1986-04-17

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's reponse to the following nine petitions: Nos. 331-182, 331-188, 331-196, 331-252, 331-278, 331-286, 331-307, 331-308 and 331-309.



CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to bring to the attention of the House that today, as Hon. Members are no doubt aware, we are celebrating the anniversary of the proclamation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which took place on April 17, 1982, and also of the coming into effect a year ago of the provisions guaranteeing equality for all members of our society.

It is a day on which Hon. Members will come together to commemorate a commitment to equality, social justice, tolerance and fairness for all Canadians in keeping with basic standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, our Government has demonstrated its support for these important principles by taking steps to enforce the provisions of the Charter more vigourously. We took the initiative in assessing and amending current legislation and policies to ensure that they reflect a broad interpretation of the Charter. In doing so, we have tried to rise above the conventional political options and take a new and broader view.

At the same time we have been ever mindful of the fact that in order to make this a reality special measures are necessary for groups in our society, such as the disabled, women, visible minorities, natives, youth and elderly Canadians. For example.
last December new initiatives and increased funding was announced to improve the status of disabled persons.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the role played by Canadians in carrying out this difficult task, which consists in defining the mechanisms for bringing about equality and social justice in Canada. When we asked for suggestions and comments in connection with major policy initiatives, the response we received was not only a very valid one, it was also representative of a large part of Canadian society.

We are committed to the continuation of this process of consultation because we believe Canadians have the right to participate in the development of policy that fundamentally affects their lives.
There is no doubt that the charter is affecting all of our lives. It requires courts and Governments to be ever aware of the need to balance individual and societal rights in a fashion which facilitates society's interest with the least amount of restriction upon individual rights. The charter is giving individuals a new opportunity to seek redress when their rights are infringed upon. It also imposes on all an obligation to be tolerant of the rights of others.

Mr. Speaker, as we take further steps to promote equal opportunity, access to social benefits, respect for our official languages and other measures designed to give all Canadians a fair chance to succeed in our society, we will try to build a better society for all Canadians, a society founded on the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution.
I hope that all Hon. Members will continue to work towards achieving this collective goal.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his words on this important day, the fourth anniversary of the proclamation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also the first anniversary of the Charter being brought into force. We in Canada can be proud, in a world as we see it today, of the fact that we are a torch held aloft for freedom. Canada is a nation perceived throughout the world as a democracy, one that is tolerant, one that has signed the International Human Rights Covenants and given leadership in all aspects of human rights. We have also shown we are prepared to carry out those


Statements by Ministers
rights within our own homeland. We do not, as some countries do, merely talk. Our laws bring substance to the kind of society we wish to have, a society which respects people of all races, colours, religions, sex, and background. That is to our glory. We can be very proud and I want to join with all Members of this House in proclaiming this happy occasion.
We in the Liberal Party have some very special reasons to be proud of the role we have played over the years in this respect. Certainly everyone in my caucus is concerned about human rights. We can look back at some of the major events, not to mention the many minor events, which have occurred in the past in an effort to uphold human rights and equality. For example, the bringing into effect of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Court Challenges Program for official languages, and The Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself. Then, of course, there are the guidelines which have been in existence in Treasury Board and so on to try and make sure that people have equality in the Public Service. However, we have a ways to go.
Those in my caucus who are policy critics in various areas should really be given some opportunity to speak, but they cannot since only one person can respond. Our Party Whip expresses his concerns as official languages critic, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), is our employment critic, our labour and housing critic is also on our committee for social policy, our critic for communications, as well as working on the status of women and youth, has given great leadership in this area, and I would also like to bring forward the name of the critic for the status of women, the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin); all of those people deserve an opportunity to express their views so I am trying on their behalf to simply express the fact that they and the rest of our caucus are particularly interested in the struggle being carried on in our country to bring equality to all our people.
However, it is not enough to merely have guidelines and to speak in generalities. We must also have teeth in our law. We must have legislation and charters which will allow people to come before the courts with their concerns and grievances with some effect and justice.
Therefore, on behalf of this party I would like to say that we are not satisfied, despite the past, that we have done enough, particularly at this time when we are considering Bill C-62, to see that the handicapped, the native peoples and women of our country, the visible minorities, have legislation with teeth. On this occasion I call upon the Government to try to change its Bill so that it will recognize the urgent need to bring justice and freedom to our people.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party and join the other Members of this House in celebrating the anniversary of the proclamation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and especially the
first anniversary of the proclamation of Section 15 of the Charter.

Certainly all of us in this House are very proud of the proclamation of the Charter of Rights. I know the history of my colleagues in the NDP, and our predecessors in the CCF, who fought long, hard and valiantly to ensure entrenched protection of human rights in Canada's Constitution. One year ago today we proclaimed the final section of the Charter of Rights, Section 15. At the same time all of us expressed the hope that it would not be necessary to rely upon court challenges to enforce and protect fundamental rights such as the right to equality, the right to protection against discrimination on the grounds set out in Section 15, indeed on grounds which were not set out specifically but which were implicitly included, such as political belief and sexual orientation. One year later we must examine with care the record of the Government. 1 believe that in examining that record against the bench-mark of equality, Section 15, we must say that much work remains to be done in order to ensure that equality is a reality for all Canadians.
We celebrate today the accomplishments of those Canadians who fought so hard for a strong, entrenched Charter of Rights. The ad hoc women's committee who, in a tremendous display of energy and dedication from right across this land, came together and insisted on the inclusion of Section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The disabled, groups such as COPOH and others, who appeared day after day before the Constitution Committee and to this day have insisted upon real action towards equality.
I would note in that regard the concern expressed by groups representing the handicapped, in particular the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, with respect to the Government's response on human rights and fundamental freedoms. They suggest that if they were to give a grade to the Government's response, it would be a D minus. They criticize the paternalistic approach taken by the Government. I note in that regard that because of the absence of effective legislative response to equality provisions of the Charter, it will indeed be necessary to make major challenges in the courts of this land. In that regard I note with regret that the Government has still not accepted the recommendations of the Canadian Council on Social Development which over a month ago submitted recommendations for a panel for the Court Challenges Program. I take this opportunity to call upon the Secretary of State to approve that panel and let the CCSD get on with the business of funding these important court challenges.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there are other questions as well in this area, and I might mention, for instance, the pressing need for an amendment to our equality rights legislation.

-the Canadian Human Rights Commission on reasonable accommodation to reverse the effect of the Binder decision in the Supreme Court of Canada.
As we stand here today celebrating the proclamation of Section 15 and the Charter, once again 1 urge the Government to recognize that equality still remains to be achieved by many in Canada, including women, in the field of the economy and child care, visible minorities, native people, gays and lesbians, and the disabled. Equality must be a reality.

[ Translation]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both offical languages, the report of the official parliamentary delegation which visited Yugoslavia from March 30 to April 3, 1986.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: i have a petition that 1 would like to present on behalf of a number of people from British Columbia who pray that the Government will not renew the agreement between Canada and the United States with respect to a test range in Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. They want to bring to an end all weapons testing in the test range and convert the test range to peaceful purposes. I would like to file this petition on their behalf.



SMOKING CONTROL ACT


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-287, An Act to control smoking in public buildings and facilities.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief word of explanation to my colleagues in the House that this Bill, An Act to control smoking in public buildings and facilities, is neither moralistic nor puritanically punitive. It is rather health legislation, aimed at what is clearly the number one health problem in our country, which has to do with the use and abuse of tobacco and the concern we have that people who inhale smoke directly or indirectly are encountering a very major health hazard.
In summary, I believe this Bill blends a reasonable accommodation of the needs of all Parties concerned in a realistic and practical way to deal with this health hazard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that summaries of Private Member's Bills are intended to be as brief as possible.


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

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 536.


Mr. Redway: In (a) 1983 (b) 1984 (c) 1985 (d) 1986 to date, how many persons were deported from Canada and what was the cost for (i) transportation (ii) room and board and other related expenditures?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: (a)
*3,747, (b) *3,112, (c) **2,265, (d) **306 (year to date).
(i)	(a) $1,890,749, (b) $1,690,450, (c) $1,220,661, (d) $522,158.
(ii)	(a) $3,333,581, (b) $3,651,766, (c) $3,434,708, (d) $1,795,729.
* Enforcement Data System ** Employment & Immigration Information System


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Employment Equity



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 15, consideration of Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 31A (Mr. Allmand) (p. 12262); and on Motion No. 32A (Mr. Allmand) (p. 12262); and on the amendment (Mr. Cassidy) (p. 12263).
Mr. Speaker:: Before giving the floor to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, may I advise the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes beginning at one o'clock today.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the other day when we were debating this particular subamendment presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), we pointed out that Clause 4 and Clause 5 do not contain any punitive action. Clause 4 states that an employer shall, in consultation with such persons as have been designated by the employees, identify and eliminate each of the employer's employment practices not otherwise authorized by a law, and so on. Those are clear instructions. But what if the employer does not do those things? There is no follow up action whatsoever. In fact, it sends a clear message, and this has been our point all along. Since there are no repercussions when an employer does not do what the law tells him he must do, the Government is not really serious about bringing about equity.
It seems to me from all of the evidence after one year of implementation of the equality section of the Charter, we have not made much progress. Judge Abella gave a speech at the Canadian Club the other day and pointed out that we have not made much progress with respect to equality for women in the workplace. The Government brings forward Bill C-62 and places certain responsibilities upon employers with respect to equity in the workplace, yet the teeth are missing from the Bill. I recall saying about a different Bill that the Bill was nothing but a "roaring rabbit". It is the same with this Bill. The message which clearly goes to employers is: "We have only put this in here for show. It is only window dressing". There was a demostration of disabled persons on the Hill a few days ago. They clearly pointed out that they are not hoodwinked by the Bill. I believe one of their comments was: "We are not stupid. We know this Bill is not going to help resolve the problem". We cannot masquerade this shell of a Bill as a Bill which is taking a step towards providing some equality in the workplace. That is why my colleague put forward his amendment.
The only penalty in the Bill is in Clause 6. Clause 6 states:
On or before June 1, 1988 and on or before June 1 of each year thereafter, every employer shall file with the Minister a report in respect of the immediately preceding calendar year-
That is with respect to how many employees and so on. The penalty for not filing that report is $500,000. It seems to me that that is not where we have to put the penalty. The penalty ought to be where employers are required to do certain things to actually bring about equality in the workplace. Very conveniently, the Government excludes the federal civil service from the provisions of the Bill. So the Government itself is not even prepared to accept the Bill as applying to itself as an employer.
We would urge the Government to accept the subamendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. I believe it would show the good faith of the Government. It would show that it really wants to do something about equality in the workplace. It would certainly send a message to the employers that the Government is serious about creating equity in the workplace.
I would not mind if the Government wanted to take the $500,000 penalty out of Clause 6. I would not personally be opposed to that. What is the big fuss about not filing a report? Members of the Government have said that we should not burden business with a lot of form-filling. Here they are putting in Clause 6 which requires a lot of form-filling. That information can be found out. After all, the employer has to file an income tax return. It seems to me that this is not where we ought to place the emphasis. Clauses 4 and 5 are the clauses which require employers to do specific things with respect to equity. Those are the particular clauses which need the teeth and not Clause 6.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Hon. Member's comments with respect to enforcement provisions in the Bill. This Bill was introduced in the House for first reading in June of 1985. That is almost one year ago. There was debate on the Bill at that time. There was debate on the Bill at second reading stage. There was debate on the Bill in committee. Here we are now back with it in the House of Commons. So it has had a great deal of debate. I know that the Hon. Member has been a party to that debate. 1 know that he realizes in his heart of hearts that there is an enforcement mechanism in the Bill. In fact, in part of his remarks he referred to the fact that there is such a mechanism. Quite clearly, as Hon. Members are aware, the Bill provides that there must first be a plan.


John R. Rodriguez: Where is the enforcement?


Alan Redway: It provides that there must be a plan. Of course, that is set out in Clause 5. As the Hon. Member is also aware, the Bill provides that the Minister set out the requirements of the plan, which is set out in Clause 12. Under the provisions of that clause a Minister can issue regulations as to the guidelines for the plan.


John R. Rodriguez: What if they don't?


Alan Redway: The Hon. Member knows quite well that under Clause 6 of the Bill there are provisions for the plan and the report. The subject matter of the plan has to be filed with the Minister and filed in the House. Then, as the Hon. Member is quite well aware, if the plan is not filed, under Clause 7 of the Bill it is an offence and subject to a fine of some $50,000. First, there is a clause for requiring compliance with the plan, as the Hon. Member well knows. Second, one of the problems with this area previously when it was considered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been that it has no information in front of it to deal with violations of the requirement to treat people fairly in employment. By passing this Bill and by requiring that the plan be filed, then the evidence will be available in order to provide the Human Rights Commission and-


John R. Rodriguez: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, I know that the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) would not want to leave on the record information which could be misleading and which is misleading. In fact, there is no penalty for not filing the plan. There is no penalty?-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has the floor.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the Hon. Member's non-point of order, if 1 may. Clause 6 of the Bill requires the filing of the report and Clause 7 imposes a penalty for not filing it.
To go on, once the report is filed the information is then available, information which has been lacking in the past, for the Human Rights Commission to go ahead and deal with the matter. Quite clearly, the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members in the Opposition, know this. They know it in their heart of hearts. If they were coming clean with the House, as they always tell members of the Government to do, then they would be telling us that this is a great Bill. It is the first time that federal legislation of this sort has come forward. It certainly did not come forward when the previous Government was in office. It has an enforcement mechanism in it. It will do the job-the job it was intended to do.
Perhaps Hon. Members want to go one step further. Perhaps they would rather put people in jail. Perhaps they would rather not achieve employment equity. Perhaps they are not interested in making sure that all of the target groups, that is, women, native people, the disabled, and the visible minorities, have fair employment equity. Perhaps they are not interested in that. Certainly, I do not think members of the Party of the former Government were interested in that since they never designated visible minorities as a target group in the Public Service of Canada. In fact, it was not designated as a target group until our Government came to office in 1985.
Employment Equity


Ms. Copps:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We love to hear the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) speak. But, for Heaven's sake, when he speaks he should speak the truth. That is an absolute falsehood and he knows it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. It is not a point of order. If the Hon. Member wishes to participate in debate she will have an opportunity. The Hon. Member for York East.


Alan Redway: I certainly hope the Hon. Member will repeat that outside the House, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: With pleasure. Sue me and I will see you in court.


Alan Redway: I will be looking forward to it in the same way I looked forward to her tabling some documents in another debate which she said she would table and never did.
Just to conclude-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member understood the rules of the House he would recognize that ordinary Members do not have the right to table documents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I cannot believe that today, after the National Prayer Breakfast, and the fellowship which was expounded this morning, that on this beautiful Thursday we are now entering into this type of debate. I am surprised that we do not have compassion in the House. The Hon. Member for York East has the floor. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) wishes to participate in the debate then she will have that opportunity.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We have now had the benediction, let's have the speech!


Alan Redway: As I have indicated, there is an enforcement mechanism in the legislation. It is the intention to ensure that there is employment equity for those four target groups. However, it is not the intention of the Government to try to enforce this provision by putting people in jail. It is the intention of the Government to bring that enforcement about in an orderly and logical fashion. That is what this legislation is geared at.
There are many examples in the United States of legislation of this sort. I refer to legislation with respect to human rights and civil liberties, and legislation with respect to the desegregation of the school system in the United States where penalties such as jail terms have been imposed. Time and time again it has been proved that that does not work. In fact, I was present at a debate in a committee of the House of Representatives in Washington last fall when members of the committee were debating that very issue. At that time, the administration had been called on the carpet because the system which it had put in place did not work. The system being put in place by this Bill will work. If it does not work


Employment Equity
there will be other steps and other measures to come in the future.
The system which has been put in place by this Bill is the first step. It is the first step which has been taken by any Canadian Government. It will be an effective first step. Employers are already hurrying to ensure that they are in line by the time this piece of legislation passes into law.
At the same time, I think it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that its measures with the Public Service are hand-in-hand. Although the visible minorities were not made a target group in the Public Service until last year, it is time the Government pressed on with those measures to ensure employment equity in the Public Service. I am sure the Government will be doing just that.
With that, I would urge the House to pass this legislation as quickly as possible, bearing in mind that it was introduced in the House almost one year ago. It is about time we put it into law. It may be that the rules do not provide for the tabling of documents by private Members but, nonetheless, when a private Member says he is going to do it one would think he would do it.
Hon. Warren AHmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak to this subamendment but 1 am obliged to do so having heard the remarks of the Hon. Member who has just spoken. I might say that he has blatantly misled the House and the Canadian people on several points.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that is an unparliamentary remark and should be withdrawn.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. It may be that the use of the word "blatant" is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Just a moment. Does the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) have something to contribute to this?


David Orlikow: A point of order, yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I entertain a point of order, could I see the Table officers?
I did hear some awfully strong language coming from the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I do not think he really meant what he said. I would hope that he would withdraw at least that portion of the statement and carry on with debate.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what part of my remarks you disapprove of, but if it is the word "blatant" I will withdraw that word. However, it is my strong conviction that the Hon. Member has misled the House in the remarks he just made. I think that is parliamentary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will go along with that, but I feel that that is still very strong language according to statements that should be made in the House. I would hope that we could carry on with fellowship and compassion. Does the Hon. Member have another point of order?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, he repeated again a statement which I believe is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. If it is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it was not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will hear the Hon. Member.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, it is my submission that the phrase used by the Hon. Member that the House was misled by me is an unparliamentary statement and should be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member mind resuming his seat? The Hon. Member withdrew the word "blatant". It is not parliamentary to say "deliberately misleading the House" and I think that saying "blatantly misleading the House" comes awfully close to being unparliamentary. That is why I asked the Hon. Member to withdraw. He has done so and, therefore, I think he should carry on with debate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to substantiate some of the things I just said and describe how the public and the House could be misled by those remarks.
As I said earlier, Clause 2 of the Bill indicates that the purpose of this Bill is to achieve equality in the workplace. That is fine. That is great rhetoric of which we all approve. Clause 4 of the Bill says that an employer shall implement employment equity by identifying and eliminating barriers to employment for certain groups. That is fine too. It also says that an employer shall implement employment equity by instituting positive policies and practices to achieve a greater degree of representation for the target groups. That is fine too. Clause 5 says that employers have to prepare an action plan setting out goals and timetables. That is fine too, except for the fact that the action plans are kept in the vaults of the companies' head offices and are not communicated to anyone.
The Bill requires employers to do certain things but nowhere in the Bill is there a penalty attached if employers do not do those things. If employers do not live up to their obligations under Clause 4, there is no penalty for that. If employers do not live up to their obligations under Clause 5, there is no penalty for that. The only penalty in the Bill is described in Clause 7 which indicates that if an employer does not file the report required under Section 6, there will then be a penalty. Clause 6 simply requires the employer to file information regarding the composition of his workforce. As I pointed out the other day, he could keep on reporting year after year that the composition of his workforce has remained the same. He could have employed one woman in year one, one woman in year two and one woman in year three and he would not be subject to any penalty.


The subamendment to my amendment put forward by the NDP applies a penalty to Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill. The clause would then read that an employer who fails to comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6 is guilty of an offence. Right now the clause reads that the employer is guilty of an offence only if he does not comply with Section 6. For the Hon. Member to say that there are penalties in this Bill for not moving ahead on affirmative action and employment equity is false. If he can demonstrate to me that there is a penalty in this Bill for not living up to the obligations under Clauses 4 and 5, I will eat this Bill on the floor of the House of Commons. I am convinced that he cannot show me that. Not only that, not one of the target groups that appeared before the legislative committee saw that there was any penalty attached to those cluases in the Bill. Not one of them would agree with him. If he had attended the demonstration the other day and said what he said here in the House, he would have been tarred and feathered by those disabled people despite their disabilities.
There are no enforcement provisions in the Bill for Clauses 4 and 5 and that is why the amendment we are discussing right now is so important. In addition, the Hon. Member has not even read the amendments we put forward. No one is suggesting that employers be put into prison, as he was mentioning a few moments ago, for not living up to the obligations under this Bill. My further amendment which is now under discussion suggests that the fine should be increased from $50,000 to $500,000 but no one has put forward an amendment suggesting that we imprison employers if they do not live up to the obligations. That is a red herring that the Hon. Member has thrown on the floor before us.


Roland de Corneille: Smells like a tuna.


William Warren Allmand: The Hon. Member also said that this is the first time a Government has put a Bill before Parliament to deal with discrimination against visible minorities. These people who were elected in 1984 do not know what happened before 1984. The Hon. Member is not even familiar with Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, and in particular, without disrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. For him to suggest that this is the first time any Bill has been put before the House dealing with discrimination on the basis of racial minorities is completely false. The Hon. Member is not even familiar with the Canadian Human Rights Act which was passed by the House in 1977 and also deals with discrimination against visible minorities.
As a result of the amendment to the Charter which came into effect in 1982, Subsection 2, there was put into the Constitution a provision that allowed for legislation on affirmative action. Therefore, it was after that was put into the Constitution that we could then proceed with a Bill on affirmative action, and that is what this Bill was supposed to
Employment Equity
be but is not. It has no teeth. Let us not hear Conservative blarney about this being the first time anyone has done anything about discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic origin and the like. They are not familiar with what took place. They are reading the press releases put out by the Minister, but they are not telling the truth, and everyone knows it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has left the Chamber. Even though he is not here, I should like to say that I do not remember when I have heard so many misstatements of fact and so much ignorance displayed in a 10-minute speech as I heard in his speech. He urges us to pass the Bill quickly despite the fact that he knows what was indicated by every group representing the people who would supposedly be helped by the Bill-the handicapped, natives, women and visible minorities, and perhaps I have missed some. Every group representing these people has registered very strong objections to the Bill and has said that it will not do the job.
What does the Bill indicate? In Clause 4 it indicates that an employer shall, in consultation with such persons as have been designated by the employees, implement plans. If there is no union, I do not know with whom the employees would consult, but I will ignore that point for the moment.
Clause 5 indicates that an employer shall prepare a plan, and Clause 6 indicates that the employer shall file with the Minister a report in respect to what is being done. It has already been pointed out that there is no penalty if an employer does not file a plan. However, I have a much more serious objection. What about employers who file plans which do not do what the Bill wants them to do? There is no penalty for that. An employer could file a plan every year in which he or she essentially says that nothing will be done, and there is no penalty for that.
Let me deal for a moment with the alleged analysis of the Hon. Member for York East about what happened in the United States. I do this because I spent about a dozen years working with the Canadian Labour Congress and other community organizations on the entire question of human rights. The Hon. Member is wrong. He either does not know the facts, or he does not want us to know the facts. I do not want to be called to order because I am using unparliamentary language, so I will try to be careful in what I say. He is just wrong.
People in the United States have not been put in jail, but the American law requires employers to perform. The American law calls upon employers to have objectives, not just theoretical objectives. It calls upon them to have numerical goals and to report on how they meet them. I know the Hon. Member for York East and the Government do not like that, and I know Canadian employers have expressed opposition to it. It has worked in the United States and the National Association of Manufacturers has said that it likes it. There is an ongoing debate in the United States which now has the most pro-
12342


Employment Equity
business administration it has had in over 50 years. Because of their ideological approach to things, some of President Reagan's advisors want to get rid of the numerical goals. Canadians know Secretary of Labour Bill Brock because he was trade negotiator for a while. He is urging the President and the administration to keep the numerical goals. The National Association of Manufacturers, speaking on behalf of its members, told President Reagan that it liked the present system, the numerical goals in the Bill, and the manner in which the program operates. The association went on to indicate: "Tell us what you want us to do and we will do it. Then no one will be able to criticize us for not doing what the law says and no one will be able to take us to court".
I have a question for the Hon. Member for York East, for the Minister and for the Conservative Government which says that it wants to speak for all Canadians. Why will they not accept the arguments of the organizations representing the very people the Bill is supposed to help? They do not have to accept the arguments of Hon. Members of the opposition Parties; we only make our cases for blatant political and partisan reasons! Why will they not accept the arguments and the case put for making the Bill a workable one by these organizations which represent native people, visible minorities, non-Anglo-Saxons, non-protestants, older ethnics who have been discriminated against for many years, women and the handicapped, all those people who are under-represented in employment.
I say to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) that 1 have not been enthused or impressed by the efforts of the former Government.
In conclusion, if one looks at American television programming, sometimes one sees a post office in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. One cannot help but be struck by the large number of non-white people who are working in the post office. I just use that as an example. I venture to say that if one looked at a Canadian post office in Vancouver, Toronto or Winnipeg, one would see very few non-white people working there.
Our record in providing employment for members of minority groups is not a good one. We have a long way to go and a lot for which we should be apologetic.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members of the House share a common goal, employment equity. However, there are some philosophical differences and techniques. Some very useful discussion has taken place over the last eight or nine months, but that is what it is all about. That is what the democratic process is all about. That is what the House of Commons is for. We cannot agree on exactly how it will be put into effect, but we all want the same results. With concern being shown and with heart being put into the debate, we know that all Canadians will be well protected by the supervision, surveillance and guidance of all Members of the House of Commons.
In this particular motion we are being asked for prescribed goals and timetables. We had a feeling that that would mean more quotas, a new enforcement agency and more regulatory bodies. Those are the things we wanted to avoid. We did not want to worry about process. We wanted to worry about results, and it is results which we will all be monitoring.
I should like to clarify the following because it may need some clarification. Mr. Fairweather stated that reports submitted under Section 5 would give enough evidence of systemic discrimination. It is exactly what the commission wanted, and how it will deal with data was included in its testimony. If results are bad, the Canadian Human Rights Commission can conduct an investigation, including access to the action plans. If the investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission leads to evidence of systemic discrimination, the CHRC can impose penalties under Section 41 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Bill is mandatory in two ways-failure to report and the action of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Motion No. 32A would have the fine increased from $50,000 to $500,000. We feel that $50,000 is realistic. It is in accordance with other legislation, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act. For these reasons I am opposed to the two motions now being discussed.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment. I heard my colleague say earlier that we all had the same objective in discussing this Bill because we supposedly all want to achieve equality. He added that all Canadians would be much happier with a Bill such as this one if it were to receive passage without any changes. As for me, I would be rather surprised if satisfactory results could be achieved before certain changes are made and certain penalties are included.
The Human Rights Commission is also being asked to act as guard dog to point out irregularities. If we refer to the hearings held by the Parliamentary Committee, we see that all the groups who appeared before the Committee denounced this piece of legislation. They all referred to the lack of seriousness and will shown by the Government because no penalty was provided and the Bill had no teeth. We have the impression that this Bill will be another smokescreen as often happens with the Bills aimed at women which this Government introduces. If we compare the Abella Report with this Bill, we have the impression that the measure as it now stands is a travesty of the report. We all know that, without penalties, it is impossible to have an acceptable piece of legislation.
All that is being asked of the employers is to submit a report in two years, in 1988, and we cannot even know their action plan. This Bill was denounced by all the groups representing women, the handicapped and the minorities, it includes no penalties and has no teeth, it provides only for voluntary action and it shows a lack of seriousness on the part of the Government. The Human Rights Chief Commissioner came twice


before the Committee to make a submission and to say how important it was to include penalties in this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this shows condescension on the part of the Government, and as I have heard the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) say, it is the first time that such a Bill is introduced in Canada, but I would feel rather let down if 1 were a Member of this Government because 1 believe that, while this Bill is a first, it will also be a travesty instead of a serious piece of legislation. My Conservative colleagues might want to brag that this Government is doing something for women, but I would like them to be much more serious about it than they are now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is the following one. Mr. Allmand, moved:
Motion No. 31A
That Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be amended at Clause
7 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 4 and substituting the following
therefor:
"7. An employer who fails to comply is guilty of an offense and liable on".
The first question is on the amendment. Mr. Cassidy, moved:
That Motion No. 31A be amended as follows by deleting the following
words:
"is guilty of an offence and liable on" and substituting the following
therefore:
"with Sections 4, 5 and 6 is guilty of an offence and liable on".
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen-.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed subamendment stands deferred.
Employment Equity
At the same time I must put Motion 32A.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the amendment to Motions Nos. 31A and 32A have been debated but not the motions themselves. The amendment to those motions has not been completed. I would like to speak to this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 must say to the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) that all three items were before the House when this debate was carried on. The grouping was Motions Nos. 31A and 32A and the amendment. I do not think I can allow the Hon. Member to speak with regard to the main amendment. The Member should have known what was taking place. I have to put the question on the main amendment.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, in the first place I moved Motions Nos. 31A and 32A together because that is how they were grouped by the Speaker. We started the debate on that. Then the New Democratic Party moved an amendment to my motion No. 31 A. At that point Members were addressing the subamendment to my amendment. That subamendment has just been disposed of. Now we should be returning to the original debate on Motions Nos. 31A and 32A which were grouped for debate by the Speaker. The Speaker did not predict that there would be a subamendment to those two original motions. One could not address the original two motions while addressing the subamendment.
We had to dispose of the subamendment first before we addressed the principles embodied in the original amendment.


