1986-04-21

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT 35 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre. Supply and Services Canada. Ottawa. Canada KlA 0S9
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 21, 1986


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions numbers 331-44 and 331-195.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is from constituents of my riding of Okanagan North who request that the federal Government withdraw the separate excise taxes on gasoline and to call a federal-provincial First Ministers' Conference at an early date to discuss ways and means by which taxes on fuel may be reduced.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: My second petition is also from residents of Okanagan North who request that the full indexation of universal family allowance be reinstated.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of presenting a petition, duly signed by federal penitentiary employees in the riding of Duvernay, who humbly pray Parliament to intervene in obtaining their request for early retirement after twenty-five years continuous employment with Correctional Service Canada.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people from the Hamilton area who lament the Government continuing to increase income taxes, sales taxes and excise taxes, particularly as they affect lower and middle-income families. The petitioners ask that Parliament rescind these budgetary tax changes.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House two petitions from my constituents. The first petition is from 97 residents of Ste. Rose du Lac who request that the mail services on Rural Route No. 1 of Ste. Rose du Lac be continued and that no changes be made to the present service.


Brian White: The second petition is from 66 citizens of the Swan River Valley and Roblin, Manitoba, who are concerned with the many problems created by pornography. They ask that the Government ban all pornography from Canada.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 538.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	With reference to the "St. Clair River Pollution Investigation (Sarnia Area) Report", which recommendations listed on pages 25 to 29, will the Department of the Environment be acting on independently and which recommendations will the Department be acting on in concert with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment?
2.	How long will it take to implement each recommendation that the Department is acting on, either independently or jointly?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: 1. The
recommendations listed in the "St. Clair River Pollution Investigation Report" are divided into three categories: General Direction, Ambient Conditions and Pollution Sources. They are being acted upon as follows:
Recommendation
Number	General Direction
1.	Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study; a Canada-U.S. Study which includes the Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
2.	Ontario Ministry of the Environment with some input from the Department of the Environment

April 21, 1986
Order Paper Questions
3.		Ontario Ministry of the Environment with some input from the Department of the Environment
4.		The Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
		Ambient Conditions
I.		Department of the Environment and Ontario Ministry of the Environment
2.		Ontario Ministry of the Environment with some input from the Department of the Environment
3.		The Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
4.		The Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
5.		The Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study, a Canada-U.S. Study which includes the Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
6.		The Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
7.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
8.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment with some input from the Department of the Environment
9.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
10.		The Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
11.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
12.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
		Sources of Pollution
1.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment with some input from the Department of the Environment
2.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment with some input from the Department of the Environment
3.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
4.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
5.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
6.		The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
7.		The Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
8.		The Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
2. Action is ongoing on each of the recommendations. Full implementation will depend on the schedules of the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study (to be completed by Fall, 1987) and the Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement, a program implemented by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.		
[Translation]		
	QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN	
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of		
the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker if question No. 436 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 436 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	From February 28, 1980 to September 1, 1984, did any departments contract out mailings and, if so, in each case (a) what was the amount of the contract (b) what was the name of (i) the department (ii) the firm awarded the contract (c) was the contract tendered (i) publicly (ii) by invitation (d) what are all the reasons for awarding the contract?
2.	In the same period, what was the total cost to the taxpayer for all contracts awarded by the government for mailing services?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine pleasure and, indeed, pride that I stand to move third and final reading of Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity. The phrase "employment equity" is new. It has only entered our common vocabulary in the last 18 months with the presentation of the Royal Commission report by Judge Rosalie Abella. However, the issue with which that report and this piece of legislation deals is not new. The barriers to equality in the workplace for too long have hindered women, native people, disabled persons and visible minorities. Indeed, during the 14 years I have been in this House the issue has not been new. It has been raised in questions and in committees throughout the whole of that time. I can say quite frankly that in the years before this Government came to power I heard a lot of talk about fairness and equality but I saw no action. What we are seeing here today is a Government committed to action in this field.
The House is being asked not simply to talk about an issue. The House is being asked to take action. Employment equity is more than just a problem to be solved. It is an essential part of the fabric of our nation. Like bilingualism, multiculturalism
April 21, 1986

and regional diversity, employment equity is part of our heritage, a heritage in which all Canadians must be able to share equal opportunities.

The tabling of this Bill in the House today represents the outcome of a useful process whereby facts and information were examined and collected. First of all, we held exhaustive consultations with over 120 groups and agencies across the country; second, all aspects of the Bill were considered in the Legislative Committee, and third, the Bill was debated in the House. The time for talk is over. It is now time to act.
Bill C-62 is the key step in a multi-step operation by the Government to ensure a fully representative workplace. This Bill, as we know, requires federally-regulated businesses to implement and report on employment equity. But it is an overall operation that also includes a federal contractors' policy that ensures that companies doing business with the Government implement employment equity; the inclusion of employment equity measures in the six programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy; and the Mandatory Employment Equity Program which has been instituted by the Public Service of Canada. Together, these initiatives, including the Bill before us today, are a concrete demonstration of the Government's strong commitment to creating a better and, indeed, more equitable future for all Canadians.
We are not content just to talk. We are committed to action. Bill C-62 is designed to remove discrimination from the workplace, to eliminate obvious cases of discrimination and to root out less obvious cases-systemtic discrimination which has unconsciously become all too frequently part of traditional employment practices.
Under Bill C-62, employers must identify barriers to target groups and they must remove them. They must adopt special measures that will involve senior level commitment and management authority. They must begin immediately hiring and training target group members in all levels of the organization, for example, by moving women into occupations from which they had previously been excluded. They must show the progress that they are making.
This legislation will cover federally-regulated companies in such fields as banking, communications and transportation. Because of the intiatives that we are taking with this Bill I am very pleased to report that a number of companies, including those which are beyond the jurisdiction of this Bill, have already come forward with employment equity plans-before this Bill is even passed. I refer to companies such as IBM Canada, Xerox Canada and Ontario Hydro, which have expressed their support and are already implementing employment equity. Many other companies are now working with officials in my Department to implement employment equity. This shows that the idea behind employmnt equity is
Employment Equity
taking hold and that people are realizing that employment equity makes good social sense, as well as making good economic and business sense.
What about the effect of this Bill on members of the target groups? Bill C-62 is a major step forward in creating equal opportunity for 'women, native people, disabled persons and visible minorities. In fact, the key word that could be used in conjunction with Bill C-62 is "opportunity". This Bill provides an instrument for groups to use in the pursuit of equality. We are not pretending that by merely passing a Bill we have solved the problem. What we are saying is that we have created a new set of conditions-a new environment in which equality will become a reality.
Bill C-62 presents a challenge to women, to native people, to disabled persons and to visible minorities-a challenge which was, perhaps, best expressed by Judge Rosalie Abella in her report when she used these words:
Equality is a process of constant and flexible examination, of vigilant introspection, and of agressive open-mindedness.
Bill C-62 is enabling legislation, a catalyst for change and progress, not a set of rigid limitations and guidelines. It does not dictate the exact steps that each and every Canadian should take. Instead, it sets forth a framework within which interest groups, employers and Governments can work together to achieve solid social and economic equality. In order to do this, as Judge Abella has said, we must be agressive, vigilant and open-minded if we are to remove the barriers which currently exist in our society. This is why data and information is so critical to the success of Bill C-62-data and information which will be open to public scrutiny, data and information which we presently do not have. It is impossible to be vigilant, as Judge Abella admonishes us, when employment practices are hidden under layers of legal procedure and bureaucratic building.
We have heard a great deal during the debate on this Bill in committee and in the House from individuals and groups about systemic discrimination, discrimination that is caused not just by individual decisions but discrimination which results from barriers and from blockages that the systems themselves have thrown up-systemic discrimination. In the past, this form of discrimination has been more difficult to deal with, largely because it is hidden. Our goal in this Bill is to remove these obstructions, to open up the processes so that we can all see the exact nature of business practices and so that we can take action where these practices are not satisfactory.
Public disclosure, on which I lay such emphasis, is but one-half of a two-tiered system for enforcing employment equity. Beginning in January of 1987, about eight months from now, employers will be required to establish explicit goals and timetables for accomplishing employment equity. At the end of that year they will be required to report on the progress that they have made toward achieving these goals. These reports will be made public, open to media and public scrutiny-and this is the second half of the two-tiered system for enforcing

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
employment equity. The data will also be made available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. For the first time the Canadian Human Rights Commission will have the data that it needs to initiate an investigation under the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That data has not been available to the Commission in the past. This is a key area in which we are moving. It is a major change. As for the Government's willingness to provide this data, and as for the Commission's willingness to act, let me just quote what Gordon Fairweather, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said recently to a group of senior executives in Ottawa. He said:
I hope it's well understood that we intend to use this power.
These reports will provide a profile of where target-group members stand in individual companies. Data from other sources, notably the census, will give us a clear picture of how many target-group members live in a particular area. Once we have this information, we will be able to see how well a company is doing in a particular labour market and we will be able to compare the reports of similar companies in the same geographic area as they implement employment equity. We will be able to hold a company's record in employment equity up against the availability of individuals in the local labour market to see whether or not the companies are drawing on the total human resources available to them. As I say, these reports will be made public. They will be open to the media and to public scrutiny.
The Government is committed to ensuring that employment equity becomes a reality. We intend to knock on the doors of employers who do not meet their responsibilities. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be knocking with a firm fist.
Bill C-62 is based on results, not on procedures or processes. It is based on results in the way Judge Abella admonished us to put the emphasis on results. It is results that count. For that reason, we rejected the notion of instituting an artificial system of quotas. We looked at the system in the United States in which quotas are used and concluded that quotas tend to easily become ceilings that employers find very comfortable. Once a ceiling is reached, they feel that they can stop and do not need to go any further.
The value and benefit of our system is its flexibilities. We are telling employers that that is not all they have to do, that they have to look further. We are saying that employment equity requires constant vigilance. Employers must think about employment equity in all their staffing actions.
We also rejected quotas for another reason. Bill C-62 is designed to work in a Canadian context. It recognizes the reality of this country which is that it is a country of regional diversity with widely varying resources and needs. By relying
on goals rather than on quotas, we provide a degree of flexibility that suits the Canadian economic picture. To quote Gordon Fairweather again, when he was speaking in committee on this Bill he said the following:
It is one of the strengths of the employment equity Act that it lets managers manage. Each corporation can take the steps that make sense in its own unique circumstances.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, employment equity is more than just a matter of social justice: it is a viable concept. Employment equity is a part of our present social and economic reality. Women and members of minority groups are entering the labour market in increasing numbers. These people need employment. They need an income.

We live in a world of very rapid and complex change, change that is driven by new technologies, by shifting trade arrangements and by increasing interdependence among nations. With this change comes increased competition and the need to draw on all of our human resources. In the words of the President of Xerox Canada, Mr. David McCamus:
If we discriminate against women, we are limiting our options, which is something we can't do in today's competitive environment. To compete, we have to draw on the best pool of people available.
Bill C-62 is designed to convince all employers of the wisdom of Mr. McCamus' words. It is designed to show them that it is in their own best interests as well as the interests of society to implement employment equity.
In closing, I would just like to reiterate the essence, the purpose and the goal of this Bill. Bill C-62 provides target groups with an opportunity they have never had before in this country. Bill C-62 is a springboard for public action, and for aggressive, vigilant, open-minded action by the groups themselves. It is an opportunity for employers as well to reexamine their business practices, to eliminate systemic discrimination where it exists and to begin drawing on the full range of talent that is available across Canada. It is an opportunity for Government to work with target groups and employers to achieve employment equity. In this endeavour, the Government is fully committed. We will use the vigilance and authority of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to ensure employment equity. We will back the commission with the full weight of Government.
As I said at the outset, the time for talk is over. It is now time to act. I urge all Members of the House to ensure speedy passage of this Bill so that we can begin the important work of ensuring fair opportunities for target-group members throughout the country in all aspects of the workforce. Canadians need this Bill. It is already long overdue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, despite the Minister's rhetoric, Bill C-62 will not enforce employment equity and it will not implement
April 21, 1986

employment equity. It is merely a sham that is being perpetrated on the four target groups it is supposed to help.
If the Minister does not want to believe what we in the Opposition have been saying, let me read to her part of the press release that was issued this morning by the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities. The Cochairman, Beryl Potter, in a statement released this morning, said the following:
"This Bill will do nothing more than provide the Government with employment information. It will in no way implement employment equity as there are no penalties for failing to comply with employment equity plans,"-
She goes on to say:
"We have tried everything. We have consulted with CEIC staff, appeared as witnesses before the parliamentary committee on the Bill, made pleas to the Prime Minister directly and rallied on Parliament Hill. We have demanded that the Bill be amended to include the Government's own departments and agencies and to include a penalty for failing to comply with employment equity plans. The Government has not responded to any of our demands," adds Potter. When the Prime Minister's letter was finally received on Thursday, April 17, it in no way answered the Coalition's concerns.
That is what one of the target groups that is supposed to be helped by this legislation says about the legislation. The other target groups, the visible minorities, the women's groups and the native peoples' groups, are saying the same thing as well.
Because there is much confusion, not only out there in the public but also here in the Parliament, we must be clear on what is employment equity. As the Minister said, it is a new expression. Employment equity is not the absence of discrimination. Employment equity is a new term developed by Judge Abella to include affirmative action. We all understood affirmative action, that terminology. It goes much further than simply forbidding discrimination. In fact, affirmative action says that we must discriminate in favour of certain groups to ensure that they are fairly represented in workplaces where they were not represented before. Affirmative action requires a new type of discrimination, a discrimination of which we approve, because we feel it is necessary to make certain workplaces more representative of women, of visible minorities, of native people, and of disabled people. That is what we are talking about.
I should like to refer to Clause 4 of the Bill. It is a good clause; it sets out certain obligations for employers in respect to affirmative action and employment equity. The only problem is that if employers do not live up to their obligations under Clause 4, no penalty will be imposed against them. Penalties could be imposed against them for discriminating against employees under the Canadian Human Rights Act, that is, discrimination against people trying to find employment. However, under Clause 4 of the Bill we are supposed to go beyond that and introduce affirmative action programs. There is no penalty in the Bill or anywhere else if employers do not proceed with those types of programs.
I will summarize Clause 4 where it indicates that an employer shall implement employment equity by instituting
Employment Equity
such positive policies and practices as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation, and so on. We could support that; that is very good legislation. However, if employers do not do what the clause indicates they must do, there is no penalty in the Bill. That is one area about which most of the target groups are concerned.
Let me indicate some other reasons for the Bill not being adequate. In addition to the fact that there is no enforcement or penalty clause dealing with the key parts of the Bill, it only applies to employers under federal jurisdiction. Of course that is essential because we cannot legislate for employers under provincial jurisdiction. By the way, employers under federal jurisdiction are only a small percentage of the total of employers in the Canadian labour market. In any case, the Bill only applies to employers with 100 or more employees. In the Canada Labour Code employers are defined as those with five or more employees.
In the affirmative action legislation in the United States employers are defined as those with 15 or more employees. We felt that 100 was too high. We listened to the evidence and introduced an amendment which indicated that in Canada it should be applicable to employers with a workforce of 25 or more employees. We wanted to reduce the qualifying clause from 100 or more to 25 or more, which is more than the 15 in the United States and more than the 5 in our other labour legislation. Some of the witnesses had recommended 25 or more, and we thought that was reasonable. The Bill is not adequate on that ground. It eliminates many employers from the purview of the Bill by making the floor too high, by setting it at 100 rather than 15 or 25.
Also, the Bill is wanting to the extent that it does not cover federal Government Departments and agencies. The Parliamentary Secretary said during the debate that it was not necessary for the legislation to cover federal Departments because they were already covered by guidelines introduced under the Treasury Board. Those regulations were introduced by the previous Liberal Government. However, we never said at that time that it would be the last word. As a matter of fact, they were introduced at a time when we were still dealing with the implementation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we had not yet received the advice of Judge Abella in respect to these matters. The former Liberal Government appointed the Abella Commission to seek out information and advice on how best to introduce affirmative action programs. Nevertheless, we introduced for the federal Public Service affirmative action programs which are still in effect. However, they are not adequate now that we are in receipt of the Abella Report which recommends that all employers, both those within and those outside the Government, be covered by legislation with mandatory enforceable rules.
The problem with simply relying upon regulations under the Treasury Board for the Public Service is that regulations can be changed at any time by Order in Council or by a small group of Ministers meeting together in private. They will announce it later, but they do not have to go to Parliament to

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
seek changes, to withdraw those rules, or to strengthen those rules. Those rules can be changed simply by Order in Council in the back room of the cabinet process. That is not good enough.
An even more important argument is that if we are to say to the private sector that it must have legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada which can only be changed within the Parliament of Canada, why is the same thing not at least done for the public sector? Why should a heavier burden or a more entrenched version of employment equity be placed upon the private sector but not upon the public sector? In many respects we are making the process much tougher in the fact that the legislation will be entrenched. We are making it more firmly entrenched and more difficult to change for the private sector than for the public sector. As Judge Abella pointed out in her report, the legislation should apply to federal Government Departments and agencies as well as to private sector firms.
It is also important if we are to give a good example to the provinces. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the federal Government has only limited jurisdiction in respect to labour matters in Canada. Most firms and their employment equity programs will come under provincial jurisdiction. If we pass an inadequate Bill at the federal level, a Bill which is not properly enforceable and does not apply to the public sector as it applies to the private sector, a poor example is given to the provinces which we hope will follow our example in Ottawa. Over the years, going back to the thirties, the federal Government has set the trend in advanced labour legislation to protect employees. Sooner or later the provinces came onside and did more or less the same thing.
I have mentioned certain items where this Bill falls short. There are no adequate penalties for federal employers, or for employers in private sector companies with less than 100 employees. Second, the definition in Clause 4, to which I referred for affirmative action, is also inadequate. Not only is it inadequate, it will not do the job. It starts off being a very good definition. I read part of it a second ago, but let me refer to it again. It says that an employer shall implement employment equity by instituting such positive policies and practices as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in the various positions of employment with the employer that is at least proportionate to their representation in the workforce.
The problem is that many of these groups are not in the workforce. The number of disabled people in the workforce is very small because they cannot get jobs. The number of visible minorities is small because they cannot get jobs. If you look at the representation in the workforce and use it as a standard, as this Bill does, it will be very poor. The Bill will amount to nothing. To introduce an affirmative action program and to look for a standard, you cannot look at the representation, especially for disabled and visible minorities and native people in the workforce.
Certain Members read out the rate of unemployment for blacks in Canada. It is extremely high. In some parts of Montreal 60 per cent to 70 per cent of young blacks are unemployed. We have the same situation in many parts of the country. The situation is the same for natives. We all know that. In Regina, Winnipeg and places where there are many native people, both on the reserves and near the reserves, there are very high rates of unemployment. The definition of being in the workplace is that you must have been for an interview for a job within the last four weeks of being interviewed. Many people have given up hope. They have tried and tried again and again without success. That definition is wanting. We tried to amend that definition both in the committee and in the House. The proposed amendments were turned down.
We were successful, and I give credit to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary, in having an amendment accepted in committee that the employer in introducing employment equity must consult with bargaining agents and with employee representatives. That was a step forward. I congratulate the Minister. It is a good move. We also tried to get an amendment which would oblige the employer to consult with the representatives of the target groups. Very often the target groups are not very well represented in the employees' associations or unions. It is unfortunate,
I met a young woman working in Kingston in the correctional service. She told me, for example, that if I went to speak to the unions in the correctional services I would not get a very sound opinion of what women think in the correctional service because they are such a small group. The unions do not represent their point of view. I think it is good that we consult with the unions and with the employee associations, but if we want to know how employment equity should be implemented we should also have consultations with the designated groups or their representatives, such as women, native people, visible minorities and so on. We introduced an amendment in the House and in committee to do that but it was turned down. It seems strange to me because the same logic applied there as with the other amendment. In one case the Government accepted it and in the other case it turned it down. In any case, there is still an inadequacy in the Bill in that respect.
Again I give credit to the Government, to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing that there had to be action plans. When the Bill was first presented to the House there was no requirement on the employer to prepare action plans setting out goals and timetables. Many witnesses argued that that must be done. In response to those representations, the Minister agreed. We now have Clause 5 in the Bill which reads:
An employer shall, in respect of each year, prepare a plan setting out
(a)	the goals that the employer intends to achieve in implementing
employment equity in the year or years to which the plan relates; and
(b)	the timetable for the implementation of those goals.
Very good, Mr. Speaker. But when we get to Subsection (2) of Clause 5 it reads:
A copy of a plan-
April 21, 1986

meaning the action plan.
-prepared under subsection (1) shall be retained by the employer at the employer's principal place of business in Canada for a period of at least three
years-
What good is there in having an action plan with goals and timetables if it is kept at the head office of the company and is not made known to the employees, to the target groups or to the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
In the committee and in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary said: "well, the Canadian Human Rights Commission may be able to get the action plan if there is some sort of complaint and it is following up on the complaint." That, however, is too late, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the action plan is to make public what employers intend to do about employment equity, about affirmative action. The action plan, which is a good thing, should be made available to the target groups, to the employers and to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. While Subsection (1) of Clause 5 is very good, Subsection (2) is extremely wanting and is not good. As a matter of fact, it is ridiculous that after requiring these action plans to be made they are kept secret at the employer's principal place of business in Canada.
These are the principal grounds on which we are opposing this Bill and why we are saying the Bill is not adequate, but there are other specific reasons. We tried to put in the Bill the principle of equal pay for work of equal value as one of the standards for employment equity. That amendment was turned down. We tried to introduce a definition for reasonable accommodation, a definition that was very strongly supported and wanted by the associations of disabled people, women and others, but that also was turned down. We wanted a definition of disabled in the Bill. That proposal was turned down.
We have heard it over and over again in the House, the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and other Conservative Members have said that this is the first time that any Bill has been implemented with respect to employment equity. That is correct. This is the first time there has been a Bill dealing with what might be called affirmative action, but to suggest that this question has not been touched on before is completely false and misleading.
The Canadian Human Rights Act was passed by this House in 1977. It was introduced by a Liberal Government. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies to discrimination in many areas, not just employment. It applies to discrimination in accommodation, in service at public facilities and so on. Section 7 reads that it is a discriminatory practice directly or indirectly (a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual or (b) in the course of employment to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee on a prohibited ground of discrimination. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
Since 1977 we have had a law which outlaws discrimination in employment in accordance with the section to which I have
Employment Equity
just referred on a wide, wide basis. The problem is that the section deals with discrimination in employment. It does not deal with affirmative action. We all know of the Bakke case in the United States. Under the American affirmative action programs and legislation, the Supreme Court ruled those out of order because they were a sort of reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court says that if the law says you cannot discriminate, you cannot even discriminate when you want to help people. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 15(1) states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
We then said in Subsection (2):
Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
It was necessary to entrench in the Constitution the capacity of the federal and provincial Governments to pass laws on affirmative action so they would not be ruled out of order on the basis that they were discriminating. As soon as the Charter was enacted, the Minister of Employment and Immigration at the time, who I believe was the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), set up the Abella Commission to recommend how affirmative action could be introduced. For the Minister and members of the Conservative Party to say that for years and years they requested action on employment equity and nothing was done is, at the best, misleading, and a lot of rhetoric. In fact, in 1977 the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed. In 1981 the Charter of Rights was passed with Section 15, against much opposition from certain Conservative Members. The Hon. Minister supported it, but certain members of her Party did not.
A process has been ongoing for several years which should have led, by this time, to enforceable affirmative action as was recommended by Judge Abella, but that unfortunately is not being done. The Abella Commission was set up in June, 1983, as soon as possible after the passage of the Charter. The Commission reported to a Conservative Government in October, 1984, after being set up by a liberal Government. After a study of more than one year Judge Abella said very clearly that mandatory employment equity was necessary and essential. She said that voluntary affirmative action did not work in the United States, is not working elsewhere, and will not work here. She said that we need an enforcement agency with penalties and sanctions. This Bill does not provide those. It would be the simplest thing in the world for the Minister to put forward an enforceable Bill. Clause 7 now says:
An employer who fails to comply with section 6 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars.
Clause 6 simply requires employers to produce information with respect to their workplace. Clause 7, which applies the

