1986-04-23

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record the fact that a CP story has confirmed what we in British Columbia already knew, namely, Progressive Conservative MPs from British Columbia have been given 4,100 tickets to give to the public for the opening ceremonies of Expo 86. The New Democrats and the Liberals are splitting four tickets between them.
Expo is going to be a great national festival. Not only will it celebrate the future of British Columbia and Vancouver as the host city, but it will also be a great credit, as Expo 67 was, to the country as a whole. For the Government to convert this into a political extravaganza rather than a national and provincial festival is directly contrary to the unanimity with which people from all three political Parties are approaching this particular event.
I call upon the Government to take politics out of Expo, give it back to the people, and give it back to Members of Parliament across the board.


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


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, multicultural organizations across Canada are outraged by recent actions of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). These organizations have provided input to the Government more than once recently on the direction they would like multicultural policy to take. They have indicated shortcomings in Government action on the policy and have asked for more support for their own community acitivities.
While these groups waited for the opportunity to discuss these policy matters, they were suddenly told that the Minister
was developing a totally new multiculturalism policy which was in the final stages of preparation for cabinet consideration. The Minister did not ask for advice on this determination. He did not invite reaction to a draft statement. Instead, he said he was already acting on the new policy and was reviewing the whole funding and granting procedures in line with the development of the new policy. The members of our ethnocultural organizations and communities deserve a better lesson in parliamentary Government than the Minister has provided.


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


ABORTION
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the death of a young Ottawa woman on January 23, 1986, while undergoing a therapeutic abortion, has confirmed what everyone suspected. In many cases therapeutic abortion committees are no more than a rubber stamp.
Erin Shannon's abortion was listed as approved at 8 a.m. even though the committee did not meet until 10 a.m. Her abortion was initiated by 10.05 a.m. Apparently this is not unusual. The committee routinely approves 40 abortion applications at its weekly meetings which last only 20 minutes. That gives about 30 seconds to the consideration of each case.
Under our laws a therapeutic abortion committee should guarantee that a woman contemplating a pregnancy termination has received reliable information about her own and her baby's health, as well as information about the more positive alternatives to an abortion. These factors should also influence the decision of a committee on an application for abortion. This does not happen now, and the entire committee process is a meaningless farce.
I urge Hon. Members of the House seriously to consider changing our laws-


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

April 23, 1986


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, 1986 will mark the seventy-first anniversary of the massacre of over 1.5 million Armenians-men, women, and children. The latest text of the United Nations' committee report on genocide lists the massacre of the Armenians alongside such horrors as what the Nazis did to the Jews. In 1982 the Government of Canada, the champion of human rights, passed a resolution condemning the Armenian massacre. On April 24 Armenians all over the world will be holding a silent vigil to commemorate the martyrs of the genocide. Let us all pause and reflect upon the Armenian experience.
The commemoration of this day will serve as a warning signal against other similar atrocities. No act of human destruction of such great magnitude can be prevented if we permit one to be forgotten. Tomorrow, and every April 24 hence, should be remembered as Armenian Memorial Day, for nothing threatens our future more than a refusal-


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


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, I was in the ridings of Trois-Rivieres and Champlain. Yesterday I went to the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and visited Montreal's Salon de la femme.
Mr. Speaker, the people are increasingly angry with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He was booed in his own riding. The representatives of the Members for Trois-Rivieres and Champlain were booed in these ridings. The absent Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mrs. Champagne) was booed in her riding.
Mr. Speaker, all those people are against the Government's decision to cut off unemployment insurance benefits and, sure enough, they rallied the support of the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) who has voiced his opposition to his Government's decision to deny unemployment insurance benefits to people who have worked and are entitled to them, people who have been misled by the Prime Minister of Canada.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, today I pay homage to distinguished guests and to businessmen of my riding's Italian community.
Mr. Speaker, we are growing ever more aware of the leading role played by cultural and ethnic minorities in Canada's economic growth. Our Government provides the ideal climate for them to contribute to our country's economic expansion.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to which I belong has been established to foster and monitor the Canada-wide implementation of federal multiculturalism policies.
[Editor's Note: The Hon. Member expressed her best wishes to the businessmen in Italian.]


HOUSING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, residents of Winnipeg are angry at the way in which the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program has been unilaterally altered by the Minister responsible for housing. This program has been responsible for regenerating entire neighbourhoods in Winnipeg. Without it and the Core Intiatives Program, parts of downtown Winnipeg could have gone the way of central cities in the United States.
Last year 1,200 homes were rehabilitated under these programs. This year no money has been released as yet. A quarter of the year is thus gone. Winnipegers have warmly endorsed the program and have co-operated fully with it, but now they find their RRAP applications have been cut off because of changes in the income requirements set by the Minister. People with applications dating back as long as two years have been cut off. Forty completed and processed applications, just awaiting CMHC signature, have been turned down. A full 600 of 900 applicants have been disqualified although they acted entirely in good faith, yet the Government will not see fit to judge their applications under the criteria under which these people applied-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
April 23, 1986


SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were pleased by the decision of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to award the contract for the building of the new CN ferry to a Canadian shipyard. Now, however, is the time to focus our attention on the urgent needs of the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia. Now is the time to proceed with construction of the promised Class 8 Arctic icebreaker.
The icebreaker will provide important logistic support, and protection of Canadian sovereignty in Arctic waters. It must incorporate the most up to date technology, be efficient, and be built at reasonable cost. All these elements can be delivered by the shipyards in North Vancouver, British Columbia, which are renowned for their expertise in icebreaking technology and utilize the most advanced and productive techniques of design and construction. I hope the Ministers involved in making the decision on the icebreaker will move quickly so that our West Coast shipbuilding industries will have this opportunity to contribute to Arctic development which they so justly deserve.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Vladimir Brodsky is a Russian physician who has been sentenced to three years in a labour camp for malicious hooliganism. The KGB has offered Dr. Brodsky his freedom if he renounces an independent peace group he helped establish in 1982.
This doctor is guilty of working for peace through association with "The Group to Establish Trust Between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.". This case symbolizes the concern Canadians have for efforts physicians in Canada and other places have made to remove the threat of nuclear war.
Dr. Brodsky's internment relegates the status of Dr. Chazov and his Soviet Physicians for Peace Group to that of a Russian progaganda tool. It ridicules Mr. Gorbachev's peace overtures as being only gestures.
I respectfully request this House and its Members to regard the treatment of Dr. Brodsky as representative of Soviet regard for non-governmental peace groups in Canada, and 1 hope all Members will join me in requesting the Soviet leadership to restore his basic freedoms to Dr. Brodsky.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday night Joe Ghiz and the Liberals captured 21 of the 32 seats in the provincial Legislative Assembly. They will form the next Government, and a strong Government at that. The winds of change were so strong that even a Premier could not hang on to his own seat.
There is a clear message in this resounding victory for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-Canadians are fed up with Conservative policies. As I travelled door-to-door with the provincial candidates, the response was the same-the Mulroney Government's policies are hurting all Canadians.
Islanders were outraged by this Government giving less and taking more. It is also quite obvious to Islanders that the Prime Minister is not delivering on his promise to create jobs, jobs, jobs.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney Government has failed Prince Edward Islanders. We now have a strong Premier who will stand up and fight for a fair deal for all Prince Edward Island.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Canada is on the road to prosperity. More Canadians have jobs, more people are buying homes, and more people are seeing an improvement in their standard of living thanks to the implementation of Conservative policies. However, this new prosperity is not always equally distributed, and that is why our Government has introduced an unprecedented range of employment programs. Under the direction of the Minister responsible, these programs are aimed at increasing participation by Canadians in the labour market and will enable greater numbers of Canadian men and women to take advantage of our economic renewal.
And I agree with all those people who have gone back to work since the September 1984 election: "What a relief to have a job again and to get your pay at the end of the week."
We in the Progressive Conservative Party realize that the best social program is a job, and that is why we are working so hard to create new jobs for Canadians each month.

April 23, 1986
Oral Questions


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, as occurs every day, today the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) tells us about the need for shipbuilding on the West Coast. It was not long ago that a Member on that same side was speaking about the need for shipbuilding on the East Coast. This is another example of Conservative double-speak because the Conservative Cabinet refuses to recognize the need on either coast.
I suggest it is about time that Conservative back-benchers understood that the public know that Conservative backbenchers do not represent them adequately, otherwise action would have been taken by the Cabinet.


AVIATION
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a special event that will start tomorrow at Saint-Hubert in the riding of Chambly, when the Sixth International Aeronautics Show is officially opened by our astronaut, Commander Marc Garneau. This impressive show is a concrete example of the vitality of Canadian youth.
In fact, this show, one of the biggest in Canada, is organized by students of the National Aerotechnical School, who, with the co-operation of industry and our Government, have succeeded in giving us a remarkable presentation of what they can do. In addition, this show is a unique opportunity for the Quebec and Canadian aeronautics industry to make itself known.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all Canadians to come and see for themselves what the energy and entrepreneurship of the students of this institution have been able to achieve, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish them every success.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Trade
negotiations with the United States are not yet under way, yet the matter is bogged down in the United States Senate by conflict, confusion, and capitulation. Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana said: "It is the backroom closed-door, arm-twisting stage-the stage where politics is at its most foul. We're at the foul stage period". I know that you may find those words unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, but they were uttered in the United States Senate.
What backroom deals are being made by the Prime Minister and his Government to try to keep these negotiations on track? Will he tell the Canadian people what is behind these discussions? What is going on?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition clearly does not believe that kind of question himself. He makes little effort to disguise his amusement with his own questions. What is going on in the United States Senate is germane to their own democratic process. The administration is following the prescribed formalities.
I assume that what is taking place in the United States is their own special brand of democracy, in much the same way as Question Period is ours. When the response is forthcoming, the Government of Canada will respond. Meanwhile we think it is the normal functioning of a democracy, and we will have to wait to see what comes out of the United States Senate.


INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT MADE CONCESSIONS IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It would be amusing if there were not so much at stake for Canada. If the talks start from scratch, are we going to put everything on the bargaining table? The Prime Minister has made a commitment to remove our cultural industries, the auto pact, marketing boards and other economic sectors from the bargaining table. Has the Prime Minister made any concessions with respect to these restrictions, with a view to the results of the U.S. Senate vote?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as far as Canada is concerned, we submitted a program that responded to existing demands. We have conducted thorough consultations with all sectors in this country. We followed the proper procedure in expressing to the United States the interest of the Government of Canada in pursuing trade talks with the United States-as I had the pleasure of announcing here in the House on September 26-and everything was done according to the rules.
That being said, I may point out to the Hon. Member that we are waiting for the results from the Senate Committee, and I am sorry to hear how negative the Leader of the Opposition is about this vote, because today, Mr. Bourassa, speaking on behalf of all Quebecers, expressed the hope that the Senate Committee would approve trade talks with Canada.
April 23, 1986


John Napier Turner: Mr. Bourassa will be interested, as will other Premiers, in what backroom deals are made to secure that consent. If there are backroom deals in the United States between the administration and the Senate, there are backroom deals between this administration in Canada and the provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will not have confidence in what is going on unless the Prime Minister consents to a full parliamentary debate at an early opportunity in order that we can understand what concessions were given in Washington, and what is being done with our provinces on this side of the border.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if indeed there are negotiations I think a debate of some kind would be appropriate. First and foremost it would finally flush out where the Liberals stand on this issue. No one knows where they are on any issue. They are either on both sides, or none.


CANADIAN POSITION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister as well. Yesterday in the House he said categorically that he would never accept the U.S. Senate proposals which outlined guidelines and conditions. Canadian officials in Washington are quoted in a CP wire story today as saying that the Prime Minister would not automatically refuse to negotiate under the Senate proposals. What kind of two-faced game is going on? Why are Canadian officials saying one thing in Washington and he is saying another thing in this Parliament? When are we going to find out what the real Canadian stand is, and when is he going to control his officials in Washington so that they represent this Government properly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the only two-faced game going on here is that this is one face of Liberal trade policy, and over there is the other face. They are both opposite.
I have indicated many times that we are looking for a clean launch without preconditions. We expect that will be the case. We hope there will be a positive-I do not want to interrupt the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Member from Winnipeg.


John Napier Turner: No, keep going.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Is the conversation over?
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Keep going.


Martin Brian Mulroney: All right. I thought he might want to hear the answer.


John Napier Turner: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps just a supplementary question.


John Napier Turner: The clean launch is going under water.


Lloyd Axworthy: I always say that every time the Prime Minister looks in the mirror he is getting two points of view.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not answered the question. Are Canadian officials in Washington saying to their American counterparts that he would be prepared to accept conditions as outlined by the Senate which would involve complete agreement by the provinces and acceptance of the fact that Canadian subsidies on resources would be wiped off the table? We want to know what Canadian officials in Washington are promising or committing to on behalf of the Government.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Hon. Member's question is of course not. The Prime Minister of Canada spoke for Canada in the House of Commons yesterday on this question. That position stands. It is consistent with the position this Government has been taking throughout the long debate, a claim which cannot be made by the Liberal Party of Canada.


CANADIAN POLICY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple and straightforward question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Crosbie:: That's a change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steven W. Langdon: It is possible-


John Carnell Crosbie: First one this session.


An Hon. Member:: A simple question for a simple-minded Cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has the right to put his question.


Steven W. Langdon: Clearly the difficult questions have become too much for him so I will ask a very straightforward question.

April 23, 1986
Oral Questions
If the policy of the Canadian Government is to have a clean launch, why are Canadian officials in Washington saying the contrary? Did he authorize it? Will he stop it if it is taking place?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, to answer that very simple question very simply, they are not.


CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY U.S. SENATE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, having left our officials in Washington to play their game while the politicians here appear to play their game, let me pose this question. Will the Prime Minister here and now reject the conditions suggested by the Senate, including equal treatment for U.S. investors here, more government purchase of U.S. goods, and full protection of U.S. intellectual property, as totally unacceptable, damaging to jobs here, and against our economic sovereignty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making a false accusation.


FINANCE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The report from the National Council of Welfare now confirms what the Opposition has been saying all along; Conservative budgets are Robin Hood in reverse, the rich get richer and the poor will get poorer.
How can the Minister of Finance justify gloating over the introduction of a sales tax credit when the Minister knows that a Canadian family of two children, earning $20,000 a year, will not qualify for the sales tax credit?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member has looked carefully at the facts. What is very clear is that real disposable income for all Canadians is up this year and will be up again next year. Taxes for those who are in the lowest income brackets are going to be down this year, and he has commented on one of the reasons for that. The third comment that I would make is that the reason for this policy is to improve the economic situation of the country, to get interest rates down, to improve the position of middle income Canadians and to provide them with the ability to get a lower cost mortgage on their homes. I point out to him that mortgage rates today are at the lowest level they have been since 1978.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FAMILIES' DISPOSABLE INCOME
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree that through his own measures introduced in two consecutive Budgets the Government is pushing down the disposable income of the people who struggle the hardest in this country, the working poor, and he is asking those who earn between $20,000 and $30,000 a year to lose over 2 per cent of disposable income over the next four years?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, for those most in need, taxes are lower. That is a fact. The other point I make is that one of the results of the lower interest rates and the lowest mortgage rates since 1978 is that housing starts are up, more jobs are being created-


An Hon. Member:: They are nowhere.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member opposite says they are nowhere. Well, 1 will tell you jobs are being created in many parts of the country. Five hundred and eighty thousand jobs have been created, and that is because of the policies of this Government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rise and state categorically, unequivocally, that if there are any conditions of any kind attached to the American negotiating position in free trade, we will not take part in the negotiations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that is a hypothetical question.


Ian Deans: It is not; it is not.


Mr. Speaker:: It is.


Ian Deans: It is not hypothetical.


Mr. Speaker:: The Government Members will come to order now, and that includes the front bench.
The Hon. Member knows that is a hypothetical question. Order, please. If he has a question on Government policy I am prepared to hear it.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported repeatedly that Canadian representatives and U. S. representatives in Washington are speaking about a deal being worked out that has conditions attached to it in advance of the negotiations. I ask the Prime Minister, that being the case will he say categorically that Canada will not negotiate at all unless such conditions are absolutely out of the picture?
April 23, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for the third time today, that allegation about activities of Canadian public officials in Washington is false. The Prime Minister stated the position of the Government of Canada with regard to preconditions in this House of Commons yesterday.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Mr. Prime Minister, this morning, the National Welfare Council revealed the disastrous consequences of your Government's policies and demonstrated clearly that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether he was aware, when the two Budgets were brought down, that a two-salary family with an income of $21,000 would lose $2,000 in income, while a family with an income of $100,000 would also be losing no more than $2,000? Is that his kind of social justice?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we all know that the members of the National Council of Welfare are responsible people who want to look at these areas objectively. However, I suggest that the Hon. Member also look at the assumptions underlying the projections of the council. For example, the council made the assumption, on the conclusions drawn by the Hon. Member, that no measure will be brought in by the Government between 1986 and the end of the decade to improve the financial condition of those in lower- income groups. It also makes the assumption that there will be no increase in real earnings between 1986 and 1990. I think most Members of the House would be realistic and say that that is an assumption that cannot be substantiated.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It should also be noted that they are making the assumption that no one-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I could give more examples.


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


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION CONCERNING $10,850 SALARY EARNERS AND $100,000 SALARY EARNERS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I hope the Prime Minister will have the courage to answer these people himself.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House why-and these are his own Government's figures-an employee with an income of only $10,850 will get only $905, while a family with an income of $100,000 will get $517?
Does the Minister have the courage to rise in the House and
say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had the courage to start getting the economy back on its feet so that the very poor whom the Member pretends to represent, but is not representing, will begin getting some benefits.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I can go on, Mr. Speaker. For example, there is the assumption that the surtax will remain until 1990. It also makes the assumption that the Ontario taxes raised by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Peterson, are an example for all of Canada and that those are reflected across the country. Furthermore, no provincial surtaxes or credits are taken into account. Lastly-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In September, 1984, five year mortgage rates were 14.25 per cent; this year, in April, they are 10.75 per cent. Those are the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECTS OF BUDGET
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he comment on the report of his advisory council which states that a single parent family earning $14,000 will lose $1,000 in disposable income, but with the present legislation a single parent family with an income of $80,000 will actually gain $777 in disposable income? In other words, certain people will gain while others will lose disposable income. Is that his concept of fairness? How can he live with that kind of Budget that has been introduced by his Minister of Finance?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can live with a Budget and an economic plan that have brought confidence back into the economy. I can live with a Budget and an economic plan that have been the

April 23, 1986
Oral Questions
backbone for 580,000 new jobs, almost all of them permanent jobs. I can live with a Budget and economic plan that have shown the mortgage decrease that I just reiterated. I am sure the Hon. Member, as finance critic, might even have the objectivity to know what some of the savings would be on a typical mortgage for an average income family. That is what 1 can live with.


PERSONAL AND CORPORATE TAX PROJECTIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Hon. Minister once again if he can live with something the Minister of Finance tells us is going to happen, and that is that 50 per cent of the tax revenue for Canada four years from now will come from the people of Canada and only 15 per cent from the corporations of Canada? Does he think that is fair and equitable?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in terms of tax fairness I think the Member should also know, as finance critic for the New Democratic Party, that it has been this Minister of Finance who has said there will be fairness in the tax system. It is this Minister of Finance who came in with the minimum tax. Those Members are not very enthusiastic now, after they were touting it throughout the country in the last election. It is also this Minister of Finance who said that he wants to bring tax reform and greater fairness to the system. Those are the facts, and I wish he would start being honest about some of those issues.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that the Government of New Brunswick has commissioned an economic impact study on the possible closure of the CN shops in Moncton. The loss of jobs and the social costs would be horrendous. Will the Minister explain to the House why he is refusing to take any positive action to protect those 1,200 jobs in the CN shops in Moncton?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not refusing to take positive action. We are working very closely with CN and others to ensure that the excess capacity within the main shop system of the CNR can be alleviated and handled in a fair and equitable manner.


REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF JOBS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give an undertaking to live up to the commitment he gave to the Member of Parliament for Moncton, as well as to the Senator in the other Chamber, with
regard to protecting those jobs in Moncton? Will he categorically agree that those 1,200 jobs will be protected and the 250 people on lay-off will be rehired?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and I repeat today that the excess capacity situation in the CN main shops is being closely examined. We hope this will be completed by mid-1986. At that time any action that may be contemplated with respect to rationalization or adjustment will be announced, and any action will be taken in a fair and equitable manner.


