1986-03-26

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement just made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is an insult to young Canadians. There is a reference to the new role of the Minister (Mrs. Champagne), but everybody knows that the only job created today was a job for a "relocation" company in Ottawa. There was no announcement to show 700,000 young unemployed Canadians that this Government has a heart, that this Government has an interest in them.

We know the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) has proven herself to be incompetent and incapable of fighting for the young people of Canada. This so-called announcement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is an insult to 700,000 unemployed young Canadians who want a program from the Government. The only job the Government is creating is a job for an Ottawa moving company.
As far as this Party is concerned, the Minister of State for Youth was incapable when she reported to the Secretary of State for Canada (Mr. Bouchard), she is incompetent when she reports to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and she should be fired,


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in recent months the federal caucus of the Official Opposition, in other words the Liberals and especially the social policy critic, have
inquired a great deal about the injustice of Government cuts in social programs.
Mr. Speaker, that is why 1 was both shocked and disappointed today when I heard about the budgetary measures announced by the Liberal government in Quebec City, where social programs were cut drastically.
In Quebec City, despite their apparent social conscience, the Liberals have cut $35 million from health services, $52 million from post-secondary education and $10 million from manpower centres.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lesson here and it is simply: When they are in power, the Liberals are conservative. They act just like the Conservatives do when they are in power, and only in the Opposition do they act as reformers. So the only way to from post-secondary education and $10 million from manpower centres.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The sixty seconds are up.


INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, now that our economic recovery is well underway across the country, the same can be said for northwestern Quebec, in Abitibi-T emiscamingue.
Mr. Speaker, according to the figures published recently by Statistics Canada, there ^vas a substantial increase in construction permits for northwestern Quebec during 1985.
In the residential sector, building permits for a total value of $44,794,000 were issued. In the industrial sector, the figure was $10,999,000; for the commercial sector, $16,371,000 and for the institutional sector, $5,823,000, giving a grand total of $77,997,000, which is an increase of 13.6 per cent over 1984.
Mr. Speaker, these are encouraging signs for my region's economy and clear proof of the climate of confidence created by this Government.

March 26, 1986


SUPPORT FOR HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, current events in the Middle East-particularly the Libya-United States confrontation-sharply remind us again of the vulnerability of the Canadian oil and gas industry to events beyond our control.
The Oil and Gas Journal estimates that Middle East supplies of conventional oil will last 95 years while known inventories, in the North Sea will last only 19 years, 13 years in Canada, and 9 years in the United States. This will make us prisoners of other countries' resources and frankly, I for one do not wish to be anyone's prisoner, ever, let alone in 13 years.
Therefore, as an instrument of national policy, the Government must immediately take a decision in support of the Husky heavy oil upgrader and tar sands projects in western Canada. As well, it must push ahead vigorously in the development of new hydrocarbon sources in order to ensure an acceptable degree of Canadian self-sufficiency in this vital resource industry.


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in order to protect human health, particularly that of children, industry in the United States has been directed to remove lead from gasoline by January, 1988. In Canada, however, we are phasing out lead between now and 1992. The Government should adopt the same timetable so that Canadians can draw the same health benefits.
In Canada the coming into effect of 29 milligrams in 1987 was announced before, in December, 1983. Consequently, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is trying to create the impression of giving leadership when, in reality, he is denying Canadians health benefits that are available in the United States as a result of their stringent timetable.
If the Environmental Protection Agency can impose a stringent timetable on U.S. industry, why can the Minister of the Environment not impose the same timetable on Canadian industry?


CANADA COUNCIL
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing yet another manoeuvre on the part of the
Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to control the Canada Council.
Canadians will remember his numerous attempts last year to amputate the arm's length relationship between the Government and independent cultural agencies. The Minister now appears to be wielding a knife instead of a hatchet, but the results may be no less harmful. He is threatening to deny the Canada Council the $10 million boost to its funding promised in the Budget. It seems that unless the Council accepts his dictates on how the money is spent, the funds may be diverted to another Department.
Happily, the Council is so far resisting this coercion and is asserting its right to autonomy. However, we saw its vulnerability to this kind of pressure last fall when it bowed to the Minister's demand to bail out the Vancouver Symphony.
The arm's length principle is essential to the operation of our cultural agencies. The Minister should not be directing funds within an agency's budget to one function or another, any more than he should be telling writers what to say or musicians what key in which to play.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, a mail order flyer advertising the highest quality triple "X" erotic video movies is being distributed through the marketing division of Canada Post. The flyer promotes an "exclusive video offer" and is marked "for mature viewers only", almost an open invitation to our younger people to seize, open, and run with it.
Letter carriers have doubts about making the delivery of these materials, but senior officials took the position that it was not up to the Post Office to play censor. I do not think it is part of the Post Office's mandate to make it easy for others to send us down the road of moral decay and decadence. It is not first-class mail we are talking about. It is unsolicited pornographic literature, indiscriminately distributed as householder mail. It should be stopped now by the Minister responsible for Canada Post.


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, most of us remember our formative student years of summer employment. We often worked in small businesses gaining experience in life and business. With this in mind, I was very disappointed to hear the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) say that our Government's Summer Employment Experience Development Program should not be

March 26, 1986

used for the hiring of young people as clerks, waiters, waitresses, labourers, farmworkers, cashiers and, in his words, "things of that sort".
The New Democratic Party seems to be saying that the Government and the private sector should not help develop the skills of young people by enabling them to have a real job for the summer. This position taken by the NDP does nothing for our young.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville also said that young people will take away full-time jobs. What kind of socialist nonsense is this? This summer thousands of young people will see first hand how Canadians make a living. Ordinary Canadians already know this. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville and his Party obviously do not.


CHALLENGE '86-SIGNIFICANCE TO YOUNG PEOPLE
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: In the riding of Longueuil, Mr. Speaker, more than 200 projects have been submitted under the Challenge '86 program.
Challenge '86 is a summer employment program for students who are anxious to gain practical experience in their field of study.
Last year 339 Longueuil youths found summer employment through this program. This year our Government has decided to increase the number of participants so that over 500 Longueuil youths will work and acquire an experience which is directly related to their studies.
This Government's objective is to enable young people to hold the kind of summer jobs in which they are interested. Challenge '86 proves that we show concern for young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I extend an invitation to all young people who want to work this summer, particularly the residents of Longueuil, to register right away for Challenge '86 at the nearest manpower centre.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have read with great interest a report on the extraordinary success of an American program to collect back income taxes. This program provided amnesty from prosecution or fines if people voluntarily came forward and made arrangements to settle past debts. The money came pouring in. For example, the State of Massa-
Oral Questions
chusetts ran the amnesty program from October, 1983, to January, 1984, and, while optimistically expecting about $20 million, it actually received $85 million. As a result of this and the accompanying media blitz, the State of Massachusetts has now announced the largest tax cut in its history.
There are other States which have followed this example. The State of New York's Amnesty Program ended in January of this year. New York estimates that it will receive about $350 million in back taxes.
The purpose of this program is twofold; to acquire the additional revenue, and at the same time take the burden of revenue acquisition off the shoulders of the honest taxpayers. When evaders are made to pay, the tax burden is equitably shared. Perhaps an examination of this program-


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


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the reduction in federal Government funding for trades training in Nova Scotia. In a letter last week to teachers and institutions offering trades training, the provincial Government Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Development and Training wrote, and I quote:
A substantial reduction in federal funding is unfortunately resulting in a reduction of a number of training programs and related staff positions. The training program in which you are employed is part of this federal Government reduction and therefore the program which you have been teaching will not be able to be offered in the coming year and your position will be no longer funded.
Trades training plays a vital role in our society. Training is essential to assist Canadians to enter the job market. In these times of high unemployment and especially high youth unemployment, federal funding to these institutions and the students who need it should not be reduced. The Conservative Government continues to attack the least fortunate in our society. In cutting the funding for vocational training the Government again displays its cruel, senseless, and unfair conduct.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. We have just witnessed

March 26, 1986
Oral Questions
a shameful public relations exercise by the Minister of State for Youth and the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Here is my question to the Prime Minister. How can he describe as a new initiative the revival of the Department of Employment and Immigration youth secretariat which was mothballed after he took office? Where is his new initiative?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Prime Minister has assigned the Minister of State for Youth to assist with job creation, employment and training programs in my Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nunziata:: Big sister Flora!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Indeed, this is where the Government places its priority. I can also assure Hon. Members that the Minister of State for Youth will be doing much more in the Department of Employment and Immigration than the questioner did in the Government which preceded this one. I have looked, and I know what his mandate was. I can tell Hon. Members that the Minister of State for Youth will be doing much more than that individual did.


REQUEST FOR NEW PROGRAM
Jean-C. Lapierre: That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and she knows it! She knows that the Challenge '86 program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Question, please!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, you too know it is nonsense. The Challenge '86 program which becomes the responsibility of the Minister of State for Youth has ended. Applications are no longer accepted, so just what is her responsibility? Where is the new program promised by the Prime Minister? If he has the nerve, let him stand up and tell us now in front of all Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Hon. Member said back in 1984 when he was Minister of State for Youth, that:
-existing make-work schemes, such as the $16 million Katimavik program, might have to be redrawn-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and simplified so that participants receive actual job training "instead of just beautiful human experiences"-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROGRAMS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In her press conference this morning the Minister of Employment and Immigration probably reached new depths of cynicism.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The press conference was hyped at everyone in the House, and everyone in the country expected a new program. All we got were musical chairs, no new program and no new funds.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: How about a question?


John Napier Turner: There were no new programs with respect to the crisis affecting youth. Will the Prime Minister fulfill the undertaking he gave to the House and the country that he and his Government would announce new programs for our young people before the end of this fiscal year? Is that going to be lived up to?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Gutless!


Mr. Gauthier:: How about having some guts over there?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Look whose talking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the Government is spending $732 million on programs devoted to youth employment and training. This year that will involve some 218,000 young people across the country. These are young people who really need help, young people who have dropped out of high school, and young people who are disadvantaged. At the time when youth unemployment was running much higher than it is now, the previous Government did not put anywhere near that amount of money into such programs.


Mr. Axworthy:: Oh yes, we did. You're wrong about that.


SENATOR'S HUNGER STRIKE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Prime Minister would rise to



*
March 26, 1986

respond to this question and not my third question when I will not have a chance to reply.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Whatever the Prime Minister may think of the intensively personal gesture of Senator Jacques Hebert, the Senator has accomplished two purposes. He has focused the attention of the country on the deep crisis for our young people, and second, he has made it clear to the young people of Canada that they are going to have to fight for themselves unless the Government displays a commitment to them. When is the Prime Minister going to give some concrete evidence of a commitment on the part of the Government of Canada to young people who desperately need hope and opportunities for a courageous future in Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made two points. He referred to a deep crisis for young people. The headline in the Toronto Star yesterday was: "Lots of Summer Jobs are Waiting for Students"-


Mr. McCurdy:: That's just in Toronto.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What? Are you opposed to jobs for Torontonians? The fact that they are from Toronto does not make them less Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: You're a phony, Mulroney.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The second point to which my Right Hon. friend referred is that young people will have to fight for themselves. Young people have had a terrible fight. From 1980 to 1984, 285,000 jobs were lost for youth. In the 18 months since we became the Government, 50,000 new jobs have been created. They will have to fight, but with the Government fighting for them.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not seem to understand that whatever recovery we have had has not been evenly shared across Canada. There are parts of the country that are having a very, very bad time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Here is my supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, we will be back in the House on April 7. Is Canada's youth supposed to wait until the House resumes sitting after Easter to find out
Oral Questions
what your Government intends to do for the youth of this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think this was made very clear by the Minister concerned today.


An Hon. Member:: No program.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am trying to answer... Some important action was announced today that will promote job creation, something we have been doing with substantial success during the past eighteen months. No one is trying to minimize the seriousness of unemployment among our young people. That is why we have been so active in this area, and I think that today's initiative with the Minister of State for Youth and the Minister of Employment and Immigration will further promote the creation of jobs for our young people.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAMS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister knows, we are dealing with a very serious situation here. It is the case that more jobs have been created for young people in recent months, and that is encouraging.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is also true that the most recent figures show that there are 485,000 young people out of work. That is a national tragedy. The Prime Minister has had access to those figures, and he promised in the House on March 3, March 11, March 21, and yesterday that there would be a program of action before the end of this month. Why has the Prime Minister not delivered on that promise?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the tragedy of youth unemployment, and I do not disagree. We inherited the situation, and we have been able to reduce youth unemployment by two full percentage points in just about 18 months. It is not perfect, but it is a major step forward. Were one to do that every 18 months, one would make a serious dent in that tragedy to which my hon. friend refers. We will continue to do so by initiatives such as those we announced today.


GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that the initiatives, as he described them, announced today simply consist of a promise to study recommendations which have been made by a Senate task force and by the New Democratic Party. That is not action. That is an argument by the Government for delaying action.
Young people want jobs. They want programs now. Since the Prime Minister is aware of the situation faced by young

March 26, 1986
Oral Questions
people and that the Minister's announcement today does not consist of a single new program for action, why did he promise yesterday in the House that we would have new programs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the programs the Government has brought in is Challenge '86. This year we will have some 60,000 applications before us for jobs for young people. Yesterday the spokesman for the New Democratic Party rose in the House and completely derided Challenge '86, which will offer hope and opportunity to some 100,000 young people. He said that that program was not a benefit to young people. I assure the Leader of his Party that young people across the country will find it beneficial. It is one of a number of initiatives which we are taking.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister and to the Prime Minister that there are still many Canadians who would like to take the word of politicians.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: They can take yours on any side of any question.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister had suggestions from the Senate and from my Party, as well as others. Why did he promise the House, as recently as yesterday and last Friday, that there would be new programs of action when he has not delivered on that? Do the words mean anything? If they do, why is there no action?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that for the NDP and the Liberals-


John V. Nunziata: Answer the question, Pinocchio.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -throwing borrowed money at a problem is supposed to make it go away.


John Edward Broadbent: You made a promise; you said there would be new programs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I indicated that there would be continued action and initiatives-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You made a promise.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -such as, for example, what is referred to on the front page of The Toronto Star: "'This could be the summer of summers for job-hunting students. Not since the boom of 1981 has the metro job picture for graduating returning students looked that good', say local student counsellors."


Lloyd Axworthy: That was a time when we were in government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is what is happening across the country, and we are going to cause youth unemployment to continue to go down, with government working-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -with the private sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask all Hon. Members to refrain, please, from all the interjections. It is making it very difficult for me to hear anything, I must be honest.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who repeatedly promised the people of Canada open Government, responsive Government, and a Government prepared to enter into consultation and dialogue. In view of the fact that the Government still to this moment-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is laughing.


Roland de Corneille: -has not announced any new youth programs, will the Prime Minister respond to the communications from his former professor, Leon Dion, from Senator Hebert, from me, and from others, all of whom continue to wait for him to open the door on this critical issue?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Stop laughing, Brian.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Have the courage to stand up, Sheila.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: She has much more than you, Joe.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who is running your Party?


Mr. Crosbie:: No one. We want Johnston.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East particularly to accept the Chair's request for no further interjections, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: In other words, shut up, Sheila.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to ask particularly the Minister of Justice to do the same.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Withdraw.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Look who is talking about withdrawing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order!
March 26, 1986


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Government has its agenda. It was elected to do certain things. One of them is to create jobs for young people, and that is exactly what we are doing.
With regard to places where young people have not had a chance before-because the previous Government's programs did not assist them-I can tell the Member that in Sydney, Cape Breton, 20 unemployed young people are now getting a chance to train in electronic and mechanical assembly. In northern Quebec young native people are getting a chance to train on jobs for the James Bay Hydro project. In Edmonton young people who are hearing impaired are getting a chance-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.



Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister doesn't seem to understand in English. Considering the pressing need for a program for young people, does the Prime Minister intend to demonstrate his Government's open attitude by giving a clear response to the proposal he received from Professor Dion, both in public and in private, and to which he has yet to respond?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous programs that have been introduced by Governments at different times and discontinued. The previous Government did that with the Company of Young Canadians and with the Opportunities for Youth programs. That Government felt it had a mandate at certain times to discontinue programs, and the former Minister of Youth thought that Katimavik should have been discontinued.


Roland de Corneille: Answer the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We feel that we have a mandate to do the best we can for young people in the creation of jobs. That is what we are doing, and we are doing it all across the country.


John V. Nunziata: You do not have a mandate any more.



Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. If we can lay aside Katimavik and the strike by the Senator, does the Prime Minister not think that a/ter International Youth Year, a Senate committee report, a New Democratic Party report, federal youth fora, and a promise, the Government has missed an opportunity for a reconciliation with youth, which the
Oral Questions
Government needs, by failing to live up to the P.M.'s promise? Does the P.M. not think he has missed a chance with a little shuffle to the same old tune?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that 50,000 new jobs for young people is the beginning of living up to our promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We do not by any means say that it is complete. That is why the programs we are developing are directed toward those most in need, to those whom no one else might help, to those whom the Government has a responsibility to assist. That will be some 218,000 young people this year. Already the programs are showing tremendous success. They are not perfect. They will be changed from time to time, and I would invite the continuing participation and input of the Hon. Member.


SIZE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not think, because $1.26 billion was spent in 1984-85 and $864 million in 1986, that to suggest $732 million this year is an improvement is to mislead the public and the youth of the country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member is getting his figures. I can tell him they are wrong if the Member is applying them to youth only. We have a budget of some $2 billion; 44 per cent of which is going to youth programs. I think that that is a very commendable effort.


Mr. Deans:: That is what he just said.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It may be that that should be increased and 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be looking to the Minister of State for Youth to advise me in this whole field.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't hold your breath.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, if you are having trouble in this House, it is due to the cynicism of the Prime Minister-
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sick and tired of that kind of banter.


Mr. Althouse:: Who are you?
11894

March 26, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has a question. He is an experienced Member and knows what should or should not be said in the House. Just a question, please.


Mr. Allmand:: It was a short preamble. I think, even according to your own guidelines-


Mr. Andre:: Next question.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Harvie, you are not the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has a question immediately, please.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On March 3 the Prime Minister clearly promised this House and the Canadian people a new youth employment program. Nothing else. He made that promise.
When is the Prime Minister going to honour that commitment to this House and the Canadian people? With that promise and nothing else, Mr. Speaker?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first, what the Hon. Member has just said is wrong with regard to March 3.
Second, his reference to cynicism deserves to be noted when he accuses us of being cynical. Here is the Liberal Party defending and asking for the resurrection of Katimavik. Here is the Member for Shefford a year ago telling Macleans magazine:
At the same time, Lapierre said that existing make-work schemes, such as the $16 million Katimavik program, might have to be withdrawn and simplified so that participants receive actual job training "instead of just beautiful human experiences" that are of little value to potential future employers.
There is the ultimate cynicism. You are a bunch of shameless hypocrites, the whole lot.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the last remark.


Mr. Nielsen:: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I heard him call another Member a hypocrite.


An Hon. Member:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it was a collective reference. 1 will be happy to withdraw it if it is inappropriate.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


CABINET POSTINGS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister let the Minister for Employment announce this minor Cabinet shuffle today because he was so embarrassed to do so himself? Is that all he can leave to the Minister for Employment?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that what we have done today is no embarrassment. I want to make that very clear.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I do not know how the Liberals considered their previous Ministers of Youth, who were attached to the Department of Employment, but perhaps they are speaking from experience.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why is your face so red?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: On March 3 the Prime Minister said: "Our first obligation toward youth is to keep creating permanent jobs". That is exactly what we are doing.
We began with the creation of 50,000 jobs. The efforts today will build on that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROGRAMS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who said in the House on March 21:
-at or about the end of the fiscal year, and in appropriate fashion, the Government would be announcing new programs, including programs that deal with the problems affecting Canada's youth.
Is this an accurate statement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is an
appropriate initiative and approach which will be very beneficial to Canada's youth.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: specifically, would be announced by the end of the fiscal year. It is the new programs 1 am asking about. Is the Prime Minister saying that new programs would be introduced at or about the end of the fiscal year?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is on the record.


John V. Nunziata: And so is my answer on the record.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The excellent statement of the Minister of Employment and Immigration today-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know that unless you are throwing borrowed money at a problem, it does not constitute an initiative or anything of value to the Liberals and NDP. This is not our
way of-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: How much did you throw at Northland?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NETHERLANDS MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of Hon. Peter Winsemius, Minister of the Environment of the Netherlands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to her Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Brampton-Georgetown. The people of London East, and indeed Canadians right acrosss the country, are most unhappy with the slow rate at which oil companies are decreasing the price of gasoline at the pumps.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell this House when Canadians might expect a further decrease in gas prices reflecting the decrease in world oil prices which the oil companies have enjoyed over the past few months?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there have been two drops in prices-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Come on, Mickey Mouse drops, and you know it.
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: -of 2 cents a litre, the first on February 20, and the second on March 12.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Big deal.


John Horton McDermid: I am pleased to announce that this afternoon a further 2 cent per litre decrease has been passed on to retailers by Petro-Canada. That amounts to a total drop of 6 cents per litre, approximately 27 cents a gallon, in the last month and a half.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, the Prime Minister denied that he had made a commitment on March 3. In the quotation from Hansard of March 21 just read by my friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, the Prime Minister referred to his earlier statements of March 3 and March 11 in which he said that at the appropriate time, before the end of the fiscal year, there would be new programs introduced to help the youth of the country. Is he going to live up to that commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was responding to a very interesting question from the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East with regard to a statement made on March 3. On March 3 I said:
Our first obligation toward youth is to keep creating permanent jobs and this is exactly what we are doing. This will be linked in due time not only with other programs, but with very important initiatives that will create more jobs for our young people.
That is exactly what transpired today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 invite the Prime Minister to turn to his statement of March 21 in which he referred to his earlier statements of March 3 and March 11 gave a distinct, clear, and unequivocal statement to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that has been absolutely and fully responded to.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This from a bunch of people who caused almost 300,000 young Canadians to lose their jobs! That is an

March 26, 1986
Oral Questions
absolutely disgraceful record, and they should be applauding the Government for the job creation success it has enjoyed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Go to confession on Saturday. You will be there a long time.


MINISTER S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth.
Mr. Speaker, in her letter of January 6, the Minister mentioned a cut of $100 million in youth programs. She asked her Cabinet colleagues for a budget for the next financial year.
Could the Minister inform the House how she can have any impact on the problems of the youth of our country when she now has neither a department nor a budget?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that contrary to what the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre claimed, funding has been redirected to other programs in the Budget, and this money is again going to be used to create jobs. I did my job as a spokesperson for youth, and I did a very good job.


REQUEST FOR NAME OF NEW PROGRAM
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Considering the promises the Prime Minister chose to ignore only a few days after they had been made, could the Minister of State for Youth name even one youth program that has been set up since Senator Hebert started his hunger strike?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the House may wish to recall that throughout these discussions, we have been told repeatedly that many young people are in difficulty and are having a very bad time; for instance, many have to live on welfare benefits. In the last Budget we saw, for instance, that $100 million was earmarked for creating jobs for welfare recipients. And a substantial share of this money will, appropriately, go to Canadian youth.


ELECTION PROMISES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
to nothing more than making promises to electors, only to renege on them, disregard them and do the exact opposite?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Even coming from a Liberal, Mr. Speaker, this kind of cynisism is absolutely astonishing, totally astonishing!
As reported in Maclean's, his Liberal colleague and former Minister of Youth said this, and I quote:

But the youthful Minister-
That was a short-term affair.
-stressed that whatever method young people used to look for employment, it had to be practical.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What is your word worth, Brian?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: You wouldn't know the truth if it stared you in the face.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: John, show some leadership.


Charles Joseph Clark: We now understand why David Peterson threw her out.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I am going to ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to refrain from making interjections, and that will be the last time I will ask.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Good teachers don't make threats.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East would want to withdraw many of the uncharitable comments she makes, so we will pass on it.


John V. Nunziata: They were all deserved, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The then Minister of Youth concluded:
In the past we could afford to let our youth dream. But when you arc hungry, you have to be pragmatic.
That is a quote from the then Minister of Youth. We are trying to ensure that Canada's youth are no longer hungry and that they have permanent jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANNOUNCEMENT BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: 
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member used the word "seriously", so let us take an unbiased look at the figures.
Since the new Government was sworn in, 580,000 new jobs have been created in Canada-


An Hon. Member:: By others-


Martin Brian Mulroney: By others, he says. The Government of Canada, yes but... be it good news or-


An Hon. Member:: It is good, but it is done by others-


Martin Brian Mulroney: -well, it is good, but it is not done by "others".
Well, now, I understand.
When it is good for Canadians, it is good. When it is good for young Canadians, it is very good. That is the philosophy of the Conservative Government.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This morning he met briefly with some disabled Canadians from the Coalition Against the Employment Equity Bill. They also met for about half an hour with his assistant, Mr. Geoff Norquay, in the Prime Minister's Office. I met just recently with this group and they want to know whether or not the Prime Minister now agrees with their request that the Employment Equity Bill be changed to include a penalty for employers who fail to implement employment equity in the workplace?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this morning on my way to caucus I had an opportunity in the hall to meet with excellent representatives of the coalition who briefly explained their point of view to me. I have since had occasion to discuss it with the Minister, as well as with Geoff Norquay whom I asked to meet with the representatives of the coalition upstairs in the cabinet chamber. He is preparing a report for me, and when I leave the House I will meet with him.