Mr. Gauthier:: There is one question before the House.


William Warren Allmand: While the Speaker had grouped for debate Motions Nos. 31A and 32A, that was his right, but he did not group for debate a sub-amendment which we have just disposed of. In that situation 1 think Members who did not have an opportunity to speak on Motion No. 31A and Motion 32A should have an opportunity to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: After consulting with the Table, with unanimous consent we can allow the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) to say a few words on the amendment. Motions Nos. 31A and 32A were grouped along with the amendment. The vote was to take place. It is my understanding that there has been consultation with the Table. The Speaker has ruled on this previously. With the unanimous consent of the House, I will allow the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence to speak for 10 minutes on Motion No. 32A. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for my turn to speak to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). 1 did not


Employment Equity
speak on the subamendment. My understanding of the procedure is that there can be only one question before of the House at any one time, and that that question was the motion amending the main motion moved by the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. I do not want to disagree with the Speaker, but perhaps he would like to hold that in abeyance and think about it. The Speaker's ruling grouped Motions Nos. 31A and 32A, but did not include the amendment, because it was moved after the decision of the Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is saying, and that is why I am inclined to allow the Member for Eglinton-Lawrence to speak. Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier wish to speak on Motion No. 32A.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will allow it. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your decision on this matter. In his motion the Member suggests that the penalty should be increased from $50,000 to $500,000. Martin Luther King said that legislation, the law is a teacher. In other words, as well as punishing people, it teaches. We in this House must not think that companies should escape with impunity when they violate human rights. Many companies in the country would like to comply with human rights because they know it is good business to take advantage of the skills and abilities of the entire labour force. It is good business to have people of all sexes, colours, and creeds portrayed in advertising. Enlightened people know that that is good business. However, some people are not enlightened.
During the struggle for civil rights in the United States some companies hoped for legislation which would ensure that human rights were protected and impose penalties when they were not. They hoped for this because other companies were not complying and were able to escape with impunity for noncompliance with those rules. The enlightened people in the country thought it was good to have legislation which imposed penalties, and also that it was a teacher.
We should think not only of human rights, but also of human responsibilities. Through this legislation we are trying to make the employer responsible. It is important that this Bill makes employers understand their responsibility and that society will not tolerate such a lack of responsibility. Companies must conform to human rights. We are a tolerant country and know that the violation of human rights is ultimately our own loss, because it is a lack of use of our human resources, aside from the moral and compassionate grounds. Ultimately, it is wrong from every point of view. Therefore, we must not allow companies and organizations to defy the values for which the people of this country stand.
Today is the fourth anniversary of the signing and bringing into effect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The
Secretay of State (Mr. Bouchard) is throwing a beautiful party for a thousand people to celebrate this occasion. It is hypocritical and cynical that on this very day we are debating in the House of Commons a Bill which has absolutely no teeth. There is a $50,000 penalty for not reporting, but for not reporting what? It is silly to pretend that this Bill has any compliance requirements or penalties at all. The rest of the Bill asks people to do certain things, but there is no punishment or censure for noncompliance.
On the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we demand that the Government put some teeth into this Bill so that it will not be a travesty of rights and freedoms. It is a travesty that the Government has not delivered to the people who are seeking justice amendments which will give them the assurance that the Government, in the name of the people of Canada, means business with regard to equality.
The amount of the penalty is one more thing which suggests that the Bill is toothless, weak, and lacking in sincerity to bring about a change for the organizations and companies which will continue, unchallenged, on their present course. In fact, in its present form, this Bill invites them to be hypocritical and to be part of a system which only pays lip-service.
If the Abella Commission had reported otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I would have no leg to stand on. If the affected groups were not outraged and disappointed, I would have no leg to stand on. However, despite the objections of all the groups which are supposed to be protected by this legislation, the Government ignores their advice and presses forward with an inadequate Bill. Let the Government, on this day, of all days, withdraw this legislation and study it, taking to heart the suggestions and objections of members of the Opposition Parties, those concerned about human rights in the country, the groups affected, and other groups which have allied themselves with them.
Let this not be a paper tiger. Let it not be said that something was done for the minorities. We do not want people to think that politicians talk through their hats, pretending to mean something when they do not. We do not want people to be further disillusioned with politics in a democratic system. Let their voices be heard. When the Government which wants consultation and then discovers all the people with whom they consult are saying, "Put some teeth in this Bill", walks away and does nothing about it, it cannot think the people of this country are going to believe it. Certainly it is placing, once again, further pressure on faith in the democratic processes, the political system, and on the nature of politicians and their ability to deliver on their promises. All these things are at stake.
Finally, and above all, what is at stake is justice for those people who have waited long enough. If the Member from Capilano can say that she is eternally optimistic, that is fine for her, but it is not for a handicapped person who has spent a


whole life suffering from insufficient respect and an inability to have access to work. Those people are looking for justice now. It is not fair for them to have to wait with eternal optimism, as does the Member of Parliament on the other side. That is not good enough. We need it now and we need something that will give them assurance that their needs will be respected, and that they are going to be looked after now, at long last.
This is the day we celebrate the charter being in effect for a year. It was passed four years ago. Let this be the day the Government re-examines what it is saying in this Bill, and put the teeth into it that this motion is suggesting, and what the previous motion, which will be voted on later on, is suggesting, that Clauses 4, 5 and 6 be included under those areas of penalties and requirements.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, but still I want to make a few comments because this is a very special day: the anniversary of the proclamation of section 15 of our Canadian Constitution, section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Four years ago, as you may recall, the Government and Parliament, in their wisdom, passed subsection (2) of section 32 which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15-
This is from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
-shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, today marks the first anniversary of the coming into force of section 15, so it is a special occasion for us, and it was quite fitting that it should have been highlighted at the opening of the sitting this morning when the Minister responsible made a statement to stress the significance of this kind of celebration to all Canadians.
To get back to the matter under consideration, Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by my colleague and friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), the motion would increase to $500,000 the fine levied on an employer who failed to comply with the provisions of the law or contravened the law in one way or another. Amendment motions Nos. 31A and 32A are necessary because the Bill specifies a fine of $50,000, and we all know that such an amount would be small change for certain employers. For instance, representations have been made to provide special facilities such as handrails for people confined to wheelchairs or elevators designed to be readily accessible to the handicapped, the blind and others who experience difficulties getting around. When special facilities are required in the workplace, I do not think it is preposterous to suggest that a company with at least 100 employees would consider $50,000 the better of two evils and be prepared to pay the fine rather than spend $75,000, $100,000 or $200,000 to comply with the law. It would certainly be cheaper. This is not unheard of.
God knows some employers are not overly concerned about employment safety. Perhaps it is a sad commentary on the
Employment Equity
building industry, but it happens to be one of Canada's most hazardous trades, and 9 per cent of construction workers are killed accidentally or otherwise, and often the responsibility can be traced back to the employer who failed to take the necessary safety measures.
The same thing applies to the handicapped. If we want to spur private sector employers and urge them to improve their hiring practices, let us have the four designated groups in mind, and again I single them out: women, aboriginal peoples-including all Metis and Inuit people-the physically disabled and visible minorities or, as we put it in French, those who are the object of a certain discrimination because of their colour or features. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, this motion will give teeth to this Bill which we would describe as a toothless tiger, a tiger that does not threaten anybody, a cosmetic piece of legislation is the best way to label it, in my opinion.
It looks good, and it gives the impression that there is a desire to do something to remedy an unfair situation, but in fact, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, and we have said so over and over again, this legislation has no teeth, it is not forceful enough, and we believe it ought to include an important amendment, namely, that employers whose hiring practices are unsatisfactory will be fined $500,000.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said by a Government Member, and I am referring to the Conservative Member for York East (Mr. Redway), who said that it was a first for an initiative of this kind. The Hon. Member should have done his homework on the matters now before the House, instead of causing Opposition Members to remind him that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted by Parliament in 1982, and that since then a program was set up, and the Abella Commission and all the rest, and the result is Bill C-62.
But before that, Mr. Speaker, in the Federal Public Service, and that was since 1971, and I would like to send my hon. colleague from York East a copy of a list of steps that were taken by previous Liberal Governments to promote employment equity, for the disabled as well as for women, affirmative action programs for visible minorities and for the disabled, and as I said in the debate on previous amendments, today we can say, and we take great pride in this, that at the federal level, in all cases, our programs have had a remarkable effect on the hiring of these four target groups, and as I was saying last week, Mrs. Suzanne Azzi, whom you probably know, and who is known as the guardian angel of the Public Service where the physically disabled are concerned, Mrs. Azzi told me a few days ago that she had placed 400 physically disabled persons. Yes, 400! In Ottawa-Carleton this has been their practice for five or six, or maybe it was three years. These are people who would not have had a job if there had not been an employer who was able to meet their specific needs.
The federal Government has set an example, and now the Hon. Member for York East is trying to tell us here in the House that the Parliament of Canada had done nothing before Bill C-62 was tabled in the House.


Employment Equity
Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous, and I don't think it is terribly constructive when we have politicians who can't get their facts straight and who expect us to swallow this kind of nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I simply want to say that we want to give this legislation teeth, and we therefore ask that the $50,000 fine, which may not be very significant to some employers, be increased so that it will be taken seriously, and that the fine now be set at $500,000.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 31 A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 31A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. An employer who fails to comply is guilty of an offence and liable on".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 32A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 32A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 16 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
''five hundred thousand dollars."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Hon. Members will know that Motions Nos. 34 and 35 have been grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain, for Mr. Nystrom)
moves:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 23 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
''year under section 6 and a consolidation of action plans received in that year under section 5, and shall, as soon as".
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 29 and 30 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"10. Each action plan as required under section 5 and each report filed with the Minister as required under section 6, shall be available for public".


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to speak only briefly on the need for these two amendments. As presently written, the Bill would provide only that there be consultation and analysis of the snapshot of the character of the workforce. What is intended here is that the action plan would be included in the consolidated report and we would be provided with an analysis which would be tabled by the Minister, as well as the snapshot. It is a reasonable amendment and would provide for a report not only on the snapshot but on the employer's efforts at change. That is an obvious need and these are amendments which should certainly be concurred in by the Government.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, we agree with both these motions, in particular Motion No. 35 which eliminates the fee that Canadians must pay for the report on employment equity tabled by the Minister. It is completely out of order that visible minority groups, women's groups, native groups and disabled groups should have to pay a fee to get the report on employment equity that the Minister produces. We think this amendment is a good one.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we disagree. Employers action plans are not included in the reporting requirements of the Bill. Therefore this motion cannot be


enforced. The same rationale applies to Motion No. 35, so we would be opposed to both.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 34, in the name of Mr. Nystrom.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 35, in the name of Mr. Nystrom.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next Motion for debate is No. 37A.
Employment Equity
Hon. Warren Alimand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East) moves:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 19 at page 5 in the French version and substituting the following therefor:
"Parlement un rapport concernant I'examen el exposant tous les chan-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is simply to correct the French version which does not say everything the English version says. In English it says they shall submit a report on the review to Parliament including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend. However, in French it leaves part of that out by simply saying:
[ Translation]
-presente au Parlement un rapport exposant tous les changements qu'il pcut desirer recommander.

My amendment would-


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we agree.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dick:: Great speech.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: This merely makes the French and English versions identical, as the Hon. Member indicated, so we should all vote for this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 37A in the name of Mr. Alimand.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 37A (Mr. Alimand) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next motion for debate is Motion No. 39.
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain, for Mr. Nystrom)
moves:
That Bill C-62, be amended by deleting the short title and substituting the following therefor:
"This Act may be cited as the Employers Human Resources Reporting Act."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Employment Equity


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 39A.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East) moves:
That Bill C-62, be amended by deleting the short title and substituting the
following therefor:
"This Act may be cited as the Employment Equity Reporting Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to change the name of this Bill to make it an honest Bill. If the Bill is not really going to enforce employment equity but simply require reporting, then let us call it what it is. That is the purpose of this amendment and the previous one. They are to make the Bill an honest Bill and not mislead the public.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that when we started on these amendments some days ago I said it made no sense to have the title of the Bill remain as it is unless it was a Bill which, indeed, had teeth. I want to endorse the comments of my friend, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) because I do not believe this Bill has any mandatory enforcement provisions. It has absolutely no provision for penalties for companies who do not comply. As far as I am concerned even the targets are secret to the companies. I would hope that the House would see fit to change the name of the Bill to reflect what it really is. It is not a Bill to encourage and promote employment equity. It is a Bill to help report on those matters.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am quite frankly encouraged by the respect for precision demonstrated moments ago by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary in revising the French version of the motion so that it now makes sense.
Surely this amendment would provide for equal precision with respect to the title of the Bill. It is a Bill which requires reporting. It is not a Bill which achieves, or even aims at
achieving employment equity. I am sure the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will show good sense with respect to this amendment regarding the title of the Bill.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: No, Mr. Speaker, the Act is appropriately named.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record that I think it is a crying shame that on equality day we are bringing forth a piece of legislation which has been cited by every group and organization involved with equality as not leading to the very objective we are supposed to be seeking.


Mr. Fennell:: The Liberals never brought in anything.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Members says the Liberals never brought in anything. The Hon. Member obviously does not know that the word "employment equity" was as a result of the Abella Report which commission was set up by the Liberal Government. It was the first Party to introduce in 1977 equal pay for work of equal value. The Hon. Member should get to know his facts.
The fact is that women, the minority groups and the handicapped, who were forced to come to the Hill in their wheelchairs this week, know what a sham this Bill is and what a sham is the Government's commitment to equality. The handicapped chanted quite clearly at the time, and it is the truth: "Mulroney, baloney, your equity bill is phoney". That is exactly what they mean. I think it is a crying shame that on equality day we are talking about a Bill which is absolute nonsense.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, obviously we are coming down to the close of debate on motions. This is the last motion and, appropriately, it is last because the question is about the title of the Bill. It is with regret, I think, that all Hon. Members in the House, at least those in the Opposition, see the last of this debate after our attempts to try to bring about motions and amendments which would improve this legislation and make it truly relevant to its title, that is, to actually bring about equity for rather large groups of Canadians. The women of our country are more than a majority; they are just barely more than a majority, representing 51 per cent of our population. There are many native people and minority groups all waiting for legislation which would give them strengthened support, to at last have equality. Unfortunately we have received no support from the Government for any of these motions. Therefore, obviously, this remains a reporting Bill, not a Bill which achieves anything other than verbiage. I regret, therefore, that we must support a motion which asks for change of the name of this legislation to the "Employment Equity Reporting Act" because it is nothing more than reporting. It is not an Act which brings about equity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 39.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We already in fact dealt with that amendment. We are now dealing with the amendment of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Thank you. The question is on Motion No. 39A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen-.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed with the recorded divisions deferred at the report stage of Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first question is on Motion No. 1. Mr. Nystrom moves:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 6 at page I and
substituting the following therefor:
"2. The purpose of this Act is to promote and encourage".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Nystrom), which was negatived on the following division:
Employment Equity
(Division No. 219)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	NicholsonAlthouse	Fulton	(Trinity)Baker	Gagliano	OrlikowBenjamin	Gauthier	ParryBerger	Heap	PennerBlackburn	Johnston	Pepin(Brant)	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisBlaikie	mount)	RobinsonCaccia	Kaplan	RodriguezCassidy	Keeper	RossiCopps	Langdon	TobinDeans	Manly	Waddelldc Corneille	McCurdy	Young-38.Epp	Mitchell	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Murphy	
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Grise	MinakerAttewell	Gurbin	MitgesBeatty	Gustafson	MurtaBelsher	Halliday	NicholsonBernier	Hamilton	(Niagara Falls)Bertrand	Hardey	NielsenBissonnette	Hawkes	O'NeilBouchard	Hees	OostromBourgault	Hicks	PaproskiBoyer	Hnatyshyn	PennockBradley	Hockin	PlamondonBrightwell	Horner	PlourdeCardiff	Howie	PorterChampagne	Hudon	Price(Champlain)	Jardine	RedwayClinch	Jelinek	ReidCollins	Johnson	St. GermainComeau	(Bonavista-T rinity-	St-JulienCooper	Conception)	SchellenbergCorbett	Joncas	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cossitt	Lawrence	ScottCrofton	Lesick	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crosbie	Lewis	Scott(St. John's West)	MacDonald	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crosby .	(Kingston and	Sparrow(Halifax West)	the Islands)	StackhouseCrouse	MacDougall	StevensDarling	(Timiskaming)	SulukDesjardins	Malone	TaylorDick	Mantha	ThackerDomm	Marin	TowersDorin	Martin	TremblayEpp	Mayer	(Quebec-Est)(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TupperFennell	McCrossan	TurnerFcrland	McCuish	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fontaine	McDermid	V6zinaFretz	McGrath	VincentFriesen	McKenzie	WarnerGirard	McKinnon	WeinerGottselig	McKnight	WenmanGreenaway	Merrithew	Winegard-111.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I take it there is an agreement.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There are two brief matters which I want to raise. It is my understanding that we might agree to have the vote we have just taken count for all the outstanding votes. However, it has been brought to my attention that on Motion No. 31A the yeas and nays were not taken. If we could include that, then all the votes would be concluded.


Employment Equity


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 take it, on Motions Nos. 8, 11 A, 12A, 14A, 16A, 19B, 21 A, 24, 25A, 26A and 27A, that the vote shall count as just recorded.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was unable to be present for the vote just taken. Since I have now entered the House, 1 presume my vote will be counted with the others of the Official Opposition on the motions Your Honour just read out.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think you failed to mention Motions Nos. 39 and 39A.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am trying to do it in some order. On the motions so far called there is an understanding, with the addition of the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Mr. Gagnon:: Would you recognize my vote, please, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, in opposition, and 1 take it the Hon. Member for Windsor West will be added in support.
The next vote will be on Motion No. 8. Mr. Nystrom moves:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 13 to 15 at page 2.
The House divided on Motion No. 8 (Mr. Nystrom), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 220)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Bissonnette
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clinch
Collins
Comeau
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Crofton
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Desjardins Dick
Members
Domm Dor in Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Girard
Gottselig
Greenaway
Grise
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnalyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Lawrence
Lesick
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) Malone Mantha Marin Martin Mayer
Mazankowski McCrossan McCuish McDermid McGrath McKenzie McKinnon McKnight Merrithew Minakcr Mitges Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nielsen O'Neil Oostrom Pa proski Pennock
Plamondon
Plourde
Porter
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain
St-Julicn
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Sparrow Stackhouse Stevens Suluk Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wenman Winegard-112.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 11 A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 11A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 24 at page 2 the following:
"reasonable accommodation includes, without restriction, the reasonable adaptation of the workplace, hiring practices or the job description to accommodate the needs of designated groups, including the special needs of a qualified disabled person, through provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification, and human support services".
The House divided on Motion No. 11A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 221)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.
Employment Equity
	NAYS			NAYS	
	Members			Members	
Andre	Grise	Mitges	Andre	Grise	MitgesAttewell	Gurbin	Murta	Attewell	Gurbin	MurtaBeatty	Gustafson	Nicholson	Beatty	Gustafson	NicholsonBelsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)	Belsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)Bernier	Hamilton	Nielsen	Bernier	Hamilton	NielsenBertrand	Hardey	O'Neil	Bertrand	Hardey	O'NeilBissonnette	Hawkes	Oostrom	Bissonnette	Hawkes	OostromBouchard	Hees	Paproski	Bouchard	Hees	PaproskiBourgault	Hicks	Pennock	Bourgault	Hicks	PennockBoyer	Hnatyshyn	Plamondon	Boyer	Hnatyshyn	PlamondonBradley	Hockin	Plourde	Bradley	Hockin	PlourdeBrightwell	Horner	Porter	Brightwell	Horner	PorterCardiff	Howie	Price	Cardiff	Howie	PriceChampagne	Hudon	Redway	Champagne	Hudon	Redway(Champlain)	Jardine	Reid	(Champlain)	Jardine	ReidClinch	Jelinek	St. Germain	Clinch	Jelinek	St. GermainCollins	Johnson	St-Julien	Collins	Johnson	St-JulienComeau	(Bonavista-T rinity-	Schellenberg	Comeau	(Bonavista-Trinity-	SchellenbergCooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Cooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Corbett	Joncas	Scott	Corbett	Joncas	ScottCossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Cossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Lesick	Scott	Crofton	Lesick	ScottCrosbie	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Crosbie	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(St. John's West)	MacDonald	Sparrow	(St. John's West)	MacDonald	SparrowCrosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse	Crosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	the Islands)	Stevens	(Halifax West)	the Islands)	StevensCrouse	MacDougall	Suluk	Crouse	MacDougall	SulukDarling	(Timiskaming)	Taylor	Darling	(Timiskaming)	TaylorDesjardins	Malone	Thacker	Desjardins	Malone	ThackerDick	Mantha	Towers	Dick	Mantha	TowersDo mm	Marin	Tremblay	Domm	Marin	TremblayDorin	Martin	(Quebec-Est)	Dorin	Martin	(Quebec-Est)Epp	Mayer	Tupper	Epp	Mayer	Tupper(Provencher)	Mazankowski	Turner	(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TurnerFennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Fennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ferland	McCuish	Vezina	Ferland	McCuish	VezinaFontaine	McDermid	Vincent	Fontaine	McDermid	VincentFretz	McGrath	Warner	Fretz	McGrath	WarnerFriesen	McKenzie	Weiner	Friesen	McKenzie	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	Wenman	Gagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGirard	McKnight	Winegard-112.	Girard	McKnight	Winegard-112.Gottselig	Merrithew	Gottselig	Merrithew	Greenaway	Minaker	Greenaway	Minaker


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on			Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on		
Motion No. 12A. Mr.	Allmand moves:		Motion No. 14A. Mr. Allmand moves:		
Motion No. 12A			Motion No. 14A		
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 30 at page 2 and			That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 33 at page 2 and		
substituting the following therefor:			substituting the following therefor:		
"ing agent, or with such persons as have been designated by the designated			''except those	in conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act, that	
groups to act as their representatives, implement employment equity by".			results".		
The House divided	on Motion No. 12A (Mr. Allmand),		The House	divided on Motion No. 14A (Mr. Allmand).	
which was negatived on the following division:			which was negatived on the following division:		
	{Division No. 222)			{Division No. 223)	
	YEAS			YEAS	
	Members			Members	
Allmand	Finestone	Mitchell	Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	Murphy	Althouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	Nicholson	Baker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)	Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	Orlikow	Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry	Blackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	Penner	(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	Pepin	Blaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	Riis	Caccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	Robinson	Cassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	Rodriguez	Copps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rossi	Deans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	Tobin	de Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell	Epp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) McCurdy	Young-39.
Employment Equity
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Grise	MitgesAttewell	Gurbin	MurtaBeatty	Gustafson	NicholsonBelsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)Bernier	Hamilton	NielsenBertrand	Hardey	O'NeilBissonnette	Hawkes	OostromBouchard	Hees	Pa proskiBourgault	Hicks	PennockBoyer	Hnatyshyn	PlamondonBradley	Hockin	PlourdeBrightwell	Horner	PorterCardiff	Howie	PriceChampagne	Hudon	Redway(Champlain)	Jardine	ReidClinch	Jelinek	St. GermainCollins	Johnson	St-JulienComeau	(Bonavista-Trinity-	SchellenbergCooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Corbett	Joncas	ScottCossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Lesick	ScottCrosbie	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(St. John's West)	MacDonald	SparrowCrosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	the Islands)	StevensCrouse	MacDougall	SulukDarling	(Timiskaming)	TaylorDesjardins	Malone	ThackerDick	Mantha	TowersDomm	Marin	TremblayDorin	Martin	(Quebec- Est)Epp	Mayer	Tupper(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TurnerFennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ferland	McCuish	VezinaFontaine	McDermid	VincentFretz	McGrath	WarnerFriesen	McKenzie	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGirard	McKnight	Winegard-112.Gottselig	Merrithew	Greenaway	Minaker


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 16A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 16A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 46 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
''eligibility or geography according to whichever of these reference criteria provides the most opportunity to qualified members of the designated groups and from which".
The House divided on Motion No. 16A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 224)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Grise	MitgesAttewell	Gurbin	MurtaBeatty	Gustafson	NicholsonBelsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)Bernier	Hamilton	NielsenBertrand	Hardey	O'NeilBissonnette	Hawkes	OostromBouchard	Hees	PaproskiBourgault	Hicks	PennockBoyer	Hnatyshyn	PlamondonBradley	Hockin	PlourdeBrightwell	Horner	PorterCardiff	Howie	PriceChampagne	Hudon	Redway(Champlain)	Jardine	ReidClinch	Jelinek	St. GermainCollins	Johnson	St-JulienComeau	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergCooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Corbett	Joncas	ScottCossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Lesick	ScottCrosbie	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(St. John's West)	MacDonald	SparrowCrosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	the Islands)	StevensCrouse	MacDougall	SulukDarling	(Timiskaming)	TaylorDesjardins	Malone	ThackerDick	Mantha	TowersDomm	Marin	TremblayDorin	Martin	(Quebec-Est)Epp	Mayer	Tupper(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TurnerFennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ferland	McCuish	VezinaFontaine	McDermid	VincentFretz	McGrath	WarnerFriesen	McKenzie	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGirard	McKnight	Winegard-112.Gottselig	Merrithew	Greenaway	Minaker


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion 19B. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 19B
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 2 at page 3 the following:
''(c) having full access to, for the purposes of subsections (a) and (b), consultative services concerning employment equity as provided by the Department of Employment and Immigration."