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
penalty, does not apply to Clause 4, which lays out the obligation to implement employment equity, and it does not cover Clause 5 which obliges employers to prepare action plans setting out goals and timetables. Everyone is asking why the penalty clause only applies to Clause 6, the reporting clause, and not to Clauses 4 and 5 which are the real guts of the Bill. If the Government and the Minister really believed in enforceable affimative action and employment equity, they would need only amend Clause 7 to read: "An employer who fails to comply with Sections 4, 5, and 6, is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars".
We tried to increase the $50,000 to $500,000 because to many of the large companies under federal jurisdiction $50,000 is like a price to steal. It would be cheaper for large companies like Bell telephone or the Royal Bank of Canada to pay the $50,000 every year than to implement employment equity. In committee we supported an amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) which would subject employers to a fine if they did not comply with Sections 4, 5, and 6. That would have made this a very good Bill. I also moved an amendment to increase the fine to a maximum of $500,000, but that was rejected by the Government as well.
I have referred briefly to what other groups have said about this Bill. I referred to the press release issued today by the disabled people. I also have a press release with respect to this legislation which was issued by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. It says in part:
The legislation to cover visible minorities, as well as women, natives and the disabled, does not require federally regulated employers to have employment equity programs, nor does it provide them with any sort of guidelines which they ought to follow. In addition, the absence of any employment mechanism or agency means that voluntary organizations with minimal budgets will have to do the real monitoring."
That has been taken care of to a certain extent, and I will talk about that in a moment. The press release goes on to say that this Bill is not acceptable.
The Urban Alliance on Race Relations did a survey in the Toronto area and found, as reported in an article in The Globe and Mail, that bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination against visible minorities are widespread and entrenched in policies and practices of small and large employers in the metropolitan Toronto labour market. They said that slightly more than half of management participants in the study had negative things to say about racial minorities. Only 9 per cent of the 199 large employers, all with more than 50 employees, stated a firm belief in racial equality. For example, 28 per cent of the employers said they believed that non-whites in general do not have the ability to meet job performance criteria compared with whites. That is part of the problem.
If you look at the evidence presented to the legislative committee which studied this Bill you will see that not one of the witnesses or groups appearing before the committee representing those who are supposed to be helped by this Bill
approved of it. If the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary do not want to believe members of the Opposition because they think we might be partisan, although we are trying not to be, we ask them to please listen to the disabled people, the native people, and the visible minorities. Listen to them, rather than us. We are simply voicing their views because there are not enough of them in this House. If the Government will listen to them, it may produce a worth-while piece of legislation.
This Bill simply requires that information on employment equity be reported to the Minister and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There will be a penalty if that information is not reported, but no penalty whatsoever if they do not move ahead with the implementation of employment equity as set out in Clause 4 of the Bill. For example, an employer with 100 employees might report in year one that he has 100 employees including one woman, five from the visible minorities, and no natives. The company does not want to be fined $50,000 under Clause 7, so it makes that report. The next year it reports again that it has 100 employees, including one woman, five from the visible minorities, and no disabled people or natives. It makes the same report year after year and is never penalized because it is reporting as required. However, it is, unfortunately, making no progress on employment equity. It is not introducing affirmative action plans, nor are there any penalties.
The information that is gathered pursuant to this Bill is referred to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which will be able to enforce the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act against those firms in which it believes there is discrimination. However, the Commission will not be able to enforce Clause 4 of the Bill which requires affirmative action programs and action to redress the imbalance in a particular labour force.
Last December, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Act authorizes prevention but not cures, like the 25 per cent female hiring quota imposed on CN Rail the year before. The Federal Court was saying that the Canadian Human Rights Act can be enforced where there is discrimination but cannot be used to enforce cures to discrimination, such as affirmative action plans. This Bill was supposed to deal with that very issue but does not because the enforcement provisions are not there.
The legal officers for the Canadian Human Rights Commission argued before the committee that he and she thought they could enforce this Bill through certain sections in the Canadian Human Rights Act. They referred me to various sections. I am a lawyer and I attempted to follow their argument but was not convinced that they had any way of enforcing the Employment Equity Bill through their legislation. It seems that the Federal Court of Canada agrees with that suggestion.
April 21, 1986

The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has rejected the amendments that both opposition Parties put forward. If she really believes in an enforceable Employment Equity Bill that is understood by Canadians and the target groups, why did she not agree to an amendment in Clause 7 which would stipulate that an employer who fails to comply with Clauses 4, 5 and 6 is guilty of an offence? She can use all the rhetoric in the world and make the best speeches to say how good this legislation is, but she is not convincing the employees in the target groups.
This legislation could have been a great achievement for the Government. Unfortunately, it is not. As the disabled people pointed out when they were here last week, this is a black day for Canada and employment equity.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, we have now reached third reading stage of a Bill that deals with employment equity, a very important issue in this country. This whole discussion began about a year ago last March or February with the report of Judge Rosalie Abella. Legislation was tabled before the House, followed by second reading debate and lengthy legislative committee hearings at which many witnesses appeared. We have had report stage debate and we are now at third and final reading.
There is still a major difference between the Government on one side and the Opposition and four target groups on the other about the purpose of this Bill. I want to talk about those differences today, because I for one am disappointed that the Minister and the Government did not accept more amendments from the four target groups for whom this Bill was drafted, the women of Canada, Indian people, visible minorities and the disabled. All four of those groups appeared before our legislative committee to suggest many amendments because they believe this Bill is not strong enough and will not reflect what is needed to solve their problems.
The Minister and the Government have been very obtuse and have refused to accept major amendments, despite the fact that they were elected on a promise that they would listen to the Canadian people and reflect their wishes. However, this Bill does not do that.
The difference is that the government's Bill calls for voluntary employment equity with mandatory reporting while the four groups want mandatory employment equity in this country. The enforcement of that equity is not being provided with this legislation.
I believe it is worth while to remind the House of the election promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in August, 1984, when many people thought there would be much tougher legislation. He said at that time:
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
Employment Equity
with their skills and expectations. Numerical goals are one of several goals required: training and retaining are others.
That is what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign in 1984.
I believe you were in the House last Monday, Mr. Speaker, when over 100 disabled Canadians gathered on the Hill to protest that the Prime Minister has not kept his word. Beryl Potter is one of the leaders of the disabled groups in Canada. She stated on the CBC national news last Monday night:
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.
Beryl Potter of the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities is a leader of the disabled in our country. She campaigned actively for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada because she believed in the Prime Minister and that Party. She believed that that Party would do something useful for her as a disabled person and the people she represented. Yet, she said: "I am totally, totally disillusioned". She was so disillusioned that we all saw her in the gallery shouting things about the Government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) that I cannot repeat here because they are unparliamentary. When will they begin to listen to the people of this country?
One of the great tragedies of a Government with an overwhelming majority is that it becomes insensitive to public opinion. I recall talking to a veteran Conservative Member of Parliament about a week after the federal election in September, 1984. I will not repeat his name because he would not want it stated publicly, but I suggested that he must be happy with the result of the election, with 211 seats for his Party. He said: "Not really. We won 50 seats too many."
When we look at parliamentary tradition in this country and around the world where there have been large majorities, we see that those majority governments became insensitive to the will of the people and were often defeated after one term in office. We saw the problems with the Diefenbaker Government from 1958 to 1964 and what happened to the Trudeau Government from 1968 to 1972. Time and time again, governments with large majorities-


An Hon. Member:: Like the present Government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -have become insensitive. Like the present Government, as one of the Conservative Members is saying.
One only need ask Beryl Potter to see that the same problem is happening again. Beryl Potter and some disabled people came to this Parliament on March 26 and met the Prime Minister just before he walked into the Conservative caucus. She told the Prime Minister that the Bill should be strengthened in two or three areas, including the definition of reasonable accommodation to disabled people and a stronger penalty clause to make employment equity more enforceable and mandatory. The Prime Minister talked to Beryl Potter for five or six minutes and suggested that she accompany his Policy

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
Advisor, Geoff Norquay, to his office to discuss her suggestions in detail. The Prime Minister said that he would give a reply as to what could be done. They went to the Prime Minister's Office and had a meeting with Mr. Norquay in the PMO. They came back and were quite ecstatic about this because they had a promise from Mr. Norquay and the Prime Minister's Office that they would get back to them before this Bill comes again before the House for report stage. They were happy about that. You know what happened? There was no reply at all from the Prime Minister, and no reply at all from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) before this Bill came back from the House ten days ago for report stage. What happened was that the Prime Minister broke a commitment that he would, once again, get back to the disabled Canadians before report stage.
I ask now why a simple courtesy like that was not extended to Beryl Potter and disabled Canadians? That is why they were so angry in the gallery of the House of Commons last Monday. You know what they did in the Prime Minister's Office? They sent a reply the day disabled Canadians came before Parliament to demonstrate, the day disabled Canadians in the gallery spoke out against this Bill, and the very day they were here in Ottawa. They did not do it seven or eight days sooner, as they promised, before this Bill came back for report stage. When the Government treats Canadians in that way it does not deserve to be around very long. That is why you have people like Beryl Potter-a Conservative Party supporter for, I assume, many years, certainly in support of this Prime Minister-saying in public that she was never, never so disillusioned in her life.
This Bill has a noble purpose, and the Minister of Employment has stated many times that it is to promote equity in the workplace so we have a chance to correct the discrimination made against the four target groups in this country; the four target groups being the women, native people, visible minorities, and of course the handicapped in our country. That is the purpose of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill that is going to make it mandatory. The Minister of Employment quoted Judge Rosalie Abella a couple of times earlier this morning. She did not quote some of the important passages that Judge Rosalie Abella referred to when it came to mandatory affirmative action. I quote from page 195 of her report where she talks about mandatory measures versus voluntary measures that the Government has introduced in this Bill. This is what Rosalie Abella is saying:
A voluntary program with a mandatory reporting requirement is nonetheless voluntary in the absence of a requirement to remedy the discriminatory practices disclosed by the information reported.
In other words, we need mandatory action.
Second, she says, and I quote:
A requirement of public reporting may result in public pressure on a company to revise its systems, but is unrealistic to rely on public opinion as an effective monitoring agency. It results in a speculative and scattered approach and creates
the perception, in the absence of enforcement, that the issue is deserving of only casual attention.
In other words, she is saying we need mandatory affirmative action. One last quote from her report on page 197:
Given the seriousness and apparent intractability of employment discrimination, it is unrealistic and somewhat ingenious to rely on there being sufficient public goodwill to fuel a voluntary program.
We have a Minister and a Government saying that the court of public opinion will prevail. Public opinion will force the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank, Bell Telephone and all others to make sure there is employment equity in this country. I do not believe that, and the four target groups do not believe that, and that is why they want changes.
I referred to Beryl Potter on disabled Canadians, and my friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace referred to a statement made this morning once again saying that this Bill is not going to help them very much at all in this country. I also want to refer to other groups.
We have here a statement from the Inuit people of Canada saying that Bill C-62 is of limited value. We have a quotation here from the National Association of Women in Law, Suzanne Boivin, who says:
Nothing will change, unfortunately it is simply wishful thinking.
We have example after example of target groups before the committee that have said exactly the same thing, that this Bill is not good enough and it does not go far enough. What we called for in the committee were five different principles to be enshrined in this particular piece of legislation. One is, in the absence of real enforcement, adequate penalties under mandatory equity schemes where necessary. Second, we want to have some reference in the Bill to the whole principle of equal pay for work of equal value. We want reference in the Bill to contract compliance, and we want an obligation in the Bill to negotiate employment equity with a bargaining agent when there is a union present in the workforce. Finally, we want federal Departments included in this legislation.
Those points of view were also supported by the vast majority of witnesses that came before our committee, and in particular all the witnesses who came from the four different target groups covered by this legislation.
In summary, this legislation is voluntary equity with a mandatory reporting process. It is not going to enforce anything unless there is rank and blatant discrimination that can be picked up by the Canadian Human Rights Commission under the Human Rights Act. The only part of this Bill that is mandatory is the failure to report, which is Clause 6, Then all we have is a $50,000 fine. I ask you what is a $50,000 fine for Bell Canada? What is a $50,000 fine for the Royal Bank? What is a $50,000 fine for the Bank of Montreal? It is peanuts. Now there may not be many big companies like that, as a Member for Ontario said.
But it is important, as the four target groups said to have adequate penalties so we do have some kind of punishment if the law is broken. What we suggest in our Party is that you
April 21, 1986

make the penalty clause apply also to employment equity so it is enforced. But, of course, that is not part of the Bill.
The other aspect of this Bill is that when there are reports the reports are not made public. But if there is a report, that is the only part of the Bill where there can be a penalty or a sanction. The only penalty, as I said before, is through the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Commission does not enforce employment equity. The Human Rights Act cannot enforce the employment equity Bill; it is not part of the mandate. The Human Rights Commission will be enforcing provisions of the Human Rights Act as they may apply to the workplace based upon the data contained in the annual report. They cannot force the Bank of Montreal or the Royal Bank to hire more women in the middle management or senior management positions. What we are hearing from women across the country is that this Bill should have within it a clause which will make sure it is enforced.
Another part of the Bill you would find interesting is the provision for what is called an action plan. When this Bill was first presented to the House there was no provision for an action plan at all. We had group after group coming before us saying that there has to be an action plan. The Minister, to her credit, introduced an amendment which will provide for an action plan. Ultimately, as the Government responded, they introduced an amendment for an action plan which included, of course, goals and timetables. Ultimately, they made sure that this action plan remain confidential. We have an action plan now which is confidential. The employees of the Bank of Montreal, or the employees of Bell Canada cannot have access to the action plan. The Human Rights Commission does not automatically have access to the action plan.
It is worth repeating that Gordon Fairweather, the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Canada, said in a February speech, and he repeatedly urged management that, though not required by Bill C-62, it would be in their interests to make, upon request, a copy of the action plan available to the Human Rights Commission. Here is Gordon Fairweather saying, "You do not have to give us that action plan, but I think it would be in your interests if you do so." If the Human Rights Commission is going to have any way of interpreting whether there is employment equity or discrimination in this country, surely its job would be a lot easier if it had access to action plans whenever it wanted. If we are going to have any kind of industrial or economic democracy, surely the employees should also have access to action plans.
I am not sure what the Conservative Party is afraid of. The Conservatives campaigned with very prestigious people like Jed Baldwin for freedom of information for many years. I have a great deal of admiration for Jed Baldwin. I remember his Private Members' Bills in this House. I also remember the former Prime Minister; I forget his riding but his first name is "Joe". I remember that he also took considerable action during his short nine months as Prime Minister in 1979 with respect
Employment Equity
to better freedom of information law. But we now have a Prime Minister who seems to ignore the root beliefs of his Party. Perhaps it is because he was not here all those years with the former Prime Minister, Jed Baldwin and Walter Baker, who was such a distinguished man, when they talked about the need for freedom of information, because we now have an Employment Equity Bill which says there must be an action plan but the action plan must be confidential even from the employees. I wonder once again why the Minister did not make the appropriate amendment on behalf of the people of Canada.
Another part of the Bill about which we heard a lot of criticism is its failure to include equal pay for work of equal value. We put a number of amendments in committee which would have made that a part of the Bill. They would have made equal pay for work of equal value a reality in terms of this legislation.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women urged that Bill C-62 contain a reference to Section 11 of the Human Rights Act so that equal pay matters would be addressed by employees. I believe that is very important. We moved that amendment without success in committee. Judge Rosalie Abella said that equal pay is an integral element in the implementation of employment equity and that it must be included in any undertaking by employers to make the practices in the workplace more equitable. This was something which was called for by the women of this country, but which is not in the Bill.
Something else which is missing in the Bill is contract compliance. Back in August, 1984 the Prime Minister talked about the need to have contract compliance, to have some kind of equity laws which would make it impossible for companies which do business with the federal Government to discriminate against women and other minorities. Rosalie Abella said the same thing. Recommendation No. 27 states: "Contract compliance should be imposed by legislation". We might ask, is that not a radical thing to do? Is that not too radical for Canadian Conservatives? It is not.
In the United States where Ronald Reagan is President, and I consider Ronald Reagan, to a fair degree more Conservative than many Conservatives in the House, has contract compliance, and Ronald Reagan's United States finds that contract compliance has been an effective tool in changing discriminatory practices by some employers in firms which deal with the U.S. Government. If it can be done in the U.S. why can it not be done in Canada? I believe it is reflective of the fact that we have a majority Government which is too large and insensitive to the opinions of the people of Canada.
In 1980 the Canadian Government had contracts with some 25,000 to 30,000 firms with $6.5 billion worth of contracts going to the private sector and some $5.5 billion going to Crown corporations. Supply and Services alone in 1982-1983 signed 333,928 contracts worth $5 billion on behalf of the federal Government. So I believe we must have contract

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
compliance. I believe this is exactly what the people of Canada want.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. However, he does have a period for questions and comments. I am sure, being such a very popular Hon. Member, he will have a question or comment.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague's speech. 1 wonder if he could elaborate a little further on the last point he made with regard to the inadequacies of the legislation before the House. I wanted to hear more fully what he had to say on that point.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A very wise question from a very thoughtful Hon. Member. It reminds me of some of the questions Members of the Conservative Party ask during Question Period from time to time. In any event, I want to make one last point. It was a point made by disabled Canadians and several other groups. What they ask is that we include federal Government Departments in this legislation because federal Government Departments are not included. I ask why not? We should practice what we preach. If we are making a law for the private sector which deals with the federal Government, a law which is going to pertain to federal Crown corporations, then why should we not include federal Government Departments within the purview and scope of this particular Bill?
I make one argument as to why it is important. Beryl Potter on behalf of disabled Canadians came here last week and told us that some 75 per cent of disabled Canadians who work for our federal Government work on contract. They are term employees. I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) would agree that when we have restrictions of funds and cut-backs in Government Departments it is often the people on term contracts who are the first to be laid off. It is the 75 per cent of disabled Canadians who work for the federal Government on contract who are laid off. So I think it is very important to include federal Goverment Departments in this legislation.
The Minister can say that the Government has its own affirmative action program, but that is accepting the old Liberal argument which this Government often does. The policies of the federal Public Service are totally management controlled. I think the Conservative Party should be interested in making sure there is some participation by the Public Service itself. Second, many basics of an equity program are not subject to a bargaining process under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I think they should be. Third, in the past, priorities have been placed on promoting women to higher management levels while ignoring the vast majority of women workers in the Public Service and we received that information from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and others. Fourth, there have been no initiatives taken to identify and eliminate systemic discrimination in all aspects of Public Service employment practices. Fifth, and most important, in my opinion, these policies which are called "Treasury
Board Guidelines" lack the force and commitment of law. In other words, we may have Treasury Board guidelines that we should have more women, more visible minorities or more disabled people in the Public Service, but these are Treasury Board guidelines. Treasury Boards and their Ministers come and go and the guidelines can change from one Government to the next. Our Party is urging that this be made law now. We should have the force of law behind employment equity.
In conclusion, I want to say that this Bill is not good enough. It was drafted for four target groups. All four target groups are saying to the Conservative Government that the Bill is not good enough. All this Bill will do is call for employment equity in a voluntary sense. That is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, in a democratic society it is very important to have a democratic process. And in this case, the women of Canada, who are in the majority in this country, are opposed to this Bill. The other groups are opposed as well: native people, visible minorities and the disabled, all are against this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, these four groups are disappointed, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a political commitment during the last election campaign eighteen months ago, and it is now time to act on that commitment.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has described Bill C-62 as a springboard-a springboard for miniorities across the country. I prefer to liken it to a gangplank, a gangplank which will allow all of the minorities cited, by both the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Notre- Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), as well as by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), to sink again into the abyss of despair instead of the hope which was rendered by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
It is fair to say that a great many people felt that when the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands was appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the position of Minister of Employment and Immigration we would see action on this important issue. Such action was promised by the Prime Minister in his speech during the women's debate and throughout the course of his campaign. Unfortunately, instead of seeing the Minister pull forward the Conservative caucus, dragging them kicking and screaming into the 20th century, we see that the Minister has been pulled back. She has replaced action with rhetoric. She has replaced promises made by the Prime Minister, as well as by the Conservative Party, with mere words. As we have seen in this Bill, words have fallen on deaf ears and I refer to the words of women's groups which have decried the Bill as a sham and a phoney. I refer to the minorities who feel that this legislation does not respond to
April 21, 1986

the employment hopes and aspirations which they have developed over the last number of years. It does not reply to the concerns of the visible minorities or to native groups.
To whom does this legislation reply? It replies to the real bosses of the Conservative Party-the large corporations which have now been called upon by the federal government to report. Once they make their reports they can devise their action plans. However, they can keep these action plans private and secret in the confines of their own corporate boardrooms. They can deny, even to the target groups cited by the Minister, an opportunity to examine these plans to determine whether, in fact, they are delivering on their promises of employment equity.

The Minister (Ms. MacDonald) and the Prime Minister (Mr.Mulroney) said they preferred to use the voluntary approach when dealing with equality matters and employment equity. However, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the voluntary approach does not work with companies, especially the big companies which see making a profit as their primary responsibility. We know that in a period of economic recession such as we have known between 1981 and 1983, all these companies got rid of those identified as belonging to minority groups such as women and visible minorities. All the jobs held by these people were cut during this period, and now the same companies are being asked to change the rules of the game on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can seriously believe that this is what these big companies are going to do, especially when we see that even the Government is not willing to play according to the rules.

The Equality for All Report put forward some fairly significant recommendations. It was an all-Party unanimous report which specifically cited Bill C-62, the legislation which we are discussing today, as being discriminatory. The report stated that the Bill goes against the spirit of the Charter. It was cited as being discriminatory because of the fact it exempts the federal Government. Here we have the federal Government reaching out to companies which employ 100 or more people and saying: "We are asking you to launch an action plan on a voluntary basis and to table it. We are also asking you to launch affirmative action programs within your companies. However, we are not prepared, in a substantive way, through law as opposed to legislation, to submit ourselves to the same type of public scrutiny". On the one hand the Government is saying: "Yes, we are calling upon private sector companies on the federal scene to come across with affirmative action plans; but we are not prepared to make the same requirement of ourselves in legislation".
The Minister will say that the Treasury Board is handling this matter through regulation. However, as has already been pointed out, any regulation can be abolished as quickly as it can be written. If the federal Government is really serious
Employment Equity
about showing the lead in this particular area, then it is extremely important, as was cited by the committee on equality rights, that at the very least the federal Government be covered by all aspects of Bill C-62.
The second point-

Mr. Speaker, the major drawback of this Bill is that it applies only to companies with at least 100 employees. We know that most companies will not be affected by this legislation because the majority of Canadian companies are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees.
What happens to those companies with only 25, 30 or 40 employees? As the Hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has suggested, we might at least follow the example of the United States where all companies with more than 15 employees are included.
All such companies in the United States are governed by federal employment equity regulations. Very reasonable and dedicated as he is, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East recommended that the Bill might be made applicable only to companies with more than 25 employees. He did not suggest that all small businesses should be affected. There is nothing extraordinary about that, Mr. Speaker, considering that the Canada Labour Code applies to all companies with at least five employees. We are being quite reasonable when we urge the Government to amend that part of the Bill under which all companies with fewer than 100 employees are exempted.