HIRING ON TERM BASIS IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Prime Minister for the answer. The group also wanted to know if more disabled people will be hired on a permanent basis in the federal Public Service. As of today 76 per cent of disabled people who work in the Public Service are
Oral Questions
there on a term basis, and when there is a cut-back in spending they are often the first people laid off.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, from our first Throne Speech through our two Budgets there have been a number of measures specifically designed to assist the disabled. This is not enough. We recognize that these are people to whom we owe a great deal. The Government of Canada will continue to work very closely with them to see if we cannot meet some of their legitimate objectives.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Can he tell the House if simplification of the Income Tax Act is on the committee's agenda?


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee has broken itself into two panels. One panel has hearings commencing April 8 to delve into the Income Tax Act leading to recommendations on simplification of personal income tax and personal income tax forms.


FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has said that he cares about the close to half a million young Canadians who have not yet found employment. If that is the case, does he not think it proper to restore the funding levels of two years ago when over $200 million extra and an additional 100,000 jobs were provided in our training institutions and direct employment programs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the funding directed to young people from the Department of Employment and Immigration was $694.8 million. Even though the unemployment rate is much lower today, the amount now being contributed to training and employment programs for young people is $732.2 million.


AMOUNT OF FUNDING
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when is the Minister going to hire a new accountant? The fact is that the figures for that year were $950 million and 270,000 jobs. It seems to me what is wrong with the Minister and her Department is that they do not know what is going on.

March 26, 1986
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Hon. Member is that he has a very selective memory.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why is a retiree in receipt of a pension and working and contributing to unemployment insurance treated differently from a retiree who also works and contributes to unemployment insurance but receives additional income from a retirement savings plan or from investments?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Hon. Member is raising the question of changes in regulations regarding unemployment insurance and how they impact on pensions and severance pay. As he knows, new regulations came into effect the first of the year. The whole question has been referred to the Forget Commission for examination in all aspects and we are waiting for its report.


REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF BENEFITS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister take the initiative afforded her by a recent ruling of an Unemployment Insurance Commission board and reinstate benefits, at least for those who have been deprived of benefits they otherwise would have received by virtue of retiring prior to January 5, without having to go back through the appeal process?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been many of these cases which have gone to appeal. Some boards have rejected the regulations and other boards have approved them. So there is divided opinion. The next step will be to have these adjudicated by an umpire. As this is a quasi-judicial process and I do not think at this point I should interfere.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment. Does the Canadian Government, along with the Ontario Government, have any plans to provide for the use of Alberta sulphur-free coals to prevent acid rain, instead of utilizing American coals containing ten times as much sulphur, and then spending millions of dollars to clean up the mess, much of which would
never have occurred if Alberta sulphur-free coals had been used in the first place?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the coal is not sulphur-free but the Hon. Member is right that it is much lower in sulphur than the American alternative we are importing. I have always found that situation at best anomalous and, at worst, bizarre. My predecessor shared my view to the extent of setting up a task force of experts from across the country, with participation by the western provinces, except Manitoba, and Ontario to boot. The task force will report on June 1, 1986. I await its report with eagerness and with a very favourable disposition to the point of view that the Hon. Member has expressed.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. He should be aware that last November's report from the Finance Committee expressed concern about concentration of ownership in the financial services industry and the implications of financial institutions being owned by non-financial interests. In light of the bid from the fast food and tobacco giant Imasco to take over Genstar Financial Corporation, which owns Canada's largest trust company and has 70 per cent of its holdings in the financial sector, will he tell the House what action the Government proposes to take before Imasco's takeover bid closes on April 25?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice and refer it to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, who will be happy to answer it as soon as he returns.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said on Friday in this House that the Government's assistance to Canadian farmers would be an extremely high priority in light of the negative impact of the U.S. farm Bills. Can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House what specific assistance programs are being considered to alleviate the effect of these Bills particularly on grain producers?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recognize that Question Period is a very difficult time in which to respond with an answer in great detail. It might be of some help to him to know that my collegue, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, will be making two announcements in the very near future.
March 26, 1986


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on Monday. The Chair, as the House would expect, has carefully examined all the similar cases that could be found. The procedural arguments are absolutely clear. A disorder or breach of the rules must be brought to the Chair's attention at the time of the occurrence. As a consequence, the Chair cannot accept on Monday, a point of order regarding Friday's proceedings which could have and should have been made on Friday, even if that means that certain words offensive to all parliamentarians and clearly unparliamentary remain on the record and unwithdrawn.
The Chair can only do what other Speakers have done in similar circumstances, which is to remind Hon. Members that in some similar circumstances in the past Hon. Members who felt that they had made the remarks that were reported chose to withdraw them voluntarily out of respect for the House and its traditions.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, since we are adjourning today until April 7, perhaps the Government House Leader could give the House some idea of the Government business he intends to call once the House resumes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by the Opposition House Leader.


John Napier Turner: Give us the inside information, Ray.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, the inside information is simply that we would like to carry on today with second reading of the Bill with respect to the new Competition Tribunal. If we can proceed with that today we may make progress, but there may be an inclination on the part of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to do something else. We will await for motions. 1 think there has been an indication that we might have a debate on that today.
In any event, the sequence of Bills I want to present to the House for consideration are Bill C-91, An Act to establish the Competition Tribunal, followed by Bill C-62, the report stage of the Employment Equity Bill which has finished the committee stage. I hope that we can address ourselves to the report stage of that Bill.
Following that, I propose that we move to Bill C-67, An Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act and Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act,
Business of the House
the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code. I believe that will give us a start on Monday. If there is any time remaining we can carry on with other items of legislation.
Having said that, I should advise the House that since we will be adjourning for Easter there may well be Royal Assent for some legislation during the course of the afternoon.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, will the Government House Leader tell us if he intends to bring in a House order, in compliance with the recommendations of the Reform Committee that were agreed to by the House, to permit television and radio in the standing committees of the House which have now been struck?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to my distinguished colleague in caucus this morning, the fact is that the House Leaders will be meeting with representatives of the eminent press gallery immediately upon our return from Easter recess so that we can deal with the rules that are acceptable to all concerned. I hope that we will have television and radio broadcasting introduced to the committees at a very early period to at last allow the people of Canada to see what great work the Government is doing.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Hon. Government House Leader. Back on December 13, arising out of Private Members' Hour, a motion was passed calling for the establishment of a committee to deal with the price of domestic wheat.
On behalf of farmers of this country, I ask whether any progress has been made in establishing such a committee?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members generally will understand the importance of the Hon. Member's motion to grain producers in western Canada. Discussions are taking place and I think we have the concurrence of the Liberal Party to proceed with that motion. I am now in the process of discussing the matter with the New Democratic Party and hopefully we will be able to work something out that will allow us to get on with this important initiative, even before Easter recess.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the matter can be resolved right now. As I understand it, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is prepared to have both the two-price wheat resolution and the Parity Pricing Bill, which was introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), considered by the committee at the same time in accordance with our understanding of the agreement.
If the House Leader can indicate that that is in fact acceptable to the Government, then we are quite prepared to have the motion brought forward immediately and the reference made.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the constructive suggestion made by the Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party. As he knows, we have attempted to

March 26, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gottselig
facilitate opposition initiatives in respect to these important questions. I will consult with my colleagues and the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) and get back to him. Perhaps we can deal with this matter later today.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to raise a point of order relating to Question Period. During a reply by the Right Hon. Prime Minister, I distinctly heard what I consider to be an unparliamentary term spoken by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi). In view of the ruling that you just made, that a point of order must be raised immediately following the infraction, I want to raise this point of order. Furthermore-


Mr. Rossi:: What did I say?


William (Bill) Gottselig: -regardless of whether Hansard picked up the word used by the Member, he knows that he made it. Other Members sitting in this area would have heard it.


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Member for Moose Jaw tell me what he is saying the Hon. Member for Bourassa said?


William (Bill) Gottselig: I can't say it.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Of course you have to say it if you want him to withdraw.


William (Bill) Gottselig: I am not going to say it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Carlo Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I never said anything unparliamentary and I insist that the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw is making a complaint to the Chair that he believes he heard an unparliamentary remark which he feels is inappropriate to repeat and is asking the Chair to check the records to determine whether that is true. I take it that is what he is doing.
[ Translation]


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for I do not know what constituency says that I made unparliamentary comments during the oral question period, he should have the courage to rise and repeat what I said because, for my part, I am positive that I did not.
We shall have to look at Hansard to see who said what.


William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, the term that I and other Members sitting here clearly heard him say is "bullshit".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Bourassa telling me he did not say it?


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, if that is what he means, 1 must say that I do not think these comments were unparliamentary because I was not addressing any Member of Parliament. I said that the comments made by the Hon. Member speaking at the time were "b.s.", and what the Hon. Member is now saying is also "b.s.".


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is now in some difficulty. There is no question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question that to use that phrase with that word is unparliamentary language, absolutely. I need not refer Hon. Members to the rules about what language is or is not unparliamentary.
Could I ask the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) to simply withdraw it, if he thinks he said it. Otherwise I will check the "Blues".


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, my comments were not addressed to a Member of Parliament. I said that the comments made at the time were "b.s.", and I think that what the Hon. Member is now saying is also "b.s.".
I shall withdraw, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you. The Hon. Member for Bourassa simply rose and withdrew it. I accept that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I would like to get a serious ruling with respect to conversations which fly from one Hon. Member to another and are subsequently raised. There was a point of order raised some time ago regarding the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) with respect to a statement he made clearly in the House. It was heard by other Hon. Members, and Hon. Members brought it to the attention of the Speaker at the earliest possible opportunity. It seems to me that the ruling of the Chair at that time was not to require a withdrawal from the Hon. Member because of the fact that it was not a recorded part of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The confusion I have here is that the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) rose to say what he
March 26, 1986

said. Having said he said it, 1 must ask him to withdraw it. That is what I just heard him do.
Mis. Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask the Chair to review the "Blues" with respect to the submissions made by the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq because I think if the Chair does review-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I heard the arguments on that matter at the time.


An Hon. Member:: Give her the general rule, at least.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule is that if an Hon. Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it would be simpler if I simply provided the Hon. Member with something.



Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Seeing as how we are
exchanging Easter lilies, let me say that during Question Period 1 was sitting in the seat of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), and during the Question Period-I admit it was during the heckling part-1 heard the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand)-and other Hon. Members heard him as well-call the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) a liar three times.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Barry Turner: I appreciate that the Hon. Member is not in the House at the moment but when he returns to the House, at the earliest possible moment, 1 suggest, Sir, in the spirit of intelligent parliamentary practice, that he withdraw that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair, following usual practices, would say to the Hon. Member that the Chair did not hear the remarks complained of and the Chair will conduct itself in the usual manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the House that this has not been a very distinguished hour for the House of Commons and Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) claiming a point of order? Could the Hon. Member give his point of order succinctly, please.
Tabling of Documents


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the order of business today. I wanted to find out from the Speaker what the order of business was in the sense that 1 have a standing a request-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member should read the Notice Paper.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1), I wish to lay upon the Table on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in both official languages, copies of a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.
[DOT] * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to table in this House, in both official languages, the final report of the Hon. David MacDonald, Canadian Coordinator of the emergency famine relief services in Africa.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion we have had under the new standing orders to do so and I would like to state that, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition No. 331-2.