Employment Equity
The House divided on Motion 19B (Mr. Allmand), which Motion No. 21A was negatived on the following division:	That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 12 to 16 at
page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"section (1) shall be
(a)	retained by the employer at the employer's principal place of business in Canada for a brief period of at least three years after the last year in respect of which the plan is prepared;
(b)	communicated to the employer's employees and any existing bargaining agent; and
(c)	made available to the Human Rights Commission, on request."
The House divided on Motion No. 21A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
Allmand Alt house Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant)
Blaikie
Caccia
Cassidy
Copps
Deans
de Corneille Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)
Andre
Attcwell
Beatty
Belshcr
Bernier
Bertrand
Bissonnette
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwcll
Cardiff
Champagne
(Champlain) Clinch Collins Cornea u Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crofton Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Desjardins Dick Domm Dorin Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Girard
Gottselig
Greenaway
(Division No. 225)
++YEAS
Members
Finestone
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West)
Heap
Johnston
(Saint-Henri-Westmount)
Kaplan
Keeper
Langdon
Manly
McCurdy
++NAYS
Members
Grise
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Lawrence
Lesick
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) Malone Mantha Marin Martin Mayer
Mazankowski
McCrossan
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitchell
Murphy
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Riis
Robinson
Rodriguez
Rossi
Tobin
Waddell
Young-39.
Mitges
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nielsen
O'Neil
Oostrom
Paproski
Pennock
Plamondon
Plourde
Porter
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Sparrow Stackhouse Stevens Suluk Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wenman Winegard-112.
The next vote is on
Allmand
Althousc
Baker
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Caccia
Cassidy
Copps
Deans
de Corneille Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Bissonnette
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clinch
Collins
Comeau
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Crofton
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Desjardins Dick Domm Dorin Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Girard
Gottselig
Greenaway
(Division No. 226)
++YEAS
Members
Finestone
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West)
Heap
Johnston
(Saint-Henri-Westmount)
Kaplan
Keeper
Langdon
Manly
McCurdy
++NAYS
Members
Grise
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Lawrence
Lesick
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCrossan
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitchell
Murphy
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Riis
Robinson
Rodriguez
Rossi
Tobin
Waddell
Young-39.
Mitges
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nielsen
O'Neil
Oostrom
Paproski
Pennock
Plamondon
Plourde
Porter
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Sparrow Stackhouse Stevens Suluk Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wenman Winegard-112.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 21 A. Mr. Allmand moves:


Employment Equity


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 24. Mr. Nystrom moves:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 22 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"ance with the duties imposed on the employer under sections 4 and 5 and further in accordance with prescribed instructions indicating,"
The House divided on Motion No. 24 (Mr. Nystrom), which was negatived on the following division:


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 25A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 25A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 39 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"moted, trained, transferred, demoted and terminated and the degree of.
The House divided on Motion No. 25A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 227)	{Division No. 228)
Allmand	YEAS Members	Allmand	YEAS Members Fineslone	MitchellFineslone	Mitchell	Althouse	Fulton	MurphyAllhouse	Fulton	Murphy	Baker	Gagliano	NicholsonBaker	Gagliano	Nicholson	Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)	Berger	Gray	OrlikowBerger	Gray	Orlikow	Blackburn	(Windsor West)	ParryBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry	(Brant)	Heap	Penner(Brani)	Heap	Penner	Blaikie	Johnston	PepinBlaikie	Johnston	Pepin	Caccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	Riis	Cassidy	mount)	RobinsonCassidy	mount)	Robinson	Copps	Kaplan	RodriguezCopps	Kaplan	Rodriguez	Deans	Keeper	RossiDeans	Keeper	Rossi	de Corneille	Langdon	Tobindc Corneille	Langdon	Tobin	Epp	Manly	WaddellEpp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Manly McCurdy
NAYS Members	Waddell Young-39.	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy
NAYS Members	Young-39.Andre	Grise	Mitgcs	Andre	Grise	MitgesAttewell	Gurbin	Murta	Attewell	Gurbin	MurtaBealty	Gustafson	Nicholson	Beatty	Gustafson	NicholsonBelsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)	Belsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)Bernier	Hamilton	Nielsen	Bernier	Hamilton	NielsenBertrand	Hardey	O'Neil	Bertrand	Hardey	O'NeilBissonnctte	Hawkes	Oostrom	Bissonnctte	Hawkes	OostromBouchard	Hees	Paproski	Bouchard	Hees	PaproskiBourgault	Hicks	Pennock	Bourgault	Hicks	PennockBoyer	Hnatyshyn	Plamondon	Boyer	Hnatyshyn	PlamondonBradley	Hockin	Plourde	Bradley	Hockin	PlourdeBrightwell	Horner	Porter	Brightwell	Horner	PorterCardiff	Howie	Price	Cardiff	Howie	PriceChampagne	Hudon	Redway	Champagne	Hudon	Redway(Champlain)	Jardine	Reid	(Champlain)	Jardine	ReidClinch	Jelinek	St. Germain	Clinch	Jelinek	St. GermainCollins	Johnson	St-Julien	Collins	Johnson	St-JulienCornea u	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Schellenberg	Comeau	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergCooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Cooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Corbett	Joncas	Scott	Corbett	Joncas	ScottCossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Cossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Lesick	Scott	Crofton	Lesick	ScottCrosbic	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Crosbic	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(St. John's West)	MacDonald	Sparrow	(St. John's West)	MacDonald	SparrowCrosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse	Crosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	the Islands)	Stevens	(Halifax West)	the Islands)	StevensCrouse	MacDougall	Suluk	Crouse	MacDougall	SulukDarling	(Timiskaming)	Taylor	Darling	(Timiskaming)	TaylorDesjardins	Malone	Thacker	Desjardins	Malone	ThackerDick	Mantha	Towers	Dick	Mantha	TowersDomm	Marin	Tremblay	Domm	Marin	TremblayDor in	Martin	(Quebec-Est)	Dorin	Martin	(Quebec-Est)Epp	Mayer	Tupper	Epp	Mayer	Tupper(Provencher)	Mazankowski	Turner	(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TurnerFennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carlcton)	Fennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ferland	McCuish	Vezina	Ferland	McCuish	VezinaFontaine	McDermid	Vincent	Fontaine	McDermid	VincentFretz	McGrath	Warner	Fretz	McGrath	WarnerFriesen	McKenzie	Weiner	Friesen	McKenzie	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	Wenman	Gagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGirard Gottsclig Greenaway	McKnight Merrithew Minaker	Winegard-112.	Girard Gottselig Greenaway	McKnight Merrithew Minaker	Winegard-112.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 26A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 26A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after 41 at page 3 the following:
"(e) the number of individuals in designated groups who apply for specific openings."
The House divided on Motion No. 26A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 229)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.NAYS	Members	Andre	Grise	MitgesAttewell	Gurbin	MurtaBeatty	Gustafson	NicholsonBelsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)Bernier	Hamilton	NielsenBertrand	Hardey	O'NeilBissonnette	Hawkes	OostromBouchard	Hees	PaproskiBourgault	Hicks	PennockBoyer	Hnatyshyn	PlamondonBradley	Hockin	PlourdeBrightwell	Horner	PorterCardiff	Howie	PriceChampagne	Hudon	Redway(Champlain)	Jardine	ReidClinch	Jelinek	St. GermainCollins	Johnson	St-JulienCornea u	(Bonavista-Trinity-	SchellenbergCooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Corbett	Joncas	ScottCossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Lesick	ScottCrosbie	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(St. John's West)	MacDonald	SparrowCrosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	the Islands)	StevensCrouse	MacDougall	SulukDarling	(Timiskaming)	TaylorDesjardins	Malone	ThackerDick	Mantha	TowersDomm	Marin	TremblayDorin	Martin	(Quebec-Est)Epp	Mayer	Tupper(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TurnerFennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ferland	McCuish	VezinaFontaine	McDermid	VincentFretz	McGrath	WarnerFriesen	McKenzie	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGirard	McKnight	Winegard-112.Gottselig	Merrithew	Greenaway	Minaker	
Employment Equity


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 27A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 27A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 3 the following:
"(e) a list of those acts undertaken by the employer pursuant to section 4 of this Act."
The House divided on Motion No. 27A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 230)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.Andre	NAYS Members Grise	MitgesAttewell	Gurbin	MurtaBeatty	Gustafson	NicholsonBelsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)Bernier	Hamilton	NielsenBertrand	Hardey	O'NeilBissonnette	Hawkes	OostromBouchard	Hees	PaproskiBourgault	Hicks	PennockBoyer	Hnatyshyn	PlamondonBradley	Hockin	PlourdeBrightwell	Horner	PorterCardiff	Howie	PriceChampagne	Hudon	Redway(Champlain)	Jardine	ReidClinch	Jelinek	St. GermainCollins	Johnson	St-JulienComeau	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergCooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Corbett	Joncas	ScottCossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Lesick	ScottCrosbie	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(St. John's West)	MacDonald	SparrowCrosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	the Islands)	StevensCrouse	MacDougall	SulukDarling	(Timiskaming)	TaylorDesjardins	Malone	ThackerDick	Mantha	TowersDomm	Marin	TremblayDorin	Martin	(Quebec-Est)Epp	Mayer	Tupper(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TurnerFennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ferland	McCuish	VezinaFontaine	McDermid	VincentFretz	McGrath	WarnerFriesen	McKenzie	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGirard	McKnight	Winegard-112.Gottselig	Merrithew	Greenaway	Minaker	
Employment Equity


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 31 A. Is it agreed that the same vote shall be cast on the amendment to Motion No. 31 A?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the next vote is on the amendment to Motion No. 31 A. Mr. Cassidy moves:
That Motion No. 31A be amended by inserting immediately after the word "comply", the words "with sections 4, 5 and 6".
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Cassidy), which was negatived on the following division:
	Members		i&tSfm
Mantha	Nielsen	Sparrow	Marin	O'Neil	Stackhouse	Martin	Oostrom	Stevens	Mayer	Paproski	Suluk	Mazankowski	Pennock	Taylor	McCrossan	Plamondon	Thacker	McCuish	Plourde	Towers	McDermid	Porter	Tremblay	McGrath	Price	(Quebec-Est)	McKenzie	Redway	Tupper	McKinnon	Reid	Turner	McKnight	St. Germain	(Ottawa-Carlcton)	Merrithew	St-Julien	Vezina	Minaker	Schellenberg	Vincent	Mitges	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Warner	Murta	Scott	Weiner	Nicholson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Wenman	(Niagara Falls)	Scott	Wincgard-112.	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	:ggg|


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost. The next		
(Division No. 231)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.
Motion No. 31A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. An employer who fails to comply is guilty of an offence and liable on".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.
	NAYS Members		Some Hon. Members: Yea.	
Andre Attewell	Crosby (Halifax West)	Hardey Hawkes	Mr. Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.	Beatty	Crouse	Hees	Belsher	Darling	Hicks	Bernier Bertrand	Desjardins Dick	Hnatyshyn Hockin	Some Hon. Members: Nay.	Bissonnette	Domm	Horner	Bouchard	Dorin	Howie	Bourgault Boyer	Epp (Provencher)	Hudon Jardine	Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.	Bradley	Fennell	Jelinek	Brightwell	Ferland	Johnson	Cardiff	And more than five Members having risen:	Champagne	Fretz	Conception)	(Champlain)	Friesen	Joncas	Clinch	Gagnon	Lawrence	
Collins Comeau Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crofton Crosbie
(St. John's West)
Girard Gottselig Greenaway Grise Gurbin Gustafson Halliday Hamilton
Lesick
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) Malone


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells and shall we count the same recorded vote?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

The House divided on Motion 31A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 232)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Grise	, MitgesAttewell	Gurbin	MurtaBeatty	Gustafson	NicholsonBelsher	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)Bernier	Hamilton	NielsenBertrand	Hardey	O'NeilBissonnette	Hawkes	OostromBouchard	Hees	PaproskiBourgault	Hicks	PennockBoyer	Hnatyshyn	PlamondonBradley	Hockin	PlourdeBrightwell	Horner	PorterCardiff	Howie	PriceChampagne	Hudon	Redway(Champlain)	Jardine	ReidClinch	Jelinek	St. GermainCollins	Johnson	St-JulienComeau	(Bonavista-Trinity-	SchellenbergCooper	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Corbett	Joncas	ScottCossitt	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Lesick	ScottCrosbie	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(St. John's West)	MacDonald	SparrowCrosby	(Kingston and	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	the islands)	StevensCrouse	MacDougall	SulukDarling	(Timiskaming)	TaylorDesjardins	Malone	ThackerDick	Mantha	TowersDomm	Marin	TremblayDorin	Martin	(Quebec-Est)Epp	Mayer	Tupper(Provcncher)	Mazankowski	TurnerFennell	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ferland	McCuish	VezinaFontaine	McDermid	VincentFretz	McGrath	WarnerFriesen	McKenzie	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGirard	McKnight	Winegard-112.Gottselig	, Merrithew	Greenaway	Minaker	
Employment Equity


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. 1 take it there is agreement to apply the same recorded vote to Motions Nos. 32A, 34, 35, 39 and 39A.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the next vote is on Motion No. 32A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 32A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 16 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"five hundred thousand dollars."
The House divided on Motion No. 32A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 233)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Dick	JelinekAttewell	Domm	JohnsonBeatty	Dorin	(Bonavista-Trinity-Belsher	Epp	Conception)Bernier	(Provencher)	JoncasBertrand	Fennell	LawrenceBissonnette	Ferland	LesickBouchard	Fontaine	LewisBourgault	Fretz	MacDonaldBoyer	Friesen	(Kingston andBradley	Gagnon	the Islands)Brightwell	Girard	MacDougallCardiff	Gottselig	(Timiskaming)Champagne	Greenaway	Malone(Champlain)	Grise	ManthaClinch	Gurbin	MarinCollins	Gustafson	MartinComeau	Halliday	MayerCooper	Hamilton	MazankowskiCorbett	Hardey	McCrossanCossitt	Hawkes	McCuishCrofton	Hees	McDermidCrosbie	Hicks	McGrath(St. John's West)	Hnatyshyn	McKenzieCrosby	Hockin	McKinnon(Halifax West)	Horner	McKnightCrouse	Howie	MerrithewDarling	Hudon	MinakerDesjardins	Jardine	Mitges
Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tupper Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wenman Winegard-112.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 34. Mr. Nystrom moves:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 23 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"year under section 6 and a consolidation of action plans received in that year under section 5, and shall, as soon as".
The House divided on Motion No. 34 (Mr. Nystrom), which was negatived on the following division:
Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nielsen O'Neil Oostrom Paproski Pennock Plamondon Plourde Porter Price Redway
Employment Equity
Members
Reid
St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Sparrow Stackhouse Stevens Suluk
(Division No. 234)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Crouse	HicksAttewell	Darling	HnatyshynBeatty	Desjardins	HockinBelsher	Dick	HornerBernier	Domm	HowieBertrand	Dorin	HudonBissonnette	Epp	JardineBouchard	(Provencher)	JelinekBourgault	Fennell	JohnsonBoyer	Ferland	(Bonavista-Bradley	Fontaine	Concepti'Brightwell	Fretz	JoncasCardiff	Friesen	LawrenceChampagne	Gagnon	Lesick(Champlain)	Girard	LewisClinch	Gottselig	MacDonaldCollins	Greenaway	(Kingston aComeau	Grise	the IslamCooper	Gurbin	MacDougallCorbett	Gustafson	(TimiskamiCossitt	Halliday	MaloneCrofton	Hamilton	ManthaCrosbie	Hardey	Marin(St. John's West)	Hawkes	MartinCrosby	Hees	Mayer
Members
Mazankowski	Paproski	StackhouseMcCrossan	Pennock	StevensMcCuish	Plamondon	SulukMcDermid	Plourde	TaylorMcGrath	Porter	ThackerMcKenzie	Price	TowersMcKinnon	Redway	TremblayMcKnighl	Reid	(Quebec-Est)Merrithew	St. Germain	TupperMinaker	St-Julien	TurnerMitges	Schellenberg	(Ottawa-Carleton)Murta	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	VezinaNicholson	Scott	Vincent(Niagara Falls)	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WarnerNielsen	Scott	WeinerO'Neil	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WenmanOostrom	Sparrow	Winegard-112.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 35. Mr. Nystrom moves:		The next vote is on
Motion No. 35		
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 29 and 30 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:		
"10. Each action plan	as required under section 5 and each report filed with	
the Minister as required under section 6, shall be available for public".		
The House divided was negatived on the	on Motion No. 35 (Mr. Nystrom), which following division: (Division No. 235)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy
NAYS Members	Young-39.Andre	Crosbie	GurbinAttewell	(St. John's West)	GustafsonBeatty	Crosby	HallidayBelsher	(Halifax West)	HamiltonBernier	Crouse	HardeyBertrand	Darling	HawkesBissonnette	Desjardins	HeesBouchard	Dick	HicksBourgault	Domm	HnatyshynBoyer	Dorin	HockinBradley	Epp	HornerBrightwell	(Provencher)	HowieCardiff	Fennell	HudonChampagne	Ferland	Jardine(Champlain)	Fontaine	JelinekClinch	Fretz	JohnsonCollins	Friesen	(Bonavista-Trinity-Comeau	Gagnon	Conception)Cooper	Girard	JoncasCorbett	Gottselig	LawrenceCossitt	Greenaway	LesickCrofton	Grise	Lewis
Employment Equity
Members
MacDonald	Murta	Scott	Domm	Lawrence	Plamondon(Kingston and	Nicholson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Dorin	Lesick	Plourdethe Islands)	(Niagara Falls)	Sparrow	Epp	Lewis	PorterMacDougall	Nielsen	Stackhouse	(Provencher)	MacDonald	Price(Timiskaming)	O'Neil	Stevens	Fennell	(Kingston and	RedwayMalone	Oostrom	Suluk	Ferland	the Islands)	ReidMantha	Paproski	Taylor	Fontaine	MacDougall	St. GermainMarin	Pennock	Thacker	Fretz	(Timiskaming)	St-JulienMartin	Plamondon	Towers	Friesen	Malone	SchellenbergMayer	Plourde	Tremblay	Gagnon	Mantha	(Nanaimo-Mazankowski	Porter	(Quebec-Est)	Girard	Marin	ScottMcCrossan	Price	Tupper	Gottselig	Martin	(Victoria-fMcCuish	Redway	Turner	Greenaway	Mayer	ScottMcDermid	Reid	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Grise	Mazankowski	(Hamilton-McGrath	St. Germain	Vezina	Gurbin	McCrossan	SparrowMcKenzie	St-Julien	Vincent	Gustafson	McCuish	StackhouseMcKinnon	Schellenbcrg	Warner	Halliday	McDermid	StevensMcKnight	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Weiner	Hamilton	McGrath	SulukMerrithew	Scott	Wenman	Hardey	McKenzie	TaylorMinaker	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Winegard-112.	Hawkes	McKinnon	ThackerMitges	Hees	McKnight	TowersHicks	Merrithew	Tremblay


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 39. Mr. Nystrom moves:
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-62, be amended by deleting the short title and substituting the following therefor:
''This Act may be cited as the Employers Human Resources Reporting Act."
The House divided on Motion No. 39 (Mr. Nystrom), which was negatived on the following division:
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Minaker Mitges Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nielsen O'Neil Oostrom Pa proski Pennock
(Quebec- Est) Tupper Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wenman Winegard-112.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 39A. Mr. Allmand moves:
Motion No. 39A
(Division No. 236)
That Bill C-62, be amended by deleting the short title and substituting the following therefor:
"This Act may be cited as the Employment Equity Reporting Act."
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39.NAYS	Members	Andre	Bradley	CossittAttewell	Brightwell	CroftonBeatty	Cardiff	CrosbieBelsher	Champagne	(St. John's West)Bernier	(Champlain)	CrosbyBertrand	Clinch	(Halifax West)Bissonnctte	Collins	CrouseBouchard	Cornea u	DarlingBourgault	Cooper	DesjardinsBoyer	Corbett	Dick
The House divided on Motion No. 39A (Mr. Allmand), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 237)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Finestone	MitchellAlthouse	Fulton	MurphyBaker	Gagliano	NicholsonBenjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	OrlikowBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Parry(Brant)	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Johnston	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCassidy	mount)	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rosside Corneille	Langdon	TobinEpp	Manly	Waddell(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Young-39NAYS	Members	Andre	Beatty	BernierAttewell	Belsher	Bertrand
Employment Equity
Members
Bissonnette	Halliday	MitgesBouchard	Hamilton	MurtaBourgault	Hardey	NicholsonBoyer	Hawkes	(Niagara Falls)Bradley	Hees	NielsenBrightwell	Hicks	O'NeilCardiff	Hnatyshyn	OostromChampagne	Hockin	Pa proski(Champlain)	Horner	PennockClinch	Howie	PlamondonCollins	Hudon	PlourdeComeau	Jardine	PorterCooper	Jelinek	PriceCorbett	Johnson	RedwayCossitt	(Bonavista-T rinity-	ReidCrofton	Conception)	St. GermainCrosbie	Joncas	St-Julien(St. John's West)	Lawrence	SchellenbergCrosby	Lesick	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Halifax West)	Lewis	ScottCrouse	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)Darling	(Kingston and	ScottDesjardins	the Islands)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dick	MacDougall	SparrowDomm	(Timiskaming)	StackhouseDorin	Malone	StevensEpp	Mantha	Suluk(Provencher)	Marin	TaylorFennell	Martin	ThackerFerland	Mayer	TowersFontaine	Mazankowski	TremblayFretz	McCrossan	(Quebec-Est)Friesen	McCuish	TupperGagnon	McDermid	TurnerGirard	McGrath	(Ottawa-Carleton)Gottselig	McKenzie	VezinaGreenaway	McKinnon	VincentGrise	McKnight	WarnerGurbin	Merrithew	WeinerGustafson	Minaker	Wenman Winegard-112.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.	
Hon. Flora	MacDonald (Minister of	Employment and
Immigration) moved that the Bill, as amended, be concurred		
in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Miss MacDonald), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 238)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Atiewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Bissonnette
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwcll
Cardiff
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clinch
Collins
Comeau
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Crofton
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Desjardins Dick Do mm Dor in Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Girard
Gottselig
Greenaway
Grise
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Lawrence
Lesick
Lewis
MacDonald
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCrossan
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nielsen
O'Neil
Oostrom
Pa proski
Pennock
Plamondon
Plourde
Porter
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Sparrow Stackhouse Stevens Suluk Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wcnman Winegard-112.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells? Some Hon. Members: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: In addition to the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) in opposition, shall I count the same vote but reversed?
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MurphyAlthouse	Gagliano	NicholsonBaker	Gauthier	(Trinity)Benjamin	Gray	OrlikowBerger	(Windsor West)	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hopkins	PepinBlaikie	Johnston	RiisCaccia	(Saint-Henri-West-	RobinsonCassidy	mount)	RodriguezCopps	Kaplan	RossiDeans	Keeper	Tobinde Corneille	Langdon	WaddellEpp	Manly	Young-40.(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


An Hon. Member:: At the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the absence of the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton), I should like it clearly recorded that he would have voted with the Government had he been here.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Ambition has no bounds. It being 1.15 p.m. I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.15 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Four years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government gave Canada the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which express in legal terms the values we cherish, the values we want to protect and leave to our children and grandchildren.

Unfortunately, because the present Government does not have the political will to address discrimination forthrightly based on employment equity, reason of accommodation, equal opportunity, amongst other vital issues, ordinary Canadians will have to fight to equality in the courts and on the front pages of the newspapers.
We note that corporations have been the most successful users of the Charter in their own interests. They have the money to take the Government to court in lengthy, costly court challenges. While business can deduct the costs, individuals cannot. There are 55 cases waiting for financial help to start the process toward justice. The federal Government has set up a fund to help alleviate financial hardship for selected court challenges I ask-


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago Leonard Peltier was extradited from Canada on the basis of information provided by the United States Government. The U.S. has now admitted that the information was false. This constitutes a treaty fraud between our nations, and should we sleep on this case we can surely expect a repetition in the future.
It is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to remedy this through his counterpart in the United States, and of the Secretary of States for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to do the same.
Leonard Peltier is an Ojibway Lakota Indian who sought political asylum in Canada. For 10 years he has been held in U.S. prisons serving two consecutive life sentences for crimes it now appears he did not commit.
The U.S. Congress has charged that evidence brought forward on the Peltier case clearly indicates "government abuse of the investigative process, suppression of evidence, and falsehood".
Religious leaders from around the world, four winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, 55 Members of Congress, and many others, have appealed for a new trial for Leonard Peltier. The least we can do as a House of Commons is call for a new and fair trial. As a nation we should also call for the return of Leonard Peltier. He was fraudulantly extradited-


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


ABORTION
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business is now considering my Private Members' Bill C-254, an Act to provide legal counsel for unborn children. This legislation has become even more relevant with revelations this week of more evidence about the functioning of therapeutic abortion committees. Questions have been raised about whether applications are considered in fact or whether they are just rubber-stamped.
This issue is a difficult one for many Canadians. There are millions who occupy one side of the debate or the other. It is for precisely this reason that it must be addressed. The abortion approval process is a matter that requires clarification. Mothers, doctors, and child protection agencies must know the requirements of Canada's Criminal Code on this issue. It is clear that practices have developed which are well outside the spirit of the Criminal Code. Many doctors may be


unwittingly breaching the Criminal Code and are parties to criminal offences.

[ Translation]


INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION OF &quot;JUST SAY NO&quot; ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to draw to the attention of the House a significant event which concerns us all regardless of age, province or political Party.
A large group of young Canadians accompanied by the Polgar sisters of Hungary, the world chess champions, are working on the international promotion of the "Just say no" anti-drug campaign.
This initiative does me proud, for it shows once again that young Canadians are very dynamic and take constructive measures to ensure the kind of challenging future which will fulfil their aspirations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to offer them my full support because these young people are striving to restore peace in the world, an endeavour at which our elders have failed in many cases.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in January the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association said the following:
The outlook for Canada's shipbuilding and allied industries during 1986 will remain dismal without immmediate government policy action.
The City of Vancouver has passed a resolution which reads as follows:
WHEREAS Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic territories has been challenged;
AND WHEREAS this challenge can only be met if Canada asserts its sovereignty through meaningful development of the Canadian North and the construction of appropriate ships with icebreaking capability;
AND WHEREAS the West Coast shipbuilding industry has developed a highly competitive ability to build such ships;
AND WHEREAS the continuation and well-being of the shipbuilding industry in North Vancouver is of enormous economic importance not only to North Vancouver but to the whole region;
AND WHEREAS the Conservative Government promised a meaningful job creation program in the West;
AND WHEREAS the North Vancouver shipbuilding industry now faces virtual extinction with disastrous economic consequence unless immediate action is taken-


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


EFFECT OF FALLING OIL PRICES ON SMALL COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a problem in Alberta. Alberta faces the bleak prospect of losing jobs, money, and people as a result of the dramatic fall in the price of crude oil. For example, as many as 15,000 jobs on drilling rigs may be lost by the end of this year.
David Hatter, a respected writer, said in The Financial Post-.
Then "Americanization" of the Canadian oil industry is under way again, with major U.S. firms bidding for the remains of Canadian-owned companies that have been mortally wounded by collapsing world oil prices.
I would like to offer the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) the co-operation of the New Democratic Party. We will consider any legislation she wishes to introduce to help small Canadian oil companies, even that to get rid of the PGRT, although I do not think that is the answer. I think a floor price is a better answer. However, we have an open mind. If the Minister introduces legislation to give fair help to the Canadian oil industry, she will have the support of the New Democratic Party.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Like my colleagues from the Gaspe Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, I would caution the management of Radio-Canada against laying too much emphasis on the ridiculous and altogether indecent suggestion to close down or transfer eastern station facilities in the more or less distant future. This suggestion constitutes a backward step, not to mention that it is an insult to the population involved. Incidentally, 10,000 Gaspe Peninsula residents have signed a petition to express their deep concern and determination concerning that issue.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this is a time for retraints and cut-backs, but it would be unacceptable and shameful if communities which are already quite underprivileged were to be the victims. Among others, Matane's station has been promoting regional interests for a number of years and the public has had nothing but praise for its commendable efforts.


Mr. Speaker, I should hope that the notions of justice, logic and human dignity will prevail-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the 60 seconds have expired. [English]
Order, please. Sixty seconds.


