1986-04-15

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar year 1985.

May I remind Hon. Members that, pursuant to Standing Order 96(4)(a), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages, and that Hon. Senators will be informed accordingly.
* [DOT] *


PETITIONS
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 responses to petition Nos. 331-24 and 331-42.



INTERPARLIAMENT AY DELEGATION


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's 35th Seminar on Parliamentary Practice and Procedure, Westminster.
[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, today, on April 15, I wish to present to the House a petition signed by several dozen workers in the asbestos industry, who are asking the House of Commons to review the entire asbestos question. Petitioners claim, and rightly so, that to market this natural resource outside Canada, we will first have to learn to maximize its use in this country.
I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by people from all over the Eastern Townships, and these petitioners respectfully ask the House to review the policy on asbestos.
I have a third petition, Mr. Speaker, where again, several dozen families are asking the House, for the sake of the welfare and economic survival of the Eastern Townships, to provide a new, sound and sensible policy on asbestos.
Mr. Speaker, all three petitions were duly certified.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition which has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions of the House of Commons. The petition is from constituents throughout the Province of New Brunswick who are expressing their concern with regard to the assessment being currently conducted by Canadian National and the possible effect that may have on the largest single industrial employer in the Province of New Brunswick, that being the shops located within the City of Moncton.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of an application under Standing Order 29 from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, consistent with the requirements of Standing Order 29, I informed Your Honour today of my intention to call for an emergency debate

April 15, 1986
Order Paper Questions
on an extremely important matter. Also consistent with that Order, I will read to you the letter I sent to you earlier this morning. It reads:
The reason for the motion concerns the critical situation in Libya which potentially affects the lives of an estimated 1,300 Canadians.
In response to terrorist attacks, the Government of the United States launched an air attack yesterday against a number of locations including the capital city of Libya. The situation in the area, which has potential risk for Canadians, remains critically serious.
For this reason, I believe an emergency debate is required.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I have examined the Standing Order and the application has been made in conformity with procedure. I am, therefore, prepared to find that the application meets the requirements of Standing Order
29.
Does the Hon. Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House having given its consent, leave is granted and debate is set down for eight o'clock p.m. this day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 528.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Since the publication of the 1978 drinking water quality guidelines, what new drinking water standards have been developed and/or implemented in Canada?
2.	By the end of 1986, what standards will be developed and/or implemented for chemical substances?
3.	Does Canada subscribe to the drinking water quality guidelines developed by the World Health Organization and, if so, for what substances?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No national guidelines or standards have been developed since the "Guidelines for Canadian Water Quality: 1978" were published (in 1979). Officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare have, on request from provincial governments, developed interim guidelines for a number of additional parameters, including 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD), and octachlorodibenzodioxin, and the pesticides simazine, cyanazine, metribuzine, metolachlor, 2, 4-DB, dicamba, prometryn and alachlor (for Ontario), the pesticide
bromoxynil (for Manitoba) the pesticide aldicarb (for Quebec) and the pesticide carbofuran (for Alberta).
The Province of Ontario has also included an "interim limit" for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in its 1983 drinking water objectives and the Province of Quebec has included the additional pesticides carbofuran, diquat, feni-trothion, paraquat and picloram in its Drinking Water Regulations under the Environment Quality Act.
2. A federal-provincial committee is revising and expanding the current "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, 1978". The following substances are being examined with a view to establishing guidelines:
asbestos
arsenic
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
dichloromethane
dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethane
trihalomethanes
PAHs
toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes
tetrachloroethylene
lead
copper
cyanide
hardness
turbidity
trichloroethylene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
nitrate/nitrite
chlorobenzenes
gasoline
PCBs
benzo(a)pyrene
dioxins
trichlorophenols fluoride uranium 42 pesticides
It is expected that recommendations for approximately half of these chemicals will be finalized by the end of 1986.
3. The Department of National Health and Welfare played an active role in developing the 1984 World Health Organization's (WHO) guidelines for drinking water quality. These guidelines specify values for a number of organic chemicals not included in the 1978 Canadian guidelines, these are benzene, benso(a)pyrene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloro-phenols, 1, 2-dichloromethane, 1, 1-dichloroethene and tetrachloroethene. However, much of the information used as a basis for these guidelines was published and received much earlier that 1984. More recent information may indicate the need to revise some of the WHO recommendations, and this need is being carefully considered by the federal-provincial committee. Nevertheless, Canada would subscribe to those WHO recommendations for which Canadian guidelines do not now exist, until they are superseded by the new Canadian guidelines now being developed.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 15, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 14, consideration of Bill C-62, an Act respecting Employment Equity as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Commmittee; and Motion No. 11A (Mr. Allmand) (p. 12204).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 11 A. Mr. Allmand, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved:
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 24 at page 2 the following:
''''reasonable accommodation" includes, without restriction, the reasonable adaptation of the workplace, hiring practices or the job description to accommodate the needs of designated groups, including the special needs of a qualified disabled person, through provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification, and human support services.".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East) moved:: Motion No. 12A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 30 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing agent, or with such persons as have been designated by the designated groups to act as their representatives, implement employment equity by".
Motion No. 14A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 33 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
''except those in conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act, that results".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to require employers implementing employment equity to not
Employment Equity
only consult with persons who have been designated by the employees to act as their representatives, or with the bargaining agents where there are unions, but also with persons who have been designated by the designated group to act as their representatives.
When this clause was originally submitted to us in the original Bill it did not require any consultation whatsoever with unions or employee representatives. In committee we moved an amendment which required employers to consult with unions or employee representatives. To the credit of the Government it agreed to the principle and it amended the Bill.
I want to thank the Minister. She is not here today, but I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that openness and flexibility in recognizing that there should be consultation with unions and with employee representatives.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it seems as if there are all sorts of other meetings going on in the chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, order. I bring all Members to order and remind them that if they have other discussions they can hold them elsewhere.


