further group of applicants were deprived of the higher contribution notwithstanding the fact that they had met all of the legal requirements imposed by the regulations governing the payment of CHIP grants. In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that members of the joint committee were justified to conclude that the amendments reported upon were not authorized by the enabling legislation, amounted to an unusual use of the powers granted by Parliament and infringed on the rule of law and the principles of fairness and equity.
Lest there be some sense that this is an abstract or theoretical problem, I would venture to say that every Member of the Chamber had direct personal experience, as a Member of Parliament, with individuals who missed the deadline. I know that I did in my office and I know that other members of the committee did. I suggest that all Members of Parliament did. We are talking about something that is very concrete and real to our constituents.
This is not the first occasion on which the committee has dealt with a situation of this kind. In drawing these particular amendments to the attention of the House, we wish to underscore the general principle that regulatory initiatives which impose new burdens on citizens or which detrimentally affect their rights should be announced and enacted as a part of a law a reasonable time before they are to come into effect. I express the hope that this is a principle every parliamentarian, of whichever Party, can agree to and support. It is a
Motions
principle which is afforded by the Government in its regulatory reform policy. It is a principle that must be maintained by all of us as legislators and representatives of the people.
My purpose in asking the House to concur in the sixth report of the joint committee is for the House to send a clear message to all regulation-making authorities that it supports that general principle and that it intends to be vigilant in ensuring that it is respected in practice. Regulations generally impact on the daily lives of Canadians to a far greater degree than the statutes pursuant to which they are made. It is the responsibility of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, a committee which I have the honour to chair, together with Senator Nurgitz and the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), to make certain that these subordinate laws are fair, non-discriminatory, and conform to the authority granted by Parliament. Respect for these values requires each of us to ensure that no legal obligations are imposed upon Canadians except those which Parliament itself has approved or authorized the executive to enact. For the making of laws, we must account to the people. When we delegate our legislative authority to the executive, we have a duty to hold it accountable for its exercise of authority.
The principles outlined in the sixth report of the joint committee deserve the support of all Members of the House. As I mentioned earlier, they have the support of all members of the committee, of all Parties and of both Houses, and I pray the House will add its support today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to take part in this debate. I consider it to be a non-partisan debate, as far as that is possible in the House, because the issues are non-partisan issues. I congratulate the Hon. Member for York Cente (Mr. Kaplan). He is a former Minister, a senior Member of the House, and a co-chairman of the committee. I think he gave a very fine, very fair, and very important speech as we embark upon an era of parliamentary reform in which Parliament will try to keep the bureaucracy and executive accountable to the people of Canada.
I am a new member of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I confess that when I first attended one of its meetings a few months ago, I was confused and a little leery about dealing with what I considered to be picky, little things at that time. However, over the months I began to realize that it was a very important committee in that it dealt with the laws affecting the day-today lives of individuals, the general enabling laws passed by Parliament.
I will try to explain in a more simple way to Canadians how the committee works. The committee considers all regulations and statutory instruments. For example, let us say that Parliament passes a law dealing with wharfs in the Province of

April 22, 1986
Motions
British Columbia or in Atlantic Canada and, as a result, there are wharfage fees for those people who tie up their boats and regulations affecting how long their boats can be tied up, when the wharfs are closed, and so on. Parliament could not include all that in one Act of Parliament. It would be a huge Act of Parliament, and we could not anticipate what would happen in different situations. Therefore, Parliament passes a general law making provisions for wharfs, for moneys, for ways in which they will be controlled, for personnel and so on.
Following that, Parliament says the authority, the bureaucracy, the Governor in Council, or Cabinet can pass a number of regulations dealing with wharfs. Cabinet has to sign all the regulations and so on. Since there are thousands and thousands of them, I suspect that they cannot look at every one of them, even as good intentioned as cabinet Ministers may be. Sometimes unjust regulations go by. Sometimes people are charged fees when there is no authority for it. Sometimes people cannot tie up their boats when there is no authority for it. Perhaps I am over-simplifying the matter, but that is the way it works.
When the committee looks at the wharfs, it may see that there has been a wrong exercise of power on the part of some Department, such as the Department of Transport or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Perhaps the Department has issued a regulation which does not really fit in with the power in the Act. The committee has many standards when it looks at Orders in Council, but I will not go through all of them. There are two lawyers who work with the committee and go through all the statutory regulations. It will write, for example, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans-and I see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) present in the Chamber this morning-and say that something does not fit in with the power in the Act. When the committee writes under the joint signature of a Conservative Senator, a Liberal MP, and a Conservative MP, we start seeing changes in the Department. This is all "behind the scenes" work in Parliament, but it is very important work because it ensures that the rule of law and citizens' rights are respected. I think everyone in the House would agree with that.
In my experience with the committee, we have dealt with transportation fees and rates and agricultural matters. The committee has been involved in a host of things. As the Hon. Member for York Centre and as the committee indicated, citizens have the right to rely exclusively upon the laws adopted by the Parliament of Canada.
The particular issue before the House now is a very interesting one. The Government brought in the program known as CHIP. Many Canadians know about it. I believe the Government has spent over $700 million under this program since 1977. It was a very successful program. The price of oil was rising and it was deemed appropriate that Canadians, who are the biggest energy users per capita in the world, should start conserving. The Government indicated that it would help those persons who insulated their homes, because Canadian houses were notoriously poorly insulated, by giving them a grant of up
to 60 per cent. In my own case, I think it was before 1979 that I took advantage of the program. I fixed up my house, as did many other Canadians. It was a good deal.


Mr. Friesen:: Where is your home?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In Vancouver. It was a good deal. I think I got $500 from the Government, and I paid the rest, to have my house insulated so that I would use less energy.
The Government decided-and some of us in the House disagreed-to phase out some conservation programs such as CHIP and the off-oil program. The off-oil program gave grants to people to go from oil, which is a dramatically depleting resource in Canada, to natural gas of which Canada has a lot. That program and CHIP were to be ended; they were to be phased out. The Government indicated that after December 31, 1984, it would reduce the 60 per cent grant to 33-1/3 per cent. That is what the Government intended to do, but it turned around and did it by press release. It simply made an announcement. By law it is required to publish it in The Canada Gazette. I know a few lawyers who spend their evenings reading The Canada Gazette, but few Canadians do so. Perhaps you do, Mr. Speaker, because you are always on the ball. Nevertheless, that is the rule of law in Canada. Orders in Council must be gazetted before they come into force.
The Government only wanted applicants to be reimbursed for 60 per cent of their insulation costs until December 31, 1984, and then for 33-1/3 per cent thereafter. However, the regulation was not gazetted until January 18, 1985. In my view those applicants were legally entitled to the 60 per cent. I think the case was set out beyond any shadow of a doubt by the Hon. Member who last spoke. We will hear from the Government and the committee.
The committee was told that applications dated after December 31, 1985 received by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources claiming a 60 per cent rebate were thrown in the wastepaper basket and the Department sent out new applications saying you could get a 33 per cent grant. The Department says there was no record kept of those rejected registrations, and we do not know how many were wrongly dealt with. I want to give the Government notice that I will be filing an application under the Freedom of Information Act to try to find out whether the Department has been altogether truthful with us. Quite frankly, I do not believe the Department. I think there are records, and I think we should a look into the matter.
The Committee says on page 2 of its report that:
"Unfortunately, statistics were not kept on the number of registrations that were rejected."
That is what the Department told the committee. I think we have to look at that further and I will ask that question of the Government spokesperson today in the debate.
April 22, 1986

There is a general presumption in law that legislation is not retroactive, except in budgetary cases. In the Budget you can announce what you are going to do and then you enact the legislation. It is legal for Parliament to enact legislation that is retroactive, although there is some problem in criminal matters. Generally, we do not like enacting retroactive law in criminal matters because someone could do something which did not seem illegal when he or she did it.
The Government can clearly enact retroactive legislation, but that is not what happened in this case. People should not be misled by the Government if it tries to say otherwise and I hope the Government will not try to say that. It is clear from common law that regulations may not be made retroactively unless the enabling legislation specifically permits this. In other words, if we pass the law and say the regulations under the law can be made retroactive, that is fine. I do not think in this case there was any legislation passed that enabled regulations to be passed retroactively. If there was, I challenge the Government to show us. There is no mention in the Canadian Home Insulation Act and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, the two enabling pieces of legislation pertaining to CHIP, and I have looked at them, that regulations can be made retroactively. Therefore, the regulations are ultra vires because there was no authority for them to be made retroactively.
I do not want to say that the regulations made on January 18 were illegal in that the program was to be cut to a grant of only 33-1/3 per cent from a grant of 60 per cent, because in my view that is legal. After regulations are gazetted they are legal. But in the period between December 31 to January 18 there was no law on the books to allow the Government to send back those applications. The Government has to act according to the law. It should have taken the applications for the full 60 per cent. In order for the Government to have proceeded legally, the regulation would have had to be gazetted on Decemebr 31, 1984.

Mr. Speaker, in Parliament it is very important to be fair to all Canadians. The law must apply to the Government of Canada as it does to the average Canadian. And I feel that these regulations were neither legal nor fair in covering the period from December 31, 1984 to January 18, 1985.

Despite the fact that the press release was issued, the public is deemed aware of a regulation only after the time it is published in The Canada Gazette. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we do not stay up all night reading the Gazette but this is the legal jurisprudence of Canada, the law of Canada. It is not fair not to give the public proper notice that their rights are being affected. December 31 was not early enough. There should have been earlier notice, that is, publication in The Canada Gazette. That should have been done one month in advance.
There are two other points. One deals with conservation. Conservation is a very important area for Canadians. While oil
Motions
prices are going down, let us not forget that we should continue with conservation. That is why this particular statute is very important. Second, the jurisdiction, the scope of this Committee, has been expanded. The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments will now be able to bring one regulation to this Parliament under the new rules and this Parliament will have the power to throw out the regulation. That is an important power. It is indicative of a non-partisan attitude in all parts of the House from the Conservative benches right through.
Let us look at what is happening with regulations outside of the statutes that are running people's lives. I expressed the opinion that I would like to see even the scope of the statutory and regulations committee expanded to include Government agencies as well as the Cabinet. Direct cabinet regulations, the ones that Cabinet just approve and do not make are not subject to the scrutiny of our committee. If you think about it, Mr. Speaker, TV and cable, regulation of your fees, telephone, transportation, airlines, what you watch on TV and what you hear on the radio are all covered. There are a lot of orders and regulations not covered.
It is not ironic that the Department of Energy was caught in this matter. The Department has become a touch arrogant. It might be because it has had so much legislation in the past six years with the National Energy Program, then its dismantling. The Department has been used to doing things very quickly. In this case it did something illegally and was caught by this committee. I do not want to give the impression that I am really berating the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, because this is a lesson of which all Government Departments should take heed. This could happen to any Government Department. They must be more responsible in passing regulations. They will be scrutinized more by Parliament. The feeling throughout the House is that we want accountability and control over regulations which are affecting people's lives. I think that is healthy.
I ask the Government to welcome this report from an allParty committee in the spirit in which it was offered; that is, that the Government should accept that there is a regulatory problem. It should announce that in the future it will act differently. It should also consider the matter of those people who applied between December 31, 1984, and January 18, 1985. By law those people should have received the full grant of 60 per cent rather than the half grant of 33 per cent. This is a very important case and I ask the Government to accept it in the spirit in which the committee brings it to its attention.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in my own remarks I expressed the hope that the House would support the committee rather than the Minister in the up-coming vote on this matter. What would my colleague's view be if the House failed to support the committee? How would that affect his own attitude and that of the NDP toward the future work of the committee?
12512

April 22, 1986
Motions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work on the committee. In this Parliament we are trying to make Members independent to a degree. This is not the congressional system, but it is a new beginning in Parliament. I consider Ged Baldwin, a former Conservative Member, to be one of the initiators of this trend which was taken up by many other Conservative Members. We, in the House, are striving for freedom of information and freedom for MPs to have some say rather than always being bound by government discipline.
This is the report of an all-Party committee and what we are bringing to the attention of the Government is fairly unanswerable in law. This is an occasion upon which the members of the committee need the support of the House. There are Conservative Members of the committee and this is a unanimous report.
I do not say that this is a non-partisan issue, but it does involve the freedom of individual MPs. Let us continue to move forward rather than taking a step backward with this particular vote. I ask Conservative MPs to vote with the committee to accept the report. If they do not do that, it will put the Conservative Members who are on the committee in a very difficult position.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments and ask the Hon. Member a question. I agree that if the Conservative Members are sensible and, as parliamentarians, are truly interested in parliamentary reform, they will support their parliamentary committee which has tabled a unanimous report in the House.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Minister during Question Period what she intended to do about this unanimous report of the committee. I asked the question mainly because of my concern that the Minister would make the same mistake twice. I don't want this to go on. I don't want her to go on thinking she was misinformed and that a parliamentary committee could, and these are her own words as reported at page 12416 of Hansard:
It is my view-
She was referring to the Committee's report.
-that it has been based on misleading and inaccurate analyses of the situation.
Mr. Speaker, it is insulting and even offensive when a committee is told by a Minister of the Crown that it has made a misleading and inaccurate analysis of the situation.

In the first session of the last Parliament, which lasted three years, we adopted 173 statutes, but there were 4,000 instruments made pursuant to those statutory powers. What assurance do we have as parliamentarians that this or other Ministers will not take this high-handed approach to regulations and operate by press release? Is the central point of this debate this morning not to ensure that this Minister or others do not repeat the action taken with regard to the insulation program?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, I agree with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I think the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has a strong case. However, I would rather wait and hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say, since he is supposed to speak on behalf of the Minister and the Government.

As I tried to say in my speech, Mr. Speaker, this is just one example of many cases. The ability for deterrence which this committee has is that it is not known which Department it will choose. If we can get support from the House on this matter, in the future Departments will be very careful to ensure that these regulations are carried out under the law.
In summary, these regulations are very important in our lives, perhaps even more so than the statutes. Second, they are hard to scrutinize. Third, the committee has been expanded in its mandate and jurisdiction to scrutinize these instruments. Fourth, this was accomplished through the support of the House which has built up over many years and was started, quite frankly, by many Conservatives. Although I have not yet heard the Government's reply, I think this is a case in which the Government could accept some chastisement and indicate that its conduct will change. Finally, this is a very good test for the new parliamentary procedures which we have embarked upon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid).


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today. I appreciate the high level of debate, for the most part, which we have heard from the Opposition side. There are two questions to be debated. The first is that of regulations coming in after an intended deadline for a program. The criticism that the regulations came in late is fair. The Government accepts that. We accept the recommendation that regulations should be made and enacted before a deadline is set. However, with regard to this being illegal in this particular case, I think I will be able to present the facts as to what happened in that period of time which will perhaps somewhat change the opinion of the House about the chastisement of the Department.
Before I get into that, I want to reaffirm that the Government supports the proposition that if regulation making is to be based on the principles of openness, fairness, efficiency and accountability, as called for in the Citizen's Code of Regulatory Fairness, it is essential that regulatory initiatives which impose new burdens on citizens or, as in the present case, which detrimentally affect their rights, be announced and
April 22, 1986

enacted as part of the law a reasonable time before they are to come into effect. I think that is a very worthy recommendation.
I agree with my good friend, the Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who says that this committee has been expanded by the Conservative Government to ensure fairness to the citizens of Canada by the Government. Governments are going to make mistakes, and I think they can learn from their mistakes. That is very important. My friend, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has pointed out that this was done in a nonpartisan manner. However, I think the CHIP phase-out was done with fairness to the applicants and in accordance with the rules and procedures of Government and Parliament. I am going to, I think and hope, convince the House that in fact all the deadlines were announced by the Minister, the public was communicated with, and the grants were made according to law.
The report suggests that Canadian homeowners were denied grants at the level of 60 per cent of eligible costs because they were unaware of the Government's intention to reduce that level to 33-1/3 per cent. It also suggests that if the Government had acted in accordance with proper procedures, that would not have happened.
My hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) made it very clear that the public do not sit down and read the Gazette, which can be voluminous and very complicated at times. The Minister mentioned the other day that the facts were not well presented to the committee. I would like to lay them out for the House today. We feel the Government acted fairly and generously. It phased out CHIP in an orderly manner. It announced its intentions clearly and provided Canadians with enough time to adjust to the lower level of funding. Moreover, the phase-out process provided Canadians with additional benefits which would not have been available if another approach had been used.
Before I explain why the phase-out process was entirely appropriate, let me review the facts. They are easily misinterpreted and I believe that is why the committee was critical of the Government. These are the facts.
On November 8, 1984, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced that CHIP would be phased out by March 31, 1986. That announcement was one aspect of a broader Government program to restrain expenditures and reduce the crippling debt left us and all Canadians by the previous Government. On November 9 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) announced that CHIP grants would be reduced from 60 per cent to 33-1/3 per cent beginning January 1, 1985, as part of the phase-out program.
Following this announcement the Government, in consultation with the insultation industry, realized there was a shortage of both materials and insulators to do the work before the December 31 deadline. It was clear that some flexibility was
Motions
needed to avoid applicants missing out on the 60 per cent grants through no fault of their own. Therefore, the Minister announced on November 16 that applicants had until December 31 to register their commitment to have insulation work done. If they completed the work by March 31, 1985, they would receive the 60 per cent funding. This generous provision ensured that applicants were not denied grants at the 60 per cent level because of a shortage of material and contractors.
On January 17, 1985-and these dates are very important- the Order in Council was passed enacting the change to the regulations. I think everyone is in agreement so far. The Order in Council was delayed for a very simple reason. The generous phase-out process required the rewriting of regulations. If the Government had simply announced the grant reduction to take effect on January 1, 1985 with no special provisions, the regulations would have been approved earlier. However, the Government was more concerned with being fair to Canadians than writing regulations quickly. It took care that those regulations were drafted properly to the benefit of CHIP applicants. It is important to understand that at no time was it ever intended that the reduction in the level of grants would be retroactive.
The Government could have decided to reduce the grants to 33-1/3 per cent of eligible costs beginning January 17, the date of the Order in Council, regardless of any commitment by homeowners to complete the work by March 31 of that year. Yet what of those homeowners who, through no fault of their own, were not able to get work done in time to receive the 60 per cent grants? The Government would have been acting in accordance with proper procedure if it had taken this approach but Canadians would have been the losers. Instead, we decided to act in a way that was both proper and fair. The Government allowed applicants to receive the 60 per cent grants until March 31, 1985. It allowed them to apply for this level of funding until January 17, 1985. This provision actually gave homeowners a longer period in which to qualify for the higher grants than they would have been allowed under other, less generous phase-out approaches. This was an extraordinary measure in the history of CHIP. Homeowners had never been entitled to guarantees of payment at a certain level for a certain length of time. Under previous regulations a home owner received a grant in accordance with the regulation at the time his or her application was received. The regulations dealing with the grant levels, as everyone in this House knows, changed many times during the life of the program.
It has been said that some unspecified number of home owners were denied grants at the 60 per cent level because of the phase-out process. The facts show the exact opposite to be true. Every homeowner who qualified for the grants and who applied between November 8, 1984 and January 17-I want that date, the day that the regulations came into force, impressed upon the House, January 17, 1985-received grants at the 60 per cent level. So the comment that my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway made regarding all the applications which came in after December 31, 1984, for 60 per cent were