LAW DAY
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 17, is an important day for Canadians. Not only was it one year ago that Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms became law, it is also Law Day. Law Day is coordinated by the Canadian Bar Association. This fourth annual Law Day is the biggest yet.
Today, across the country, hundreds of lawyers are speaking to high school students, community groups and the public about family law, consumer legislation, criminal prosecutions, and the courts. Mock trials, court room tours, and media interviews give the public a unique opportunity to find out more about Canadian law. Public legal education and information associations across the country also contribute to this important day as part of their ongoing effort to help Canadians become legally literate.
While we in this House bear the onerous responsibility of making the law, it is essential that Canadians understand their laws. It is appropriate that on Law Day we commend all who have made a commmitment to share freely their knowledge of the law with the public, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) for his continuing efforts-


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


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the management of the 7-Eleven convenience stores for their decision to stop selling pornographic magazines. Hardcore, violent pornography is having a cancerous effect on morals and quality of life in Canada. It is addictive. Erotica often leads to softcore pornography, which leads to hardcore, violent pornography.
With the benefit of the research of the Fraser and the Badgley Committees I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to bring forth tough legislation to stop the erosion of the quality of life here in Canada, the debasing of women, and the sexual exploitation of women. I urge the management of other convenience stores, such as Mac's Milk and Becker's, to follow the courageous lead of 7-Eleven.


THE FAMILY
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, on this important day for equality, I would like to raise an issue which is of great concern for women, namely daycare services.
Since the middle of March, I have attended the hearings of the Parliamentary Committee on Daycare. I would like to call the attention of the House to the views of various witnesses. Many parents are asking that quality services be available and that they be organized by the Government.
Of course, we also hear about the great number of latchkey children. The parents are criticized for leaving their children without supervision, but when we look at the reason for this, we find that it is because daycare services are unavailable or simply too costly. It now costs as much to keep a child in a daycare centre as to buy two weeks of food for a large family or, to pay electricity bills for several months or the telephone for one year. This is certainly food for thought!


ORGAN BANKS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for all the men and women who are willing to donate their organs. We have to applaud all these people who are aware of the need for livers, kidneys, eyes and hearts.
We have to encourage those who work at promoting organ banks. I take this opportunity to invite all Canadian men and women to contribute generously by donating their organs when they die. Thousands of people wait for an organ to give them some hope to improve or prolong their life.
This is the most precious posthumous gift that a human being can give to someone who is still living. The scientific obstacles have long disappeared, we now have the necessary knowledge in Canada and the hospitals have the required facilities. This is a priceless contribution.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, for an example of the unfairness of our tax system one need only look at Canada's federally chartered trust companies. In 1985 their profits collectively went up by a whopping 44 per cent over 1984, yet their taxes paid actually fell by 4 per cent.
Specifically, the big winners in 1985 include Canada Trust Company which made a profit of $63,430,692 and paid no income tax at all. Montreal Trust Company of Canada made a profit of $14,642,890 and paid no income tax at all. Royal Trust Corporation of Canada made a profit of $52,545,427 and paid no income tax at all. Sterling Trust Company made a profit of $3,230,000 and paid no income tax at all. Eaton Trust Company made a profit of $709,980 and paid no income tax at all. International Trust Company made a profit of $1,528,298 and paid no income tax at all.


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


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Once again, Mr. Speaker, just seven minutes ago, the Bank of Canada announced a reduction of its bank rate from 9.33 per cent to 9.23 per cent.
Over the past few months, thanks to our budgetary and economic initiatives, interest rates have gone down by more than 3.5 per cent. On a $50,000 mortgage, this represents a saving of $1,750 per year, or $34 per week.
We have managed to help the economy recover without increasing inflation.
With our Government, Canadians' savings maintain their purchasing power, which was not the case under the Liberals inflationary policies.
We are proud of our achievements, Mr. Speaker. Business people have understood our message, corporations are hiring more and more Canadians, and our Government has put Canada back on the road to prosperity.


EQUALITY RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the first anniversary of the implementation of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights guaranteeing every Canadian equality before and under the law. Canadian women fought vigorously for the inclusion of equality rights in our Constitution, yet women know that equality embraces much more than legal declarations.
Through a host of measures introduced during the past year and a half this Government has expressed the Charter's equality guarantees in practical ways, such as our Employment Equity Bill, the appointment of more women to the judiciary and to Government boards and commissions, legislation to equalize pension benefits for women and men, the repeal of the Indian Act's discriminatory sections, and our commitment to equal pay for work of equal value in the Public Service. These measures and others are evidence of the Government's commitment to equality for Canadian women.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
According to Michel Tessier, our vice-consul in Tripoli, there are now hundreds of Canadians who would like to leave Libya. What measures does the Canadian Government intend to take to provide for the immediate departure of these Canadians?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant touch with our consular officials in Libya. We are advised the situation there is stabilizing now. There is no immediate threat to Canadians. Therefore my responses yesterday, which no doubt the Hon. Member has seen, have not altered.


PROCEEDINGS AT OECD MEETING
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue involving the safety of Canadians which must be followed up, and it will be. I ask the Prime Minister if the Canadian delegation at the OECD has received specific instructions to institute an emergency debate on economic sanctions which can be imposed to control Libyan


terrorism, or does the delegation intend to remain silent as the Government has been for so many weeks?


Erik Nielsen: That matter has been discussed and the Secretary of State for External Affairs is at those meetings.


IMPOSITION OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what that is supposed to tell us. We have the Prime Minister in the House so let me try him again. Will he undertake immediately, today, to impose full economic sanctions against Libya and once again show the kind of leadership in the international arena for which Canada has been respected in the past?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that is a remarkable suggestion coming from a political Party which, until yesterday, had said absolutely nothing or very little to support this Government when we brought in, last January 10, the strongest economic sanctions against Libya taken by any Government of Canada, to the best of my knowledge. On January 10 we began building a strong set of economic sanctions against Libya because we took the view that terrorism was an unacceptable evil and had to be dealt with.
We believed at that time that supporting the U.S. in a series of economic sanctions would be the best way to proceed. It turned out that that did not find favour with a number of allies. However, Canada persisted in that view and supported the notion that this was an excellent first step to be taken along the diplomatic and economic route. That step having failed, other steps were taken by the U.S. Those have been discussed by myself and the Deputy Prime Minister.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS IN LIBYA
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with the Prime Minister on the topic of the safety of Canadians in Libya. Our consular representative has said that he has been inundated with phone calls from Canadians concerned about the critical situation, yet he knows of no plans to evacuate them. We understand there are three Hercules aircraft in Lahr, Germany, which could be used to evacuate Canadians from Libya. Can the Prime Minister confirm that is so and, if it is, has he taken steps to put those Hercules on alert, and are there any plans to use those aircraft to evacuate Canadians who want to leave that country?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, first let me correct the hon. gentleman with respect to his statement that our consular officials in Libya are being inundated with telephone calls from Canadians expressing a desire to leave. That is simply not true. The Government has been in touch with our officials as recently as the last couple of hours and we have the direct assurance that there is no immediate threat to Canadians.
Oral Questions
With respect to contingency plans, as I said yesterday and have been saying throughout, it is not helpful to the discussion and would jeopardize the very plans themselves to discuss them openly in public. The hon. gentleman, having been a member of a previous Government, should know that.


EVACUATION MEASURES
Bill Rompkey: That may be true, Mr. Speaker, but we can only go on the basis of information we have. The information we have from The Globe and Mail this morning says that Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: You have to get your information from somewhere if you cannot get it from the Government.
Our consul says they are becoming increasingly worried, and about a quarter of them want to get out-


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


Bill Rompkey: If those Hercules are not going to be used in view of the situation, what are the Government's plans? Can the Government tell us what plans it has to evacuate Canadians in this serious situation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the consular officials are not advising the Government in any way along the lines suggested by my hon. friend. Second, the airport is now either open or in the process of being opened for commercial travel.


Donald James Johnston: They will go by Wardair, I suppose.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The hon. gentleman from Westmount on a serious matter talks about Wardair. I can tell him that we do not do this frivolously.


William Warren Allmand: You didn't show up for two days.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can tell him that we have contingency plans which involve the Government of Canada-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Tell us about it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to protect the security of Canadians, as opposed to these frivolous acts by the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


EXIT VISAS INQUIRY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and it is on the same general topic. The Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned two days ago that contact had been made


Oral Questions
with the Government of Libya and that our Government had been assured that any Canadians wishing to exit would in fact be allowed to do so.
I wonder if I might ask if the Government has been informed that Canadians living in Libya now are unable to obtain exit visas because Government operations in Libya are not functioning and, even if there were ways of getting in there for normal aircraft, there would be no way for the Canadians actually to leave.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister indeed made reference to a communication we had received from a senior official of the Government of Libya. It is exactly as my hon. friend has reported it to be. However, we have no information that would cause us the kind of concern to which he refers. In fact the level of anxiety and concern among Canadian residents presently in Libya has declined substantially.


CASE OF CANADIAN FAMILY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would be kind enough to investigate the case of Darlene Yarrow and her family who are now in Libya? Her husband is a teacher there. They want to leave Libya but they cannot obtain either an exit visa or a means of leaving the country. Would the Prime Minister determine whether that is an isolated case or whether in fact, as was reported in the press, she is just one of a number of people who have contacted our representative there in an effort to find a way to leave the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker, and advise the Hon. Member just as quickly as I can.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, I wonder if the Prime Minister would be prepared, either later today or tomorrow, to indicate to the House clearly exactly what Canadians living in Libya must now do in order to assure themselves of immediate passage out of the country if that is their desire.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have consular officials who are discussing this sur place with the Canadian nationals. We do not want to say anything which would exacerbate the difficult situation but I can give my hon. friend the assurance that we are in as close contact as is humanly possible with Canadian nationals and are working to ensure that any instruments they require to depart from Libya are made available to them.


EQUALITY RIGHTS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Secretary of State. Today is Equality Day and seven months have passed since the Court Challenges Program came into effect to enforce Section 15 of the Charter. Can the Minister explain why it is, still to this day, the names of the equality panel submitted to the Minister by the Canadian Council on Social Development have not been approved? There are 25 to 30 equality cases waiting in the hands of that council pending action by the Minister, and still not a dollar in the equality area has been put into the hands of those waiting for justice.
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: 
PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that nothing has been done on the equality panel. That is the short answer to the question.
Despite all the Tory election promises and the Abella Commission recommendations, all of which called for enforcement provisions, how can the Minister explain his support of an equality Bill which has been called toothless and phoney by the organizations, the people, and the groups which it is supposed to protect?
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: 
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Once again, we believe that the procedures we have today are the right ones. We are working on very basic and fundamental matters, where our initial decisions will affect all subsequent decisions. I don't think we can be accused of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Today we celebrate the anniversary of the Charter of Rights. Does the Minister agree with statements contained in two equality reports which state that "adequate, accessible, affordable child care is clearly essential if equality is to be achieved" and "the federal Government must move quickly to achieve this goal"?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the very recommendations to which the Hon. Member refers are in keeping with the promise made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign that this would be an important issue for a Government that he would lead.
In addition, through the Prime Minister's guidance and leadership this House has struck a task force on which the Hon. Member sits, to find out the best method by which Canada can address this question.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister will recall that the Prime Minister also promised funding.
In view of the child care crisis which is so evident in every province which the child care task force has visited, will the Minister initiate action within Cabinet to allocate emergency federal funding for child care during this year, 1986, as an incentive to joint action with the provinces?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member sits on that very task force. She knows that there have to be additions, changes, and improvements to day care. We all recognize that. Week after week the task force has been asking for people's views. For her to say now that she already has a solution, regardless of the fact that the work has not been done, is unfair to those people appearing before the task force.


UN ITED STATES-LIBYA CON FRONTATION-PR IM E M IN ISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister tell the House specifically when and from whom he first learned of the American plans to attack Libya?
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we were kept informed of developments, as an ally ought to be kept informed. We put forward views, particularly dealing with the safety and security of Canadian nationals in Libya, all of whom are still there. It would be singularly unhelpful to them to reveal any details in regard to that.


TIMING OF RECEIPT OF INFORMATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister two questions. I asked him when he was informed, and he did not answer that question. I asked him by whom he was informed, and he did not answer that question. Because I do not think that these are the type of questions he can avoid answering I will ask them again. Considering his good relationship with the President of the United States, will he tell us on what date, at what time, and by whom he was first informed? Specifically, what kind of advice did he give to the individual who told him?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not going fishing but is going to new heights of irresponsibility. He asked two questions and I have no intention of answering either because they could affect the security and safety of Canadians in Libya. That is an irresponsible suggestion the Hon. Member made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EQUALITY RIGHTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, over a month ago the Canadian Council on Social Development submitted a proposed list of names for the Court Challenges equality rights Panel. I would ask the Minister of Justice why it is that the Government has refused so far to approve this important list with the result that very many important court challenges remain unfunded. Is the Minister in fact attempting to exert a degree of political interference in what should be an arm's length process?


Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman talks about political interference, and that is what he is attempting now. The position is that under the agreement entered into with the Canadian Council on Social Development, we have the right to approve the persons it has suggested should be appointed to the board which will have the very important task of deciding which challenges will be financed in this area. We have received a list and we are discussing with the council whether all of the names proposed are suitable or not and whether or not we think there should be other sugggestions considered as well, something which is within our rights. We are dealing with public funds and we have to be satisfied that the members of the board that is to be set up are perfectly satisfactory from all points of view.


PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important court challenges in recent months was the Bhinder decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canadian Human Rights Act did not cover reasonable accommodation. I would like to ask the Minister for his assurance that he will move to bring in amendments specifically dealing with the important principle of reasonable accommodation without waiting for an over-all review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, because the Canadian Human Rights Commission has insisted that its work is seriously jeopardized by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any Government in the history of Canada that has ever moved so quickly to deal with matters of equality, including the matter raised by the hon. gentleman. In our response to the equality report which we tabled a few weeks ago, the Government has said that it accepts the concept of reasonable accommodation and is going to see that it goes into law. That will likely be done this year once legislation is introduced following our review of the Human Rights Act, but there is no necessity to bring hastily before the House an amendment on just one item when there are a number of items in the human rights legislation with which we need to deal.


LACK OF CHILD CARE CENTRES-EQUALITY IN LABOUR FORCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In her report on employment equality, Judge Rosalie Abella stated that the lack of daycare services is a major obstacle to employment equality for women. I would like to know whether
the Government is prepared to support this view and acknowledge that the lack of daycare facilities is indeed a major obstacle to the equality of women on the labour market?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government has very seriously and directly agreed that if women are to find equality in the workplace, not only in terms of opportunities but also in terms of working conditions, the issue of day care must be addressed. The Hon. Member knows, as she is a member of the task force, that those very points are being made by the task force according to reports I have received. It is for that reason that I look forward to its recommendations. We are looking at how best to do it. There have been other reports, like the Cooke report, about which there have been very serious questions concerning the figures, from some quarters. We are looking at how we can best deliver the service, keeping in mind the jurisdictional question as well, with the moneys available, and I think that that is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


CHILD CARE SERVICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Well, if the Minister is prepared to provide such services, is he also prepared to admit that daycare services are just as essential as schools and health services?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will not pre-empt the position of the recommendations that will be coming from the task force. The point the Hon. Member has made was made by the Cooke report and, as she will know if she will look at the responsibilities she has taken on as a member of the task force, the Cooke report is one of the things which the task force was supposed to assess and on which it was to give us a recommendation.


FEDERAL PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Premier of Quebec has just announced that Quebec will be receiving $66 million less in equalization payments for the 1985-86 financial year than had been expected. The federal Government has therefore failed to meet its commitment that it would maintain equalization payments at a minimum of 95 per cent of the amount Quebec received the year before. How does the federal Government


intend to compensate Quebec for this loss of $66 million in equalization payments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, last year, the Government of Canada took steps to clean up a problem with the equalization formula which had been pending for a number of years and which affected a number of provinces, including Quebec. Although it was under no legal obligation to do so, last year the Canadian Government took steps to provide relief for a number of provinces, including Manitoba and Quebec, by paying very substantial amounts, again notwithstanding the fact that it was under no legal or contractual obligation to do so. Last year, we acted fairly and honourably towards Quebec, and as far as I know, we have met and respected all our commitments to Quebec.


COMMITMENT TO QUEBEC
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Could the Prime Minister inform the House why the federal Government met its commitment to maintain the 95 per cent for Manitoba and Nova Scotia, while the supplementary equalization payment for Quebec is $66 million less, considering the 95 per cent which had been promised? Why did the federal Government forget its promise to meet this commitment to Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member is saying is utter nonsense. The fact is that last year, we unilaterally paid over $100 million to Quebec, which amount had been cancelled by the previous Liberal Government. It was our Government that gave more than $100 million to Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, and so forth. This Government has rebuilt federal-provincial relations on a far more constructive and reasonable basis. We did not owe Quebec any money. We saw a problematic situation and remedied it last year in accordance with the objective criteria we shall continue to observe.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Last week in the House I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary on the spending practices of CBC Radio in northern Ontario, something which I thought was newsworthy. I have learned that a CBC regional supervisor in Ontario ordered regional stations not to run the story unless they first contacted the head office in Toronto. Would the Minister please ask the President of the CBC if every story has to be run through the head office, or just those that criticize the CBC.
Oral Questions


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the existence of this CBC memo, directive or guideline. I was told about it this morning and 1 will wait until the President of the CBC comes back from China where he is now and ask for his advice, suggestions or ideas concerning this matter.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN EXPORTS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Given the fact that the majority of American Senators on the U.S. Finance Committee have written to the President requesting that he withdraw his request with regard to fast-track negotiations until certain outstanding resolutions have been made with regard to trade with Canada, can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not he has the intention of sacrificing any Canadian interests, such as softwood lumber exports and fish, and would he tell the House whether or not he has been lobbying the American administration in order to prevent these preconditions from being attached to any of these negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of silly question one is loath to dignify with an answer. However, I would point out to my hon. friend that, to the extent that there may be an impasse generated by some Senators who represent timber-producing states, that may indeed have been brought about because of my reluctance and refusal to deal away the timber interests of Canada prior to engaging in any trade negotiations. I simply will not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps a silly question, Mr. Speaker, but a silly Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a short question, please.


David Charles Dingwall: Surely the Prime Minister and his Government have been canvassing U.S. Senators and Congressmen in the administration with regard to the preconditions they may be seeking. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House exactly what the preconditions are that are being sought by the American administration?


Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated the position of the Government of Canada is that we shall not accept any such preconditions. I think I have made that very clear. Moreover-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is so bad on the Liberal side today, Mr. Speaker, that we may have to ask for the return of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why is he always absent when we are discussing important matters?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In a news release on February 27 the Minister stated that:
The moratorium on FCC foreclosures will be lifted only when the commodity based loans and rural transition programs are up and running.
With no programs yet in place, will the Minister state more precisely the conditions under which he will now lift the moratorium? Will it now be after harvest? Is the Minister going to lift it now, or is he waiting for farmers to seed the crops so that the FCC can reap them?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the information contained in the Hon. Member's question, in which he made reference to a statement that I made in February, and which I made as far back as October or perhaps even September of last year, stands today.


PROPOSED COMMODITY BASED MORTGAGE PROGRAM
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister still telling us, as the Budget said, that before farmers plant this crop they will have available to them a commodity based mortgage program? The people in FCC offices don't know the details. They can't assess whether a farmer is even eligible. They have to know their seeding time-


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


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I do not detect in the country or in my day-to-day communications with farm organizations any confusion at all. I indicated
the moratorium on farm foreclosures would remain until such time as we have the commodity based loans program in place and running, as well as bankruptcy and insolvency legislation for farmers, and that is exactly where we are today.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: If they announce it in June, what happens?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. The Niagara River is the source of drinking water for millions of Canadians and its pollution is everyone's concern. What progress has been made in negotiating a comprehensive clean-up package with the Americans, and how soon can we expect that package?


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Government appreciates the Member's ongoing concern for the quality of water in the Niagara River. The clean-up plan requires the co-operation of the Governments of Canada, the United States, New York State and the Province of Ontario.
We have been engaged in long and difficult negotiations since October, 1985. While they have been long and difficult, progress has been made. We hope to be able to report a conclusion agreeable to all parties within the next several weeks.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
While the people affected by the unemployment insurance and early retirement regulations are meeting in Trois-Rivieres with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, can the Minister of Employment and Immigration confirm the date of the decision to apply regulations to applications filed before January 5, 1986?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been raised, as you know, a number of times in the House by different

Members. I will tell the Hon. Member, as I have told others on numerous occasions, that this is a regulation which was introduced at the time of the economic statement in November, 1984. It was given a year's lead time before implementation. It came into effect in January of this year. The whole measure has also been referred to the Forget Commission for consideration, and I am awaiting the results of the commission's review.


INQUIRY HOW MINISTER CAN PRETEND TO HAVE INFORMED BENEFICIARIES IN ADVANCE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister claim that the beneficiaries were informed in advance when in her own letter of November 26, 1985 to the Member for Trois-Rivieres, she indicated that the Government had not yet made a decision, and that she did not know what regulations would apply to applications filed before January 5?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House will know that this issue has been raised time and again. What was taking place was conveyed to Members of the House of Commons. Letters were sent to all major employers across the country by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. People have been notified in company after company. Members have been notified. I will continue to ensure that Members are notified as they ask additional questions.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-ACTION OF U.S. SENATORS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Prime Minister's ambush by the U.S. Senate and ask him to recognize the reality of the situation the Senators have requested, namely, that President Reagan withdraw his request for free trade talks until such time as a position has been worked out. Will the Prime Minister himself personally tell President Reagan that that kind of blackmail from the U.S. Senate is simply unacceptable to the Canadian people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the word ambush suggests some great untoward set of circumstances. I point out to my hon. friend with regard to that, that in an interview on Global Television on August 29 last I said:
-my concern is thal if we shilly-shally unduly that by the time we get there the Americans may say, well lookit we're not interested-
In my statement in the House of Commons on September 26 I said:
Oral Questions
Success is not a sure thing-
At a press conference on October 11 I said that I was far from certain that Canadians can take for granted that the Americans will sign an agreement or will want to.
I have been telling the House and the country this- contrary to the NDP which holds the unusual view that the Americans went down on bended knee just waiting for the innocent Canadians to come down and get their clocks cleaned. Now you find out, because you have been ambushed, that that is not the case all along, that it will be difficult because this kind of a deal will be a good deal for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. We could take the Prime Minister back to his words before he was elected, at which point he opposed free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Does the Prime Minister now recognize that he has been dead wrong in telling Canadians across the country that he could solve the trade disputes affecting our resource producers, and the thousands of jobs involved, by going for this free trade thrust? He has led us down a blind path.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that decency is a rare commodity when my hon. friend gets cornered as he is, up against the Detroit River.
I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. Contrary to what the Hon. Member was saying that I didn't just say it to the House, 1 went to Chicago and on December 4 said:
There is in Canada as in the United States some skepticism as to whether any such agreement could get by a Congress which seems to be growing more and more protectionist.
Contrary to what my hon. friend is saying, I was cautioning that this is not a sweetheart deal for Canada, that no one is down on bended knees in the United States, but that, properly developed, this kind of freer trade initiative-


James Ross Fulton: They don't even know your name down there, Muldoon.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -could result in new jobs, new wealth, and new prosperity for Canada. That is what we offered, as opposed to the old status quo-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Play it again, Muldoon.


Martin Brian Mulroney: - which comes from the "apostles of reaction" approach by the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


MEAT INSPECTION-NEWSPAPER REPORT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and is with regard to the third controversy in less than a year involving Canada's meat inspection system. Can the Minister of Agriculture confirm to this House, as reported in the Kitchener- Waterloo Record, the existence of a memo through which an official of his Department in southwestern Ontario was asking meat inspectors to sign blank inspection forms and leave them with the management of various plants? Can he further confirm the report that tonnes of unfit pork and chicken were improperly approved for market?


John Wise: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that at the moment. That information was brought to my attention early this morning. Quite appropriately and properly, under the terms of the Meat Inspection Act, which does not extend ministerial authority to me, I made inquiry of the appropriate senior officials. The Member may take some satisfaction, as I did, from the fact that an investigation had already commenced before I called.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first it was tainted tuna, then it was TB buffalo, and now it is contaminated chicken.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Can the Minister of Agriculture assure this House that he would co-operate with a parliamentary committee to investigate Canada's meat inspection system and the position which it has been in over the last year?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly confirm that this is not a matter of contamination. I do not know why the Member is so nervous, because I have every confidence in the meat inspection system of the country.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister is aware of my alarming statement, made the other day, that northern New Brunswick is now experiencing an unemployment rate of 25 per cent. I am also aware of the great success the Minister has been having in Cape Breton. Will the Minister now instruct his Department to make the
same kind of concentrated effort to help Restigouche overcome its high unemployment?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that 15,000 more people have been employed in New Brunswick in the past year, an increase of 6.4 per cent. That is the best provincial record in Atlantic Canada but, unfortunately, it has not been equally experienced in every area of New Brunswick, including the Hon. Member's riding.
With this in mind, I particularly directed our departmental officials to look at his area and concentrate on it to ensure that the benefits of the Atlantic Enterprise Program, which will go into effect on May 1, will be felt to the fullest extent in his riding, as will the other programs which we have in place.


INDUSTRY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and is with regard to the announcement last evening by Algoma Steel of the lay-off of approximately 1,500 workers. Will the Prime Minister cause an investigation to be held, with public hearings, in order that Algoma Steel can come before a committee and justify the layoff of 1,500 workers?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, Algoma Steel has been in touch with my Department. It has indicated the circumstances which now exist, which, unfortunately, are leading to the lay-offs to which the Hon. Member has referred. I assure the Hon. Member that the matter is in hand as far as the Government of Canada is concerned.


TAX INCENTIVE GRANTED COMPANY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. How does the Minister justify the $200 million federal tax incentive given to Algoma a year ago when, one year later, it is laying off 1,500 workers in a city which is experiencing a 20 per cent unemployment rate?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, this involves two areas of considerable attention for us. One is the tax fairness which we brought to the corporation tax system. The other is employment opportunities throughout Canada, and particularly in areas like northern Ontario. We have always worked with companies-


John R. Rodriguez: That's not an answer to the question.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -including companies like Algoma, to try to provide them with investment opportunities which create jobs.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that on Equality Day his Government, through Canada Post, is assisting in the spread of pornographic material by delivering mass mailings of unsolicited pornography ads, including orders for films like The Good, the Bad and the Horny, Jail Bait, and Pooniesl
[ Translation]


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation, of course. We have already begun an examination and we will have comments to make about this later on.


ROLE OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible says that an examination has begun. I was told by Canada Post this morning that the material is all right because it is not pornography, but only an ad for pornography. What kind of signal does this send out when, on the one hand, the Minister of Justice is talking about stopping the spread of pornographic material and, on the other hand, Canada Post is aiding and abetting the spread of this kind of garbage?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has already brought this complaint to my attention.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why has nothing been done?


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know how the Hon. Member got on this list as well. We are checking this with Canada Post. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will be introducing suggested legislation to deal with the problem of pornography in general in the next few weeks.


EFFECT OF FALLING OIL PRICES ON SMALL COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Would she agree
Oral Questions
with me that Canada is experiencing a real crisis in the decline of the Alberta economy due to the collapsing world prices? On behalf of my Party I want to offer the Minister our cooperation if she is prepared to bring forth legislation to help small Canadian oil companies. Is she prepared to consider helping small Canadian oil companies in Alberta in order to do something to help that economy?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have already assured the Hon. Member that our consultations in this area are going well. We are looking at all options which will provide some relief to an area of the country which is being badly devastated.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 hope she will treat the matter with some urgency.