William Warren Allmand: I want to thank the Speaker for that.
I give credit to the Government for agreeing to an amendment which would oblige employers to consult with unions and employee representatives in implementing employment equity. We presented another amendment as well, which to this point has not been accepted, that employers should also consult with the target groups, or their representatives, because very often the target groups do not predominate in being in the unions or in the employee associations.
As you know, the target groups under this legislation are women, visible minorities, native people, and the disabled. The purpose of this Bill is to provide affirmative action programs for those four target groups. The Bill in Clause 4 says that employers shall implement employment equity in consultation with bargaining agents and with employee representatives. Very often those unions and official associations are dominated by white anglo-saxon men; I am not critical of that but that is the way things are. I was speaking to a woman employee last evening who tells me that she is in a work unit which is overwhelmingly male. If I was to meet with the union executive I would meet with all males and it is very, very difficult for me to get a sense of the problems of the women in that working unit by talking to the official union or to the official bargaining agent for those employees. One could give other examples of that.
In many workplaces there are no disabled people whatsoever, so to speak to the official representatives in implementing employment equity with respect to them would be a lost cause. The same thing with visible minorities. There are some workplaces where you will not see anything but white faces.
The amendment that I put to the House now is to add to the consultation process in implementing employment equity. My amendment would require that employers, if it is required,