April 22, 1986
Motions
thrown in the garbage, is just untrue. It is just untrue. The only people who did not receive a 60 per cent grant up to January 17, 1985, were those who did not qualify for any level of grant. They just did not qualify and would not have qualified no matter what the level of grant was. They were the only ones.
Approximately 84,000 homeowners took advantage of the flexibility built into the phase-out process to apply for grants at the 60 per cent level up until December 31, 1984. An additional 25,000 applied for grants at this level between January 1 and January 17, an extra 25,000 in that period of time, up until the regulations were passed. Some 96 per cent of all applicants qualified for grants and received the full 60 per cent funding. Four per cent just did not qualify.
It has been suggested that the Minister acted improperly by announcing changes to CHIP before Order in Council approval was obtained. This is untrue. Such announcements are made routinely by Ministers. They were made routinely by Ministers of the previous Government and they are made routinely by Ministers of this Government. They are part of a commitment to inform Canadians of the Government's plans as soon as it is reasonably possile. The Minister was well within her competence as a Minister of the Crown in establishing the registration system within CHIP without Cabinet approval. What the Minister did was clear and proper. She announced a policy intention to reduce the grant level. She put in place a generous transition process and she did not act on that policy intention-and I think the committee missed this important point-until Privy Council approval was obtained. She did not act on it until then. That is not mentioned in the report handed down by the committee. The committee said they were not satisfied with the evidence and I hope that today, after they hear the evidence, they will in fact be satisfied. The important point, I think, is that this was a fair way to proceed. It showed respect for the procedures of Government and Parliament. Most important, it was done with concern for the needs of Canadians who were taking part in the socially important task of using energy more efficiently.
The figures show that the phase-out process was effective in allowing Canadians to qualify for 60 per cent funding. Between November 8, 1984, and the end of the program on March 31, 1986, 62 per cent of CHIP grants were at the 60 per cent level, another 38 per cent were at the 33-1/3 per cent level. Clearly, Canadians knew about the planned changes to the program and took advantage of the generous phase-out process to get the higher level of funding. Just as clearly, most of those receiving grants at 33-1/3 per cent took advantage of the program after the transitional funding provisions had ended, and for a variety of reasons unrelated to the phase-out process.
If there are any Canadians who did not know of the Government's intention to reduce the level of grants, it is not because proper procedures were not followed. The usual
method of making these matters known; statements, news releases, asking the insulation industry to inform clients, were used. I note that the committee pointed out in its report that the decision was widely publicized both by Energy, Mines and Resources and the media. Teleposts were sent to all listed contractors, industry associations and building supply stores. As well, the "Heatline Office" and CHIP regional offices informed all telephone callers of this announcement. We went one step further when we extended the period for 60 per cent funding to give people time to make arrangements and get the higher funding.
When one looks at the history of CHIP, it is clear that the program has provided a generous level of funding throughout its history. Since its inception in September, 1977, it has provided 2.8 million applicants with $900 million in assistance. Ninety-five per cent of this has been at the 60 per cent level. This has enabled Canadians to improve the levels of insulation in their homes, to use less energy and to use it more efficiently. CHIP has made an important contribution to taking Canada down the road to energy security.
When our Government took office, it was clear that the program had gone a long way to achieve its goals and that providing government funding indefinitely would be too costly. This was particularly true because of the deficit. We decided to end the program one year earlier than the previous Government had intended. This did not indicate any flagging of our commitment to energy conservation in Canada. It was a prudent decision. Deficit reduction was one of the important reasons for phasing out CHIP but it was not the only reason. We recognized that conditions in the market-place had changed and that the Government's role had to change with them.
CHIP, and its companion program, the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, provided a high level of funding for consumers for several years. More important, they helped to change the way Canadians think about energy and its use. It became clear to us that it was time for the Government to lessen its direct financial involvement. The point had been made with consumers that it is a good investment to use less energy and to use it more efficiently.
Reducing oil use remains an important long term goal of the Government. Despite declining oil prices, energy conservation is still a very good investment. We do not know when prices will rise again but we know that they will rise because oil supplies will eventually decline. We saw all too clearly in the 1970s how supply can be manipulated to suddenly and drastically increase prices.
We cannot and should not continue to expect the public treasury to borrow funds to provide consumer grants. Programs such as CHIP have started the energy conservation process going and they maintained it for a significant period of time. The Government will now concentrate its efforts on ensuring that home owners are fully aware of the options available to them. We are continuing to help find solutions to technical problems, to refine and expand work standards, and
April 22, 1986

to assist the industry to improve insulation techniques and marketing.
The concern for energy conservation and the needs of Canadian homeowners was at the heart of our decision on how to phase out CHIP. Our greatest concern was to be as fair to Canadians as humanly possible. We proceeded carefully. We consulted with the industry and then acted in such a way that Canadians were not denied an appropriate level of funding because of circumstances beyond their control. We acted fairly, we acted properly and we acted generously.
Now that the evidence has been presented to the House, I think the committee must admit that those who did apply during the period January 1 to January 17 and received 60 per cent funding were in fact covered under the old program. We accept and understand that the regulations were brought in after the announced closing of the program. That is fair enough. There were reasons for that and we appreciate the committee drawing this matter to the attention of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, to the House and to the country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has put forward some information that is new, at least as far as I am concerned. However, I want to react to it in terms of the mandate of the committee and then hear the Hon. Member's comments. I must say, looking at the revelations that he has just made from the perspective of the committee's mandate, I think he has made the situation worse.
I want to point out two problems to him that arise from what he said. First, he told us that the Government did not stick to its own press release. The press release advised consumers to get their applications in by December 31. However, those who relied on the press release and did not submit an application because they could not make the deadline of December 31, never would have learned that it would have been accepted if they had submitted the application up to two and a half weeks later. This was a great unfairness to people who took the Government seriously when it put out its press release. How many people came in between December 31 and January 17? What information was given to Members who were relying on the press release and advising their constituents who had missed the deadline? How did the information get out that an application submitted during that critical two and one half week period would still be accepted?
That is the first problem which concerns me. I hope there was no preference because people with access to Ministers would have found out about this while those who do not would not have discovered that the Minister had changed her mind about the deadline.
The second problem concerns the contents of the regulation. This is a regulation that we have challenged and which I assume the Government was defending. The regulation stated December 31 as the cut-off date but in fact it took effect on January 17. If December 31 was not the cut-off date and the Government was prepared to give grants for applications that
Motions
were received between December 31 and January 17, what authority does the Government have to honour those applications? It is certainly not the regulation because the regulation imposes a cut-off two and a half weeks earlier.
I support the CHIP program and would have been happy if the Government continued it. I am not talking about it from the point of view of policy, and I am pleased that others were able to receive the money. However, from the point of view of the mandate of the committee, I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary about the meaning of the regulation. What authority does the Government believe it has for ignoring the terms of the regulation and validating applications that were received in that two and one half week period? Those applications that came in between December 31 and January 17 should be honoured, but perhaps they should be honoured out of the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister rather than the general revenues of the Government of Canada.
Finally, it seems to me that the initial mistake that was made, for which the Minister surely must be accountable, is that she gave her officials an assignment that they could not handle. The Parliamentary Secretary told us himself that there was no way that the regulations could be drafted on time, even though they knew they needed regulations. He has indicated that they needed them to validate what it was they wanted to do. They should have picked a realistic date for their officials in order that the law could have been obeyed. In this way the rule of law could have been complied with and we would not have had the necessity of making the report which is before us. I feel even more strongly than I did before that the Government stands condemned by the terms of our report and by the way it behaved in trying to extricate itself from this very unsatisfactory situation.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member expects recipients of CHIP to survive on the salary of a Parliamentary Secretary, then it will be an awfully thin program. I can guarantee him that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It will be a thin Parliamentary Secretary, too!


John Horton McDermid: That is right.
I say to the Hon. Member that the committee cannot have it both ways; it cannot suck and blow at the same time. It is saying that we cut people off on December 31, that that was illegal and that we should not have done it. He then says that we did not honour them until the regulations were passed, and he asked for a number. There were some 25,000. There were no special favours given. Obviously, people who applied for CHIP grants after the deadline were expecting to receive a 33-1/3 per cent grant. There was no discrimination with respect to the matter whatsoever. It was done absolutely honestly, above board, and with the greatest of fairness and concern for all Canadians who applied for CHIP grants. For the Hon. Member to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is very unfortunate.

April 22, 1986
Motions
The Government has accepted chastisement with respect to the fact that regulations were brought in at a date later than the announcement made by the Minister. However, at the same time, we did not penalize Canadians in any way, shape or form. They were well informed and properly advised. For the Hon. Member to say that they were not properly advised because it was not in the The Canada Gazette at the time is completely wrong.
%	*>*	4.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. If what he is saying is true, then why would the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources tell the committee that there were no statistics available with respect to the number of people who had applied between December 31, 1984 and January 17, 1985?
Would the Hon. Member not agree with me that there is a difference between what he considers as the Government acting fairly, generously and properly and the Government acting according to law? Will he admit that in fact it did not act according to law? I will repeat my question. Representatives of the Department told the committee that when they received applications dated after December 31, 1984 claiming the 60 per cent rebate, there were no statistics available with respect to that matter. Why did they tell the committee that, if what the Hon. Member is saying is correct?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the question they were asked was with respect to how many were rejected on the grounds that a purchase commitment ought to have been registered before that date. The response was that, unfortunately, there is no record of those rejected on that basis. We do know how many came in and how many were approved. The question was: How many were rejected? If he had been asked how many were approved he would have told them that it was
25,000.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask one other question of the Parliamentary Secretary, and it has to do with individuals who applied after January 17 and received only the 33-1/3 per cent. What the Member has virtually conceded is that the regulation was invalid and that steps considered appropriate were taken to compensate for its invalidity. If the regulation is invalid, then people who applied after January 17 should not be receiving 33-1/3 per cent but, rather, 60 per cent. I say this because the regulation cutting the applicants down from 60 per cent to 33-1/3 per cent is invalid. The Government has admitted that. Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to follow the logical consequences of the argument he has just made, look up the people who received the 33-1/3 per cent and top up their contributions to the 60 per cent to which they are legally entitled?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that is convoluted Liberal thinking.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Because it is logical?


John Horton McDermid: Those who applied after January 17 knew full well what they would be receiving. They knew for what they were applying. The regulation was in place. For the Hon. Member to make a suggestion such as the one he has made, with a silly grin on his face at the same time-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I don't have a silly grin on my face.


John Horton McDermid: I love it. You are using up the time of the House. I think it is marvellous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. It is a very significant report which brings forward very important points. There are two matters in the report which are of utmost importance. The first matter is with respect to the way that consumers who applied for grants under the Canadian Home Insulation Program after December 31, 1984 were treated. The second matter, and perhaps the most important, is with respect to the way the Government is treating the legality of this whole situation.
I appreciate that the Government made a decision that it did not want to continue with CHIP. I do not agree with its decision but it is the right of the Government to make such decisions. It initially made an announcement concerning this matter on November 8, 1984, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) delivered his economic statement. This was followed up by a press release by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) on November 16. These statements indicated that certain undertakings had to be obtained by applicants prior to December 31, 1984, and that anyone who could not apply prior to January 1, 1985 would not be eligible for the 60 per cent. After that date they would be eligible for only 33-1/3 per cent. Unfortunately, the regulations were not passed until January 17, 1985, making the action of the Government illegal, as has been stated by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). The Government had no legal right to prohibit consumers who applied for CHIP prior to Janaury 18, 1985 from receiving the 60 per cent to which they were entitled.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Government gave the 60 per cent to those who applied prior to January 18. We do not know that. We do not know how many applied. The committee was told by a representative of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that, unfortunately, statistics were not kept with respect to the number of registrations which were rejected. Thus we really do not know.
More important, if someone called the Department after January 1, but perhaps before January 18, 1985, they would have been told that the time to obtain the 60 per cent which they were seeking had expired. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary would have us believe that the 60 per cent was granted to those who applied prior to January 17. Obviously
April 22, 1986

the decision to grant the 60 per cent to those who applied prior to January 17 was a decision taken after that date when the Department realized that the regulation was only passed on that date.
A great many people had been told by the Department that they were not eligible. Had they put in their applications against the advice of the Department they would have been eligible. It is highly unlikely that anyone would put in an application after having been told by the Department that he would not be eligible. There was quite a problem there.
The Parliamentary Secretary would have us believe that there was no time to put a regulation in place prior to January 17. He would have us believe that the fact that an announcement was made on January 8 without a regulation being put in place until January 17 was no one's fault and that it just could not be done before that. The Government did not open Parliament until November 5 or 6, two or three days prior to the Minister's Economic and Fiscal Statement. The Government was elected on September 4 and the House did not sit until the week of November 5, yet the regulation could not be put in place until January 17. That is highly incredible. There is no reason the regulation could not have been prepared at the same time the Government was drafting its Economic and Fiscal Statement. That is irresponsible.
The Government is putting things into law retroactively. That will not sit well with the Canadian people. That is not legal. It is not as though the Government only did that on this occasion. The Government is planning to do the same thing with respect to the grandfathering clause in the Bill that eliminates the Petroleum Incentives Program, as we heard when we were debating Bill C-85. The Government is applying regulations retroactively.
The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the Government is more concerned with the welfare of Canadians than with passing regulations quickly, but that is just hogwash. The Government never gave any consideration to the concerns of Canadians because First it did not give them adequate time to apply for the 60 per cent, and second, it forced them to accept 33-1/3 per cent instead of 60 per cent without any legal justification. The Government cannot be concerned with the welfare of Canadians if it is going to break the law to reduce the benefits that flow to Canadians.
This is a very important question. I would ask all Hon. Members to concur in the report of the committee. The report of the committee is on the side of law. The stance of the Government is that it is trying to justify the breach of a law, but that is contrary to the laws of Canada. I would ask all Hon. Members to vote with the committee and not with the Government.
First and foremost, this question is a point which all Canadians must consider. If we are going to continue to pass regulations and apply them retroactively, Canadians cannot
Motions
possibly have any confidence in or respect for the laws of Canada. It was stated that in the last Parliament, 4,000 regulations were passed. Regulations are out of control. They are passed but are never reviewed. They are costing Canadians millions of dollars. Regulations under one Act contradict regulations under another Act. Federal regulations contradict provincial regulations. The whole thing is out of control. What is most out of control is the attitude of this Government which is taking away the rights of Canadians without passing the proper laws. The Government is deciding arbitrarily that Canadians are not going to have these benefits, not only without compassion but without the legal capacity to do so.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make on this issue. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is now here. Perhaps he would reply to this.
Say there are two people who did not complete the program by January 17 but both made commitments to complete by the end of March. We should ask ourselves if they would both receive 60 per cent of the cost, and the answer is, not necessarily.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member asking the Hon. Member a question? I wish he would direct the question to-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry. I do wish to make a comment and I hope that the Hon. Member does return.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Please direct the question to the Hon. Member who just spoke.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Here he is now. Let me repeat the question. I wonder if the Hon. Member who just spoke might consider the situation of two people who did not complete by January 17 but had both made commitments to complete by the end of March and they did complete by the end of March. I wonder if the Hon. Member would agree that it is possible that they may not both have received 60 per cent of the costs. If one of them registered his commitment between January 1 and January 17 and the other registered his commitment before December 31, is it not possible that one of them would receive 60 per cent of the costs and one of them would only receive 33-1/3 per cent of the costs?
Let me put it another way. Suppose someone comes to the Government on January 22 with a contract made on January 2 committing him to complete by the end of March. Is it not possible that the Deparment would tell that person that he did not register before December 31 and would therefore receive only 33-1/3 per cent of the costs? This is surely where the Government's position is flawed. Since it did not have the proper Order in Council, the Government is trying to finesse the point of the so-called fairness of the procedure. Is it not possible and indeed probable that one would receive 60 per cent of the costs and one would receive only 33-1/3 per cent of the costs?

April 22, 1986
Motions


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). That certainly is possible. In fact, we do not really know what happened between January 1 and January 17. We do not know how many people applied. We do not know what treatment they were given. We do not know how many applications were rejected as the Department has indicated that it does not have that information, something which is rather surprising.
No statement was made by the Minister prior to December 31, 1984, indicating that the time would be extended. In fact, during the time between January 1 and January 17, 1985, the Minister made no statement indicating that the time was to be extended. We do not know whether or not those in the Department took it upon themselves to treat applications that came in between January 1 and January 17 in their own fashion without passing them along, because we do not have any records.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make. I disagree with my hon. friend. I say yes, the two people would receive the same amount. I might say that anyone who signed a contract after January 1 was well informed all the way along as to what was happening with the program.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not by Order in Council, not by Gazette and not by law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I appreciate that Hon. Members are having a little question and comment period between themselves. If they would like to do that behind the curtains that would be fine, but questions at this point should be directed to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was doing pretty well in that I was being interrupted by my friend from Vancouver. I am making a comment at this point; I am not asking a question. As I was saying, the Canadian public was very well informed. Obviously they were well informed because of the huge number of applications which came into the Department before December 31. Those who made application after December 31 knew full well that they were applying under the 33-1/3 per cent grant. However, because the regulations were not passed, the Department honoured the 60 per cent grant for those people who applied in that time period. It was a very fair way to treat the Canadian public, and that is the way it happened.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of having been here a while is that the Speaker learns the name of one's riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have no difficulty with "Surrey-White Rock

North Delta". I would hope, after the next election, that it would have one or two names like Surrey-White Rock.


Benno Friesen: I would not want you, Sir, to leave out one of the areas of my good constituency. Another benefit of having been here a while is that one develops a memory for past events. I am now taking some pleasure in an ironic sense of justice, the wheels having turned full circle. We are not dealing with only the matter of CHIP. We are really dealing with the whole subject of delegated legislation and the procedures followed by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
When I was sitting in the Opposition, an Order in Council passed by the previous Government consumed much of my attention and quite a bit of my energy. It was known as the emergency planning orders. The Hon. Member who tabled this report should not walk out because my remarks will be of interest to him. I see that I have peaked his attention, at least.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes.


Benno Friesen: The particular emergency planning order never enjoyed the benefit of news releases, as did this particular Order in Council. This one had at least two, three or four news releases which anticipated the new regulations that would be adopted later by the Government. The emergency planning order did not enjoy any flare of publicity. It was just gazetted, and some very sharp Canadian somewhere noticed it and gave some prominence to it.


Mr. Robinson:: It is still on the books today.


Benno Friesen: I hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I think he has become sloppy in his attention to House business. He knows very well that the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) is revamping that entire matter, including the War Measures Act. He should not get too anxious.
I remember asking the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) when he was Solicitor General about the particular Order in Council which empowered the Government to empty penitentiaries in order to fill them with political prisoners, or at least make room for political prisoners, and he said: "Obviously there are a few problems with this particular Order in Council".
Now it so happens-and this is where the justice comes in- that the Hon. Member for York Centre is a co-chairman of the committee which is examining delegated legislation, Orders in Council. I think it is perfect that the Hon. Member for York Centre, who ran a little roughshod over some Government procedures in that process, would now have to chair the committee which examines delegated legislation. I agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who said a few minutes ago that the committee was not only very important but essential if we want to preserve democracy and freedom in our land.
When I sat on the parliamentary reform committee I had two main concerns. One of them was my concern for delegated
April 22, 1986

legislation or Orders in Council which do not enjoy parliamentary scrutiny unless they are elevated to the point of attention by this particular committee. I was very concerned about the workability of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. There is a sense in which I want to commend the committee for bringing forward this matter. At the same time, I am concerned about the fact that the committee did it. I really think that committee members have overblown the case here. They are taking a subject, which may even be of some legitimate concern, and are overblowing it to the point of making it look frivolous in the context of what they ought to be doing.
Let us assume there was a 17-day gap between January 1 and January 17 when the Order in Council might have been printed. I would also assume that had the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought down his economic statement in November and published the Orders in Council at the same time, the Hon. Member for York Centre would have complained about the Government bulldozing its way through Parliament. He would have indicated that surely an economic statement deserved some attention and debate in Parliament, and that Orders in Council should flow from that debate and be registered thereafter. He cannot have it both ways. On the one hand he cannot allow for full parliamentary debate and examination of that statement and for Parliament to ventilate its concerns and, on the other hand, expect the regulations to be printed at the same time.
In his opening statement-and I think I am quoting the cochairman accurately-he said that it was an unusual use of the powers of Government. Previous speakers have pointed out that plenty of notice was given to the public. A news release was sent out on November 8 defining for the Canadian public the terms under which the new programs would work. There was another one on November 9 in which the Minister announced that the lower rate of contributions would be implemented effective January 1, 1985. I can tell the Hon. Member, from the responses I received from the industry, that it was well informed about the Government's procedures and intentions. It was not?that the public was being ignored or taken by surprise. There was another announcement on November 16 elaborating on the program. It is really overstating the case when the Hon. Member says that it was an unusual use of the powers of Government.
Also, as a member of the parliamentary reform committee, I caution the members of this committee to use wisely these powers which are long overdue and which many of us wanted. Again I say that this is somewhat a frivolous motion because they could have tabled this particular report under the provisions of Standing Order 44. It would then have forced the Government into a change of the regulations. The Committee chose not to do that. It chose to critize the procedure, tabled a report and asked for a two-hour debate to talk about the report. But as a result, nothing happens. Time and the effects of the program are already past. Why take up two hours of House time debating a report which will change nothing
Motions
because the program has already lapsed, and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that there was no injury to the public as a result. The public was properly informed. Probably all of the applicants or intended applicants had a choice whether or not they wanted to take part in the program.
I would caution the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in respect of its use of the powers which are the committee's which happily now allow the committee to bring about changes in Government regulations in order to correct an injustice. This could not be done before the reform was accepted by the House. Up until February any time this committee sat, all it could do was ventilate an issue but nothing happened. Under the reform of the House of Commons, the committee now tables a report under S. O. 44, which I will read into the record:
-if the report is concurred in, would be An Order of this House to the Ministry to rescind one specified regulation or other statutory instrument, which the Ministry has the authority to rescind.
That puts muscle to a report, Mr. Speaker. What the committee has chosen to do is to table a report which has absolutely no muscle to it and has consumed two hours of debating time, time which could have been spent much more wisely on something else. I would caution the committee to continue its work investigating all of these regulations and other statutory instruments, but to make sure that when it does report to the House that the committee does it with some purpose rather than with the present frivolity.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member with respect to his earlier remarks on PC-1305, the emergency planning order. He will recall that when he was an opposition Member on this side of the House he called upon the then Liberal Government to repeal that order immediately. He suggested that it was a serious threat to the civil liberties of all Canadians. Now that the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) is a Government Member, it seems that he is singing a different tune. Instead of calling upon his own Government to repeal this same order immediately, which remains on the books in the identical form in which the Liberals passed, he is now saying: "These things take time. The Minister is studying it. It takes a couple of years. The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) has to study it very carefully". What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker.
How can the Hon. Member possibly justify the total inaction of his own Government with respect to the emergency planning order? Why is he now saying that it is all right for his Government to study the matter and to take another 15 months or two years to look into it in depth? When the Hon. Member was in opposition he was suggesting that this was one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in the country. Why, all of a sudden, is the Hon. Member saying now that the Government needs more time to study? How can he justify the reversal of his policy?