The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East put forth a number of extremely reasonable amendments-in fact, almost three dozen amendments -which dealt with the sum and substance of the Bill. They attempted to redress some of the inequitities which had already been outlined by the all-Party committee studying equality rights. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the Minister and the Government, and notwithstanding the support for these amendments by every single group which the Bill claims to represent, the Minister and the Government refused to endorse most of them. In fact, only two or three amendments, which were certainly not the meat of the matter, were accepted by the Government.
It is disappointing, particularly when one considers that one of the major promises made by the Prime Minister-oh, how I remember his words-was that he would apply contract compliance immediately upon being elected to Government. He said that not only would the Government come in line with employment equity where it deals with all federal Government employees, but any company which wanted to do business with the federal Government must, of necessity, develop a plan of affirmative action so that the contract compliance principle which has been well-tested in the United States could be applied here in Canada. That is what the Prime Minister said when he was the Leader of the Opposition when he was going

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
head-to-head with the then Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), during the debate on women's issues. All of us from every political Party were thrilled to hear that promise made to the women of Canada.
Unfortunately, as with so many of the other promises of the Government, and as with so many other promises of the Prime Minister, he says one thing to the women of Canada and another to the companies of Canada. When it comes time to see which interest group wins out in the struggle for rights and equality it is quite clear that the companies, the multinationals-the Imasco's of this world-have won out. The little people, the women of Canada, do not have a chance.
A report released today states that poverty is increasing in Canada. The major groups hurt by poverty include groups of women and children. If we are to address in real terms the question of poverty and the feminization of poverty, the only real way to do it is to implement specific recommendations to deal with the wage gap. For every dollar earned by a man, a woman earns 58 cents, 60 cents or 62 cents depending upon the province. Employment equity legislation with real teeth would not solve that problem today but would send out a message, not only to companies-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Louder.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) has told me to speak louder. I will speak louder because I am speaking on behalf of the women of Canada, women who are sick and tired of hearing promises from the Government and sick and tired of hearing the Government say how it is going to do its best to improve the economic lot of women. The statistics which came out today show that women and children are sinking deeper an deeper into poverty. The Government cannot even come to grips with the simple questions of early childhood education and daycare.
A report came across the Table to the Government calling for massive structural changes in the way we deal with early childhood education. The response of the Government was to set up another study group and to name as the chairman of that study group the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin). When the Hon. Member for Lincoln was first elected, her office was quoted as saying that she was not interested in women's issues because women only made up 1.5 per cent of her riding in any event. This is the person the Government has appointed to chair a new task force on early childhood education.
The Government does not believe in daycare. The Government does not believe that there is a consensus among young men and women that if we are to allow women the opportunity to compete equally, we have to give them the social infrastructure that will permit them to get out into the market-place. Employment equity is just one tool to be used in trying to achieve equality.
No one on either side of the House has ever suggested that a good, strong employment equity Bill would close the wage gap between men and women immediately. That is simply not so. There are many other factors involved, including the education and socialization process and the question of the availability of daycare and support systems for men and women.
It is also fair to say that a strong employment equity Bill which called upon companies to implement mandatory affirmative action and contract compliance would, using the most conservative estimates, close the wage gap by 10 per cent to 15 per cent. This would not mean that the days of equal salaries for work of equal value across the board would be here. But if I were a woman working for a minimum wage in the Province of Ontario and trying to support a child and I were presented with a possibility of having my wages increased by 10 per cent to 15 per cent, I would hail the Government that had the guts to introduce such legislation. I would hail the Government that had the guts to tell companies not only that they will have to prepare plans but that they will not be able to keep those plans a secret in the vaults of their inner sanctums, that they are going to have to expose their plans to public scrutiny and to the scrutiny of the very target groups the Government is trying to address.
Unfortunately, the situation is that the Government showered promises upon the women of Canada during the election campaign. Now when the time comes to deliver on those promises, the Government is unprepared to do anything as simple as having this legislation cover the Government's own Departments. It is hard to imagine saying to private-sector employers that they have an obligation to report and that if they do not report they are subject to a fine of $50,000, but the Government is exempted and federal Departments are not covered by the same legislation. If you were in business, Mr. Speaker, would you be able to market that concept? Would you be able to tell your customers that you want certain laws to apply to your customers but you want to make sure that you are not covered by them?
What does the federal Government have to hide? What do Conservative Members have to hide? Is it simply that with the Nielsen cut-backs, those who are being moved out of the Public Service are primarily the women who have been the last hired and the first fired? The federal Government's plan to cut back includes the abolition of person-years, but most of the people who are going to be hurt by the Nielsen cut-backs and the so-called attrition or reduction in person-years in the federal civil service are in fact women. Therefore, Conservative Members are not prepared to subject themselves to the same scrutiny that they are prepared to impose upon companies with over 100 employees.
Those people who do not spend their days examining all federal legislation, and I suspect most Canadians fall into that category, have heard the Minister expound on what a wonderful thing this will be for the women of Canada, and they think that the Minister might be honest in her attempt to try to redress the imbalance that exists. However, there are four
April 21, 1986

elements to this Bill at which we need to take a closer look. First, the Bill does not apply to federal Government employees. Second, it applies to companies on the federal scene with only 100 or more employees. Third, there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism for the action plans, and fourth, the action plans are on a voluntary basis, kept secret within the confines of the companies involved. Do we really believe that a secret action plan which is not subject to public scrutiny will mean a change in the employment situation for visible minorities, natives, the handicapped and women? I do not think so.
As was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, the actual wording of the legislation is faulty. In a sense, current discriminatory practices with respect to employment will be institutionalized. I am referring to Clause 4(b) which calls upon companies to institute such positive practices that are at least proportionate to representation in the workforce. However, the practices these companies are required to activate as set out in the secret plans that will be kept in company vaults should be targeted not to the workforce but to the population.
For example, let us say that the visible minority portion of the workforce of Toronto is 10 per cent. It may be that 60 per cent or 70 per cent of visible minorities have totally dropped out and are no longer attached to the workforce. Those people will be ignored. The Bill calls upon the companies to set targets based upon the number of people currently in the workforce instead of setting targets based on the number of people in the population at large.
The native community is a good example of a group for which targets must be set, not based on the population that is currently attached to the labour force but on the population of the community at large. If we ignore those who have dropped out because they have lost hope and have gotten fed up with the system, then we are in a sense institutionalizing through targets the very discriminatory practices which have led thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands of peole to leave the workforce and find themselves on family benefits. All disabled persons in the country who currently receive benefits are not included in this program because they are not a part of the workforce. At the very least, the Government should include a clause which sets targets based on the number of people in the population at large and not specifically restricted to the number of people attached to the labour force.

In my opinion, the Government has decided not to proceed with the very good amendments introduced by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) because it does not really believe in them. Mr. Speaker, if we really have independent Members in the House, in keeping with the new Government style advocated by the Government House Leader, I would like to give them an opportunity to vote independently and reject the Bill as it stands now, so I propose-
Employment Equity

I would like to give private Members on all sides of the House an opportunity to vote on this issue. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:
"Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity, be not now read a third time, but that the Bill be referred back to a legislative committee for reconsideration of Clauses 3, 5 and 7 thereof."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 see no problem with the proposed motion moved by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I was about to put questions to the Hon. Member as part of the 10-minute question period. Is that in order now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow questions and comments.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which the Hon. Member put before the House would send the Bill back to committee for reconsideration of Clauses Nos. 3, 5 and 7.
Clause No. 3 is the interpretation clause which deals with, for example, whether or not federal Government Departments should be included in the Bill. I presume the reason she included Clause 3 is that she wants to proceed with an attempt to include federal Government Departments and, as she pointed out in her speech, to lower the floor for companies covered from 100 employees to 25 employees.
Clause 5 deals with action plans. Is it the Hon. Member's intention, in sending the Bill back to committee, to strike out that clause which indicates that the action plans should be kept secret in the vaults of the head offices of the companies?
Clause 7 deals with the sanction. In my remarks I argued that Clause 7 could be strengthened if the $50,000 fine for not moving ahead was applied to Clauses Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Would she elucidate, since she made her amendment near the end of her remarks, on whether that is what she hopes to do in committee?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take those questions in reverse order. Quite clearly Clause 7 refers to a fine only if the employer does not comply with Clause 6, that is, the obligation to report to the federal Government. It is the only obligation which is subject to a fine. Therefore, in a sense an employer could report as follows: "I have not done anything and 1986 has passed. I have reported and therefore I am not subject to a fine". We feel that that is wrong. By extending the sanction or the offence to Clauses Nos. 4, 5 and 6, we would place an obligation upon an employer, not only to report but also to develop an affirmative action plan within the context of the company which would hopefully be an open and accessible plan and, if not implemented, would be subject to some kind of

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
enforcement. At the moment there is no enforcement except wherein it deals with the obligation to report.
Likewise, my concerns about Clause 5 deal not only with the fact that no fines are levied against companies which fail to comply with the clause, but also with the fact that the clause itself calls for an action plan which is to be kept secret. An action plan which is to be kept secret is in fact no action plan at all. Obviously we want it to be open and accessible so that it can be examined by committees of the House of Commons and examined by the involved target groups to see whether it is being carried out.
In respect to Clause 4, the employment practices at the moment are such that the Government is asking employers to set up plans in companies with only 100 or more employees and the federal Government is exempted. Obviously we feel that is wrong. My particular motion would permit the committee to re-examine the issue of the exemption of the federal Government to ensure that it is involved and to ensure that companies with fewer employees, for example 25 or more, might be covered by the legislation.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, First of all I have a question of clarification. Do I understand correctly that the amendment would apply to Clauses Nos. 3, 5 and 7 only?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, one could make it broader, but the amendment before the House at the moment would call for a re-examination of Clauses Nos. 4, 5 and 7 by the committee. Clause 4 restricts application to companies with 100 or more employees and exempts the federal Government. If the committee decided in its wisdom that it wanted to examine other issues, that would possibly be within the mandate of the committee. However, we specified those three areas because they were cited as the most heinous areas in the Bill.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I have a supplementary question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) on a point of order, and then the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Mr. Baker:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the motion before the House now will direct debate, would Your Honour rule on whether or not the motion applies to the entire Bill? I know certain people wish to restrict it to Clauses Nos. 3, 5 and 7, but I would argue that we are now examining the entire Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I appreciate the Hon. Member's point of order. It is a very strict motion which deals with particular clauses only. I believe that clears up the matter.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the motion is that indeed it applies to Clauses Nos. 3, 5 and 7. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) indicated her concern in respect to Clause 5, which does not relate to an
action plan in its totality but only to goals, and that it was objectionable because the plan was secret. If she is concerned about the fact that the report on Clause 5 is secret, that the goals will be secret except in so far as they will be retained and under certain circumstances made available to the Minister, why does her amendment not also apply to Clause 4? If the secrecy of Clause 5 is objectionable, clearly the fact that the action plan set out in Clause 4 is available to no one is just as important, if not more important than the secrecy attached to the report on Clause 5.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, at some point in the future I would be most happy to introduce another amendment dealing specifically with Clause 4. We discussed which clauses should be included with our procedural expert. We were advised that if we included a straight, blanket hoist motion, it might be ruled not in order. It is our intention to proceed at this moment with those particular clauses because they were cited by most of the involved groups as the areas within the Bill which were most despised. We would certainly be prepared to proceed with Clauses Nos. 4 and/or 2 and/or other clauses at another time. Obviously we want to give the Government every opportunity to change the thrust of the Bill.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I sat on the legislative committee. We sat for many hours and I believe we heard all the witnesses who wanted to testify before us. I guess what is bothering me here is the knowledge that the Hon. Member who moved the amendment was not present during those committee hearings and may not be aware of the reality that every idea she is placing on the table at this point was very carefully examined by the committee and was clearly rejected. When it reported to the House, the committee said that it had looked at those ideas. The testimony which is now before the House would indicate that the committee gave very thorough consideration to every one of those ideas and found them wanting. The committee was chaired by a member of the Hon. Member's Party. Is she saying that the chairmanship was not in order or was not good chairmanship? Is she saying that the composition of the committee was not good? Is she saying that the witnesses were inappropriate? What complaint does she have in terms of how the committee functioned?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) to reply, if she will do so quickly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have some concerns about the composition of the committee. It was made up of a majority of Tories who chose to ignore the representations of every single target group cited: women, visible minorities, native Canadians as well as the handicapped. They have all been ignored in this Bill. They are the ones who came forth with these recommendations. Had the membership of the committee been made up of a majority of Liberals and New
April 21, 1986

Democrats, no doubt the amendments would have passed. Yes, I would like to throw most of the Tories off the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's energy policy is on the rocks. We have the worst of all worlds-low crude oil prices for producers, and high retail prices for consumers. Last year the Government promised hundreds of thousands of jobs and that energy would be the engine of growth for the Canadian economy. Today we see low oil prices for exploration and development in western Canada. Cut-backs of $3 billion to $4 billion are expected this year in exploration and development, a loss of 100,000 jobs to the Canadian economy. The loss is not only in western Canada but in communities like Sault Ste. Marie at Algoma Steel where 1,500 jobs will be lost due to the Government's policy on energy.
At the same time retail prices have dropped slowly, and much less than in the U.S.A. The ultimate insult to Canadians is that Petro-Canada is selling its gasoline to distributors in the U.S. for 7.5 cents per litre less than in Canada. Tory energy policy is the worst of all worlds.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the West Kootenay region of British Columbia, especially the community of Trail, is staggering under an unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent. The major regional employer, Cominco, has laid off 500 employees this year alone in Trail and at its lead mine in Kimberley. The future of the area has been thrown into jeopardy by slumping would metal prices and by the inaction of both the provincial and federal Governments over the years. So great is the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Cominco operation and the future of the Trail region that home mortgages are unavailable in some instances.
While the federal Government has indicated a willingness to assist in modernizing Cominco's antiquated smelter, it has been unable to work out a co-operative arrangement with the provincial Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised better federal-provincial co-operation. However, on this critical issue there has been very little co-operation in developing a strategy and rescue package. The people of the West Kootenays are calling for action by senior levels of Government, not simply promises of action.


AGRICULTURE
Brian White: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian farmer makes a tremendous contribution to Canada's balance of trade and its economic well-being. There are approximately 500,000 Canadians employed directly in agriculture, and approximately 2 million employed directly or indirectly in agriculture and food. Including the processing, wholesale, and retail sectors, food and agriculture account for more than a quarter of all the economic activity in Canada, and Canadian farmers are among the most efficient in the world.
This high productivity of our agri-food system means that Canadians, on average, spend less than 16 per cent of their income on food, the second lowest percentage in the world. However, Canadian farmers face an uncertain future because of the world agricultural commodity situation. The federal Government has done a great deal for agriculture, but there is still much to be done in light of the current crisis. For the sake of Canada, our farmers need and deserve the immediate attention and assistance of Government at all levels and, indeed, the support of all Canadians, rural and urban.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Larkin Kerwin, President of the National Research Council, recently highlighted the neglect of two generations on the status of science and technology in Canada. The result is that revenue and jobs that could have been available have gone to countries more technologically oriented than Canada. In 1985 Canada imported $12 billion more worth of high technology goods than we exported. We import 80 per cent of our machinery, 70 per cent of our transport equipment, 80 per cent of our scientific equipment, 80 per cent of our health equipment, and almost all our mining equipment. In the U.S. there are 19 technical

April 21, 1986
persons per 1,000 manufacturing employees, in Japan there are 12, and in Canada there are only 4.
Investment in research and development will pay tremendous dividends. Last year's $70 million IRAP program will result in $1.5 billion in new sales, of which $420 million will be paid in federal and provincial taxes, and will result in 12,000 full-time jobs.


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


POULTRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House the request for Government assistance from the Chicken Producers' Association of Nova Scotia. In June, 1985, a research building used to house a facility that developed better strains of poultry was destroyed by fire.
The $350,000 cost of reconstruction of a broiler breeder research facility at Kentville, Nova Scotia, is a minuscule amount when one considers that the wholesale value of the Canadian poultry meat sector is over $1 billion. Furthermore, the advances in feed efficiency, embryo survival rates, and increases in egg size have all led to annual revenue increases of many tens of millions of dollars for the Canadian poultry industry.
Quite simply, reconstruction of this particular facility would pay for itself many times over through increased efficiency and by assuring that Nova Scotia will continue to make its contribution to the billion dollar Canadian poultry industry.
* *
*


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, while there are continuing signs of the successful impact of our Government's policies, such as lower interest rates, less unemployment and increasing economic activity, our Government is pursuing its efforts to smooth the way for the private sector so that manufacturing and business can expand. A review has started of the excessive, obsolete, omnipresent, crushing and demoralizing body of regulations that business has to cope with.
On the basis of the Nielsen Report, the Standing Committees of the House will soon be making recommendations to the
Parliament of Canada to rid business of the burden imposed by a Liberal bureaucracy.
Implementing the recommendations of the Nielsen Report will have a salutary effect on the $110 billion federal Budget, and our proposals for amendments to legislation will help business be more competitive on world markets.
*
* *


CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, a crucial vote may be taken in the U.S. Senate Finance Committee tomorrow on fast track free trade negotiations with Canada.
The forces of protectionism in the U.S. Congress have produced some 300 Bills in the past year, and there is a widely held view that the Reagan administration has dropped the ball on trade matters.
Canada's forestry industry contributed $26 billion to our economy last year, employed directly over 300,000 workers, and generated a net trade surplus in excess of $11 billion. We hold 35 per cent of the U.S. market in softwood lumber which is 72 per cent of our export, with a further 12 per cent to Europe and 6 per cent to Japan.
In the British Columbia Northwest we have a unique opportunity to retool our mills for markets outside the United States.
Spruce pine fir from British Columbia is recognized as the price-setting carburetor for North America. With respect to our largest freely traded commodity we hear screams from Congress for quotas, tariffs, about cartels, orderly marketing procedures, and so on.
We should do all we can to diversify into the Pacific Rim, European, and other markets, due to our vulnerability to growing U.S. protectionism.


THE MONARCHY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special homage to a truly vibrant and magnificent lady on her sixtieth birthday. She has always had a reputation for congeniality and fairness toward all mankind.
This charming and forthright individual has set foot on Canadian soil 15 times in the past 35 years. She knows more about Canada than many of our own inhabitants, having been the special guest at a myriad of events from coast to coast.
April 21, 1986

This mother of four famous children, and grandmother of four, drives her own Land Rover, and can fire a gun with skill and precision. She is Commander-in-Chief of Britain's armed forces and Head of the Church of England.
As the ruler of 49 Commonwealth countries, she attends 400 engagements a year before the eyes of many thousands of grateful admirers.
She is the world's greatest and most beloved diplomat. On this, her sixtieth birthday, we send best wishes for a long and fruitful life.
God save the Queen! Long may she reign!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the U.S. Federal Reserve announced a one-half point drop in the bank rate, from 7 to 6.5 per cent, its lowest level since May 1978.
This development will bring about further reductions in Canada, where the bank rate has been declining in the last few weeks.
The reduction in the bank rate in the U.S. will certainly have an impact, since last Friday, the Bank of Canada already announced a further reduction in the bank rate, from 9.33 per cent to 9.23 per cent.
Furthermore, the Bank of Montreal has announced a one-quarter point reduction in all mortgage rates.
We have good reason to be optimistic, Mr. Speaker, and to believe that confidence is growing again in Canada after so many years of confrontation and provocation under the previous Liberal Government.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) should reject the application by Three Buoys Limited to put a fleet of 57 houseboats on Big Rideau Lake. At a time when development along the shore of Big Rideau Lake is carefully regulated
because of a growing pollution problem, it is not acceptable to approve such an operation.
Residents and users of Big Rideau Lake do not want this development. Canadians in general reject overdevelopment in national parks. Whether mountains or waterways the same principles apply: overcrowding means less enjoyment of the amenities, and the likelihood that irreversible damage will be done to the environment. The Minister of the Environment has the authority in this case. He should listen to the people affected by this proposal and put an end to the uncertainty by rejecting the proposal itself.


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, today is the First day of National Volunteer Week. Across Canada, special events and announcements will reflect the economic and social impact the volunteer sector has on our daily lives.
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of volunteers are working in various fields of social, cultural, economic and sports activity, helping the needy and supporting local groups.
Mr. Speaker, the volunteer concept is so important and so widespread that our society could not function normally were it to disappear.
I fervently hope that our Government will set up a special committee, to determine how to provide effective assistance and support for our volunteer organizations and to identify their special needs.
Finally, I want to offer my sincere thanks to all volunteers, and especially to those in my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau for their tireless dedication in our 53 municipalities.


INQUIRY WHY PRICE OF GAS IN MONTREAL IS NOT THE SAME AS PRICE IN BOSTON
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in February the regular price of gas in Montreal was 58.9 cents a litre, which represents an increase of one-half cent since January. In Boston, however, the price of gas over the same period was 40.2 cents a litre, representing a drop of 1.2 cents a litre since January.
Mr. Speaker, this means there is a 50 per cent difference between Boston and Montreal. In Boston, 40 cents a litre and in Montreal nearly 60 cents a litre.

April 21, 1986
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers want to know why the price can be reasonable in the United States, in Boston, but not in Montreal.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, when consumers who use MasterCards issued by Royal Trust receive their April 28 bills, it is reported they will find their interest charges increased a full three-quarters of a percentage point. It is reported on May 1 the charges on Visa cards issued by the Royal Bank of Canada will rise to 18.6 per cent-this at a time when not only Canada, but the United States, France, and Japan have cut their interest rates.
If these companies have a good explanation for raising interest charges now when bank and prime rates are falling, let them tell Parliament and the people the reason for that. When the cost of institutional money is coming down why is the cost of consumer credit going up? When inflation has stabilized, why do credit costs have to soar?


INSURANCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, liability insurance is not a luxury, it is a necessity, and yet municipalities, businesses, and individuals, after carrying liability insurance for years, are now "taking a chance" because of the ridiculously exorbitant premiums.
One reason is the trend in Canada toward the high court judgments in the U.S.A., like the one awarded a thief for several thousand dollars when he broke his back committing a felony. Another is the greed of the overseas reinsurers who have made plenty through the years and are now insisting on sky-high premiums. The Canadian insurance industry, including the local agents, is caught in the squeeze.
I know the law of Tort places this matter under provincial jurisdiction, but it is so essential that I believe the federal Government can show leadership by co-ordinating the provincial efforts to provide liability insurance at sensible prices and to endeavour to secure more Canadian owned reinsurers.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers have given good examples of what happens to people in a capitalist free enterprise Conservative system. Perhaps the people of Canada should understand that what is happening to them, with respect to high interest charges and the problems about which the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) spoke, could be changed if only they understood what the Conservative Party really stands for.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It arises out of the U.S. Senate vote tomorrow on the free trade issue.


An Hon. Member:: Here he is.


John Napier Turner: I will then direct my question to the Prime Minister. It seems quite clear that the American administration is negotiating feverishly with key Members of the U.S. Senate prior to the vote tomorrow, if it takes place, on the free trade issue between Canada and the United States. Has the Prime Minister been on the telephone recently with the President of the United States about this issue? What concessions is the U.S. administration planning in order to entice those Senators to vote in favour of the fast track? And would the Prime Minister be good enough to inform the House what those concessions might be?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: There have been no conversations, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: There have been no conversations with the President.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET PREMIERS
John Napier Turner: 1
will change the subject. There have been no conversations between the President of the United States and our Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister be having conversations with his provincial counterparts to establish their position in the talks? Last week, he attacked the provincial premiers on the subject of trade barriers. Does he intend to meet his
April 21, 1986

provincial counterparts personally, and fairly soon, to clarify their situation in the trade talks with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not attack the provincial premiers last week. I invited them to eliminate trade barriers at the national and interprovincial levels.
In fact, I was more or less going back to what Premier Peterson said at the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax, where he stated, and rightly so, that the provinces had an obligation to take the initiative in eliminating trade barriers between the provinces and between individuals here in Canada.
I therefore insisted on this phrase when I asked the provinces to make this unilateral gesture before trade talks with the Americans or at the GATT level. And I think it would be a good thing for the Canadian people.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, because these negotiations are going on behind closed doors between our Government and the United States and the federal Government vis-a-vis the provinces, would the Prime Minister consult with his colleague, the Government House Leader, so that we could have an early full parliamentary debate on the whole state of play with respect to these negotiations with the United States?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will wait for the applause to die down.


An Hon. Member:: The scattered applause.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will talk to the Government House Leader as soon as I see him and put in a word for an Opposition Day on this important subject.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Minister of State for External Affairs. It concerns the fate of six Soviets who defected and who are now prisoners of war in Afghanistan. In October, 1984, the Conservative Government agreed to and authorized a rescue mission which was shamefully bungled and then subsequently cancelled, thus placing their lives in greater jeopardy. Why was this mission allowed to be so mismanaged? And who in the Government, after granting the approval, called the shot to abort the mission?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Hon. Member for his welcome back to the House of Commons. I have seen the news reports in the Montreal Gazette. I will not comment on all of them. I will just talk about the facts. The facts are that the Government of Canada has been working very vigorously, using every national and international instrument at our disposal, to try to come to the aid of those individuals.
If the people cited in the article in the Montreal Gazette have a line of contact we do not have, I would be most pleased to meet with them and see if, in collaboration, we can help those individuals whom they have met to come to freedom.


REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO CANADA
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that in the delay of almost two years in this life and death situation humanitarian concerns have not predominated.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us an assurance today, without further delay, that he will send his officials to Afghanistan armed with ministerial permits, and lift these six courageous men out of that country immediately? A team of reporters has established contact with them; they seek political refugee status in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, like most Members of the House-and I am sure like the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-I wish the world were that simple. It is not. In light of the fact that there appears to have been a contact made by some Canadians, something we were not able to make following all national and international channels, I have said that I would be most pleased, as would my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to meet with those Canadians to see if there is some practical way in which we can act together in the humanitarian cause of bringing them to freedom.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-FORTHCOMING U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE VOTE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply concerned about reports from Washington that President Reagan may promise concessions to the U.S. Senate committee to win his free trade vote tomorrow. My question is for the Prime Minister. In these circumstances of concern why has the Prime Minister not communicated directly with the President to discuss this urgent issue? Why has he not been prepared to put very clearly to the President a message that no concessions must be given that will harm our country?

April 21, 1986
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will take the last part of the Hon. Member's question first. That view was put forward many times and accepted by the President of the United States which is why, as my hon. friend will no doubt acknowledge, the President of the United States said in late March that, as far as his administration was concerned, any talks with Canada would begin without conditions precedent and as a free and clear launch.
With regard to the other question raised by the Hon. Member, for the moment this is an internal American matter. Our position has been made abundantly clear. We will not trade lumber, potatoes or fish against any advantage to secure a vote tomorrow. We are a sovereign nation, and not a bunch of mendicants as the NDP would suggest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we have never made a suggestion of that kind. We have suggested the contrary.
My supplementary question is the following. If we face such a crucial potential vote in the Senate, as we clearly do, why has the Prime Minister not seen fit to get in touch with his American friend, President Reagan, to discuss this issue and to try to reach some conclusion which will satisfy Canadians and avoid concessions which the President himself seems to be talking about, according to reports?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has this thing backwards. Our responsibility is to deal with the administration of the United States which was elected by the people of the United States. That is the one that is in place. We have dealt with it. Beginning on September 26, in this House, we received a response on behalf of the administration by the President of the United States in which he enthusiastically endorsed the notion of negotiations between our two peoples without preconditions, without conditions precedent of any kind-a clean launch. That is clear. That is our responsibility.
It now falls into the domain of the United States and its internal parliamentary system for the President of the United States to secure the appropriate approvals of congressional committees. He is charged, under the Constitution and by custom, with doing that, and that is his responsibility. The administration has responded. We have responded. Now we will see if the United States Senate or members thereof view this trade matter with the same degree of importance as we do.


COMMUNICATIONS WITH U.S. ADMINISTRATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister cannot simply sit back and let this process go on as if it were some kind of merry-go-round that is
unimportant to him, given his commitment to this policy in the past. Why has he not communicated directly with the American administration and made it very clear that concessions that will harm this country cannot be given? Why has there been no direct communication at such a crucial time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, a shadow must have a very difficult time in a fight with my hon. friend. The fact of the matter is that we are not sitting back. We have not done anything that we view as unimportant. We have already made the case. That case was accepted by the President of the United States and the Secretary-


Mr. Orlikow:: But not by the Congress.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If my hon. friend from Winnipeg would allow me to finish, I would be happy to try. Our obligation is not to form a queue in Senators' offices. Members of the NDP are used to that but we will not do that. We are a sovereign nation. We made a deal with the President of the United States and we expect the United States to live up to it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN EMBASSY ACTIONS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister who has just given his own interesting version of the way the U.S. Constitution works. Does the Prime Minister now say that no Canadian officials representing our Government at the Embassy in Washington are to make contact with U.S. Senators or Congressmen? Has he given explicit orders that should be no contact whatsoever between embassy officials and officials of the Congress? Is that what the Prime Minister is now saying?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if you would see a more blatant illustration of distortion and dishonesty than that which has been put forward. I said no such thing. I said that I had not spoken to the President of the United States, but I did not in any way utter any of the distortions mentioned by my hon. friend.


DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has just added a second distortion to his first one. In response to previous questions he said that he did not see any interference by this Government in the affairs of the United States Government. Does that statement that he made in answer to the Leader of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party spokesman mean that there has been no contact whatsoever by Canadian officials or embassy representatives with Members of Congress, or has he once again contradicted himself like he does on a daily basis?
April 21, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this gets progressively more pathetic. The Hon. Member was in Washington last week with his senior colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, in regard to this matter. He knows full well that there is an ongoing operation, occurring every day-


Lloyd Axworthy: So you're interefering in their affairs then? You said you weren't.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If my hon. friend believes that the ongoing operations of the Canadian Embassy in Washington are an interference in the affairs of the United States or the Congress, then he has placed a brand new interpretation on constitutional developments in the United States.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I think he is aware that 72 per cent of Canada's exported softwood lumber goes to the United States where we now hold 35 per cent of the market, and that we have had unhindered free trade in softwood lumber with the United States for the past 40 years. I would like to learn from the Prime Minister whether or not the Government of the United States has requested any specific concessions from Canada on softwood lumber exports in the past two weeks.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Will he give the House his word that no concessions have been given, or will be given on the issue of softwood lumber, to the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman speaks for a Party which is opposed to freer trade with the United States. He is now trying to wrest NDP assurances. They cannot have it both ways. I know the NDP try it every day. They cannot have it both ways; they are opposed to freer trade with the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have indicated in Washington, and in other circumstances, that we will not allow the softwood lumber issue to be made a bargaining chip in these discussions, and that has been made clear.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


RUSSIAN ARMY DEFECTORS IN AFGHANISTAN
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has just finished telling the House that he did everything in his power to expedite the arrival in Canada of the six Russian refugees from Afghanistan. If he has done everything in his power, why is it that last year Canada only accepted as immigrants forty of the four million refugees who have been victimized by the Soviet invasian of Afghanistan?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member with a developing adeptness is changing the subject. The question asked by her colleague earlier had to do with six individuals who are special cases. I think the special nature of those cases is known to the Hon. Member. We have been trying, using literally every instrument available to us, to get in contact with them. If a new way has been found to get in contact with them, certainly I would welcome, as would my colleague Ministers, the cooperation of those Canadians who claim that contact, to see if there is some way in which we can bring those people to freedom.


IMMIGRATION FROM SOVIET BLOC COUNTRIES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe that two reporters from the Kingston Whig-Standard succeeded in making contact last week when the Canadian Government could not. The Government of Pakistan is prepared to co-operate. The Afghan rebels are prepared to co-operate. The only people who are not co-operating are the Canadian Government and the Department of External Affairs. Since the Government has taken power, there has been a reduction in immigration to Canada from every Soviet dominated and East Bloc country. Why has there been this reduction, when he talks about his Government's co-operation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister responsible for immigration that the Hon. Member is wrong as usual and that the levels of immigration are up. With regard to her earlier preamble, she has created facts on the floor of the House of Commons which are not the case. What is germane here is whether or not there has now been discovered by some Canadians an instrument which will allow us to bring those six individuals to freedom. We have not found one yet. If they have found one, we are anxious to work with them, and I invite them to join in consultation with us.

April 21, 1986
Oral Questions TRADE


STEEL EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Would he inform us what action the Government is proposing to take to protect Canadian steel companies, specifically Ipsco, from countervail duties which the U.S. Commerce Department recommended against certain Canadian steel products? As well, will he assure us that the Canadian Government will assist Canadian steel companies in the fight against pending anti-dumping measures in the United States?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Member that I am well aware of the problems which the steel industry is suffering these days, particularly since I have a steel industry in my own riding. We worked very closely with the industry in respect of the recent ruling in the United States. There has yet to be an injury ruling, and it is expected by the end of May. Again we are working closely with the industry in respect of that finding. I can also tell the Hon. Member that, this afternoon, officials of Ipsco are meeting with my officials to discuss these various problems and the upcoming hearings.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Could he assure us that the Canadian Government will in no way cave in to the U.S. interests seeking to tie this issue to any free trade discussion as a precondition?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat what the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I have already said, that there are no preconditions to these talks which we hope to initiate with the United States. That just is not there. We are doing everything we can to assist the steel industry with the difficult problems which it is presently facing.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. At midnight, 1,400 firefighters at airports across the country will go on strike. What emergency measures have been taken by the Minister to ensure that the safety of the travelling public will not be jeopardized by this strike?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, these positions are
designated and it is illegal for them to strike. In the event that there are any disruptions, adequate contingency plans will be in place.


INQUIRY WHY FIREFIGHTERS HAVE NOT HAD WORK CONTRACT FOR LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME
André Ouellet: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What justification does the Minister have for the fact that these firefighters have not had a contract since November 1984, and that apparently, they are being paid about $10,000 less than their counterparts working at municipalities near our airports?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, this is a matter for negotiation between the firefighters' union and the Treasury Board. Those negotiations have been going on, and I would hope they would be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion soon.


THREATENED USE OF SUBSIDIES TO SELL UNITED STATES WHEAT TO SYRIA
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns an important western issue. Late last week the American Government announced that it was prepared to use the huge subsidies in the American Farm Bill to try to promote the sale of 700,000 tonnes of wheat to Syria. Is the Prime Minister aware that, by using the massive subsidies in the U.S. Farm Bill, the Americans are poised to capture a very important traditional wheat market that was enjoyed by Canadian farmers?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will comment on this particular issue because it came up at the OECD meetings last week in Paris. At that time I raised the matter of a potential trade war in the grains markets as a result of actions being taken by the United States and by eastern and western Europe. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I had an opportunity to discuss it with a number of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Finance who were at the meetings. It is a matter which we expressed with a good deal of vigour because we are very concerned about the outcome. It is still early days to see how it might develop in the international discussions, but they are certainly aware of the point of view taken by Canada.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Since
April 21, 1986

the sale would represent the entire Syrian wheat market for one year, I should like to ask the Minister whether he received a commitment from the United States and, if not, what he plans to do about it.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did not raise it in the context of a specific deal but in the context of the broader issue which has arisen as a result of the actions taken by the Americans and by members of the European Community. It was in that context that we raised it at the broad meetings as well as in individual meetings with Ministers.


EFFECT OF LOWER OIL PRICES ON SMALL COMPANIES
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With lower interest rates and falling commodity prices, there is a real risk that two-thirds of our smaller oil companies could be gobbled up by stronger multinational companies which control the other third. Does the Minister share this concern, and will our target of 50 per cent Canadian ownership be in jeopardy?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have indicated before that we share the concern noted by the Hon. Member. We have increased our levels of Canadianization in the oil and gas industry. We have not moved away from our target. Our policies on acquisitions do not allow the acquisition of Canadian companies unless they are in financial distress. I am encouraged by the fact that smaller Canadian companies are going through merger processes and amalgamations themselves to build a stronger base from which to work in the future.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Does the Minister feel that it is in the public interest for Bertrand de la Grange, a journalist, to be prosecuted for showing the inadequacy of the security systems at the airports at Mirabel and Dorval? Doesn't the Minister think that Mr. de la Grange should be given the Order of Canada for finally getting the Minister of Transport to get serious about security?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the allegation is that the person in question violated the law. For whatever reason hardly matters, that would only go to the matter of sentencing. Having allegedly violated the law, surely some action should be taken.


REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROSECUTION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: May I draw the Minister's attention, Mr. Speaker, to Section 508 of the Criminal Code which gives him the authority to stay prosecutions in proper cases. Let me ask the Minister of Justice whether he won't exercise the power he has to stay the prosecution, especially bearing in mind that this investigation was started by the RCMP and turned over afterwards to local police.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has some quite unusual suggestions today. I will consider the Order of Canada recommendation first.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POTENTIAL UNITED STATES WHEAT SALE TO SYRIA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his response to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, the Minister of Finance mentioned that the Government had not specificially raised the potential U.S. wheat sale to Syria. I ask again what is the Government going to do to protect the traditional Canadian market for Canadian wheat going to Syria?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know the matter was raised, but I will be happy to raise it with all of the precision that is required and report to my hon. friend as soon as I can.


CANADIAN POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be confusion between the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister as to whether the issue was raised with regard to the specific deal. The American program was instigated to regain traditional American markets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a preamble. Just a question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: What is the Canadian Government going to do when the Americans are not regaining their traditional markets but are taking our traditional markets?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Minister of Finance made clear he

April 21, 1986
Oral Questions
had registered the disapproval of the Government of Canada with regard to the general issue. I have just undertaken to raise the specific problem within those parameters and will report to the House and my hon. friend.


AGRICULTURE
Brian White: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Farmers Alfalfa Products Limited of Dauphin, Manitoba, a farmers' cooperative that has taken over management of the alfalfa processing plant, has applied for an agreement under the Cooperative Marketing Act to market alfalfa pellets. Can the Minister assure the farmers involved in this new venture that the application is being processed as quickly as possible?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest and his continuing representation on behalf of the producers in his province. I am sure the Member can take some satisfaction from the fact that the ongoing meetings between the particular association and the appropriate officials in my Department are going well.
There are four fairly straightforward criteria that have to be met. The information I have should not create a problem for the association to meet the criteria, and hopefully we will be in a position to give a positive response in the very near future.


INCREASE IN JAPANESE STEEL IMPORTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister knows that the Government's industrial and energy policy is causing the lay-off of 1,500 people at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie and threatens to shut down the mining operations at Wawa.
Why has the Government, in view of this difficulty, allowed the Japanese steel producers to increase their exports of steel tubing to Canada by 300 per cent since last August, and to dump 67,000 tonnes of steel onto the Canadian market? When is the Government going to protect the jobs of Canadian steelworkers?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that the Government is well aware of that problem-


Ian Deans: You are aware of everything.


James Francis Kelleher: -and we have taken action.


Ian Deans: That is better.


James Francis Kelleher: And we are continuing to take action.


Ian Deans: Did they take their steel back?


James Ross Fulton: What did you do, write a memorandum?


James Francis Kelleher: When Hon. Members are prepared to listen, I am prepared to continue, Mr. Speaker.
We have been meeting on a regular basis with the chief executive officers of the steel industry. Indeed our last meeting was two weeks ago. We just received from them this past Friday an indication of the action they would like us to take. We are presently preparing the necessary recommendations. 1 will be discussing those with my colleagues and I hope action will be forthcoming very shortly.


FAST TRACK MONITORING SYSTEM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last July I wrote to the Minister and asked him when he would put in place a fast track monitoring system for steel imports so that Canadian steel producers could take action under the anti-dumping provisions of our law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Maurice Brydon Foster: When is he going to put that fast track system in place?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that is the very thing we are looking at now. We hope to make recommendations in that regard very shortly, which will accomplish what the Hon. Member is requesting.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the great hardship being created for early retirees, particularly ex-Armed Services personnel, in light of the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Will the Minister now accept her responsibility under that Act and rescind that iniquitous change in the Unemployment Insurance Act which came into effect in January, 1986?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the Hon. Member on a number of occasions and to the House, this change in regulations was first announced in November, 1984.
April 21, 1986

There was a year's lead time given for its implementation. It came into effect on January 5, 1986, as the Hon. Member will know. As he also knows, the whole issue has been referred to the Forget Commission to make recommendations to the Government-


David Orlikow: Why was that necessary?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -to look at the question of premiums, who pays them and under what conditions, and we are waiting for those recommendations.


James Ross Fulton: The Forget Commission is not worth a damn.


REFERRAL TO FORGET COMMISSION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell the House why the matter was referred to the Forget Commission after the decision was made to make the change?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the change was announced on November 8, 1984, long before the Forget Commission was set up.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The U.S. Agriculture Secretary, Richard Lyng, stated yesterday, according to The New York Times, that he will be meeting shortly to discuss the current agricultural trade war with European Common Market officials. Will Canadian Ministers be involved in these talks, and will they be asking for changes in the U.S. Farm Bill and the European subsidy program which are so damaging to the Canadian agricultural sector?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to earlier exchanges in the Question Period, and really I do not see much difference in the information contained in the Hon. Member's question from information contained in previous questions either from his own Party or from the New Democratic Party. I think the Member has had the answers from the Minister of Finance. In addition to that, the Prime Minister is very knowledgeable of the situation that exists.
All appropriate means will be taken in the interest of Canadian agriculture. That has been the case with this Government and will continue to be in the future.


POSSIBLE CANADIAN PARTICIPATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this meeting is going to be held in Canada. Will
Oral Questions
Canadian representatives be there, and if so will they be acting to protect our markets, such as the Portuguese market and the Spanish market, particularly in view of the fact they are joining the EEC and there are half a million tonnes of feed grain involved? Will you be there or won't you?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to take the time to examine the record, he will see that Ministers of the Government are always in the appropriate and proper places in the interests of Canadian agriculture-


Don Boudria: Who is Charlie Mayer?


John Wise: -not only here in Canada but, as has been demonstrated very clearly by the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, indeed, the Minister for International Trade, in the international market-place.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment. Recent studies confirm the growing trend of employers to replace full-time jobs with low-paying part-time jobs, and most of these parttime jobs are held by women. Will the Minister personally support extending unemployment insurance to all part-time workers since 44 per cent of these workers are now ineligible and many have families to support?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I know that members of the Press Gallery are aware of the number of new jobs which have been created in Canada since we took office.


Ian Deans: What has that to do with it?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I want to assure Members of the House and others that, of the jobs which have been created in Canada, 79 per cent are full-time jobs. That is what is critical, that 79 per cent of the new jobs in Canada are full-time.
The figures not only show that a tremendous number of fulltime jobs are being created, but also that the trend is improving. In 1980, 29 per cent of the jobs were part-time.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In 1981, 32 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Press Gallery also realizes that the Minister did not answer the question.


WOMEN WORKERS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, will the 21 per cent of workers who are part-time, many of whom are women, be covered by unemployment insurance? What is the Minister going to do about complete unemployment insurance benefits for part-time workers?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member would be standing to say what a benefit she thought it was that, for the first time, training allowances under the programs of CEIC have been extended to part-time workers. This is a tremendous benefit, particularly to women who are the heads of single parent families.


Ian Deans: Will they get unemployment insurance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That certainly is a very good step in the right direction.


POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF UNITED STATES CUSTOMS USER FEES
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is with regard to proposals before the United States Houses for the possible implementation of customs user fees for entrance into the United States. Has the Minister discussed this possibility with American officials? These fees could have a serious adverse impact on trade relations between our nations.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, those matters have been discussed extensively with U.S. officials, most recently by my colleague, the Minister of International Trade. We have made the case that the implementation of the fees proposed would have a disproportionate negative effect upon Canadians. Our ministerial consultations will continue. In addition to that, we have instructed the Embassy in Washington to be in touch with U.S. officials, both to seek a more reasonable fee regime if the law is to be passed, and to seek some guarantees that procedures will be followed which will minimize delays at the border.
April 21, 1986


THE ECONOMY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and is with regard to last week's Conference Board report which confirmed our prediction that the budget tax increases would hurt the economy by reducing consumer spending. Why is the Minister still satisfied with his strategy of taxing away income which would otherwise contribute to economic growth?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member is well aware that the broad strategy of the recent Budget, as well as that of the previous Budget and the economic statement, is to rely to the extent of 70 per cent on expenditure reductions, while tax increases amount to only 30 per cent of the deficit reduction measures. That is the broad strategy which we have followed, and I think it is the proper strategy to be following.


PERSONAL TAX INCREASES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, sales tax and other tax increases will amount to a 27 per cent personal tax increase over the next two years. Will the Minister assure Canadians that he is not going to pile on further personal taxes to deal with the expected shortfall as a result of lost oil revenues?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have addressed this question in the House before. The Member is correct that there will be a reduction in direct revenues in the energy industry. However, there is also an offset with the reduction of interest rates which is taking place which will reduce our interest costs. There is a balance between these two items and I, therefore, do not see that there is any reason for us to address this question.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Due to the takeover of Hiram Walker by Gulf, Canadians will once again be watching as more and more control of the Canadian economy falls into the hands of seven families. Does the Minister think it is right for a country like Canada to have so much of its economic power concentrated in the hands of seven families?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.


Mr. Blaikie:: It was for the Minister of Finance. He was listening. Why doesn't he answer?
April 21, 1986


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague was obviously having a private conversation with his seatmate. The specific question put to me by the Hon. Member is not within my realm of responsibility. I think the Hon. Member realizes that.


EFFECT OF OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs explain to the House the benefit which accrues to Canadians when so much of the Canadian economy is held by seven families in Canada?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, last December we tabled a number of amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, providing mechanisms that will enable the Director to examine the kind of transactions mentioned by my hon. colleague.
Oral Questions
Minister in Ottawa last December: "I do not preclude alterations in the Auto Pact as a result of comprehensive negotiations"? Why will the Minister not say clearly and unequivocally today that he does preclude such alterations, and that the Auto Pact will not be on the table in any comprehensive trade negotiations with the United States? Does he not realize that by his equivocation and silence he is telling the country he intends that the pact be on the table?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a selective memory. When Mr. Yeutter was here he went on to say that, in his opinion, the Auto Pact was working very well for both countries and he did not have any intention of putting it on the table. People should remember that. I replied at the time that the Auto Pact was indeed working very well for both countries. If something is working well, you do not try to fix it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT INQUIRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade. Last Friday it was revealed that a study on the Auto Pact prepared for the Government by a firm of consultants concluded that any alterations in the pact through comprehensive trade negotiations with the United States would threaten Canadian jobs and undermine the pact. Will the Minister say right here and now, clearly and unequivocally, that he accepts the findings of that study, and that, under no circumstances, will the Auto Pact be on the table in comprehensive trade discussions with the United States?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, in order to prepare for these discussions we have commissioned a number of reports. As a matter of fact, we made public the fact that the report has been obtained. It contains the opinion of the writer. The Government has not acted on that report. When our negotiating position has been confirmed, we will act in a manner which is consistent with, and in the best interests of, all Canadians.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, did American special trade representative Yeutter not tell the


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
SALE OF HIRAM WALKER TO OLYMPIA & YORK-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Two days from now, it seems Olympia & York will buy Hiram Walker. Since these two big corporations have enormous investments in the energy sector, could the Minister give the House the assurance that either he or his senior officials have already examined the takeover plan and concluded that the transaction will not have an undesirable impact on the energy sector?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is too long. [Translation]


Michel Côté: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes, the Director is aware of the proposed takeover, and it is his responsibility to examine the impact on competition such a transaction will have. That is what he intends to do, and if he has any reason to believe that the law has been infringed, he will of course start an investigation.
12480

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity


POINTS OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
1 MASCO STATUS-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) gave me notice that she wished to raise a point of order.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday, April 18, in response to a question from the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), I may have unintentionally mislead the House. I thank him for bringing it to my attention privately.
At that time I stated that Imasco was classified as a Canadian company under FIRA and Investment Canada. I would like to say for the record that Imasco is deemed to have Canadian status under Investment Canada but no similar status had been granted by FIRA.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: On Friday last, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) raised the question of the application of Standing Order 99(2) and alleged that the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) had not met the requirements of the Standing Orders in not providing a comprehensive response to the fifth and sixth reports of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
The Chair has had the opportunity to review the responses of the Minister which were filed with the Clerk of the House on March 7, 1986 and April 18, 1986. The Hon. Member for Spadina and other Hon. Members will understand that the Chair would be in a very difficult position were it to be called upon to rule on the quality of Government responses, as it is in similar difficulty ruling on the quality of questions or answers during Question Period. The Hon. Member for Spadina is certainly entitled to disagree with the responses, if that is his view, and he has other options and procedures available to him if he chooses.
As far as the Chair is concerned, the terms of Standing Order 99(2) have been met in this case and the Chair ought not to intervene, except on the strictest procedural grounds.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration), that Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed; and on the amendment (Ms. Copps) (p. 12465).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is as follows-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is now in some difficulty.