FINANCIAL POST ARTICLE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Does the
Minister agree with the respected energy writer, David Hatter, who has written the following in this week's The Financial Post:
The "Americanization" of the Canadian oil industry is under way again, with major U.S. firms bidding for the remains of Canadian-owned companies that have been mortally wounded by collapsing world oil prices.
Is the Minister aware of that problem? Is she prepared to protect small Canadian oil companies from being gobbled up by the big American companies?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member and this House that this Government has done more to increase Canadianization of the oil and gas industry than has any other Government.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Speaking on behalf of the Government last October 19, the Secretary of State said something about strong leadership and promised to maintain and reinforce the Government's linguistic programs. Then after an interview on March 10, 1986 the Secretary of State was heard to say: "It will take a lot of time to settle this matter." "We cannot take energetic action because the question is too controversial, too important, too dangerous."
Which of these positions is the Government's position? That of the person responsible for the linguistic policy, or that of a reluctant Conservative Government?


Benoît Bouchard: Between the month of November and the month of March,
12374


Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, with the mandate of the Prime Minister, we made an assessment of official languages policies in three different departments. I am surprised that a Member with such experience, considering his situation, would suggest that a serious matter such as official languages might necessarily be resolved in just a few months.
1 think there are very basic considerations in this issue. We are negotiating with ten provinces, each with different concerns with respect to bilingualism, and we must take that into account. The federal system itself is very complex. The cooperation of various interests is such that our propositions on the review of the official languages policy will take into consideration a number of factors which are much too important to run the risk of upsetting everything in two or three months. I think that my colleague . . .


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to ask the
Government House Leader for a statement on the business of the House for the coming week. 1 would also like to ask the Government House Leader if he is prepared to present an order to the House so petitions gathered before the new rules came into effect in February could be tabled formally with the Clerk and, as a result, formally recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of this House.
[ Translation]


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will consider the second reading stage of Bill C-45. Tomorrow, we will start consideration of the report stage of Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited. Subsequently, we will continue consideration of Bill C-45. Monday, we will start the third reading of Bill C-62, an Act respecting Employment Equity. Once that has been completed, we will get back to Bil C-45.
Mr. Speaker, I will monitor the situation very closely and make additional announcements if necessary.

With respect to the matter raised by the Hon. House Leader in terms of petitions that do not comply with the new Standing Orders, and ones which had been in the state of preparation prior to the implemention of the new rules, the House Leaders have had a very good discussion with respect to this matter and we have come to an understanding which I think would be agreeable to all Members of the House and will be accepted as an Order of the House. In any event it would be a direction to
the Table. That understanding is that a Member can, by tabling his petition with the Clerk, indicate that it falls under the category of being a petition under the former provisions which had been initiated prior to the implementation of the new rules. The Clerk would receive and accept that petition by direct delivery, or with an accompanying letter. The fact of that petition being in the form which was acceptable prior to the implementation of the new rules would be examined in that context and the petition would appear, if acceptable, in the Votes and Proceedings for that day. That would be the extent of it. There would be no requirement for a response because of the fact it does not comply with the new Standing Orders. It would not be delivered or presented in the House, but it would be done directly with the Clerk of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the Chair requires that there be a motion to that effect. May I just be clear that the House wishes the Table to have the petitions that were in the correct form before and shall be regarded as though they were in the correct form? We will look at what the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has said. We may have to come back and ask for a House order. If so, 1 take it there is a willingness to do so.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. We understand that later on this afternoon, at 4.30, to be precise, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) will be making a statement in the House under Tabling of Documents. Is it the understanding at that time then that Members of the Opposition would have an equal opportunity to respond to her statement?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member did anticipate the next point that I was going to raise. This being equality day, we would not want to breach that principle and not allow the Opposition the opportunity of responding to what I know will be an excellent statement. I have a draft order which has been the subject of discussion and I have presented this order to the Opposition Parties. I think you would find a disposition to have this order received with unanimous consent and passed without debate. The order is as follows:
Notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House at 4.30 o'clock p.m. this day, the House shall revert to "Tabling of Documents" for the purpose of permitting the Hon. the Minister of State (Finance) to lay a document upon the Table and immediately thereafter shall proceed to "Statements by Ministers" for the purpose of receiving a statement by the aforementioned Minister; and provided that Standing Order 19(6) shall be deemed to be in force for the purpose of this order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to ask the Government House Leader, given that normally the additional time required by Statements is added on to the lunch hour, can he give us his understanding of how this rule will apply? Will the time be added on to the day at six o'clock, and will some of us who have adjournment questions and debate at that time be allowed to have our debate after the time is added to the day's work?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my proposal is that all the normal proceedings would simply take place at the conclusion of the additional time added on. It will not be a long statement, but we will continue with the adjournment motions immediately following the extended time period today.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I was informed by our critic for the Ministry of State for Finance that she understood that she would be getting a copy of the statement to be given, one hour before, so that she could prepare her response. I would like to have the undertaking of the Government House Leader that this would be the case, so that even though there is this House order, which will preclude us from objecting to the statement being given, there will not be any temptation by anyone not to have the statement provided both to our critic and the NDP critic an hour before, as we were given to understand would be the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Can we procedurally deal with the question? Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent necessary to introduce the motion?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The House Leader for the Official Opposition is asking a legitimate question. I want to respond, but my understanding is that if the documents in question are not now in the possession of the critic for both Parties, and I have an indication from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) that is the case, then I will give my undertaking that that would be the case and there would be sufficient time, in any event, to allow at least an hour for preparation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I was attempting to simply answer the question that was raised by the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray). I have just been in receipt, as the finance critic for the NDP, of a note to the effect that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) will be issuing a copy of the statement to the critics immediately so as to enable us to respond at 4.30.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council have the unanimous consent necessary for the introduction of 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.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 4, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee, and the amendment (Ms. Copps) (p. 833)
Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate with six minutes remaining.


Michael Morris Cassidy: When I was so rudely interrupted it was November 4, 1985, and it has therefore been some 164 days since this Bill was last debated.
I want to just remind you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues as well, that at the time the Bill was initially debated in the House on November 1, 1985, the Government House Leader stated the ultimate effect of Bill C-45 would be to speed up the efforts of the employees concerned to form a union, by eliminating disputes before the courts. He indicated, in other words, that we would be saving time by this particular measure.
Prior to your leaving the chair perhaps I can just catch your attention for a minute. The fact that the Government has not been negotiating in good faith with the Canada Labour Code certification of these employees means that the House of Commons has essentially been taking the side of the Government in a partisan affair and has not been acting in a nonpartisan manner. I am sorry to say that to my friend, the Speaker. I want to say to you, sir, now that you have replaced the Speaker, that I am very disturbed about this. The House of Commons should not be putting itself in this position. There happens to be a dispute between the parties and delay by the Government, because apparently it does not want Canada Labour Code coverage of House of Commons' employees. That is a partisan position. Since the Canada Labour Board recognized our employees some six or seven months ago, it is wrong for there not to have been meaningful negotiations. The mediator has made an attempt to get things going but nothing has happened. The employees continue to be frustrated.
I would remind my colleagues in the House that this is not something which has just begun. House of Commons employees, for good and proper reasons, have been trying to get collective bargaining rights for 20 years. The application before the Canada Labour Board was November, 1983, some two and a half years ago. We do not know what is going to happen now. The argument that the Canada Labour Board should delay because the Government was treating the matter as one of urgency is patently untrue. If the Government


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
wanted to treat this as a matter of urgency it would have brought Bill C-45 back on November 6 or November 10, certainly well before Christmas. It would have gone to committee, come back for third reading and been disposed of. Whether or not Members of my party agreed with Bill C-45 as it was then, at least there would be a measure in being.
In fact, there is a measure in being. Just like employees of the Privy Council, the Governor General and a number of other federal government agencies, House of Commons employees are a recognized bargaining unit. They are certified as a union under the Canada Labour Code. Therefore this House, which should be acting as a model for labour relations, is working in exactly the contrary direction.
The motion before us right now requests a delay in passage of this Bill for a period of time. It was proposed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), and I continue to support it in the hope that at last the House of Commons will enter into some serious negotiations with its employees. I do not understand what is going on. I certainly cannot support, as I could not last November or last May when the Bill was originally proposed, a measure which falls far short of granting reasonable rights of unionization to an important group of employees who help keep the Parliament of Canada in operation.
I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of long standing in this House, that the concerns of those workers include such matters as classification of job categories and grievances. Under the Canada Labour Code they would have input and be able to negotiate regarding those issues. Under this Bill they will not. Therefore, those issues which have provoked employees to sign union cards and keep at it for such a long time are not being resolved with this Bill. They fear, with reason, that this Bill will prove to be even less effective than the Public Service Staff Relations Act. There is no staff relations board to which they can appeal on matters in dispute with their employer. This Bill could also be interpreted as a thinly disguised attempt at union bashing. The certification process these employees have gone through already before the Canada Labour board will have to be repeated for the third, fourth or fifth time. They will be asked to sign union cards again. They are not guaranteed that the staff relations board will recognize the same bargaining units recognized by the Canada Labour Board. There are further opportunities for delay given to the employer if it decides to act as it has been acting.
As one Member of Parliament to whom, theoretically, the Speaker is responsible, I would have thought that we would not be playing these games. This is not some sweatshop textile plant in Montreal or Toronto. This is not some Third World country, for God's sake. This is the Parliament of Canada, a country which, in its labour relations statutes, acknowledges the right of working people to form unions and bargain collectively. That is a right for which working people have fought in every country. It is traditionally one of the first rights to be taken away when dictators take away the rights of
working people and attack democracy. Is the House of Commons to be an accomplice in undermining the democratic rights of the 1,200 workers who have won certification? That would appear to be the case. I am sorry to direct this to you, Mr. Speaker, as well as to the Government. However, Bill C-45 is a denial of democratic rights and I regret very much that the 210 Conservative Members of this House are in some surreptitious way influencing the House of Commons to act in a manner-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 regret the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Philip Derek Lewis: I don't.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, before I put a question to my colleague I want to preface it with a few remarks about something that took place about two years ago, just after the 1984 election. It was revealed in archives tapes that there were reports by a previous Speaker of sexual harassment of staff on this Hill. Women had to lay their bodies down to get and keep jobs here. Everyone went: "Tut tut". They said this is terrible, this is awful. It seems to me that any kind of collective bargaining process must include MP's staff and Your Honour's staff. 1 want to ask my colleague why he thinks the staff of Members of the House of Commons are not included in this Bill.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. I suppose maybe somewhere in the dark recesses of the minds of certain members of Cabinet we could find an explanation for the exclusion of 1,200 people who work for Members of different Parties. As my hon. friend knows, we have in our caucus a staff association. It seeks to act like a union but it is extremely difficult because it does not and cannot get certification. The extension of bargaining rights to Members' employees does not automatically mean there is going to be a strike in every Conservative corridor. It is up to the employees whether or not they want to exercise their rights, as it is in the private sector. However, having access to those rights, even if you do not use them, is a powerful incentive for employers to treat their employees decently. They know that if they go too far they will provoke the employees into exercising their rights.
In response to the other point about sexual harassment, the number of specific incidents alleged by the union-and perhaps all of them are not true, but I believe they are-of favouritism, nepotism and what amounts to internal patronage in the House of Commons is shocking. There are, again and again, instances of employees working side by side, doing the same job, with salary differences amounting to thousands of dollars. Competitions are not held for certain positions. Those positions are filled on a temporary basis. After a few months, when the temporary person has acquired some experience, a competition is held, and you can guess who gets the job-the person who was brought in from outside rather than employees


who have been waiting their turn to get a promotion for a number of years.
These irregularities must end, but I am afraid that Bill C-45 does not provide the assurance that those irregularities will end. If my hon. friend has other questions I will be happy to answer them.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, a kind of patriarchal tradition, as far as a woman working on the Hill, has been extremely apparent over the years, and I would like to ask my hon. colleague what steps can be taken to deal with this issue? The Hon. Member has mentioned some examples of this. It is very obvious that until we had a woman Speaker there were very traditional ghettos for men and women, which still exist to some degree and, certainly, the lower paid jobs, as in society, are the jobs which are usually held by women.
Some of us worked very hard to get a child care centre started on the Hill, yet it has still not adapted to the needs of workers, most of them women who are in the lower salary range. Would the Hon. Member tell us how collective bargaining rights might help in promoting greater equality on the Hill?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the problem when questions relating to trade unions and so on come up is that we seem to have to constantly reinvent the wheel in persuading people in Government, who should know better, about what the basic rights of collective bargaining are, and why they should be there. The answer to my hon. friend from Vancouver East is simply that if there is a union and bargaining rights, then workers can unite to bring pressure upon the employer or, in certain cases, through grievance or other action, take quasilegal action, in order to defend their rights. But the employee acting on his or her own is defenceless, or almost so, against arbitrary acts by the supervisor or manager for whom he or she may happen to work. That is why people finally become so frustrated that they decide they want a union.
Employers wonder why they all cannot get along together. It is because they do not understand the kinds of frustration which can build up in a situation where, no matter how chummy things are, when it comes down to the crunch the employer or manager keeps the job and it is the employee who must leave.
I can give an example of sexual harrassment which was given to me by the union. In a support service in the House of Commons a female employee is the object of sexual harrassment. Her manager touches her, leans up behind her and rubs against her. When she protests, she is assigned to a heavier work-load, later given a poor performance rating and finally transferred to another position. If that occurs and there is an effective union, at least that woman has means of fighting back against that kind of mistreatment by her supervisor. That is why we want effective collective bargaining rights for the workforce in the House of Commons. That is why we want the
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
labour board certification proceeded with. We certainly do not want a toothless Bill such as represented by Bill C-45.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what his understanding is of the suggested reason for refusing the right to strike to all of these employees. The suggested reason is, of course, that the Government of Canada cannot be allowed to be caused to cease governing, that it must continuing governing no matter what. Therefore, there cannot be undertaken any risk that it might be stopped by a strike. I would like my colleague to comment on that reasoning.


John R. Rodriguez: That is assuming that Parliament is an essential service.


Michael Morris Cassidy: My friend, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, says that is assuming that Parliament is an essential service. The workings of Parliament are extremely important, if not essential. I believe people would accept that. But is it essential that parliamentarians be fed in the cafeterias on Parliament Hill? Should there be provocation to the point that a strike occurs in that particular service, or in the messenger service or on the little green buses, would Parliament still continue? Of course, it would. Therefore, I think it is arguable that large areas of the work done for parliamentarians is not essential, even though the work of Parliament itself is essential.
Although it is likely that I would have a different view from others as to what is essential and what is not, this is a matter which could be discussed in a reasonable way. In the same way as there are certain powers who designate certain federal employees as essential under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, this is a matter which could be discussed and the Government could come forward with an effective, comprehensive and generous Bill which would have the effect of giving the employees of the House of Commons the same rights as they would have under the Canada Labour Code, and still recognize the possible need for certain variations because of the rather peculiar characteristic of their particular employer.
The other answer I would give to my hon. friend is, who better as an employer is in a position, should it in fact come to the crunch where the essential work of Parliament is affected, to do something about it than the Parliament of Canada? We, of course, have the power to legislate were it to be ultimately required. I would hope that that would never be needed. But it is ludicrous to say that Parliament cannot somehow function if some of its employees have a potential right to strike under the Canada Labour Code.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments regarding this Bill, and this will be the second time because I did so previously on November 1, 1985.


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
My colleague from Hamilton-East (Ms. Copps) has proposed that the Bill be read in a month's time and not be adopted today. I think we should ask ourselves why the motion was presented by my hon. colleague. Bill C-45 was an interesting concept, in that it proposed to deal with a fundamental problem, that of unilateral negotiations between an employer and his employees, and subsequently provide for a lateral system with a collective bargaining process as defined in the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised to see the Government is not proceeding with greater celerity in this respect, because the Bill was tabled last April, we had the Bill in the House for second reading last November, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said that it was one of their priorities. Since then, not a word about the Bill until the middle of April. This reminds me of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) and what he told me in the House today in referring to language programs: We must not go too fast. The Government's policy is rather problematic, and to quote the Secretary of State, this is a matter-he was talking about official languages, but we could say the same thing about unionizing-that cannot be settled quickly. We cannot proceed at a brisk pace because the question is too contentious, too important and in the final instance too perilous. Those were the words used by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House asks the Government to delay the passage of Bill C-45 for a month because the situation has changed.

Bill C-45 which provides employees of the House of Commons and the Senate with a framework of representation is a Bill which must be looked at in a new light and perspective. In its present form, the legislation has been rejected by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, as well by the National Association of Broadcasting Employees and Technicians. Their concern centres on the fact that the Bill enshrines in law an employer-employee relationship which does not meet with the employees' approval. With the new developments, which I will explain later, Bill C-45 must be the object of further consideration by the Government before it will be acceptable to its own employees.
I for one would go along with the process of further consultation. I would like to see the Government sit down with its employees in order to figure out a plan of action which would be acceptable to the Government and to the employees of Parliament. When 1 say "of Parliament" I mean the Senate, the House of Commons, and the Library of Parliament. I consider the workers on the Hill essential. Whether my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), does or does not, I do. I know for a fact that if the bus drivers, the security people, or for that matter any employee of the House of Commons goes on strike, my friend from Ottawa Centre
will be the last one to cross a picket line. I know him to be very respectful of picket lines. We have to make up our minds in respect of this matter. We cannot have it both ways. One has to stand up and say: "Yes, we believe their services are essential because they serve Parliament and Parliament is a servant of the Canadian public". It is an essential service and it should be defined as such.
I have been waiting for the Clerk to bring me a definition of the word "essential" as defined in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I would like to use that definition in my participation here, and I do not have it with me. I see that a gentleman is bringing the book to me.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: An essential service.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, it is. Here is an example in vivo, as we say. It is an essential service to the Members of this House. Here is a gentleman who went, with the help of one of the Clerks, to obtain a book for me. In this book we will find the definition of "essential services".
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has stated to employee representatives that the Government is willing to give parliamentary employees the same rights as those enjoyed by public servants. However, the legislation presented in the House does not live up to that billing. It does not live up to my expectations of what should be forthcoming from the Treasury Board as the employer of public servants.
I say that it does not live up to my expectations because I went through this process before in 1976-77. At that time the House of Commons, in concert with the other place, formed a joint committee to look at possible amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We did this because there are in the Act matters which I find to be in great need of change. In my view, they should be modernized, if not updated, to take the wellbeing of our public servants into consideration, as well as to try to modernize the whole process of negotiation. There are matters such as classification standards to be considered. During the election campaign the governing Party promised that it would make classification standards negotiable. That Party has been in office for two years now and it has not even put forward a suggestion on the subject. I admit it is a complex issue. I also admit that it is a very technical one since classification standards determine where one sits in the organization, what kind of job one has waiting for one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Rug-ranking.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I believe that is an image which one can use to decide where one sits dans l'organigramme de l'organisation.
I find it interesting that a challenge such as amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act has not been forthcoming and that the Government still hesitates. It hesitates on this matter as it does on many other matters. It hesitates to come forward with some reasonable and meaningful modifications to


its own Public Service Staff Relations Act. Yet the Government would like us to buy Bill C-45 when, indeed, we know that the employees are not happy with the process.
Why are they not happy? I will explain why. Bill C-45 does not allow the employees of the House the right to strike. It is a right which they would enjoy under the Canada Labour Code. Recent Canada Labour Relations Board rulings have indicated that Hill employees are governed by the Canada Labour Code and that they can be represented by certified bargaining units. This is the reason employees on the Hill want to be covered under the Canada Labour Code. They think that the deal they will get through that arrangement is better than the deal they will get through the Public Service Staff Relations Act. If that is the position they hold, then one must say: "Fine. Let us sit down and find common ground".
The unions on the Hill have said that they will forgo their right to strike because they understand what are essential services. God knows they are devoted and that they have been good to us. However, they want the assurance, as do all public servants, that binding arbitration procedures will be changed and not maintained as they exist in their present form. That is the key to the whole issue. The employees have said: "We will not strike, but you must give us a deal. We will forfeit our right to strike in exchange for an agreement on arbitration procedures and matters which are not covered in the present legislation". I would add that they are not covered in the Public Service Staff Relations Act either.
NABET and PSAC object, in particular, to Clauses 5(3) and 55(2). Clause 5(3) states:
Nothing in this Part shall be construed so as to affect the right or authority of an employer to determine the organization of the employer and to assign duties and classify positions of employment.
I will now read into the record Clause 55(2) since it is important. It states:
No arbitral award shall deal with the standards, procedures or processes governing the appointment, appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or release of employees, or with any term or condition of employment of employees that was not a subject of negotiation between the parties during the period before arbitration was requested in respect thereof.
In the name of all of us here in Parliament how can the Government proceed with a Bill that does not make classification standards a negotiable matter? Why do we not place that on the table? That is what the Government promised during the election campaign. It is something with which I am in accord. I do not think that members of the New Democratic Party would object to it. Why not give some of these matters serious thought?
I recall that the Treasury Board, in negotiating several contracts this year, tried to give its employees a reasonable approach in regard to lay-off. We are now into an era of compression of the human resources of the Government of Canada. Therefore, the Government must be very sensitive and try to answer those justifiable and deeply felt feelings of people who may be threatened in their jobs and in their careers. They want to be able to negotiate some form of job security. They
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
want to be able to negotiate job classification because job classification means pay. That is the essential truth. Bill C-45 will not do the two most important things the Government promised to do, and that is, to offer a multilateral process of negotiation and to give the employees a better deal than they have had up until now by including certain things in law such as classification, layoff, promotion, demotion, transfer, release and other standards which affect the wellbeing of employees.
When the average person in my riding thinks of the House of Commons and its essential role, he or she does not understand why Parliament has taken so long to come to grips with the issue of employer-employee relations. Indeed, for some 20 years we have had a rather good employer-employee relations law for the Public Service, yet we fail as parliamentarians to look after the close to 3,000 employees of this place who are justifiably requesting that they be included in some form of employer-employee relations agreement.
I heard the Conservative Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) on the radio the other day, and I will paraphrase what he said. He said that Bill C-45 is landmark labour legislation which provides Hill workers with important rights including health and safety rights. That is a mistake if anything because, as workers covered by the Canada Labour Code, Hill employees already enjoy the health and safety rights and privileges which came into force under Bill C-24. To say that Bill C-45 is landmark labour legislation is, 1 think, to misinform Canadians and the Ottawa community. As a matter of fact, Hill employees are covered by Bill C-24 and we know that because we debated it.
The workers on the Hill have asked for a six-month delay. They have asked for meaningful negotiations. I believe they are in possession of a decision on the Canada Labour Code which makes them confident that they will now be able to come forward with an meaningful employer-employee relations formula.
I hope the House will understand that, in the interests of our own employees, we could vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and support a one-month hoist in order to have the Government understand that it must get on with the negotiations with employees and come forward with a compromise solution if needed, and that it must do it soon and do it in the interests of Canadians and the employees on the Hill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are questions or comments? If there are no questions or comments, is the House ready for the question?


David Orlikow: No.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak against this Bill, which I consider to be a real disgrace to Members of Parliament and certainly to the Government. It does not deal with the real and urgent need


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
for true collective bargaining rights for employees of Parliament, including employees of Members of Parliament. At this time, we are speaking to a motion that would delay this Bill, because we feel that this Bill should be delayed-in fact it should be withdrawn-because it restricts and does not enhance the collective bargaining rights of parliamentary employees.
1 wish I had had a chance to say this a few moments ago when the hon. gentleman named Stanley Knowles was sitting at the Table because it is this gentleman who still sits as a conscience for many of us here in the House. Nineteen years ago, Stanley Knowles spoke of the obligation of Parliament to protect the rights of parliamentary employees. He advocated collective bargaining rights for all employees.
According to a recent report done by Mr. Jeff Parr who has studied this matter at some length, he has said the following:
It is evident that while much is made of parliamentary privilege as an impediment to collective bargaining rights on Parliament Hill, it is evident that Parliament can most certainly, on its own authority, grant those rights to its employees.
This Bill does not grant rights; indeed it restricts them.
Mr. Parr's report is entitled Preserving the Employee's Prerogative, and he also said the following:
Tradition has served admirably in preserving the prerogative of employees on Parliament Hill; sheltering them from the interference of the Public Service Commission and the application of merit to staffing decisions, and from the interference of trade unions in managing the parliamentary workforce. But it has been much less successful in protecting employees of Parliament Hill from abuse by their employers.
Some of those employers sit right here in Parliament.
I would like to relate to the House my own personal feelings about this matter. 1 came to this House as an elected Member in 1979. At that time, and there has not been a great deal of change since, it was very apparent to me how unprotected workers were. 1 was concerned particularly about the working conditions of workers on the Hill. A number of employees of the Parliamentary Restaurant and others have spoken to me about their concerns, but they are afraid to talk openly because they feel very insecure. They are afraid of making complaints because they do not have any protection. There are no grievance procedures. We all know that there have been incidents of sexual harassment documented by unions, and it is an absolute disgrace that workers on Parliament Hill and in Members' offices are not protected from such offensive practices, not to mention favouritism in general.
I was struck, and 1 imagine most female Members of the House were struck, by the patriarchal atmosphere of Parliament Hill which still exists. The tradition of patronage in hiring is very offensive, and 1 am particularly offended when I hear Members of Parliament referring to their staff members as "the girls", as in: "1 must have the girls do this". The kind of lack of respect that appears so often in this patriarchal atmosphere would not be tolerated if staff members had a union. It is undemocratic and it is offensive.
Until recently, women and men were locked in traditional job ghettos on the Hill. Women were the waitresses and men were the supervisors and members of the security staff with a higher rate of pay. I congratulate the former Speaker of the House, who is now the Governor General, for the kinds of changes she made. I am referring to changes which moved employees on the Hill one step toward greater equality and equal opportunities. I was also proud to be a part of her project in promoting the first day care facility on the Hill, although I am very concerned that it is not affordable care for many of the lower paid employees, most of whom are women. As well, I wish our staff were much better paid.
This demonstrates that there has been some change, but the slowness of the change has been quite appalling. Also it demonstrates the need for collective bargaining rights for employees who work for Parliament and for Members of Parliament. They should not have to wait for those of us who happen to be their employers to sort of pat them on the head and say: "Now, dear, you will get a little extra bonus or privilege of some kind this year". It should be a right. They should have a proper grievance procedure and all the conditions which go along with collective bargaining rights.
I should like to give two or three examples of the experiences documented by Hill employees. There is quite a long list, but 1 will mention the ones which pertain particularly to female employees. They are some of the types of problems which reinforce the need for collective bargaining rights as a means to resolve workplace issues. The first example is that of employees of the Library of Parliament who were denied maternity benefits for a full year after such benefits were finally extended to employees of the House of Commons. The administration of the Library states than an administrative error was made. This would not have been allowed to happen if those people had been in a union. Another is the Employee Assistance Program of the House of Commons which was established to give employees a safety-valve or a means of having personal problems dealt with in confidence by a qualified counsellor. Perhaps it was not a bad idea, but earlier this year the EAP counsellor was fired, the position abolished and the program responsibility turned over to the nurses. An appeal to the Speaker asking for the position to be re-established was denied. Two petitions signed by 1,500 Hill employees were ignored. This kind of attitude and denial of sensible employee rights would not take place if employees on the Hill had collective bargaining rights and a union of their choice.
1 should like to refer to another example in the support services. A female employee is the object of sexual harassment. Her manager touches her, leans up behind her and rubs against her. When she protests she is assigned a heavier workload. She is later given a poor performance evaluation and finally transferred to another position. 1 am sure most employees who experience sexual harassment would be afraid to complain about it under the present situation. It should not


be tolerated either by workers or by all of us on the Hill. The only way to deal with it in a professional and effective way is to have a union agreement and a proper grievance procedure.
1 should like to refer to another example. In the cafeteria services an employee cuts his hand on the job. He is told to visit the nurse. The nurse tells him that it is not safe to work and that he should go home. The manager informs the employee that he should go back to work or face discipline. What kind of work situation is that? This is the kind of condition which should not be left to chance or whim. All of us, as well-meaning employers, are working under pressure and perhaps our own needs come before those of the employees.
Let us return to Bill C-45 which is before us. There are many problems with it, and that is why we do not support it. We support negotiated collective bargaining rights for employees. Government Members may not realize how ineffective Bill C-45 is. Many important concerns are not open for negotiation. They are not on the table at all. I should like to refer to some examples of this. Bill C-45 prevents any real negotiation of the classification of positions and assignment of duties.
Turning to the question of staffing, job appointments, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers and lay-offs are not negotiable, nor are grievance procedures. Limits are set on what grievances can go to third party arbitration. Union grievances are not allowed. What kind of collective bargaining are we talking about if union grievances are not allowed?
The staff of Members of Parliament are excluded from the right to collective bargaining, a great omission. Also the right to strike is prohibited. I heard my colleague speak about essential services. In any collective bargaining negotiation there is a definition of essential services as a part of the negotiations between employers and employees. It would be worked out as part of the collective bargaining procedure if it were a sound procedure, and the Bill does not offer it. Certification procedures require that all the union cards which have been signed on Parliament Hill be re-signed. This eliminates the kinds of negotiations and certifications under the Canada Labour Code which have already gone forward. We are very disappointed that they have not been implemented.
I should like to elaborate quickly and for the record on some of the negative points in the Bill. First, classification under the Bill would prevent any negotiation on problems related to job descriptions, assignment of pay level and evaluation of duties. The present situation as far as classifications are concerned has evolved over the years, taking into account special characteristics peculiar to the environment of Parliament Hill. I understand that it is the source of a great deal of employee dissatisfaction. As an employer I like to have a collective job classification system in my office, and the criteria set down by the House make it very difficult to have everyone at an equal level of pay. Many employees do not have job descriptions at all. Those employees who have them discover that they are out
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
of date and frequently and arbitrarily changed in an environment which has seen extensive reorganization and technological change introduced. The result is that employees on the whole are frustrated and insecure, and there is a low level of morale.
Improper classification can also result in significant financial losses for employees. The lack of proper job descriptions hampers efficient operation of the workplace. Under the Canada Labour Code, classification can be negotiated and has been successfully negotiated in many workplaces. We should have the same situation on the Hill. There should be at least a minimum requirement for acceptable legislation, and it is not covered effectively by Bill C-45.
Staffing issues such as job appointments, job appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers, et cetera, are central to the drive by parliamentary employees to gain bargaining rights. We know that Parliament Hill has a history of staffing decisions which are coloured by political influence, favouritism, nepotism and even administrative incompetence. Parliamentary employees want to have a say in establishing a fair and equitable staffing system based upon merit, length of experience and service. If certified under the Canada Labour Code, employees would have the right to negotiate both staffing and classification. As it stands Bill C-45 is inferior to the Canada Labour Code and to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The whole question of grievances is a very important right of employees, especially in this kind of situation and in view of our traditions on Parliament Hill. Bill C-45 does not allow workplace problems to be addressed by union grievances, grievances filed by a group of workers. For example, there are health and safety problems in the print-shop and cafeterias. I remember several years ago hearing complaints about this. Here it is coming up again, particularly about air quality and other environmental problems in the Wellington Building. These cannot be subject to a union grievance. What are workers supposed to do, Mr. Speaker? They have been putting up with bad air for years. Technological change also brings in very negative kinds of habits that are environmental situations, and these cannot be contested by filing a union grievance under this Bill. What use is the Bill if that is the case?
If an item cannot be brought to third party adjudication, the employer is under no requirements to take it seriously. It remains an in-house issue. For example, a poor performance appraisal, demotion or transfer cannot go to adjudication. A grievance cannot go to adjudication. Again, it shows the weakness of this Bill.
What about the right to strike? 1 know this is a very controversial issue in the minds of some Members of Parliament. Anyone who has studied the tradition of the labour movement, unions and collective bargaining and the results that have come about in improved working conditions.