CHALLENGE '86 CREATION OF JOBS FOR STUDENTS BY PRIVATE SECTOR
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister challenged the private sector to create career related summer jobs for students in 1985. According to her Department's own program evaluation, the private sector failed to deliver. Will the Minister explain why she has placed yet more emphasis on the private sector under Challenge '86 when her own evaluation says that the non-private sector is at least three times more effective at creating jobs for students?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984, 10 per cent of jobs created for students in the summer came from the private sector. In 1985, 32 per cent came from the private sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrée  Champagne: In 1984 effectively 12 per cent of the jobs were related to the careers for which young people were studying. In 1985 the figure is 67 per cent. In 1986 it will be even better.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Ask another one, Howard.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister-whatever her portfolio is- will beat the air a few more times to explain why her report says that many of the jobs in the private sector would have existed anyway. Career related jobs were more frequent in the non-private sector. Why is she playing this game with the taxpayers and the students in respect to job creation rather than putting money into the hands of the non-private sector to create jobs for those who need them?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, last year 80 per cent of the private sector employers
April 23, 1986

said that those jobs would not have been created if it had not been for Challenge '85. In 1986 greater emphasis is being put on the private sector for career related jobs and many young people will gain the experience they need to obtain permanent jobs once they graduate. That is what this Government is working to achieve.


NON-PROFIT PROJECTS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it concerns the same matter that was just raised. The quota on non-profit projects is still too inflexible under Challenge '86. Many excellent volunteer community projects are not being funded. Will the Minister change the quota on non-profit applications under Challenge '86, while she still has time, so that the best projects in each area can be selected and implemented?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the proposals for this year were drawn up, I have to assure the Hon. Member that, yes, indeed, emphasis was placed on the private sector. I can say now that the program Challenge '86 is a runaway success.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Absolutely.


David Orlikow: The money isn't used up.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The fact is that we have received 58,000 proposals, the largest number of proposals which have ever come in. Many of them are from the private sector and they bring with them $150 million more for jobs for young people this summer.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how she knows Challenge '86 is already a great success when it has not even started yet.


An Hon. Member:: More applications than ever.


Mr. Darling:: Wake up.


William Warren Allmand: But her evaluation program for Challenge '85-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question.


VANCOUVER FOOD BANK PROPOSAL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Why is it that many excellent non-profit projects such as the Vancouver Food Bank are being turned down by the Challenge '86 Program while many questionable business projects are being accepted? Will the Minister explain that? Will she not change the rules while she still has time?
Oral Questions
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have to advise the Hon. Member that he is wrong. That proposal was approved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Her department has announced the Community Futures Program. Can the Minister tell the House when Quebecers will be able to benefit from the practical application of this program?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Commons will know, we are at the present time briefing all Members on the Community Futures Program. We will continue to do that. I can assure the Hon. Member and, indeed, all Hon. Members, that the first community to be named under the new Community Futures Program will be announced within a couple of weeks.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Canadian Government share President Reagan's view that Nicaragua is part of "the international terrorism network" with Libya and should also be dealt with by force of arms?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we have made clear on a number of occasions that in our judgment the problems in Central America are problems which are economic and social in their root and nature. That is why the policy of Canada has been directed along two channels. One has been the encouragement of development assistance, and the second has been the encouragement of the Contadora process. That remains our policy.


U.S. SPONSORSHIP OF CONTRAS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I direct my second question to the Prime Minister and I hope he will reply. Will the Prime Minister tell President Reagan at the upcoming Summit that the United States might get more help in fighting

April 23, 1986
Oral Questions
State-sponsored terrorism if the American Government were not sponsoring a group which is trying violently to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are some people in this House who want to use the threat of terrorism as a means of expressing their political point of view.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Name one.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: There are others here who want to use the influence that Canada has to mount an effective world response to the causes of terrorism. The problem, as was evidenced in Libya, is that the Americans found themselves in a position where there was no alternative-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Oh, yes, there was.


Charles Joseph Clark: -but a military alternative. Our challenge must be to work with our allies and friends to build alternative responses to international terrorism.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: There is an alternative and you know what it is.


PETRO-CANADA ENDING OF VOLUME DISCOUNTS TO WESTERN FARMERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the genial Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the Minister explain why Petro-Canada and other principal oil companies have stopped giving volume discounts to prairie farmers so that the prices in farm communities like Carmen, Manitoba, are only two cents less now than they were last fall even though the world price for fuel oil has dropped by some 60 per cent? What is the Minister going to do about this unfair and inequitable arrangement, especially when our western farmers are facing such difficult times?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in this House that I do not as Minister interfere in the day-to-day operations of Petro-Canada. I suggest the Hon. Member take this issue up with the company concerned.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that all companies, including Petro-Canada, operate in the same way. Since that is the case, Petro-Canada can give some leadership. Would the Minister contact the President of Petro-Canada and ask that company to reinstate the volume discount
it had given in previous years, which amounted to about eight cents per litre?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as representation and get back to the Hon. Member.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On March 13, the Minister in response to my question concerning the preferential tariff for South Korean steel, said that the import tribunal was the route that Ipsco and other steel companies would have to go. Now apparently the tribunal has found that the import of cheap Korean steel is hurting Ipsco and other steel operations in Canada. I ask again why Canada is the only country still giving the Koreans preferential treatment? And will it be terminated soon?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have indicated to the Hon. Member that this matter is something which should best be dealt with by the Tariff Board. That is the normal process which should be followed. Once that process has been completed we can then consider our options.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


PRIME MINISTER'S FORTHCOMING VISIT TO SOUTH KOREA
John R. Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister think it appropriate for him to visit South Korea next month at a time when there is great concern about the undue influence which seems to be exerted within its Government which puts its Opposition Leader under house arrest and violates human rights?


Stan Darling: That's supplementary to what?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is about as supplementary as-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is very difficult to find that a supplementary question to the first question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, that is a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: That is a supplementary question.
April 23, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John R. Rodriguez: That is a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt-


John R. Rodriguez: That is a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Not in my view. The Hon. Member for Gatineau.


John R. Rodriguez: That is a supplementary. No, that is a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt will resume
his seat.


John R. Rodriguez: My colleague has referred to what seems to be preferential treatment for South Korean steel and I am asking the Prime Minister about-


Mr. Speaker:: I give the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt my last warning.


John R. Rodriguez: -his visit to South Korea and the support of this Government for South Korean steel. That is what I am asking.


Some Hon. Members:: Out. Out.


Mr. Speaker:: I am forced to name the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. He is required to leave.


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out.


John R. Rodriguez: He knows I am right.


Mr. Speaker:: I am required to name the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. I must ask him to leave.


John R. Rodriguez: He knows I am right.


Some Hon. Members:: Out.


John R. Rodriguez: He knows I am right.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The great Korean connection.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: "The Manchurian Candidate".
And Mr. Rodriguez having withdrawn:


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. A Globe
Oral Questions
and Mail report today indicated that his Department had issued ministerial permits waiving all medical and security clearances for the six Soviet defectors in Afghanistan, thus ensuring speedy passage to Canada.
Can the Minister confirm that his Department issued or was in the process of issuing ministerial permits? And if so, why are those six individuals not here now? Who vetoed his order?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I tried to indicate to the House yesterday that there is an initiative under way designed to try to bring those six Soviet prisoners of war to freedom. Certainly we on this side of the House want to do everything we can to bring those POWs from captivity to freedom. I would hope there would be some understanding this time within the Liberal Party of the sensitivity of this kind of operation, and that we would have co-operation on the floor of this House.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, there is growing evidence that there is clear political interference by the Minister of State for External Affairs.


ALLEGED MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Sergio Marchi: I will direct my second question to the Minister of State for Immigration. If he is not prepared to answer my previous question will he confirm or deny that he wrote to his colleague, the Minister of State for External Affairs, complaining bitterly about the obstructive role of the Department of External Affairs? And will he table that letter so we can find out the truth?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm to the Hon. Member that the officials of my Department have indicated clearly that they are working in close collaboration with officials of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and we are seeking in every way to expedite the matter, as the Minister has just indicated in his response.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. This being National Volunteer Week, can the Minister tell us the status of discussions with the National Volunteer Organization concerning the funding of charitable organizations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my Budget Speech, we have had a number of

April 23, 1986
Oral Questions
discussions with members of the National Volunteer Organization to try to arrive at a fair and more effective means of encouraging support of charitable organizations. These discussions will continue. That is a matter that is best dealt with in a Budget. I would expect that there will be something that we could discuss at the time of the next Budget.


SYRIAN GRAIN MARKET-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recall that on Monday I asked him a question and he promised to look into the matter of what the Government was doing to protect our traditional grain market in Syria in the face of the Americans, through the subsidized BICEP Program, going after our traditional market there.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question of the pressure brought upon Canadian grain producers by the trade war between the United States and the European Community is one that was addressed very strongly by the Minister of Finance at the OECD. The Prime Minister has indicated that he and the Government are going to make representations to the Government of the United States to protect the interests of Canadian grain growers with regard to markets that are traditionally ours in Syria.
I should add that we do not intend to limit our action to the protection of Canadian grain markets in Syria. We are going to protect traditional Canadian grain markets anywhere in the world where they are threatened.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the BICEP Program is being used now to take away our traditional market. What action has the Government taken to protect that very important Canadian market?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the reason that has happened is because of the large-scale agricultural war-no other word can describe it-between the United States and the European Community. Canada has begun at the OECD to raise strong warnings about the dangers that provides for Canadian producers, and indeed for producers in the Third World. We will also be using all of our diplomatic instruments to bring to the attention of the United States authorities that we regard it not only unfair but inappropriate action on the part of France for their subsidy programs to be depriving Canadian grain producers of traditional markets.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the provincial Minister of Health for Newfoundland, Dr. Twoney, said this morning that Ministers of Health across the nation are opposed to the federal Government's proposed legislation banning generic drugs and that they will be coming to Ottawa next week to lobby against the legislation. My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the Minister aware of this opposition by provincial Health Ministers, or is this just another example of the Government's lack of consultation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that there is not a lack of consultation. Not many months ago the argument was that we should quit consulting and start taking decisions. Now it is the other way. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that I will be meeting with the Health Ministers on April 28.


CONTENT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Ministers have written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare opposing this legislation and the provincial Health Minister released details of that this morning. Since the Health Ministers of the provinces are opposed to this legislation, will the Minister now admit that the legislation just will not wash?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member keeps acting this way, he might need the pharmaceutical industry a lot sooner than he thinks. I think my relations with provincial Health Ministers are pretty good. On April 28 I will discuss this or any other issues they wish to raise with me.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A recent United States freedom of information lawsuit revealed that since 1965 there have been 630 accidents involving nuclear weapons held aboard U.S. naval vessels visiting the ports of Hawaii. Will the Minister today advise us that he is prepared to release to Canadians information on accidents involving nuclear weapons held aboard any vessels visiting ports such as Vancouver, Victoria, or Halifax, or is he not aware that such information exists?