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
consult with such persons as have been designated by the designated groups to act as their representatives. It is an alternative, it is not an add-on.
This means that the employer would have to consult as well in implementing employment equity with representatives of the target groups; women, visible minorities, the disabled or native people, where that applies. In some parts of Canada that entire mix would not apply. There are some parts of Canada where native people are in great numbers; in other parts they are not. There are some communities in Canada where they have good fortune and there are not be too many disabled people, but there are other communities, the larger cities, in particular, where there are a great many.
In any case, the purpose of this amendment is to require that consultation. Just as the Government accepted the other amendment, that there should be consultation and implementation of employment equity with unions and bargaining agents and employee associations, I would hope that it will see the good sense in having consultations with the representatives of the target groups as well.
Since we only have ten minutes I must discuss two amendments at this time. I also have to discuss Amendment 14A because it has been grouped with 12A. The clause says that employers should implement employment equity by:
(a) identifying and eliminating each of the employers' employment practices, not otherwise authorized by law, that results in employment barriers against persons in designated groups-
We want to change that part which states that they must identify and eliminate each of the employers' employment practices not otherwise authorized by law as follows:
"Except those in conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act, that results.
It seems to me if you are going to provide for exceptions, the only exceptions should be those set out in the Human Rights Act. This is more of a technical amendment; it fine tunes the legislation, and I cannot see any good reason why the Government would not accept that amendment.
To terminate my remarks at this time let me say just one or two things that also apply to these two amendments. Every time we propose amendments to this Bill some Members on the Government side ask, sometimes shouting from their seats and sometimes when they give their speeches, "Well, why wasn't this done earlier?. Why didn't previous Governments do these good things?". I want to explain why this was not dealt with earlier.
You know that in 1977 this House, under a Liberal Government passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that Act, within the federal jurisdiction, outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex, racial origin, ethnic origin, disability and so on. It outlawed discrimination at that time within the federal jurisdiction.
The Government then went to work on an entrenched Charter of Rights. That took a long time and many federal-provincial conferences. It was not completely within the ambit of the federal Government. Finally, the Charter of Rights was agreed to by enough provinces in 1981-82, and it came into effect in 1982. Section 15(1), the equality section, only came into effect in 1985. I think it is very important that we refer to that Section. It says:
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.
That Section outlawed all kinds of discrimination and was put in the Constitution so it would prevail over every other federal and provincial law. However, in doing that we had to provide some means for affirmative action. Affirmative action is a sort of reverse discrimination. It is discriminating in favour of those groups who have been traditionally discriminated against, so they can catch up. We had to put in Section 15(2) which reads:
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.
That Section provided for affirmative action programs.
As soon as the Constitution was accepted the Government appointed the Abella Commission to study ways in which affirmative action could be brought into operation. That Commission reported in 1985 when the new Government came to power; that is why that issue was dealt with then. I think it is completely without foundation for the Government to continue asking: "Why was it not done earlier?" It was not done earlier because we did not have the entrenched provisions to provide for affirmative action. We appointed the Royal Commission, but discrimination had been outlawed as far back as 1977, and again with the Charter of Rights in 1982. I think it is important to bring that to the attention of the House.
I would like to hear from other Members on the two amendments I have just put forward. I hope they will not be objected to simply on the grounds that they should have been done years ago. They could not have been done years ago.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that we are not going to object on those grounds. We fully realize the good sense in what has been said. However, what I would like to ask is: Who are the designated groups? They are listed but not defined. I can see technical and administrative problems with that. We have something that is already working and this would not be helpful to a process already under way. I have numerous examples of consultation now taking place with target group organizations by employers. I will refer to that in a minute.
This motion has a disjunctive drafting error. One or the other of these groups, or perhaps both, should be specified. To
April 15, 1986