William Warren Allmand: There was a lot of noise and I thought the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) still had the floor. I know there were other people who wanted to speak on this amendment, and if they won't, I will.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the House knows that the Chair is always in difficulty right after Question Period because there is a lot of noise. This would be a good time to remind the House that the whole procedure would be simplified if the House came to order as quickly as possible after Question Period. Under the circumstances, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) on debate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to have the floor again so quickly but I will be glad to speak.
Since I spoke this morning on the principal motion for third reading, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) made an amendment to send the Bill back to a legislative committee for reconsideration of Clause 3, Clause 5 and Clause 7 of the Bill. While most clauses of the Bill are important, those three are the key to the enforcement of affirmative action and employment equity. Furthermore, among those three clauses I suggest that Clause 7 is the most important.
As it now stands, Clause 7 provides for a penalty of $50,000 to employers who fail to report pursuant to Clause 6 of the Bill. That, in effect, amounts to no penalty whatsoever for those who do not make progress on the implementation of employment equity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I am trying to hear the Hon. Member's speech. Thank you.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, Clause 7 of the Bill applies a penalty only to those who fail to report to the Minister. They are simply required to report on the composition of their labour force with respect to the designated groups.
That Clause does not apply any penalty to those who do not comply with Clause 4 or Clause 5 of the Bill. Those two clauses are of more importance to the advancement of employment equity.
Clause 4 is an integral part of the Bill because it requires employers to implement employment equity through several proposed means. While it obliges employers to do something about employment equity, it provides for no penalty if no action is taken.
April 21, 1986

Clause 5 was included in the Bill since the committee stage. It requires employers to prepare action plans with goals and timetables for employment equity. However, if action plans are not prepared as required by Clause 5, there is no penalty.
During the committee stage, and the report stage in the House, we attempted to amend Clause 7 so that the sanction in that clause would not only apply to those employers who failed to comply with Clause 6, but also to those who failed to comply with Clause 4 and Clause 5. If that penalty clause applied to employers who failed to comply with Clauses 4, 5 and 6, then I believe this would be a Bill of substance that would be enforceable and meaningful to the target groups. Therefore, my colleague from Hamilton East moved that the Bill be sent back to committee for reconsideration of Clause 7 so that witnesses would again have a chance to convince the Government that this clause should apply to Clauses 4 and 5 as well as Clause 6. One continues to hope that such steps will be taken.
The Hon. Member also moved that the Bill be returned to committee for reconsideration of Clause 3 and Clause 5.
Clause 3 is a definition section of the Bill. It defines an employer as one who has 100 or more employees. We have argued time and again that that floor level of 100 employees is too high because it excludes many federally regulated Canadian firms with less than 100 employees.
I pointed out this morning that affirmative action legislation in the United States includes all firms with 15 or more employees. I tried to amend this Bill in committee so as to reduce the level of 100 employees to 25 employees, thereby not even going as far as the American legislation. Witnesses before the committee suggested that 25 employees was a reasonable number on which to make a judgment on affirmative action or employment equity. However, the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary would not listen to any arguments and insisted on keeping the level at 100 employees.
As a matter of fact, that stipulation is not even consistent with our Canadian labour legislation because the Canada Labour Code defines an employer as one with five or more employees. We believe it is unacceptable that the definition would suddenly jump to 100 employees according to this Bill. If the Bill is sent back to committee, we hope that witnesses representing the target groups and others will convince the Government that 100 is too high. The other part of Clause 3 which requires amendment, and which we have been trying to amend, is that part of Clause 3 which exempts federal Government employees from coverage under the legislation. Again, we have argued that Treasury Board guidelines are not enough. If we are to have legislation covering the business sector with respect to affirmative action employment equity, then we should at least have that same legislation cover federal government employees. It is inconsistent and illogical to lay legislation on the private sector, but to exempt the Government sector and allow it to be covered by guidelines and orders-in-council which can be changed at any time without notice and without reference to the House of Commons.
Employment Equity
The reason for referring back to Clause 5 of the legislation is that Clause 5 is a new clause which was agreed to in committee, and it shows that the Government from time to time will listen to argument and will accept amendments that are proposed. I suppose on that occasion they were intently listening and saw the good sense in the arguments that were put forward. They accepted an amendment to require employers to prepare action plans with goals and targets for employment equity. That was good, but then they added a second subsection to that new Clause 5 which said that those new action plans should be kept at the head office of the employer, wherever that may be in Canada, and should be kept there for three years. In other words, there was no obligation to communicate those action plans on targets and goals to the employees of the firms, to the target groups; the disabled, the native people, the women's groups and the visible minorities. There was no obligation to inform these employees of the action plans, and there was no obligation to forward the action plan to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is supposed to have some responsibility in enforcing this legislation.
We have already tried to knock out that subsection which says that the action plan should be kept at the head office of the employer, wherever that may be in Canada, and to replace it with a section which would say that the action plan should be communicated to the employees of the firms in question, to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and to the representatives of the designated groups which are to be assisted by this legislation.
I spent a good deal of time this morning explaining why not only I and members of my Party thought this legislation was inadequate, but why it was felt to be inadequate by a large number of associations which appeared before the parliamentary committee. They all said this legislation was unacceptable unless there were some substantial amendments made to it. Those amendments have not been made. The legislation is still more rhetoric than action oriented. It will not effectively put into place mandatory employment equity programs. It will not do the job. Every independent group that has looked at it says the same thing.
The Minister this morning said that what she wanted was action and that this legislation represented action. Nobody believes her when she says that. If she would do a few simple things with the legislation then she might gain some credibility, but not by simply saying that this legislation will do this, and will do that, because when you look at the provisions of the Bill you see that that is not the case. Maybe she believes that nobody reads the Bill, that they are simply going to listen to her speeches and those of her colleagues, that they will believe her when she says this Bill brings about enforceable employment equity. It does not do that. It requires further amendment.
I wish the Government would, for once, listen, not only to the Members of this House, but to the members of the public

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
who represent those designated groups, and allow the Bill to be sent back to committee for further examination of those clauses. I am sure if the Government allowed the Bill to be sent back where the committee could hear further witnesses on this subject, the committee would have the opportunity to make some very key amendments to those sections to which I referred, and we would then end up with a much better Bill, one of which we in this House could all be proud.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: May I ask the previous speaker, in consideration of the amendment that was introduced by the Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), to indicate why Clause 4 is excluded from the amendment for reference to committee. Surely it is clear that both Clauses 4 and 5 together constitute the action plan, because one consists of the process, that is Clause 4, and Clause 5 describes the definition of goals that are necessary in order for the process to be successful. Let me repeat the question. May we have an explanation of why Clause 4 was not included in the reference?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member at the end of his remarks meant to ask why Clause 4 is not included in the reference. He makes a good point. Clause 4 is an extremely important clause in the Bill, but we were advised that if we were to put a reasoned amendment before the House we could not refer the entire Bill back to committee, so we picked out what we believed to be three important clauses. I would have no objection to including Clause 4, as it is also an important clause.
I wanted to concentrate attention on several issues at this time. It is possible that if the Government rejects this amendment to refer Clauses 3, 5 and 7, we might then try with Clause 4. If somebody else in the House wants to amend my amendment to include Clause 4 I have no objection.
I agree with the Hon. Member that Clause 4 is a key clause of this Bill. It would be the guts of the Bill if there was a penalty that applied if you did not do what is covered in Clause 4. Unfortunately Clause 4 lays places a number of obligations on employers to implement employment equity. It states that they should do certain things, but if they do not do one of those things there is no penalty. The Hon. Member is correct in what he said. He makes good sense. We picked out three clauses at this time to refer back to the committee, but one could pick others as well, in particular, Clause 4.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: May I further ask the Hon. Member, in reference to the exclusion of the federal Departments from the Bill, if he would reflect on the need for the inclusion of the federal public service in view of his knowledge of the record of the public service with respect to affirmative action for women, visible minorities, the disabled and the native people. Does he believe that the record of the federal Government so far justifies omitting them from the legislation on the basis that
they will continue, if they ever had done so, to implement affirmative action within the public service?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that the Member for Hamilton East included Clause 3 in the amendment to refer the Bill back to committee was that Clause 3 deals with definitions including who or what is an employer. Since that clause now exempts federal public servants we would like to see it amended to include them, not exempt them. We tried to put through an amendment in committee to do that. We tried to put through an amendment in this House at report stage. On both occasions Members of the Government voted down those amendments so that the Bill still exempts federal public servants.
We started a few years ago on employment equity with guidelines or directives under the Treasury Board. That was a good start, but it was before we had entrenched provisions in the Constitution with respect to equality rights and affirmative action. It was before the Abella report which says we should have legislation for both the public sector and the private sector. We agree with that. We feel it was good to start the way we did, but it is not enough. Now is the time for legislation and it should apply to the public sector as well as to the private sector.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the comments by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I listened with interest this morning to the Minister as she told us what the process of reporting would be. If I understood her clearly, she is going to wait until the profile of a company in question is established by census, instead of in the regions where the profile should be made in order to ensure that the company's program or plan will remove the barriers to employment equity. Of course, that kind of employment equity will be assured and promoted by the company in question.
I want to ask the Hon. Member about the reference made this morning by the Minister to the census. In his opinion, is that sufficient to justify the Government calling this Bill the "Employment Equity" Bill? Is that not a confirmation that it is indeed a smoke and mirror game the Government is playing, by telling us that it would like to see an employment equity reporting act, but when it comes to encouraging or making sure within the next year that there is equity in employment, we will have to wait an awfully long time, for the next census, when the profiles will be available in order to compare what the companies are proposing to do, and what they are reporting to be able to do, with what they should be doing according to census figures?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a smoke and mirrors Bill for many reasons, not just the reason suggested by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). If the Minister thinks that she will be able to do something about employment equity on the basis of the census which is done
April 21, 1986

every 10 years, she will not be able to do very much. On that basis, it is my hope that the information requested under Clause 6 will be of more help and will supplement information gathered by the census. Clause 6 states:
On or before June 1, 1988 and on or before June 1 of each year thereafter, every employer shall file with the Minister a report in respect of-
And then it refers to the Subclauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) under which information is requested from the employers.
That is all very well and good, but even if they do that the Bill is still a phony Bill as far as enforceable affirmative action is concerned because there is no penalty to be levied against employers if they do not comply with Clause 4 and Clause 5. Clause 4 is the clause which requires employers to implement employment equity and Clause 5 requires employers to set out an action plan with goals, targets and timetables. If the employers do not comply with Clause 4 and Clause 5, nothing happens to them. On the other hand, if they do not send in their reports under Clause 6 they are subject to a penalty, but that does not do anything but provide information to the public.
The reason this legislation is not a mandatory Employment Equity Bill but a voluntary one, I suppose, is because the Minister hopes that by collecting this information and making it public the great court of public opinion will put pressure on these companies to move ahead with employment equity. However, Judge Abella pointed out very clearly that voluntary affirmative action does not work, nor does voluntary employment equity. We need a Bill with teeth. We need legislation with sanctions for those who do not go ahead with employment equity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions or comments has now terminated. Debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we have heard again this morning the high flying rhetoric that this Bill will achieve equality in the workplace, as indicated in its stated purpose. There has already been an amendment which would have made the Bill somewhat more honest, but it was defeated. It would have described the legislation as one which has as its purpose the promotion of equality in the workplace. I do not know why it is necessary in the waning hours of the debate for the Minister to insist that the Bill does what it makes no attempt to do, and that it will bring forth results. Women, the disabled, the minorities and native people were promised an employment equity Bill. What they have received is a Bill of goods. It might just as well have been written in invisible ink or in the sand for all the good it will do in response to the needs of the people this legislation is suppose to serve.
I speculated previously as to whether this Bill is a result of stupidity or trickery. Perhaps it is as a result of a rather elaborate oversight. Let us hope it is the result of an oversight because the Government then has a chance to reconsider.
Employment Equity
The purpose of the amendment under debate is to refer the Bill back to committee for a specific examination of Clauses 3, 5 and 7. Of course, these are the Clauses which go to the very heart of the issue, whether we are going to have a voluntary employment equity act with mandatory reporting, or a true mandatory employment equity act with sanctions if employment equity is not implemented through processes aimed at achieving specified goals with specified timetables.
Clause 7 of the Bill requires only that the Government count the minorities, and count them twice, to find out which corporations are naughty or nice. That is not good enough. What we would ask is that Clause 7 be made to apply not only to Clause 6, but to Clauses 4 and 5 as well, and that the penalty apply. In other words, that it be mandatory and there be a penalty for failure to report on the demands set out in Clauses 4, 5 and 6. Let us examine those clauses.
Clause 4 requires that an employer shall, in consultation with employee representatives, develop a process for correcting employment inequities. It requires that a significant part of affirmative action be implemented. That is to say it requires that processes, structures and systems be developed by which the imbalances of employment will be corrected. There are two interesting things about Clause 4. The first is that there is no reference in it to any requirement in any context for consultation with members of the designated groups who, obviously, have a significant interest in the processes which are to be used. Their interest is not only with respect to correcting imbalances in the distribution of minority employee groups within the corporation or company, but also with respect to hiring patterns. If that were not enough of an omission to constitute a serious flaw, there is also a process which the employer is supposed to develop in this consultative process which just disappears. No one is required to know anything about it-not the designated groups, not those who were consulted and not those who are responsible for hiring and promotion practices. I do not know what is thought will come from Clause 4 if a process is developed and no one knows anything about it.
Matters become worse if one looks to Clause 5. It is reasonable that there should be goals and timetables. This has been repeated over and over again. I have already alluded to the peculiar nature of the Bill in respect to the separation of the process from the goal. Be that as it may, we have here a provision which, for all intents and purposes, ensures that the goals and timetables to which the processes are supposed to be directed will themselves be kept secret. They will be kept from those who have the greatest concern about them. Surely, Clause 7 should apply to Clauses 4 and 5 if we are to have a piece of legislation which can be truly described as an employment equity Bill. I see the Parliamentary Secretary fighting off an affirmative nod simply because I am sure that in the face of Party discipline, however misguided that may be, common sense prevails and has a tendency to make the muscles react even against one's will power.

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
Let us now look at Clause 3. Clause 3 is at the beginning of the Bill and shows where the Government began to run into difficulty. First, there is the fact that this legislation will apply only to employers who employ more than 100 employees. Others have already spoken in strong affirmation of the necessity to lower this number. They have referred to the pattern in the United States. They have referred to other sorts of legislation, not specifically dealing with the subject of employment equity, but other labour legislation which provides that employers with far fewer employees be subject to certain types of regulations and legislation.
There may be disagreement about what specific number should be chosen. However, it should be clear that in choosing the number 100 there is a deliberate effort to exclude the vast majority of employers who have any prospect of hiring significant numbers of employees these days. It really is not enough to say to women, members of visible minorities, the disabled and native people: "We will do the best we can, but we are not going to do that with very many employers in so far as benefiting you is concerned". Surely, if the Bill were to go back to committee, common sense would prevail and the number would be lowered to a reasonable one, perhaps to around 15 or 20, which constitutes the number of employees involving the vast majority of employers about whom we should now be concerned.
Perhaps the most unacceptable omission from Clause 3 is the omission with respect to the federal Public Service. Others have spoken about the discrimination involved in which this employer is excluded from the legislation because, of course, it has the power to exclude itsself from it. At the same time it demands that other employers adhere to the requirement of the legislation, however inadequate those provisions may be.
If one believes that the federal Public Service has become nirvana for visible minorities, women, native people and the disabled, then one should consider the record. We have already alluded to the sorry record with respect to women when now even more women as compared to a decade ago are in the lower income groups, and even more women are in clerical positions. We have heard about the fact that however few disabled are employed by the federal Government, some 75 per cent of them are on contract and can be dismissed with ease. We are very familiar with the sorry record of the federal Government with respect to the employment of native people, except under circumstances in which the demands are clear and unequivocal. However, we have not heard a great deal about the federal Government's record with respect to visible minorities. I would remind Hon. Members that until a few years ago visible minorities were not even mentioned by the federal Government in any context with respect to affirmative action. The Government is cutting back on the civil service. It is retrenching and getting rid of its employees. What is going on?
The record of the federal Public Service with respect to the visible minorities is well documented in correspondence to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from the Caucus for the
Recognition and Improvement of Blacks. This is a group of federal civil servants whose members are from the visible minorities. I remind Hon. Members that on February 27 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) corresponded with Members of this House, and others, with respect to the record of the federal Government concerning affirmative action. Even then the situation with respect to visible minorities was somehow ignored. Somehow they were forgotten. However, there are ways in which they are not being forgotten, as is documented by the Caucus for the Recognition and Improvement of Blacks. They are now being laid off in far greater numbers and proportion than other employees of the Public Service. We now have a trend which has been noticed in the latest exercise where people have been suddenly dropped in the ratings. This is being disproportionately applied to members of the visible minorities. The author of this correspondence states:
-there is a perception that there has also been a concentrated effort to weed out members of this Black and visible minority group who have been outspoken and articulate in fighting cases of discrimination against them.
I have in my hand page after page of documentation which sets out complaints about the record of the federal Government with respect to the treatment of visible minorities. And yet the Government would exclude the federal Public Service from this legislation.
This Bill should go back to committee so that it can be made into a Bill rather than a bill of goods. This Bill should go back to committee so that it will provide for mandatory affirmative action. Let us stop playing this game in which the Minister smirks, because it is a smirk that can be misunderstood. One may think the Minister is smirking in pride over what has been accomplished through this legislation, but the contrary is true. That smirk indicates the feeling any salesman has when he sells a bill of goods to someone who does not know what he is getting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, we shall resume debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this could have been an historic day for the House of Commons. It could have been a day on which we would Finally deal with a major piece of legislation dealing with the problems of equality for all those who have suffered disadvantage and discrimination. However, it is not. It is a side-track, a slipstream and an evasion of responsibility.
I do not use those words lightly. Like many Members of Parliament, I have seen over the years a series of efforts designed to make progress in the workplace of Canada, the fundamental basis for economic and social equality. The opportunity for an equal chance in the market-place is the fundamental premise of any efforts to achieve a broader system of equity and fairness.
April 21, 1986

Unfortunately, this Bill speaks of a broad pattern of retreat on the part of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). During the time I held her portfolio, I recall that she would rise to her feet while in opposition to make strong and sometimes eloquent claims on behalf of women, visible minorities and all those who were facing disadvantage or discrimination. She spoke of what she and her colleagues would do if and when they formed a Government. Well, they have formed a Government. Let us look at the record of the Government over the past two years.
We are all aware of the incredibly harsh and severe decision that was made regarding unemployment insurance benefits as they affect pension privileges. We are aware of the distortion that this has caused in the market-place. It is offsetting any opportunities for early retirement. We have seen what happened with the so-called Jobs Strategy. All of the special programs designed to help women receive training opportunities and to help the handicapped receive special access to the workplace have now been eliminated and cancelled. Under the Summer Jobs Program and the Canada Works Program, it used to be a requirement that every person proposing a project table an affirmative action plan. That has now been cancelled. In the past, the federal Government's own job-creation activities required the private, community and voluntary sectors to recognize inequities. Those requirements have all been wiped away.
Perhaps the greatest retreat we have seen is on the question of employment equity. That is mainly because the Minister has broken the momentum. Even earlier than 1980, the Bird Commission first identified these problems. During that period of time, there was a growing consciousness and awareness that the problems of inequality in the workplace were not necessarily a matter of overt bigotry or discrimination but were part of an entrenched system that had been around for hundreds of years. It was part of a whole set of precedents, an evolutionary process that allowed over the years certain practices in the workplace. Foremen would hire their nephews and not their nieces, there was apprehension at seeing someone in a wheelchair. There was no recognition of the need for remedial training for those with certain cultural backgrounds. By the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s, those things were recognized. The question was what to do about them.
I can recall very vividly taking over a Department in which there was a voluntary affirmative action program. We were providing resources and assistance to the private sector to work out affirmative action plans. It became quite clear that that did not work. At one point in 1980, only 35 or 40 contracts were signed. We had to ask ourselves why this was so.
At the time, I met with a number of private-sector organizations and asked what it was that prevented them from carrying on with voluntary affirmative action. They recognized the problem but I wondered what it was that was stopping them from doing anything about it. It came down to a fundamentally human problem. They said that they did not practise affirmative action because it was too costly, and unless their
Employment Equity
competitors were also required to practise it, they would be at a disadvantage. Many employers told me that even though they would like to do it and were prepared to do it, unless they were required to do it they would not do it. This goes back to some pretty basic matters of political philosophy. There are times when the Government, representing the public interest of all of Canada, must take action because we cannot expect the individual business person to provide solutions to basic fundamental social problems. It is not their responsibility.
The answer came to us and it was very clear. The only way the system would work is if all employers were required to begin following affirmative action plans. The private sector asked how this should be done. Businessmen wondered what would be the best way of applying affirmative action. They said very clearly that the federal Government must take the lead by showing them the best system. We began to do it.
In 1980, we introduced a trial program in three Departments of the federal Public Service. We tested out a complete and comprehensive affirmative action requirement on three key Departments. Once we began to see the success of that program, we then issused an Order in Council which required that it be undertaken in the entire Public Service of Canada. Those steps were an important prelude to what I think was the next most important step taken, and that was the establishment of the Abella Commission.
The terms of reference of the Abella Commission were crucial. It was not just another study or inquiry. The mandate of the Abella Commission was that it was to come up with a working formula that would apply to all activities under federal jurisdiction. I consider that to be one of the most important decisions, made by the Cabinet while I was the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We were fortunate in getting someone of the calibre of Judge Abella to preside, and the mandate was set to provide an opening for a major extension based upon the previous activities that had been undertaken. Momentum had been created step by step.
Private employers could no longer use the excuse that affirmative action did not work, because we showed that it could work in the Public Service. They asked us for an example, and we gave it to them. Then we took the next major step by appointing the Abella Commission and we asked Judge Abella to talk to those in the corporate sector and return to us with a working formula.
We know that her report was a major milestone and it indicated very clearly what had been developing up to that point in time. It said that if we wanted to eradicate systemic discrimination in the workplace, we would have to apply a program that was comprehensive and non-discriminatory and all employers would be required to put it in place. That was the clear logic and compelling message of Judge Abella.
The Government which assumed office in 1984 had that momentum upon which to build. It had the series of successive

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
steps which had been taken. We know that on occasion exchanges of a somewhat bipartisan nature are made across the floor of the House, but that is not an excuse for distorting the truth, which is what the Minister of Employment and Immigration did three days ago in the House. In response to a question by my colleague from Toronto, she said that the previous Government had done nothing at all. That is not the way to approach a matter as crucial as this one. She should have properly recognized the past history and development which had occurred, as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She should have indicated that very important steps have been taken. This Bill could have been a capstone to pull together all those elements. Instead, it is a retreat, a withdrawal, or a side-step. She is directly responsible for having broken the momentum. When will we get a chance again? Some people will say that the legislation is now in place, but I believe that the forward movement or the sense of forward progress has been rechannelled. We are really reverting back to what we had in the 1970s and 1980s. In effect, it is voluntary and up to the good intentions of individual employers to make it work. How can they revert to something that has already been proven not to work? Why do they ignore history?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They make the same mistakes as the Liberals.


Lloyd Axworthy: That indicates the stupidity of the NDP on matters such as this one; we both believe in the same thing and yet they make silly remarks.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Why only three Departments?


Lloyd Axworthy: I just explained that. It is too bad the Hon. Member does not listen; it is unfortunate that she does not listen.
I am making a speech in the House because I believe deeply in what we are trying to accomplish. We were making progress. We knew what we had to face. There was strong opposition in the private sector. We had to show that they could work. We had to give the private sector a demonstration, and we have succeeded in doing that. We had to build up a consensus and show that progress was being made.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: And back away from mandatory.


Lloyd Axworthy: I realize that members of the NDP and the Conservative Party do not believe in developing that kind of practical common sense. I point out to the Hon. Member that some of her colleagues in the provinces have been less than progressive. I recall attending a meeting of provincial Premiers, including Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Pawley, and saying that we wanted to talk about how to put affirmative action across the board in provincial sectors. Guess who opposed it at that time, Mr. Speaker.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not the NDP.


Lloyd Axworthy: Members of the provincial Government which she supports, because they were not interested in making that kind of progress.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not the NDP-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There will be time for questions and comments after the Hon. Member finishes his speech. I should like to hear what he has to say. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has the floor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your willingness to listen to this important debate. I am glad someone is prepared to listen. Certain members of the NDP have forgotten long ago how important listening is.
At this point in time there is a willingness in the country to accept a change. I believe the business community has been sufficiently softened up.