An Hon. Member:: Ask your seatmate, the Hon. Member for Y orkton-Melville.
April 23, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, of course, on this matter to defer to my temporary seatmate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Welcome aboard!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The practice of the Canadian Government will conform with Canadian law respecting access to information. If the Hon. Member wishes to make an application under that law, I can assure him I will facilitate a response to it.


VISITS TO VANCOUVER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, of course I have already applied under the freedom of information legislation. My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister is probably aware, Vancouver has voted itself a nuclear weapons free zone. I wonder if the Prime Minister would make clear that vessels carrying nuclear weapons are not to be tied up in downtown Vancouver, because Canada's policy is clear that we do not allow nuclear weapons in our country, or is downtown Vancouver not in our country?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Skeena has been away from his province for too long. I can confirm that not only is downtown Vancouver in this country but it is in the heart of the preoccupation of the Government.
The Hon. Member will also know that the Government of Canada has followed for some time, and intends to continue to follow the practice followed by various Governments of not publicizing information regarding the possible transit of nuclear materials on the vessels of our allies. That is one of the policies to which we are committed as an ally.


TOURISM
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Tourism. He and I have received many complaints about the Canadian Pavilion at the Epcot Centre at Disney World in Florida. It certainly does not reflect accurately our country or our people. What action is the Minister prepared to take to get Disney World to make some changes so that we can have a Canadian Pavilion which truly exhibits the beauty and grandeur which await potential tourists to our country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. It is difficult for me to find that any Minister of the Crown has any responsibility for Epcot Centre.
Oral Questions


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that we do have jurisdiction for that particular part of the country. My officials and the officials of Disney Productions met on April 10. The objective of that meeting was to see whether or not we could get official government participation at Epcot Centre for three basic reasons: one, of course, to improve our image; two, to relieve an irritant; and three, to make sure that we can project the best possible image for tourists visiting this country.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On several occasions the Minister stated in this House that she had given ample notice of the consequences of regulations on unemployment insurance and pension income. Could she explain why unemployment insurance offices were so advised by telex on December 30, 1985 and not before?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned many times and as the Hon. Member has said, the decision to make changes to the unemployment insurance regulations was announced on November 8, 1984, and indeed, Sir, on December 21, 1984, that announcement was noted particularly in the House of Commons. That day a press release which received wide publicity was also issued and that press release said: "The treatment of pension income as earnings will come into effect starting in January 1986. Claimants then receiving pension income from previous employment will have this pension income taken into account for UI purposes only after that date."


MINISTER'S ATTITUDE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister admit that her November 26, 1985 letter to the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres and the telex to the unemployment insurance office prove that thousands of Canadians have lost thousands of dollars as a result of her incompetence?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the number of times this matter has been raised in the House, it was discussed with

April 23, 1986
Privilege
individual corporations and with individual Members of Parliament. Also it was discussed widely across the country. I can assure-


Ian Deans: How many Members accepted it?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain asks me how many Members accepted it. The question was whether or not it was known. I can assure him that he and many others in the House raised the issue on a number of occasions so that it was widely know. I cannot say that everyone accepted it, no.


PRIVILEGE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) told the House that the Vancouver Food Bank had been funded under the Challenge '86 Program. We have just received a telephone call from Vancouver during which those responsible said that they had no knowledge whatsoever of being funded under that program. Is the Minister now announcing approval for the program in the House of Commons when we ask questions?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to comment on this. Approvals come from my office, and I want to make sure the Hon. Member knows that I indeed approved that project.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order or question of privilege.


TERRORISM-STATEMENT OF MINISTER
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from Question Period and a question which I directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in respect of state-sponsored terrorism in Latin America. In answer to my second question, the Minister stood up and said: "There are people here who are using terrorism".
I should like to know the implication of that answer. Was he referring to me as using terrorism? Was he referring to any members of my caucus as involved in or using terrorism? Was he referring to members of the other opposition Party? To whom was he referring? It was a very serious statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows full well that that is not a question of privilege.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, it impinges upon privileges.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There conceivably could be an arguable point of order, but it is certainly not a question of privilege.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I will do it on a point of order, then.


Mr. Speaker:: I let the Hon. Member finish because I took it that he was raising what in fact was a point of order. No reference was made to any Member to my knowledge. I listened.


Mr. Blaikie:: Check the "blues".


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, when a Minister of the Crown-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member asking me to check the "blues" to determine whether in fact there was unparliamentary use of language?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, please.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be happy to do so.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 200 petitions: Nos. 331-130 to 331-139 inclusive, 331-141, 331-145 to 331-165 inclusive, 331168 to 331-181 inclusive, 331-185 to 331-187 inclusive, 331-189 to 331-192 inclusive, 331-197 to 331-247 inclusive, 331-254 to 331-277 inclusive, 331-279 to 331-283 inclusive, 331-288 to 331-306 inclusive, 331-310 to 331-335 inclusive, 331-337 to 331-340 inclusive, 331-349 to 331-355 inclusive, and 331-374 to 331-384 inclusive.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association, which was prepared by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador (Mr. Rompkey).
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

*


April 23, 1986



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business in both official languages which, pursuant to Standing Order 36(l)(b), is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 116.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Does the National Arts Centre plan to close its doors during the peak tourist season in order to compensate for the $1 million budgetary cuts?
2.	Was the Minister of Communications advised that the NAC was unable to assume such cuts?
3.	Was the Minister advised that in order to compensate for such cuts, the NAC would have to close its doors and lose prime tourist input?
4.	Did the Minister request a report and seek the advice of NAC management prior to the cuts?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the National Arts Centre as follows:
1.	The National Arts Centre Corporation will implement such cost-saving and revenue-increasing programs as may be required to operate within the financial resources at its disposal, including the recent reduction to its parliamentary appropriation of one million effective April 1, 1985. In doing so, every attempt will be made to preserve both the quality and quantity of onstage programming; so far as may be feasible, therefore, reductions in net expenditures will be effected from "support" services. It is not likely, however, that onstage programming will be totally unaffected.
Programming which falls within the "regular" season (September through May) is less exposed, principally because it is sold on a subscription basis with a probable higher net return and a lower box office risk than single event selling. Programming during the "summer" season (June, July and August) is more likely to be affected: it presently appears the NAC will
Order Paper Questions
continue to be able to present some summer programming, but nothing like the quality, nor the quantity, it has offered in the past. Moreover, past summer seasons have included a high level of "subsidized" programming: in the present circumstances, a strong move to "commercial" entertainment will be unavoidable.
It is during the "summer" season that foreign tourists and Canadians normally resident elsewhere visit the National Capital Region; nevertheless, the quantity, quality and timing of NAC programming will suffer unavoidable alterations in order for the Centre to live within its significantly reduced means and to fulfil its primary responsibility of using its resources to the best advantage of Canadian artists.
Media coverage of the effect of the government reductions in funding to the NAC left the impression that the Centre has decided to "close its doors during the peak tourist season"; as explained, this impression is inaccurate.
In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows;
2.	The Minister of Communications was not advised that the National Arts Centre was unable to sustain a budget reduction.
3.	No.
4.	The Minister of Communications expressed his interest, at the time, to conduct a review of the role and mandate of the National Arts Centre. The Minister announced, on January 28, 1986, a task force to examine the role and mandate of the NAC as well as focussing on the current managerial and administrative structure of the Centre.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 23, 1986
Employment Equity



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 22, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in third reading of Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity which, as has been indicated in previous debate, could be titled the smoke and mirror Bill. Of course the Bill deals with employment equity. It results from the recommendations of Judge Abella in her report released in November, 1984.
Indeed we have come some distance since 1870 when the first two women were employed by the Public Service of Canada and 1882 when the Toronto Labour Council first supported equal pay for equal work. It has been a difficult struggle for many groups. It has been a tiring and long fight for the target groups about whom we are talking, to gain their rights. Of course I am talking about native people, visible minorities, handicapped, and women.
In our view there is no question that the Bill must be strengthened. Bill C-62 requires teeth and some real action. We are disappointed that the Government has not seen fit to accept the many amendments which we proposed to strengthen the Bill. There is no way we can expect movement toward full employment equity unless the federal Government and Parliament set an example. I remind Hon. Members that Parliament is excluded from Bill C-62, which means the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, and the Senate. The Bill also excludes all Departments and Ministries which fall under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board as the employer. In our opinion we need a much more comprehensive Bill. It should affect a greater number of employers and employees. It should have real teeth, and real enforcement of employment should be in the Bill. The Bill falls short of the expectations of the target groups for whom it was meant. What seems obvious to us is that it is an advance, but a timid advance.

Mr. Speaker, this less than forward-looking approach with respect to the affirmative action legislation is tantamount to an outright betrayal of the hopes of about 60 per cent of Canadians who expected this Government to come up with a mandatory program to guarantee equity in a society which barely a year ago proclaimed Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thereby entrenching equality in this country.
Bill C-62 demonstrates again that the Tories talk a good line on fairness but a type of fairness only they can see. Companies,
I remind Members, are not required to submit operational plans for approval or to report specifically about their initiatives to the Minister, or to the agencies responsible for administering this Act. The Minister, of course, can issue guidelines. We all know that, but that is somewhat of a weak position. Nothing in the Bill says that she can apply them, except that she may, if she wants. "We will knock on the door", she said a couple of days ago, and knock again and again and say: "Please put into effect the principle of employment equity".