give the apparent wide range of choices, as the proposed amendment suggests, would give employers the latitude to avoid or ignore this clause of the Bill. Definition poses a separate problem. Difficulties may arise in deciding who are the representatives of designated groups, and whether such representatives are acceptable to either employers or designated groups. Do such representatives come from within or outside the employers' workforce? Any such amendment would have to be clearly delineated in the Bill, and the present phrasing of the suggested amendment does not give employers clear direction to interpret the Bill's intent.
Regarding employer consultation with target group organizations, many examples exist where employers who are implementing employment equity have consulted with target group organizations. These include the Co-operators Ltd. of Regina. In order to attract native candidates this company seconded a staff person to work on a six-month assignment with Regina Native Outreach. The Disabled Persons Employment Service of Regina has been called upon to assist several Crown corporations and the Co-operators with a physical-demands analysis to ensure the elimination of systemic barriers. The Canadian Bankers' Association has indicated its intention to initiate contacts with the major target group organizations. Westinghouse Ltd. of Hamilton has approached organizations such as the CNIB and the Association for the Hearing Impaired. Amertek Ltd. of Woodstock is in liaison with the local paraplegic association. The Weston Hotel in Toronto solicited referrals from the Ontario Mental Health Association. VIA Rail has contacted disabled agencies. CN Telecom is involved in native programs. It wanted information on the Northwest Territories/Yukon, Newfoundland and Labrador native organizations. I could go on. What all this shows is that there is an excellent intent on the part of all employers to do the consultation with the designated groups.
As far as the second motion is concerned, we have to state that we are categorically opposed to that as well. The bona fide occupational requirements of the Canadian Human Rights Act are described as guidelines setting forth the extent to which and the manner in which paragraph 14(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to employment practices. All contingencies covering employers' practices may not be covered in these guidelines, therefore a broader wording of the Act continues to be more desirable. Furthermore, the broad wording takes into account the possibility that a legal employment practice may be challenged by a group or individual who may feel that the practice under question creates a real or possible barrier to employment but is not a prima facie discriminatory employment practice as defined by the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the first of two amendments presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). This motion is to amend Clause 4 which reads:
Employment Equity
An employer shall, in consultation with such persons as have been designated by the employees to act as their representatives or, where a bargaining agent represents the employees, in consultation with the bargaining agent, implement employment equity by-
It then outlines a series of procedures by which employment equity should be applied. Of course it does not have an enforcement mechanism, but does include a very poor monitoring mechanism.
What my colleague is essentially recommending here is that the employer who wants to improve the potential for his company to improve its profits and direct its energy in the best interests of all Canadians, and therefore open up his employee base by removing the barriers to discrimination so that the target groups can have a better chance, be able to do so.
One of the concerns we have is that quite often a union, which is the bargaining agent, is an all-male union which may not have the handicapped, visible minorities or indigenous Canadian people among its ranks. That is part of the systemic discrimination which manifests itself in the union structure. That is changing, but not quickly enough.
I would like to see the unions implement an affirmative action program as well. The fact that the unions are nonrepresentative is the reason my colleague has recommended the amendment that consultation shall take place:
-or with such persons as have been designated by the designated groups to act as their representatives, implement employment equity by.
We know there is a significant number of handicapped in our society today. The union is not always in the best position to indicate the nature of changes that might be needed. For example, let us assume we are dealing with a scientific and research milieu as opposed to the manufacturing sector. I suggest one could anticipate that the best results could be achieved if the industry was in a position to consult directly with the people concerned because they are best able to give guidance and suggestions that would be in the best interest of the employer in the long run. Therefore, this amendment is bascially in the interests of the employer because it adds to the ability to facilitate employment equity in a constructive way.
That is why I suggest adoption of this amendment. It would reflect that spirit of consultation which the Government has used as its guiding light in its decision making. The Government says it believes in consultation and open Government, so why would it not apply that same principle when dealing with a major Bill that is meant to focus on the change in society and bring about equality for the target groups in the best interests of all Canadians?
I do not understand why the Minister and the drafters of this Bill would not have provided for automatic consultation with the designated groups, because they know what is best for them. Such a provision would only make consultation binding, not their suggestions or guidance. What is wrong with speaking to those groups?