April 22, 1986
Motions


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is a master of hyperbole. He talks about hypocrisy. As he sits in his social subsidized housing in Vancouver, as reported on television last night, he ought to use the facilities of the taxpayers of Canada who have given to him-


John Horton McDermid: At $54,000 a year he is in subsidized housing?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know what that has to do with the reply-


Mr. Mayer:: What has the question got to do with the motion?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is in social housing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 
Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are waiting for the answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) was trying to complete an answer on regulations and statutory instruments. We are getting into some high level debate which has nothing to do with today's debate. I will allow the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta to terminate whatever he was going to say so that we can get to further questions and comments.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I was simply responding to part of the statement made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) accusing the Government of hypocrisy.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Accusing the Member.


Benno Friesen: Since the Member is so interested in social housing and meeting the needs of those people who have such dire needs while he himself is living in subsidized housing, according to the news report last night, unless that was wrong, I thought maybe we should draw that analogy.
More specifically, in answer to the Member's question which was more in the nature of a tirade rather than a question, I would suggest, as I did earlier in my remarks, that it was our Party which highlighted that issue when we were in opposition.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What are you doing in Government?


Benno Friesen: We have no less commitment to doing away with that provision. We are not satisfied with simply withdrawing that emergency planning order without dealing with the whole nature of the War Measures Act at the same time, which was the root of that problem. The Hon. Member might want to scotch-tape policies together and cut and paste, but we are not satisfied with that. Unless we want to have a recurrence of 1970 all over again, we have to deal not only with the emergency planning order but also with the War Measures
Act. The Hon. Member can rest assured that the Government will do that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North-Delta (Mr. Friesen), in connection with the language the Hon. Member used in referring to his colleagues in the House, when he said that the Committee had passed judgment or reported on a frivolous question.
Mr. Speaker, I can see nothing frivolous in asking the Government to follow recognized procedure, that is, to govern openly, by Order in Council, and to make regulations after adopting the Order in Council.
The question before the House today is as follows: Was the Government acting responsibly and fairly when it gazetted, on January 17, an Order in Council setting regulations to implement the Government's policy to eliminate the Canadian Home Insulation Program?

I fail to understand the Member's point, Mr. Speaker. He, like us in this House, was advised on January 18. I happen to have some dossiers here. Let me read part of a letter dated January 17.
Dear Member of Parliament:
This package is designed to provide you and your staff with details on the recent changes to the Canada Oil Substitution Program (COSP) and the Canadian Home Insulation Program (CHIP).
That officially gave us information on January 18 about what the Government's intentions were with regard to the implementation of the program.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not nonsense. The letter is dated and it is signed by Dennis Orchard, Director, Home Energy Programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. This is a question and comment period and the questions and comments are to be directed to the Hon. Member who just finished speaking. The Hon. Member has been here a long time and realizes that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was just informing the Member that I have a document dated January 17, 1985, indicating that the program would be terminated on December 31, 1984. How can the Member say that it is frivolous for a committee of the House, which has to review regulations, to come before the House and report that there has been an irregularity? In the language of the committee: "The joint committee criticizes the Minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the manner in which grants to home owners were reduced during the phasing out of the Canadian Home Insulation Program". That has nothing to do with a November 9 statement in which the Government said it
April 22, 1986

would phase it out. This has to do with an announcement made by the Government through press releases. In other words, the Government operates by press releases rather than Order in Council and regulations duly adopted by the Government. I fail to understand what is so frivolous about that. I think it is a serious point. The point of the debate this morning was to ensure that the Government did not repeat the procedure of passing regulations after the fact. What does the Member think is frivolous about that? What is so frivolous about asking a Government to operate in a good and legal manner?


Benno Friesen: There is nothing frivolous about trying to keep the Government on its toes. That is the job of that committee and it ought to do it with vigour and it ought to report its findings to the House. However, I seriously question the need to debate, for two hours, a report on a program which is no longer in force. There is no way to turn the calendar back.
I agree totally with the Member that it is the job of that committee to keep the Government on its toes and to ensure that its procedures follow the books and are in order. We ought not to have government by press release. However, this was not; it was simply forewarning. The Government did file the necessary Orders in Council. If Members were really serious about this report they would have had concurrence in the committee to file this report, including Standing Order 44, which would have called upon the Government to rescind. The very fact that they did not implement the provisions which have muscle indicates that they were not very serious about the report in that sense. I think it is unfortunate that we have spent two hours debating something which cannot be changed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Did the Hon. Member receive any applications for this grant between January 1 and January 17 in his office in Surrey? If he did, what did he tell the people? Were they eligible for 60 per cent or 33 per cent?


Benno Friesen: I thank the Member for thinking that I have an encyclopedic and photographic memory, but I cannot answer that question.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that in the phasing out of the Canadian Home Insulation Program some householders were treated unfairly. Nothing can be further from the truth. The fact is that the Minister and her officials made special provisions in the phasing out process to ensure complete fairness for homeowners. The plain and simple reality is that the actions taken by the Hon. Minister were well within her mandate and 84,000 additional households qualified for the CHIP grants because of the Minister's concern for fairness. The concern of the Minister for the additional householders during this transition period should be significantly noted.
The phasing out of the Canadian Home Insulation Program was undertaken with fairness and market responsiveness as top priorities after consultation with the insulation industry. The facts are these. On November 8, 1984, in the spirit of restraint
Motions
in government spending, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced the phase-out of the CHIP program by March 31, 1986, and a reduction in the rate of contributions from 60 per cent to 33-1/3 per cent of eligible insulation costs. On November 9, 1984, the Minister announced that the lower rate of contribution would be implemented effective January 1, 1985.
On November 16, 1984, in recognition of the need for flexibility to allow both consumers and insulation contractors to meet the phase-out deadlines, the Minister announced that potential applicants would register their intention to have insulation work done. This registration process was available until December 31, 1984, and the work had to be completed by March 31, 1985. This ability to register was a special provision not contained in the standard rules of the program and was evidence of the Government's willingness to be fair and flexible. On January 17, 1985, the Order in Council was passed enacting the change to the regulations. Until January 17, 4985, all applications received, accompanied by proof of work done, were eligible for the 60 per cent level of contribution.
The Minister's objective was to devise an orderly, fair, and flexible phase-out of the CHIP program. The Minister extended the program for a full 17 months beyond the initial notice of its termination, providing a generous and responsive transition to the lower contribution rate, and responding to the realities of the market-place by consulting with and receiving the support of the National Insulation Contractor's Association.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only is the Hon. Member reading his speech, which is against the rules, but he is reading the same speech which the Parliamentary Secretary gave. That is not debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is out of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's the same speech. He reads better than the Parliamentary Secretary.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the situation in the House is that the Opposition is wasting time after the Minister acted in the best interests of the people of the country. If you will allow me, I will continue.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member refers to the Opposition wasting time. The Conservative members of the committee unanimously supported this report and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will correct that reference.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, but it is a good point to keep in mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope Hon. Members will allow the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to continue. He

April 22, 1986
only has a minute remaining. I would like to hear what he has to say.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If he wants to call it one o'clock, we will agree.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the policies and the Minister's methods for implementing the phase-out process are both fair and just. Those are the facts. The Minister and her officials were sensitive to the realities in the market-place during the phasing-out period. The fact is that the industry would not have been able to meet the increased demand for insulation work. Therefore, a special provision was made. The industry benefited and so did the consumers of Canada.
I would like to point out a misunderstanding in the second paragraph of section 3 of the committee's report. It says that no statistics were kept concerning the number of applications for a 60 per cent contribution which were rejected on the ground that a purchase commitment ought to have been registered before that date. This information was provided in response to a completely different question concerning the number of applicants who had attempted to register after December 31,1984.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I would just like to say that the Minister acted in the best interests of the consumers of Canada and we are proud of that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's time has expired. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) has announced measures that will help employees responsible for answering inquiries. The Minister indicated that taxpayers must be able to count on Revenue Canada providing accurate information to help them complete their income tax returns. The Minister announced a number of measures that will help his employees achieve this goal. Measures that will be implemented next year! Who is going to help taxpayers who have yet to file their returns, now that they only have eight days left, Mr. Speaker? Who is going to pay the interest on the mistakes Canadians are going to make in filing
their returns because Revenue Canada doesn't know the answers and gives the wrong information? Not a word about that from the Minister, Mr. Speaker. I trust he will come back with another press release to deal with this particular point.



PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that pelvic inflammatory disease is a silent epidemic which has swept across Canada. In 1982 over 140,000 Canadian women were treated for this disease and the number increases each year. Despite these terrifying figures, there exists a deep silence regarding this disease and its consequences of infertility and disability. This has resulted in no major research on the disease being conducted in Canada.
Despite the fact that from 3 per cent to 9 per cent of IUD users contract PID, the copper IUD continues to be marketed in Canada while being banned in the U.S.A. The Kamloops Womens Resource Centre urges the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to ban the copper IUD immediately from the Canadian market, initiate research on pelvic inflammatory disease, and bring an end to this silent epidemic.

[ Translation]



PENSIONS


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tabled a petition for early retirement after twenty-five years continuous service, a petition signed by a large number of employees at Correctional Service Canada, and more specifically, by a group from the riding of Duvernay.
The House will understand that this is a matter of particular concern to me, since I have five federal penitentiaries in my riding as well as the only training centre for Francophone prison guards in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, early retirement is of vital importance to people who have been exposed to high-stress working conditions for so many years. This request does not come out of the blue, since a report recommending such measures was presented about ten years ago to the Solicitor General of Canada, and, more recently, in 1984 in the Carson Report.
Federal penitentiary employees, in Duvernay and across Canada, have done more than their share, and I want to give
April 22, 1986

them the assurance they can count on the support of the Member for Duvernay.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, economic and social equality for women is a priority of the Government. Measures have been introduced which will improve the financial position of low-income women, improve job training opportunities, reform divorce law, improve the enforcement of maintenance orders, permit the Government to deal more effectively with abusive programming and pornography, remove discrimination from the Indian Act, and address other equality issues.
Between September, 1984, and March, 1986, some 293,000 jobs for women were created. Unemployment among women has fallen by 1.9 per cent since September, 1984. Contrast that with the last term of our predecessors wherein it rose by 3.4 per cent. Most promising of all, this Government will continue to build on these accomplishments and not rest until complete equality for women is a reality in our country.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government talks about consultation concerning Revenue Canada. We heard the former critic of the Minister being very hard on the Government. Yet the same Government is prepared to slam the doors shut on a company in Peterborough, Friedrich Industries, with 175 employees. This is being done because of taxes owing.
Even though the bank is prepared to refinance, the Ontario Development Corporation says the company is a good and viable deal, even though the company has made arrangements regarding repayment, and even though the Progressive Conservative Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has been urging the Minister to reconsider this case, he has closed his ears and is going to shut this company down leaving 175 people in the city of Peterborough without jobs-all this because he is not prepared to listen to a refinancing package which would include a payment of $25,000 per week over a period of 10 weeks.
Is this a Government that cares? Is this a Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) who listens not only to the Opposition but to his own Members? I urge the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



ASSISTANCE URGED FOR OIL INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the collapse of oil prices has created a crisis in Calgary. For example, the unemployment insurance claims centres are working 68 hours a week to process the avalanche of claims. If one compares the past seven weeks with last year's figures, the claims are up 57.5 per cent-yes, Mr. Speaker, up 57.5 per cent-to a total of 16,400 claims.
These are 16,400 stories of despair, of broken dreams, of hardship and being forced to move.
The Government must act, and act now to aid this industry.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of an action group formed by the Ukrainian Canadian community in Winnipeg, headed by Professor Roman Yereniuk, which wishes that all six of the defecting Soviet soldiers now in Afghanistan be encouraged and permitted to come to Canada.
The action group is prepared to support one of the six, Egon Kovalchuk, and to take full responsibility for his well-being in Canada. It is actively looking for other ethno-cultural groups to sponsor the other five. The group believes that a major injustice has been done in raising the expectations of these defectors that they would be able to come to Canada. Unfortunately, the Government's mishandling of their case has left them marooned in rebel held territory.
This sincere offer made by concerned Canadians demonstrates public support for the rescue of these six men. As the representative of a constituency that is as ethnically diverse as Winnipeg North, I can assure the House that the offer of assistance represents the views of many immigrant Canadians, and that the action group's words will be matched by further actions to ensure that these prisoners of war will have the opportunity to find a new life in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.

April 22, 1986
[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a concrete example and prove to the House that money invested by our Government in the riding of Champlain is benefitting the entire population. Two hundred and twenty million dollars were given to the CLE company in Champlain to be used as loans for small businesses. This amount has generated investments that are vital to the economy of our region. In fact, over $1 million has been generated by our businesses and financial institutions to provide permanent and durable jobs for our people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the people of Champlain that our Government is on the right track, and that with dynamic people who get involved we will be in a position to create permanent jobs and a strong Canada for the next generation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, often within our criminal justice system it is the victim of crime who is neglected. It is the criminal who is accorded the rights and privileges of the law and the victim who is forgotten.
Both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) are aware of this and are to be congratulated on their recent initiatives.
Similar congratulations are due to those police forces which have established units to aid victims of crime.
Let us hope that in the future victims will have much easier access to the assistance and advice which ought to be their due, and that their interests will be no longer cast aside.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at the way the Government has been treating the workers at the CN shops in Moncton. For almost a year now it has been apparent that the federal Government is going to abandon 1,200 workers employed there. The Government has steadfastly refused to guarantee that the shops would be kept open and that the jobs would be maintained.
According to the findings of a socio-economic study, commissioned by the Government of New Brunswick, the impact of the CN shops' closure on the economy of New Brunswick would be substantial: lost disposable income over two years, $13.5 million; increase in federal social benefits costs, $9.4 million; increase in UIC costs not funded federally, $8.8 million; loss of 680 additional jobs in the greater Moncton area; further lost incomes of $10 million to $12 million; lost retail sales over two years, $16 million; and a drop in real estate values of 5 per cent.
It is time for the Government to take some positive action for the people of Moncton, and for the workers at the CN shops in particular.



ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning a well-attended breakfast on Parliament Hill was hosted by Transplant International (Canada) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). This is Organ Donor Awareness Week.
It is our prayer that all Canadians will be made more aware of the magnificent progress achieved by the medical profession in the success rate of organ recipients. People receiving a vital organ such as a heart, a kidney, or a liver, now have an 80 per cent to 85 per cent chance of living a full and complete life thanks to cyclosporin, which has won the battle over the problem of rejection.
Our praise and thanks go to Bill Brady, President and cofounder of Transplant International, his outstanding board of directors from across Canada, and the hundreds of volunteers whose mandate it is to increase public awareness and commitment. The battle will be won and our prayers will be answered when the waiting list for organ transplants is reduced to zero.

VICTORY OF ANDRfi VIGER AT BOSTON


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay public tribute to Andre Viger from Sherbrooke, who won the wheelchair marathon in Boston yesterday and broke the previous record.
This international achievement honours Canada, and we may be justly proud of the success of this athlete, a Quebecer and a Canadian.
April 22, 1986

For all Canada's young people-and there are many here today, from Coaticook, Quebec to Port Ellis, British Columbia-Andre Viger is an outstanding example of determination, perseverance, tenacity and hard work.
Speaking for myself and on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons, I wish to offer Andre Viger our sincere congratulations.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we heard two earnest pleas from Conservative backbenchers. One was with regard to the need for early retirement benefits which, of course, would deny recipients unemployment insurance benefits, if they were able to retire; and the other was with respect to the collapse of oil prices, with the resultant hardship for many families in the Calgary area.
I wonder if these Hon. Members do not recognize that the very things about which they complain are a part of the Conservative free enterprise policy of the Government of which they are supporters. Perhaps they would do well to realize that the very things about which they are most concerned are brought about by the policies introduced by the Government. I wonder who they think they are kidding.



PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX-CALL FOR REMOVAL

Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw the attention of the House to a very real concern facing my constituents in northeastern Alberta, particularly those in Fort McMurray. The Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax, a Liberal tax which was imposed years ago, is still charged on the production of oil from the Syncrude project. I urge all Members of the House to consider this matter very carefully. I urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) to consider removing the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax from all oil sands development projects.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, western grain producers are asking for a fair deal. They are asking the
Oral Questions
Government to give them the necessary support so that they can compete fairly with American producers. They are asking for the same return on a bushel of Canadian grain as on that for a bushel in the United States. They ask that the Government protect Canadian farmers to the same extent that the U.S. Government protects American farmers. Is that too much for them to ask?



RESCINDING OF TAX ADVOCATED

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best advice to give the Hon. Member who complained about the gas tax levied in the area of Fort McMurray would be to talk to his own Government and have it rescind the tax. After all, why does he complain to the House of Commons? He should be complaining to his own Government, since it is the one imposing taxes these days.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the situation before the United States Senate remains a cliff-hanger whose uncertainty casts some doubt on the special relationship which the Prime Minister has with the American administration. My question for the Prime Minister relates to a letter from the President to American Senators calling for the support of U.S.-Canada trade negotiations in which he noted that Canada "has been very supportive of United States international initiatives, particularly in combating terrorism and maintaining a solid unity on major East-West and arms control issues". I ask the Prime Minister what those words of the President mean. Have we, in effect, sacrificed the independence of our foreign policy in order to buy an affirmative vote on this issue?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is really quite unbecoming of one who was a Prime Minister of Canada to make such a scurrilous suggestion in regard to the conduct and foreign policy of this country. The statement of the President of the United States was quite forthcoming. He views Canada as a reliable ally, and that is the way we want it to be. We do give our friends the benefit of the doubt. We do view ourselves as a reliable ally. As long as this Government is here, that is exactly what we will be.

April 22, 1986
Oral Questions


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister is deliberately trying to avoid revealing the substance of conversations and talks between him and the President of the United States.
Has he perhaps agreed to remain silent on world affairs until he gets an affirmative vote before the U.S. Senate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is unworthy and odious.


CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refused to participate in a recent debate. We wonder about the reason for his silence. In the same letter addressed to American Senators, the President also said that he was committed to the resolution of the lumber issue, obviously on the American side, and the U.S. trade representative wrote Arkansas Senator Pryor the following:
Dave, we'll get timber fixed.
Has the Canadian Government conveyed to the President or the U.S. trade representative the intention that lumber will be fixed? Have we got ourselves into a position in which the Prime Minister is really in the President's back pocket?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition goes from one elegant point to another. The fact of the matter is that, as with all Canadian Governments, we have conducted the affairs of this country in the national interest at all times and in all circumstances.
This initiative is under way in the United States. We do not know how it will end. It is designed to benefit Canada, to create new jobs, to lower the unemployment rate, and to bring new prosperity and opportunities to Canadians. We have always said that a good deal for Canada is a fair deal for our partners, and if it is good for us it has to be good for them. That is the way we view life, and we think that is the way to view it.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns
the six Soviet army defectors who are presently in Afghanistan. Today I received confirmation that the publisher of the Kingston Whig-Standard, as a result of yesterday's exchange in the House, has been in touch with the Minister to release confidential and important details on this very sensitive matter. Can the Minister confirm that discussion with the publisher? When will he meet with Mr. Davies? Can he assure the House that, with that information, he will immediately instruct his officials to travel to Afghanistan in order to give freedom to those six courageous young men?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, over the last several months the Government of Canada has taken a number of steps to secure the release of those six, including relaxing all of the health and security criteria that we normally require. In answer to questions in the House yesterday, I indicated that we would be prepared to discuss with journalists involved any co-operation which might bring those six Soviets to Canada.
I can confirm that, at my initiative, I have spoken today with the editor, not the publisher, of the Kingston Whig-Standard, and that we are examining some actions which might bring these six prisoners of war to freedom in Canada. I am prepared to brief privately a member of each of the opposition Parties on the nature of those arrangements, but I believe that further public discussion of this issue might jeopardize the success of the initiative we are pursuing.


OPPRESSED PRISONERS' PERMIT PROGRAM
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his projected consultations. However, yesterday he said that there was no instrument that could be used to bring those individuals here. Why did the Government not choose to exercise the Oppressed Prisoners' Permit Program esablished in 1982, a program that would allow those individuals speedy passage to Canada and would see that processing would be done on this side of the border? Canadian officials from the Minister's Department still wish to give urine tests to these six individuals in Pakistan. That is unfair. Will the Minister bring them here and process them from here?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the problem is not on this side of the border. That is the difficulty. What I have just indicated to the House is that I had discussions which I think might yield the release to freedom in Canada of those six Soviet prisoners of war. Certainly that is what I want. Certainly that is what the Government wants. Certainly it is clear that that is what the editor and the journalists of the Kingston Whig-Standard want. We are prepared to work together. I trust we will have the co-operation of the House of Commons in trying to bring those six Soviet prisoners of war to freedom in Canada.
April 22, 1986


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-LUMBER EXPORTS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the wheeling and dealing in Washington continue to go on. My question for the Prime Minister follows up on that of the Leader of the Opposition, but I ask for a more direct and precise answer this time. What secret arrangements have been made which led U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter to handwrite to Senator Pryor of Arkansas: "Dave, we'll get timber fixed"? What secret assurance is going to cost our lumber producers? Come out with some answers which give us an indication, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, none was given, as my hon. friend knows, nor would any be given.


PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO U.S. SENATORS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister feels that those kinds of assurances can be ignored, will he tell the House what President Reagan himself meant in his letter to those same Senators when he said: "I remain committed to obtaining resolutions of the lumber and other issues so that American industries will have fair opportunities to compete"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose he would have to ask President Reagan inasmuch as he wrote the letter. However, I know it will astonish the NDP that we, the Government of Canada, seek to obtain a good deal for Canada in any trading arrangement we enter into. We are satisfied that the longer term interests of the country require that a good deal for Canada also produces benefits for our trading partners. Clearly what President Reagan was trying to say in a civilized manner was that, if lumber is a problem for us, it is also a problem for him, and that within a liberalized trading arrangement he hopes it will be resolved, as do we.


POSSIBLE LUMBER PRODUCTION LOSSES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Could the Prime Minister at least show that he is worried and concerned about all these indications of potential losses for our lumber production?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would be more successful as a writer for the soaps.
I may point out to him that we have expressed every possible objection and made every possible representation with respect to the lumber problem. This question is progressing quite normally, and we hope that everything will be settled in accordance with reasonable criteria and existing mechanisms. That is as difficult and as controversial as it will get.
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the handling by his Government of the whole issue of the Soviets who we all hope will come to Canada. I should like to ask the Minister very directly why the mission, which had originally been given the green light by his Department, was aborted.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first of all the Hon. Member should not believe all that she reads, or all that she says.


Mr. Crosbie:: Absolutely.


John Napier Turner: Even the Whig-Stand-ardl


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Second, just to make it absolutely clear, there has been no relaxation at all of the will of the Government of Canada to bring those six Soviet POWs to freedom and to Canada. There are some very practical problems on the ground that have to do with jurisdictions of other countries, and that have to do with the attitude of the people who are now presumably in control of those six prisoners of war. We believe we may have a way to resolve the problem. I would hope that it will not be jeopardized by irresponsible behaviour in this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-U.S.S.R. RELATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it behooves the Secretary of State to be so smug about the fact that it took three journalists-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -if it hadn't been for three journalists from the Kingston Whig-Standard, these people would be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the Secretary of State. I want a direct answer. There was a statement made on public television last night that the reason-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.

April 22, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The Hon. Member has a question, I think, now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Does the Minister deny the reason the mission was scotched was because he wanted to improve relationships before his trip to the Soviet Union in April, 1985?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I deny that categorically. Let me also say that I have had some experience before with Canadian actions that might bring people from captivity to freedom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, Clayton Yeutter had the following to say about softwood lumber:
A senior-level U.S. delegation is today meeting in Ottawa on this problem. It is imperative that we resolve this issue quickly, and this administration will spare no effort to accomplish that.
Is the Prime Minister today telling this House that there were no proposals made to Canada at that meeting a week ago here in Ottawa?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there may very well have been discussions back and forth. I assume that is what it was all about. If my hon. friend is asking whether there was a proposal or a suggestion that impacted on any decision in regard to the vote before the U.S. Senate, the answer is no.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Earlier in the Question Period the Prime Minister alluded that there might be free trade in lumber. There has been free trade between Canada and the United States for the last 40 years. Would the Prime Minister tell this House and tell Canadians just exactly what further discussions on free trade in lumber will bring about? Freer free trade?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how funny the people in British Columbia will find that. Unlike the NDP, people know there are Members of the United States Senate determined to cripple British Columbia's forest resource industries and we are opposed to that. That is why we are taking the position that we are on behalf of the British Columbia forest producers.


Ian Deans: What position?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last August the Minister assured the Member of Parliament for Moncton that he could not "support any massive reduction in the CN workforce in Moncton". In view of the seriousness of this particular issue to the people of Moncton, is the Minister prepared to live up to that commitment, to order CN to stop all lay-offs at Moncton and to rehire the 250 who are presently on lay-off?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the last information that I have would indicate that some 4,136 people are employed by CN in the Moncton area out of a total of 6,500 people in the whole Atlantic region. That is a pretty good proportion of the workforce of CN to be allocated to one region.
I think the Hon. Member is referring to the shop situation. As he knows, there are three main shops in Canada. There is excess capacity. CN is undertaking to review the excess capacity and to try to make the adjustments commensurate with the workload and the type of work which has to be carried out across the country.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO CN BOARD
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of the seriousness of this issue, not only to the people of Moncton but to the whole economy of Atlantic Canada. Will he not use the provisions of Section 99 of the Financial Administration Act to order the board members of CN to prevent all lay-offs at the CN shops in Moncton and to rehire the 250 on lay-off? Is the Minister going to live up to his commitment, or is he going to abdicate his responsibilities as Minister of Transport?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that there are over 4,000 people employed by CN in the greater Moncton area. I do take this matter very seriously, and that is why there are no precipitous decisions being made. We are trying to work the problem through to provide a long-term future for the people there commensurate with the realities of railroading in our country.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-FISHERMEN'S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is he aware that two American businessmen who appeared on Canada AM this morning said
April 22, 1986

that unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen would be on the table if we entered free trade negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am the Minister responsible for monitoring Canada AM.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Axworthy:: You finally found a job for your talents, Joe.


John Napier Turner: Is that before you go to bed or after you get up?


Lloyd Axworthy: You are under-qualified.


Ian Deans: So that's what you do.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Deans, that's what I do. What do you do?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: We try to get answers to questions.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has such heavy responsibilities, he will also be aware that the businessmen stated the reason they believe all these items, including UIC benefits for fishermen, would be on the table, is that that is what they were told by Simon Reisman. Is he aware of that?


John Carnell Crosbie: That's called hearsay.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, would you please identify for me the question posed by the questioner so that my answer might be fully communicated on Canada AM tomorrow morning?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it arises out of the prosecution of journalist Bertrand de la Grange for mischief in connection with a service he performed in showing the inadequacy of the security system at our airports. Does the Prime Minister consider it proper for the Minister of Justice, outside this House and before the trial of Mr. de la Grange, to declare him to be guilty of a criminal act?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knew when he asked his question yesterday, or if he did not know he should have known, that this proscution has nothing at all to do with the Attorney General of Canada. It is a municipal
Oral Questions
prosecution undertaken by the municipality in that area. Only the Attorney General of Quebec can intervene in the matter, if he so wishes.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: You'll call him guilty then.


John Carnell Crosbie: I haven't found anybody guilty or not guilty. I find the hon. gentleman guilty of lamentable ignorance in bringing the matter up as he did.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking questions about the actual prosecution. As usual, the Minister is wrong. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act gives him the authority and responsibility for cases like this, if he wants to take it.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Does the Prime Minister not feel he has any responsibility at all for the behaviour of his Ministers and for statements that they make which, in this case, can lead to a serious deterioration of the integrity of our system of justice?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the case at hand I find in favour of the Minister of Justice.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You're not on the bench yet, Brian.


John Carnell Crosbie: That's a relief.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: It's also a surprise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In his response to my colleague, the Member for Skeena, he indicated that the Government has a very clear position regarding softwood lumber exports to the United States to protect the Canadian forest industry. Would the Prime Minister simply explain what position the Canadian Government holds regarding softwood lumber?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada is very clear on this matter. A free market presently exists between our countries. We wish to see that maintained. We do not, in any way, accept the contention of the Americans that we are in any way subsidizing our industry, either through stumpage fees or other methods.

April 22, 1986
12530__________________________________
Oral Questions PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also with regard to the free trade issue. In response to the pharmaceutical industry lobby in the United States the National Association of Manufacturers said the following in their testimony: "The United States Government has received repeated assurances-"


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Is it true that assurances have been given?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, no assurances have been given.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. There is a very real concern that this spring some prairie farmers will indulge in what they call "recreational seeding". Will the Minister confer with various farm groups and his provincial counterparts in order to examine federal-provincial crop insurance programs to find ways to deter those who would mine rather than farm their land?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, some of us may find the term "recreational seeding", which the Hon. Member used, to be somewhat interesting. I share his concern and appreciate the representations he is making. The federal-provincial crop insurance program has worked extremely well. We want to ensure that that program is widely used, but we must take all steps possible to ensure that the program is not misused. I can assure the Hon. Member that I will communicate his concerns to my provincial counterparts.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week he advised Canadians in Libya to use their own judgment on whether they should leave Libya. The Deputy Prime Minister said in the House: "There is no immediate threat to Canadians". With no apparent change in circumstances, the Government is now telling Canadians to leave. Why has there been this reversal? Why did he not advise Canadians to leave last week?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there has been no reversal in the advice given by the Government of Canada. There has been no reversal on this question at all on this side of the House. We have consistently been making clear to Canadians our judgment about the instability of the situation in Libya. As I indicated to journalists who asked this question outside the House yesterday, while there is a period of relative calm now, there is no guarantee that that calm will continue. Even with all of our contingency plans, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to come to the aid of each Canadian in that very large country. For that reason I extended the advice of the Government of Canada that Canadians now in Libya should leave.


PRESENCE OF CANADIAN COMPANIES IN LIBYA
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Government believe that Canadians should now leave, would it not follow that the companies they work for in Libya should also leave as part of a meaningful economic boycott of Libya?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know there are limits in law to the authority of the Government of Canada regarding the activities in another country of Canadian companies or citizens. We have done what we can do. We have taken one action regarding the export of certain kinds of Canadian oil drilling equipment with particular western technology. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are prepared to consider other actions in concert with other countries.
I think it is important for the House of Commons to recognize that the American action the other day was taken because they saw no alternative. What is essential now for Canada and other countries interested in stability is that we work together to find alternative ways to deal with states which encourage terrorism.


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In Regina yesterday my leader, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, and myself met with senior officials of some western farm organizations to discuss the crisis facing Canadian farmers. There was a strong consensus among those organizations that a deficiency payment is needed to offset the losses caused by low prices. Will the Minister accept the advice of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers and the National Farmers Union, and introduce a farm support program so that farmers will know where they stand?
April 22, 1986


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, since as far back as the beginning of February we have been meeting with farm leaders on this topic. The Minister of Agriculture and myself had a chance last week to sit down with CFA officials in three meetings to talk about this very issue. We are monitoring the situation in line with what the Prime Minister has said, that we would like to do more, and in line with our fiscal restraints.
Let me say again that it is refreshing to have a Prime Minister who recognizes the problem and is prepared to deal with it on a first-hand basis, as opposed to a previous Prime Minister who went to western Canada and essentially gave us the finger and told us to sell our own wheat.


INTERNATIONAL GRAIN MARKETS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree that a deficiency program would be a clear signal to the rest of the world that Canada cannot be pushed out of her traditional markets, and that Canada stands firmly behind her farmers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we sent out a very clear signal in the form of the Canadian Wheat Board which has been doing an excellent job of marketing our grain. I have said many times, and say it again, that we do not believe what the Europeans and Americans are doing is useful with respect to prices. The Canadian Wheat Board has an excellent reputation as a reliable supplier of high quality grain. We believe that will assist us in maintaining our markets. The larger question of depressed prices remains. We are doing what we can and will continue to monitor the situation and stay abreast of developments.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE MEETING
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee has now gone into overtime on the trade question, with the score tied. Senator Dole has now presented a new alternative to try to break the impasse. He said there could be approval for tree trade fast-track negotiations subject to certain conditions, one being that Canada would recognize there should not be subsidies for exports. If that is the basis for Senate approval of fast-track negotiations, will the Government of Canada accept that particular notion as proposed by Senator Dole?


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to allow the answer, but the Hon. Member knows it is very hypothetical.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: He has introduced the resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Can the Hon. Member find a way to phrase it which is not hypothetical?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, with deference, there is nothing hypothetical about what is happening in the Senate or about the resolution. It is important for us to know the position of the Government of Canada.
Is the position of the Government of Canada simply that there must be no conditions attached, as opposed to the question of the resolution put forward by Senator Dole?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The position of the Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, is that indeed the trade negotiations should be launched on a clean, no-condition precedent basis between two states. Therefore the resolution, which was brought forward in good faith no doubt, and is a draft resolution as I understand it which if it attaches preconditions of various kinds, would be unacceptable to the Government of Canada.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, nine families control 53 per cent of Canadian business. Tomorrow a deal will be completed which will give the Reichmanns control of a substantial portion of the energy sector and open the door to the probability of ultimate control of much of the distillery industry by the Bronfmans. My question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is this. What benefit can I tell my constituents the Government sees in this increasing concentration of ownership which they know will threaten hundreds of jobs and a venerable community conscious employer like Hiram Walker?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind my colleague that some of Bill C-91 provisions will enable the Competition Tribunal to prohibit certain mergers. Therefore I urge Hon. Members and particularly my colleague on the other side of the House to make sure that the Bill will be passed as quickly as possible.


REQUEST THAT TAKEOVER BE BLOCKED
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister block the Gulf-Hiram Walker merger deal now through a directive to the Director of Research and Investigation to obtain an interim injunction so

April 22, 1986
Oral Questions
that he can ascertain the implications for the economy, jobs, and cost to the taxpayers of this merger?


Michel Côté: Like any other proposed deal, Mr. Speaker, this one is now being examined by the Director who will intervene immediately should he uncover a breach of the existing legislation.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Recent reports claim that prolonged Customs inspections at the Peace Bridge have discouraged large numbers of American tourists from visiting Ontario. What assurance can the Minister give that there will not be unreasonable delays at the bridge during the coming tourist season?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that Customs inspectors have a special responsibility in this regard. However, I have already initiated some inquiries into the matter and, to the extent we can properly make some accommodations, we will make every attempt to carry that out.


REPORTED PCB LEAKAGE FROM HYDRO-QUEBEC INSTALLATION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On April 7 it was reported that for two years PCBs have been leaking from a Hydro-Quebec installation into the Sabrevois River which in turn flows into the St. Lawrence. What plan does the Minister have to protect public health from contamination of drinking water by toxic chemicals?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my Department, along with the Department of the Environment, is well aware of the issue the Hon. Member has raised. The situation is being monitored carefully. The information I have is that there is no immediate health hazard or danger. However, the Department and officials will continue to monitor the situation.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in light of these frequent developments will the Minister introduce a federal safe drinking water Act or, as a minimum, a set of stringent standards for toxic chemicals not covered by existing guidelines?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is a valid suggestion. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and I both carry responsibility in this area, he for the cleanup of the environment and I from the point of view of health safety. We are examining the question of whether, if we go that route, what should be the provisions to cover some of the issues which, under present regulations and legislation, have not been covered.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN PATENT LAW
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. He knows that the National Association of Manufacturers, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, indicated that the U.S. Government has received repeated assurances that Canada's present compulsory licensing law, Section 41 of the Canadian patent law, would be amended. We have been told that is not true. Therefore will the Prime Minister undertake to contact all of the members of that committee who are about to vote on a very crucial question and inform them that Canada has no such intention?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any need for us to supplement the extensive reading of Hansard which is undertaken by members of that committee, particularly those portions which reflect the comments of the House Leader of the NDP.


CANADIAN POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure why the Minister feels that this is a humorous matter. I will direct my supplementary question to whomever wants to answer. It makes no difference to me, as long as someone gets up and says something. Is the Government prepared to inform the members of the Senate Finance Committee in Washington that not only are we not prepared to rescind Section 41 of the licencing Act of Canada as it affects pharmaceuticals, we are also not prepared to negotiate away UIC benefits for fishermen, and we are not prepared to see an
April 22, 1986

agreement on lumber that satisfies only the interests of the United States of America?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that is abundantly clear about the approach that this Government has taken to trade negotiations with the United States it is that we have insisted that, if they begin, they begin without preconditions. That has been our position consistently. It is our position today.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister will know that the enhancement program on fishing lakes in northeastern Alberta that was launched by the Alberta Government conflicts directly with the treaty rights of Indians in northeastern Alberta. What is the Minister doing about it?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter that has been brought to my attention. Since it involves treaty rights, I am sure the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members are aware that it is a complicated matter. The Department has it under review.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Today the Minister outlined the measures that will assist staff in giving the right answers to Canadian taxpayers in the future. What measures has he taken to assist taxpayers in the eight days remaining to file income tax returns, since we learned a few weeks ago that 40 per cent of the answers to the questions addressed to Revenue Canada were wrong?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that this matter has been dealt with by commentators and that I have answered questions in the House and outside the House.
We regret the situation where performance appears to be lacking somewhat. However, upon analysis it may well be that the performance is not as bad as was first indicated. In any event, as the Hon. Member knows, I have outlined some measures that we are taking to correct the situation. I can assure him that the staff has been interviewed and during these
Oral Questions
last few days we will attempt to be more diligent and more forthcoming with the answers we are giving to the public.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT NOT SEEK INTEREST PAYMENTS ON TAX RETURN MISTAKES CAUSED BY PROVISION OF INCORRECT INFORMATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister direct his officials not to seek interest payments on tax return errors caused by misleading information provided by Revenue Canada and identified as such by the Toronto Starl


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I think it is well known that it is the policy of the Department to make redress whenever possible if it can be shown that we are in any way responsible for misinformation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who gave an encouraging answer to the question posed by the Hon. Member for York West regarding certain Soviet defectors and the improved readiness of Canada to accept them. My question is essentially a supplementary, with a view to addressing the underlying problem of the conflict in Afghanistan. Does the Canadian Government support the United Nations initiative and proposal that were presented last week to Afghanistan and Pakistan regarding the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we have supported those talks and those United Nations efforts throughout. We intend to continue to support them. Naturally, we intend to look for any other ways, if any can be found, whereby Canada might supplement the excellent initiatives taken by the Secretary General.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Government of Canada is conducting a cost justification study of doctors whose job it is to "ensure that prospective immigrants to Canada pose neither a medical threat to present citizens nor a financial burden to Canadian health services". Will the Minister confirm that the doctors

April 22, 1986
Oral Questions
who deal with immigration matters have already received their lay-off notices in London, Bonn, and Paris, and that further lay-offs are contemplated in other countries?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: First, Mr. Speaker, I must indicate to the Hon. Member what these medical officers have done abroad. It is not a matter in which the health of Canadians would be in any way jeopardized or that health checks will not be carried out.
The Hon. Member's information that there will not be medical doctors of Canadian citizenship in those locations is correct. As we have done for many years, we will have medical checks performed by doctors who are native citizens of a particular country. Those medical examinations will still take place and be checked here in Canada, as is done in many other countries where we do not have medical doctors.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is long.


EXTENSION OF VISITORS' VISAS WITHOUT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Government has also extended the medical examination-free period for visitors to Canada from three months to six months. In view of these drastic changes, why have the provincial Governments not been consulted or notified of these changes since it is their health systems that would bear the brunt of the cost of lowering health standards?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that also is not the correct interpretation of the situation. We have the Immigration Medical Review Board on which a number of provincial representatives sit as these questions are discussed and decisions are taken. For example, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick are on that board at this time.
The Hon. Member should be careful when he assesses this. We receive many requests from Members to ease visitors' entry into Canada because of regulations in other countries. That is one side. On the other hand we have a responsibility to ensure that health is not jeopardized. When we see what has been done with the Department of Employment and Immigration, External Affairs, and my Department, we see that those principles remain. They have not been jeopardized in any way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are involved in volunteer work with
hospitals, charities, and many other worthy causes. Since this volunteer work often involves out-of-pocket costs for seniors and others with limited disposable income, will the Minister consider some form of tax assistance, such as a tax credit, for these worthy individuals?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Government values very much the work of the volunteer sector and has taken certain steps to encourage the volunteer sector. I suggest that the Hon. Member's proposal involves some complexities. It does lead to an increased administrative burden for a volunteer organization itself. However, it is certainly a worth-while proposal to consider, and I will do that.