Mr. Speaker, I would like to re-emphasize something, because we are now at third reading of this Bill which is bound to be passed by the Conservative majority in the House, and we must clearly explain why our position differs from theirs.
The Bill does not contain a clear definition of employment equity. There is no definition, no commitment pertaining to equal pay for equal work, no specific statement on the establishment of the necessary standards or criteria to define obstacles to employment, no guidelines on the removal of discriminatory practices, no methodology, and no date for the implementation of the directives.
Mr. Speaker, Crown corporations and companies engaged in federal work must submit reports within three years. That is what it says in the Bill. Analyzing and consolidating this information can be done by the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to what I was saying yesterday, about our conviction that the principal employer, namely Treasury Board, the departments for which it is responsible, and Parliament, should be subject to Bill C-62. We feel that in this way, we could set an example to which perhaps the private sector could look for guidance, an example set in good faith. I did a little research last night to find out whether progress had been made with respect to the Affirmative Action Program-step by step or, even better, by leaps and bounds- being implemented in the Canadian Public Service today. As I said before, and I have said it several times, since 1971 Parliament has adopted a number of measures. In 1983, the Liberal Government announced a comprehensive affirmative action plan for the Public Service, for which the President of the Treasury Board would be responsible. Interestingly, things have changed, and a real effort has been made within the Public Service to be fair and to restore a measure of equity to hiring procedures.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a few statistics. In
1983,	the number of women working for the federal Government, that is, in the federal Public Service of Canada for which Treasury Board is responsible, was 90,816 or 40.6 per cent. In
1984,	92,093 or 41.1 per cent were employed by the Public Service of Canada. In 1985, 92,800 or 41.6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, these increases are not exactly breathtaking-1 per cent, .5 per cent-but they are more encouraging for women and also show that a measure of equity has been established.
April 23, 1986

However, if we look at a breakdown of the jobs held by women, and I am getting back to this subject because it is interesting, we see that in 1983, Mr. Speaker, out of 90,816 women or 40.6 per cent, only 5.4 per cent were in management positions. In 1984, this figure rose to 7 per cent, and in 1985 a little higher, to 7.8 per cent.
We can therefore say that roughly 8 per cent of employees in management positions are women.
Now if we look at the other end, in the administrative support category, we find out that, in 1983, 82 per cent of employees working as clerks, typists or in other administrative support jobs were women. The percentage rose slightly to 82.6 in 1984 and 82.7 in 1985. So the rising trend is unmistakable.
Therefore, despite public service reductions and Government cut-backs, there have been increases of 0.8 per cent in the number of women in the management group, and 0.5 per cent in over-all employment in the Public Service of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that because it is important to have indicators or signs showing where we are headed with respect to employment equity.
Mr. Speaker, I referred to this program to promote hiring and employment, particularly the one concerning women, because I had said in an earlier speech that as far as the handicapped are concerned, for example, everybody knows that Mrs. Suzanne Azziz has been doing a tremendous job under the federal Government program for the handicapped. If my information is correct, close to 400 physically handicapped people have been hired recently by the Public Service Commission and integrated into the system.
But yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I alluded to the systemic resistance which exists even in this Parliament, a resistance which perhaps is not sought or even planned that way, but which is there nonetheless. Excuse me if I get a bit personal, but I would like to talk about the problems the physically disabled have in coming to the House and even working on Parliament Hill, Mr. Speaker. We all know this. We had a demonstration recently when disabled people wanted to come in their wheelchairs. We had trouble getting them into the visitors' gallery. We all know that our elevators are difficult to operate for people with physical handicaps, for instance, people in a wheelchair. Just try and press the button to call the elevator, just try not getting stuck while the doors are closing, when you are in a wheelchair. It is well-nigh impossible, Mr. Speaker.
We even have one interpreter in the House who is blind, and he has been taking our elevators for years without knowing where he is going because no one thought of providing braille or sound in the elevator. These are things we could reasonably expect to be provided by an organization, by a system that claims to have all the latest technology. Mr. Speaker, these things do exist right here in Ottawa.
Employment Equity
Last night, I went to see one of my friends, Roger Thibault. His apartment building has an elevator that calls out "up" and "down" and the floor number, and also has braille, for the benefit of people with a hearing or sight disability. However, here in the Parliament of Canada, a public place, a place where we should make it possible for everyone to come and listen and meet the Members, we have yet to install a sensible system or to ask someone to modernize our system. I think this is shocking!
It is quite unacceptable that we should go on like this, that we should not be included in Bill C-62; we are an employer, we have employees here, and I know some of them who find it difficult to work here. We are not fully aware of this because we have not made any special effort to improve the situation. I hope there will now be a movement for us in Parliament to show leadership. The situation is the same in all Government buildings-physical access difficulties, mobility obstacles, and safety problems for the handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather not spend too much time on this point because I think I have made myself very clear. We must admit there are systemic arrangements, systemic problems which are not necessarily planned that way but which we will have to solve. We will have to find solutions with serenity.
Various statistical studies, some of which were referred to in the report of the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, provide a bleak picture of employment for women, disabled persons, native people, and visible minorities. They demonstrate, without a doubt, that there is an imbalance, both in statistical and monetary terms. Everyone knows that women earn lower average incomes. It is a fact of life. If one looked at the statistics of the public service one would see that women do not earn the same amounts as their male counterparts for performing, in most cases, similar jobs. There is nothing in Bill C-62 which touches upon that important problem.
Disabled persons suffer from extraordinarily high unemployment rates. When they are employed, they tend to be concentrated in low paying, marginal sectors of the labour market. Added to an already difficult position are expenses which nondisabled workers do not face but are part of the everyday life of disabled people. These include expenses for medication, special aids, and special devices for transportation.
I do not like to say this, but it should be noted that most of the people in the Public Service of Canada who were hired under the program to assist disabled people and to encourage the hiring of disabled people were hired in term positions. When the Government lets people go, the first to be let go are usually term employees who, in many cases, are disabled people. I thought they had acquired a right to work in the
12576

April 23, 1986
Employment Equity
Public Service of Canada and were doing a competent job for us.
Native people experience a level of unemployment about five times higher than that of the nonnative population. When they are employed, it is usually in the unskilled sectors of the labour market and they have disproportionately low incomes.
Yesterday I referred to the difficulties which landed immigrants have in adapting to the two official languages of the country. We must review our programs of language training and we must ask the provinces to co-operate. Judge Abella reported on this extensively. She said that we must do something to modernize the methods and to make those courses more acceptable so that new Canadians will have less difficulty advancing in the workforce. In my riding landed immigrants frequently fill the lowest paid jobs in the lowest skilled sectors. They are usually the most vulnerable because their jobs are the first to be abolished in tough times.
From a purely economic point, employment equity is needed to ensure that human resources are not wasted because of discriminatory practices. A healthy economy needs the contributions of all qualified people who are willing to work and are competent. That is the only judgment we should make-not whether they are native, handicapped, disabled, or women. If they are competent they should be allowed to compete and to obtain jobs. The exclusion of women, visible minorities, disabled people, and native people from job opportunities and benefits can only contribute to the high cost of social service programs.
In conclusion, we are disappointed with the Government's refusal to amend this Bill. We would like to have had included in the Bill a higher penalty, and have it relate to the action plan as well as the reporting clause. We would like to have seen the penalty at $500,000. We would like to have had the designated groups which speak strongly for the disabled, the native people, and women's groups included in this Bill so they would be consulted when things need to be improved.
We would have liked to have had a better definition of "reasonable accommodation". The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised the handicapped people that he would study this issue personally. He did not study it very long or hard and he did not do a darn thing about it. We would have liked a requirement that the action plans be sent to the Minister for review and be available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, upon request, for examination.
We would have liked those things to have been included in the Bill but, unfortunately, they are not. The Bill will be accepted as it is, but it is a smoke and mirrors Bill. Everyone in the House accepts the principle of the Bill, but its lack of teeth frustrates us. We would like to have had a Bill with more power and equity. We would like to have had a stronger Bill.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has made a good speech. He is a good Member of Parliament and a very progressive one. However, I
wonder why the Liberal Party did not do this during its 20 years in power. His party formed the Government in 1963 under Mr. Lester Pearson with 168 seats in the House. It then came to power once again under Mr. Pierre Trudeau. My question, therefore, is this: Why did the Liberal Party do nothing in 20 years to ensure employment equity in Canada?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the Hon. Member has asked this question because it gives me a chance to point out that it is quite untrue to suggest, as do the Parliamentary Secretary and the Conservative Party, that we did nothing. It is completely untrue, and I would like to remind the House that, in 1971, Canada was the first country in the Western world to recognize the role of women at the highest level of Government by creating a Cabinet position for the advancement and promotion of women.
A non-governmental advisory council on the status of women was established in 1973. In 1972, the Federal Government endorsed the convention of the World Labour Organization on equal pay for work of equal value. The Liberal Government also introduced an omnibus Bill to ensure equal status for women in 1975. In 1976, we gave passage to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on sex. In 1978, we amended the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the equal sharing of retirement credits, as well as the Canada Labour Code to eliminate pregnancy as a motive for lay-off or firing. Then, in 1982, we had in this very House a debate of nearly one year on the famous Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was finally passed by Parliament after being introduced by the Liberal Government and in which Section 15 guarantees equality for all Canadians. Afterwards, we also created the Abella Commission because this issue had to be examined. The Abella Commission was therefore established in 1983 and it presented its report in 1984.
Unfortunately, the Canadian public decided to throw us out, and I am not blaming anyone. However, the Government in power certainly had lots of advice. Now I have been in the House for at least fourteen years now, and we have been discussing the subject for at least that long. That is my answer, and that is what I said three or four times in this House, and if I am asked the same question again, I will repeat my answer once more.
Since 1971, Mr. Speaker, a lot has happened here. We took care of native people, we took care of housing, we took care of the disabled, we took care of women. Projects and programs were set up. I am certainly not ashamed to say it. I am not saying that I am satisfied with what was done. I didn't say that. I didn't say I was satisfied. I merely said, Mr. Speaker, that I am one of those people who believe that by doing a lot more we will get a lot further in this area and get there faster.
April 23, 1986


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend. I have heard a number of Liberals criticize this legislation as being unenforceable. We, too, have made that criticism and it is valid. However, is this just criticism the Liberals are able to make now that they are in Opposition, or is their policy one of enforceable affirmative action? Can the Member tell me the Liberal Party policy or are they just criticizing and sitting on the fence?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member to be a serious Member and I know why he puts that question. I know exactly what he is trying to get at. I refer him to the speeches and amendments we have moved over the last little while concerning how this Bill should be enforced. NDP Members are good at asking questions like that, but it was very interesting to read some of the research material concerning the NDP in Manitoba.
In June, 1985, the Hon. Member's Province of Manitoba passed Bill 53, the Pay Equity Act. That is as far as Manitoba has gone on employment equity although all three parties in the last election promised very strongly to be much more aggressive on employment equity.


Cyril Keeper: They also announced that since the election.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That was the only initiative in many, many years. I can point to affirmative action groups starting with the handicapped. I can talk about women's groups and Francophone groups in my riding. I can talk to you about that for maybe an hour and a half or two hours.


Mr.   de Cotret@: No, no!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister says: "No!" If you want to talk about affirmative action programs-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Don't threaten us then.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: *-the best affirmative action program we ever had was the encouragement of minority groups. One of them I can talk about is the Francophones. I think I will because it is an important question.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is here. I am getting a lot of correspondence these days from such people as the Societe francophone Manitobaine and the Societe Franco- Ontarienne. all the Francophones outside Quebec, who are very worried about the Government's budget cut-backs and how the Treasury Board is going to deal with the programs these people need. This morning I had a letter from the College St. Boniface saying that the Treasury Board decision to cut their funds for education will have a direct impact on their capacity to operate in Manitoba. I could talk about TV Ontario. That is affirmative action. The Government is hesitant about giving it the $50 million it has been asking for.
Employment Equity


Cyril Keeper: Where does the Liberal Party stand on employment equity?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Then there is the question of Newfoundland and access to the courts. Is there a better affirmative action program than letting individuals go to the courts and ask that their rights be respected? Is there a better Court Challenges Program? Yes, there is, one that works like the one we had before. This Government has taken the Court Challenges Program, under the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State, and has put it-

-on the back burner, as they say. We don't know what is going on, no decisions have been made, and we have people who want to go to court to have their rights recognized under Sections 15, 23 and 27 of the Canadian Constitution, these are all programs-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on a point of order.