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
improved rates of pay for workers, knows that you must have the right to strike in any collective bargaining arrangement.
1 know that parliamentary employees do not want to go on strike, few workers ever do. This is only a final resort used by workers when all else fails. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental union right that workers must be able to negotiate on an equitable basis with an employer by having the right to withdraw their services. Within this are certain essential services that are defined and agreed to by both employees and employers. Without the right to strike, the impetus for failing negotiated settlements is lost. If there were terrible working conditions that could not be negotiated by any other means, I would be proud of my employees if they went out on strike.
This brings me to the crossing of picket lines. I, for one, would not cross a picket line. In other unionized legislatures, such as Queen's Park, Quebec City, Westminster and Australia, the right to strike has not interfered with the workings of Parliament. I was interested to learn that those Parliaments have a collective bargaining right to strike.
Another concern about this Bill has to do with other staff. As we said earlier, this section of the Bill excludes the 1,200 employees of Members of Parliament, Leaders' staff and research staff from collective bargaining provisions. I cannot understand at all why this is necessary. I think most of us are very concerned about the inequities from one office to another that affect staffs of Members of Parliament. There are different working hours and hiring conditions. There are different rates of pay for the same jobs and so on. Low pay, unpaid overtime, lack of job security, arbitrary management and lack of any procedure of redress are missing when we exclude certain employees from this Bill and from collective bargaining. All workers on the Hill should have the same right to collective bargaining. They should choose to exercise it as other Canadian workers have these rights. It is argued that Bill C-45 will cover Members' staffs by certain parts of the Canada Labour Code. However, this coverage provides only very minimum standards. We have concerns about that.
I think you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that we in the New Democratic caucus have had a collective agreement with our own staffs since 1977. This agreement has been negotiated three times since then. Our contract sets standards for working conditions for employees who are hired by our caucus. However, we cannot negotiate wages with our staffs because employers, Members of Parliament, do not have control over their budgets. The House of Commons has control. Although we support this organization and negotiate officially and sign agreements with our organization which is called PASS, it is not the answer. It does provide grievance procedures which include appeals of difficult problems for third party arbitration. It also provides agreed procedures for staffing of vacant positions, technological change, respect for overtime hours and standards for vacations, education and travel. These are very important questions. Again, I do not want to say that we cannot have a real collective bargaining agreement with our
staff until this is recognized under law and under the Canada Labour Code.
Bill C-45 will not help us in that regard. In fact, it will be a regressive step for our staff because our staff would not be included under this Bill. There are many other things I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, but my time is up and 1 know my colleagues will be presenting other arguments.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I won't take up much of the time of the House because I know all Parties want this Bill to proceed. Since there was a draft Bill prepared with all Party support, including one or perhaps two members of the New Democratic Party, by the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services in April, 1984, and since this Bill goes well beyond what was proposed in that Bill, why is the Hon. Member against this Bill? Has she had an opportunity to discuss her concerns with the member or members of her Party who sat on that committee?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that members of our caucus never agreed that the Bill was satisfactory. I think I have already elaborated on the reasons. There are many more. The Bill is weak in many regards and there is no way our caucus would agree to it. I do not know the exact history to which the Hon. Member referred. Perhaps we can get one of our members to elaborate but I know we are unanimous in opposing this Bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, rather than precipitate any further disagreement in the New Democratic Party I will not pursue that line of questioning any further.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the Member did refer to essential services as defined in law, and since I had also referred to them, I have been looking at the Public Service Staff Relations Act and Bill C-45 to try to find an interpretation of what an essential service was. I must admit to the House that I could not find it. It is possibly what we do here.
I did find in Section 79 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act a designated employee as one:
-whose duties consist in the whole or in part of duties the performance of which at any particular time after any specified period of time is or will be necessary in the interest or safety or security of the public.
It may be that I have been forgetful or have not read the proper amended article, but I do recall a discussion in committee where we added security of certain federal institutions. I think it was related through certain experiments done in laboratories and in certain other instances where one would require the people who look after these labs or essential services to be designated.
I want to ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) a question because it is important for me to understand where the Member stands. If indeed she understands designated employees as those who are in essential services, and if an essential service is defined as one which requires the maintenance, safety and security of the operations and of the public, how would she feel if certain employees of the House


went on strike? I am thinking of the security guards, for example, or for that matter anybody related to the maintenance of this place. Would the Member cross a picket line if the front of this building were picketed? I would like to know what she would do in that instance.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question. I certainly would not cross a picket line. It is very important to recognize the rights of workers. With regard to strikes, it seems to me that in the past Members of Parliament have shown the right to strike. I am thinking of a number of occasions when this House has been closed down. I do not know that Canada suffered too much during those incidents.
In any collective bargaining agreement, part of the negotiations are to clarify essential services. Having participated in Public Service negotiations, and sometimes strikes, in Vancouver when I was working with the Public Welfare Department there, I know that it is quite possible to keep essential services operating. Unions are very understanding of what these essential services are and make arrangements for the workers to continue providing those services.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)- Official Languages-Assistance for official language minority groups-Government position, b) Inquiry when Government will act; the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault)- Research and Development-Textiles-Government position; the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)- Energy-Suggested discounts for motorists paying cash for gasoline.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee and the amendment (Ms. Copps) (p. 8331).
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate because I have watched, from a very close range, the recent successful efforts to organize by employees who work on Parliament Hill. When many of the employees decided it was time for them to try to get the law changed so that they would have the same right of collective bargaining as have all the other people who work in the country, my then research assistant volunteered to help them in their organizing efforts. He spent about two years working four or five evenings a week on the campaign. He then took a leave of absence without pay to work full time in the organizing effort. He worked out of my office, and I was very happy to permit and encourage him to do that because I believe, of course, that every worker in Canada should be entitled, by law, to belong to the union of their choice.
When people who work on the Hill heard that an effort was being made to form the union and to have the law changed to give them the right to collective bargaining, they joined in overwhelming numbers. Employees in the restaurant and cafeterias, the messenger and distributing services, maintenance employees, employees in the Library, in French and English indexing and in the printing service, and the security people and committee clerks all joined.
Bill C-45 was tabled in the House on April 30, 1985, just a few weeks after the Canada Labour Relations Board had completed hearings on the majority of the certification applications received from the House of Commons, Senate, and Library of Parliament employees. We believe that this Bill is aimed at restricting the collective bargaining rights of these employees, the rights which they would have had under he provisions of the Canada Labour Relations Code.
Let us look at the provisions of this Bill. Employees of Members of Parliament and the Leaders of the Parties, and research staffs of the Parties are excluded from some clauses of the Bill. These employees suffer from the same problems as other employees working on Parliament Hill. They have the same problems with arbitrary management, low pay, unpaid overtime, and a lack of job security. Another clause prevents any negotiation on classification issues. There would be no negotiations, under the provisions of this Bill, for questions of job description, assignment of pay levels, or change in duties. The present system of classification would be left unchanged. This system is totally unacceptable and is the cause of much employee dissatisfaction.
Under another clause no arbitral award can deal with appointments, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers, lay-offs, and releases. This is similar to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but other Public Service employees have rights under the Public Service Employment Act, which this Bill does not provide for employees on the Hill.
Another section restricts the right of grievance to the individual employee. Workplace problems cannot be addressed by union grievances, grievances filed on behalf of a group of workers.


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
There is one other important matter which is completely overlooked, and that is the whole question of technological change. Any Member of Parliament who has been here for any length of time knows how rapidly and fundamentally the operations of their offices have changed in recent years. Technological change is occurring on the Hill as it is everywhere else. Even employees with many years of experience fear they will be laid off. Rather than allay these fears, management has fueled them with major reorganizations and cutbacks in several areas. I do not want to criticize anyone presently or formerly in management, but I am sure that Members know that many of the decisions made in recent years had adverse effects on many of our employees.
I will take a few moments to give some examples of the type of things that have happened in recent years which, in my view, were completely unacceptable and would never have happened if employees on the Hill had the same rights as other employees in the public and private sectors, that is, the right to belong to an organization which could protect them by having their grievances dealt with through discussions between the union and the employer, and by following the usual steps in grievance procedures which are available to all other employees.
An older female employee with close to 20 years seniority in a position injured her back and was off on long-term disability for a couple of months. When she returned, she was assigned duties which included heavy lifting and carrying, although her old position still existed. She was told she should apply for early retirement if she was not satisfied. Her grievance under the present procedure was denied. That could never have happened if that employee had belonged to a union which had the right to real collective bargaining.
As a second example, a technician was hired for a position and was paid below the advertised salary level. It took the individual a year and a half to reach the salary level advertised in the competition. A year later another technician was hired with the same qualifications and started at the posted level immediately. I suppose the new employee was a friend of the supervisor. That would never happen if there was a real union. Here is another one; employees in a technical service are required to attend training courses on their days off and on weekends without pay. When these employees protested, they were told it was mandatory and they had no choice. In what other area would this be permitted? No area where there is a union. These are the reasons workers join unions.
In the cafeteria service, all job classifications have been revoked. This is at a time when the restaurant and cafeteria business has more supervisors and managers at higher salaries than we have ever had. The employees of the restaurant and cafeterias have to suffer because, supposedly, we have to save money. All employees have been informed they can be assigned any duties, although many have held specialized positions for a number of years. This is the kind of thing that is
completely unreasonable and unacceptable. Two butchers have been assigned to drive food delivery trucks, and a pastry chef was assigned to washing and cutting vegetables. Is it surprising that the level of frustration in the cafeteria service is very high? I ask Members who have doubts that this is happening to talk to the people in the restaurant and cafeteria business whom they know.
In a support service a female employee was the object of sexual harassment. Her manager touched her, leaned up behind her and rubbed against her. When she protested, she was assigned to a heavier work load and later given a poor performance evaluation, and finally transferred to another position.
We have just been discussing and debating employer equity legislation. It is ludicrous to be discussing that kind of legislation and listening to all the wonderful speeches in theory, which we have heard from the Government side when this kind of thing happens.
In the cafeteria service an employee cut his hand on the job. He was told to visit the nurse. The nurse told him it was not safe to work and that he should go home. The manager informed the employee he should go back to work or face discipline.
In a technical service a senior position became vacant. Several employees inquired about a competition, but none was held. The husband of a manager in another department of the same service was brought in to fill the position on a temporary basis. Several months later a competition was announced. The now experienced husband was, of course, hired permanently as he now had the experience. The appeal of the employees in the service was denied. That reminds me of the kind of thing that went on in the packing plants in Winnipeg 40 years ago. Workers who wanted to work came down every day with the hope that they would get an hour or two of work, and if they were prepared to give the foreman a bottle of liquor that helped them get a job. That kind of thing has not happened in employment areas for many, many years where unions have had the right to bargain collectively for their workers. It is a disgrace that the kinds of illustrations I have put on the record today should continue in the Parliament of Canada in the year 1986.
This Bill is so deficient that it does not provide adequate means for the people who work on Parliament Hill to lodge grievances which can be dealt with equitably. When I say, "being dealt with equitably" I mean that they can be discussed openly, honestly and fairly between the employee and employer. I do not say that the employees are always right. We all know that employees are like any other human beings, sometimes subject to doing the wrong thing. When the employee has a grievance which cannot be settled, and when the decision made by the foreman or the supervisor is one which he or she cannot accept, the employee, given proper legislation and a union which has the right to grieve on the employee's behalf, given law which establishes the proper and fair system for handling grievance procedures, can rest assured


that those grievances can be discussed between the employee, the union's representative and management. Usually they arrive at a settlement which is acceptable to both sides. If they do not, that dispute can go to an impartial arbitrator who would hear the case as presented by both sides and render a judgment. That is not provided for in this legislation.
The whole question of technological change and the adverse effects which it can have on employees, many of whom have worked on the Hill for many years is not dealt with. The situation is that we are cutting back on permanent employees and replacing them with temporary employees who are paid less money per hour and do not have the benefits of a pension plan, or sick leave. None of these benefits are provided for these temporary employees who are being found on the Hill and in Government Departments more and more.
All of these questions need to be dealt with in a fair and equitable way. The only way they can be dealt with in a fair and equitable way is if the legislation which we are now debating and while will eventually pass, gives the employees who want to join a union-I emphasize the point that the employees will join the union only if they want to-the same rights to have a union bargain collectively on their behalf as all other workers in this country who come under either federal or provincial jurisdiction. Because this Bill is so deficient in meeting the needs of workers who work on Parliament Hill, I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party intend to vote against this it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are awaiting a document which will be tabled under the House order which was passed earlier this day, and I think if we could perhaps proceed to the next speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have questions and comments so we can carry on until questions and comments are terminated and then maybe at that time the documents will be in the House and we can hear the statement of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). Are there any questions or comments?


Don Boudria: I have a short question I would like to put to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). He has been a Member of this Chamber for a very long time, as we all know. He has had the opportunity to meet with and speak to employees for many years. As a matter of fact, I remember quite well when I was an employee of the House of Commons in the 1960s going to his office, both as part of my duties and, along with others, whenever there was a grievance with which we were trying to get assistance. As history sometimes works, the tables have turned and I find today many employees coming to my office for the same reasons. The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), with his usual wisdom, has said: "Perhaps they are very hard up". They're
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
not that hard up because they would have gone to see him. Then again, they probably would not because the service they would get would not be very good.
At some point in the past, even though there were no formal structures by way of job descriptions and so on which we now see on the Hill, there was an informal rule of appeal, at least where an employee could air his or her grievance with an individual Member of Parliament. Through that mechanism, and through the good offices of the Speaker and others, there was at least a form of redress. Now, with the administration of the House fully structured and the employees' rights being unstructured, if the Hon. Member follows my line of thought, there seems to be a tremendous imbalance. On the management side everything is formalized, but there is very little of this on the employee side. That has, in my view, and I would like the Hon. Member to comment, created a situation where the employee is totally frustrated when it comes time to try to grieve an injustice. Of course, the employee is equally frustrated in attempting to get redress for that kind of situation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is asking me whether the present system does not work very well, I agree with him. We have supposedly a very structured, trained and efficient management staff with great power, indeed too much power, to deal with the individual complaints of employees. If, on the other hand, he suggests that the situation was better years ago, I cannot agree with him. I can remember that when I first came here, outside the office door of one of the Liberal Members from Ottawa there could be found about 25 chairs sitting in the hall. I remember asking what the chairs were doing there. I was told that it was very simple, people who want employment with the Government come and see that Member and he is able to find them jobs. That was a very bad system of patronage which I think, fortunately, is long gone.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You are talking about Boudria.


David Orlikow: Yes, I am talking about those guys.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is how he got hired.


Don Boudria: Put that on the record.


David Orlikow: I say to the Hon. Member who has just interjected that if I had been here in the years 1957 to 1962, when we had a Conservative Government with a big majority, probably the same thing was happening with a Conservative Member of Parliament from Ottawa.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Probably? You do not know.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will try to ignore the subsequent ignorant interruption of the Hon. Member for Lanark- Renfrew-Carleton and go back-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well, it is true.


Don Boudria: Well, it was!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I really do not care whether or not it was. The question should be directed to the Hon. Member who has just finished speaking. I hope the Hon. Member will direct his comments to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I hope that the Hon. Member for-


Paul Wyatt Dick: I did not say a thing until he-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member will not interject. We are waiting for a statement from the Hon. Minister and you are causing me a lot of grief.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You never say anything, Paul.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is true.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North is well versed in the situation involving employees of this House. In my first question I was not questioning the hiring practices. That is a totally different topic. I do not like the kind of system he has described either. However, what we are talking about is the employees' grievances. Over the years, and even today, in the absence of any formal structure, employees on many occasions present their grievances to Members of this House in an attempt to obtain redress. As the Hon. Member has appropriately described, there have been a large number of such injustices in the past, and he has described some of them. Later on in my remarks I intend to spend some time describing some of them as well.
I said earlier that I was an employee of the House of Commons for a little over 14 years, but I was really asking the Hon. Member about how the grievance procedure is working now. I see a deterioration in the morale of employees from what it was a year and a half ago when I came back to this building, compared to what it was during the 1960s and 1970s. Then there was at least a system, although informal and improperly structured and not the best, where employees could attempt to obtain redress. That is not the case now. That is really what I was questioning, not the hiring practices, because of course they are indefensible.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, let me just reply very briefly by saying to the Hon. Member that there will be problems as long as the system of grievances is informal and not based on a precise set of rules and regulations. If the person who has a grievance goes to a Member of Parliament or a superior in the Public Service, if that grievance is not settled to the satisfaction of the employee, and I am sure many times it is not, and I am sure there are times when it is not because the grievance was not justified, then there will be problems. If you do not have a system based on law and procedures which are clearly
outlined in advance, there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction with the decisions made. That is another reason that it is important that we have a law which makes it clear what the employees are entitled to, what they can do if they are not satisfied, and everything else that real collective bargaining gives to employees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now expired.

Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, the House will now revert to Tabling of Documents.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table, in both official languages, copies of certain correspondence relating to the bid to take over Genstar by Imasco.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will now proceed to Statements by Ministers.



Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the proposed takeover of Genstar Corporation by Imasco Enterprises has received considerable attention from Members of this House and the media. The issues which have been raised are important and I commend Hon. Members for their concern. The Government's responsibility is to protect the public interest in the financial sector. I know that Hon. Members share that concern. That is why I proposed, and the Government is carrying forward, a comprehensive review of financial institution regulation. That is why public notice of impending legislation, which is now before this House as Bill C-103, was given last November 29.
The House is well aware that regulatory efforts to protect the public interest and preserve financial stability in the financial sector raise complex and challenging issues. These include self-dealing, increased concentration of ownership, links between non-financial and financial companies, reduction


of competition and conflict of interest. I had already informed the House that I would review very carefully the Imasco-Genstar takeover under Bill C-103 with the public interest and stability of the financial system as very clear priorities. As part of this review, I asked Imasco for very specific undertakings.
I am pleased to inform the House that Imasco has met the Government's requirement for strong and clear undertakings to protect the public interest in the spirit of Bill C-103. These undertakings cover not only the period prior to passage of the regulatory Bill but a further period which should provide us all with sufficient time to discuss and resolve these very fundamental issues. At the same time, the Government and Parliament can move in an orderly and careful way to a decision on the policy which should apply to ownership and control of financial institutions in the context of over-all regulatory reform in this sector.
Specifically, the following undertakings have been received from Imasco; there will be no self-dealing between Canada Trustco and Imasco and its affiliates either through loans, trustee arrangements or other types of transactions. Canada Trustco's board of directors and management will be independent from Imasco and its affiliates and associates.

Imasco will not acquire control of any other financial service corporations.
Imasco fully accepts the powers which Bill C-103 as presently drafted will give to the Minister upon adoption, particularly the power to cancel the acquisition of Canada Trustco, in part or in whole.
Imasco accepts that Parliament may legislate on a financial institutions policy ownership which might require divestiture, and more rapidly still in the case of firms that have acquired financial institutions after November 29, 1985.
I therefore urge all present and future members of that sector to make a careful examination of Bill C-103 and the Imasco commitment.

The fundamental importance of our financial institutions to Canadians, and to the growth and stability of the economy, will always impose special obligations on those who participate in this industry. I recognize also the Government's obligation to put in place a new framework for regulation of the financial sector. We are doing just that. The report of the Estey Commission and the Senate Banking Committee's recommendations on the Green Paper proposals for financial institutions regulatory policy will all be part of that process. I am not prepared to force the process to a premature end. As other observers have noted, the issues are too fundamental, too complex and the financial sector too important to be decided in a matter of days over one specific case.
Before closing I want to deal briefly with the issue of corporate concentration which Hon. Members of the House have raised in relation to the Imasco-Genstar situation.
Statements by Ministers
Corporate concentration is a very broad issue which encompasses many sectors of the economy, not just the financial sector. The debate on this broad issue cannot be resolved in the context of the financial industry alone and certainly not on the basis of this one particular situation. The chief concern raised in this House about the ownership of financial institutions by non-financial corporations is self-dealing and the resulting risks not only for the depositors but for the economy as a whole.
With the assistance of Hon. Members and with the cooperation of Imasco, the specific situation which raised concerns in this House is under careful control and review. The public interest is being protected and will be in the critical areas I have noted. We will continue to move forward in close consultation with the provinces and with the best available advice from all sources to ensure that a new framework for the financial sector is put in place to support the solvency of financial institutions and to strengthen competition and efficiency in the financial sector.
I look forward to receiving in future, as I have in the past, the thoughtful assistance of Hon. Members in this important area of Government policy and regulatory reform.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for her courtesy in supplying a copy of her statement in advance. Most Hon. Members of this House are concerned that a takeover by a non-financial institution of a financial institution is not in the best interests of our country. That position was stated by the Leader of my Party in this House when he pointed out some of the reasons why people are generally concerned. He said at page 12051 of Hansard on April 9, and I quote:
A financial institution so controlled can block or divert loans from competitors or to competitive allies. It can control cash flow. There is the temptation for selfdealing that was only too apparent during the crisis three years ago in Ontario involving Greymac and other trust companies.
-the interests of the depositors are not necessarily going to be paramount where there is a conflict of interest in holding and where the shareholders in their correlated and blended interests will take precedence over the depositors.
In a recent article in McLean's magazine a prominent businessman in Canada said very succinctly: "When one entity is both creditor and owner of equity in a company, there is an obvious conflict of interest". These were some of the concerns which were addressed by the Committee on Finance when it was studying the Green Paper on regulation of financial institutions last fall. The report of the Committee on Finance included this sentence, and I quote:
The committee is concerned about the increasing trend towards non-financial ownership of financial institutions and feels that concentrated ownership, particularly that of large financial institutions, should be limited.
The Canadian Bankers Association stated to the committee:
-this co-mingling of non-financial and financial businesses is undesirable. It would try the confidence and trust that Canadians place in their financial system.