PRICE OF DIESEL FUEL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. One of my constituents runs 35 diesel trucks from Richmond, British Columbia, through the interior of B.C. to the Kootenays. My question is one that he would put to the Minister if he were here. Why has the price of diesel fuel not gone down like gasoline? As a trucker he must pay this increased cost and he wants to know why the price has not gone down?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked that question in committee last week and I can only supply him with the same answer. The price of diesel fuel has gone down 7 cents a litre on average. However, the marketing circumstances are different from gasoline, generally, and it responds to the market depending on competitive pressure.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Algoma.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Last Thursday 600 farmers rallied at Carman, Manitoba, to protest grain prices and the high input costs.
Petro-Canada and other oil companies have eliminated their volume discount. World prices for crude oil have dropped by 60 per cent since last fall. The actual price for farm fuel in Carman, Manitoba, has dropped from 34.7 cents a litre to 32.6 cents a litre. Why is the Government not taking action to
April 22, 1986

reduce farm fuel input costs, especially in view of the fact that the Minister has reduced the grain prices?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The premise of your question is wrong.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I farm in that area. My recollection is that the prices of diesel fuel have come down by something in the order of 10 cents a litre since they reached their peak. What the Hon. Member says is true, we have lost some of the discounts. I understand that some of those discounts are being looked at again. Since world oil prices started to come down, that 10-cent reduction equals something in the neighbourhood of 45 cents a gallon.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is three o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House Leaders and I think Your Honour will find a disposition to receive, by unanimous consent, and pass without debate, the following orders. The first is as follows:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 106, petitions signed before the implementation of the new Standing Orders on February 24, 1986, and clearly identified as such, may be filed with the Clerk of the House, provided:
That the said petitions be examined pursuant to practices and procedures and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 73 in effect on September 9, 1985;
That the petitions found in order by the Clerk of Petitions be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and those petitions found out of order be returned to the Member filing the petitions;
That petitions be received pursuant to this Order no later than the last sitting day of June, 1986; and
That the Government not be required to table a response to any petition filed pursuant to this Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The
second order reads as follows:
That the entries of all orders and items on the Order Paper and Notices under "Private Members' Business" be changed to conform with the terms of the provisional Standing Orders in effect on February 24, 1986, and that the Clerk of the House be authorized to make such changes.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Employment Equity


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motions. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 21, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration), that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed; and on the amendment (Ms. Copps) (p. 12465).
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this important debate at the third reading stage of the employment equity legislation known as Bill C-62. In effect, this Bill represents yet another broken promise of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). Canadians will recall that throughout the 1984 election campaign the Prime Minister set out an ambitious program to implement full employment equity for all Canadians. I remind those Canadians who are watching the debate, and those who have been following it, of the words of the Prime Minister who said in August of 1984:
Our party will ensure that companies providing services to the federal Government hire increasing numbers of women to perform such services. When seeking Government business, these companies will be required to detail their action plans, timetables, and programs for attracting, training and advancing women within their operations-
The Prime Minister went on to say this:
We support the need for human resources planning within the federal bureaucracy, which includes goals and objectives to achieve parity for women, at all levels of Government operations, commensurate with their skills and expectations. Numerical goals are one of several goals required: training and retraining are others.
Canadians remember the promises made by the Prime Minister during the federal election campaign. Today, as we examine this legislation on employment equity, it is clear that those promises have been broken. In particular, the flaws in Bill C-62 are the promises which have been broken at the expense of groups in our society which have been historically disadvantaged when it comes to achieving equal access to labour market opportunities. In particular I speak of the disabled, of women, native people and visible minorities, all of whom had high hopes that the Tory Government would back up the rhetoric of the Prime Minister with concrete action.
That was not to be. Why is it that legislation such as effective employment equity legislation is so important? Time and time again we have had statistical studies, many of them referred to in the report of the Royal Commission on Equality and Employment, chaired so ably by Judge Rosalie Abella,

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
that provide a very bleak picture indeed of the employment opportunities and benefits for designated groups. There is an imbalance in both statistical and monetary terms. Women have lower than average incomes. They are employed predominantly in sectors and in jobs which are the lowest paid. Women do not earn the same amount as their male counterparts for performing the same or similar jobs. Disabled people suffer from extraordinarily high unemployment rates. When they are employed they tend to be concentrated in the low-paying, marginal sectors of the labour market. They have additional expenses which those workers who are not disabled do not face, such as medication, special aids and devices, and special transportation services. Native people have incredibly high levels of unemployment, something in the order of five times higher than the non-native population. Recent immigrants to Canada face particular difficulties in advancing in the workforce. They are frequently found in job ghettos or in the lowest paid, lowest skilled and most vulnerable sectors of the employment market. So there is a problem which should have been addressed by the Government in its employment euqity legislation.
I spent some three months touring the country with the Subcommittee on Equality Rights. We travelled from coast to coast to hold public hearings. We heard representations from Canadians representing women's organizations, native people, the disabled and visible minorities. They expressed their very serious concerns about the provisions of Bill C-62.
I wish to take this opportunity to remind the House and, through the House, Canadians, of some of the concerns which have been raised regarding the legislation we are debating today. One of the key spokespersons for the disabled, Beryl Potter, of the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities, said this:
Like the bill-it's not even worth the paper it's written on-I've never been so disillusioned in my life as I am with Prime Minister Mulroney. I was a supporter of him. I worked for him in his campaign and I am totally, totally disillusioned.
That from a former active Conservative and one of the heads of the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities. The spokesperson for the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada said: "Bill C-62 is of limited value". The spokesperson of the National Association of Women and the Law, Suzanne Boivin, said:
Nothing will change. Unfortunately, it is simply wishful thinking.
The groups which are affected by this legislation are unanimous in their condemnation of it. At the end of the day it is clear that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Ms. MacDonald) and her Government have not effectively consulted with the groups affected by this legislation. In fact, they have ignored the major concerns raised by these groups and by their spokespeople.
I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on why Bill C-62 is such a disappointment to the millions of Canadians who, in fact, were looking for concrete action, for decisive action, from the Government to ensure employment equity. First, I wish to recognize the excellent work done by Judge
Rosalie Abella in this area. We in the New Democratic Party have drawn upon her report in outlining what we believe to be the correct approach, the philosophical underpinnings of strong employment equity legislation. As well, I wish to underline the outstanding contribution made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), who in his work both in committee and in the House has reflected with eloquence the concerns of the groups which appeared before the committee seeking changes to the legislation.
When we examine Bill C-62 we see that the purpose of the Bill as spelled out is certainly commendable. The purpose of the Bill, as stated, is as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
That is the guiding principle of this legislation. However, when we go on to read the Bill itself, we find that it falls far short of that.
Once again, I would note that consultation with the groups affected by this legislation was sorely lacking. Beryl Potter, a former active supporter of the Conservative Party who now says that she has been betrayed by the Prime Minister of this country has said the following:
We have tried everything. We have consulted with the CEIC staff, appeared as witnesses before the Parliamentary Committee on the Bill, made pleas to the Prime Minister directly and rallied on Parliament Hill.
We have demanded that the Bill be amended to include the Government's own Departments and agencies and to include a penalty for failing to comply with employment equity plans. The Government has not responded to any of our demands.
All Hon. Members will recall that a week ago yesterday the members of the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities came to Parliament Hill and sat in the gallery. In many cases, these people were lifted into the gallery. They were bitterly disappointed with the response of the Government.
We have five underlying concerns with respect to the weaknesses in this legislation and I would like to deal with each of them in turn. The first and perhaps most fundamental concern is with respect to the lack of any effective enforcement mechanism or penalties large enough to act as a deterrent to the corporate sector. Shari Stein, the legal counsel for the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities, has said the following about Bill C-62:
How can anyone, the people, the provinces, the municipal Governments, take this legislation seriously when it has no teeth, it only requires voluntary compliance and the federal Government has exempted itself.
Furthermore, the Bill does not require that the so-called action plans with goals and timetables established by the firms be made available to the Human Rights Commission or the
April 22, 1986

Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission. In effect, there is no mechanism whatsoever to guard against plans which may be poorly devised and wholly inadequate to meet the needs of target groups. We have examined the response of the Government to the unanimous recommendations of the equality committee.
I see that the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock- North Delta (Mr. Friesen) is present in the House. I know how strongly he supported the recommendations of the committee on equality and I know that he will want to have a chance to speak on that at the appropriate time. The committee recommended far more effective legislation. It recommended that the Government give teeth to Bill C-62 and ensure that there are adequate employment equity enforcement mechanisms. Those mechanisms are not there and I deeply regret that. Certainly the groups affected by this Bill regret that very much.
The Bill makes no reference whatsoever to equal pay for work of equal value. Here both Judge Abella and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women recommended that concrete and specific reference should be made to the important principle of equal pay for work of equal value and that it should be included in the legislation itself.
As well, there are no provisions for mandatory contract compliance for firms which may be doing business with the Government. Clearly the experience in the United States has shown that contract compliance can be a very effective tool in changing discriminatory practices which may be followed by firms selling goods and services to the Government. This was a major recommendation of the Equality for All report and the Government has chosen to ignore it.
The Abella Commission's recommendation No. 27 states that contract compliance should be imposed by legislation. The Government has ignored that important recommendation. In Bill C-62, we see that contract compliance only applies to firms with 100 or more employees and only if the value of the contracts exceed $200,000. Moreover, failure to comply with the equity proposals of the Government does not result in loss of a contract but only means that in the future, such a firm may be removed from competition. That is not much of an incentive to comply with employment equity. I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has fought a vigorous battle within Cabinet to strengthen this Bill but unfortunately was beaten back by the right wing of the Tory Cabinet and caucus.
The provisions with respect to employment equity and in particular contract compliance are set out in the report entitled Equality for All. The unanimous recommendation of the committee composed of five Conservative Members, one Liberal Member and myself was that contract compliance be a part of the employment equity legislation. We noted that in the United States, a similar executive order enforced by the office of federal contract compliance programs applies to contracts worth $50,000 or more granted to firms with 50 or more employees. The unanimous recommendation of our committee was that the ceiling of $200,000 and 100 employees
Employment Equity
is too high. That was a recommendation made unanimously by the committee with respect to this legislation that is now before the House. I know that some Hon. Members from the other side of the House fought for this but obviously lost out.
There were recommendations in other areas about which the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta felt particularly strongly. I know that he fought hard in those areas. However, the reality is that that particular voice was not heard, and in some instances, perhaps we might breathe a sigh of relief that that was the case. However, I know that the Hon. Member himself may wish to comment with respect to his views on this important report.
Much of the wording of Bill C-62, particularly that of Clause 4 which deals with the duty of employers, is very loose and ill defined. What, for example, is the effect of not defining reasonable accommodation or positive policies and practices? This crucial question should surely be the subject of negotiation between employers and employees. Instead, there has been some vague process of consultation and even that was only included as an amendment later in the day.
Finally, the fifth major concern we have with respect to this Bill is that federal Government departments including the RCMP and the Canadian armed forces must be included within the scope of the legislation. Once again, this was a recommendation made very clearly by the special committee on equality rights. We said that the legislation on employment equity should apply to all federal public-sector employers and to employers under federal jurisdiction. Despite that unanimous recommendation, the Government once again told us to forget it, that it is not prepared to implement that important recommendation.
I think we can understand why the Government did that if we read an extract from the Government's response. The Government has said that it attempts to balance the needs of the designated groups against the Government's desire not to interfere unduly in the operations of employers. It is a pretty skewed balance and one which has left the groups which should be assisted by employment equity legislation, women, native people, the disabled and visible minorities, very critical indeed of the legislation.
The Government argued that federal Departments and agencies are covered by the 1983 Public Service policy on affirmative action. I would remind the Government that that policy does not apply to members of the RCMP or the armed forces. We know that those employers are some of the most reactionary and sexist employers in the country. We hoped that they would have been included under this legislation, weak though it may be.
I would like to conclude by reminding the House once again that during the 1984 federal election campaign, Conservative Members raised the expectations of groups which had historically been disadvantaged, groups which had hoped that the Government's promises would be kept. Rather than that,

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
we see a legacy of broken promises in so many other areas as well as in this fundamental area of social justice.
These groups had hoped that corrective action would be taken to deal with past abuses and ongoing barriers to workplace equity. They also recognized that the previous Government took no action whatsoever, and certainly they were critical of the former Government for its failure to act. It is interesting to see the spokesperson for that Party now standing up in opposition and railing at the Government in respect of action which should have been taken many years ago. Certainly many of us who were here when Liberal Governments were in power were critical of their inaction. We hoped that the Tories would keep their promises.
Instead of providing mechanisms in the Bill to ensure compliance through effective enforcement, Bill C-62 relies on voluntarism and invitations. Surely the past has shown us clearly that it is not good enough to leave it to employers to establish and pursue their own goals and targets. The Minister somehow believes that if the failure of employers to live up to these goals and timetables is published, employers will be shamed into action. The record of employers across the land is well known and has been clearly documented. Certainly they have not been shamed into taking steps which would involve the full participation of all Canadians in the workforce.
As the New Democratic Party understands it-and this is understood by millions of women, native people, disabled persons, and visible minorities-employment equity requires a solid commitment to using the instruments of Government to ensure that ideals become reality. We need enforcement mechanisms with teeth. We need provisions for contract compliance, negotiation between management and workers, and a clearly stated commitment to the overriding principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Those essential principles are lacking in this important piece of legislation.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Opposition, both in committee and at report stage in the House, tried to amend Clause 7 of the Bill, that is the clause dealing with penalties. We tried to amend it so that the penalty would apply not only to employers who failed to comply with section 6 but also to employers who failed to comply with Clauses 4 and 5. While Clause 4 obliges employers to implement employment equity, the Hon. Member knows that there is no penalty in the Bill if they do not comply with it. Also, Clause 5 obliges employers to prepare an action plan with goals and timetables, but there is no penalty for non-compliance. Both his Party and my Party proposed an amendment to Clause 7 which read that if an employer failed to comply with Clauses Nos. 4, 5, and 6 they would be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500,000, and it was turned down by the Government.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is a learned attorney, and I should like his views on the argument given by the Government. The Government said that it was not
necessary to make Clause 7 apply to Clauses 4 and 5 because by referring the reports under section 6 to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Clauses 4 and 5 could be enforced under the Canadian Human Rights Act. I am a lawyer as well. I have read that Act from beginning to end and from end to beginning. In any case, I cannot follow the argumentation of the Government. If it were really in favour of enforcement, why would it not accept that simple amendment to Clause 7? I ask the Hon. Member, who is known to be a competent attorney, whether he has examined those arguments of the Government, which I failed to grasp, indicating that the Bill did not require an enforcement clause because the Canadian Human Rights Act would take care of that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and learned legal associate for his important question. I am not at all surprised that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has failed to comprehend the Government's reasoning. Indeed, all reasonable Canadians and all groups affected by the legislation do not understand the Government's reasoning.
The Bill is very specific. Only Clause 7 is specifically an offence section. It reads:
An employer who fails to comply with section 6 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000.
Certainly an employer who fails to comply with Clause 5, the one dealing with so-called action plans or the amendment which was added in committee, or with Clause 4, the one dealing with the employer's general duty to promote employment equity, would be able to say that there was no provision in the law for mandatory compliance with those clauses. Clause 7 only deals with the failure to comply with Section 6. It is quite clear that by singling out one section for the purposes of enforcement and deliberately not making references to the two clauses which are at the heart of the Bill in real terms, the Government is saying to the corporate sector: "Please comply. This is what we would like you to do, but if you are not prepared to do it, we are not prepared to enforce it". It is certainly a betrayal of the hopes and expectations of the groups affected.
In response to the suggestion that the Canadian Human Rights Act would somehow give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the opportunity to enforce these clauses, I searched that Act, as did my colleague, and there was absolutely no provision for that. We could obtain a learned legal opinion from the Chief Law Officer of the Crown who is present in the Chamber today, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He might want to point to a section in the Canadian Human Rights Act which would give the Commission the power in fact to enforce these clauses or to put teeth into them. I do not want to take up any more time because I want to give the Minister of Justice an opportunity to clarify for all Canadians just how the Canadian Human Rights Commission will have the opportunity to enforce these clauses.
April 22, 1986


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the position taken by the Hon. Member with regard to the enforcement policies and provisions in Bill C-62. As reported at page 12454 of Hansard for yesterday, the Minister made the following statement:
The Government is committed to ensuring that employment equity becomes a reality. We intend to knock on the doors of employers who do not meet their responsibilities. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be knocking with a firm fist.
That confirms exactly what we have been saying. The Government only has pious hopes but no way of enforcing them, because there is no obligation on any employer to report progress. Would the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) tell us how he thinks the Minister will be able to knock on the doors of employers with a firm fist? What kind of a result does he think the Minister will get? What about an employer who says: "I will not tell you the progress I am making on employment equity because it is none of your business; the law does not force me to do that"? How does he foresee the reaction of a medium sized employer with 100 or more employees? Of course employers will be required to fulfil a couple of obligations. They will have to plan for eliminating systemic discrimination and presenting a plan of action. However, I do not see anything in the Bill that forces them to report on progress made. Can the Hon. Member find anything in the Bill requiring progress made being reported to the Canadian Human Rights Commission?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) quite correctly pointed out one of the very serious weaknesses in the legislation. There is no real clout in the hands of the Minister to enforce the legislation. All she can do is get down on bended knee and beg, plead, cajole, request, and urge. All she can do is knock on the door and say: "Please, Mr. Employer, hire more disabled persons and more women". That approach has been tried in the past for decades, and it has not worked.
When we in the New Democratic Party looked at the legislation, we worked hard to strengthen the Bill. Hon. Members of the Official Opposition also proposed amendments which would put some teeth into it. When the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier talks about the Minister knocking on the doors of employers and insisting upon action, what we will find instead is the Minister standing outside corporate boardrooms and whimpering: "Please, please, please, we want you to obey this law, and if you do not obey it, we might amend it". In the law itself there are no sanctions or teeth whatsoever.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will quote further from the Minister's speech of yesterday. It is quite interesting how a Minister of the Crown could make such statements. I will come back to this later on in my speech about this because I noticed some interesting comments of hers yesterday. At page 12453 of Hansard, the Minister said:
At the end of that year they will be required to report on the progress that they have made toward achieving these goals. These reports will be made public, open
Employment Equity
to media and public scrutiny-and this is the second half of the two-tiered system-
This is exactly what Judge Abella rejected, voluntary reporting on progress. She said that you cannot believe that public opinion will change an employer who has in his practices or has in his systemic employment practices actions discriminatory to the four groups we are talking about, namely, women, the handicapped, native peoples and visible minorities. If an employer has in his books or in his practices things that discriminate against these groups, how does the Member square what the Minister told us yesterday with the Abella Report which says: "Don't rely on voluntary reporting because it won't happen"? It has not happened yet and it will not start happening after Bill C-62 is passed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has joined me today in this important debate. I would be quite prepared to seek unanimous consent to ask the Minister to answer that very important question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: In the short time available, I would note that the Hon. Member is raising a very important question. Under this legislation and, in particular, Clause 5 of the legislation it states that while an employer has to prepare a plan which sets out various goals and timetables, this plan remains a secret document. The employer has to keep it locked in his or her principal place of business for a period of at least three years, but the employer does not even have to give it to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In committee, the opposition Party suggested that if we are going to be able to monitor effectively the progress of employers in achieving employment equity, we should at least make sure that we have access to the statement of the achievement of goals and timetables as recommended by Judge Abella. That amendment was rejected. For that, as well as the many other reasons that we have been enunciating during the course of this debate, we are opposed to the third reading of this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille).


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62, an Act respecting, as it says, employment equity, is a Bill which has been the subject of debate in the House now for some period of time. We have to ask ourselves, does this Bill in third reading, after we have tried to work on amendments and ways to improve it, fulfil its declared purposes? The purpose as outlined in the Bill in the second clause, in about the third sentence, sets forth what the alleged purpose of this Bill is. It is to achieve equality in the workplace. It says: "In the workplace".
First, Mr. Speaker, it is only in some workplaces, it is not in "the workplace". In fact, we have to say that "the workplace" only applies to those workplaces where there are more than