Mr. Kilgour:: Tell us about it.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will tell the Hon. Member about it. I have spent a lot of time working with that community on it. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is allowing the editorials in the Edmonton Journal to go to his head. The fact is that we had acquired and obtained a recognition or an agreement on what choices and decisions should be made. When the Bill was ready to be brought forward, a consensus was in place. However, the Government stepped away from that consensus and fragmented that agreement.
I should like to return to the debate of the Minister of Employment and Immigration on second reading. She said that it was just a start and that we should come to committee with amendments. She said that she was open, prepared to make changes, and wanted to listen to the groups. We have heard what the groups indicated before the committee. They repeated what was indicated by the Abella Commission, that we required a comprehensive, univerally applied program at least within the federal jurisdiction. However, that was ignored. Therefore, any pretext that this will somehow further eliminate or reduce systemic discrimination in the country is a falsehood. It will not work.
Aside from the individual cases of frustration and sense of alienation which many people in the workplace now feel, we will also lose an incredible amount of talent. We will be losing the abilities which people could have put in place had they been given the opportunities that a real affirmative action program would have provided.
In my region of western Canada 30 per cent of all new workers coming into the labour market will be people of native Canadian origin, yet they face the most serious detriments by far to obtaining equal opportunities in the workplace. The talents and abilities which they could bring in terms of new jobs and occupations will be lost. As was the case in the past, they will be pushed to the margin. There will be speeches by various Conservative Members of Parliament, such as the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann), saying
April 21, 1986

that it was their own fault, as he was wont to say in publications a few weeks ago, for which I gather he is now in front of the courts. He put the responsibility on them, not on the fact that there was systemic discrimination in the system which did not provide education or eliminate discriminatory practices in the workplace. We will lose those talents. Similarly, within the federal Public Service the incredible experience built up by many people in the clerical ranks, which could have been applied to management and supervision if the doors were open and support had been given, will also be lost.
In other words, we are guilty of considering today at final reading stage a Bill which does nothing to open the door to the full talents and abilities of Canadians. We are still saying to over a third of Canadians that we really do not need them or want them in the workplace. If we want them, it is only in a marginal way. The real message in the Bill is that we will maintain a closed system and only allow them into the cracks and crevices, not into the mainstream. That is the problem in relation to the Bill on employment equity. It does not really meet the problem or target the real requirements so that the country will make use of every Canadian regardless of sex, handicap, or which cultural minority they come from. We need those people and their talents and abilities. We also need to ensure that we have a piece of legislation which keeps open the door and provides the incentive and support to make it happen. Instead, we are reverting, retreating or withdrawing back to a previous age and a previous set of concepts and notions. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will tackle the problems one on one. Some companies will put information in front of everybody, and many will say that we must rely upon the court of public opinion, which has a fat chance of working.
I can only rise and say that this debate has been an incredibly frustrating and disappointing process. I only hope that a lesson has been learned, and that lesson is that if we are to do a job, let us do it properly and effectively. In particular, I wish the Minister of Employment and Immigration would read what she was saying four years ago so that when she is in opposition a few years from now she will support a brand new employment equity Bill that we will bring in that will really work.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised to hear the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) indicate that New Democrats and Liberals believe the same thing. I am sure that is true from odd week to odd week. I am sure that on this issue what he says does represent in substance the true state of affairs and that it is a fact, in the present context, that only the Conservatives are dissenting from the point of view that an employment equity Bill ought to be mandatory with respect to the achievement of certain goals after the implementation of certain processes and that this should be included in the Bill.
The Member said that a momentum was developed during the course of previous Governments which has been somehow
Employment Equity
interrupted as a result of Bill C-62 which really fails to provide very much progress over the past. There are few in the House who would not recognize that in general with respect to women, the disabled and native people, such a momentum was developed.
Having taken credit for the development of that kind of momentum with respect to those three designated groups, surely the Member is aware that from 1968 onward the visible minority group representatives of this country asked the previous Government to implement affirmative action programs for minority groups in the federal Public Service. With the exception of Nova Scotia, no such program was implemented. There was a consistent denial of the concerns and needs of visible minority groups with respect to employment in the federal Public Service. Certainly they were not given the kind of attention that was needed in fostering employment equity. It was directed toward women and others among the designated groups.
Will the Member admit, at least in this respect, that the new Government has taken a step forward, even if it is only to mention a group that at times many of us thought were not sufficiently mentioned in the past? Perhaps he can explain and accord us some understanding of that policy and why that was the case. Why were the visible minorities excluded from a deliberate program of affirmative action in the Public Service by the previous Government?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question. When we were introducing the changes through the Treasury Board in 1980, first on the trial program and then when we applied it to the entire Public Service, as I recall the discussions with the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board, certain questions were related to the way in which the Public Service Act itself read. Because of the merit system principle that was put in the legislation, the question of visible minority status was not recorded. Matters of sex, male and female, were, but it was not a requirement when someone made application or that they be designated on their file as a "visible minority". That was the rationale at the time.
It seemed to me after looking at the rationale for a period of about 18 months or two years that it was not acceptable. I would remind the Hon. Member that when we established the Abella Commission, visible minorities were part of the terms of reference. It was the first major recognition of the importance of affirmative action for that group.
I can recall having discussions with a gentleman, whom the Hon. Member probably knows, Tom Sosa, who at that time was Chairperson of the Advisory Committee for the Department of Employment and Immigration. He made recommendations to me about the establishment of this commission, which clearly emphasized the importance of having visible minorities as part of it, and they were included in the terms of reference of the Abella Commission.
The Abella Commission itself was not another royal commission or a study or an inquiry, its mandate was different.

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
Its mandate was to arrive at a working formula for the application. The Abella Commission, which was established by our Government, clearly had within it the requirements that visible minorities be incorporated as part of any affirmative action program that would be introduced.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member inform the House whether, at the time he stepped down from his ministerial duties, there were statistics on each of the four groups mentioned in the Bill, that is, on the labour force participation rate of each group?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as you know, under the kind of program we introduced into the Public Service and elsewhere, each Department was required to do a measurement of the employment levels within its own Department relating to women, the handicapped, and visible minorities. Departments said they could not take those particular figures at the time and relate them back to the availability of employees or workers in a category in the general workforce on a city-bycity, region-by-region basis, so in this case there was a wide variety of figures. To use an example, if someone pointed out that the Department of National Revenue was going to hire 100 accountants in the City of Ottawa, and it was clear that in the workforce available at that time 20 per cent were women and they were hiring only 5 per cent, clearly there was a fundamental problem in hiring practices that had to be recorded and eliminated and brought to the attention of Ministers. I do not have offhand the exact figures Department by Department or sector by sector, but it was the responsibility under those affirmative action mandates for each Department to develop those figures and to produce them on an annual basis, at which time one could judge the effectiveness or efficiency to which they were actually measuring up to the availability of the designated target groups in the workforce in the region in which they were working.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, just before the Conservative Government came into office the Liberal Party had been in office a good number of years. Yet we find today that there are very few women in senior positions in the Public Service. There is a failure to use contract compliance as it affects the private sector and women are seeking equality in the workplace in the private sector, so how can the Member criticize the Conservatives, who deserve to be criticized on the basis of the legislation, for their lack of action with any real credibility? How does he expect us to believe the protestations of his party when his own Party lived for so many years with the inequality that exists in the workplace today?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) was here during my remarks but I went through the steps that we have taken.


Cyril Keeper: With what results?


William Warren Allmand: The Human Rights Act in 1977.


Lloyd Axworthy: We established a Commission of Human Rights, we had the Charter, we had the development of affirmative action programs in the Public Service, and we put the Abella Commission in place. Each year and each time a series of steps were being taken to correct the problems when and if they did not work. I explained the initial attempt, which was to develop a voluntary affirmative action program, but it did not work. The Hon. Member may be perfect and all-seeing and all-knowledgeable, but we as Liberals do not pretend to have that omniscience. As Minister of Employment and Immigration-I became responsible for that Department in 1980-I saw that the voluntary program was not working and initiated steps to make it work. We had asked the private sector why it was not working, and I explained the reasons given. We then took the necessary action. We started the clear demonstration programs within our own Departments to show them it could work. We then established the Abella Commission to work out a formula which would ensure that it was applied to all companies within the federal jurisdiction. That committee reported on the ways in which to bring back contract compliance. A series of progressive steps have been taken to improve the condition substantially. This opportunity, resulting from the Abella Commission, could have been a capstone to that. It could have brought all those strands together into one very important initiative, and that is what has been lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Orde 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture (a) Funding of coloured dairy cattle research, (b) Approval of product; the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)- Penitentiaries-Projected construction of prison in Manicoua-gan constituency; the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-Regulations-Request for clarification of task force created to study certain aspects.
April 21, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration) that Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed; and on the amendment (Ms. Copps) (p. 12465).
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have risen to speak on this very important Bill, Bill C-62, with regard to employment equity. As the critic responsible for the status of women, I have a very particular concern about how it will or will not affect opportunities for Canadian women. My riding of Vancouver East has one of the largest representations of urban native people, second only to Winnipeg. There are also a very large number of people who represent other visible minorities, not to mention many low-income people and many handicapped persons. I have, indeed, a great deal of concern about this Bill. We had all hoped that it would have true meaning for these groups and would present opportunities as never before, at least for employment in jobs which fall under federal jurisdiction. 1 regret to say that speaker after speaker and witness after witness has pointed out that this is not the case. It is very unfortunate that, as a precedent setting Bill, it falls so short of what minority groups need and want.
I would like to take some time to refer to some of the comments made by the Minister this morning. I was working in my office and could not help but want to respond to some of the comments she made. She said: "is enabling legislation, not a set of rigid guidelines". We certainly know that it is not a set of rigid guidelines. She went on to say: "The aim is to encourage employers and Governments. The Government's aim is to encourage employers". She quoted Judge Abella who said that the Government must be aggressive, vigilant, and open-minded. Unfortunately, she did not continue quoting the Judge's comments. In Equality in Employment at page 195, Judge Abella said:
A voluntary program with a mandatory reporting requirement is nonetheless voluntary in the absence of a requirement to remedy the discriminatory practices disclosed by the information reported.
She goes on to say:
-it is unrealistic to rely on public opinion as an effective monitoring agent.
She also says:
Voluntary programs in the federal government have had little impact on the composition of the public sector workforce.
I wish the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) were here because I think that is a direct response to what the Liberal Government did not do. Its record was far from positive in this area.
Employment Equity
We agree with the Minister that data and information are important, but they are only important if the process does not start here. It must lead to action and to results for the target groups which I have mentioned. It must lead to systemic changes in the institutions, corporations, or businesses which are employing people. This Bill does not provide for that. For example, what difference does it make if a company meets the deadline for reporting and shows how many or how few women it has in middle-management positions or non-traditional jobs? It is very little use to know this unless the company is going to make some changes, unless it is going to be required to adopt a policy of employment equity which will open up more jobs and a fairer promotion system for women in a planned way as a part of company policy.
Employment equity must be legislated and there must be appropriate penalties, not only for failing to report, but for failing to do something about it once they have the information. Otherwise, I am sure no employer will take employment equity very seriously. Companies will probably hire a few token women in order to avoid embarrassment. This is not systemic change, and is not an adoption of employment equity policy. This is like the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) approach to employment equity of appointing one or two more women to a board in order to keep them quiet. Yet there is not really a major systemic change. We do not even have a woman Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
This morning the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) also talked about systemic discrimination, a point which has been raised repeatedly by our Party and by many witnesses who appeared before the committee. The Minister talked about how difficult it is to deal with this because it is, in effect, hidden. I agree with her. However, systemic change will not be brought about in a large company or bureaucracy by requiring them to report on what proportion of their staff is women, native people, disabled people, or visible minorities. Even if there is provision to use the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the role of that organization has been to deal with individual complaints on a case by case basis. That is not systemic change. It is not a change in the system or the company policy.
The Minister also suggested that public disclosure would make the discrimination public, and that the target groups or the Canadian Human Rights Commission could then take action. Why should they have to do this? If a mandatory employment equity agreement is made with the federal Government for every company and Crown corporation in its jurisdiction, there should be no need for this. We know that target groups do not have resources. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has not even given them any money for their test cases on equality under the Charter of Rights. How will they get money to appeal the complaints with regard to employment equity? Believe me, there will be many, many complaints. Even though there have been some increases in the resources of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, it has never had enough resources to deal with this. We need

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
systemic change, and this Bill is far from even considering that.
Surely it makes much better sense for any company which operates in the federal jurisdiction, or any company which is doing business with the Government, to sign some kind of employment equity contract which requires them to agree that they will adopt employment equity as a company policy, and that they will take practical steps to implement it in all parts of their operation with targets, goals, and timetables. In that way women and minorities will be assured access to jobs whenever there is an opening, and to promotions whenever they should be eligible for them. It is surely naive to expect that companies with long traditions and built-in attitudes, such as we all have, will change their hiring and promotion practices and their entrenched attitudes, many of which are patriarchal, without enforceable legislative requirements. There must be penalties for lack of compliance by companies such as banks, railways, telephone companies, airlines and all those companies that come under federal jurisdiction. Yet this Bill only requires that a report must be filed at the proposed time. Many changes are needed.
The Minister says that she will knock with a big fist on the doors of employers that show progress. I wish her good luck because she will have to do a lot of heavy door knocking two or three years from now, just at the time when she will be knocking on doors in her constituency.
I am not convinced that gentle persuasion will bring any results. The Liberals have proven that there will be absolutely no results because we saw under the Liberal administration that voluntary affirmative action does not work.
I believe that most managers in large and small companies would probably prefer to have mandatory employment equity so that they can have the necesary clout with their boards of directors and staff to insist that the law obliges them to hire more women, native people, disabled people and visible minorities whenever there is a vacancy.
My colleague, the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) spoke eloquently about the appeals from target groups who unanimously agree that this Bill will not be effective in achieving employment equity. They put forward many recommendations to improve the Bill, yet many of the amendments were turned down by the Government. They spoke repeatedly about the need for more enforcement of employment equity.
The Urban Alliance on Race Relations outlined five initiatives that are missing from the Bill. First, there should be one central enforcement standard setting agency for all four sectors-Departments, Crown corporations, contractors and federally regulated businesses-with powers to define program requirements, set standards for goals and timetables, analyse the workforce data, and initiate complaints or court actions.
Second, there should be mandatory programs for all four sectors rather than voluntary programs with mandatory reporting.
Third, the Bill should include contract compliance as a condition of tendering, not undefined commitments, as the Bill implies, for all Government contractors with over 50 employees and $200,000 worth of Government contracts per year.
Fourth, equal pay for work of equal value should be a condition for contracting.
Fifth, affirmative action programs should be a condition of all loans, grants and receipt of cost-sharing moneys. This should be expanded to many more employers on which the federal Government has some influence.
Many labour groups, including the CLC, spoke very strongly about the need to negotiate employment equity as part of collective bargaining.
In my previous remarks I spoke about the strong recommendation of Judge Abella that women must have adequate day care and training programs if they are ever to achieve employment equity in the workplace. This has also been completely disregarded by the Government.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry seemed to be a little hostile when I interjected during his remarks. However, I was quite sure that he neglected to explain convincingly why he and his Liberal Government did not introduce legislation to achieve employment equity in a real sense. When he was the Minister of Employment and Immigration he talked about mandatory affirmative action. However, after he went back to Cabinet and spoke to his boss, the Prime Minister, and probably received considerable pressure from the business sector, he changed his tune and opted for voluntary persuasion of companies. There was no contract compliance.
Furthermore, affirmative action was implemented in only three Departments of the federal Government. That does not make sense because there are many people in the target groups who wanted jobs in other Departments.
Why is employment equity taking so long? I have found it difficult to understand why it was possible for the Liberal Government to do such an effective job in achieving mandatory bilingual policies in the federal Public Service. They have been successfully implemented in all Departments of the federal Government. Yet it was unable to achieve employment equity for women, native people, visible minorities and the disabled.
Before I finish my remarks, I want to move the following amendment on behalf of my Party:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the number 3, the number 4.
In the time I have left-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Once the Hon. Member proposes an amendment, she must stop her debate.
April 21, 1986


Margaret Anne Mitchell: If you would agree, Mr. Speaker, I could leave the amendment until the end of my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You will leave it until the end of your speech?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I did not understand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is fine.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular attention to the question of equal pay for work of equal value. I am my Party's critic for the status of women. I believe very strongly that women will never achieve equality until they have the same pay as men who are in jobs of equal value. I think it is disgraceful that women still earn 60 cent dollars in Canada today and, as my colleague pointed out a few minutes ago, the situation is even getting worse.
The Minister responsible for the Status of Women, (Mr. McLean) has spoken out strongly for equal pay for work of equal value, saying that this is necessary and just. Only last week he said:
Equality and social justice require that all Canadians be given a fair chance to make their own way in society. My government is committed to eliminating the barriers that have confined women to unequal roles and opportunities, and to creating the conditions that will enable all Canadians, women and men, to pursue their ambitions and realize their potential in all spheres of society.
He is in favour of equal pay for work of equal value but has never advocated that this be part of the Bill. One can only assume that the Minister is one who stresses platitudes and states what he believes the women of Canada want to hear, but is not willing to go to the Cabinet and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to press for this to be an integral part of Bill C-62.
During committee hearings the Canadian Labour Congress said that affirmative action legislation and programs are important at the federal and provincial levels and must include the requirement for equal pay for work of equal value as well as contract compliance. They state that adequate resources must be allocated to ensure compliance.
The Abella Report stressed the same points and went on to advocate strongly that this should be part of employment equity programs. Yet the Minister repeatedly ignored these recommendations and refused to implement them.
It has been proven repeatedly that enforcing these provisions under the Canadian Human Rights Act is ineffective. That Act would not cover all employees that should be covered under this Bill.
We very much regret the lack of enforcement provided by this Bill. I have attempted to point out those items of particular concern from a woman's point of view. In closing, I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after number 3, the number 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I find a difficulty with the subamendment to the subamendment. I know that the
Employment Equity
Hon. Members will try to convince me that what they are doing is the right thing. The Chair is always ready for arguments as to whether the amendment to the amendment is in order. Could I have arguments on this point?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is trying to do is to have Clause 4 looked at again by the House. The Liberal amendment originally had Clauses 3, 5 and 7 being reviewed by the committee. What the Member for Vancouver East is saying is to add Clause 4. I think there is a possibility that some people may advise you that this adds something different and something new to the amendment. There might be previous rulings to this effect. My argument would be that Clause 4 is not really new. It is very much a part of the package. You cannot review Clauses 3, 5 and 7 without reviewing Clause 4. It is part of the whole process. Clauses 4 and 5 are together in terms of this legislation. I think it was an oversight by the Liberal Party in the first place when it did not include Clause 4 as part of its review. I think it is all interrelated. The only thing that might be different is that there is Caluse 4, and Clause 4 was not included, but it is only a numbers game, and substantially you are looking at the same kind of thing. All you are doing is making a rather imperfect amendment more perfect.


George Baker: I would disagree with the Hon. Member who just spoke as far as the present amendment is concerned, the amendment to the amendment, in that you could deal with Clause 4 quite separately from the other clauses in the Bill, simply because Clause 4 actually sets out the formula by which the Bill is enacted through the intent of the legislation.
However, in saying that the New Democratic Party is incorrect on that point, let me say that I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment from the point of view that it does not negate in any way, shape or form the substance in the present amendment. It simply adds another clause to that particular amendment. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration that perhaps the subamendment may be in order, but it would perhaps have come at a better time if it were put following a complete round of speakers on the first amendment.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support as strongly as I can the arguments in support of accepting the subamendment from my colleague, and I differ as sharply as I can, from the intervention made by the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). He says that Clause 4 can stand alone. The subamendment has to be looked at in context. First of all, the motion of the Official Opposition would have Clause 7 re-examined. It is its intention to have Clauses 5 to 7 referred for re-examination to the committee. If the motion should lose and Clause 7 is not referred for further consideration, then you would end up with a situation in which the penalties that the Opposition would seek to have would not apply to Clause 4.

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
Further, let us give greater emphasis to what was said before; Clauses 4 and 5 constitute part of the same process. What we have in Clause 4 is the requirement that the employer develop a process for achieving employment equity. It certainly is clear to you, Mr. Speaker, from all of the arguments heard from all sides of the House that part and parcel of a process must be the goal of that process, and that is what is set out in Clause 5. If the opposition amendment should lose, it would throw into limbo any prospect for serious consideration of Clause 4, which is the subject of the subamendment. Therefore, it must be clear that we could end up with a silly situation were we to introduce an amendment to have Clause 4 referred to committee, when, in fact, Clauses 4, 5 and 7 are so intimately connected with one another.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate all of the Hon. Members helping me out in reaching a decision on this ruling. I would like to reserve my ruling for later on today. In the meantime we will carry on with debate.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly quite an exercise in parliamentary debate on the amendment to the subamendment of the amendment to the subamendment. I think the essence of the debate this afternoon should perhaps not be on Clauses 4 or 7 of this particular Bill C-62, but, rather what this legislation will do, and perhaps, more importantly and more specifically, what this piece of legislation will not do.
I feel obligated to participate in this third reading of Bill C-62 because I had the opportunity of being involved in the second reading debate and in the work of the legislative committee. I listened and received representations from the four target groups that the legislation addresses. I was involved as well in the report stage.
I must say at the beginning of my remarks that the process has been a frustrating one. The process, in fact, has almost been a futile one simply because witness after witness from the four target groups-women, the disabled, the visible minorities and the natives-came before this House, and, more importantly, came before the committee, because that is where they have the appropriate time and forum to articulate their concerns, as it is their concerns that this legislation is supposed to address, but the Government Party and Government Members on that committee were not listening. Witness after witness came forward and suggested ways for this Parliament to strengthen this particular piece of legislation. Each of those target groups said that it is fine to talk about equality in the workplace, it is fine to say that this should be a goal of a modern society such as we have in Canada, but that it is not sufficient only to talk of equality, because this piece of legislation, while purporting to deliver equality, will not do so. That is why it was frustrating, and perhaps futile, because the message came back again and again, but the Members were not listening.
Not only did it come during this process, but we have had various reports such as that of the Abella Commission, which I
think articulated a progressive solution to what we speak of today. It was bold and courageous and the expectations that were created were very great. That is why we find today a great deal of disappointment among the Canadian community because this piece of legislation does not even come close to adopting some of the recommendations of the Abella Commission.
These witnesses and these community groups that came before us in this process also came before us during the preparation of the Equality Now Report, the Equality For All Report, and also the Obstacles Report in past Parliaments. These groups and these individuals are asking themselves, and are asking their representatives in this Chamber: How many times do we have to come to Ottawa to explain our case? How many times must we tell you what the problems are? How many times and how forceful can we be in terms of suggesting a solution to our problems in this country? They have come time and time again and at great expense. They have used their energies and the efforts of their organizations, which are not the more wealthy or well financed organizations in this country. They used the resources they had in a very genuine, straightforward and frank manner, and we let them down profoundly.
If we try to commission a further report or study, whether it be next year or in three years, those individuals in Toronto or in Vancouver have to ask themselves what was the use of going to Ottawa to say the same thing they have been saying at various stages during the last five to ten years. As opposition critic for multiculturalism, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, what they said. Two major organizations came before the committee. One oganization was the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. It said that the focus of the legislation is on data collection rather than hiring and training in a workplace free of discrimination. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council said that it is difficult to envisage how a voluntary approach will substantially improve employment opportunities for the visible minorities. The Chairman of the Coalition of Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities said last Monday, and I quote:
This Bill will do nothing more than provide the Government with employment information. It will in no way implement employment equity as there are no penalties for failing to comply with employment equity plans.
We have tried everything. We have consulted with CEIC staff, appeared as witnesses before the Parliamentary Committee on the Bill, made pleas to the Prime Minister directly and rallied on Parliament Hill.
We have demanded that the Bill be amended to include the Government's own Departments and agencies and to include a penalty for failing to comply with employment equity plans. The Government has not responded to any of our demands.
If we can't get them to put any teeth in the Bill, they should at least be honest and retitle it "The Employment Information Bill". If the Bill is not renamed, the Coalition demands that it be withdrawn.
No one in this House can say it any better than that. We can imagine the frustration of sitting through that process and seeing absolutely no movement at all. We cannot blame these
April 21, 1986

people for asking why this piece of legislation was introduced. Why Bill C-62? Why name the four target groups? Why does the Government say it is championing the rights of these Canadians in these four target groups? Why say that after these four target groups have said that this legislation will not help? They are saying that this legislation will not improve the lots of these individuals, and they are right. Why have a piece of legislation for the sake of having legislation which is used as window dressing? It is just used in a public relations type of way so that the Government can say: "Look at what we have done for these groups".
These four target groups and other Canadians who have participated in the process are not that gullible or naive. They know when they have effective legislation and when they do not. They have told Parliament and the Government that this legislation is not adequate. Therefore, it must be incumbent upon Members of this House to listen to those concerns and perhaps put ourselves in their place. We must realize what their day-to-day struggles are and ask ourselves how we would react if we were one of those individuals who came before the committee. If we did that, I think we would have a greater degree of appreciation for and sensitivity to the representations made before the committee, rather than simply listening and not moving on the recommendations.
We must also examine our own hearts as individual Members of Parliament. We all know that one of the major concerns we face in our responsibility as Members of Parliament is the whole question of employment. We face a number of individuals each and every week in our constituency offices. Individuals write, phone and visit us and all ask if we can give any assistance to them, their relatives or friends who are seeking gainful employment. We know their frustration. We know their loss of hope. We know that, to a certain degree, the measure of one's self worth and dignity is in part related to the whole question of employment. A working life is a fruitful and fulfilling life. When there is no gainful employment, it is not just a question of not being able to find work but it is the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that one is less than a participating member in Canadian society. We all realize that that is the biggest problem facing us as Members of Parliament individually and collectively.
I believe most of us accept that responsibility. The problems of those four target groups must be staggering when those individuals are unemployed because the colour of their skin is different from that of the majority or because they have a disability or because of their cultural background. That is a defeating type of blow which is difficult to overcome. We must understand that. We must act more boldly and courageously so that we can be satisfied as Members of Parliament and as the House of Commons that we have acted with a sensitivity and appreciation for the problems of these four different groups. We should be able to point to this legislation in a proud manner which transcends partisan politics. We should be able to have a good deal of pride in the legislation. But we cannot have pride in Bill C-62 in its present form. It is not a question
Employment Equity
of myself as a member of the Opposition slamming the Government by saying: "Look at this legislation. Are you not ashamed". I feel part of that shame as well because I know we could have done much better.
It does not help the debate when individuals talk about what the Liberal Government did five years ago or what the Conservative Government did 40 years ago. It does not further the lot of these four target groups. What we should realize is that here is the window of opportunity. For the first time before the House of Commons we have a piece of legislation which is intended to deliver employment equity regardless of colour, handicap, sex or background. We should work together to ensure that the legislation will meet the expectations created by the Abella Commission. But when it does not, no one in the House can rise and beat his or her chest saying: "I am proud to stand up today because we have Bill C-62". We cannot do that when the four target groups have come to us at second reading, at committee and at report stage of the legislation to tell us that we are not going far enough and are only paying lip service to their real problems. They are saying to us: "Maybe these problems are not for you, but they are for me and for the other people who find themselves in my circumstances". They are Canadians. We have a fairly progressive country known as Canada. But not all is well, certainly when there are complaints by those individuals who say that they cannot find employment because of the items we have listed. It is simply not good enough to look the other way and give them Bill C-62 and say: "We have dealt with your problems. Let's move on to other ones".
In addressing these concerns, and in trying to articulate those which were made as representations to the committee, we moved amendments to the Bill. We were not attempting to oppose for the sake of opposing. In the process we moved 36 amendments which were intended to strengthen the Bill. They were intended to take what we received from the community and turn it into reality. If they had been accepted by the Government, then the four target groups would be satisfied today, as would the opposition Party, the Liberal Party. Then we would have no problem voting in favour of the legislation and dealing with something else. We would know that we had dealt with the subject in a comprehensive and, most important, fair way. But we have not.
A number of the amendments were crucial to the whole direction and thrust of employment equity. One was to include a provision with respect to an enforcement agency since in the Bill there is no such provision. It was Judge Abella who said that if we cannot enforce rights, then they are just as good as unavailable rights. Those words capture the spirit of what is lacking in this Bill. They crystalize the opposition that we have seen to this piece of legislation and the malaise which is written into every page of it.
The governing Party said: "We have the Human Rights Commission to deal with it somehow". However, at the