March 26, 1986
Petitions
[ Translation]



MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' SERVICES


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I assume all Hon. Members are presenting only petitions which have been certified.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, on behalf of residents of Hull, Gatineau, and the surrounding areas, a petition humbly asking Parliament to reconsider its decision concerning the Katimavik program and to address the problem young Canadians are facing generally.
I have the honour to present another petition from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School seeking the same thing.
I have also another petition seeking the same thing from a group of interested people who are visiting Parliament today.
I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to present two similar petitions from the Nepean-Carleton riding, another from the Gatineau riding, and two others from ridings in the Ottawa region.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that I had 97 other petitions which, apparently, the Clerk of Petitions has been unable to certify today. This is something I deeply regret, considering the seriousness of the problem. I have here 97 petitions signed by over 1,000 Canadians. We will have to wait, but I should like these people to know that we are already taking action-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is exactly why I asked if the petition had been certified, and the Hon. Member knows that.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I humbly wish to table a petition signed by residents from across Canada calling for the Government to re-establish the Katimavik program, who regret the Government's decision to cancel it,
and who support the initiative of our colleague in the other place.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition bearing 2,000 names from throughout Manitoba, from the communities of Brandon, Reston, Ste. Anne, Richer, Neepawa, Steinbach, Selkirk, Roblin and the city of Winnipeg. The petitioners are 2,000 young people who deeply pray that this House of Commons will raise its voice to reinstate the full funding of the Katimavik Program on behalf of the young people of Canada. These are 2,000 young people who do not believe Jacques Hebert is piggybacking on them.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several hundred residents of New Westminster-Coquitlam, Burnaby, Surrey, White Rock, Delta, Port Moody, Richmond and Langley, all supporters of the British Columbia Automobile Association. The petitioners call upon Parliament to consider withdrawing the separate excise taxes on automotive fuel and reducing the federal sales tax applied on gasoline to a fixed level as it was prior to 1981.
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which has also been approved. It is from residents of the same communities in British Columbia who make the same request of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition from residents of the same communities in British Columbia who also make the same request of Parliament.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Kelowna, British Columbia, and other parts of B.C., requesting once again that the House of Commons reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by 141 constituents of my riding who protest the excessive taxes on gasoline.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present another petition signed by 215 constituents of my riding who protest the illegal operation of the Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto.
March 26, 1986


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, 1 have here a number of petitions from residents of Sainte-Foy, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec City, Charny, Lac-Beauport, Ville-de-Laval, Longueuil and Farnham, in the province of Quebec, as well as from Manitoba and Ontario, which, according to the Clerk of petitions, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. The petitioners ask the Government to reconsider its decision to cancel the Katimavik program.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from students of Ottawa and the surrounding area who ask that the Government take the situation back in hand and reinstate a youth program, either Katimavik or one like it.
1 also have thousands and thousands of signatures in a number of petitions from La Promenade Secondary School in Hull, Quebec, asking that Parliament and the Government reconsider their decision, revise the Katimavik program and have it reinstated.

Mr. Speaker, I also have several petitions signed by people from Carleton University, Sir Wilfrid Laurier High School, and several other high schools in the Ottawa area, who petition the Government to reinstate full funding for Katimavik for the young people of Canada.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a petition from people residing on Daly Avenue and elsewhere in my constituency of Ottawa-Vanier asking that the Government reconsider its decision to cancel the Katimavik program and humbly pray that this Government reinstate the Katimavik program.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition concerning the Katimavik program. About a hundred people living in Orleans, Pointe-Gatineau, Cantley and Gatineau ask that Parliament reconsider its decision to cancel the Katimavik program. Those people point to the program's success in respect of youth training and the opportunity to become familiar with our country and its two official languages.
I also have another petition to that effect from the City of Longueuil, Brossard and Chambly on Montreal's South shore.
I have a third petition from the constituency of Drummond-ville, signed once again by about a hundred people who ask for the reinstatement of the Katimavik program.


Mr. Speaker:: They were all certified.
Petitions


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the neighbouring riding of Don Valley West. It has been examined and found to be in order. The petitioners protest the continued operation of the Morgen-taler Clinic in the City of Toronto. They call upon Parliament to require the Government of Ontario to remove any restrictions which may have been placed on the Metropolitan Toronto police force in regard to the laying of charges under Section 251 of the Criminal Code, and to express to the Government of Ontario the displeasure of this House at such lack of enforcement.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present a petition signed by about a hundred Canadian residents, who submit that the Katimavik program has been a success both in respect of the training of 20,000 young people who were involved over these last ten years, and of the significant community work done by those young volunteers in Canadian communities during that period.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons the petitioners ask that the decision to kill the Katimavik program be reconsidered.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from my constituency where a youth delegation asked me to table a petition in accordance with Standing Order 106(4). Therefore, I have the honour to submit to the House of Commons assembled a petition signed by 1,231 young people from the communities of Kapuskasing, Opasati-ka, Val Rita, Fauquier, Harty, and Moonbeam. The petition asked that the House of Commons asembled reinstate full funding for the program Katimavik.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present another petition from my people in the riding of Kent which has been examined and found to be in order. They request that Parliament require the Government of the Province of Ontario to remove restrictions placed on the police force of Metropolitan Toronto so that charges may be laid against those operating the premises known as the Morgental-er clinic.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition from 161 residents from the ridings of Thunder Bay-Atikokan and Thunder Bay-Nipigon. The petition has regard to the price of gasoline in northwestern Ontario. The petitioners call upon the

March 26, 1986
Petitions
Government of Canada to use Petro-Canada as the tool to drag down prices.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions. The first is addressed to-
[ Translation]
-that the Katimavik program has been a success both in respect of the training of 20,000 young people who took part over these last ten years and of the significant community work done by those young volunteers in Canadian communities during that period.

It is asking the Government to reinstate this program.
I have another petition which humbly sheweth that in the opinion of the Friends of Katimavik the federal Government's decision to cancel the youth program Katimavik is a shortsighted budgetary measure taken at the expense of Canadian youth and that the Katimavik Program helped thousands of young Canadians develop social skills and employment options while providing an opportunity to do useful community work in different regions of Canada.
1 have another petition signed by several dozen friends of Katimavik. It states that all Canadians will be the lesser for the loss of a program that gave young men and women a chance to fulfil their potential and show leadership while helping others. "Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate with full funding the Katimavik Program for the young people of Canada." I think it is particularly appropriate on the last day of the House before Easter that it states-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was not signed by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me a second time. I have two further petitions which have just arrived. They have been duly certified. One of the petitions is from the community of Nakina, Ontario. It has 25 signatures and asks that the House assembled take action regarding the unprecedented high level of gasoline prices in view of the change in world prices for petroleum.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is signed by 324 residents of northern Ontario who ask the House assembled to reconsider that part of Bill C-75 which will impose a licensing fee on individual
watercraft whereby no services are being provided by federal Government with respect to these watercraft.


Mr. Speaker:: Do 1 have the unanimous consent of the House to revert for one moment to Presenting Reports from Committees?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 

COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture on Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions signed by several hundred Canadian citizens. The petitioners call the Government's cancellation of the Katimavik program a short-sighted budgetary measure as a result of which Canadians in general will be the losers. They are calling upon the House of Commons to reinstate full funding to the Katimavik program.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a whole set of petitions dealing of course with Katimavik.
To be brief, I have divided the petitions into three groups. The first group includes petitioners from the Montreal metropolitan area who praise the excellent results of the Katimavik program and would like it to be restored.
I also have a group of petitions coming from the metropolitan area of Quebec City and once again the signers ask for the restoration of the Katimavik program which has proved successful during the past ten years.
And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a group of petitions coming from the Ottawa area and here again hundreds of
March 26, 1986

signers are asking that the program be reinstated since it has been so helpful to many young people in the past and could help others who would also like to take advantage of that excellent program.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present, all from the constituency of Essex-Windsor, all expressing concern with the abortion laws in this country and indicating their unhappiness with the state of implementation of those laws in Ontario.


M. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker,
I also have eight petitions from hundreds of people throughout Quebec who ask that the decision to cancel Katimavik be reconsidered. These petitions have been certified and they are in order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I also have nine petitions with many signatures. The petitioners state that the Katimavik program has been a success, both as concerns the training received by the 20,000 young participants in the program during the last ten years, and the major community projects undertaken by these young volunteers in Canadian municipalities during this same period.
The petitioners ask the Parliament of Canada to reconsider the decision to cancel Katimavik.

I have as well four other petitions containing the names of approximately 130 or 140 petitioners. The petitioners state that in the opinion of the friends of Katimavik, the federal Government's decision to cancel the youth program Katimavik is a short-sighted budgetary measure at the expense of Canadian youth. The petitioners request the Conservative Government of Canada to reinstate with full funding the Katimavik program for the young people of Canada.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I was just counting the pages and found that there are over 30 pages with 30 signatures per page in one petition which has been duly authorized. I have the privilege to present this petition which deals with the fact that the cancellation of the Katimavik program which helped thousands of young Canadians develop social skills and employment options while providing them an opportunity to do useful community work in different regions of Canada has brought serious concern to parents and they ask Your Honour to please consider reinstating the Katimavik program.

I have a petition from the undersigned who humbly state that the Katimavik program gives young Canadians an opportunity to become more familiar with their country and the
Committees
language and culture of its citizens. They therefore humbly ask Parliament to reconsider the decision to cancel Katimavik. The undersigned come from Sainte-Claire, Ile-des-Sceurs, Matane, Beauceville, Lac-Beauport, Stanton, Saint-Nazaire, Saint-Camille, Saint-Georges, Saint-Odilon, Richelieu, Saint-Malachie, Saint-Leon, Kitchener, Waterloo, Orangeville, Sidney, Vernon, St. John, Moncton, Calgary, Vancouver, Kitchener, ile-d'Orleans-

The petitioners all request consideration of this drastic measure as do the people of Antigonish, Springfield, Halifax, etc.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a few petitions from residents of Buckingham, Pointe-Gatineau, Touraine, Ottawa, Hull, Rural Road No. 2, Belcourt, Riverview, New Brunswick, Wolfville in Nova Scotia, Kemptville in Nova Scotia, Liverpool in Nova Scotia, and Sussex in New Brunswick. Mr. Speaker, the petitioners deplore the Government's decision to end the Katimavik program and humbly call upon the Government to reconsider its decision.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions signed by hundreds of Canadian residents from various parts of the country pointing out that the cancellation of the program Katimavik was a short-sighted measure by the Government and calling on the Government for full restoration of the program Katimavik on behalf of young people all across Canada who are in very grave danger of becoming a national tragedy.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there are three items that I would ask to be dealt with by the House now and these items will be dealt with on the basis of discussions between Parties. Agreements have been arrived at with respect to the orders.
The first deals with an order with respect to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I think you would find a disposition to receive by unanimous consent and have passed without debate the following order:
That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be empowered to travel to the Sechelt Indian Reserve in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon during the period April 20, 1986, to May 2, 1986, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

March 26, 1986
Committees


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the second order deals with the membership of Standing Committees, and again I think you find a disposition to receive the following order by unanimous consent and to have it passed without debate:
That the following changes be made in the membership of the Standing
Committees:
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Pietz for Nickerson; Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Nickerson for Lawrence;
External Affairs and International Trade, Johnston (Saint-Henri-West-mount) for Gray (Windsor West);
Finance and Economic Affairs, Nicholson (Trinity) for Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount);
Human Rights, King for Pietz;
Multiculturalism, Jacques for Lesick; and Transport, Dantzer for Belsher.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being such consent, shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, having had consultations, I should like to draw a third item to the attention of the House. I think Your Honour will find disposition to receive the particular order and to have it passed without debate, by unanimous consent. It reads:
Notwithstanding any previous reports of the committee appointed to prepare and report lists of membership to compose the legislative committees, that the membership of the following legislative committees be as follows:
Bill C-42, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof-Althouse, Binns, Blais, Cardiff, Clark (Brandon-Sou-ris), Foster and Fraleigh.
Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and the House of Commons-Cassidy, Copps, Crouse, Ellis, Grise, Lewis and McGrath.
Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof-Blackburn (Jonquierc), Boudria, Bradley, Daubney, Duguay, Hovdcbo and Stewart.
Bill C-88, an Act to authorize the acquisiton of Marine Atlantic Inc. and to provide for other matters in relation thereto-Angus, Cochrane, Forrcstall. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine), Nowlan, O'Neil and Tobin.
Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof-Attewell, Cadieux, Domm, Howie. Kempling, Orlikow and Oucllct.
Bill C-92, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act-Champagne (Champlain). Gagnon. James, MacLellan, McDermid, Sparrow and Waddell.
Bill C-94, an Act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing and to make related and consequential amendments-Johnson, MacLellan, McDermid, O'Neil, Price. Sparrow and Waddell.
Bill C-249, an Act to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario-Kempling, Malone, Penner, Plourde, Reimer, Rodriguez and St. Germain.
Bill C-250, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act-Hovdcbo, Kempling, Malone, Nicholson (Trinity), Plourde, Reimer and St. Germain.
Bill C-251, an Act to amend the National Anthem Act-dc Corneille, Kempling, Malone, McDonald, Plourde, Reimer and St. Germain.
Bill C-252, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act (estimates)-Deans, Gauthier, Kempling, Malone, Plourde, Reimer and St. Germain.
Bill C-253, an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (farmers and fishermen)-Althouse, Foster, Kempling, Malone, Plourde, Reimer and St. Germain.
Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (legal counsel for unborn child)-Kaplan, Kempling, Malone, Plourde, Reimer, Robinson and St. Germain.
Bill C-256, an Act to register lobbyists-Boudria, Kempling. Malone, Orlikow, Plourde, Reimer and St. Germain.
Bill C-257, an Act respecting the conservation, export and diversion of water resources-Blaikie, Foster, Kempling. Malone, Plourde, Reimer and St. Germain.
Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Federal Court Act. the Northwest Territories Act, the Supreme Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Yukon Act-Kaplan, Kempling, Malone, Plourde, Reimer, Robinson and St. Germain.
Bill C-260, an Act to amend the Identification of Criminals Act (publication of cards)-Kempling, Malone, Nunziata, Plourde, Reimer, Robinson and St. Germain.
Bill C-262, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Nunat-siaq-Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), Kempling, Malone, Murphy, Plourde, Reimer and St. Germain.