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
100 people employed, otherwise this Bill does not apply. Next, it does not apply to the entire private sector, only to a number of companies doing federal work. Further, it does not really apply to any federal Departments. It does not even apply to this House of Commons or to the other place, the Senate.
When we look at what it does apply to, we find that the Bill applies to some federal Crown corporations and about 800 federally regulated firms with more than 100 employees. Otherwise this Bill applies to no one else. It certainly does not apply in any way to "the workplace". It applies to only a very few workplaces in Canada. Therefore, from the beginning, the Bill is a sham in terms of its alleged purposes.
The Bill says that no person shall be denied employment. Clause 2 states:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfillment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities-
These are the people in the groups to which the Bill is supposed to apply and whom it is supposed to help. It says it is "to achieve equality". This Bill does not change a single solitary thing, Mr. Speaker. It does not change anything. It is supposed to attack systemic discrimination against certain groups. By systemic discrimination we mean the way the system works, the network, the basic underlying system as we know it, the ingrained system. Women know what this ingrained system is because they know that they have not achieved in any sense the positions of leadership and of power in any way equally to men.
The handicapped certainly know what the system is. They know in very many ways that they are regarded as useless instead of being regarded as excellent resources. Various minority groups, especially our native peoples, understand how the system works, but it does not work for them.
This Bill is suppose to change systemic discrimination. It is supposed to affect the system. It is a sham. The Bill is an absolute sham. Who says it is a sham, Mr. Speaker? I say it is a sham. The opposition Parties agree it is a sham.
In my work in the field of human rights, I have had some occasion over these months to talk to people in that field. There is not one single person who works in the field of human rights who does not regard the Bill as a sham.
If we look also at groups who are affected, at umbrella groups, because I would not want to read off the whole list of the names of the organizations that regard this Bill as a sham, let me just say briefly that the umbrella groups include the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, the National Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Association for Community Living, formerly the Canadian Association of the Mentally Retarded, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women, and the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities. That is not
the complete list. That is only a list of some of the umbrella groups. Hundreds and hundreds of leaders of groups across the country have spoken up and have written, and although they declare the Bill a sham, the Government persists in putting this Bill through unamended.
There have been certain comments that I think are worth putting on the record. For example, Carol Tator, President of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, says:
What the government has done has given us an empty, symbolic gesture toward the whole problem of achieving employment equity.
Shari Stein, a lawyer for the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, adds that Bill C-62 is so weak it is potentially harmful. That is why the Opposition is so determined. If this legislation moved a small step in the right direction, one would not feel that one had to fight this to get it changed drastically. However, when groups like this call this Bill harmful, one must listen, take notice, and realize that a lot is at stake.
The purpose of this Bill is allegedly to ensure that no person is denied employment opportunities or benefits. Those are high sounding ideals, but what does this Bill do for our minority groups? My colleagues, who have analysed this Bill as I have, have pointed out that, in effect, this Bill only asks employers to file a report. The terminology of the report is not laid out. We moved amendments to clarify some of the terms, but they were not supported by the Government. Only employers who have more than 100 employees and fall into limited categories are affected by this Bill. They have to file some reports. We asked how the Government would ensure that employers would have a plan for the future to change their employment practices. After fighting against it as hard as possible, the Government finally saw fit to require employers to prepare a plan setting out their goals and timetables. The Government said employers should fill their drawers with their plans and keep them for at least three years. They are not to send these plans to the Government or the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but only to fill their drawers with them.
It is ludicrous that the Government, in all sincerity, could present such a Bill as this which is mocked by the people whom it is supposed to serve. The Government persists in refusing all of the recommendations which have been made to it by the minority groups and in ignoring the very reports which were presumably the cause for bringing forth this legislation. The Government consulted with these groups, commissioned the Abella Report, and appointed a committee on equality, which included Conservative members and unanimously called for the inclusion of various rigorous provisions, none of which are to be found in this Bill.
The women of Canada comprise 51 per cent of our population. As a group, they earn lower salaries than men and perform a higher proportion of part-time work. Very often they are the last hired and the first fired. Due to their frequent part-time employment, they are in a situation of great vulnerability. Over the decades the system has not corrected
April 22, 1986

itself. We cannot accept the views of the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) that, because she is an eternal optimist and has faith in the Canadian people, things will work out.
It is not a question of the Canadian people, in whom we all have faith. It is a question of the employers who have to make a profit. Some of these employers are good citizens. However, it is not the good citizens toward whom we direct legislation, but the bad ones. There is no guarantee in this Bill that the bad citizens, or let us say the more self-centred citizens, in the corporate field are going to understand that we mean business. The Parliament of Canada is not a place to play games, and we resent that the Government is playing games with an issue as serious as equality for such a large proportion of our population.
Surely no injustice can be tolerated simply on the grounds that its correction will cost money. The complaint that the extra work of filling out these forms might be a bit expensive will not be accepted by Canadians any more than we will accept the view that we should not bother to keep the environment clean, because it will cost companies money. Let us keep the environment clean and let us keep the workplace clean and free of inequality and discrimination. Today women are supporting themselves and their dependants. They are working for a living and for survival. They have the right to equal pay for work of equal value. They have the right to take their rightful role as equal human beings. That is what Canadians want from the Government.
We sometimes hear from the less progressive elements of the business community that women must be moved from low-paying jobs into higher paying jobs through affirmative action. That is a laudable thought, but who will then fill the low-paying jobs which are left vacant? The problem is that those jobs are undervalued. If they continue to be undervalued because women fill them, we will not have solved the problem.
The lot of women has not been corrected by time and the so-called goodwill which exists. Despite educational campaigns and efforts by women's groups, the situation still has not changed. The claim that when the public sees what corporations and companies are doing they will make them change their ways is a vain and silly proposal of the Tories. It is not enough to simply rely on so-called public opinion and pressure. There must be legal requirements backed up by penalties for violation. There must be penalties for lack of compliance. There must be an enforcement mechanism. We all know this is the case, yet the Government persists in ignoring these obvious requirements to make this Bill meaningful.
Women's groups condemn this legislation as a sham. They constitute 51 per cent of the population. They were promised action but received a Bill with no compliance or penalties. I would like to deal with each of the minority groups, but time does not permit it. Time does not permit me to explore the loss of dignity which results from inequality. These people want the right to work. They do not want to be on the dole.
Employment Equity
The reason a law with enforcement provisions is required is that very often, as Martin Luther King said, the law is a teacher. It helps to make all of us understand our role. I remember many, many years ago, about the time I was ordained, that a black priest came to Toronto from New York City. I tried to find him quarters in a motel or hotel near Toronto. I was told by the proprietors that they had nothing against him because they liked black people, but the trouble was that the people who came up from the States did not like black people. If there were a law, of course, they could point to it and say, "We have to do this". However, since there was no law, they could not comply and they felt it was best for their business that they did not provide this man with accommodations. I am not talking about the United States deep south; I am talking about an area in Ontario in the 1950s. Why am I telling this story? To point out that if people have something to point to and say, "I have to do this", it helps them to justify what they know they should do. This is what the law requires and this is what they will do.
We are talking about something which deals with making us all equal as brothers and sisters together. 1 think Archibald MacLeish summed that up when he was writing a poem about the astronauts when they were looking down from the moon upon the earth. He said: "To see ourselves as riders on the earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold, brothers who now know they are truly brotherse", and one might say, sisters who now know they are truly sisters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.	[DOT]


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to a good presentation by the Hon. Member. He presents himself as an advocate for the end of discrimination against women. However, am I not correct in thinking that he is a member and supporter of a church which refuses to ordain women as bishops? Would he tell us why that is the case? Would he take this opportunity to stand in his place and tell us, if he is a man of conviction, that he thinks the church of which he is a member is wrong? Would he tell us, if he is a man of conviction, that the law he would have applied to Governments and businesses should also apply to churches, and end once and for all discrimination against women in the church of which he is a member, and also other churches who engage in the same discriminatory practices?


Benno Friesen: Repent!


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is advocating support for the churches in such a stand or whether he is criticizing it. Perhaps he wants to know what my particular stand is. I could point out to him that the position which has historically existed in the Anglican Church, to which I belong, has forbidden the idea of the ordination of women as priests or as bishops. That position has been modified, at least in the

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
church in Canada, so that we ordain women as priests. I have certainly supported that move.
However, the argument put forward by those who are, if I may say, less progressive and more conservative, against ordaining women as bishops is that it will be a problem for us ecumenically in our relationships with other churches who do not ordain women as bishops. I think that argument is specious and reactionary. Therefore, I have to say to my hon. friend that I believe that the Anglican Church to which I belong should hastily reform its position and join the 20th century. I invite Conservative Members of Parliament to join the 20th century as well and see to it that women are given equality in all areas. There is no room for inequality in this day and age and certainly not in this country.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) is a member of a Party which formed the Government of this country for a good number of years. It lead us to the present circumstances in which, for example, there are very few women in senior management positions in the federal Public Service. His Government tolerated this situation while it was in office. It promulgated policies which did not change that situation. There was no contract compliance policy which worked. The Liberals did not force companies to take action on employment equity. I am wondering how he can stand up in this House and criticize the Conservatives for doing just what his Government did over a number of years.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, first I would disagree with my friend on his statement that the Liberal Government did not do anything.


Cyril Keeper: Nothing effective.


Roland de Corneille: I think he has to realize that a very large number of steps were taken, step by step, starting with the federal Human Rights Commission. Guidelines in this area were brought into existence, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was brought forward. It provides the legal basis on which all of these equality approaches are based and to which they are tied. Then of course we brought forward guidelines in the Treasury Board and we took other steps in the Public Service.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), was trying to bring into legislation amendments which would make sure that government Departments fall under the requirements of this Bill. I certainly agree that more needs to be done. Following upon the establishment of Human Rights Commissions and the Charter, and Section 15 of the Charter, as well as following upon the guidelines, the Liberal Government appointed the Abella Commission in order to receive recommendations as to how the Charter and the law should be applied. The Charter was passed four years ago and there was plenty of time for this Government to know what was coming up. It has finally decided to turn to the Council on Social Development to deal
with providing money to people for court challenges. That organization sent a list of these people to my friend, the Secretary of State, but he has not acted on it. Seven months have gone by and these people, who have genuine problems to take to court, are still waiting for the Government to act.
It is problems such as that which make me so concerned that this Bill is a sham. We will see more reports like this, with greater bureaucracy, but no action.


William Warren Allmand: Before I direct a question to my hon. friend, I want to suggest that no political Party, including the New Democratic Party, has much to be proud of in its past with respect to employment equity. After listening to some remarks yesterday, I looked at the record and found that in Saskatchewan where the NDP was in power for some time, there is no legislated mandatory affirmative action program. In Manitoba, they only passed a pay equity Act in June, 1985. That is the only measure of any consequence in the area of affirmative action. In British Columbia, where the New Democratic Party was in power for some time, there is no legislation at all dealing with this subject. I suggest that all of us have come to it a bit late and I would expect there would be some humility with respect to this subject.
The fact is that we did pass the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977 and the Charter of Rights in the last Parliament.
Clause 4 of the Bill says that an employer shall implement employment equity by instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodation as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in the workplace. There is no definition of reasonable accommodation in the Bill. All of the groups representing the disabled told us that there must be a definition or the Bill will be ineffective. As a Member who deals with disabled people very often, will he elaborate on this, because the Government has refused to accept our proposals for a definition of reasonable accommodation? Does he believe that this Bill can be effective for disabled people when it does not include a definition of reasonable accommodation?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, obviously the disabled and their organizations felt that this was a very essential and important definition to put in the Bill. Otherwise, the danger is that a disabled person could be defined as someone who has a sprained thumb. That is an exaggeration, but unless there is a definition of "disabled" and of "reasonable accommodation", the Bill will not provide any teeth at all as far as the handicapped are concerned. There are no terms of reference on which the the Government or the Human Rights Commission can act. The absence of this definition makes the Bill even more faulty than it is.
The disabled who came here last week were disappointed that they could not find a place in the gallery for their wheelchairs. This very place is limited in its facilities for the disabled, yet we are supposed to be setting an example for the
April 22, 1986

rest of the country. They came here and tried to cry out in protest in front of the House. They tried, through the media, to ask for these small amendments in order to give them reassurance that the Bill dealt with this issue seriously. Yet they were refused.
Some of the disabled who came here were blind. They may have been blind but they can see better than the Tories. They can look through the Tories and see the cynicism and hypocrisy.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Incorrect reporting of gas prices alleged; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-Multiculturalism (a) White Paper inquiry (b) Request for consultations; the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner)-Native Economic Development Fund (a) Extent of expenditures (b) Request for increase in estimates.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration), that Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed; and on the amendment (Ms. Copps) (p. 12465).
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, although Bill C-62 is supposed to achieve employment equity, it fails to contain many of the necessary provisions to achieve that goal. In fact, it has so many shortcomings in its structure that we have fairly said that it should be called at best a Bill to promote and encourage employment equity.
I am taking part in a debate on a motion which would give the Government an opportunity to reconsider seriously the representations that have been made in the House as well as in many other places about the flaws in the Bill.
Employment Equity
First, I want to respond to the comment by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) about how slowly we have come to understand these matters. That observation does have some fairness to it. The proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has demonstrated a growing sensitivity to these matters. The Hon. Member commented on the western provinces that have been governed by the New Democratic Party. Saskatchewan does not have a New Democratic Government at this time and British Columbia, of course, has not had a New Democratic Government for more than a dozen years. In Manitoba, I am pleased to say that the New Democratic Government was recently re-elected and that Government has been very concerned about making progress in this area, particularly as far as its own employment is concerned.
Members should be aware that in its negotiations with the union of Government employees, the Government of Manitoba took action in areas which the federal Government has refused to include in this Bill.
The Manitoba New Democratic Government negotiated an arrangement with the union of Government employees by which the proportion of women, native people, disabled and visible minorities in Manitoban society will be reflected in the composition of Government employees over a period of time. This is not a statement of what is desirable or a declaration that sets a goal. It is an agreement that was made with the union of Government employees by which workers will join with the Government in achieving these changes. Provisions have been made so that over a period of some 20 years the Manitoban Public Service will take up the characteristics we would expect if we are really going to practise the employment equity that we want. Of course, Judge Rosalee Abella, in her royal commission report over a year ago, set this forth as the basis for affirmative action and social justice in our country.
I have been handed a note stating that the study conducted for the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) shows that the Saskatchewan New Democratic Government expected real affirmative action progress from the Crown corporations which it established in the province. I want to note one paragraph in particular. It states:
Another strategy that was adopted in Saskatchewan that has, in the first instance, produced some results, was the approach taken in relation to the provincial crown corporations. Under the former Government-
Presumably, this is a document from the present Saskatchewan Conservative Government which states:
Under the former Government, affirmative action encompassed special measures to eliminate systemic discrimination and to open up employment opportunities to the key target groups (native, women, disabled).
The crown corporations were given a specific directive from the provincial government to develop affirmative action plans. Native people were designated the priority, although both women and the disabled were included as target groups.
The paragraph concludes:
12544

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
The crown corporations were to demonstrate leadership and to provide an example to the private sector of effective affirmative action programs.
I am sure that some of my colleagues from Saskatchewan will be aware of these matters, even if the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) was not. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is keenly aware of what the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan is doing to ensure that northern development and mining development will provide opportunities for native peoople and, through those actions, ensure that affirmative action is being practised.
Having said that about two of the western provinces in which New Democrats have governed, I would like to return to the subject before us. More particularly, I return to the proposal that Clauses 3, 5 and 7 of Bill C-62 be referred back to committee for further consideration. It seems to me that it is important to give this opportunity to the Government so that it can take another look at the matter. After all, initially, there were fine statements of intention. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is nothing if not a most impressive speaker when it comes to stating fine intentions and putting them forward with a lovely smile on her face, making one think that all will be sunny in these particular areas.
That was not the case, however, when she was faced with the type of particulars seen in the City of Toronto. These were made obvious by a couple of reports last winter and spring which asked: "No discrimination here?" "Who gets the jobs?" It was clear that in the employment patterns of employers in the City of Toronto there was a pattern of discrimination in place against those who were regarded as alien in one way or another. Whether this came about because of race and colour, or whether it was a matter of accents or the names people bore, these persons had great difficulty in obtaining employment. They obtained far fewer job offers even though they had similar qualifications to persons who were white, who looked familiar and who spoke English as the mainstream of Canadians have learned to speak English. These demonstrations of discrimination and racist practices were certainly known to the Minister.
I made a point of writing to the Minister after each of these reports to say to her: "Here is the evidence. We require strong action. Are we going to get it?" Of course, she would reassure us. When she tabled Bill C-62 we were all concerned to see what was in it. Even on first reading of it we found it did not contain very much. We found that, primarily, it was a basis for determining what the composition of workforces in large companies would be. It was primarily large companies with which it dealt. Government Departments were not included. We were told that other action was supposedly being taken- again, government by press release. But the Government was not making itself subject to this reporting provision. Only large employers with 100 or more employees would be required to report on the composition of their workforces. That is all the Bill provides. Certainly, there is a penalty for not complying, but who will tell me that $50,000 is a large penalty for the type
of corporations with which we are dealing here? It is not much of a penalty and not much will result in the way of action by employers.
We can be pleased that the argument which took place in the House, the debate here and in committee, produced the inclusion of one clause which actually opened the door to some real expectations, not demands on employers. At least with the addition of Clause 5 we have the following statement:
An employer shall, in respect of each year, prepare a plan setting out
(a)	the goals that the employer intends to achieve in implementing
employment equity-
(b)	the timetable for the implementation of those goals.
However, there are weaknesses in this clause, as I will suggest in a few moments, following others which still do not go very far. Employers were not just expected to report on the results of their employment practices, they were to set goals. Nowhere in the addition to the legislation, in this limited improvement in the Bill, was there a statement with respect to the type of goals that Government and the Parliament of Canada would expect lawyers to follow. There was no demand, no setting of a timetable for real progress to be made. Again, this demonstrates that if the Government was responding to the barrage of criticism it was receiving with respect to this promotion of employment equity by the use of legislation, the response was still a very limited one.
Given the protests of group after group, there has been a real formation of coalitions to press the Government to give more. I underscore that point as it comes from the various groups across the country. If the Government does not do something now, then I am convinced that it will not do it in the life of its mandate which the electorate gave it in 1984. We will have to wait until the year 1990 before seeing anything in the way of stronger legislation. That makes it all the more imperative for the Government to take seriously its own statement of conviction and principle, the statements which have been uttered from one quarter after another to the effect that the Bill is inadequate. It must open up the possibility of looking at Clauses-and I will take them up in this order-7, 5 and 3 in order to strengthen the Bill so that the people of Canada have what they really want in the way of legislation which will achieve employment equity.
Clause 7 contains a provision for the levy of a fine. As I have already stated, the sanction here for employers who do not act on the provisions of the Bill apply only to the reporting provision. Surely, if Clause 5 means anything, if the formulation of plans with goals really amounts to something, then it makes sense that if employers are doing that then their action should be subject to a fine much larger than $50,000. Surely, sending the Bill back to committee in order to open up the possibility of adding to Clause 5 in such a way that employers will be under the onus of law to do something about it makes sense. It is surely necessary to open up the possibility of doing this for diverse employers. This will ensure that it is not only large employers employing more than 100 people who can so easily pay $50,000. The payment of a $50,000 fine could
April 22, 1986

become a mere business expense if an employer did not want to go to the other trouble. As a matter of fact, if we consider the money which might have to be spent in formulating plans, then surely $50,000 might end up being less than the cost of establishing an office of employment equity in a company. In fact, $50,000 would not buy that much time, if an employer has to have some skilled people working in the area. A fine less than the cost of following through with these measures is certainly tantamount to inviting a violation of the law.
These are some reasons for having the Government send this Bill back to committee and, in particular, to consider some significant additions to Clause 7 by way of an increase in the fine and an assurance that it would apply to more than simply the filing of reports.
Clause 5, the clause to which I was just alluding, ensures that employers do not simply report on their employment practices but actually implement plans. Surely if the Government is serious about achieving employment equity as it declares on the face of the Bill, then we need more strength in this area.
When thinking of the target groups, I think particularly of the visible minorities and people who belong to ethnocultural communities. This is not necessarily always a matter of visibility in terms of colour or race. Visibility can be a matter of accents or features that strike an employer or personnel officer as being alien. Then, of course, there are the native people of Canada who are entering the cities in large numbers seeking employment. For that matter, they are seeking employment outside cities. The needs and concerns of the disabled and women have been addressed eloquently by other Members of the House. Surely a Government that states all the good intentions the Minister and her Parliamentary Secretary have declared should do something more with Clause 5 if it believes in those principles.
The flaws in Clause 5 are overwhelming. Where will the plans be kept? Will they be kept at the head offices of the companies? There is no obligation to tell anyone about the plans. In another clause, there is a provision for consultation with unions. How can there be consultation if the unions or whatever representatives the workers put forward do not have a right to see the plans?
Surely Conservative Members are not so naive that they think that leaving employment equity up to the good intentions of employers will work when we have had so much evidence of discriminatory practices in Toronto. The most shocking thing that those surveys of Toronto employment practices demonstrated was that there was widespread discrimination and that employers did not think that there was anything wrong with that. In that kind of a context, surely we need to lay the provisions on the employer. Surely there must be a requirement that the plans be public documents and be freely available to anyone who wants to look at them. Surely the community groups and those who have been frozen out by
Employment Equity
employers have the right of access to these plans if there is to be any kind of action taken on them.
I realize that I am drawing near the end of my time. In conclusion, I wish to say that I hope devoutly, with the entire depth of my being, that the Government will take this seriously and will take the Bill back to committee. Last Thursday I had a terribly depressing experience when, in one vote, we took care of 19 amendments to the Bill. The Government voted every one of them down.
It seems to me that the words which the then Opposition Leader and now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in June, 1984 ring very hollow now. He said then that there is no obligation more compelling, no duty more irresistible, than to ensure that minorities live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice. Bill C-62 does not do that. It flouts the principles the Prime Minister stated before the last election.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask of my colleague. Can my colleague possibly have any confidence that this legislation will bring about real change in the workplace and a greater equality between men and women in the workplace both in terms of the amount of money they earn and the positions they occupy given that there is presently great inequality and that companies have many other bases upon which to make their hiring decisions besides equity? Does my colleague have any confidence that this legislation will be a big enough stick to bring about the results that are so greatly needed today?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question asked by my colleague. The answer is certainly that I have no such confidence. I think of the situation in which would-be workers find themselves across the country. I have been focusing on Toronto because the Urban Alliance on Race Relations along with the Metropolitan Social Planning Council carried out the kinds of studies that were required there. These were quite imaginative studies which demonstrated the depth of racist and discriminatory practices in that city. I am sure Toronto is not unusual.
People want to work and they seek the reality of employment equity. My colleague alluded particularly to the matter of equal pay for work of equal value and the insurance that people who are hired are not discriminated against once they have been hired. Those other concerns do face us. This Bill does not provide any kind of sanction for that kind of action. It provides that a fine ought to be paid if reports are not made, but there is no provision for action on any of these matters. For a broken reed to be offered the people of Canada as a big stick is surely for us to be left with the gravest disappointment in what the Government claims to be doing.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for a penalty of $50,000 if employers do not report on the level of employment equity in the workplace, yet many of the employers are very large firms and multinational corporations. I wonder if a fine of $50,000 would be effective if a very large firm simply

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
decided to ignore the law and not collect the information necessary to comply with the minimal provisions of this legislation. I wonder if the legislation should not provide for a larger fine in order that it be enforceable.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the matter of a $50,000 fine is worth some careful consideration. The cost of establishing an office to work toward employment equity in a company would, I suspect, on an annual basis, easily run to $100,000. The companies must employ officers with the kinds of skills required. I would expect that such a person would easily cost $35,000 or $40,000 per year. If one thinks of secretarial and other costs, I am sure it would exceed $50,000 in the way of costs. Surely to have a fine which is less than the cost of conforming to legislation is an open invitation to have it violated. If an employer saves money by paying a fine and being subjected to an employment inequity tax for a year as an alternative to employing people and establishing an office, I could imagine many cold-blooded employers saying: "Let's go ahead and pay the fine". It seems to me that that is a final declaration on the part of a Government which is not really serious about the matter.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the point just made by the Hon. Member regarding the $50,000 fine for non-compliance. Both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party attempted to get the Government to understand that $50,000 was not enough. We wanted $500,000 to be the fine for non-compliance. Does the Hon. Member not agree-and I think he alluded to it at the end of his remarks- that some employers will find it cheaper to pay the fine than to proceed with some important physical changes to their establishments to make them accessible to handicapped people? For example, I am referring to changes to their buildings so that handicapped people will have better access or so their establishments will be more secure and safe for those who may be blind, deaf, or whatever. I do not see any measure in the Bill for us to follow up on this with employers except to agree voluntarily that they will report on their plans after three years. Does he not agree that some companies will find it much easier to pay the $50,000 fine than to comply with sometimes expensive but needed changes to the systemic discrimination which is inherent in many workplaces today? For example, access to buildings can be difficult and there can be problems in terms of security and safety. Does he agree that perhaps it is merely symbolic to have a $50,000 fine for larger companies?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely right. At best the Bill will be a symbol. We have had a number of such symbols since the early 1980s with the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the work of several committees of the last Parliament. Given my particular responsibilities for multiculturalism in our caucus, I am keenly aware of the work of the special committee on the participation of visible minorities which made recommendations in these various areas. In early 1984, two
years ago, it declared the following in the title of its report Equality Now.
There were also reports dealing with the situation faced by disabled people, as another example. Whether or not the last Government was buying time in appointing Judge Rosalie Abella as a royal commissioner to investigate this area, I would not want to say just now. We are very grateful to her for having clarified for Canada what affirmative action could involve and the way in which we could make progress.
Given several advances over the last three years or so, there is a terrible responsibility on the shoulders of the Government to ensure that these beginnings continue. The Government should press for action so that these initiatives do not die as a result of half-hearted actions, whatever the protestations, which end up making people cynical about the stated principles. There is a terrible danger in that regard, and I see no readiness on the part of the Government to face up to that. If the Government accepts the motion and takes the matter back to committee, hopes would spring up somewhat.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being given the floor at this time of day because I have several remarks to make on the motion before us.