Cyril Keeper: I wonder if the Hon. Member would allow a supplementary question rather than talking it out?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am answering your question.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to go on because this is so important. Bill C-62 deals with employment equity and is connected chiefly with Section 15, because it is all in line with the Canadian Constitution that was adopted by this Parliament. Through Section 15, with the help of Judge Abella, we wanted to achieve employment equity. It is Section 15 that will be tested in the courts, so that we will know what it means. Section 23 will be tested in the courts. We must help these people, because if we tell minorities and the disabled, if we tell native people and women: Do it on your own, without the help of the federal Government, without the help of the majority, they will certainly have a lot more trouble and it is going to take a lot more time to achieve the equity they are seeking.
The Hon. Member's question is a good question, Mr. Speaker, because it goes to the heart of the matter. How can the majority help the minority to better defend itself? And that is why we have a problem with access to the courts financed by the majority. And I hope this damned program is going to work, because someday, our minorities are going to be fed up with all this begging for funds to defend what are basically their fundamental rights.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, that was a great oration by my friend and I appreciate every word of it. However, he failed to say concretely and specifically where the Liberal Party stands today regarding enforceable affirmative action. I would like to hear him speak to that. I know he is capable of criticizing the

April 23, 1986
Employment Equity
Government but is he capable of enunciating the Liberal Party position, or does it have a position on affirmative action?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, Sir, we have a full policy. How much time have I got? We are fully in accord with a positive approach to affirmative action. We have proven that over the years.


Cyril Keeper: Define "positive"?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is our policy to support those who are least able to defend themselves. If the Hon. Member wants to know exactly what the Liberal Party thinks about a specific program I am willing to talk to him about that. Is he talking about women? I think our record shows we have acted in a positive manner on affirmative action for women. Is he talking about the handicapped? I can repeat what I said a few minutes ago. We had several programs. In my riding the co-op movement, which is a good movement, put up housing for the handicapped under a pilot project. That was 10 or 15 years ago.


Cyril Keeper: What about today?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is he asking about native people? I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in 1976-77.1 went around this country looking at native housing and saw how badly housed the native people were. I could see how hard we should try to give them what they wanted, affordable and decent housing. We did that with several programs. I can refer the Hon. Member to the RRAP program, a sweat equity program which got an awful lot of people doing for themselves what should be done. Sweat equity is what you contribute to the construction of your own house. We calculated that amount as part of the mortgage. That program, plus the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, along with all kinds of other programs-


Mr. de Corneille:: 


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The CHIP program is dead. The Conservatives killed a good program. I am speaking about affordable accommodation for those with low incomes, for example. In my riding we built more social housing in 15 years than anybody else did in the Ottawa area. I am very proud of that. I have got a good housing stock which we worked very hard at, and it was mainly directed at Ottawa-Vanier.


An Hon. Member:: What about the rest of Ottawa?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The rest of Ottawa does not need it because they are so rich. I represent the poorest part of Ottawa, and the oldest too, but I am very proud of that. In lower town, Overbrook, Vanier, and all those areas, that part that was the original Ottawa, was poor. It needed assistance and we went out there and gave it to them, and we did support them in their housing. Thank you.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-99, to provide borrowing authority, without amendement.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. We will proceed with Royal Assent after which the Hon. Member may complete his speech.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V. J. LaForest,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 23rd day of
April, 1986, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot,
Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald, that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should begin by suggesting, with all due respect, that you have the time mechanism, which I know you keep in front of you, checked for any faults it might have, because that was certainly the longest 10-minute comment period that I have experienced since it came into being.
I want to say that the now standard tactic of pointing out, and quite rightly, the inconsistencies between what Liberal members of the House now say about employment equity-and for that matter about a great many other subjects-and what was actually done while the Liberals were in power, is fair ball.
It is also fair, I suppose, to note that many of these issues are issues which evolve over time, and that Governments respond to the degree of social consensus that develops around issues. I say this, not in defence of past Liberal Governments, but to point out that I think the social and political consensus for affirmative action developed long before the Liberals had
April 23, 1986

the opportunity to be defeated, an opportunity they so richly deserved and took advantage of in 1984.
Long before 1984 the consensus had been created that it was time for real employment equity in this country, and real affirmative action. We went so far not so long ago as to enshrine in our constitution a reference to affirmative action, which highlighted that as a mechanism for bringing about greater equality in this country. I do not think, with all due respect to the individual and local initiatives that the Member from Ottawa-Vanier pointed out, the Liberal Party can be let off the hook for the lack of action which it demonstrated with respect to this particular issue while it was in Government.
I want to say also that I think it is a good time to reflect on what 1 suppose is tragically common in the political life of this country, and perhaps others as well, and that is the gap, sometimes a horrendous gap, between promise, expectation and reality. In August, 1984 the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, and I quote:
Our party will ensure that companies providing services to the federal government hire increasing numbers of women to perform such services. When seeking government business, these companies will be required to detail their action plans, timetables, and programs for attracting, training and advancing women within their operations . .. We support the need for human resources planning within the federal bureaucracy, which includes goals and objectives to achieve parity for women, at all levels of Government operations, commensurate with their skills and expectations.
Numerical goals are one of the several goals required: training and retraining are others.
That was offered to the Canadian public by our current Prime Minister when he was running for office in 1984. The result of that rhetoric, which was part of an over-all and considerably transparent election strategy, was to promise everything to everybody. The Conservatives in 1984 were going for broke. They were not going to offend anybody. Whatever you wanted, they were on your side. If you did not want to test the Cruise missile, neither did they. If you wanted to test the Cruise missile, so did they. It did not matter what your position was you could find a Tory who would respond positively to your feelings and to your concerns.
This Bill has become an example of the disappointment and the cynicism which that kind of election strategy, however successful-and certainly no one would argue about the success of it-eventually results in. There was an expectation with respect to this issue that the Government would live up to its promises in this regard, an expectation that has been sorely violated by the reality of the legislation that we have before us. We can quote now from Beryl Potter of the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities the following statement:
Like the bill-it's not even worth the paper it's written on-I've never been so disillusioned in my life as I am with Prime Minister Mulroney. I was a supporter of him. I worked for him in his campaign and I am totally, totally disillusioned.
A good example of the gap between promise, expectation created and promoted by the Conservative Party, and now the disappointment that comes with legislative reality, is the fact that the Progressive Conservative Government has not been
Employment Equity
willing to respond to a social consensus that is already there. It is not as if the Conservative Party was being asked to do something terribly radical. I feel, as I think others feel, that for some time we have been at a point in our social and political thinking where governments could afford to move on this without any great danger to themselves. We have to ask ourselves the question, why does the Progressive Conservative Government, having taken the trouble to devise legislation and to cause the House of Commons to debate this for many, many hours, not take the trouble to do the job right while it was taking the trouble to do the job at all?
I think the reason for that is that when the Conservatives got into the business of promising everything to everybody as an electoral strategy they were involved in contradicting themselves at a great many turns, particularly when they made the kinds of promises they made with respect to employment equity, as well as in some other areas. I say that because I do not think any member of the Conservative caucus would deny that they have a fundamental commitment to the market-place as the arena where certain kinds of decisions are made, indeed, where a great many important decisions are made as far as Progressive Conservatives are concerned, and where those kinds of decisions ought to be made according to Progressive Conservatives. The Progressive Conservatives believe that the market-place is the final arbiter of who will get what job, how they will be paid and organized, et cetera.
When the Progessive Conservative Party promised employment equity, it was either unconsciously engaged in a form of intellectual self-contradiction or it was consciously misleading Canadians about what was intended. In the final analysis, I believe the Progressive Conservative Party was true to its own principles.
While that is understandable, it should have been honest enough to say long ago that the ideal of enforced employment equity in the market-place, which these groups have called for, was against its fundamental principles about how the economy should run. A proper democratic debate could then have occurred.
There could have been a real debate in this country about how our economy should be organized and what should be properly left to the market-place and what should be properly accomplished through the enforcement mechanisms that these groups and the New Democratic Party have been calling for. However, that debate has not taken place because the Progressive Conservative Party decided in 1984 that it would not have any real debate. The Conservatives were going to keep their cards close to their chests and would indicate to the public only that which it wanted it to know.
We have discovered that the Conservatives did not mean what they were saying, that our criticisms of the Conservatives over the years have been correct. The fact is that the Conservative Party is not capable of acting against the wishes of the business community in this country. Clearly, that is the

April 23, 1986
Employment Equity
rationale behind the weakness of the legislation before us today.
That unwillingness is evident in other areas as well. Recently, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who I see listening intently, I hope, talked about the insurance industry and complained that many groups were putting themselves in risky situations because they could not afford to renew their insurance. That is a clear example of how the market-place is not serving ordinary Canadians and their community organizations, particularly those smaller local organizations.
This has not happened as a result of an international Communist conspiracy. It might appropriately be called an international capitalist conspiracy because Lloyds of London and other very powerful institutions have made a decision to use a few court judgments as an excuse to hike insurance premiums for many individuals and groups in Canada beyond all reasonableness. While those Hon. Members quite correctly point out that something should be done, they do not point out that it is the fault of a particular system.
I will tell the Hon. Member that nothing will be done in this and other areas of concern unless the Government musters the political courage to take on some of the institutions that it is in the habit of defending. This Bill is a good example of a general philosophy not to interfere in the market-place. I will give the Government the benefit of the doubt that it believes what it is saying, but its naive trust that the actors in the market-place will somehow do the right thing is incredible.
For example, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) had an incredible trust in the oil industry which I do not believe has been matched by action. She assumed that as world oil prices decreased there would be a corresponding, complementary and timely reduction in energy prices at the pumps.