An Hon. Member:: Dispense with the rest.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion which requires unanimous consent for its introduction. Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Government House Leader would read the last paragraph of that motion because it is very important.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It continues:
And that the proceedings relating to the Twenty-seventh Report of the Striking Committee be declared null and void.
March 26, 1986

That is the operative part.


Mr. Speaker:: There being unanimous consent for the introduction of that motion, shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved:: That the First Report of the Subcommittee on Equality Rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Friday, October 25, 1985, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I sent you notice that I wanted to seek leave to hold an emergency debate under Standing Order 29. I would like to know-


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan), the Hon. Member might want to read the Order Paper. Applications under motions under Standing Order 29 come after Questions on the Order Paper, which come after motions. We are now at motions, and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has the floor on his motion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise at this point to move concurrence in the First Report of the Subcommittee on Equality Rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
On April 17, 1982, Parliament took an historic step toward full equality for all Canadians by adopting Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course Section 15 is the section dealing with equality rights. In adopting Section 15, Parliament took the position that where Governments, and in particular where parliamentary majorities and legislative majorities, are prepared to trample on the rights of minorities, or where they refuse to move to protect the rights of minorities, there must be some recourse to an independent tribunal. When those fragile freedoms about which Tom Berger wrote so eloquently are threatened, "the courts of the land must offer a means of recourse to citizens whose rights are violated".
Of course it is true that recourse to the courts of the land can be costly and time consuming, and that ultimately we must look at the composition of the judiciary in deciding important questions of social and economic values. We in the New Democratic Party and our predecessors in the CCF have fought for decades for the principle of an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a statement of certain fundamental
Motions
values and beliefs in our democratic society, a statement of a commitment by the country to full equality.
It was with considerable sadness that we noted that Parliament saw fit as well to include Section 33 of the Charter of Rights, the section which in effect allows parliaments or legislatures, at the stroke of a legislative pen, to override the most fundamental and basic of human rights.
1 mentioned the date of April 17, 1982. At that time Governments, both federal and provincial, were given three years before Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect, three years to enable them to bring their laws, their policies and their practices into compliance, three years to ensure that the equality on paper in Section 15 would become equality in reality for Canadian men and women.
Three years passed and at the end of that time those Canadians who were affected most strongly by the denial of equality observed that very little had changed. There had been no real legislative change, no real change in policy. Indeed, the only change in respect of the status of women in Canada was an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act to allow women as well as men the right to send wages to their families offshore. The only change in law by the Government of Canada affecting the rights of the disabled was again an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act which changed the word "lunacy" to the words "mental disability". That, after three years, was the sum total of the Government's response. 1 emphasize that we are talking about the previous Government as well as the current one. That was the level of their commitment to full equality for all Canadians.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I notice here that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself said: Since we are the children of freedom, it is up to us to defend the cause of human rights and minorities every time they are threatened, and threatened they are indeed!

In January of last year, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cros-bie) appointed a seven-member parliamentary committee to examine the implications of the coming into force of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That section came into full force on April 17 of this year. I had the honour of serving on behalf of the New Democratic Party on that committee. At this time I want again to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by my colleagues from all Parties on that committee. There were five members of the Conservative Party. The committee was chaired very ably by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), as well as the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) representing the Liberal Party, and myself.
I note initially that the position taken by the Official Opposition, by the Liberal Party, as expressed by its justice critic, was unfortunately to suggest to Canadians that they should have nothing whatsoever to do with this process. Indeed, he went so far as to send a letter to all of the groups who appeared before the constitution committee urging them

March 26, 1986
Motions
to boycott this committee and the process. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, that letter was ignored, and the committee did its work. The committee worked incredibly hard. We had hearings across this land for many months. We heard from over 250 organizations and individuals. We received well in excess of 500 written submissions.
Incredibly, and I say incredibly, the committee was able to arrive at a unanimous report after vigorous debate and discussion, a report which reflected our views of the importance and the need for fundamental changes arising from the coming into force of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We recommended sweeping and major changes to federal laws and policies in a whole range of areas touching many aspects of Canadians' lives. In all, in our report, we made some 85 recommendations. As I say, many of these recommendations would fundamentally alter the social and economic fabric of the nation. It would, in effect, put flesh on the bones, the skeleton of Section 15. Were these recommendations to be implemented, it would ensure that Canadians would not be forced into the courts of the land to fight for their fundamental rights and freedoms.
That landmark report was tabled by our committee in October last year. We awaited with great interest the response of the Government to these recommendations. That response was finally tabled by the Government this month on March 4, and it is interesting to note the title of the Government's response. Our committee report was entitled "Equality for All" and that was our objective. The response of the Government was entitled "Toward Equality". I suggest that that accurately reflects the failure of the Government to move with respect to a number of very key and critical recommendations of the sub-committee on equality rights.
There is no question that in a number of significant social areas in particular the Government has in its report, in its response to our committee, made significant advances on paper. The words are there. The Government is saying very clearly that it is prepared to commit itself to important changes in response to the unanimous recommendations of this report. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood (Ms. McDonald) is going to speak on a number of areas of concern as well as colleagues from all sides of the House, I hope, in support of this motion of concurrence, and 1 would hope we could have a unanimous vote of support for this important report which, after all, was concurred in unanimously by members of the committee.
I intend in the few minutes remaining to me to highlight some of the areas that we as new Democrats are most concerned about in the Government's response. In many ways the Government response, in underlining time and time again the need for further action and study, falls far short of what we as a committee have recommended.
The committee recommended, for example, major changes in the area of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We recommended concrete, specific amendments. What is the response
of the Government? It says it will give careful consideration to the fundamental question as to whether the Canadian Human Rights Act should be amended in the direction recommended by our committee.
The Government talks about study, consideration and further consultation. That was to have been the purpose of our committee. We do not need further study, further consultation and further consideration. What we need in the area of equality is action. That was precisely what the Equality Rights Committee recommended.
Let us look at some of the groups most affected by the recommendations of the Equality Rights Committee. A majority of citizens in this country, 52 per cent, are women. Yet in many respects women are still second-class citizens in the social and in the economic sphere in particular. What were the recommendations of our committee, and how did the Government fall short? With respect to important changes in the area of unemployment insurance, the Government has said: "More study. Wait until the Forget Commission has released its reports before our recommendations in the area of maternity and parental benefits are going to be adopted."
In the area of pensions, the Government has rejected a number of our key recommendations for improving pensions. After all, Members of this House know well that it is elderly women who are the poorest in our society. It is elderly women who must have improved pensions. The Government has refused to accept a number of our key recommendations in this area.
Let us look at one of those recommendations. We said that it was wrong and discriminatory for the Government to extend a spouse's allowance to the poor between the ages of 60 and 65 and that that extension, which did not apply to single poor or to the divorced poor between the ages of 60 and 65, was in breach of the law of the land, that it violated the Constitution in Section 15.
The Government says: "Yes, we acknowledge that there are a significant number of poor men and women", and I say, Mr. Speaker, particularly poor women between the ages of 60 and 65, "but we cannot afford equality for these poor people between the ages of 60 and 65".
You cannot put a price tag on equality, Mr. Speaker. It is fundamentally wrong for the Government to say: "Yes, we acknowledge that the Charter calls for equality in this area but we are not prepared to accept it because it will cost us too much". Where are the priorities of the Government when it is prepared to extend a half a million dollar capital gains tax exemption to the wealthy and at the same time says it cannot afford basic economic equality for poor men and women in Canada between the ages of 60 and 65?
The Government has failed to act on our recommendations with respect to amending sex based mortality tables and to replace them with unisex mortality tables. The Government has failed to act with respect to our strong recommendation that women to give full access to all trades and occupations in the Canadian Armed Forces, that women be judged as
March 26, 1986

individuals and not be lumped together as a group, discriminated against and denied access to some 40 trades and occupations, which they are quite capable of doing. We studied this question as a committee. We heard representations of the Armed Forces and others and we unanimously came to the conclusion that this denial of equality for Canadian women within the Armed Forces must end.
The Government again, on paper, has said "Yes, we are prepared to move. Yes, all trades and occupations will be opened" but when push comes to shove, there is no action. The Government says: "We are going to have a task force." Guess who will be on the task force? It will be the male generals who will decide whether or not women can operationally handle all trades and occupations. What we have is more study and more task forces.
In the area of part-time work, the Government says "Wait and see". We may do something but we are not sure yet exactly what we are going to do. We should explore more options". We have explored these options long enough. The systemic discrimination against women who are part-time workers must end. Seventy-two per cent of all part-time workers are women and they are discriminated against in the workplace.
On the question of employment equity, the Government has said Bill C-62 is good enough. This is the employment equity legislation before this House. In a really quite remarkable step, the Equality Rights Committee said: "No, you must go further. There must be effective enforcement mechanisms. There must be penalties. There must be an assurance of contract of compliance for companies doing business with Ottawa and major federal Government departments and agencies must be included. The Government says "Forget it. We are not prepared to move on this employment equity question," which is of such fundamental concern to women, to visible minorities, to the disabled and to native people in particular.
The Government rejected our proposals with respect to broadening the Human Rights Act to make equal pay for work of equal value a reality. There was no mention in its response to the issue of child care. The Government says it will study the question further. It will further examine the issue of maternity benefits for women in the Canadian Armed Forces, but has taken no action. There is no action with regard to political rights for spouses of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who live on bases as the committee recommended. There has been no action on many other important recommendations as well.
It is no wonder the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has said that it is extremely disappointed in the Government's failure to address the principle of equality betwen the sexes. As the Council says, women will not accept any further deferral of implementation of their hard-fought constitutional rights.
We made important recommendations in other areas as well, Mr. Speaker. In the area of marital or family status we
Motions
suggested that in Canada today we must recognize that a significant number of Canadians are involved in common-law relationships. The discrimination which currently exists against those involved in such relationships must come to an end. Those relationships should be recognized under all federal statutes.
With regard to the area of religious observance, we recommended a system of statutory holidays which would respect the religious diversity of the nation. The Government says there will be more study and more deliberation, but no action. There are approximately two million Canadians who are physically and mentally disabled. The Government says that it likes our recommendations, but needs more time for study and research. The disabled community in the country is insisting that the time has come for action, rather than for more study.
We were pleased with the Government's commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to deal with the principle of reasonable accommodation. There will be more study in the area of political rights for public servants. We were pleased with the Government's response in the area of mandatory retirement, and we emphasize that we are studying the possibility of retiring at an age of less than 65. That flexibility, with a reasonable pension, is our objective.
With regard to women in the Armed Forces, I mentioned the hurdle which has historically existed and the attitudes which have been such a barrier to women. An example is the comment of the Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) who said: "Physically it's a tough game. Do you see a woman changing a big tire? You have to have the physical strength".
Finally, in the area of sexual orientation, the Committee on Equality Rights made strong recommendations for specific changes. It recommended amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation. The Government has made no commitment. The committee recommended that the Armed Forces and the RCMP, two of the most homophobic employers in the country, should amend their policies to end discrimination against gays and lesbians. The order which continues that discrimination in the Armed Forces remains on the books today. It has not been amended, and another task force has been struck to study that important question. We recommended that the security clearance guidelines be changed, and the Government said there is no need. We called for a uniform age of consent and the Government said that it does not have to act on that at this point, but will study it further.
I want to pay tribute to the gay and lesbian community across the country which made very eloquent submissions in response to Private Member's Bill C-225, which was referred to committee. It talked in very real and personal terms about the implications of continued discrimination. I want to pay tribute to the equality rights group here in Ottawa which initiated a national campaign to urge the Government to act on our important recommendations.
Finally, I want to voice my concern with respect to the Government's refusal to move forward with legislative change. When I spoke on this issue three weeks ago one of the Tory