And I would like to speak in support of the motion before the House, Mr. Speaker, namely, that:
"Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity, be not now read a third time, but that the Bill be referred back to a legislative committee for reconsideration of Clauses 3, 5 and 7 thereof'.
Mr. Speaker, I think that today we have heard some very positive comments on the measures proposed to achieve employment equity. I have never claimed, and neither has my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine-East (Mr. Allmand) that everything has been done and all problems have been dealt with. Of course not. And I must say that the Bill before the House is a step, maybe not the giant step we would have liked, but at least a step. Not a particularly energetic one, because we are convinced that this Bill is a bit weak and that it would be a good idea for the Government to take it back and give it more teeth, more backbone, and it could then come back to the House with an amended Bill that would be much stronger, not just a Bill proposing something the House can agree with but that will never materialize.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the three clauses in question-

Clause 3 of Bill C-62 deals with interpretation. I should like to remind Hon. Members that the Opposition wanted to include federal Departments and agencies under the Act to ensure that the main employer in the Government, the Treasury Board, complied with the principles of employment equity and indeed provided an example for the private sector. We also proposed that persons who employ 25 people or more should be subject to the provisions of the Act rather than
April 22, 1986

employers of 100 or more as defined in the present state of the Bill. I will return to my point about federal Departments and agencies being included in the Bill, but first I want to make sure that I deal with these clauses in order.
Clause 5 refers to the action plans of companies setting out their goals and timetables. We think, in all honesty, that they should be made public. Why should they be hidden in the vaults of the head offices of national organizations? It could be difficult for someone in Vancouver to know exactly what is the action plan of a company which has its head office in Toronto. It may be hidden in a vault and may not be accessible to anyone who wanted to see it. We consider Clause 5 to be weak and would like to see it strengthened by making the action plans of employers public and by setting out goals and timetables so that all of us can see them.
Clause 7 refers to the famous fine of $50,000, which I think is a concession to non-action in the sense that it will not be enough to force companies to comply with the Bill. They will prefer to pay the $50,000 fine than to become involved in capital expenditures or capital works which may be required to eliminate systemic discrimination. We are talking about two very different things here. We are talking about discrimination as a matter of fact toward four target groups-women, native people, visible minorities, and the handicapped.
Also there is systemic discrimination which is inherent in the system, in the workplace, in our habits, and sometimes even in our thinking. We do not accept easily-by tradition, by lack of understanding and sometimes by ignorance-that some people with the capacity, the competence and the quality to serve the Canadian community cannot do so because of their status. As far as I am concerned, they are discriminated against by a system which is unresponsive and irresponsible with regard to their employment.
I want to come back to the first point.

I may say I have done a bit of research on the matter of the Government's obligation as an employer to be subject to the letter of the law and thus to Bill C-62. Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to recall, before making my specific comments on the Public Service and before saying why it should be included in the Bill, that yesterday in the House, that when I was listening to the Minister making the usual preliminary remarks at the third reading stage, and I quote,

At page 12452 of Hansard, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Ms. MacDonald) said:
I can say quite frankly that in the years before this Government came to power I heard a lot of talk about fairness and equality but I saw no action. What we are seeing here today is a Government committed to action in this field.
Here we have a responsible Minister telling us such things as that she has been here for 12 or 13 years and has heard a lot about fairness and equality but has seen no action. Where was
Employment Equity
the Minister in 1982 when the Charter of Rights was adopted? She saw action there. As a matter of fact I will remind her of what was said either by me or by somebody else in this House recently because it is worth repeating. Although I am not very proud of our record, I am not ashamed of it. There have been efforts. I must remind the House that measures were taken.
[Translation[
I would like to remind the House of the following facts, Mr. Speaker: In 1971, Canada was the first western country to recognize the role of women at the highest level of decisionmaking by creating a Cabinet position on the status of women, and I may add that I came to this House in 1972; in 1975, we had an omnibus Bill to ensure an equal status for women; in 1976, we passed the Canadian Human Rights Act which forbids discrimination based on sex; in 1978, we proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the equal sharing of retirement credits, as well as amendments to the Canada Labour Code to remove pregnancy as a motive for layoff or firing, and in 1982, we passed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I could continue.
We did take action, Mr. Speaker. We did not do enough to satisfy many people including your humble servant, but I still say that efforts were made and that we have to recognize this. However, it would be an exaggeration to say that nothing had been done before the Minister of Employment and Immigration was appointed, and I think that the Minister is too serious to suggest such a thing. The Hon. Members opposite should not always try to say that the Conservative Government has reinvented the wheel since the last election and they should stop bragging that nothing had been done before they came to power.
Things were done, Mr. Speaker, but it was not enough. As I have already said, Bill C-62 goes part of the way, but it is not strong enough; it lacks teeth. I would like to remind the House that the Abella Commission was created in 1983, only one year after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been adopted. The Commission was created on June 24, 1983, under the chairmanship of Judge Rosalie Abella, and its report was tabled in this House on November 20, 1984.
If I may read the terms of reference of the Commission, it was asked to inquire "into the opportunities for employment of women, native people, disabled persons and visible minorities in certain Crown corporations and corporations wholly owned by the Government of Canada".
Mr. Speaker, employment equity means that no one should be refused a job for reasons which have nothing to do with his competence. It also means access to employment without any arbitrary obstacle, that is without discriminatory practices or attitudes which could hamper or even prevent access by individuals or groups to employment opportunities because of their particular characteristics, whether they be handicapped, women, native people or members of a visible minority. Indeed, for us, Frenchspeaking Canadians, Mr. Speaker, the native people are a visible minority. Thus we feel that three

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
groups might have been enough. At any rate, my view is that there was no need to add that. Visible minorities in our minds are people who, like myself perhaps, have a face like mine with the nose in the wrong place, and, well, when one is born with this kind of face one has to live with it!
Mr. Speaker, the quest for employment equity must cut through all practices that discriminate against certain groups which have long been subject to such a discrimination. There must first be an effort towards identifying and eliminating discrimatory barriers. And when I speak of discrimatory barriers, it may be relevant to mention that where practices or systems are concerned, discrimatory barriers to employment do now exist. And our goal in the Official Opposition is to try and have the Government understand that Clauses 3, 5 and 7 must be redrawn to put teeth into the legislation.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, people are discriminated against for a number of reasons and in a number of ways. Some are discriminated against because of their economic or social conditions. Well, what do you expect? Others, for political reasons or because they lack education or vocational training. God knows that in her report, Judge Abella, if we care to read it, mentions this question of education, even referring to our landed immigrants who come here and speak neither English nor French, neither of our official languages, and who have difficulty in entering the labour market because they face discrimination for the very reason that they did not have a chance to learn one of this country's official languages. In the Abella Report, it is suggested that our whole language training system would need reviewing and I support Judge Abella's recommendations in that area-in order to eliminate one of the situations causing discrimination against new Canadians. It is subtle, sometimes persistent and it is pervasive. The fact is, it is systemic.
I would like to quote from page 10 of the report, concerning what Judge Abella views as systemic discrimination.
Systemic discrimination requires systemic remedies. Rather than approaching discrimination from the perspective of the single perpetrator and the single victim, the systemic approach acknowledges that by and large the systems and practices we customarily and often unwittingly adopt may have an unjustifiably negative effect on certain groups in society.
The effect of the system on the individual or group, rather than its attitudinal sources, governs whether or not a remedy is justified.
Remedial measures of a systemic and systematic kind are the object of employment equity and affirmative action. They are meant to improve the situation for individuals who, by virtue of belonging to and being identified with a particular group, find themselves unfairly and adversely affected by certain systems or practices.
Mr. Speaker, it could not be said any better. Judge Abella has described this quite well, and I agree with her.
During the remaining minutes, I should like to deal briefly with a problem which concerns a great many people in the Ottawa-Vanier and Ottawa-Carleton regions. I refer-to the issue of applying this Bill to the main employer and the Federal departments.
I want to do this because in a press release dated March 8, 1985, dealing with employment equity in the Federal Public Service, I read: "The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de
Cotret) announced today the various steps which the Government intends to take within the Federal Public Service and Crown Corporations to achieve employment equity for women, the natives, the handicapped and the members of visible minorities".
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is quite relevant to Bill C-62.
The measures announced are as follows: to reinforce the federal Government's Affirmative Action Program announced in June 1983, to which I referred earlier, and will include an immediate review by Treasury Board to detect any systemic barriers that may exist in the classification system for senior positions. I repeat: any systemic barriers that may exist in the classification system.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the classification of a position depends on the number of points it is given, and the salary in turn depends on the classification. A definition of the word "classification" is given in the Treasury Board and Public Service Glossary: "Classification of Positions-Method for defining a job by category and occupational group and for evaluating the job and assigning it to a level within the group."
Mr. Speaker, this is a way to identify the relative value of jobs. Heaven knows we urgently need a thorough study of the situation and an answer to the classification problem!
In the 1984 election campaign, members of the Progressive Conservative Party told public servants: We will put job classification on the bargaining table. Everybody said it was a good idea. And then they said: We are going to do a study. And they did. And not long ago, when I asked how the classification study was progressing, the answer was: The study made by Treasury Board was finished today, but a second study Treasury Board had done by Thorne, Stevenson and Kellogg and which I am told has been completed, has been submitted to the Ministers responsible for Treasury Board, for study and consideration.
Mr. Speaker, it is now April 22, 1986. This Government was elected a year and one-half or more ago, and we are still at the study stage, trying to find out what systemic classification is and what the possible barriers are.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Government to tell us what is going to happen with position classification, so public servants will know exactly what is being done about this problem. In the classification process, the person who does the classifying decides how the position is rated and what the employee is going to earn. And these are very important points for public servants. They want to negotiate the classification of a position. They want to know the classification criteria and want to sit down at the bargaining table and say: We think the system should be improved. We think there are obstacles in this system which sometimes discriminate against certain people, and we want to correct that. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, ours is a reasonable position. Since the Government made that an election promise, it should at least keep its word on this and give public servants
April 22, 1986

the advantage of being able to negotiate job classifications in the near future.
In the same March 8, 1985 statement, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board talked about the immediate establishment of a Treasury Board review process to uncover any systemic obstacles, and about greater emphasis on strategies aimed at implementing specific affirmative action plans related to results in the various departments.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the question: Where are these plans? I was told today that 41 strategy plans are available directly from the departments. Three departments have failed to produce their plans. We will see. I asked whether they were available to the public, and I was told it would take a truck to transport them. Can somebody on the Government side tell us why the affirmative action plans in the departments... Perhaps somebody might tell us what this is all about. Are they satisfactory? Have they been assessed? Has anything been done as a result of this important affirmative action initiative?
Then, Mr. Speaker, in the same press release the President of the Treasury Board states: "The unions will be invited to sit on a committee dealing with the equal pay for equal work issue."
Mr. Speaker, I am all for it. And I think every Member of this House will agree. That is why we should go back to the Committee and listen to what the President of Treasury Board has to say about this action plan to implement equal pay for equal work or work of equal value policy. I know that thirteen unions are having meetings with the Treasury Board representative every two months, and that a report is to be submitted by March 1987.
Mr. Speaker, I will therefore have to wait another year to find out what is happening, and they want us to adopt a Bill that has no teeth, and which I find is totally unsuited to meeting this challenge, a Bill that systematically excludes Government departments. The latter are hesitant and have yet to explain to me, as a politician, what has been done about job classification affirmative action and in the departments and how the committees that are supposed to work out a plan for equal pay for equal work or work of equal value are progressing.
Mr. Speaker, it all boils down to the fact that I think referring all this to committee for study and consideration is a reasonable suggestion, and I hope the House will decide this is the right thing to do. I hope I can come back at a subsequent stage to continue my remarks.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment on some of the statements the Member made, and I have a question for him as well. There was debate earlier this afternoon dealing with the strength or weakness of provisions for affirmative action in the Province of Saskatchewan. I note
Employment Equity
that under the previous New Democratic Government in Saskatchewan affirmative action provisions were implemented for Crown corporations, particularly in northern Saskatchewan. Progress had been made.
I have a report of a human rights consultant to the Department of the Secretary of State. The report notes that when the Conservative Government came into power in Saskatchewan it made the policy voluntary for Crown corporations. The consultant notes that the respondents are discovering that these affirmative action plans are in no way entrenched within the employment systems of all the Crown corporations. With the change in Government, the political commitment has waned. Each Crown corporation now decides its own policy, with the result that the program has become fragmented and dependent upon the particular commitment of the individual corporation. The report indicates that the respondents have concluded that the weakness of their strategy lies in its voluntary nature.
To what extent does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) feel that Bill C-62 reflects a similar turn by the federal Conservative Government to a voluntary approach? How dramatically does he think the Bill will fail in achieving employment equity?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in order to do justice to that rather important question, I invite the Member to read some of the speeches that I have made in the last while on this Bill. In the last election campaign in Manitoba all Parties paid homage to employment equity and said that they would commit themselves to that program. I take it that Manitoba was moving in that direction. I am told by my colleague, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), that in Saskatchewan only five Crown corporations have an affirmative action program. According to press reports, the Government is cutting funds to these companies and there is also a hiring freeze. The present Government is not, therefore, as enthusiastic as the previous Government was. Let us hope that it comes to its senses. We are told not to believe everything we read, but from press releases I understand that some actions were being taken in Saskatchewan with regard to employment equity.
British Columbia has yet to come up with employment equity legislation. My research does not show the existence of any such legislation in B.C. at all. We are hoping that a more sensitive and sensible Government will come into power there some day and bring some equity to employment practices.
[DOT] (noo)
I call this the smoke and mirrors Bill. That is the title I put on my copy. It reflects what we all like but it does not do much in the way of action. Despite the fact that the Minister spent quite some time yesterday telling us how she was committed to action on employment equity, I fail to see in this Bill any real action. I invite the Hon. Member to read some of the comments we have made regarding the improvements to the Bill through the 20-odd amendments we tried to get through. They

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
were all turned down by the Government because Members opposite do not like constructive and worth-while amendments to their legislation. They feel it is sacred and therefore untouchable. I disagree. This House should have more understanding of the issues and should debate them a little longer. That is why I want the Bill to go back to committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Any further questions or comments? Debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be recognized in order to say a few words at this stage of the deliberations on Bill C-62, dealing with employment equity. As my friend just indicated, it should be called a smoke and mirrors Bill, or a fluff and puff Bill, or a magician's Bill. Now you see it, now you don't.
In my deliberations with friends and colleagues across the country there seemed to be the impression that the Government is acting on employment equity to some extent. The important words there are "to some extent". It is a minute step in the right direction on a very long and difficult road. In one sense it does more damage than good in that it gives the impression that employment equity is finally being recognized. Finally we are going to do something to help the disabled, native people, women and visible minorities to experience equality and equity in the workplace.
Unfortunately, those who are knowledgeable about this subject, those who possess expertise, those who have studied the issue, or those who are representative of the various groups this Bill is directed towards, have a certain uniform reaction to the Bill. That reaction is that it is not adequate. It fails to meet the purpose of the Bill. It is not surprising that people have been misled a little when you read the purpose of the Bill. 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 and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct 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.
We have no concern regarding that purpose as stated. The point is that the Bill does not do any of that. It fails to meet this purpose, this goal, this objective. It falls far short. I am sure you would take my word for it but you do not have to. You can take the word of Suzanne Boivin of the National Association of Women and the Law. She says:
Nothing will change. Unfortunately, it is simply wishful thinking.
The Inuit of Canada say that, for aboriginal peoples:
Bill C-62 is of limited value.
Beryl Potter of the Coalition on Employment Equity for Disabled Persons had this to say:
Like the Bill-it's not even worth the paper it's written on-I've never been so disillusioned in my life as I am with Prime Minister Mulroney.
I was a supporter of him. I worked for him in his campaign and I am totally, totally disillusioned.
Here are perhaps the most knowledgeable people in Canada on this issue commenting on Bill C-62 and they say it is inadequate, incomplete, inappropriate, wishful thinking, and will simply not do the job it sets out to do.
I will not read the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on this issue in the election campaign of 1984.1 do not think it does him justice to point out what he said in that campaign regarding bringing in all sorts of employment equity initiatives to ensure there would be no discrimination in the workplace, to ensure there would be encouragement and support of strategies for native people, visible minorities, the disabled, and women. He has failed to deliver. I would not want to spend too much time pointing that out because I suspect everyone is well aware of it anyway.
The purpose of the Bill is primarily to prevent employment practices which act as barriers to employment for some very specific groups such as women, the disabled, native people and visible minorities. In a previous career I had an opportunity to work with the disabled, young native people, and those who would be classified as visible minorities in an attempt to find employment opportunities for them. I suppose I should include women in that as well, but my main experience was with those groups I mentioned. Of course they all included women. That was not many years ago. When I identified a workplace for someone among these groups, my job was to send that person down to the place concerned for employment experience of one kind or another, on-the-job training in a sense. I am afraid I have to say that when the employer found that the individual was not a white Anglo-Saxon, but rather someone from a visible minority, he or she inevitably found a reason to cancel the job training opportunity. I could present literally hundreds of names of individuals for whom I found a job opportunity, without mentioning the fact that they were, let us say, a native youngster, and when that individual showed up they were inevitably turned away. Then we went through that process the next day and the same people would be turned away again. Yet, when they phoned me they would inevitably say, "Mr. Riis, I am not prejudiced. I don't discriminate against people but I really cannot afford to hire a native person", or someone who was disabled, or a member of a certain ethnic group. Quite frankly, that is a racist attitude. It is discrimination. It indicates prejudice. Therefore, when I look at the provisions in this Bill and see what it is attempting to accomplish, it hits very close to my heart. It reminds me of a very close personal experience that occurred to me for a number of years. It was an embarrassment to me as a Canadian citizen that in spite of all the glorious comments about being tolerant, open minded, non-discriminatory, liberal and progressive in our thinking, when push came to shove almost inevitably that discrimination existed in the workplace.
I was encouraged when I heard in the post-election period that the Government would introduce a Bill that would finally bring about employment equity in Canada through a program to encourage employers to hire native people, the disabled,
April 22, 1986

visual minorities and women. However, once one had an opportunity to examine this Bill and hear the witnesses who came to speak to the committee about this Bill, it became obvious that it was rife with flaws and filled with inconsistencies. It was simply an inappropriate piece of legislation.
One might ask why it is inappropriate. One of the shortcomings is that there is no mandatory equity, no enforcement and no real penalties. This legislation must be viewed as voluntary equity with mandatory reporting of workforce data. Those businesses over a certain size that carry out transactions with the federal Government over a certain amount must submit an action program. So what? Big deal. Although the employer must draft an action plan, there is no requirement that the employer must fulfil that plan or necessarily introduce it. However, there is a penalty pursuant to Clause 6, with a maximum summary conviction of $50,000, if the employer fails to act.
We in the New Democratic Party attempted to make this penalty realistic. Heather Reisman, who works with the Nesbitt Consulting Group which provides advice to these firms which are interested or essentially forced to introduce a program of equity in the workplace on paper, said about the penalty: "It's squat". The effectiveness of the maximum $50,000 fine for failing to report workforce data annually is something that she says a large company will simply write off as a cost of doing business. Fifty thousand dollars is irrelevant to a corporation of the size essentially contemplated by this Bill. She says that it is "squat". There really is no effective penalty for making no progress. It is somewhat Pollyannish and naive to believe that employers throughout Canada will implement equity programs for their employers that will require them to hire people whom obviously they are not interested in hiring. Nevertheless, that is the purpose of this Bill.
The target groups who appeared before the committee made it clear that a firm must be obliged to develop an action plan with goals and timetables, including how it will remove discriminatory practices, and take the positive steps needed to bring about employment equity.
These action plans were not included in the original Bill. Indeed, the Minister claimed before the committee that an action plan was inherent for the company introducing equity. In a sense, the Government itself did not consider that an action plan ought to be part of the Bill. It is an example of how this Bill has not been clearly thought through and needs to go back to committee for reconsideration. After all, we are theoretically launching a major new initiative for Canada. We are giving the impression that employment equity will become a reality in our country, but the fact is that it will not happen.
When one considers the importance of this Bill and the success of a similar Bill in the United States, we should be taking much more time to ensure that this is a good Bill that employers and employees from all parts of Canada will support. While some enforcement is needed, in order for these legislative requirements to work it is necessary to have the
Employment Equity
general support of the people. The fact is that the initiatives in Bill C-62 simply will not accomplish that.
I want to comment on equal pay for work of equal value. On many occasions members of the Government turned aside attempts to include in the Bill a reference to equal pay for work of equal value. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women urged that this Bill contain a reference to Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the equal pay matter could be addressed by employers. We attempted to introduce that equal pay provision without success. The Government argued time and again that the presence of equal pay in the Canadian Human Rights Act as it stands is good enough. However, that is not the case.
Judge Rosalie Abella is perhaps one of the most knowledgeable people in this area. She stated in her landmark study that equal pay is an integral element in the implementation of employment equity and that it must be included in any undertaking by employers to make the practices in the workplace more equitable. I suggest that the most knowledgeable person in the land sums it up very well when she says that we must include these provisions in the Act if we are serious about equal pay for work of equal value.
The clause on contract compliance is a major weakness in the Bill. I would remind the House that in 1980, the Canadian Government had contracts with some 25,000 firms in Canada; $6.5 billion worth of private sector business and some $5.5 billion of business to Crown corporations.
In 1982-83, the Department of Supply and Services alone signed with federal firms literally over 333,000 contracts worth $5 billion. Such a major undertaking in terms of Government business begs the question: What is the nature of the Government's contract compliance policy? It applies only to firms with 100 or more employees and only if the value of the contract exceeds $200,000. The only obligation on the contractor is simply to implement equity in the workplace. Failure to do so does not mean a loss of a contract, although such firm may be removed from the competition for future contracts. The firm "may" be removed.
There is either a commitment in law or there is not. The fact that a company may not do further business with the Government if it does not comply indicates that this is a rather limp wristed, milque-toast approach to the whole matter.
The Government's compliance policy does not require a contractor to file a report on workforce data as is required by those firms that come under Bill C-62.
These are hardly owners' requirements and certainly are far inferior to the demands made upon firms contracting in the United States. The approach in the United States is quite different and much more serious than the one reflected in Bill C-62.
In conclusion let me say that our Party has five concerns. First, there is the absence of real enforcement and adequate penalties under mandatory equity schemes. Second, there is no