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
moment the commission does not have the resources. At the moment, it deals on a reactive mode, on a one-to-one basis, not as an agency which has the ability to oversee this type of legislation on a national basis. Even if members of the Government were convinced that that was the answer, then the very least they could have done was to have the courage to include a provision with respect to the Human Rights Commission in the legislation. In this way we would have been convinced that some mechanism would be put in place to oversee the legislation. However, the amendment in this respect was not accepted. Individual people in the four target groups and members of my Party are asking why. If one believes that the Human Rights Commission is the answer, then let us be frank and put a provision with respect to it in the legislation.
Another of our amendments suggested that the Bill apply to all federal government Departments which are presently exempted from the Bill. If we have a federal Government which says: "This is our vision. This is what we want the private sector and the Crown corporations to do", then what is wrong with not pursuing that and having the force of those measures obligate the federal Government to act accordingly? After all, we have to show leadership and we can only do that by example.
Another amendment we suggested based on representations we received at committee stage was to apply the Bill to all businesses under federal jurisdiction with 25 or more employees. The present Bill applies to businesses with 100 or more employees. That very regulation does away with most of the companies doing business with the Government since a great number of them-the majority I am told-have less than 100 employees. Therefore, we suggested that the threshold be placed at 25. Even the Americans, whom we sometimes hit over the head when we talk about human rights, have contract compliance legislation which ensures that businesses doing business with the Government follow its criteria. Its criterion is for only 50 employees, and we are stuck at 100.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that you are motioning to me that I have but one minute left in which to wrap up. There were other amendments I wanted to go over, but I will not have the time to do that.
So what is the choice? What are we trying to suggest at third reading? To put it very simply, as an eleventh hour pitch, it is to reconsider the inaction of this legislation and to consider the inequities in it. It is ironic that we should be pushing employment equity while at the same time we know that the legislation has tremendous shortcomings. This message does not come from members of the New Democratic Party or from members of the Liberal Party. It comes from Canadians who are saying that the Bill will not deliver equity. It is only window-dressing. We encourage the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary, who is here on behalf of the Minister, to heed the recommendations and make the Bill what we all want it to be-strong, effective and fair. I hope the Government sees the light.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to any Member of Parliament, and certainly to anyone who represents an urban constituency, that there still exists a great deal of discrimination against members of minority groups in employment. By minority groups I include the handicapped, native people, women, and members of racial minority groups, particularly those who come from visible minorities, that is, non-whites. Governments, both federal and provincial, recognize that such prejudice and discrimination have existed for many years. So Governments have, over the years, enacted fair employment and fair accommodation practices legislation. This legislation has somewhat lessened the discrimination in employment felt by members of these groups. However, a great deal of discrimination still exists. Thus a broad coalition of organizations including natives, women, the handicapped and minority groups, as well as church groups, labour, consumer and farm groups have understood that more has to be done. The former Liberal Government appointed Judge Abella to look into the matter. She conducted an investigation and made a report to which all of us should have paid some attention.
Before the election the groups I have mentioned, and others, called upon the political Parties to find out what their stand would be in regard to passing the type of legislation which Judge Abella, and others, had recommended. I have in front of me part of a statement made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in August of 1984. He said:
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 programmes 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 operation, commensurate with their skills and expectations.
Let me put on the record the last sentence. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is listening carefully because this is the crux of our fundamental disagreement with the Government and the Bill. The Prime Minister, then Leader of the Official Opposition, concluded the paragraph which I just read by saying the following:
Numerical goals are one of several goals required: training and retraining are others.
That was a promise made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Official Opposition at a time when we were heading into an election which he hoped his Party would win so that he could become the Prime Minister. His Party did win the election. He is the Prime Minister. What has happened to the commitment he made?
If there is one thing that is conspicuously missing from this Bill, it is the promise made by the Prime Minister that the legislation his Government would bring forward would include numerical goals. The experience of other jurisdictions, including the United States, is that without numerical goals, the objective of employment equity will not be reached.
April 21, 1986____________ COMMONS DEBATES
Without numerical goals and targets which are monitored by the Government, employers, both public and private, simply will not do what we want them to do.
It is not surprising that this Bill has been criticized and rejected by all the interested groups. Let me put on the record a few of the assessments they have made of this Bill. Beryl Potter of the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities had this to say about 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. 1 was a supporter of him. I worked for him in his campaign and I am totally, totally disillusioned.
The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada which represents the Inuit people of Canada had this to say:
Bill C-62 is of limited value.
Suzanne Boivin of the National Association of Women and the Law said:
Nothing will change. Unfortunately, it is simply wishful thinking.
Since this Bill was first tabled almost a year ago, the New Democratic Party has taken the position that it is rife with flaws. To reiterate, we stated that it failed to embrace five principles which we promoted at every opportunity. First, there is an absence of real enforcement and adequate penalties under a mandatory equity scheme. Second, there is no reference made to equal pay for work of equal value. Third, contract compliance is not included. Fourth, there is no obligation to negotiate equity where there is a bargaining unit. In other words, we leave the matter to the good intentions of employers, although some of us who have watched employer-employee relationships know how frequently good intentions simply do not exist on the part of employers. Fifth, the coverage of the Bill is inadequate. It does not include federal Departments.
How can the Government have the gall and audacity to require private employers and Crown corporations to implement policies established by a law when the Government itself does not apply that requirement to Government Departments? I challenge Government Members and cabinet Ministers to look at Government Departments, Department by Department, including those which were targeted for affirmative action by the former Liberal Government. They will see how little we have accomplished. They will see how few women work in areas other than clerical. They will see how few handicapped people work at any level. They will see how few native people work for Government Departments. I would urge Hon. Members to look particularly at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to see how woefully neglectful we have been. They will see how few members of visible minorities work for the federal Government at any level in any city. If they had the courage to look at what has taken place up until now, they would see how ludicrous it is to bring in a Bill without any requirement for action.
The Bill is now at third reading stage, and this gives me an opportunity to review the flaws in the Bill which centre around the absence of these requirements. In our view and in the view of the spokespeople for the target groups, this Bill will not
Employment Equity
move us much closer to employment equity. The Bill does have a lofty purpose. No witness found fault with the Bill's intention which, according to Clause 2, is the following:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
That is a noble goal. Unfortunately, having stated the principle and outlined the goal, the Bill then goes on to do everything possible to see that that goal is not achieved.
This Bill must be viewed as a Bill for voluntary equity with mandatory reporting of workforce data. It is that and no more.
There are three clauses in the Bill which make certain demands on the employers that are intended to move them toward equity in the workplace. However, only Clause 5 is subject to a maximum penalty of $50,000 on summary conviction. We attempted to increase this penalty to $500,000 because many of the firms covered by Bill C-62 are very large.
I am thinking in particular of the major banks, the CNR, the CPR, Air Canada and CP Air. For many of them, a potential $50,000 Fine would simply be part of the cost of doing business. That occurred for many years with the anti-combines legislation. On the very few occasions when a company was charged, prosecuted and found guilty, it paid a relatively small fine. It was like a licence giving these companies the right to continue to break the law, and this is the same thing.
Clause 6 requires the employer to gather data annually. Critics have indicated that the required data is a bare minimum. Furthermore, the requirement is only to take a snapshot of the workforce. It does not amount to making progress toward implementing employment equity. As was pointed out, an employer could report year after year, yet the data could show no significant change for target groups in the workplace. There is no penalty for no progress. If there is no penalty for no progress, an employer could report that every year. In that event he would be obeying the law and following the instructions contained in the law. He could simply report that he has continued the practice but had not moved toward employment equity. What happens then? Nothing, because there is no penalty for not moving toward employment equity.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission will receive the data reports and determine whether or not there appears to be discriminatory activity in the workplace and, if warranted, could find discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, I emphasize that the Human Rights Commission does not enforce the employment equity Bill. The commission will be enforcing the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act as they may apply to the workplace based upon data contained in the annual reports. What if the data is wrong? Well, it would be too bad.

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
Let us look at the type of data required in the reports. First, there would be the industrial sector locale, the number of employees, and the number in the target group. Second, there would be a description of the occupational groups in the workplace and the number of target groups in each occupation. Third, there would be the salary ranges and the number of target group persons in each salary range. Fourth, there would be the number of employees hired, promoted and terminated, and the number of target group persons who fit into each circumstance. The target groups made clear to anyone who wanted to listen, certainly to anyone who wanted to see real action, and to the legislative committee on Bill C-62 that a firm must be obliged to develop an action plan with goals and timetables, addressing how it would go about removing discriminatory practices and taking positive steps needed to bring about employment equity.
Action plans were not in the original Bill. Indeed, the Minister claimed before the committee that an action plan for producing equity was inherent in a company. Ultimately the Government responded by presenting the committee with an amendment forcing companies to prepare action plans which contained goals and timetables. However, these action plans will be strictly confidential. As various Hon. Members have said, the plans can remain locked up in firms' personnel offices, shielded from all prying eyes.
Why should action plans be kept secret?? What about dissatisfied employees or members of a target group who think that a company is not following the intent of the Bill? Without giving an opinion on the merits of my example, the Government must know that a group of women charged that the CNR was not ready to hire women except in clerical positions. They charged that the CNR was certainly not prepared to hire women in non-traditional jobs such as those in the maintenance shops in Montreal, Moncton, Winnipeg or wherever. I am speaking from memory when I say that the Canadian Human Rights Commission found that their claim was valid. If the action plan is kept secret, how will employees or prospective employees who want to work for the company know what is happening?
I was pleasantly surprised some weeks ago when I visited the branch of the bank with which I deal in Winnipeg to see a black person working as a teller, the only one I have seen. In the City of Winnipeg, with its large native population, I have yet to see a single native person working in any branch of any bank in Winnipeg. If there are any, they are certainly very few in number. How will the Government of Canada or members of the native community in Winnipeg know that banks have action plans and whether they will work if the banks are permitted to keep them secret?
There is no penalty for failing to develop an action plan, even a poor and inadequate one. The NDP has attempted to have penalty provisions included in Clause 7, but it has been to no avail. The suggestion was rejected by the Government. We have also moved motions to cause employers to file their action plans with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to
post them in the workplace. They were not accepted. We are not suggesting that there should be Canadian Human Rights Commission approval of action plans. We are simply saying that it would be useful, in trying to meet the objectives of the Bill, if companies were required to make the plans public.
It is worth repeating that Gordon Fairweather, Chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in a speech in February of this year, repeatedly urged management that although not required by Bill C-62 it would be in their interest to make, upon request, copies of action plans available to the commission.
I note that my time is coming to an end, but I should like to compare the Bill with the legislation in the United States. The Americans began to put legislation into effect years ago. The legislation in its final form was brought in during the administration of President Johnson. The plan requires employers to set targets and goals, and to have target dates for the hiring of people from various minority groups. The legislation has made tremendous difference and has led to tremendous improvement in the employment of people from minority groups in the United States. That country now has the most ideological President which it has had in 50 years. Some of his advisers have indicated that they want business to be free and that they do not need that kind of legislation, those numbers or goals. It is interesting and significant that U.S. Secretary of Labour Bill Brock has carried on a campaign within the U.S. administration to retain those numbers and goals, that piece of legislation. He is being supported publicly by the National Association of Manufacturers, the same kind of organization which in Canada is the main opponent of doing that here. Why is that organization opposing it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have given the Hon. Member an extra couple of minutes to wind up.
I will now ask for questions and comments from the House, and I am sure the Hon. Member will be able to carry on with some of his remarks.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member has had a good deal of experience with the American legislation because he worked for the Canadian Labour Congress on the matter. From my observation of the American legislation, it has been quite successful for visible minorities and, in particular, black Hispanics in areas like the American post office and so on. As the Member pointed out the other day, when you visit an American post office in Chicago, Los Angeles or New York, an overwhelming number of employees are black or Hispanics. It seems to me from my meetings in Washington that with women, especially at higher levels, the program has not been as successful. I may be mistaken.
In continuing his remarks on the success of the American legislation, could the Hon. Member tell us whether he thinks it has been of greater success with the blacks and other visible minorities than with women because of the impetus behind the
April 21, 1986

racial equal rights movements and people like Martin Luther King? Women may not have had the same success as these groups have. I would appreciate the Hon. Member's further comment.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have no actual figures, but the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is correct. I do not think that women have been as successful as have the black and Hispanic organizations in attaining the goals which all these minority groups have set for themselves. I suppose the reason for that is simple. The people in the groups with the political clout get the most.
In any area you look, you will see the Americans are far ahead of Canadians. The Americans are ahead because they accepted the fundamental principle, which is missing in this Bill, that pious resolutions and prayers will not accomplish the task and that educational programs and appealing to goodwill will not achieve the goal.
If I could just complete the sentence from the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker, the reason that the National Association of Manufacturers in the United States wants to continue its present system with the goals, the objectives and the target dates is not that they are nicer people than our employers but that, as they say very clearly: "We like the system because it tells us precisely what we are required to do. If the Government tells us what we are required to do, we will do it. If the numbers are not there and the goals are not there, if the target dates are not there, no matter what we do, we will be accused by some people that we have not done enough".
If the Conservative Government of Canada will not listen to representatives of minority groups or to representatives of labour unions or to spokespersons for church groups, all of whom have made clear their rejection of this Bill as it is presently written, I wish it would take the time to make inquiries from its friends. The Conservatives seem to be so friendly and ready to meet the needs, the requirements and the objectives of the business community, I wish they would take the time, make some effort-they could get our ambassador in Washington, who seems to have a little time-to contact the National Association of Manufacturers and find out why they are satisfied with the legislation as it is in the United States, and why they support the legislation as it is in the United States. If they did that, I am sure they would come back and be prepared to agree to amending the Bill along the lines I have suggested.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was mentioning the American program of mandatory affirmative action, employment equity. If I remember correctly, during the Second World War or thereabouts the American program was not mandatory. It was a voluntary program and the Americans found out that it did not work. They decided to change it in the 1960s. I am not sure of all the reasons they did so, but I know the Member for Winnipeg
Employment Equity
North is very well read and versed in this area. Perhaps he can elaborate on why this change was made.
I also understand there are some members of the American Cabinet who are talking about ending the affirmative action program in the United States, some of the more reactionary members of Mr. Reagan's own Cabinet. How widespread is that mood and why are they trying to do this if there is a feeling in the United States that this is a good program? Perhaps the Member could shed some light on those questions.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, the Secretary of Labour in the United States, Bill Brock, has made very clear his support for the existing law and the existing system in the United States. The reasons are obvious. It works.
Let me make one thing clear. When we talk about employment equity and affirmative action, we are not saying to employers that we want them to hire unqualified members of minority groups for the job. That would be wrong and it would be stupid. We are saying that we want employers to hire qualified members of the minority groups.
Let me put on the record a few paragraphs from a letter which Joseph Rauh, a famous civil rights advocate in the United States, wrote to Congressman James Scheuer, himself a supporter of affirmative action and civil rights. There are, of course, differences about how laws can be interpreted and how they will work. Mr. Rauh was talking about whether medical colleges should be required to accept black applicants. He says, and it is a very good illustration:
But in the light of 300 years of discrimination against Blacks, is it too much to ask that some preference be given to Blacks among qualified candidates for admission?
I stress "qualified candidates". Then in another letter he
says:
-where a Black applicant to medical school is fully qualified under the school's own standards of admission, may the school give him preference in admission as part of its affirmative action program even though a rival white male applicant has higher qualifications.
The problem is not a qualified white against an unqualified Black-
What we are talking about is applications of qualified members of minority groups, that they must be given some assistance, a step up. That is what we are talking about in employment equity. That is what the Government refuses to address.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words concerning this particular Bill, perhaps in a different area than has been mentioned during second reading debate and during the committee stage of the Bill, perhaps something completely different as it relates to this Bill but something which I was thinking a moment ago applies to this Bill given the clauses that are under consideration.
The Official Opposition is saying that in Clause 3 the Government of Canada should include Departments of the

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
Government of Canada and Crown corporations of the Government of Canada. Then Clauses 5 to 7 talk about an employer who has to file a report, a report on what, Mr. Speaker? A report not only on the occupational groups, but also on the salary ranges of employees. Why are salary ranges of employees there? Suppose for a moment that the salary ranges of employees of the federal Government had to be reported. What happens? A copy is therefore sent to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Obviously the salary ranges would be submitted to determine whether there is discrimination within that particular group of employees.
Suppose there was a group of people hired in Canada who did the same job but received different wages in every town and city throughout the country. Suppose they were working for the same employer in the same job classification and performing the same work, but all received different salaries. I can list several occupations in Canada which earn different salaries from the same employer. According to this Bill, the employer has to report the salaries he pays. The Official Opposition is saying that the Government of Canada and Crown corporations should be included in that reporting. Suppose that the wage paid in Edmonton was below that paid in Calgary. Suppose the wage paid in Saskatchewan was lower still, but the wage paid in Manitoba was higher. We are doing a lot of supposing, Mr. Speaker, but the punch line is going to come very shortly.


John Napier Turner: We suppose.


George Baker: Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the salary paid by the same employer in the Yukon and Northwest Territories was substantially higher for the same job in the same classification. Suppose that the wage paid by the same employer for the same job classification and absolutely the same work was $2 higher an hour in Halifax and Moncton than in Newfoundland. Suppose, again, that three separate wage rates were paid in British Columbia and that six different wage rates were paid in Ontario.
I am reading to you, Mr. Speaker, from a negotiated settlement agreed to by the unions which was announced on Friday by the Government of Canada, this is after the Charter came into effect last year, after the Human Rights Act came into effect, and after this Bill, which I believe is incorrectly called the employment equity Bill, came into existence.
I am bringing this up because it is what came to my attention when I looked at this particular Bill and saw that government Departments and Crown corporations were excluded, as defined under the Financial Administration Act. The Financial Administration Act lists dozens and dozens of Crown corporations. If the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) were to appoint a commission, it would be excluded as well because it is defined under the Financial Administration Act as a corporation.
Someone looking at this impartially would ask why a person in Newfoundland is paid $2 less per hour for doing the same job as a fellow in the next province is doing. In the Province of Ontario a person in Ottawa is paid a different wage from that of a person in Toronto. This is the case after the Charter of Rights was proclaimed and after royal commission reports. That only covers 16,800 federal employees.
I will give you another example, which is even worse. In another branch of the federal Government the one hundredth and second line of longitude separates a high salary from a low salary. Picture two icebreakers tied up at Victoria Island in Cambridge Bay as there will be next month. One icebreaker is from British Columbia and the other is from Newfoundland, Quebec, or one of the Atlantic provinces. Both ships are tied up at longitude 105o. One ship's crew is getting $200 more per month than is the other ship's crew for doing the same job in the same job classification for the same employer.
These people look at the Charter, at the employment equity Bill which is before the House, at all of the other legislation and at the Human Rights Act. Section 11 of the Human Rights Act says: "It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value in assessing the value of work".


David Orlikow: Those are all men.