March 26, 1986
Motions
dinosaurs who is opposed to these recommendations yelled out: "Don't hold your breath''. He said that we should not hold our breath because we will not see the changes in reality. Mr. Speaker, 1 am calling upon the Government to make equality a reality for all Canadians. The Standing Committee on Human Rights will have the mandate to ensure that the recommendations of this report become a reality, and we will continue to press for full implementation of the long overdue recommendations.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure to share this experience with my colleague, the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and five members of the Conservative Party. Does the Member not have some sense of hope that as a result of this report we will move toward equality in any way?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, many of us were pleasantly surprised by a number of the more progressive suggestions made by the Government in a number of areas. The committee had hoped that the Government would move forward, and the commitment is on paper.
In response to the specific question, I am considerably concerned by the suggestion by a number of Conservative Members of Parliament, including the Hon. Member for Calgary East and the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), in the areas of the role of women in the Canadian Armed Forces and putting an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that while the words are there, these changes will not become reality.
As an example, on the issue of sexual orientation, the Member for Calgary East said that he, along with over 50 per cent of the Tory MPs, opposes the recommendations. The recommendations are not for special rights, but for ending discrimination. They are opposed to recommendations for helping to put an end to an atmosphere of intolerance, oppression and pain which can lead to violence, as we saw in the tragic death of the young teacher in Toronto. The Member for Calgary East said: "We are condoning a third sex, somebody who is not exactly normal. We are changing the moral fabric of the nation this way. We are sending out a dangerous message".
I regret to say that the Liberal Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), the critic of the Solicitor General for the Liberal Party, has said that he is opposed to the recommendations with respect to sexual orientation. He believes that the recommendations with respect to the RCMP should not be implemented. He said he would consider it an invasion of his personal privacy if he had to be searched by a homosexual Mountie. For heaven's sake, if that is the kind of attitude we have in the House we must ask ourselves how this particular Member would feel about women in the RCMP. Does he have an aversion to being searched by women? Would he keep women out of the RCMP as well?
In response to the question of my hon. friend from Mount Royal, I acknowledge that progress has been made. If nothing else, the squeals of outrage from the more reactionary forces within the Tory caucus gives some indication of that. Nevertheless, I await, as I am sure many other Members of the House and women and minorities across the country do, specific and concrete proposals for legislative change.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in this House on behalf of the Liberal Party to comment on the Government's response to the report, Equality for AIL I wish I could feel a great sense of joy, and I wish the name of the report had been "Equality for Real". Nonetheless, I believe that a small step toward equality has been achieved. I will, however, indicate the areas in which I feel disappointed.
Four years ago the Liberal Government and its provincial counterparts brought to Canada the guarantees which are so vital to life in a democratic society such as ours. They express, in legal terminology, the values which we hold dear, the values we proudly stand for on the world stage, the very values we wish to protect and pass down to our children and our children's children. Those are the kinds of values which are in this very wonderful constitution and the Charter. We entrenched, for the first time, in this constitutional document of rights, rights which are indispensable in a world in which oppression can much too easily overwhelm democracy and justice.
As the representative of the Liberal caucus on the parliamentary committee established to study the equality section of our Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms, I was part of that very special group of parliamentarians asked to propose ways and means to implement the intent of the law so that all Canadians would benefit fully from Section 15 of our Charter. This was to ensure that our laws and institutions, our judicial system, contain the appropriate safeguards to meet the constitutional requirements set out in Section 15 of the Charter. A difficult task for our committee? Monumentaly difficult when you consider the depth and extent of Section 15.
I want to take this opportunity to express to my confreres and our staff my respect and admiration for their commitment to the task. To all those groups who exercised their democratic rights and fulfilled their obligations to the sector of society whose interests they addressed we all owe a debt of gratitude. They brought many issues of discrimination to our attention for consideration. In a sense the true partnership, the linkage between the voluntary sector and Government initiative was concretely demonstrated, in the best interests of our society. I would like to quote the full extent of this section.

Section 15 reads as follows:
Every individual is equal before and under Ihe law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
At first blush, Mr. Speaker, this statement would seem so straightforward and so basic to any fair and charitable individual that, hopefully, its implementation should be nothing more than a mere formality. After all we live in a free and
March 26, 1986

civilized country where all Canadian men and women enjoy equal opportunities to succeed and share their national wealth. But the truth about such equal opportunities has been warped to a certain extent, if we are to believe the witnesses and the evidence we heard.
We also live in accordance with personal and institutional codes of behaviour which mirror the spirit of freedom, initiative and equality in which we all believe. Those are principles to which my Party fully subscribes and which have always been particularly dear to me.

Therefore the opportunity to participate in the process of bringing the Charter even closer to all Canadians was a great personal challenge. However, 1 would be less than honest if I did not tell you that there were moments during the consultation process when 1 wondered if there was any humanity at all in our behaviour towards individuals and groups in our society. The reality of those words "systemic discrimination" came home again and again, particularly from highly identifiable groups. I hope that even though I personally have a sense of disappointment with the resolutions the Government placed before us in its response, the report Toward Equality, we sensitized people to the fact that they are not being discriminated against individually but as a collective; that together we must find the means to resolve the problem. If we can do that, then we have accomplished something.
While we did encounter certain complex legal and jurisdictional questions which must be addressed, it was also frustrating to be studying issues which should have been resolved years ago. These issues have been shuffled from one committee or study group to another because they were political hot potatoes, economically costly, or did not fit the mould of society from a business perspective. The Government's response is a reflection of the fact that those considerations were more important than individual equality and the removal of discrimination.
Why are people in wheelchairs still prevented from entering certain buildings, visiting museums, art exhibits or theatres, or travelling on aircraft or by rail because of inadequate facilities? Why do we add insult to injury by telling these people that their lack of mobility makes them ineligible for certain jobs? Why do we continue to look at people based on their disability rather than on their ability? That is a key to our moving forward. Why are women still coming before committees like ours pleading for some semblance of equal treatment in the workplace? Why are their jobs and salaries in jeopardy when they choose to have a baby and wish to take maternity leave? Why is it so outrageous that a father would want to take time off as well to spend with his baby? Why does he have to pretend he is sick or that there has been some family tragedy which prevents him from coming to work? Why do our laws not reflect what we say? If they did, then maybe we would have a more humane approach to our problems. Why are energetic and enthusiastic people automatically stripped of their dignity at age 65 with no recourse? We must look at
Motions
individuals, not the collective. That was the thrust of our action. Why are certain jobs all right for women in the Armed Forces when others are restricted to men only? When are we going to get rid of that stereotype thinking which prevents us from looking at a situation as a whole and basing our decisions on individual capacity, and the role, function and task of a job clearly defined? Why are gay people still encountering discrimination in the workplace or when they are trying to find a place to buy or rent?
I was proud of the way our committee dealt with the mandate we were given. We took a broad and very generous view of Section 15 of the Charter. In our view the prohibition grounds of discrimination listed are simply illustrative and do not exhaust the forms of discrimination prescribed by the Charter. We are well aware that equality is an elusive concept. We gave very careful consideration as to why equality does not necessarily mean equal treatment. The focus is, rather, intended to achieve equality of results. The words of Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, which we selected to introduce our report, express in the most succinct way the reasons we anticipated formal Government initiatives to remove inequality through legislation, obviating the judicial approach where possible. It bears repeating as a constant reminder to all of us. If I had my druthers, and I just might, I would send a memo to every Member of this House to be tacked up on their desk and read once a day. He said:
A constitution ... is drafted with an eye to the future. Its function is to provide a continuing framework for the legitimate exercise of governmental power and, when joined by a . . . Charter of Rights, for the unremitting protection of individual rights and liberties ... (It is not to be read) "like a last will and testament lest it become one".
-while the courts are guardians of the constitution and of individuals' rights under it, it is the legislature's responsibility to enact legislation that embodies appropriate safeguards to comply with the constitution's requirements.
I suggest that if we really want to do our job as legislators, we will first write laws that can be understood without consulting a million lawyers on whether it is black, white or grey. As well, the laws enacted should be capable of being enforced. Do not make laws which are unenforceable. That is what this is all about.
Our report contained 85 recommendations. If enacted, these recommendations will put us at the leading edge of change in a proactive rather than a reactive way.
Our Parliament is the most effective vehicle for dealing with inequality and discrimination. It is my understanding that some of the recommendations have not been politically popular in the Tory caucus and there are a few members in my caucus who do not find them politically popular or satisfactory from a personal viewpoint. That is not acceptable. It is not one's visceral reaction that dictates the right to equal treatment and equal opportunity in our society. I know that these Members have been working against certain recommendations and have suggested sending them back for further study. This causes me great pain and sorrow. Section 15 is the law of the land and we should no longer think in terms of what is politically popular.

March 26, 1986
Motions
Let our principles, rather than the latest Decima polls, be our guide.
In the time I have remaining let me summarize my Party's stand on the recommendations of the Equality for All report. With respect to employment equity, we believe that one of the basic building blocks for someone to be well integrated into society is equal opportunity in the employment market. Therefore, we believe that as a constitutionally enshrined right, no person should be denied employment opportunity or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability. The only limits deemed acceptable to guaranteeing rights and freedoms under our Charter are those enunciated in Section 1 which calls for such acts to be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. In other words, rather than a magic age limit or an opinion, there must be cause and concrete judgment before making a determination that someone cannot have a job.
Bill C-62, the proposed Employment Equity Bill, does not meet the intended goal of equal opportunity for the handicapped, visible minorities, native people or women. A law that has no mandatory enforcement mechanism is a law with no teeth. It is a sham, and 1 ashamed that any member of the Government would put a signature to a Bill that has no way of being effective. It is totally inadequate for the Minister to provide a ministerial citation for excellence rather than mandatory operation and enforcement mechanisms. It is a law with no effective force. It has no sanctions, outside of moral suasion. We have had many years of experience with moral suasion, with very little results. It is time to take steps that will bring about the needed results.
It is regretable that the amendments so carefully considered and proposed by my colleagues fell on the deaf ears of Tory legislators. Time permitting, I will read the very succinct recommendations Nos. 62 and 63 which we put forward at page 51. I suggest that Government Members read them again.
The ground of reasonable accommodation should be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act. That is, such special provisions as would not cause undue hardship to the employer but is in response to the needs peculiar to classes of employees who are protected from discrimination by the terms of the Act. If I have time I would like to talk about Mr. Binder whose case was determined in the court. His brother has suffered from discrimination because of the same lack of application of the rule of reasonable accommodation and the right to work under our laws. The application of that rule was a specific request from the Chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which has been ignored in this report.
Our Party endorses the report's recommendations with respect to the participation of women in all trades and occupations in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is my Party's belief that sexual discrimination within the Armed Forces is intolerable. During our committee hearings we were told by the opponents of female participation that there was the potential for adverse social and sexual relationships. Such arguments are specious and highly reminiscent of the reasons used formerly to justify keeping women out of the paid workforce. They were not valid then and they are less valid now.
I find it astonishing that arguments for the limitation on the role of women in combat-ready roles are based on such notions that combat work is man's work. That is just the pattern of thinking that our Charter was intended to displace, if cultural acceptance is the litmus test for enforcement of a right, no one has any rights except at the discretion of the majority. Women are in combat-ready roles in other countries and have proven that they can do the job. To deny women who wish to serve their country the right to combat-ready roles is to deny them the right to valuable employment opportunities, training, education and promotion within the Canadian Armed Forces. Furthermore, it denies them their full rights as equal citizens of this land. My Party believes that such treatment is unjustifiable. As a mother, I am not anxious to have my children, sons or daughters, choose the Armed Forces for their career but if that is what they want, that is their right.
With respect to mandatory retirement, I remind the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) that the use of age as a factor of discrimination is now illegal. The Minister should fix his laws. The argument of normal age of retirement is no longer valid as a rule of thumb defence for everyone. This Act respects the ability of individuals to meet the requirements of the task as the yardstick of measure, not an arbitrary age. We must not substitute a retirement policy for a personnel policy. Rights are not an administrative convenience. Decisions must be made on bona fide occupational requirements, not on industry standards. The Canadian Human Rights Act should be so amended without delay.
We on this side of the House are ready to fight for the right of older people to contribute to our society and country for as long as they are able. Certainly, there will be some jobs in which retirement age is justifiable, as has been covered in Section 1. When a person is dismissed from his or her job simply because he or she has reached the age of 65, that person has suffered profound discrimination. It is a senseless judgment of a person's worth that is based on age alone. Such inequality no longer has a place in Canada's work ethic.
Although the Government has indicated that mandatory retirement will be banned, I am not convinced that the federal Government has given it thorough consideration. There were no proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which currently denies benefits to workers over the age 65.
The present rules restricting maternal benefits to the female parent are not adequate. Fathers also have an interest in being involved in the care of their newborn children, yet the present law does not give them the same opportunity afforded mothers to provide that care, as maternity benefits are available only to women. We gave a very good analysis in our report, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended to ensure that the portion of maternity leave relating to social adjustment or infant care be available to either parent. 1 am pleased to say that my Party endorses this recommendation, unlike the Government that says this area requires further study.
March 26, 1986