Statements by Ministers
The Liberal members of the Finance Committee issued a separate report in which we stated: " we do not believe that financial activities and non-financial activities should be combined".
In the course of the committee's work last fall, when the merger of Canada Trust and Canada Permanent Trust was in the works, the committee specifically recommended that the Government not approve this merger until such time as there is an ownership policy in place. However, the Government chose not to act on that recommendation. Of course, the decision to allow that merger contributed directly to the situation which we have before us today.
Genstar Corporation owned Canada Permanent Trust. It then acquired Canada Trust against the Finance Committee's recommendation, giving it Canada's biggest trust company. That is the main reason for Imasco's interest in this takeover.
The Minister properly says in her statement that the Government's responsibility is to protect the public interest in the financial sector. In effect, the Minister has now chosen to move to protect that interest by requiring certain commitments of Imasco rather than by blocking the merger. The Government really had no choice in this matter. Since the Genstar takeover was not blocked it would be illogical now to block the Imasco one.
The precautions against self-dealing required by the Minister, and on which she has reached agreement, are reasonable. There is to be no self-dealing and no interlocking boards. Imasco undertakes not to acquire control of any other financial service corporations. Since Imasco has a very good reputation, this type of agreement which used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" will probably work very well in this case. But we are still left with the fact that the Government has not yet produced an ownership policy.
Bill C-103, to which the Minister referred in her statement, leaves a tremendous amount of power to ministerial discretion. In the public interest, the Minister can block certain transactions or require divesting. But the conditions are not spelled out. Granted that the Minister is competent, and we would expect her to use good judgment, but a system which leaves so much to ministerial discretion is not a system which anyone would want to see in place.
Bill C-103 will have to be amended. There will have to be a great many amendments made to it in order to put some clear conditions in place. The end result is that Imasco has undertaken to acknowledge the powers of Bill C-103 without knowing what these powers will be and without knowing what type of divestiture may be required in future legislation.
The Minister says that she recognizes the Government's obligation to put in place a new framework for regulation of the financial sector. However, the Government has moved slowly in that respect. I would remind the House that prior to 1984 the previous Minister of State for Finance put in place a consultation system on which the present Minister poured
scorn when she took office. Thus she decided to rediscover the wheel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but her time has expired. Each Party had seven minutes in which to reply.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Hon. Members would be prepared to grant to the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) whatever time is necessary for her to complete her response.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the House. I will not abuse it. I will finish my remarks quickly.
While the Minister points out risks in forcing the process to a premature end, I do not think this is the risk we are facing. The risk is in not acting firmly enough since the rate of takeovers has been escalating in recent years. Indeed, as one of the Minister's own colleagues said, we are faced with a situation of trying to unscramble eggs or trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube. So while the Minister says it is important to move in a considered way and not to be too rushed in terms of further legislation, may I say that our concern is that the time for the new legislation is now. It is important to get Bill C-103 in place, with some amendments. It is also important to move on establishing a clear ownership policy, not only so that Imasco will know where it is at but so that all Canadians will know where they stand.
I particularly wish to emphasize that legislation which relies so much on ministerial discretion will need to be replaced by legislation with clear standards.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks we have seen a major game being played in the country involving large conglomerates wanting the right to own their own bank. They want to own their own major financial institution, to buy the money power against the security of the depositors, and, really, the people of Canada. Today, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) has announced the winner of that contest. It is, of course, the large conglomerates which are now being given the go-ahead to purchase their own bank. They are being given the go-ahead to go out and purchase their own trust company.
When the Minister was forced to make a decision between the giant corporation, Imasco, and the security of the depositors of Canada Trust, she said she would give the benefit of the doubt to Imasco. It is a serious situation which occurred in the


last few moments. It was the unanimous decision of the Finance Committee, not on one occasion but on two, after months of deliberation and thought, to recommend that the Minister not approve the go-ahead of this takeover. She has ignored that advice. She has disregarded it completely. She has shown no respect for the work, advice and thought which every single member of the Finance Committee put into making that recommendation. I am not only talking about members of the Finance Committee, I am speaking about some very thoughtful back-benchers who spent many weeks attempting to indicate to the Minister the wisdom in stopping this takeover and stopping this type of corporate concentration now involving financial and non-financial institutions.
Yesterday in the House of Commons the opportunity was provided to any Member to speak in favour of the action which the Minister has just taken. Not one single Member rose to speak in its favour. In other words, the best information we have is that every Member of Parliament feels that the decision which the Minister took today is wrong. In a sense what we are saying is that the people of Canada, through their duly elected Members, have indicated their concern about financial institutions being taken over by non-financial institutions. Through their elected representatives they have said that this is not in the best interests of Canada. In effect, they have said that this is not in the best interests of the Canadian economy. The Minister has chosen to ignore that advice. Presumably this has been done in the context of the new parliamentary reform. Back-benchers and committees were to be given more consideration. Presumably more attention was to be given to the House of Commons. The Minister of State for Finance has now indicated that she will ignore that advice, even when it is unanimous, time after time.
I suspect that the Chairman of the Finance Committee, who has gone on record very clearly along with the rest of his colleagues, will have virtually no choice but to resign as chairman of that committee.
There have been seven months of deliberations and literally dozens and dozens of experts have appeared before the committee. Every one of the experts has said the same thing, with the exception of a handful of people and that handful of people are those representatives of the big seven families that control more than 50 per cent of the Toronto Stock Exchange. They like this decision. There will be lots of champagne flowing in the households of the big seven tonight because this means that the Government has said that the gates are open and any industrial conglomerate can purchase its own bank.
What the Minister of State for Finance has said to justify her actions is unbelievable. She has said that Imasco promises that there will be no self-dealing. Well, big bloody deal. Imasco is saying that it will do what we expect every single corporation to do by law. Does Imasco promising to deal the way it always has bring us much comfort, knowing as we do that there are abuses after abuses and all kinds of self-dealings
Statements by Ministers
going on? On Monday night, the Finance Committee will be exposing a number of those actions that have not been exposed to date.
The Minister of State for Finance went on to say that Imasco will not acquire control of any other financial service corporation. When it has just acquired, with the approval of the Minister of State for Finance, the sixth largest financial institution in Canada, there is little wonder that it is not interested in now acquiring the Bank of Montreal. It now owns a financial institution that brags in full-page advertisements in Canada's major newspapers that it is larger than some of the big banks. Imasco promises that it will not buy another major trust company or financial institution. Big deal.
The Minister went on to say that Bill C-103 will include the power to roll back this takeover. It is a little late, is it not, Mr. Speaker? It is a little late considering the billions of dollars involved, the unbelievable chaos and the web of restrictions and dealings that will have to be undone if the Minister decides next month or next year or in another decade that the decision made today was inappropriate. Who believes that we are going to ask this company to change its mind after the takeover has occurred and the shares have been acquired, something which I understand was completed today?
This flies in the face of what Canadians believe to be the appropriate thing to do, and that is, to stop this move toward corporate concentration that places more and more economic power and now more and more financial and political power in the hands of a few powerful corporations and families. One could be cynical and say that the major political contributions Imasco made to the Conservative Party in 1984 have now paid off. One could say that Imasco is now seeing the fruits of those thousands and thousands of dollars of campaign contributions. That is not the way decision making should take place in Canada.
The Minister of State for Finance should have listened to the unanimous voice of the Finance Committee after its deliberations. She should have listened to the unanimous voice of the House of Commons after its deliberations. She should have listened to the people with financial expertise who came before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to tell us not to do this. She should have listened to the Superintendent of Insurance who said that he could not find any compelling reason to show that this takeover would be in the best interests of Canada.
To whom did the Minister listen? Where did she get her advice? I can only say now that members of the Finance Committee, and particularly those who belong to the Government Party, are going to have to do some soul searching. After all, they worked hard, and I will give them credit for this, to try to bring sanity into this decision-making process. The Minister has ignored them. She has slapped the face of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and has said that she does not care about the work, deliberations and studies of the Finance Committee, that she is going to ignore


Privilege-Mr. Boudria
its advice. It is a very, very sad day for Canada and for Canadians.


PRIVILEGE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. I wish to inform you that if you judge, as I have, that a prima facie question of privilege has been made, I am prepared to move the necessary motion that the matter to which I will refer in a minute be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
Earlier today in the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) made allegations to the effect that I had been employed at the House of Commons through the patronage of an Ottawa-Carleton area Member of Parliament. Those motives that have been imputed are totally false, as you of course know, and as I am sure the Hon. Member knows deep down in his heart. I would ask that the statement be withdrawn and, in the absence of that, I would wish to move the necessary motion to which I referred a while ago.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) will be given his opportunity, but I just want to say something. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has just made reference to something which did not arise from the debate occurring at this particular time. If he does feel that he has a prima facie case of privilege, then he should give the proper notice and it should be dealt with tomorrow. I am afraid that I cannot accept it at this time and therefore we should go on to Orders of the Day.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on that same question of privilege, the House interrupted its normal business to go to a statement by a Minister by unanimous agreement. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) wanted to raise this point at that time. He did not do so for the sake of keeping our word with the Government that we would not interfere with the arrangements made for the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) for 4.30 p.m. I would hope that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that the Hon. Member will give notice in writing so that we can go ahead and deal with it accordingly.
Order, please. I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement and pursuant to order made earlier this day, this sitting will be extended by 25 minutes. Therefore,
the adjournment proceedings will begin at 6.25 p.m. The House will now turn to Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment (Ms. Copps)(p. 833).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-I am sorry, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). How could I forget that?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, inadvertently you were quite correct. The Ottawa area is part of my riding. I represent the Counties of Glengarry, Prescott and Russell as well as that part of Ottawa-Carleton called the Township of Cumberland. Unbeknownst to you, Mr. Speaker, you were quite correct in calling me the Hon. Member for Ottawa, as I do represent at least a small part of the Ottawa-Carleton region.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We're very proud of you.


Don Boudria: Thank you. I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-45 this afternoon. We should look at some of the history of Bill C-45 and more particularly at the question that begs to be asked today, which is, why are we now dealing with this Bill when the case of the employees of the House of Commons has been before the Canada Labour Relations Board for a long time. The board decided in its wisdom that the employees of the House had collective rights under the Canada Labour Code. Of course that has been dragged through various steps of the court process. As far as I know, on every occasion the courts and the board dealt with this topic, adjudication has always been on the side of the employees. Negotiations are scheduled to proceed on Monday, April 21 or some four days from now. Why are we attempting to sneak through the legislation at this time? Why do we want to do it now? Why can we not wait until the process is finished and final judgments come down on the issue? Why would Hon. Members of the House want to pass this piece of legislation now? What is the need to pass it now? Are we collectively afraid of what eventually will come out of the court decision? If that is not the case, and since we have not had such legislation since 1867, why do we need to pass it before next Monday at which time the negotiations will get under way?


The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) moved a very appropriate amendment to delay the Bill for six months. At that time we did not know some of the things we know now. However, she was right. We had to delay discussion on the Bill for six months in order to provide the time required for the process which 1 described just a few moments ago.

Mr. Speaker, why do the employees of the House want a union? Undoubtedly the first answer is that they want one, and they have the right to have one because it is the collective right of all employees in this country. Even if they do not exercise this right, the mechanism should be in place so they may do so whenever they wish. Right now they are not allowed to do that.
Yes, Bill C-45 would give them that power, Mr. Speaker, but a useless power, an incomplete power because, first of all, the employees would not have as many benefits as they would enjoy if they were accredited under the labour commission. Secondly, it is a useless power because it is incomplete in the sense that Bill C-45 does not give them the right to strike, nor other rights which Government employees normally have.
As 1 said in the House earlier today, I first joined the labour market on Octobre 25, 1966 as an employee of this House, as a servant of those who are elected to represent Canadians. Mr. Speaker, 1 would not pretend to be an expert in all cases because that would not be true. But 1 think that as an employee of this House for 14 years, I remember very well certain cases of employees of the House, and some of them are still open even today.
The employees of the House have been asking for their collective rights for a long time, Mr. Speaker, but the need to have these privileges, the need to have these rights if you wish, to form a union and enjoy other collective rights has become more pressing in recent years. And why? I discussed this earlier this afternoon in my comments on the excellent speech made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), when 1 asked him whether he agreed that although procedures were not clearly formalized a couple of years ago, there was nevertheless a certain balance between the rights and privileges of employees and the authority of supervisors.
Today, this balance no longer exists. Mr. Speaker, I agree it is a good thing and that it was a good policy to formalize the procedures with respect to managers and supervisors on the Hill. What 1 cannot accept, however, is that these rights and privileges and procedures were increased or improved for the managers, while nothing of the kind was done for House employees. And I think it is this imbalance which has created a situation where morale among House employees is extremely low. Parliamentary employees feel totally frustrated because they have no way of defending their individual and collective rights.
I listened carefully to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North, when he was describing the cases of
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
certain parliamentary employees, with their grievances and their problems. In each case, I could recognize who the person was. I could even name them each and every one of them. In many cases, I could even give the names of family members, because I know nearly all of them.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we as parliamentarians and legislators should grant our employees the kind of rights that other establishments, both in the private and the public sector, would want to emulate. However, Mr. Speaker, I would not want any employer to emulate the procedures existing today on Parliament Hill.

I certainly would not want anyone to use our procedures as a model. The way we treat our employees should be an example to everyone else in the public and private sectors. However, it is not an example of which we can be proud.
Why is that so? It is so because principally we as Members collectively fear, whether or not we admit it, unions on Parliament Hill. Perhaps there is a fear that the day will come when one of us will have to cross a picket line in order to come to the Chamber and do his job on behalf of our constituents. Perhaps it is a morbid fear of the picket line which has stopped us from granting our employees collective rights. If that is so, is it a good enough reason to deny someone their rights? Potentially we could put ourselves in a situation which could be viewed or seen as embarrassing. If that is our reason for failing to give our employees their rights, it is a pretty poor reason indeed. It is not one we would permit anyone else to use. If we would not permit anyone else to use the same criteria, why are we using them ourselves?
I have said before in this House that if we as legislators cannot take proper care of and pay attention to the 3,000 employees who come under our jurisdiction, what makes us so fit to take care of the interests of the 25 million more people elsewhere in the country? I submit to you and to all Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that it is a shame, and it is a dark shadow on every one of us, not to have been able to take care of the rights and privileges of Canadians who work on Parliament Hill. It is my hope that in a very few days we will see the final stages of that process in the courts that will give employees of this House the same rights and privileges as other Canadians have. Once and for all this issue can be out of the way and the employees of Parliament, if they wish to-it is very important to stress that because it has to be their collective right-can exercise their rights to unionize or in any other way collectively air their grievances and needs to us as their employers.
It is my hope with that process that no longer will we see an employee being terminated because he or she was ill and someone was hired while he or she was on leave only for that employer to come back to find out that the job was not there. I hope that no longer will we see such cases as that of the employee who was on long term disability for some time who


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
subsequently received a medical certificate which eliminated the long term disability pension and made it possible for that employee to re-enter the workplace on Parliament Hill, only to come back to Parliament Hill to be told, "We do not care that the doctor's certificate says that you are in good enough condition to work because we do not think you are". That employee found herself-in this particular case it was a woman-no longer receiving the benefits she was getting when she was ill and she was not getting a salary either. She was falling between two chairs. She was well enough to be off sick pay, but not well enough to work.
I hope that very shortly we will see the day as well when an employee who is injured on the job as a result of using defective equipment is not told to go back to work injured, but can go home to recover the way everyone else would in the private or the public sector outside of the precincts of Parliament Hill.
Finally, I hope the day will come when we will have a system that can be used as an example, a system of which we can be proud. Let us hope we can go to private enterprise or even other public sectors, the provinces, and tell them about our way, that we look after the people who work for us. That does not mean you hire five people to do the job of two, Mr. Speaker. That does not mean you let everybody go home at noon. That is not what the employees are asking for. The employees who work here, and I am sure you know it, Mr. Speaker, because you have been here for a long time, are very good employees and, by and large, they are dedicated and have a strong allegiance to the people for whom they work. They become friends of all of us and they consider Members of this House who are collectively, and I suppose individually, their bosses and representatives. They have a special dedication.
How many times do we see employees on the Hill working well beyond the call of duty? I know what time they start. Many years ago I had the same working hours as some of them. I know they come way ahead of working hours and are here long after, in many cases without getting overtime or any other benefit. They are dedicated. They do a good job for each and every one of us, and they deserve to be treated properly by us all collectively and, needless to say, by all of us individually as well.
It is my hope that we will delay this Bill at least for a little while. There is no need to deal with it now. Let the process take care of itself. In my view, within a very few days it will be determined that the rights of these employees go far beyond what is in Bill C-45. I hope the process will determine that their rights are the same as those of all public servants and all other Canadians. 1 think that we as Members of Parliament will have fulfilled a much better job and we will have accomplished far more by waiting out that process than by acting hastily now, and in so doing we will be failing to give our people what they deserve.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell	(Mr. Boudria) praise the employees of the House of Commons, and of course I would use the same words to describe the human resources available to Hon. Members.
Still, I wonder. The economic situation experienced by the Hon. Member two, three, four or five years ago was more difficult than it is today, interest rates were very high, employers laid off their employees, in short conditions were quite unfavourable to the employees. At the time his Government did not even see fit to act upon the kind of recommendations and representations he is making today.
So why and how can he explain his about turn today when economic conditions have improved and are better for employment, why this reversal and these proposals which neither he nor his Government ever implemented?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the meaning of the Hon. Member's question. He seems to be saying that his Government's Bill now under consideration which, as we all know or should know, is practically identical to the Bill introduced under the previous administration, that the Bill presented by the previous Government was somehow not as good as this one because he claims that economic conditions are better now, or something to that effect.
I do not quite follow the logic of what the Hon. Member is telling us. He should know that not very long ago the Canadian labour commission ruled on this case and that the matter is now before the courts. It was not the case a number of years ago, but it is now.
I would therefore urge him to reflect upon this aspect of the case and he will know why it is important today to wait for the end of the proceedings before going ahead with a Bill which, in my judgment, is incomplete, particularly since we hope that in a few days something better will come out of the courts proceedings.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Hon. Member has had experience as an employee on the Hill. Would he comment on the progress which employees of the Hill made, during his sojourn in Toronto as an M.P.P., toward organizing into an association? As the Member said, they have applied to the Canada Labour Relations Board and seem to be making slow but positive progress in that direction. Could the Member comment on some of the advantages employees would have under the Canada Labour Code as opposed to those they would have under Bill C-45?


The Hon. Member and the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) gave examples of incidents involving people working on the Hill. Would it be possible for some of those situations to be dealt with under the provisions of Bill C-45, or would the powers of the organization to represent them be somewhat limited under this Bill?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, obviously the employees would have some collective rights under Bill C-45. It would be incorrect to deny that they would have those. They would not, however, have identical benefits, which is what I believe the Member wants me to point out. If anyone is making the case that this Bill offers many benefits similar to those offered by the Canada Labour Code, one must ask why we are bothering with the Bill at all. It is obvious that the purpose of the Bill is to offer something between full rights and those which they have now, which, it could be argued, are not much. I think I am being generous in using the words "not much". The process which now exists is more of a hit-and-miss one. Employees can either present a grievance through the administration, which is not known to have a very high rate of success, or go through their Member of Parliament and hope that he or she can raise a temper tantrum with the Speaker, when the Member feels that the employee's case merits their support, and attempt to get redress in that way.
In my view, House employees should be accorded the right to strike, although not in all cases. Obviously, some people must be designated "essential". Most of the people in the House at the present time would have to be so designated. However, 1 would argue that we do not need a full complement of busboys so designated. I can relate to that job very easily because I happen to have done it in 1966. The same applies to the messenger staff, the cleaning people, and so on. Only a small number of those employees would have to be designated as essential in order to maintain certain standards.
It may be necessary for a few messengers who carry official documents to be designated as essential for the purposes of transmitting messages between the Hansard offices and the Clerk's office, but it would be highly exaggerated to say that all of the messengers and the bus drivers were essential to the functioning of Parliament. They may be essential to achieving a certain level of comfort for the parliamentarians, but that is not the same as being essential for the functioning of Parliament.
I am sure you have recognized already, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of our employees should be given full bargaining rights. At this point we do not even know whether they want all of these rights, and that is for them to decide collectively. However, apart from those people who would necessarily be designated essential, the rest of them should be afforded the full rights which they would receive under the Canada Labour Code.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Member has served for some time in the provincial Parliament at Queen's Park in Toronto where employees do have some bargaining rights. Did he experience
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
any problems in carrying out his duties as a member of the provincial Parliament because employees at Queen's Park have more bargaining rights than they have here in Ottawa?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, not all of them do. It is pretty confusing to try to compare the two situations. The Legislative Assembly building at Queen's Park is partially under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the Assembly and partly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Government Services. It would be rather difficult to draw a parallel between the two Legislatures. There are a large number of people in the building who are employees of other Government Departments or agencies, which adds to the confusion.
I know that the employees of the NDP caucus at Queen's Park have a method of airing their grievances. I am not sure whether that is a formal union, or only an association of employees. Not having been a member of that particular caucus, I did not take much time to inquire about how it operates. However, there are a large number of staff members in the Legislative Assembly building at Queen's Park who are unionized. As a matter of fact, there are a number of employees on the Hill in that situation as well. People working outside of the buildings, but within the precincts of Parliament Hill, are unionized. They have not turned the world upside down because of it, nor did they at Queen's Park.
In direct response to the Member's question, I never perceived that to be a problem while I was at Queen's Park. Since I have returned to the Hill, I have inquired whether there have been any disruptions or other undesirable effects due to having a certain number of the employees unionized, and I have not yet heard of any instance of that.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on Bill C-45. Our Party has been opposing the move by the Govenment to change the law as it applies to the collective bargaining rights of people who work on Parliament Hill. We are doing it for a very simple reason, and that is because we believe in equity, the right of individuals to form unions and alliances to protect their rights as employees. For that reason it is probably suitable that this particular debate occurs on equality day. It is a time when we are trying to extend rights of Canadian citizens equally to all.
Prior to coming to Parliament 1 was a representative of one group which was largely ignored when it comes to legislation permitting them to organize, and that is, the farming sector. 1 have always been quite interested in the application of these rights on an equitable basis to all sectors of our society. This Bill is unfortunate in that it comes at a time when many of the employees on the Hill had gotten quite a way ahead through the long process of organizing themselves. They had even succeeded several months ago in obtaining the right to begin certification procedures under the Canada Labour Code. There are five or six bargaining units here on the Hill who are well on the way to getting into the negotiating process and


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
moving towards having the first collective bargaining agreement for those particular groups on the Hill.
This process is an ongoing one, and it is always a slow process. It takes several years to go through all the organizational and legal and negotiating procedures to get a first contract. Some first contracts take years and years and years, but they do eventually happen. It is extremely unfortunate that in the midst of these negotiations, which followed the organizational pursuit and the legal challenges that have gone on, the Government should put on the Order Paper before the House of Commons Bill C-45, which is a Bill that has the effect of starting the process all over again. It means that those people who have been trying to organize themselves on the Hill for the last three or four years, with some success-I realize there are many who have been trying to organize themselves for much longer than that-will be stopped dead in their tracks and forced to begin all over again. The rights and procedures they will follow under Bill C-45 are such that they will gain fewer rather than more rights than what they would have under the Canada Labour Code.
It being equality day-and I think every day in Canada should be equality day-we should, as a general principle, treat all of our citizens in the same manner. It should not matter under that edict whether a worker works on Parliament Hill in a restaurant or cafeteria, sweeps the floor, is part of the cleaning staff, or whether he or she works off the Hill, the rules and regulations that apply to their efforts to organize themselves as workers should be the same.
I find it very difficult to understand why, because they work on Parliament Hill, their rights and privileges should be somewhat less than if they worked across the street. I think a lot of Canadians have trouble with that concept, and that is why I think they would have trouble with Bill C-45 if they read it and understood it better. I think the Government has been having some trouble with Bill C-45 as well because it introduced it some time ago, the Bill was debated in this House in December of 1985, and it has just been brought back in again now. I would hope that that is some indication that the Government sees it as being not particularly necessary and it is only bringing it forward to interfere with the bargaining process that is now in place. I would hope that the only reason it was put before the House today was because it did not have any other pressing legislation. I would hope that that was the reason it was brought forward.
I realize that sometimes Governments do get to the point where their agenda is so clear they only bring in legislation that is peripheral to the needs of Canadians. I would assume that today, on a Thursday, is the kind of day that we happen to have hit.
There has been some feeling left in the country, and I think there is a fair bit of feeling which exists on the Government side of the House, that some of these jobs that are performed around Parliament Hill fall into the area of being designated as essential services. I am not sure that that is really a very good argument for offering Bill C-45 to us, because I do not
think that we can look at the operations of the House objectively and say that all of the people who contribute to it are performing an absolutely essential service. It is an important service and the job they do is important. The job that any one of us does as MP is also relatively important, but it is not essential. We have had, since this Parliament began, two resignations from the House. The House functions just as well without those two, albeit both were extremely good and effective Members, but the House is still functioning since they have left. The mother of Parliament, Westminster in London, allows its employees to have bargaining rights, and to organize and have procedures whereby they can appeal the hiring practices and the practices putting people forward in particular branches to permit them to work their way up within the organization, and they function well. The Parliament in Australia has similar legislation and it has no problem with it. I fail to understand how the argument can be made that Canada could not function with this kind of labour legislation.
I was here when the bells rang in this Parliament for 14 or 15 days. It was not a disaster and the country still functioned. All of the Departments of Government still did their job. There was nothing that was held up and the people of Canada barely noticed the difference, unless they happened to come to Parliament Hill and heard the bells clanging through these tall stone corridors and reverberating in their ear drums. It did not precipitate a crisis, and we were out for 15 days.
I fail to see the validity of the argument that is sometimes made, or at least if not made directly often alluded to under cover, that this place provides an essential service and the various groups that have the potential to make up bargaining units on the Hill are performing essential services without which this country cannot operate. I find it even more difficult to understand when I look at some of the groups that are now permitted to have full bargaining rights, including the right to strike, which include the basic transport workers we have in this country who work for Air Canada, CN, CP. They include the people who work at the post office, and occasionally those workers do strike, and yet the country functions. The occasional strike that we have I think is accepted by the general public because they know that there are occasions when workers, in order to make their point about hiring practices or promotion practices are forced at the bargaining table to use the last trump card that they have, namely, the strike. If the strike weapon were available to Parliament Hill employees I think it would be used very seldom.
We just had the opportunity to hear from a former Hill employee recounting some of his experiences and some of the attitudes and opinions of people around the Hill. When you listen to Hill employees, it seems most of the problems and grievances that build up are due to the fact that there is no proper procedure for those employees to deal with their grievances. They have no place to go. That is why we have such instances as the following one. An older worker had hurt her back and was sent home. She was receiving benefits. Her
*


doctor told her he thought her back was well enough for her to go back to work, which meant that her benefits would cease. When she arrived at work here on the Hill she was told that her employers did not think she was fit to work and they would not pay her. She is no longer eligible for benefits, no longer able to work, and she has no place else to go. There is no grievance procedure except for some Member of Parliament trying to catch the Speaker's attention and having him put some pressure on the people concerned. With an organization they will have a grievance procedure. They can use the combined weight of all employees to argue for a particular person.
We know from listening to employees that there are discrepancies in the hiring practices and, because there is no grievance procedure, those discrepancies continue. If and when the five or six units who have applied for certification under the Canada Labour Code finally obtain the right to negotiate, they will be in a position to make certain that hiring procedures are regulated in a way that everyone understands. We can then avoid the kind of things we have had brought to our attention, such as the case of a technician being hired for a position at below the advertised salary level. He worked for a year and a half to reach that salary level and finally did so. Another position opened up in his same unit, another employee with exactly the same qualifications as the first employee was hired, but he was hired at the same salary level that the first one fought for a year and a half to get. These kinds of discrepancies bother our employees. I think they bother all of us when we realize there is inequitable treatment with no visible reason for it.
It makes little sense for us to be imposing more legislation regarding hiring practices and organizational structure for employees of Parliament in the form of Bill C-45. We have seen the Canada Labour Code being applied, and much effort has gone into organizing over the last three or four years. There have been court appeals. The legislative route is being followed, slowly but it is still being followed. It seems extremely unjust for us, particularly on equality day, to be imposing this much reduced form of rights on our employees when they are attempting to organize under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) mentioned that this was equality day for many groups in our society. It is interesting that the Government picked this particular day to move this legislation forward. It is also interesting that the Government had five months to move on this legislation and it would have done so earlier if it had believed it was serious legislation. That is rather ironic because we are now in a situation where the Government has not treated its own legislation seriously. Can you imagine introducing legislation in the late fall of last year, bringing it forward for one or two days' debate, and then
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
postponing further debate for a full four months? Yet that is what has happened.
Neither has the Government been serious in its negotiations with its employees on the Hill. It has used the courts to delay negotiating. It waited until the Canada Labour Relations Board certified the workers on the Hill, appealed that decision, lost the appeal, and is now appealing it further. Yet the Government has not shown the credibility involved in sitting down with its own workers to find out what kind of legislation would be acceptable.
There is no question of the Government's right to introduce legislation which it thinks is necessary. There is no question that the Government has a right to introduce its own legislation, based on a court decision, to change a process. What I find ironic is that the Government has spent so much time in doing nothing that I wonder if the Hon. Member would care to communicate whether he feels the Government is really negotiating in bad faith with its employees.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, it does seem the Government is not serious about negotiating. The various court actions taken as employees began to organize under the auspices of the Canada Labour Code indicate that the Government intends to fight the effort to organize on the Hill as far as it can. This move to introduce Bill C-45 was a legislative effort to back up the legal efforts in the courts. For that reason it probably would go some way to explaining why this legislation comes forward in fits and starts. I think it is somehow being used as part of the varied arsenal of the Government in its fight against the application by five or six units to organize and get their first contract.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some attention to the Hon. Member's remarks. He, like his colleagues in the NDP, has a definition of a designated employee. I want to know exactly where he stands on the question of essential employees. As I said this afternoon, under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, designated employees are those whose duty consists in whole or in part of duties the performance of which at or after any specific period of time are or will be necessary in the interests of the safety or security of the public. We could change all that and say: "The safety or security of Parliament". Given that the NDP Members' position on this issue is, I take it, that they favour the right to strike as a condition of Bill C-45, I wonder whether the Hon. Member would cross a picket line set up outside here consisting of messengers, truck drivers, maintenance people or anyone else. Would he cross that picket line? I would like to know the answer to that from his Party.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in a few settlements of labour agreements.