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
Yesterday, the handicapped indicated three major areas where they wanted change. I believe they demonstrated good citizenship in the relations between organized community groups with special interests and their attempt to have the legislators who they elected reflect their concerns and put those concerns into law. My colleague's recommendation should be seriously considered for enactment by the Government.
The second amendment we are discussing is Motion No. 14A. This concerns authorizing those issues which would be authorized by a law.
If I understand the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary correctly, he objected to this change because he believes it might be too restrictive to name only the Canadian Human Rights Act as the decision making guide for employers. I suggest that definitively stating which Act is the guide would give employers a far better indication of the rules of the game. Rather than having a loosely worded, non-applicable escape clause, this stipulation would clearly define the intention of the new law. What is the purpose of formulating a law with specific goals when that legislation contains wording that allows for escape clauses? The Government must either believe in what it is doing and codify and quantify it in law so that it is clear, or it should not bother putting it in law.
In this instance, the problem with the phrase: "not otherwise authorized by law" is that future legislation could in fact exempt more employers from this Bill or force a Charter challenge or amendment. Rather, only affirmative action programs designed to redress the imbalance should be exempted from action taken to conform to this Bill.
The National Action Committee spoke to this point. It is quite obvious that it is the commission's responsibility to apply the treasury directives which are found in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I suggest that we are only being fair to the business people who must apply these conditions with respect to employment equity.
Incidentally, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could bring to the attention of the Minister that according to the Human Rights Act the commission has the responsibility to look at all changes and applications with, I might say, en sous du lieu with the qualification of bona fide occupational requirement so that it is not punitive to the business community. If a business community can demonstrate that it is not in the best interest of either the worker or the industry, then it would have reasonable cause not to accommodate that particular party or issue within its business structure.
If the Government would act with reasonable accommodation-keeping keeping in mind the bona fide occupational requirement-in conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would be working in the best interest of the employer. It would enable the groups concerned to work toward the goals of this Employment Equity Bill.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with two motions that are somewhat different.
Motion No. 12A in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lacine-East (Mr. Allmand), deals with consultation. The motion states:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 30 at page 2 and
substituting the following therefor:
"ing agent, or with such persons as have been designated by the designated groups to act as their respresentatives, implement employment equity by."
This amendment attempts to improve the consultation process provided for in Bill C-62. All groups have been very concerned about the lack of consultation.
My main point is that the Canadian Labour Congress and representatives of trade unions in this country also appeared before our committee. They said very clearly that in the case of a plant that is organized, consultation is not enough. They need the right to negotiate employment equity with the employer. It seems to me that this is a very important fundamental principle in the Bill.
If this country is to have any semblance of economic democracy or any semblance of participatory democracy, surely trade unions that represent workers in a plant should not only be consulted but should be involved in the process of negotiating employment equity as part of the collective agreement between the workers and the employer. I believe that is the sensible way to proceed.
For example, many federally regulated businesses, many of which come under this Act, are unionized. Let us involve the trade unions that represent the workers in negotiating employment equity. Who would know the problems of the plant better than the workers in that particular plant? Who would know the way of producing the product and who would know about the discrimination and barriers in that particular industry better than the workers in the industry who are represented by a number of trade unions in the country?
If this is not the appropriate place for such a clause, I call on the Government to include a clause in the appropriate place to ensure free and open collective bargaining between trade unions that are representatives in a federally regulated industry and the employer. We can then negotiate employment equity. We want to have harmony in the workplace and a semblance of co-operation, commonness of goal and objective. It is very important, in my opinion, to have the unions involved in negotiating employment equity.
I am not sure why my friends in the Conservative Party are afraid of making this Bill a bit more democratic and participatory. I remember many months ago when the Conservative Party was in opposition it complained day in and day out about the Liberal Government not opening up its institutions, Parliament and Bills to ensure there was more participation from the grass roots. But once that Party got into office it forgot where it came from and what it stood for. Here is another opportunity for the Conservative Party to put into practice what it preached many months ago, to ensure that the
April 15, 1986

trade unions are represented in the Employment Equity Bill, Bill C-62.
What is the good of holding public hearings and having consultations if at the end of the consultative process the Government has not listened? Why do we go through the expense, take up the time of Members of Parliament and the staff of this institution, if we are not going to listen to the people who come before parliamentary committees?
A very good example of this is that the Conservative Party ignored the handicapped who came here yesterday. Over a hundred handicapped persons came here yesterday at considerable sacrifice and expense because they felt they had not been listened to by the Conservative Government. Beryl Potter on the National News last night said that she was a supporter of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). She told of how she had worked for him and that she was a Conservative but had never been so disappointed in her life as she was yesterday at the non-response of the Conservative Government. She is not one of my constituents, although she is a friend, but I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if I treated my constituents in that way I would not deserve to be re-elected to this Chamber.


Mr. McDermid:: Come on.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We are now getting complaints from Members of the Conservative Party who are betraying their own supporters and friends. Once again, they are starting to laugh at some of the people who came here.


John Horton McDermid: What nonsense. We are laughing at you. You are nothing but a big clown.


Mr. Gauthier:: Go get them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There are a lot of different ideas in politics, but to laugh at the disabled who came here to demonstrate is another matter.


Philip Derek Lewis: We are laughing at you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just yesterday in Question Period a Member of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), mentioned the disabled people in the galleries. Some of those Hon. Members started to laugh and interject in what I thought was a very inappropriate manner.


John Horton McDermid: That is a lie.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is a lie.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Is it appropriate to call me a liar, Mr. Speaker?


Philip Derek Lewis: We didn't call you a liar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I think the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) may wish to retract that word.
Employment Equity


John Horton McDermid: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will retract those words. I will say, however, that no one on this side laughed at the handicapped people here yesterday. It was very unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made those statements.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to retract my comments as well, Mr. Speaker, but I would reiterate that no one on this side at any time laughed at the plight of the disabled.