Let me deal with the area of child care. The last thing the Government needed at this time of fiscal restraint and concern over the deficit was to spend hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million dollars on another task force. The need for a variety of child care services has already been demonstrated and we simply need to find a mechanism to put it into place. This does not involve simple economics but a creative approach to how we will look after our youth who are the future of this country. I hope the Government will realize that our youth are the future of this country, and becomes aware of what it is doing to our youth, even up to the age of 25 and 30.
If the Government is going to spend this amount of money on a task force which will result in this protracted delay, I am tempted to encourage mothers to take Mila Mulroney's advice and begin bringing their children to the office.
Sexual orientation must be specifically added to the list of prohibitive grounds for discrimination in employment, housing and accommodation, contracts and services. People whose sexual orientation is gay or lesbian ought not to be excluded from the protection afforded all other citizens, either through the neglect or failure of Government to develop the legislation that would provide that protection. To leave one group in society without such protection and open to discrimination is a dangerous precedent. In a democracy it is equally dangerous to leave the decision about the inclusion or exclusion of any particular group from human rights safeguards to the will of the many at any moment in history.
Motions
will have advanced to the point at which many deficiencies will have been redressed and we stand quietly proud as a role model in our world global village.


Mr. Speaker:: We will have a question and answer period in one moment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Mr. Speaker, I may say I am somewhat astonished at the nature of the motion before the House today. Although I share the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for achieving concrete and effective recognition of equality rights, I still believe that it is a denial of the facts to maintain that the Government's response to the report of the Sub-Committee on Equality Rights does not constitute a clear and unequivocal step in the right direction.\nConsidering the controversial nature of the issues on which the Government had to take a position, it is to be congratulated on its progressive and balanced response to the concerns expressed by a large number of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, the Government has made a clear commitment to abolish the principle of a mandatory retirement age within the Public Service. The Government's commitment in this regard cannot be called ambiguous. The President of Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has promised to ask the Treasury Board forthwith to revoke the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Regulations which prescribe mandatory retirement at the age of 65. Concrete steps have already been taken in this respect.\nThe Government's commitment regarding mandatory retirement is not limited to its own institutions. Indeed, it has recognized the need for extending the principle of voluntary access to retirement to the private sector businesses that come under its jurisdiction. Thus, Mr. Speaker, we have made a commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act so that when an employee feels he has been discriminated against because of his age, the employer can no longer use the argument that he has to retire because he has reached the normal retirement age.\nHowever, while being firmly convinced of the legitimacy of this reform, the Government must be alert to the impact it will have on labour relations in the private sector. Mr. Speaker that is why the Government has a duty to consult with employers and labour organizations to determine the most effective way of implementing a flexible retirement policy.\nMoreover, the Government must ensure that the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to mandatory retirement are coherent and consistent with the in-depth review of this legislation by the Government which is now under way. The purpose of this process is certainly not to delay official recognition of the principle of voluntary retirement.\nMotions\nIf we could make instantaneous and coherent changes in the present system with a wave of a magic wand, so that the system would reflect the Government's commitment with respect to mandatory retirement, the desired reforms would already be in place. However, since we do not have that magic wand, we have to come to grips with reality.\nAfter this process we will bring before Parliament a Bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and various other Acts as a consequence thereof.\nThe Sub-Committee pointed out that about thirty Acts or regulations set a maximum age varying from 65 to 75 for persons holding positions in the Public Service. It may also be necessary, Mr. Speaker, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, to allow premiums and benefits under the Act to be paid beyond the age of 65.\nWe hope to be able to introduce around the end of the year the various amendments which we would like to make to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Government will in this way recognize that flexible or gradual retirement is tomorrow's answer. The Government recognizes that most senior citizens can no longer increase their purchasing power in the same way as active workers. Generally, the welfare of a senior citizen depends entirely on his former earnings and public assistance, and his income is constantly being eroded by inflation.\nA worker in good health is suddenly and traumatically forced to become idle by compulsory retirement. This practice is rather dehumanizing since it does not take into account the health of the worker, his desire to continue to work or even his economic needs. Many retirees therefore feel useless and have serious economic problems.\nAccording to the American Medical Association, compulsory retirement can even lead to a deterioration of health if not to premature death. Finally, from the aspect of our national economy, we shall be able to stop wasting the talents of a manpower with a great wealth of experience.\nAbolition of compulsory retirement is also likely to favour women, young people and visible minorities.\nIndeed, Mr. Speaker, workers seem to have a tendency to retire as soon as their financial resources allow them to do so. The proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan this year should therefore have an impact in this regard. It is proposed that contributors to the plan will be able to receive reduced benefits as soon as they reach the age of 60 or to continue to accumulate retirement credits until the age of 70. In fact, the public service pension plans already allow workers to retire at 50 with a reduced pension.\nThe Government is also trying to come to an agreement with the provinces to provide a pension for homemakers. This is another action which could have a major impact. If a couple can be certain of receiving two pensions under the Canada", "March 26, 1986\nMotions\nPension Plan instead of only one, this couple will have greater financial security and tend to retire earlier.\nAbolition of compulsory retirement will be of undeniable benefit for women and all other workers whose career has been interrupted or who joined the labour market later in life. If they so wish, those people will have an opportunity to work longer in order to accumulate enough retirement credits to have a decent pension.\nOn the other hand, doing away with compulsory retirement may help reduce poverty among senior women whose remuneration is not enough for them to be entitled to adequate benefits from a private retirement plan. We have the example of the woman who has chosen to stay at home and raise her children and who is widowed at age 50. Because of inadequate income from her husband's estate, she has to return to the labour force. If she is forced to retire at age 65, she will not have enough time to contribute towards an adequate pension that will cover her needs. Our intent is not to force her to work, Mr. Speaker, but as long as pensions are not provided for women who have chosen to raise a family, that choice should be made available to them.\nMoreoever, available data show, Mr. Speaker, that doing away with compulsory retirement should not result in a loss of jobs for younger employees.\nSince 1981, when the policy in respect of work continuation over age 65 was extended, deputy Ministers were instructed to grant extension applications. The number of employees on extended service has increased, but not as much as might have been expected. For instance, in 1981-82, there were 186 jobs extended beyond age 65. In 1984-85, the number was 567. However, if we compare that figure with the total number of pensioned retirements at age 65 or before, 7,032 in 1984-85, the percentage of job extensions at 8.6 per cent only is not that significant.\nStatistics for year 1984-85 also show that the majority of Public Service retirements occur at age 65, namely 1,022, and at age 64 and 65, 1,256 and 1,292 respectively, which apparently indicates that public servants want to retire at an age where they can get full their pension together with social security benefits. You will also note, Mr. Speaker, that the average retirement age in the Public Service in 1984-85 was 61.99 years, a decline relative to year 1983-84 when the age was 62.22 years. However, the average retirement age over the past six years has been 61.85 years. This also shows clearly that the majority of public servants want to retire at an earlier age. Besides compulsory retirement, the Government has also made a clear commitment with respect to recommendations dealing with immigration matters. Thus, concerning the recommendation on permanent residents and assisted relatives, I remind the Hon. Member that the immigration regulations have been amended so that a person who has been a permanent resident in Canada for three years can offer his or her support thus providing to the assisted relative the same advantages as provided by the support given by a Canadian citizen. This amendment which was passed on October 31, 1985, was implemented on January 1, 1986.\nSome would perhaps take the Government to task for having turned down an immigration regulation allowing the entry into Canada of common law couples as being legally married. It shows that the Government did not try to evade the issue when for basic considerations, the implementation of some recommendations did not seem proper. Then in the case of a common law couple, the Government, while acknowledging that such recognition would effectively remove any obstacle to their being admitted, has nevertheless recognized the serious hazard in granting entry to applicants who might falsely state that they are cohabiting to gain admission into this country.\nMr. Speaker, as indicated by the Government, in its response to recommendation 35, it is extremely difficult to check abroad whether two persons are actually cohabiting.\nLikewise, the Government did not hesitate to state openly its position concerning the recommendation dealing with Public Service competitions. The Government has clearly indicated that it felt that the preference now granted to Canadian citizens is a reasonable and justified restriction under the Charter and the International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights.\nThe main purpose of this step is to recognize that all of us, you and I and every other Canadian, cherish and appreciate our citizenship which involves some duties such as the promotion of welfare within the community. It also includes a number of rights, including the right to vote, Mr. Speaker. And one of the legitimate benefits of Canadian citizenship must be the right of priority access to jobs within the federal Civil Service. It is only reasonable that we should thus recognize the value and particular importance of Canadian citizenship.\nIf permanent residents wish to acquire the same rights and duties, they have the possibility to do so by applying for Canadian citizenship. After all, we only ask them to wait three years before they can say they are Canadians and proud of it. Any Canadian citizen has the right to claim certain benefits resulting from Canadian citizenship due to the status which Canadian citizenship confers to citizens. Moreover, Canada is not the only country which feels that its Civil Service should be made up entirely of its own citizens. As a matter of fact, countries such as the United States, France, Great Britain and Australia go even further than Canada, making citizenship a sine qua non condition for joining their Civil Services and not merely a criteria for preference as in this country. I should emphasize that, through an international agreement, whoever serves in the foreign service or diplomatic corps of a country must be a citizen of that country.\n\nMarch 26, 1986", 'Also, Mr. Speaker, the government has made specific commitments concerning mental retardation. Recognizing that the mentally handicapped should have the right to cast their votes at federal elections, the government is considering how it could grant them this right without their being taken advantage of or jeopardizing the integrity of the electoral system. Early in 1986, the government will introduce amendments to the Criminal Code to remove any possibility of handicapped people not being entitled to equal protection and benefits before the law.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House, Ottawa,
March 26, 1986
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V. J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 26th day of March, 1986, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General

Homosexual people, like everyone else, deserve a fair chance, not a special chance. I know that this is a difficult thing to understand but it is something we must remember.
With respect to religious holidays, we have not gone far enough in our efforts to amend laws which result in religious minorities being discriminated against. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) says he will try to "reasonably accommodate" people whose days of religious observance do not fall on Sundays or other statutory holidays, possibly by allowing them to take alternate holidays. The Government must not stop short of adopting the Justice Committee's recommendation that it enshrine this principle in amendments to the Canada Labour Code.
We heard moving testimony about the existing inequalities which persist in our society. They serve as a clear reminder to all Canadians that the protection of equality rights cannot be taken for granted. Constant vigilance and monitoring by all concerned citizens is necessary. Let us do the right thing now and make the needed changes. This is a progressive report, let us not be faced with a regressive answer.
My Party has endorsed the report and I hope we will see forward movement and an application of Section 15. Let us ensure that individual minority rights are not the subject of majoritarian views. All of us together must be prepared to fight for our Charter of Rights. In clear human terms we wish to make Canada a real bastion of equality, humanity and decency for all Canadians. With these Charter revisions, we



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-101, An Act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1986; Bill C-102, An Act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1987. [English]
Bill C-85, an Act to amend the Petroleum Incentives Program Act (without amendment), and Bill C-100, an Act to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the Pension Act, the Veterans' Land Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, without amendment.


EQUALITY RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Robinson that the first report of the Subcommittee on Equal-
[Stage Direction]
March 26, 1986
Motions
ity Rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Friday, October 25, 1985, be concurred in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone)?