An Hon. Member:: On whose side?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: On the management side. Generally speaking, the definitions are drawn up quite clearly within the contract


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
itself as to who is crucial and who is not. There are usually in scope and out of scope employees designated in the contract.
The question of whether or not 1 would cross a picket line would depend really on whether the legislation we are dealing with is of a very serious and necessary nature, and on the kind of picketing that is going on. A lot of the picketing on the Hill, I foresee, will not be of a particularly crucial nature to the functioning of this House and this Chamber. When it is a question of serving my constituents and there is no other way of doing that but by being in the House, then I suppose I would have no choice but to cross the picket line. I would attempt to explain my reason to the picketers. 1 am sure that once they understood the reason, they would agree that the parliamentary function is also necessary. I have had this happen on a number of occasions and usually such picketers are quite in accord with what you are doing once they understand why you are doing it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's comments and point of view because I know how seriously he feels about the subject.
Picket lines, as I understand, were originally organized for information purposes. They were originally thought up to inform the public that there was a conflict between the employee and the employers, between the democratic process and sometimes the aristocratic owners of an enterprise. Since information was the original intent of the picket line-and we know that today strikes and picket lines receive coverage-I am rather pleased to hear the Hon. Member's position that he would indeed cross the picket line if he felt that the business of the House required his presence. That is a serious position and one which 1 respect, although one I do not necessarily share.
Is the Hon. Member telling us he would assess his position according to the legislation before the House, or would he, rather, assess his position as that of a servant of the Canadian public, an elected representative who has an obligation to sit in the House and represent the people of Humbolt-Lake Centre?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I think I tried to make it fairly clear in my first answer that both would be at work. The legislation which is before the House rarely, but sometimes, does affect my constituents very clearly. On those occasions I would feel it would be my responsibility and, indeed, my duty to be in the House looking after them.
I will reiterate something I said in my speech. It is not very often that this House has that kind of crucial legislation before it. I refer again to the 15 days when we listened to the bells and nothing fell apart. However, there are occasions when the country may be on the verge of war or something like that and I think it would be necessary to explain why I had to cross the picket line, and I would do so.


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


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45, an Act to provide employees of the House of Commons and Senate with a framework of representation, is proving controversial in its present form. Both the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the National Association of Broadast Employees and Technicians are finding considerable difficulty with this proposal. We must consider that this Bill will enshrine in law an employee-employer relationship which does not meet with the employees' approval.
With the advances workers on the Hill have made using the Canada Labour Relations Board, many see Bill C-45 as at best redundant and at worst a step backward for their rights. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has stated to employee representatives that the Government is willing to give parliamentary employees the same rights enjoyed by federal public servants. However, the legislation before us does not include one particular right enjoyed by federal public servants, and that is, the right to strike. We might all consider that there are good reasons why employees on the Hill should not have the right to strike. But if that tool is removed from them, surely they must be compensated by having an extremely effective, strong and binding arbitration procedure in its place. That is not offered by Bill C-45.
I understand that there is a court decision pending. I really wonder about the advisability of proceeding with this Bill until that decision has been reached. I understand that the decision is likely to come down in a few days. The history is that on November 4, 1985, the Canada Labour Relations Board announced its decision to certify four bargaining units in the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament. I believe that since that time an additional unit has been certified. The fact that the Canada Labour Relations Board recognized those units has encouraged the workers on the Hill to feel they would prefer to be covered by the Canada Labour Code provisions rather than by the provisions of Bill C-45.
However, the House of Commons, Senate and Library of Parliament administration appealed the CLRB's decision to the Federal Court. The appeal was heard on January 20 and January 21, 1986, and a decision is expected within the next few days. In the interim, the request by the House of Commons for a stay allowing the employer to avoid participating in the negotiations process was rejected by the court.
I find it strange that we are proceeding with Bill C-45 at this time when we are hearing from the employees on the Hill, the people directly concerned, that they do not want this legislation and they would prefer to be under the Canada Labour Code. Their appeal concerning the Canada Labour Relations Board is still before the courts. Surely it would make more sense to have the court decision first and then look again at what kind of legislation is needed.


I certainly have a great deal of difficulty in understanding why we are proceeding with this legislation when the employees have said that it is not what they want. Surely, good employer-employee relations require making a much more serious effort to find out what it is the employees want and then proceed on that basis.
Two clauses in Bill C-45, Clause 5(3) and Clause 55(2), are being objected to. These two clauses would prohibit unions from referring to arbitration matters such as job classification, appointment, appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off and release of employees. These are matters which are really central to working conditions. 1 have great difficulty in understanding why they should be excluded from arbitration.
Federal public servants under the Public Service Staff Relations Board also face limitations as to what can and cannot be taken to arbitration. However, the Public Service Employment Act also gives federal public servants rights with regard to some of these issues, rights which are not contained in the Bill before us. Increasingly, what we are hearing from those who criticize the Bill is that it is almost word-for-word the Public Service Staff Relations Act minus the rights federal public servants enjoy by way of other legislation governing them.
A Conservative Member of Parliament from Ottawa stated in a radio interview recently that Bill C-45 is landmark legislation which provides Hill workers with important rights, including health and safety rights. That is not accurate. Under the Canada Labour Code, health and safety rights are already allowed. This is so as a result of Bill C-24, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), points out.
The workers on Parliament Hill have asked that Bill C-45 be delayed. They do not even want it to go to committee since that would bring it one step closer to enactment. The workers on the Hill know how our system operates. There have been many times in the House when Members on all sides have agreed to the principle of a Bill which has very large flaws and have wanted the Bill to go to committee, where amendments can be moved, so that it can be improved upon. The workers on the Hill are very familiar with this procedure. Yet what they are saying to us is: "We do not want it to go to committee. We want you to block it". This is really a serious situation.
Although negotiations with the union are being conducted by the administration of the House, every Member has a vested interest in this matter. While we are not empowered to negotiate, in a sense we are the employers of these people. If they are not happy with this Bill, then why on earth do we not just go back to the drawing-board and try to come up with something on which there can be agreement? I find it absolutely illogical and inconsistent with everything I stand for as a Member of Parliament to be involved in a discussion concerning a Bill which affects our own employees on the Hill and which they have told us they do not want. How did we ever get into this situation? Why on earth are the people concerned, the
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
administration-and I still call them personnel people but I understand the term now is human resources-not talking with the employees, trying to obtain from them some sensible recommendation with respect to what should go into the legislation?
1 am sure everyone would agree that the workers on the Hill are entitled to some type of staff association, a union, we can call it what we will. They are entitled to some type of arrangement by which they can bargain and which will allow them a say in the conditions of their work. Since everyone is agreed on that point, why on earth not take the next step and make more of an effort to ensure that what they are offered is what they want? After all, one of the points in having a union is so that there is an organized framework for the resolution of disputes and so that there can be fairer labour practices which benefit both worker and employer. If we start off with a situation in which workers say they do not want this, then surely we are starting off on the wrong foot.
Surely, there is no way of rescuing this legislation. I strongly suggest that the Government withdraw it and start some meaningful and time-limited negotiations with the employees in order to come up with something that is acceptable. After all, if people have something forced upon them, they will not use it productively. However, something which is agreed upon with good will between employer and employee is more likely to work and more likely to provide a sensible framework for the resolution of disputes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) what her impression is with respect to why this legislation, or similar legislation, was not brought forward by the Government of which she was a part prior to September of 1984. It is deeply regrettable that after so many years of knowing that the workers on the Hill wanted to join a union and wanted to have the right to negotiate that the previous Government did not act at all in that respect.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not correct in saying that the previous Government did not act at all in this respect. It was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms introduced by the previous Government which was the basis for broadening access to collective bargaining. In fact, we had draft legislation. Since it was not an area in which I was immediately involved, I cannot remember whether or not it was introduced in the House. However, there was certainly discussion with the workers on the Hill as a result of which I understand there was a fairly clear understanding that the way they wished to proceed was under the Canada Labour Code.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to have listened to the remarks of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). Knowing her background, especially in social work, and knowing of her commitment to good


Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
employee relations, I was very impressed with her approach to the subject matter before us. In the name of all of us who have a deep interest in employer-employee relations, I wish to thank her for her remarks.
I would like to ask her if she recognizes that the House of Commons is an essential service and that as such we should designate certain services as essential to the safety and security of the operation of Parliament. I believe she was in the House when I asked a question of the Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). I asked him what he would do if the House of Commons in its wisdom, and the employees in theirs, accepted to include the right to strike, as is the case with public servants. In my speech, I think I made it clear that the employees themselves have said that they could forgo that right if meaningful negotiations were forthcoming on binding, third-party arbitration.
Perhaps what I am putting forward is hypothetical. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I know the Hon. Member's commitment to employer-employee relations, and I also understand how she has worked with people over the years. How would she feel if there was a strike and a picket line was set up on Parliament Hill? Would she adopt the position taken by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), for example, who has said publicly that, indeed, the work of the House of Commons is essential, and he has given warning that he would see fit to enter the House to do what he has to do as a Member of Parliament in order to represent his electorate?
I know the position of certain members of the NDP who spoke today. They said that they would never cross a picket line for whatever reason. However, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre said that in certain circumstances, he might cross a picket line if he judged that the matter at hand was of such importance to warrant his explaining to those who were picketing that he was crossing so that he could do his job as a Member of Parliament.
I wonder how the Hon. Member for Trinity feels about this. Perhaps this is unfair to her because I did not discuss this matter with her before. Perhaps I should ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister-


Rodney Edward Murphy: They have to make a speech before you can do that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, I may have to ask that question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) wishes to make a speech and to tell us how she would act. However, I am asking the question of the Hon. Member for Trinity who has made public her views on this Bill. We do not yet know the views of the Hon. Member for Gatineau, but we may find out about them some day.
What would the Hon. Member for Trinity do if faced with a picket line of bus drivers, messengers or security guards who were saying: "We do not believe that you should go to your workplace because we are openly protesting a conflict in employer-employee relations"? What would the Hon. Member say in response to the comments I have just made?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, first, I do think it is logical to regard Parliament as an essential service in which strikes would not be permitted. I think that way because of how important it is for citizens to be able to have access to their elected representatives to redress grievances. If Parliament was not able to operate, the Government and the executive level would operate without any checks and balances, and that would be most undesirable in a democracy. That kind of situation would be fraught with all kinds of possibilities for arbitrary decisions against citizens who would not have any means of redress. For those reasons, I think it is reasonable to withhold the right to strike from Hill employees. However, having said that, workers who are deprived of that particular right, which is a blunt and very powerful weapon, must be protected in other ways. They must have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that there is not enough time left today. When we resume the debate, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) will have the floor for another four minutes for questions and comments.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on April 8, I put a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), which I actually wanted to direct to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and he refused to answer. I read some comments in the press that the Government was rather slow and hesitant about implementing official languages programs and policies. I read some headlines, such as: "La Federation des francophones hors Quebec and Alliance Quebec say these petty reforms are unacceptable.". Another headline: "Exasperation a result of Ottawa's hesitations", and another headline in an English newspaper, 1 think it was the Gazette: "Ottawa has failed to consult us on reform: language minorities", and it goes on: "Alliance Quebec and francophones outside Quebec blame Ottawa for inaction".



Mr. Speaker, 1 therefore put my question to the Prime Minister: When is this Government going to deal with the problems that concern official language minority groups and when can we expect, and 1 am reading at page 12187 of Hansard, April 14:
-when can we expect some solutions to the problems in Newfoundland regarding access to French in the courts; in Ontario, regarding French television; in Manitoba, regarding services in French, and throughout the province regarding education and Section 23?
Mr. Speaker, we know that the problem in Newfoundland is that two Francophones asked for a French trial, and up to now, they have not been able to get one, because our own Government, through its officials at the Department of Justice, is arguing that Bill C-42, which was passed by this House in 1977 or 1978, was not proclaimed in Newfoundland, and it is a particular section of this Bill that provides one is entitled to be heard by a judge who speaks the same language.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that since that time, a Charter of Rights was adopted by Parliament which I believe recognizes the right of a person to express himself before the Courts in his own language. 1 asked the question, because if I had known the answer, Mr. Speaker, I would not have asked the Secretary of State for further details.
We know that the Court Challenges Program under which groups authorized to bring questions of national importance before the courts was expanded in September 1985. We know also that today is the anniversary of the proclamation of Clause 15, and all of this put together indicates that the Government, five or six months after the proclamation of Clause 15, has extended the court challenges program to allow target groups who feel their rights have been infringed on either under Clause 15 or Clause 27, to appeal to the courts and defend their interests.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, the whole process has been entrusted to a third party. The Social Planning Council has been instructed to set up a panel to rule on the eligibility of the various claims. So far, no claim has been accepted, as far as I know, because the said committee has not yet ruled on any of these claims. If the Minister's response tonight is that the said Committee has to deal with 20 cases, I will say: Yes, but where are the results?
Well, Mr. Speaker, there are people in Canada who feel that their rights have been infringed on, whether the right to an education, the right to be heard by the courts in their own language, or some other essential and basic right. Therefore, I ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me when we can expect results concerning the court challenges program issue, more specifically, the rights of the accused to be heard in courts in their own languages?
Mr. Speaker, my other question dealing with the financing of educational television in Ontario is one which I have close at heart-I put everything in my question-and I should like the Minister to tell me when Ontario can expect to receive the few million dollars which it is seeking, and which have been promised, to extend French television programming on the
Adjournment Debate
TVO Network. 1 have not received any reply to that, Mr. Speaker.
Concerning Clause 23, I have asked just how many cases we could expect would be heard or at least considered, and 1 have not received any reply there either, because actually, it is not the Government who answered my question, but the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who stated that the Government was carrying out a full review of the official languages programs, that the task force was supposed to submit its report shortly, and that we would be eventually advised-I do not know when, sometimes in the future-of the amendments which it would recommend.
Mr. Speaker, my question was not about the Official Languages Act. My question was more concerned with language programs and policies. Today again, I tried to make this Government understand that all this hesitating and shillyshallying ... we are sick and tired, Mr. Speaker, of being told: It is too complex. It is too contentious, as the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) said. I didn't say it, he did in a press conference or an interview with Canadian Press recently.
He said, and I quote, it may not be word for word, because I don't have the statement in front of me, but 1 remember clearly the gist of his announcement. He said: It is not wise to proceed too quickly, because this is so contentious and complex and dangerous that we must take a gradual approach.
You know, all this means is festina lente, Mr. Speaker. You understand Latin, so you know what festina lente means. It means: Make haste slowly.
Mr. Speaker, that is not what we need. We need leadership. We need a Government that has the courage of its convictions and can say: We are going to do something. We are going to start something new. We will provide the necessary leadership, and we will give that leadership to Canadians and we will show by our convictions-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I am sorry but the Hon. Member's seven minutes are up.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr.Scott).


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who is asking when will the Government do something to help minority groups in the provinces, I think it is obvious that our Government has already done a lot for these groups. Support for minorities is an essential aspect of the over-all policy of the federal Government with respect to the official languages. At the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) happens to be reviewing the present policy with his colleagues from Justice and Treasury Board.
In addition, our Government has maintained the $20 million budget for the official languages communities program. We


Adjournment Debate
have renewed and expanded the Court Challenges Program and made sure that it will be administered by the Canadian Council on Social Development.
We are now examining new ways to support the development of minorities in co-operation with the provinces, the private sector and volunteer organizations.

The protocol on official languages in education has been renewed until 1988 with a 3 per cent increase for the first year. This means $432 million over two years. With regard to Francophones in Ontario receiving French language programming, our Government has made a significant contribution. For 1985-86 we have provided $1.6 million for French language programming. The Government has also made a commitment to finance half the costs of establishing the French network of TV Ontario. This amounts to $3 million a year for five years. With regard to services in French in Manitoba, the federal Government will be providing $400,000 this year to support Manitoba in translating its laws, further to the Supreme Court decision which requires laws to be in both official languages.
Let us look at the Hon. Member's concern regarding Section 23 of the Charter and the question of minority education rights. I want to point out that since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some provinces have improved the availability of education in the minority language. The Province of Ontario has dropped the criterion "where numbers warrant" and is proposing the establishment of a minority language school board in Ottawa. The Province of Manitoba is reviewing minority school management.
We are all aware, of course, of the federal Government's support to the Northwest Territories in establishing French as an official language of the territories. Preliminary steps are now being taken to negotiate an agreement on official languages with the Yukon.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the federal Government has been and still is very supportive of the minority official languages communities throughout Canada.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT-TEXTILES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to raise a matter pursuant to a question raised in the House on March 12 during Oral Question Period, which was directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle).
The House knows my concern for the survival of the textile industry in Canada, and I am particularly worried about the ability of our industry to cope with international competition. That is why I would like to inform the Minister of my concerns about research in the textile industry.
The textile industry has introduced ultramodern technology which is accessible throughout the world and it has become increasing capital intensive. On the other hand, the clothing industry is more fragmented and more labour-intensive, and several distinctions must be made in the case of the textile industry, since in some sub-groups like hosiery and drapes and curtains, modern technology has not been introduced at the same rate.
We know that at the present time, Canada has no research centres that are really specialized in textiles. I am referring to research aimed at discovering new products and new manufacturing processes.
Of course there are a number of research centres that can help the industry with quality control testing, such as the Ontario Research Foundation and the Centre de recherche industrielle du Quebec, the CRIQ, but these centres do not specialize in textile research. There is also our biggest reseach centre, the National Research Council of Canada, and I found out that textile manufacturers, or at least those in Quebec, do not make use of its services and are hardly aware it exists.
At the present time, when a textile manufacturer is looking for new ideas, he has to get them from the trade magazines or visit the textile fairs in Europe. The House will agree it is not very practical to have to travel so far to learn something. And it will also recognize that small businesses are always penalized more than others, because they lack the resources to be able to send regularly a person or persons around the world to look for new concepts. We are now seeing the introduction of new technology with the latest computerized equipment for primary manufacturing operations. The application of new technologies, such as robotics, microelectronics or laser technology could transform the industry into one that requires huge investments, which might help it to neutralize the advantages enjoyed by countries with low overhead and to win their share of the market.
In 1982, for instance, Japan earmarked over $60 million US to fund a new nine-year research and development project to produce a fully automated sewing process. At the same time, the United States launched a similar project to design an automatic machine to sew the sleeves of men's overcoats, one of the most complex and most difficult operations in that sector.
This research program is sponsored by a group of textile and garment manufacturers, the unions involved, and the American Department of Trade. In fact, it is a ten-year $69 million program being carried out in Boston, in the State of Massachusetts. The results are quite encouraging, and the prototype of a sewing system using mobile sewing machines remotely controlled by cameras and computers has been developed and tested in a plant.
Advanced research has been made to include other sewing operations and to lower the production cost of the prototype. This revolutionary sewing system should be on the market within three years.


In Western Europe, research and development work is being done at two levels, by the European Economic Community and by individual countries. The European Economic Community's research and development project has a budget of S17 million spread over four years, and will be up to 50 per cent financed by these countries.
In Canada, our main exports are furs and outer wear, which represent 49 per cent and 21 per cent, respectively, of the industry's exports. In the fur group, 42 per cent of our entire production is exported to the United States, our main export market since they purchase more than 82 per cent of our total clothing exports.
Actually, the countries of South-East Asia have recently penetrated the fur market. Are we going to let them have a free rein? When I think of textile research and development in my own province, I think of businesses that have succeeded in taking the initiative and creating an original product.
I am thinking, for instance, of NALPAC, in Montreal, which invented a revolutionary snow fence made of polyester.
I am thinking of TEXCEL in Beauce, which manufactures geotextiles that are immensely useful for road construction in marshy areas. I am thinking of Dominion Textiles, in Drum-mondville, which manufactures KEVLAR cloth for tires.
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what our inventive geniuses could do if they had technical support through a specialized textile research centre? The centre could do regular testing on manufactured products entering Canada to examine the actual composition of such products and find out whether they are up to import standards.
It could also be a place where we would have a bank of experts. I know several people who are retired and who would be delighted to serve as consultants.
Mr. Speaker, I hope these considerations will encourage the Minister to look at the feasibility of setting up a research centre that would be welcomed by many primary textile products and clothing manufacturers.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his very fine and well researched presentation. It is well known in the House of Commons that the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) is very, very interested in ensuring that the textile industry progresses. He makes his presentations very well known to the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle), as well as the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
The Government took steps in the May, 1985 and February, 1986 Budgets to stimulate research and development, particularly by small and medium-sized companies, which comprise a significant part of many of our traditional industries, including
Adjournment Debate
textiles. The fully refundable R and D investment tax credit was specifically intended to assist such companies.
The Hon. Member for Drummond may be aware that the Minister signed a subsidiary agreement on scientific and technological development with the Government of Quebec on a great day, St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 1986. It also happens to be my birthday, so it must be a great day. Under the agreement, the two Governments will spend $38 million over five years to promote research and technological innovation in Quebec firms.
There will be particular emphasis on manufacturing technologies, including computer assisted design and manufacture, new uses for traditional materials, and electronics and infometrics, all of which are of particular relevance to the textile industry. Firms may apply for the grants in order to conduct feasibility studies with regard to major new technologies or products, to acquire modern scientific equipment for research and development, and to undertake significant new R and D projects. While the initiatives must come from the firms, they are encouraged to collaborate closely with universities.
Research and textile fibre technology is supported at the University of Guelph and the University of Manitoba. The National Research Council maintains a team of 12 people who conduct research on textiles and textile fibres, the results of which are available to the industry. I know the Hon. Member mentioned that the textile industry may not be that interested in the NRC, but I am sure that the co-operation between the industry and NRC can improve and will do so. The field staff of NRC provides advice on research and the latest technology to the firms in the sector.
[ Translation]
The Hon. Member should know that Quebec provides assistance to the Centre quebecois de la productivity et du rendement, and that the federal Governmemt does not want to duplicate the work of that organization.
Finally, the federal Government does much to promote technical progress in that sector.


ENERGY-SUGGESTED DISCOUNTS FOR MOTORISTS PAYING CASH FOR GASOLINE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The adjournment debate is designed to give Members of Parliament an opportunity for further discussion when Members are not satisfied with answers they have received. I welcome this opportunity and thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his attendance.
My question on April 7 asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) if the Minister would contact Canadian oil companies


Adjournment Debate
and request them to consider giving discount prices to motorists who pay cash rather than use credit cards. This would be an appropriate sequel to the actions already taken by the Energy Minister, who has clearly shown that she is an advocate for consumers. It is right that a Minister be that kind of advocate. Lobbyists represent different interest groups within Canadian society on this Hill. Trade, business and labour associations all have their champions here. Who represents individual consumers except their Members of Parliament and the Government they elect?
Speaking out on behalf of consumers is especially appropriate for a Progressive Conservative Government, for ours is a people party that cares about people and their concerns. Time on this adjournment debate does not permit the review of the many occasions when the Conservative Party has acted on behalf of consumers. Robert Stanfield, for example, as Leader of the Opposition, was ready to go as far as price controls.
My question did not urge any action, extreme or moderate. In place of action, it suggested using moral suasion, for moral suasion has been proven to be an effective instrument in gaining fairness for the Canadian consumer. It is well known that over the years the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have frequently on behalf of the Canadian people and their well-being made use of moral suasion to influence banking policies. The Energy Minister has herself made use of moral suasion on behalf of motorists in this country. I quote from her remarks in the House on March 12:
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to tell the Hon. Member that politeness pays off. Today Esso and Petro-Canada have announced that they have dropped the price of gasoline by two cents a litre.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that 1 asked the industry to ensure that the price decreases were passed along to consumers so that everyone could take advantage of our deregulated oil and gas industry.
I have been encouraged by the effectiveness of her moral suasion. On March 13, for example, one gas station in Scarborough West charged 46.9 cents for regular gas and 49 cents for unleaded. Today the same station charges 38.1 cents for regular and 41.1 cents for unleaded, a drop of 8.8 cents a litre. In the past 36 days, the price of regular gas has dropped 18.8 per cent and the price of unleaded 17.6 per cent, demonstrating the effectiveness of moral suasion and the appropriateness of it when a Minister uses it in a private enterprise economy. "Politeness does pay off'.
If the Energy Minister would ask Canadian oil companies to take another step on behalf of consumers and to at least consider giving discount prices to motorists who pay cash rather than use credit cards, it would be another opportunity for a Government to show it cares about consumers. A caring Government cares enough to help. As well, the discount for cash proposal is credible. Already one of Canada's major oil companies has informed me that it is "seriously studying" this proposal and its application in British Columbia.
At this very moment in various parts of the U.S., certain major oil companies such as Esso are presently giving discount prices to motorists who pay with cash rather than credit cards in particular regions. The proposal is thus credible and practical. In response to my request on April 7, I was told by the Parliamentary Secretary:
No more would she suggest that a company do that than she would suggest that a haberdasher charge less for a suit when customers pay cash rather than use credit cards.
There was simply no parallel there. The Minister's actions show that retail gas prices are on her agenda and part of her concern. Rightly so. I had to be impressed and somewhat amused by the way the word "haberdasher" was used in a political sense. The late President Harry Truman was a haberdasher. At one point in his life he saw the value of his inventory reduced by over 800 per cent in one week through bank action. There was a haberdasher who would have appreciated some Government action.
It has been demonstrated time and time again that moral suasion by the Government produces results in private enterprise. I commend the Minister for what she has done on behalf of consumers. I hope she might yet take one further step. Moral suasion and politeness pay off.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to my hon. friend, who has always shown a great interest in the consumer. He has made an excellent suggestion to the oil companies. Obviously they have already received his message loud and clear. The Minister does not and will not interfere in the day-to-day operations of private sector companies. She has made that very, very clear. At one time, and I think rightfully so, she said that she expected the savings from falling oil prices would be passed on to the consumer. The companies are doing that. 1 would like to think that when the Minister sent that telegram to the various companies, it had some effect.
There are many marketing tools, and this is a marketing tool, which the companies use. The Hon. Member mentioned that some of the major oil companies use it in the U.S., but only in certain areas. Obviously it is a marketing tool within a certain area. I know that here in Canada many of our energy companies provide 5 per cent discounts to various organizations which have a special card and buy their gas at a certain station of a certain company. These are all marketing practices carried on by various companies.
The Minister does not want to get involved in day-to-day marketing operations of these companies. We deregulated the industry and as a Government, we are committed to deregulation. The Canadian electorate have said that we should let them operate their businesses and get off their backs. They will do the job, they will create employment and make things better for Canadians, but we should stop placing this burden of


Government on them. This is happening and we have seen some very positive results.
That is not to minimize the importance of the suggestion by the Hon. Member. It is a good one. Obviously he has been in touch with one of the major oil companies, and he might want to encourage the others by making that suggestion to them. I thank him for bringing up this issue and for his concern. Yes, we are very, very pleased that the savings resulting from lower
Adjournment Debate
oil prices have been passed on to consumers right across this great country of ours.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, April 18, 1986