Pat Carney: That is occurring.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: This did not happen as quickly in Canada as it did elsewhere and Canadians have fared much worse at the pumps as a result of the decline in world oil prices than people in the United States.
Another example concerns the recent decision of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) about the Imasco takeover. Rather than interfering in the market-place and respecting the unanimous judgment of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, thereby respecting the spirit of parliamentary reform which made that judgment by the Finance Committee possible, the Government went ahead and allowed this takeover. Despite many of the ramifications of this takeover, the Government believes that by asking the company not to take certain action there will be no problem. Similarly, it believes that by asking employers to do certain things through this Bill there will be no problems. However, if the companies do not meet certain requirements of this Employment Equity Bill there is a $50,000 fine in some cases. Big deal! It is quite clear that many of the companies we
are concerned with are wealthy enough to regard $50,000 as simply the cost of doing business.
Employment equity is being dealt with in much the same way as the financial institutions, the oil industry and the insurance industry. Furthermore, the Liberals have had much the same philosophy. We were told for years not to worry about the environment. We would be told that the Minister of the Environment had talked to the industries involved, who volunteered to monitor themselves to ensure that they would not do anything wrong. We have seen this incredible naivety over and over again about how these institutions will behave when it comes to their own self-interest. It is time that we realized that we will have to take steps to enforce those things we want to see happen, whether it concerns the protection of the environment or affirmative action for employment equity. The Government has not been willing to do that. That is why this Bill has been so ridiculed by the very people who had such high expectations for it.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue debate on third reading of Bill C-62. We have been trying as hard as we can to make this a meaningful Bill that would fulfil the hopes and aspirations and needs of the people it is supposed to serve. This Bill is suppose to meet the needs and concerns of women, native people, the disabled and handicapped and visible minorities.
There are certain Tory partisans who have recently lamented the determined stand taken by the Opposition to get Bill C-62 amended so we can achieve its alleged purposes. These partisan Tories complain because Members of the Opposition care about the plight of their fellow man. They lament the fact that we are making an effort here in the House to convince the Government to do something to improve Bill C-62. I am proud to rise as often as I can to plead the case of those groups. I am proud that in this House of Commons we can call to the attention of the Government the plight of those groups to whom it made promises. Over half of our population are women. We have a large number of native people. The handicapped and disabled represent approximately one eighth of the population. Estimates from Statistics Canada tell us that one in every eight Canadians is disabled. All of those who belong to minority groups, especially the visible minorities, are worth talking about. A very large part of our population seeks protection. Therefore, the time we spend on this Bill is not wasted if we can somehow persuade the Government that there is much it can do to improve the Bill.
The alleged purpose of Bill C-62 is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability, and to correct the conditions of disadvantage in unemployment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada. Those are the alleged objectives of this Bill. Those partisan Members of Parliament
April 23, 1986

who criticize our efforts to try to have the Bill achieve its purpose betray their lack of genuine human compassion for those groups who wait for some move forward. I suggest that these critics should perhaps ponder the words of the great British poet, John Donne who many centuries ago wrote words which ought to remind us of the importance of compassion. John Donne was also the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in England. He said, and I quote:
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee.
It is a basic premise of our culture and underlying civilization that we are concerned about the plight of our fellow man. There is not one person in the House of Commons who can be sure that he or she will not tomorrow be part of one of those groups, if they are not already. Certainly not one single Hon. Member, male or female, can negate the possibility that he or she may be struck down in such a way that there would be limitations, handicaps or disabilities. No one is exempt. Everyone in this country can be protected and must be protected by law but this law does not protect them. Everyone is a potential victim and needs this kind of protection. No one is an island unto himself and no one should feel exempt from the strictures of this concern.
Let us look at one important group, the disabled and handicapped. Let us look at those people who have skills, who can work and who want to work but who cannot work because they cannot get work because their disabilities are viewed as being too grave. And who makes that arbitrary decision? It is the arbitrary opinion of those who interview these disabled and those who do not even give them the opportunity to be interviewed. The employer may feel in his or her arbitrary opinion a particular disabled person cannot function well in the office or plant because the necessary accommodation for that disabled person is not available, and the employer feels there is no requirement to solve that "problem". At the present time those people who are disabled have to live with the arbitrary opinion of an employer as to whether or not they can fit into the company's plans.
We look in vain in Clause 2 for any definition of what constitutes a disabled or handicapped person. This Bill is faulted. Does this Clause mean that the employer has only to make sure that a certain percentage of disabled persons- which is set by the employer himself-must be hired? The employer can decide what constitutes disability. Is that a sprained arm, a disability which is mild or is it a serious disability? The disabled came here to find the answer. They came to the committee which discussed this Bill and tried to explain that it was important for some kind of idea to be given of what is intended. More importantly, they wanted to know what is meant by the words "reasonable accommodation".
Clause 4 of Bill C-62 states that an employer shall implement employment equity by instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations as
Employment Equity
will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in the various positions of employment. The Bill says that designated groups will be able to have reasonable accommodation. That is the goal. But representations of one eighth of our population came to the committee and asked that some kind of idea be given as to what the Government meant in its legislation by "reasonable accommodation" so that employers when they read this law would have some idea of what the Government had in mind. We agree that one cannot set forth everything of what might be meant by "reasonable accommodation" as interpreted by various companies which might be involved. Pathetically, of course, there are not very many companies which might be involved in this legislation in any case. This Bill is a sham.
The handicapped groups have asked for some kind of definition of reasonable accommodation in the legislation. Amendments were put forward proposing that definition. The Opposition proposed these amendments in complete good faith, feeling that the Government would be very pleased to see a way to meet the concerns of those groups that came to represent the one-eighth of the population who are disabled and handicapped. An amendment was proposed with a definition so that employers would understand what the Government meant by this legislation.
We proposed to define reasonable accommodation as including, without restriction so that it could cover other situations as well, 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 a provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification and human support services. We asked the Government to include this proposal in the legislation at the request of all the groups representing handicapped people. We proposed it in committee and we again proposed it here in the House. Both times the Government rejected such a simple definition or guideline that would give employers the understanding of what this legislation is supposed to be trying to achieve.
The failure of the Bill to give any examples, never mind guidelines, of what is meant by reasonable accommodation is a grave flaw in the Bill. One must therefore conclude that there is a lack of seriousness and sincerity in the Government's attempt to come up with legislation that will be effective. Not only can the disabled not refer an employer to a guideline for what is meant by persons with disabilities or reasonable accommodations, but they can see that nothing will actually happen as a result of the passage of this Bill.
What will happen if this Bill is passed? Look at it from the point of view of someone who is handicapped. We should put ourselves in the place of a person who has seen progress through the decades toward the hope that through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Commission, and now an attempt to bring about employment equity, he will

April 23, 1986
Employment Equity
have a chance to get a job. The handicapped no longer want to wait. This tempting carrot has been put in front of them. They hope that we will at last bring about legislation that cares about them and responds to their needs. Elowever, they ask how they will know that they will be able at last to get jobs.
What do the handicapped find that this legislation will do for them? Clause 4 indicates that the employer is supposed to eliminate barriers to employment or promotion for the handicapped. As well, the employers are supposed to institute policies and practices to ensure that persons in the various categories will be able to have something done for them. That employers are now supposed to do that according to law does not change a thing because they are already supposed to do that. We do not need to pass a law to say that there shall be equality for all in this country because, according to our human rights legislation, that is how it stands now.
What does this Bill add? Does it bring anything new to employment equity? It tells companies that they are supposed to treat people equally. My heavens, that is what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms already tells employers. It already tells every employer in the country, never mind the few to which this Bill refers, that they are supposed to treat people equally. This Bill again tells them the same thing. How does that help the people who are disabled and handicapped? The Bill is telling employers what they already know.
The proof that this Bill does not work is that nothing is happening to change systemic discrimination against handicapped people. That is what Judge Abella said in her report and that is why she said that something must be done to eliminate systemic discrimination against, for example, the one-eighth of the population who are handicapped or disabled.
If it were the case that all the Government need do is pass a Bill with no teeth in it and everything would be all right, then why does the Government not behave that way itself? What kind of trust can the disabled and handicapped have in the Government when they know, as I said in the House of Commons on March 17, that the vast majority of disabled persons employed by the Public Service Commission in 198485 were employed in limited or term positions? Now with the Tory Government cut-backs, the Government will be even more prone to put the handicapped in limited and term positions. What hope is there that the Government will make this law any more effective than the Government's present policies for the handicapped? If its present policies do not serve the handicapped and the disabled, then how can they count on this law which has no teeth in it to serve them any better?
I wish I could proceed with this discussion because there are other points about Clauses 5 and 6 which also indicate that this legislation lacks teeth. Before I close, I wish to mention that the only provision for which a penalty is attached under this Bill is the provision that an employer file a report. An employer can report anything, as long as he files a report he is okay. He will be subject to a penalty only if he does not file a report. What is the leverage of this fine? The employer is
liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000. The fine could be no dollars, it could be $5 or it could be $100 but it is not necessarily $50,000.
Why has the Government brought this legislation forward? It has brought it forward in order to make people think that it is doing something about employment equity. It has brought it forward to fulfil a symbolic gesture, all the while knowing that the corporate sector will know that it is a toothless and absolutely meaningless exercise. It is nothing but an exercise on the part of the Tories in political cynicism and hypocrisy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend in the Liberal Party. I have before me a copy of the study of the Economic Council of Canada entitled "Women Reentering the Labour Force and Training Programs, Evidence from Canada". The Hon. Member made a very progressive speech; it called for various changes. However, this report indicates that our employment policies over the years have not done enough to promote women into non-traditional occupationa areas and that there has been discrimination for years in Government policies for women.
I should like to quote from the report wherein the following is indicated at page 43:
Moreover, in 1983-84, the federal Government spent over $200 million on apprenticeships and industrial training-Women are almost entirely absent from apprenticeships. They are under-represented in the industrial training program (in proportion to their presence in the labour force), and they train in predominantly female occupations.
Further on the same page, the following is indicated:
EIC should designate target occupations for training women and should develop training programs for women in these occupations jointly with employers. The target occupations should be occupations where there is a strong demand for qualified workers; these occupations might be drawn from the CTST and the ONI.
The report really condemns many of the programs of the past in terms of them not really being fair to women, discriminating against women and not steering women into nontraditional occupations. Why was the Liberal Party, which was in power over 20 years, so lax at trying to open up new job opportunities for women? Why did this discrimination continue for so many years despite the fact that the Liberal Party was in power? Why was the Liberal Party so late in realizing that women were discriminated against? Why did the Liberal Party not do something about it when it was in power?
I think the report is a good one in that it condemns the lack of Liberal action over 20 years in terms of being fair to women. What does the Hon. Member have to say about that?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to appear in any way as simply trying to be defensive by saying that everything the Liberals have done in this regard was perfect or rosy. I ask the Hon. Member not to assume that that is what I am trying to say. On the other hand, it would behove my hon. friend to listen to the comments about and the examples of the impressive Liberal record over the years which were made
April 23, 1986