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks of the Hon. Member both interesting and ironic, particularly her remarks with respect to the fact that her Party endorses wholeheartedly all of the recommendations in the Equality for All report.
The Party of which the Hon. Member is a member formed the Government of this land for some 20 years after this House passed the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was introduced in this House by the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, a former Prime Minister of this country. After that introduction, the Hon. Member's Party formed the Government for some 20 virtually consecutive years.
If the Hon. Member's Party so emphatically endorses all of these recommendations, why were they not implemented during those 20 years?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to answer my hon. colleague and perhaps refresh his memory. First, the Constitution is a brand new Constitution.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. We brought back the Constitution and put into that Constitution a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In that Charter, which will have a very profound effect on our society, was Section 15. 1 do not wish to give the Hon. Member a history lesson but I will take him all the way back to see who brought in the progressive undertakings with respect to women. It was certainly not his Party. The Hon. Member laughed about the Constitution I would like to remind him that we had to fight with the Conservatives about the flag, the Constitution, to maintain our Canadian independence, and we are still fighting the Government to have Canadian independence with respect to free trade.
With respect to equality, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the report which was undertaken by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the application and the foundation of the Advisory Council, moved to undertake the first study of the situation of the handicapped, moved to take a look at equality for visible minorities, and first talked about Indian nationhood. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, were those the moves of the Conservative Party? They were not. They might have been signed in by the Conservative Party, but it inherited what it could not avoid.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member about women in combat roles. I wonder if she could tell us whether the purposes and needs of the Government, and of Hon. Members in this Chamber, would not be better served if we spent less time discussing the roles of women in combat, how they can get into
combat, and perhaps more time discussing ways to keep men out of combat?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I agree 100 per cent with the Hon. Member's observations. If I had my druthers, we would not have combat. Second, as a mother of only sons, 1 would be most anxious not to have them anywhere near the combat field. More important, the question really is, should we not be concerned at all about women's rights because essentially men have had those rights? What women want is equal opportunity and equal access. Those people who wish to serve their country in that ways, God bless them, we need them, both the men and the women.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and perhaps ask a question of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). The report may cover it, 1 honestly cannot recall where it is covered, but several months ago I decided that we would try to hire a disabled person in our constituency office. I telephoned the Employment and Immigration office on Yonge Street. I was very pleased to find that it had a separate section and a supervisor who helped in placing disabled people in jobs within North York and the surrounding area.
I outlined my specifications. We needed someone who was able to type and do some telephone work. Within two weeks a young women in her mid-twenties was referred to us. Her name is Eva Kron. A bus picks her up at her apartment because she is on crutches and she works two full days a week mailing citizenship certificates, when I receive the lists from Ottawa, with a covering letter and doing other work.
I know there is a separate section in the report on access to the physically disabled, but I wonder if the committee in its deliberations dealt with this subject? I used this young woman as an example. I wonder whether the Government should be doing more in this area to help the disabled in terms of finding full-time and part-time jobs? As I say, I may have overlooked the section in the report. Would the Hon. Member for Mount Royal care to comment on that? I have had good experience myself.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just given living testimony in support of that which we heard across the land. That is to say: Look at our abilities and not at our disabilities. Those employers, such as the Hon. Member, who are willing to look at people for what they can bring to the task and for their competence and skill are doubly blessed because they obtain a very good and sound employee. The Obstacles report, and the two follow-up reports, indicate that many people are not using the full talents of the handicapped in our society because they do not know any better. Some of it has to do with education. Some of it has to do with the fact that they have no access. That has to do with the dollars which we need to reorganize our buildings.
The area about which the Hon. Member is concerned is dealt with in Recommendations No. 41 through 57. 1 would
March 26, 1986

also suggest that the Hon. Member speak to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights who, I understand, now chairs the Standing Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. He is very well informed in this area. I know he is doing everything he can to ensure that the recommendations of the committee are put into action so that these people will be better served in our society.


Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I may say I am somewhat astonished at the nature of the motion before the House today. Although I share the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for achieving concrete and effective recognition of equality rights, I still believe that it is a denial of the facts to maintain that the Government's response to the report of the Sub-Committee on Equality Rights does not constitute a clear and unequivocal step in the right direction.
Considering the controversial nature of the issues on which the Government had to take a position, it is to be congratulated on its progressive and balanced response to the concerns expressed by a large number of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, the Government has made a clear commitment to abolish the principle of a mandatory retirement age within the Public Service. The Government's commitment in this regard cannot be called ambiguous. The President of Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has promised to ask the Treasury Board forthwith to revoke the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Regulations which prescribe mandatory retirement at the age of 65. Concrete steps have already been taken in this respect.
The Government's commitment regarding mandatory retirement is not limited to its own institutions. Indeed, it has recognized the need for extending the principle of voluntary access to retirement to the private sector businesses that come under its jurisdiction. Thus, Mr. Speaker, we have made a commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act so that when an employee feels he has been discriminated against because of his age, the employer can no longer use the argument that he has to retire because he has reached the normal retirement age.
However, while being firmly convinced of the legitimacy of this reform, the Government must be alert to the impact it will have on labour relations in the private sector. Mr. Speaker that is why the Government has a duty to consult with employers and labour organizations to determine the most effective way of implementing a flexible retirement policy.
Moreover, the Government must ensure that the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to mandatory retirement are coherent and consistent with the in-depth review of this legislation by the Government which is now under way. The purpose of this process is certainly not to delay official recognition of the principle of voluntary retirement.
Motions
If we could make instantaneous and coherent changes in the present system with a wave of a magic wand, so that the system would reflect the Government's commitment with respect to mandatory retirement, the desired reforms would already be in place. However, since we do not have that magic wand, we have to come to grips with reality.
After this process we will bring before Parliament a Bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and various other Acts as a consequence thereof.
The Sub-Committee pointed out that about thirty Acts or regulations set a maximum age varying from 65 to 75 for persons holding positions in the Public Service. It may also be necessary, Mr. Speaker, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, to allow premiums and benefits under the Act to be paid beyond the age of 65.
We hope to be able to introduce around the end of the year the various amendments which we would like to make to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Government will in this way recognize that flexible or gradual retirement is tomorrow's answer. The Government recognizes that most senior citizens can no longer increase their purchasing power in the same way as active workers. Generally, the welfare of a senior citizen depends entirely on his former earnings and public assistance, and his income is constantly being eroded by inflation.
A worker in good health is suddenly and traumatically forced to become idle by compulsory retirement. This practice is rather dehumanizing since it does not take into account the health of the worker, his desire to continue to work or even his economic needs. Many retirees therefore feel useless and have serious economic problems.
According to the American Medical Association, compulsory retirement can even lead to a deterioration of health if not to premature death. Finally, from the aspect of our national economy, we shall be able to stop wasting the talents of a manpower with a great wealth of experience.
Abolition of compulsory retirement is also likely to favour women, young people and visible minorities.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, workers seem to have a tendency to retire as soon as their financial resources allow them to do so. The proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan this year should therefore have an impact in this regard. It is proposed that contributors to the plan will be able to receive reduced benefits as soon as they reach the age of 60 or to continue to accumulate retirement credits until the age of 70. In fact, the public service pension plans already allow workers to retire at 50 with a reduced pension.
The Government is also trying to come to an agreement with the provinces to provide a pension for homemakers. This is another action which could have a major impact. If a couple can be certain of receiving two pensions under the Canada

March 26, 1986
Motions
Pension Plan instead of only one, this couple will have greater financial security and tend to retire earlier.
Abolition of compulsory retirement will be of undeniable benefit for women and all other workers whose career has been interrupted or who joined the labour market later in life. If they so wish, those people will have an opportunity to work longer in order to accumulate enough retirement credits to have a decent pension.
On the other hand, doing away with compulsory retirement may help reduce poverty among senior women whose remuneration is not enough for them to be entitled to adequate benefits from a private retirement plan. We have the example of the woman who has chosen to stay at home and raise her children and who is widowed at age 50. Because of inadequate income from her husband's estate, she has to return to the labour force. If she is forced to retire at age 65, she will not have enough time to contribute towards an adequate pension that will cover her needs. Our intent is not to force her to work, Mr. Speaker, but as long as pensions are not provided for women who have chosen to raise a family, that choice should be made available to them.
Moreoever, available data show, Mr. Speaker, that doing away with compulsory retirement should not result in a loss of jobs for younger employees.
Since 1981, when the policy in respect of work continuation over age 65 was extended, deputy Ministers were instructed to grant extension applications. The number of employees on extended service has increased, but not as much as might have been expected. For instance, in 1981-82, there were 186 jobs extended beyond age 65. In 1984-85, the number was 567. However, if we compare that figure with the total number of pensioned retirements at age 65 or before, 7,032 in 1984-85, the percentage of job extensions at 8.6 per cent only is not that significant.
Statistics for year 1984-85 also show that the majority of Public Service retirements occur at age 65, namely 1,022, and at age 64 and 65, 1,256 and 1,292 respectively, which apparently indicates that public servants want to retire at an age where they can get full their pension together with social security benefits. You will also note, Mr. Speaker, that the average retirement age in the Public Service in 1984-85 was 61.99 years, a decline relative to year 1983-84 when the age was 62.22 years. However, the average retirement age over the past six years has been 61.85 years. This also shows clearly that the majority of public servants want to retire at an earlier age. Besides compulsory retirement, the Government has also made a clear commitment with respect to recommendations dealing with immigration matters. Thus, concerning the recommendation on permanent residents and assisted relatives, I remind the Hon. Member that the immigration regulations have been amended so that a person who has been a permanent resident in Canada for three years can offer his or her support thus providing to the assisted relative the same advantages as provided by the support given by a Canadian citizen. This amendment which was passed on October 31, 1985, was implemented on January 1, 1986.
Some would perhaps take the Government to task for having turned down an immigration regulation allowing the entry into Canada of common law couples as being legally married. It shows that the Government did not try to evade the issue when for basic considerations, the implementation of some recommendations did not seem proper. Then in the case of a common law couple, the Government, while acknowledging that such recognition would effectively remove any obstacle to their being admitted, has nevertheless recognized the serious hazard in granting entry to applicants who might falsely state that they are cohabiting to gain admission into this country.
Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Government, in its response to recommendation 35, it is extremely difficult to check abroad whether two persons are actually cohabiting.
Likewise, the Government did not hesitate to state openly its position concerning the recommendation dealing with Public Service competitions. The Government has clearly indicated that it felt that the preference now granted to Canadian citizens is a reasonable and justified restriction under the Charter and the International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights.
The main purpose of this step is to recognize that all of us, you and I and every other Canadian, cherish and appreciate our citizenship which involves some duties such as the promotion of welfare within the community. It also includes a number of rights, including the right to vote, Mr. Speaker. And one of the legitimate benefits of Canadian citizenship must be the right of priority access to jobs within the federal Civil Service. It is only reasonable that we should thus recognize the value and particular importance of Canadian citizenship.
If permanent residents wish to acquire the same rights and duties, they have the possibility to do so by applying for Canadian citizenship. After all, we only ask them to wait three years before they can say they are Canadians and proud of it. Any Canadian citizen has the right to claim certain benefits resulting from Canadian citizenship due to the status which Canadian citizenship confers to citizens. Moreover, Canada is not the only country which feels that its Civil Service should be made up entirely of its own citizens. As a matter of fact, countries such as the United States, France, Great Britain and Australia go even further than Canada, making citizenship a sine qua non condition for joining their Civil Services and not merely a criteria for preference as in this country. I should emphasize that, through an international agreement, whoever serves in the foreign service or diplomatic corps of a country must be a citizen of that country.

March 26, 1986

Also, Mr. Speaker, the government has made specific commitments concerning mental retardation. Recognizing that the mentally handicapped should have the right to cast their votes at federal elections, the government is considering how it could grant them this right without their being taken advantage of or jeopardizing the integrity of the electoral system. Early in 1986, the government will introduce amendments to the Criminal Code to remove any possibility of handicapped people not being entitled to equal protection and benefits before the law.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-76, An Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners-Chapter No. 10.
Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-70, An Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973-Chapter No. 12.
Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976-Chapter No. 13.
Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Petroleum Incentives Program Act-Chapter
No. 14.
Bill C-100, An Act to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the Pension Act, the Veterans' Land Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act-Chapter No. 15.
Bill C-255, An Act to impose reporting requirements with respect to public pension plans and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No.
16.
Bill C-101, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1986- Chapter No. 17.
Bill C-102, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1987- Chapter No. 18.
Motions