April 22, 1986
Employment Equity
reference in the Bill to equal pay for work of equal value. Third, no contract compliance is included. Fourth, there is no obligation to negotiate equity where there is a bargaining unit. Perhaps, most important, the coverage of the Bill is inadequate in that it does not include federal Departments. If we are serious about asking people to take this Bill seriously, then surely its provisions should be extended to include those people, including federal Departments.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's remarks about his own experience with designated groups, I presume in British Columbia, and his attempts to find work for them. He mentioned the fact that sometimes they ran up against this systemic discrimination. Based on the Hon. Member's experience, what does he think about the attempt to deal with this matter through voluntary enforcement? We have said all along that the Bill is not an enforceable employment equity Bill. It is a Bill which provides information about different workplaces. That information is to be made public in the hope that the public will comment on what is happening and, through public opinion, force employment equity. The Government does not seem to give us an answer to the question. However, when the Minister spoke on Monday, she said:
The Government is committed to ensuring that employment equity becomes a reality. We intend to knock on the doors of employers who do not meet their responsibilities. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be knocking with a firm fist.
It seems to me that if this were an enforceable Bill for employment equity then the poor Minister, or members of her caucus, would not have to go around knocking on doors. What they should be able to do is lay a charge. The charge would go to a court and the court would say whether or not employment equity was being implemented.
So she admits in her speech that this is not really an enforceable employment equity Bill. It is one in which, through the publication of information, the Government hopes that there will be voluntary compliance. Can the Hon. Member tell us from his experience with what he was trying to do in British Columbia whether that really worked? Or do we need Bills with teeth in them under which charges can be laid and offenders prosecuted when there is not the employment equity which we all seek?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his thoughtful question. No, I do not think for a moment that voluntary compliance will work. I think that a Bill without teeth is simply not worth the paper upon which it is written. Quite frankly, I do not want to be part of any Bill which requires the poor Minister responsible to go out across Canada banging on doors. I hope she has something better to do with her time. If she is serious about providing employment
opportunities for disadvantaged groups, then she should do it through this Bill. From her comments it seems as if she really does not believe that this will be an effective Bill. She is already looking forward to going out door-knocking, although it is probably not the type of door-knocking she was anticipating.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Ms. Copps, seconded by Mr. Rossi, moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
"That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity, be not now read a third time, but that the Bill be referred back to a Legislative Committee for reconsideration of Clauses 3, 5 and 7 thereof."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the next question? I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, would you call the House to order, please?
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would Hon. Members either sit down and listen to the great speech which the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) is going to make, or leave the Chamber.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House that under the previous administration, a $345 million native economic development program was established. That amount was to be expended over a four-year period, beginning in April of 1984. The purpose of the program was to enable native people to break free of their dependency on social assistance. It was to create among native people an entrepreneurial group who would be economically self-sufficient in time and then become employers of other native people. The program was directed at the development of native-owned businesses, including individual entrepreneurs, corporations, and community-based businesses.
I would like to remind the House that in their struggle to have aboriginal rights recognized and implemented, native people have had to focus an inordinate amount of time on the political process. As a result, there are a large number of very competent, articulate and successful political leaders in the native community. As a matter of fact, we in this House of Commons could learn a lot about political leadership by looking at the very able political leaders in the native community and recognizing their talents and skills. They have begun to see that the judicial route is a promising avenue for some degree of redress of grievances over long-standing historical injustices.
An increasing number of native people are turning to the study of law as a result. Their accomplishments in that field are many. However, it is in the field of economic development where bold new action is required. Hence the reason for the native economic development program. It was designed to help native people break through the poverty barrier and open the way for full participation in the business life of this nation.
My concern is that I detect a distinct lack of commitment by this Government to that avenue of endeavour. My evidence is no less a source than that despised Nielsen task force report on natives and Indians, the so-called Buffalo Jump Report. On page 68 it says that although halfway through its mandate the native economic development program has approved only 34 projects at a total cost of $11.7 million, 21 additional projects have been recommended for approval. In the year 1985-86, $122.1 million was approved by Parliament with a strong Conservative majority. Nevertheless, in the last fiscal year the Minister allowed $90 million of that to lapse. It seems to me the Government wants to bury the native economic development program. I find it difficult to blame the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) because I know that his orders come from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). Having been associated with that Minister for a long time, we know his ultra-conservative and archaic philosophy could never support such a program. We also know that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is no friend and ally of the native economic development program. In fact, he

April 22, 1986
Adjournment Debate
was instrumental in having turned down the very promising Yukon Indian Development Corporation project.
I conclude very simply and quickly by asking why the Government does not admit that it wants to kill this program just as it did Katimavik? Why not be forthright and say so? Do not let the native people of this country go on believing there is such a program when it does not exist. So far there have been 900 proposals under this program. The applicants have been disappointed and frustrated by delays, postponements and, finally, turn-downs in most cases. Economic development is not a priority with the Department of Indian Affairs. Only 4 per cent of its budget is directed to that avenue, and most of that money is diverted elsewhere. Therefore, we need the native economic development program. The Government has failed to recognize that, failed to respond to it, and I argue that in doing so it has made a gross error.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question raised by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) concerning the Native Economic Development Program.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Hon. Member just said, I was given responsibility for this program by the Prime Minister, and never have the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) interfered with the way the program was managed. First of all, I can give the House the assurance that the Conservative Government is working very hard to safeguard the economic and social interests of Canada's native peoples. The native community is aware of the Native Economic Development Program and it uses it. This is borne out by the fact that more than 900 project applications were submitted, and out of that number, unlike the erroneous figures you had, 145 were approved, representing a value of $59.3 million. The program is very popular with our native people, no doubt about that.
Mr. Speaker, the NEDP which is aimed at helping native people achieve economic independence is administered by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion but directed by the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette), and has a budget of $345 million spread out over a period of four years, starting in 1984-85. This funding has not been affected by budgetary cutbacks. The NEDP plays a very important role in native economic development. It is the only program that is specifically aimed at developing the economic independence of native people.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would feel better if he met with representatives of the following organizations: the Central Interior Trust Company in Kamloops, British Columbia, which received a contribution of $6.9 million; the Saskatchewan Indian Loan Company, which received a contribution of $2.6 million, and so forth. It has been estimated
that this $2.6 billion federal contribution to the Saskatchewan Indian Loan Company would generate more than $46 million of new investments in the provincial agricultural economy. The same might be said about the Association of Reserves for Improving Social Economics which was given $1.3 million. Thanks to this contribution, it is expected that 100 new businesses and 400 new permanent jobs will be created in the next few years.
Mr. Speaker, these propositions are perfect examples of the dynamic and creative force of native people. They also emphasize the importance of the program's effective assistance to the native people of Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Liberal Member that he is quite misinformed, and that the native people are pleased to work with the department and the Minister of State for Small Businesses to improve the program.


MULTICULTURALISM-WHITE PAPER INQUIRY. (B) REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, on November 18, I addressed several questions to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). These questions reflected my understanding that the multiculturalism sector was working on a White Paper on multicultural policy but that this work had been given up under the instructions of the Minister. The answers that I received did not really clarify that question, and that is why I asked to have a further opportunity to debate the matter.
Now, more than five months later, it is even more appropriate to ask what the Government's multiculturalism policy is. On March 7, less than four months after the Minister's statement that there would be full consultation, particularly with the new Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, it was reported in The Globe and Mail that he was in fact involved in creating a totally new multiculturalism policy.
Those are the words of the Minister aimed at bringing ethnic minorities out of, as he said, "ethno-cultural corners" and into the economic mainstream of Canada. He declared that the policy was in the final stages of preparation for Cabinet. He then went on to suggest, without any doubt about what the result would be, that he was not going to Cabinet for additional funds. Given that he was talking about re-orienting spending, he said that it would be a redirection of existing funds. There is no doubt that some organizations will be cut out. He went on to say that the organizations might be involved in the retention of culture and that henceforth there was no question that their grants would have to be an investment in Canada. He concluded by stating:
"We're not going to be spoon-feeding these people, giving them grants or financial assistance or any form of assistance-What we have to do is open the doors and give them an opportunity to get involved instead of having a multiculturalism conference and talking about various cultures".
April 22, 1986

That statement has been taken by ethno-cultural, multicultural, race relations, immigrant settlement and other organizations as just short of a declaration of war by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism against their intentions. Across the country there is the most intense unease about what the Minister has in mind. Thus I address this question.
Surely what was needed was a White Paper on multiculturalism in the terms suggested in my question of November 18. Surely it was necessary for the intentions of the Minister to be laid out. It is necessary for him to turn back to the ethnocultural communities, since he clarified a need for redirection, in order to publish a paper to which they can react.
Some of the strongest reactions to this move have come from groups in the Province of Manitoba. They feel left out of the process. They feel neglected and rejected by the Minister. Two days before I asked this question in the House he met with executive members of the Manitoba Intercultural Council. He promised them there would be no change in multicultural policy without full consultation. People who recently had the pleasure of having a Manitoba Member of Parliament as Minister of State for Multiculturalism had been promised that regional priorities and regional concerns would be reflected upon by the Government as it dealt with these matters. They were promised that there would be full consultation.
It is not surprising that in Manitoba and in Alberta there is unease with what is happening. I spoke to a leader of the Urkrainian-Canadian community in Alberta late last week and he expressed his unease. He was convinced that this was a play to the City of Toronto and groups in Toronto, particularly to business groups. The most reassuring thing I could tell him was that when I was in attendance at the Multiculturalism Means Business Conference in Toronto, it was patently obvious that the policy shift suggested by the Minister on March 7 is not acceptable to large numbers of people. We might think that the first concern would be with respect to those organizations involved with multicultural retention. In many cases, those might be groups of European origin.
I was impressed that the questions asked of the Minister and of the panelists came as much from those we would think of as visible minority groups, groups which are surely concerned about race relation matters, employment equity, and matters as diverse as immigrant settlement and the establishment of credentials for those who have been trained outside Canada. These people are convinced that the Minister may forget their needs and not fund them adequately. They deeply resent the suggestion that he has been spoon-feeding them when, in fact, they have received precious little money. They now see the limited funds upon which they have depended in the past to stimulate their efforts being lost to them as the Government turns to other business-oriented efforts.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond to my colleague from Thunder Bay-
Adjournment Debate
Nipigon (Mr. Epp), with whom I took part in several meetings of our Committee on Multiculturalism and enjoyed working.
Today it is my duty and pleasure to respond for the first time in my new capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism.
First I want to reassure my colleague by telling him that, even though I had an opportunity to talk very briefly to the Minister, I wanted to be sure that what I was going to say would reflect the views of the Minister, and we agree on one point: our colleague should stop worrying so much, for the department and the Minister have been holding ongoing consultations with all ethnic communities throughout Canada.
The Minister has no intention of making a policy shift, as the Hon. Member has suggested. Quite the opposite, we want to make an improvement and an up-date as this paper and the proceedures of the Department go back to 1971.
There have been many changes since 1971, Mr. Speaker. The only thing that is still the same is that the grass is still green.
There is certainly room for improvement, but always in consultation. From what I have seen, that is what my Minister is now doing and he has travelled throughout Canada. However, there will probably be some change.
There will not be a complete reversal, but as far as the changes are concerned, the Minister will tell us about them in committee. The Hon. Member will probably be the first to ask questions of the Minister since he is always present at the sittings of this committee. The Minister has assured us that he would certainly consult the Hon. Member when he goes before the committee as he did about the question asked by the Hon. Member on November 18, 1985. I remember this quite well, Mr. Speaker, as it was my birthday. The week after the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon asked this question, the Minister appeared before our committee and discussed the White Paper in detail. Many questions were asked and if we refer to the Minutes of the Proceedings, we see that he made the same promise that he would speak to the multicultural and ethnic groups of all Canada. This is what he has done, perhaps not completely, but it has been done. I do not have all the data yet as I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary only around 11 o'clock this morning, but I can tell the Hon. Member that this subject will be discussed at our first meeting, and the second time that I have the opportunity to speak in this House, I may be able to provide him with additional information. However, I trust that our Minister will continue to consult, and what we all want him to do is to consult and improve this proposal.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-INCORRECT REPORTING OF GAS PRICES ALLEGED
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I recently asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of

April 22, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Communications (Mr. Edwards) a question concerning the need to ensure that the CBC reports to Canadians in an unbiased and balanced manner. The particular example I cited was from The Journal of March 7, 1986, in which a reporter doing a story about gas prices in Canada and the United States neglected to convert American dollars to Canadian dollars and American gallons to litres. Of course, this resulted in a very inaccurate statement of the comparison between Canadian and American gas prices. This is but one example of inaccurate and biased reporting by the CBC.
I have had some correspondence with Mr. David Spanjer of Elliotwood Court in my riding of Don Valley East. Mr. Spanjer has devoted much time to analysing the content of CBC Radio programming, and he feels that the coverage provided is not balanced. In a letter to me, he describes travelling by car through northern Ontario and how the reception from the CBC comes through loud and clear when all other stations have faded. He wrote:
I have no quarrel with this if the reporting of the news, the choice of the discussion subjects and the selection of the persons interviewed was objective. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is the case-
Mr. Spanjer has written to the CBC on several occasions and has been very frustrated by the response he has received. Also he wrote:
As a taxpayer I believe I have the right to response to any reasonable request for information and a reply to any complaint that is properly documented. What in fact has happened is that the CBC has stalled for almost a year. They have refused to provide all the information requested . .. and now, rather than reply to my analysis of the program information that I received, they have arbitrarily declared the matter closed.
This is no way for a publicly owned corporation to treat one of its consumers and in effect one of its shareholders.
The Parliamentary Secretary in his response to my question pointed out that programming and content were the direct responsibility of CBC management and its Board of Directors. I appreciate the independence of the CBC and the need for its independence. However, it is no justification for inaccurate and biased reporting. This is clearly unacceptable to most Canadians.
On April 3, the President of the CBC, Pierre Juneau, announced the following:
Although the CBC received an increase in its parliamentary appropriations and although the corporation anticipates an increase in advertising revenue, this still leaves the CBC with a $48 million shortfall in 1986-87.
He went on to say that the shortfall resulted from the financial impacts of government cost-cutting measures and general economic factors, such as inflation and the devalued Canadian dollar, increasing the cost of goods and programming from outside Canada. He continued:
This year the corporation has not been able to avoid cuts in programming. Even the reductions in administrative and support expenditures will have an impact on programming and distribution services.
The CBC will eliminate 122 hours of network TV programming-77 hours of English language TV and 45 hours of
French language TV. Several programs, such as This Land and CBLT Morning in Toronto, have been dropped. Others have had their schedules curtailed.
In the April 14 issue of Maclean's magazine, an article dealing with CBC cut-backs indicated that officials at both the Treasury Board and the Department of Communications had calculated that in fact the CBC would have a deficit of less than $10 million in 1986-87 rather than the $48 million shortfall reported by Mr. Juneau. The article in Macleans also indicated that the CBC earned more than $33 million in unexpected advertising revenue in 1985-86 which the corporation was permitted to keep. The article also pointed out that the Government was giving the corporation an increase of $22 million or 2.1 per cent for 1986-87 operations and capital expenditures. The Main Estimates of the Government predict a $55 million increase in CBC advertising revenue.
In terms of advertising revenue, the CBC expects an increase of only $8 million over the 1984-85 actual revenue and only marginal increases for 1986-87 due to increased competition in several Canadian markets. Perhaps that sends out a message about the quality of programming. In addition, interesting and important questions were raised in the Maclean's article and in the CBC's own response about the corporation's budget, accounting practices, and ability to live within its means.
In the same week that the programming cuts and elimination of jobs were announced, Mr. Juneau and three senior Vice-Presidents departed on a 10-day trip to China to explore the potential for an export market for Canadian programming. This effort to sell Canadian programming abroad is hardly consistent with the cut-backs in Canadian programming. Not only are examples cited of biased and inaccurate reporting, but of biased and inappropriate spending practices as well.
Cut-backs of any sort are difficult. I have had that experience in my own business career. However, it appears that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation needs to re-examine its priorities in terms of its mandate. It needs to get at the structure, the number of senior vice-presidents, the number of vice-presidents and perhaps even to merge departments. The provision of balanced and accurate news and original Canadian programming is a vital duty of the CBC. It should also be managed according to sound business principles and practices.
I would ask my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Edwards), to share these real concerns with the management and directors of the CBC on behalf of myself, my constituents and, I am sure, I am speaking for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of balanced coverage in our broadcast media is important to all Canadians. The free flow of information is vital to the functioning of
April 22, 1986

democracy. I can well appreciate, therefore, the Hon. Member's concern about the item on gas prices broadcast by the CBC which was aired on The National on March 7.
As I stated on March 21, broadcasters themselves are responsible for program selection and content, subject to the general rules and regulations of the CRTC. Thus responsibility for CBC programming matters lies entirely with the CBC's management and board of directors. I assured the House when the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) brought this matter to our attention that the CBC would be informed of his concern, and the corporation has since issued a response. I will be forwarding to the Hon. Member a copy of the full text of that response, but I would like at this time, with your permission, Sir, to provide a brief summary of it.
According to the CBC, the report in question was reviewed by senior TV news personnel and they found it to be fair and balanced over all. However, the CBC acknowledges a factual error in the comparison the Canadian pump price of gasoline with the American pump price in that the news item erroneously compared 95 cents per gallon U.S. with 20 cents Canadian per litre without adjustment for the U.S. exchange rate on the U.S. gallon. The CBC expresses its regret for these two errors.
The CBC has an internationally recognized reputation for the quality of its news and public affairs reporting. I can say with some knowledge, Sir, as a former broadcaster that
Adjournment Debate
omissions can occur in the reporting of information, particularly in the television medium where deadlines are often tight and a strict economy of time must be observed.
Parliament recognized when the Broadcasting Act was passed in 1968 that while programming autonomy must be assured, broadcasters must also assume certain responsibilities in conveying the information they broadcast. That is why Section 3(g) of the Act, which sets out CBC's mandate, begins by stating that the CBC should:
-be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportion.

I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that these provisions of the Broadcasting Act have proven generally very useful and that the broadcasters have faithfully lived up to their responsibilities.
The Corporation has examined this report and prepared a detailed answer in which it recognizes the mistake and expresses its regret. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the reply of the CBC in this case shows how conscienciously the Corporation takes its responsibilities as a public broadcaster.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, April 23, 1986