earlier. If he had listened to that review, he would have learned that it was impressive. However, I am trying to point out that we have made a logical progression in terms of the steps we have taken.
An attempt to bring forth a Bill at this point which is purely symbolic is heartbreaking for those, of whatever Party or sympathy, who await the decision of the House of Commons on Bill C-62. It would be better if the Hon. Member, with only 30 members in his caucus, would concentrate on what the Conservative Government is doing and on its responsibilities. It would be a good idea for him to attempt to get the Government to improve the legislation. However, if he wants to spend his time taking shots at the Liberal Party, he can do so, if that is spending his time in the best way. From my point of view he would be better advised to try to persuade the Government to improve this particular piece of legislation for the sake of the people who need this help. I do not know whether he has done that in his question or comment.
In any case, I am pleased that his Party agrees with the Official Opposition that the legislation is not adequate and does not meet the alleged goals which it seeks to achieve. I am deeply disappointed that the Tory Government is in effect trying to give the impression that it is doing something by passing this piece of legislation when I know that it has almost no impact upon the parties or groups affected.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a general question because I have a lot of respect for the Hon. Member. He is an ordained minister of the church as well. Could he comment upon whether or not other organizations are doing enough to promote equity among different groups? For example, I have often said that farm organizations should involve more women in their operations. Of course, we cannot pass legislation to that effect, and I am not suggesting it, but I have often suggested that there should be more women in the leadership of farm organizations and trade unions. Personally I am very happy, for example, that the next President of the Canadian Labour Congress will almost certainly be Shirley Carr. These are steps in the right direction. Would the Hon. Member agree that the same should apply in some of our churches and that they, being tremendous institutions and great moral leaders, could set a better example by having more women in their hierarchies?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) directed a similar question to me yesterday.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I was not here.


Roland de Corneille: I think the Hon. Member's question is a justified one. All groups, particularly the churches, have a moral responsibility to provide leadership in this area, not only in terms of their own employment policies but in terms of teaching and preaching the fact that all men are equal before God. I think that can be said by anyone of any faith and should be continually emphasized.
Employment Equity
The Hon. Member is right in indicating that it is not enough to say: "Do as I say but not as I do". If the Hon. Member is suggesting that there is hypocrisy involved in every group, I agree with him. We in the Liberal Party are proud of the fact that our President is the Hon. Iona Campagnolo. However, when we look at the number of Members of Parliament sitting in the House, we are unhappy that we do not have more women who are Members of Parliament. Everyone has a responsibility. In terms of our own home life, we should reexamine our attitudes toward women, native people, and the handicapped. Certainly it is a responsibility of the church.
I believe the Hon. Member's question concerned the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church should forthwith approve the consecration of women as bishops. It has decided to ordain women as priests, which is a logical step. The Government should move as quickly as possible to make meaningful the policy of eliminating systemic discrimination as the Bill is supposed to do. However, I fear-and I am sure the Hon. Member would agree-that this is not happening.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the Hon. Member say what he said, and I should like to ask him a question which might be quite radical for this institution dominated by males. He mentioned that there were very few women in the House of Commons. All three political Parties at the federal level, and certainly at the provincial level in different sections, have parity clauses in their constitutions visa-vis gender. Often half the delegates must be female. For example, half the delegates to national or provincial council meetings must be female. We have seen that practice internally within our Parties. Would it be too radical to suggest that perhaps we should have legislation wherein half the Members of the House must be women? In other words, there could be dual ridings, approximately 180 such ridings. Each riding would elect two Members, one of whom must be a woman. Would the Hon. Member agree with that proposal? After all, all three political Parties are moving in that direction internally. Is it too radical a suggestion in terms of this very staid and conservative institution?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, it is a proposal which I have heard proferred by other people. Having given thought to the matter, it seems that the principles involved in this piece of legislation would indicate that finally we are dealing with the fact that people must have merit to be given jobs. I think the same applies to the electorate. If the electorate deems there are certain people it wants to elect, then whether they are male or female is not the issue. The issue is the quota. I think we can discuss this further perhaps privately.
I would like to conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker. The need, if you will, for an effort to recruit women is something which is very much in the minds of political Parties, at least it should be. Rather than put down quotas which might limit the number of women later on because then there would have to be a certain number of men, and when you figure women

April 23, 1986
Employment Equity
constitute 51 per cent of the population, that gets a little too much into the numbers game, perhaps we can discuss it at a further time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows: Miss MacDonald, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn-


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The question has been put.


An Hon. Member:: You can't.


Sergio Marchi: Is there some problem with Members on the Government benches? Does someone want to speak ahead of me?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have no wish to cut off this debate. This matter has been before the House and committee for some time. All those who wanted to be here were here ready to debate. I believe, Sir, that you called the question. If the Opposition wishes to filibuster this debate, it may. I believe that you called the question. I would like to know whether that was the position of the Chair.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the question has not been put, nor has it been completely read, and as long as the question has not been read, if my interpretation of the Standing Orders is correct, a Member can still seek the floor, which is what happened in the case of the Hon. Member for York-West (Mr. Marchi).


An Hon. Member:: Who was recognized.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Indeed, he was given the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Both Member are correct. The Parliamentary Secretary is correct when he said that the question was called. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) says that the question was not put. The question was not put. Therefore, the Hon. Member has the floor for debate.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that government Members would have such an objection to listen to further debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: You were surprised in the lobby.


Sergio Marchi: Yes, I was in the lobby. Yes, I had an interest and that interest is genuine, and that is why I am on my feet right now. If there is genuine interest on the other side to debate and improve this piece of legislation, I would think that, following my intervention, we will see the Parliamentary Secretary and the quasi-Minister of National Defence get up on their feet to defend the position in Bill C-62, and I challenge the Minister to do that.
I would like to participate in this debate once again. I have been involved from the beginning, commencing with second reading, then in committee, at report stage, and several days ago when the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), my colleague, moved an amendment, I spoke then. Several days ago I said that the debate and the process were frustrating. If you were a Member of Parliament and a participant throughout the entire process you would have to ask yourself about this Bill, as we are and as community individuals from the four target groups, for whom the legislation is intended, Mr. Speaker. We have seen, particularly at committee stage, group after group after group of women, the disabled, native people and people representing the visible minorities. They came before the committee and stressed the need to improve and strengthen Bill C-62. We saw participation at second reading once it was known across the country what Bill C-62 contained and, more important, what Bill C-62 did not contain.
The four target groups, the four community-based action groups, did not come before us simply as a one-time wonder. Very many of these same organizations came before this Parliament and this House of Commons during the constitutional debate when we were discussing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They came before the Abella Commission, which set out very courageously and progressively, I might add, a vision for Canadians in terms of equal opportunity in the workplace. They came before the Equality Now hearing, they came before the Equality for All hearing, and they also came before the committee that looked into the handicapped which published the Obstacles Report. In each and every single case they came at great expense, great energy and effort to articulate to their leadership at the federal level, to you and me, Mr. Speaker. They told us what it meant for them to be discriminated against either on the basis of sex, handicap or the colour of their skin. They tried to articulate in a very sensitive and effective manner what it was they needed from this House in terms of legislation and leadership for them to be freed from this type of bondage.
As Members of Parliament we have dealt and continue to deal in this House with these frustrations. We do so in our constituencies when we meet them. One of the basic elements of frustration we encounter is the question of employment.

People continuously seek the advice and assistance of Members of Parliament to help them find employment. These are people who have been in the unemployment lines for days, months and, in some cases, years. We should be cognizant of the fact that it is a great frustration, and it is that because in Canada and throughout the world people measure their self-worth and selfdignity in relation to a job. Somehow having a job fulfils one's goals and aspirations, keeps families intact and families on the go.
If we can admit to the fact that not having a job is very serious, then who are we to say to those individuals who are denied a job, not because an opportunity does not exist but because of a handicap, their colour or sex, or because of native cultural backgrounds? These people are Canadians. They are not some foreigners, they are not some new Canadians or some immigrants-and I am not suggesting we discriminate only against those classes-but they are Canadians like you and I, Mr. Speaker. They deserve an equal opportunity. They deserve an equal slice of the Canadian pie. In their estimation, they are not getting it. That is why they came before this House during debate on Bill C-62 to inform the Government that the Bill will not deliver equality but will merely speak to equality. That is not good enough. They came before this House and told the Government, "We don't want to be carted out on some kind of platform as one of the four target groups come election time and hear said: 'Look what we did for the natives. Look what we have done for the visible minority Canadians in this country'". They are not gullible. They are not naive. They do not want to be hoodwinked and, more important, they do not want other Canadians to be hoodwinked into believing that the lot of these Canadians is being improved, because it is not.
Member organizations within these four target groups have said very clearly to Parliament that they would rather have no Bill than have Bill C-62 in its present form. They are frustrated after having stated their position to the Government year after year, through report after report, and seeing no action. If Bill C-62 contained some decency and some movement on their complaints, recommendations, and representations to the committee, they would have been pleased. They would have accepted that as a first step. However, there has been no movement. There has only been talk and rhetoric. That is why they are displeased. Everyone in the House believes in equal opportunity. We should not accept a piece of legislation which does not do that which it purports to do. Rather than do that, we should transcend Party politics and work hard to deliver a piece of legislation which will do what it is intended to do.
My colleagues and I do not stand in our places to oppose simply for the sake of opposing, and not simply to debate until six o'clock. We are taking a position of principle. For years members of these four target groups have been telling the Government what they want. At the eleventh hour we at least wish to take the opportunity to articulate those concerns. Bill
Employment Equity
C-62 is simply not good enough, and the four target groups do not wish to accept it.
We have done more than simply talk. Through our critic we moved 36 amendments which would have given Bill C-62 strength and effectiveness. We recommended that the committee and the Government accept these amendments in order to demonstrate decency and moral integrity. One would have expected that one, two, or three of those amendments would have been accepted in good parliamentary faith. However, none of them were accepted. The amendments which we proposed came from the four target groups.
For whose benefit is this legislation being put forward? Is it for Members of the House or for the viewing audience? Of course not. If our purpose is to create equality in the country for the four target groups and those groups are not satisfied with this legislation, why is the Government prepared to proceed with it? Why is the Government so anxious to have this legislation passed? Why has the Government censured every member of this Party who has spoken on Bill C-62? We are not out of order. We make no apologies for debating this issue in the House. We do not apologize because we are trying to be the lightning rod between the four target groups and the federal Government. We will not apologize today or tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. We will proceed with Royal Assent after which the Hon. Member may complete his speech.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-99, An Act to provide borrowing authority-Chapter No. 19.