John Horton McDermid: That was very unfair, Lome.


Philip Derek Lewis: We were laughing at the point the Hon. Member was trying to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I can understand Hon. Members wanting to qualify their retractions. I can appreciate that.


John Horton McDermid: It's cheap politics.


Ian Deans: However, you know, Sir, I am sure, that the requirement is that the retraction be absolute and without qualifications or explanation.


Philip Derek Lewis: It was.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Before the Hon. Member resumes debate may I draw to the attention of all Hon. Memebrs of the House that we should keep in mind the subject matter of the amendments. Bearing that in mind, perhaps we could avoid such situations.


John Horton McDermid: Clean up your act.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If Hon. Members of the Conservative Party do not believe what I am saying, why do they not give Beryl Potter a call? If they were not laughing, they certainly were not treating them with much respect, with all kinds of hooting and hollering and interjecting during Question Period yesterday when questions were put about disabled people.


John Horton McDermid: Cheap shot.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They can continue saying that as long as they want. The more they say it, the merrier. It just shows where they stand when it comes to an issue like this. Those people came here at considerable expense-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


John Horton McDermid: You know better.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I think the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) knows full well that he is far away from the subject.


John Horton McDermid: Off the wall, as usual.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Hon. Members opposite are very upset. I must have hit a tender spot.

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
1 am speaking about consultation with disabled people because Motion 12A, put forward by the Hon. Member for Notre-dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), talks about consultation with groups designated by the four target groups. A good example of the lack of consultation by the Conservative Party occurred yesterday when those Hon. Members would not listen to what the disabled people had to say.
Beryl Potter came here on March 26 with three or four disabled people and confronted the Prime Minister at the Conservative caucus. He told her through Geoff Norquay, his policy adviser, that they would be back to her before this Bill came back to the House for report stage last Thursday. But that was not done. That is why the disabled were angry. They were promised that the Government would get back to them before this Bill came back to the House and that promise was broken. That is not consultation. That is trying to take advantage of people. That is the way the Conservative Party is treating the disabled. That is why I am angry and that is why they are angry.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member can call it nonsense if he wants. He can call Mrs. Potter and her comments nonsense if he wants, but the Prime Minister promised to get back to them before the Bill came back to the House and he did not do it. A letter went out yesterday but yesterday, is not last Thursday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the motion moved by my hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), namely, Motion No. 12A, to amend the proposed legislation by striking out line 30 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing agent, or with such persons as have been designated by the designated groups to act as their representatives, implement employment equity by".
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this motion first of all, because I want to congratulate and thank the Government for having agreed to an amendment to Clause 4. I think that after the debate on second reading, we made the point that there was a need for consultation and for involving the people in the designated groups, the groups targeted by Bill C-62, and I am referring to women, the disabled, visible minorities and native people.
Mr. Speaker, if we take the trouble to identify these groups and are willing to help them find employment without being discriminated against, it stands to reason we should consult them.
The amendment by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East merely proposes to further specify certain aspects, so that, the legislation does not merely provide
for consulting with the employees who are represented by the bargaining agents, but, when those employees are represented by a specific group, whether it is the physically disabled or another group, that these groups and the representatives, the leaders of these groups are also involved in the consultation process, to avoid overlooking the concerns of the people for whom the legislation was designed, and to ensure that these people, who are organized in associations and interest groups, are heard and are listened to, and that the employer, when he will have to implement this employment equity policy, will not only consult with the unions which are there to make the system a democratic one, but will make the system even more democratic by ensuring that the designated groups representing the four target groups I mentioned earlier are also involved in the process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment which 1 think makes a useful contribution to the Bill and is also supported by the target groups we mentioned earlier.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the motions put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) Motions Nos. 12A and 14A.
By way of preamble I might say that I had not intended to speak on these particular motions. However, having sat in the House yesterday during Question Period, having met beforehand outside on the steps of this place with representatives of the disabled, and after seeing the response of Government members-their laughter, heckling and the contempt which they showed for these people in our galleries-I felt it was important that all of us who share the concern about that behaviour rise and make our voices heard on these amendments.
These representatives of the disabled were here seeking in a straightforward, honest and civilized manner to make their concerns known to a Government which has refused to listen to them thus far.