George Baker: The hon. gentleman says that these are all men, but that is not exactly true, because some members of the ships' crews are women. However, he has a point that most of them are men. We get into a problem when we talk about equal pay for work of equal value. The law says that there must be equal pay for work of equal value, but there is no law in Canada with regard to equal pay for equal work. I do not know how the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the courts could not interpret equal pay for work of equal value to mean equal pay for equal work, but that is the interpretation. I cannot find anything that says "equal pay for equal work", but I can find "equal pay for work of equal value".
My point is that the 16,800 employees who fall under the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the general labour and trade group, the over 20,000 employees in the services sector, and the 3,000 employees in the ships crews sector look at the concepts of employment equity and equal pay for equal work or equal pay for work of equal value, and say that the Government, after the enactment of the Charter and all of the legislation, is not making much sense.
Let me conclude my point by explaining what the problem is and how it evolved. We must be honest when we consider this in the historical context.	^
This problem emerged several years ago when the unions and the Government suggested that employees should receive
April 21, 1986

approximately the same monetary return as that given in the private sector. This began with a five cent an hour difference, to which the percentages were added. I suppose the unions and the present Government had no choice but to maintain some difference in their negotiations. However, I and I believe a member of the general public would consider it to be illegal and absolutely against the spirit of the law of Canada to sign agreements such as those agreed to on Friday and today by the federal Government. I believe it is even against the spirit of this Bill. It is against the spirit of the Charter and the spirit of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It would be very interesting if the Government allowed the Official Opposition to change Clause 3 to allow corporations and Departments of the Government to be covered by this Bill so that they would have to report the salary ranges of employees to see if there was any discrimination.
The Human Rights Commission has responded to the point I am making by saying that this involves a negotiated settlement. While there is nothing in black and white that requires equal pay for equal work, it is written in black and white that there should be equal pay for work of equal value. I cannot imagine accepting the fact that you have equal pay for work of equal value but there is not equal pay for equal work.
I say to the Government of Canada and its unions that since the enforcement of the Charter and the Government's commitment to employment equity and equal pay for work of equal value, the Treasury Board should provide the money to bring the wages of those people who are performing the same job for the Government of Canada, in the same job classification, up to those of the person who is earning the highest wage in the same field.
Let us look at the occupations on the list. There is a $3 difference in precision working. There is a difference of at least $4 an hour in vehicle and heavy equipment maintenance. There is a difference of at least $4 in electrical installing and maintenance. There is a difference of over $2 an hour for different groups in machine driving operating. There is a difference of at least $3 an hour with respect to the manipulating subgroup working for the same employer and in the same job classification, depending on where one works in Canada. There is a $4 an hour difference for the woodworking subgroup, depending on where one is working. With respect to the pipe fitting subgroup, there is a $2 an hour difference. In Kingston, an area which the Minister of Employment and Immigration represents, it is substantially less than the wage settlements for the same group in Toronto.
I realize that the Government of Canada and the unions have a problem in negotiating a change to the system. However, the law of Canada is the law of Canada; the spirit of the law is the spirit of the law; the Canadian Human Rights Act is the Canadian Human Rights Act; the Charter is the Charter, and employment equity is employment equity. We cannot make a distinction between people because of where they live or where they happen to travel during their work.
Employment Equity
The Government attempts to appear lily-white with respect to the question of employment equity and equal pay for equal work. That is simply not the case. The Treasury Board would certainly need much more money from the Government in order to bring the lowest paid workers to the level of the highest paid workers.
Today, Members of Parliament are receiving letters from their constituents who are pointing out that they are making less money than someone performing the same job in the next constituency. What should a Member of Parliament do? First, we phone the Human Rights Commission, which states that it does not have jurisdiction in this area because it only deals with equal pay for work of equal value. The union says that while the problem is serious, it cannot negotiate for enough money to bring every one up to the same standard. We are told by Treasury Board that this is an historical settlement which was negotiated with the union. There is nothing in the Charter or the employment equity Bill dealing with this situation. However, we know that the employee of the federal Government and anyone else who has looked into this situation is absolutely correct that it is total discrimination against certain workers because of where they live.
Newfoundland is the lowest on the scale in every negotiated salary as far as zone rates of pay are concerned. Under their negotiated contract, Newfoundland workers are paid $2, $3 and sometimes $4 an hour less for performing the same job for the federal Government. The Government of Canada says that it cannot cure the problem because of the Charter of Rights, the Bill of Rights or anything else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. We still have a question and comment period.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made some valid points with respect to employment equity as it affects workers from different regions of Canada.
As he knows, this Bill asks that employers carry out employment equity only for those in designated groups. Those designated groups are women, visible minorities, native people and the disabled. It does not say anything about other groups or individuals who might be discriminated against on the basis of national or ethnic origin, religion, age or the region from which they come.
It is interesting to note that Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms bans discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. That is nine different bases for outlawing discrimination. This Bill on employment equity deals with only four groups. I think that it is very important that we deal with those four groups, but I guess what the Hon. Member is saying to us is that there are other types of employment equity in the country that are not being dealt with.

April 21, 1986
Employment Equity
The other Act he referred to is the Canadian Human Rights Act. In that Act discrimination is banned based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. The Canadian Human Rights Act is even broader than the Charter of Rights. Here we have a law that provides for employment equity for only four groups. The Abella Commission recommended that we legislate in that area, but that has not happened. Why does he think that there is this difference between some statutes in not allowing discrimination and this Bill, which only deals with four groups? Could he give us the reasons that he believes are the basis of that sort of discrimination between statutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) earlier today proposed to move a subamendment to the amendment now before the House. After hearing argument on the procedural acceptability of the subamendment I reserved my decision.
I am now ready to rule, and it is with regret that I must inform the Hon. Member that I cannot put her subamendment to the House. I listened carefully to the arguments, which point to the extent to which Clause 4 is related to the clauses included in the amendment presently before the House. However, the Chair must be guided by the practices of the House.
On December 15, 1971, the Hon. Russell Honey, then the Deputy Speaker stated:
The difficulty is that when an Hon. Member proposes a sub-amendment he is under the constraint that he must not enlarge on, or differ in substance from, the amendment he is purporting to further amend.
There are further references to this effect in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition in Citation 438. Thus, it is with respect that I have to refuse to allow the subamendment of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Ian Deans: I just want to be clear that that will not, however, rule out the possibility of our moving, if we wished, this subamendment as a new amendment after the amendment has been dealt with. It may necessitate, of course, carrying the debate over for another day, but that being the case I can understand the difficulty that you are faced with. We may have to do just that in order to have the amendment put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will check the procedureal acceptability of out what the Hon. Member has just said, and in the meantime we will carry on with the debate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps, to put the thing into perspective and to give my answer to the hon. gentleman's question, let me say this. Let us take a look at giving credit here where it is due. As far as the Human Rights Act is concerned, as far as the Charter is concerned and as far as the
Abella Commission is concerned, this is the present Government's only action toward what it calls employment equity. That is probably the problem right there, that this is really the only thing that the present Government has done or has any plans for doing during its one term in office. However, even looking at that, and to get even closer to the answer to the hon. gentleman's question, let me point out to him that even within the Bill itself, the commitment of the Government of Canada to what is the intent of the legislation is rather suspect. The reason it is suspect is that, first and foremost, as has been pointed out, a corporation that is a Department as defined in the Financial Admnistration Act is not included under the Bill. I might note that under the original legislation they had to include the words "at least proportionate to their representation" in Clause 4, which was a suggestion of the Hon. Member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). That was his suggestion at the first committee meeting that was held. That was the subject of a speech which he gave in the House the first day that the Bill was introduced, and the Government took that advice.
What I am referring to is the section that says "the Minister may"; everybody else "shall", but in this Bill the Minister may issue guidelines, the Minister may do this, the Minister may do that. You are telling the employers that they have to do something very hazy, and you are saying that the Minister may provide you with some direction. "You shall do this", and the employer does not know what he has to do, and the Minister is saying "Well, I may give you some guidelines."


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Member regarding Clause 7, which deals with the imposition of a fine of $50,000 if an employer failed to comply with Clause 6 and is guilty of an offence on summary conviction. The reason I want to ask the question is that he knows, as I do, that we tried to increase the fine to $500,000 to make it half a million bucks- something really meaningful. Fifty thousand dollars to some employers, which he knows very well, will not make a damn bit of difference. Why should I, as an employer, who has over the years failed to supply adequate entrance to my building by installing ramps, or failed to supply adequate safety in the building by providing elevators which can be worked by people who may be handicapped, deaf or, for that matter, blind, spend $50,000 when I can get away with all that? If I am caught, I will pay the $50,000 because it is cheaper to pay $50,000 than to put half a million dollars into repairing the building, making it accessible for egress and ingress. What does the Hon. Member think about that?


George Baker: In Clause 7 under discussion, it is an employer who fails to comply with Clause 6. If you look at Clause 6 and then you go back to Clause 4, most employers will not know what they are being asked to do. I just noticed again it says, "the occupational groups of the employer". It should have read, "the occupational groups of the employees". However, I do not fault the drafters of the legislation. We have some very impressive drafters in this country, an expert group of people. The problem is the material you give to a draftsman; that is
April 21, 1986

what determines the accuracy of the legislation. We should not blame these errors on the drafters of the legislation. They are very expert people. It is the Government of Canada that does not know what it is doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has a very short question or comment?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Member has talked very eloquently about employment equity. All I want to know is why the Liberal Party did not introduce the concept of employment equity when it forward the Government?


George Baker: We were responsible for the Human Rights Act, the Charter, and what is called human rights equity in employment throughout the Public Service, and it has been decimated by this Government. The Bill before the House is totally deficient. It should have been the logical conclusion to what was set before and done by the previous Government. The Hon. Member knows that the Liberal Party has stood by people as far as employment equity is concerned. It is this Government which has not fulfilled its mandate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on April 7, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) why the federal Government was providing some $10 million to a group of rich American investors called Dreamstreet Limited to do some phoney research on dairy cattle. It was in relation to whether Holstein cattle were black and white or red and white. The Minister, in responding to my question, essentially said that he did not know too much about it, that in fact he had received representation on both sides of the issue and had asked for advice from the Holstein-Friesian Association of Canada.
I pointed out in my supplementary question that Dr. Rejean Bouchard, the Co-ordinator of Animal Research, said in a statement to the press: "Everyone who was consulted on the project walked away from it". I asked why the Minister was trying to put these Dreamstreet people, the rich investors from Wall Street, on easy street with $10 million of Canadian taxpayers' money. The Minister then completely welched on the matter and said that he had not approved it, that it was approved by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay). He was obviously trying to put the responsibility on Holstein Canada, but it seems to me that it is not its responsibility. It is
Adjournment Debate
the responsibility of the Government to decide whether the project goes forward and $10 million of the taxpayers' money is used for essentially a laundering process to recycle Canadian taxpayers' money to the United States.
If the Minister reads the response of the Holstein-Friesian Association of Canada, which put out a press release on April 7, he will find that the secrecy of the project is inappropriate, that a comparison of red and white Holsteins with black and white Holsteins is not in itself worth undertaking, that the current project description is not adequate nor relevant to the current and future business of dairy farming in Canada and that the project must provide substantial direct benefit to Canadian Holstein breeders.
I talked with David Clemens a few days after putting the question and he said as the project had been approved, it was really garbage and had no research benefits. I understand that the Holstein-Friesian Association would like to see the project reconstituted to be of some value, but at the same time we do have $10 million of taxpayers' money committed to Dreamstreet to do some research. Farmers are very upset and concerned about this. They say that if the Government has this kind of money to do unnecessary research, why does it not have adequate research funds to do worth-while projects for agriculture.
We ask ourselves why the Minister put pressure on the Department of National Revenue to approve this project. We heard it was turned down three or four times. Or was it the Prime Minister's Office which put the pressure on the Department of National Revenue? Who is Dreamstreet? There have been a lot of reports. We received one report from a farmer who said he had heard that in 1984, it was a company which was some $11 million in debt in the United States and it had to reorganize. There is a story in the March edition of the Holstein-Friesian World of a sale at Hyperian Farms in New York State where some 37 lots of cattle were sold for $9 million. One animal actually sold for $1.5 million. However, when it was checked a month later, it was found no money had ever changed hands. No pedigrees were ever exchanged.
What kind of a scam was going on there as reported in the Holstein-Fresian World? What kind of scam is going on in Canada today? What farmers are concerned about is that dozens and dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of farmers will be left holding the bag, having sold animals, having them left on their farms and not receiving payment for them. We must really ask ourselves: Is it appropriate that the Government of Canada is spending $10 million to set up the largest dairy herd in Canada, owned by an American investment group from New York State?
In the end, I think we will find out that this is the largest hoax which has even been perpetrated on the dairy industry in Canada, and on the Holstein-Friesian Association. It seems that the Minister is sitting on his hands and making no decisions. He is doing nothing to stop this scam. He should

April 21, 1986
Adjournment Debate
either stop it immediately or, if he does not have the courage, then he should set up a commission of inquiry to look into the matter. The whole idea of it really smells. Canadian dairymen are upset. They want the Government to take action. They do not want the Minister of Agriculture sitting on his hands and letting this thing continue on in the way it has been going.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I take great delight in being able to respond to this particular question of the Hon. Member. I do so because of the nature of the question in the first place. I wish to set the record straight on two particular points.
First, in looking for the perpetrator of the hoax, I can tell the Hon. Member that he is now practising law in Montreal. He is the former Minister of Finance. His name is Marc Lalonde. I say this because the scientific tax credit was brought in under the previous Liberal Government, of which the Hon. Member was a member. So if we are looking for the perpetrator, we now know where to find him.
The Hon. Member opposite suggests that the Minister overruled his departmental officials by approving funds for Dreamstreet Holsteins Incorporated, funds to be used in developing a dairy herd research project in Ontario. There is no question about it. The facts are very clear. Neither the Minister nor any official in the Department of Agriculture recommended or approved any such project. A tax credit for this project was approved under a Revenue Canada program introduced by the previous Liberal Government, namely, the scientific research tax credit. That was a boondoggle of magnificent proportions perpetrated by the former Government.
When we took office, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) took immediate measures to curtail this program and develop new technical guidelines for tightening up the system of scientific tax credits. The Dreamstreet project met the old program criteria. Since laws cannot be passed retroactively, Revenue Canada ruled that it qualified for tax benefits.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It was approved in December of 1985 and you know it.


Philip Derek Lewis: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) says that the research project is "phoney". We are used to hearing better language from the Hon. Member. I suppose in his embarrassment with respect to how this program was initiated, he has had to resort to that type of language.
Due to the efforts of the present Minister of Agriculture, the company has indicated a willingness to be flexible with its plans. As a matter of fact, officials from Agriculture Canada attended a meeting on April 17 involving the company, representatives of the Holstein association and the University of Guelph. Progress is being made along these lines to bring this research in line with the over-all research of Agriculture Canada. I might add that Agriculture Canada conducts research to the tune of about $240 million per year, including more than $7 million annually for the dairy industry, an
industry which is very important to many parts of the country. I point out that it is especially important to my riding of Simcoe North.
Almost half of dairy research expenditures have been paid for by the Government of Canada. This is why we are looking to expand this research by involving the private sector to a greater extent. We are presently co-operating with the Holstein association, Semex Canada and the Canadian Association of Animal Breeders, which are all heavily involved in this very important dairy research.


PENITENTIARIES-PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION OF PRISON IN MANICOUAGAN CONSTITUENCY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I raised the question of whether or not it was proper for the Government of Canada to be building a penitentiary in the Prime Minister's riding. That is the subject 1 wish to raise this evening.
I have actually raised this subject in the House of Commons twice, and I wish to refer to both times. I raised it once with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and once with the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty). I asked the Minister of Justice to try to explain why the penitentiary was going ahead while the Nielsen task force had put the question up in the air and the Government had asked the committees to study the various matters that were recommended by the Nielsen task force. I also asked the Solicitor General what was the justification for building that penitentiary at the same time as the committee was being asked in good faith to look at a variety of options, including that of not proceeding with the penitentiary.
I find it disturbing that the Government has the money to build the penitentiary in the Prime Minister's riding at a time when the Parole Service is deteriorating to the point where parole officers themselves have taken the unprecedented step of going public and saying that with the caseload building up the way it is, the public is at risk. They are saying they are not able to provide adequate street supervision for offenders.
The Solicitor General wants us to take him as an enlightened correctional authority. He recognizes that street supervision in a proper case is a lot beter than incarceration. Street supervision is more rehabilitative. It gives the offender the opportunity to deal with the shortcomings that caused him to go to prison, whether it is drinking, associating with the wrong people, living in the wrong part of town or not having proper ways of dealing with his own feelings of aggression and hostility. All these problems are dealt with much more effectively under street supervision than behind bars. Of course, there is a residue of offenders from whom street supervision does not provide the public with enough protection who should be behind bars. There is no doubt, however, that the Solicitor General wants Canadians to believe that he thinks effective street supervision is a good alternative. Not only is it more effective from the point of view of rehabilitation, but it is a lot cheaper.
April 21, 1986

We would have expected a rational Government to make sure that the parole system works well and that it is the alternative that is being presented to the Canadian people. However, we are seeing perhaps the most expensive prison in the history of Canada being built right in the middle of the Prime Minister's riding. I do not think that is a defensible position, particularly when the Government is inviting us to take seriously the things the Nielsen task force has recommended to us and, in particular, the option of not building the penitentiary. The Solicitor General went so far as to say that the question of the penitentiary was not open. He felt that the show had to go on and that they had to go on making the decisions. I do not think this is the correct decision.
I would like to add that I had a chance to discuss this matter further with the Solicitor General at the Justice and Solicitor General Committee. In that committee, he said that this penitentiary was one that I had in effect approved while I was Solicitor General. He proved that by showing that I had in the past endorsed an extension to Drummond Penitentiary. He asked me how I felt about that. I would like to confess that I thought that that extension to Drummond had actually been built. I thought that we were talking about a further addition of cells in the Quebec region. Now I have to react and ask the Government to react to that challenge. I do so just by looking at the bottom line.
This penitentiary is over four times as expensive as the addition that might have been built to Drummond, and would have been built if the instructions that I had given and the decision taken by the former Government had been followed. However one looks at it, the penitentiary in the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has to be looked at as nothing but politics and something very unnecessary.
Mr. Speaker, you will be interested in the prediction which I am about to make in my remaining minute. If more prison cells have to be built, they should be built in western Canada. Let us look at the offender population, from where offenders come, and the fairness of building extra cell capacity in Quebec when the crying need is for extra cell capacity in western Canada. People in every part of the country like to believe that there are no criminals from their part of the country. However, I am afraid that the only way these cells in Quebec will be properly used will be by moving inmates from western Canada for incarceration in the Province of Quebec. There will be language problems and the unfairness of inmates not being close to their families or the communities to which they will return upon release. It is a mistake and it is a misallocation of resources.
I put it to the Minister's mouthpiece tonight, whoever it will be, to reverse this terrible decision and to countermand the decision made by the Prime Minister. He should announce that more money will be put into parole, that less money will be put into this penitentiary, and that if more cells are built,
Adjournment Debate
they will be built in western Canada so that offenders convicted there will be able to serve their time there, not be required to go to the Prime Minister's riding to serve their sentences.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, neither you nor I can accept the fact that there are worse criminals in western Canada than there are in any other part of the country. We just cannot accept the Hon. Member's challenge. Further, I encourage him to request his colleagues in the Opposition and in the Senate to pass Bill C-67 and Bill C-68, and a lot of his wishes will be accomplished. He would certainly be working in a positive manner if he worked in that direction.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond further to the issue raised by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) during the Oral Question Period of March 25, 1986, with regard to the construction of a 240-inmate protective custody unit at Port Cartier, Quebec.
As the Hon. Member will recall, the construction of a protective custody facility in Quebec was originally announced on his behalf, as the then Solicitor General, in April, 1984. The need for protective custody accommodation still exists, but the location for the new institution has been changed in the interests of socio-economic development, to alleviate severely distressed conditions in the Port Cartier area.
The institution at Port Cartier will meet the accommodation needs for protective custody inmates in the Province of Quebec. It is projected that 230 cells will be required by 199394. It will replace the outdated protective facilities at Laval Institution. This institution, formerly called St. Vincent de Paul, was opened in 1873 and has been identified for phase-out since the late 1970s. Because of its age and structure, it cannot be renovated or operated economically for a higher security population at current standards. This new institution also conforms to the recommendations of the parliamentary subcommittee report on the penitentiary system, that the Correctional Service of Canada have dedicated protective custody institutions to house this special population and provide sufficient programming.
Historically speaking, penitentiaries have traditionally been built to serve geographical areas or the needs of newly created provinces. In more recent years, advancements in technology and service delivery have meant that the interests of regional development, particularly in areas under distress, can be taken into great consideration in site selection. Springhill Institution in Springhill, Nova Scotia, is an example in point, as is the area in the Miramichi region of New Brunswick where the Atlantic Institution is nearing completion.
Although the location of the new institution may be considered as relatively remote from Montreal, Port Cartier has the necessary infrastructure in place to support the needs of a penitentiary, and program delivery to inmates will not suffer because of its location. However, because of its location, the Correctional Service of Canada will endeavour to facilitate the maintenance of family ties where possible. It has, for

April 21, 1986
Adjournment Debate
example, in the past organized additional transportation for visitors from Newfoundland to visit inmates housed on the mainland of Atlantic Canada and has modified procedures to enable extended family visits for inmates.
The new institution will have significant and continuing beneficial economic impact on the community. Of an estimated capital cost of $68.2 million, a substantial portion will be spent on local construction materials, goods and services. It is projected that 700 job years will be created over the 1985-88 period.


REGULATIONS-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF TASK FORCE CREATED TO STUDY CERTAIN ASPECTS
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, on April 16, 1986, I asked the Minister responsible for regulations (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to inform the House on the latest developments in this area.
As you know, in the summer of 1984 our Government proposed three very important themes to the Canadian people.
Reconciliation and harmonious relations with the provinces were some of our priorities. To date, we have concluded both the Eastern and Western Accords, and, Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecer I can state that relations between Quebec and Ottawa have never been better than today, compared with what they were during the last twenty years when the Liberals governed this country and allowed a climate of hostility to develop between Quebec and Ottawa.
We also spoke of liberalizing trade relations with our main trading partner, the United States of America.
In this area we have made tremendous progress, so much so that the Americans sent signals that they were becoming wary of this process of liberalizing our trade relations because they understood that the Government of Canada was determined to negotiate in earnest, while clearly respecting the interests of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, we also said that our Government would respect and get closer to the private sector, the only valid partner for a progressive government. We wanted to rid it of the bureaucratic burden of obsolete regulations and red tape.
As early as September 18, 1984, only two weeks after Canadians approved our election program, we announced that a departmental task force had been created to examine Government programs. On November 16, 1984, a group of responsible Canadians, under the chairmanship of Mr. Philip Aspinal, formed the private sector advisory group. This group, which itself was to be sub-divided into nineteen sub-task forces, examined over 1,000 government programs representing nearly $100 billion in expenditures.
On March 11, 1986, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Nielsen) tabled the Nielsen Report in the House, a report drafted by the task force responsible for examining programs.
The House referred the various parts of the report to various standing committees of the House, for assessment, so that the committees could make their own recommendations as soon as possible to the House, with the co-operation of Members from all three political parties.
Mr. Speaker, we know that a sound and fair assessment of current programs and legislation by the various parliamentary committees will make it possible to recommend, to legislators and Government officials, ways of achieving substantial savings.
Committee members will also have to consider the additional and very substantial economic impact that will surely result from the Nielsen report, and I am thinking of lower production costs for goods and services offered by Canadian companies.
Hon. Members will have to realize that pressure groups and municipal and provincial governments can no longer afford to think and regulate within a local, mini-regional or regional framework. Today, legislators must expand their thinking to fit the national and often even the global context. The chair on which we sit in our home may come from Sweden, while we are watching the news on an American network and our TV is imported from North Korea.
Hon. Members will have to assess the various legal irritants between provinces, construction codes, parity committees and employment permits that apply only province-wide. We will have to review our labour laws, transport legislation, and the regulations of various departments such as Fisheries, Agriculture and Environment, including areas such as food. When talking about the Province of Quebec we will have to consider the fact those taxpayers have to file two returns, one with Quebec City and one with Ottawa.
We will have to take a second look at duplication in legislation and policies concerning the development of our natural resources and matters related to northern regions. We will have to put an end to overlapping foreign programs and duplication in regional industry assistance.
Mr. Speaker, we will have to urge all Canadian men and women to realize that we can no longer live as if we were not part of the whole world. Manufacturers had to face this fact, federal and provincial legislators must now follow suit, and unions will no longer be able to ignore this timely, universal and urgent truth.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) for the interest he has demonstrated in this very important Government initiative. It is characteristic of his ongoing involvement in, and dedication to, the administrative and economic issues of Quebec and Canada and how they work together.
April 21, 1986

On February 13, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) rose in the House and announced the first ever federal regulatory policy. That statement of policy is one part of our eight-point regulatory strategy that will, by improving the management of Government, by removing obstacles to growth, and by encouraging private initiative, play a major role in the Government's agenda for economic renewal.
Our regulatory policy was developed from the work done in this area by the task force on program review. In its report, the study team provided a three-part diagnosis of Canada's regulatory situation. It pointed out that the cumulative effect of regulation at the three levels of Government constitutes an enormous impediment to economic growth, initiatives, enterprise, and personal freedom in Canada. It went on to say that elected representatives do not have adequate control over regulation and the regulatory system. Finally, it concluded this indictment by indicating that the public has too little access to and involvement in the development and review of regulation.
Our strategy is designed to respond to the problems identified by the task force. The Government House Leader has assumed the additional role of Minister responsible for Regulatory Affairs. In March of this year he provided details of 43 separate regulatory program initiatives currently being undertaken by the Government. Work is already underway on
Adjournment Debate
these reforms and will lead to far-ranging practical improvements in a broad cross-section of federal regulatory programs. At the same time, the Minister announced a new citizens code of regulatory fairness. This code will provide a yardstick against which the administrative performance of the Government can be measured.
The Member for Levis has expressed particular interest in the area of federal-provincial co-operation. In response to his earlier question, the Government House Leader pointed out that preliminary meetings have already taken place on this subject between Mr. Reed Scowen, chairman of the Quebec task force, and federal officials. In this context, I want to assure the Hon. member that the Government will place priority on increased regulatory co-operation with the provinces with a view to addressing the over-all regulatory burden on Canadians and eliminating wasteful duplication.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, April 22, 1986