John Horton McDermid: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, my point of order is that the remarks of the Hon. Member have nothing to do with the amendments we are discussing. Second, the statements of the Hon. Member are not factually correct. I think that he should be called to order. He is another person who is stooping so low so as to use these people as political pawns. It is unforgivable.


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


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is not a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Just more smut!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Speaker certainly does not agree with everything which the Parliamentary Secretary has said. However, I think he has a
April 15, 1986

legitimate point of order in terms of the subject matter. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Motion No. 12A is to ensure that there will be consultation-consultation with the groups which are affected by this toothless legislation. Because of the record of the Government which has refused to consult with representatives of the disabled-not only has it refused to consult but it has treated those representatives with utter contempt by making statements which are totally unfounded, with Members on the Government side looking up in the galleries and mocking the people who are there.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: We on this side of the House find that kind of behaviour totally unacceptable.


John Horton McDermid: That is just not true!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Hon. Members may have noticed a certain reaction to certain comments. I ask all Members on all sides of the House to constrain their remarks, if possible, to the amendments which are before the House in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, once again we are talking about consultation. One of the concerns raised by the groups which were on the Hill yesterday was with respect to the fact that they had asked to speak and to meet with representatives of all political Parties. I was there. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), was there. Many of my other colleagues were there. I know that some representatives of the Official Opposition were there.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But there were no Tories!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there was not a single Tory Member of Parliament-not one-who had the courtesy to attend. Not one Member of that gang of 211 had the courtesy to go outside and listen to the concerns of these people. That is why we in this Party are supporting, indeed, insisting on the passage of this amendment which requires consultation. We have seen the Government bring forward legislation which reflects consultation all right, but consultation with whom? The only people with whom the Government has consulted, apparently, on its employment equity legislation have been the Gang of Five, the manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce and its buddies in the Business Council on National Issues. We in this Party believe that the groups which are targetted by this employment equity legislation, women, native people, visible minorities and the disabled, deserve better. That is why we believe it is so fundamental that this amendment which requires consultation be supported.
Motion No. 14A deals with a concern that the Government may be attempting to escape from the provisions of this
Employment Equity
legislation-weak as they are-by allowing other statutes to take precedence over the employment equity Bill. This amendment would ensure that the only statutory provisions which could override the employment equity legislation would be provisions which in fact are in conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act. Surely, that is not an unreasonable suggestion.
Should Government members vote against this amendment what they would be suggesting, what they would be saying to the people of Canada, in particular those groups which are affected by this legislation, is that they are prepared to allow this Bill to be watered down by allowing other statutes to override it. It is weak enough already.
We talk about consultation. Had there been meaningful consultation this Bill, which has absolutely no teeth whatsoever, which requires only voluntary compliance, and from which the federal Government is exempt, would never have been brought forward. The Government embarked upon a process of consultation. I had the honour of serving as a member of the Special Committee on Equality Rights which considered employment equity legislation. Some Government members are not too happy with the recommendations of that committee; some of them even laugh at its recommendations. I would remind Hon. Members that the recommendations of that committee were unanimous. They were concurred in by all five Tory members of the committee. When they laugh at the recommendations which would put some teeth into employment equity legislation, they are laughing at their own colleagues. They are laughing at the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) who chaired the committee and who has been rather silent on this important legislation so far, despite the fact that the consultation process produced some very different suggestions.
The consultation process which we believe should be built into this legislation in fact resulted in the unanimous report which states that the Bill now before the House is fundamentally flawed because there is no enforcement mechanism whatsoever included in it. One of the recommendations of the committee was that representatives of the groups which are targetted by Bill C-62 be involved with management and labour in developing employment equity programs. Surely to goodness it is not unreasonable to suggest that the groups which are affected by this legislation have a hand in the enforcement of it. The committee unanimously stated that a principal shortcoming of Bill C-62 is the absence of enforcement mechanisms. It also stated that if successive reports show little or no progress toward equality of employment opportunities and benefits for the designated groups, then no sanctions are available.
Without an enforcement agency this proposal will simply not work. We will be right back here in three or five years with a stack of reports from employers clearly documenting their failure to make employment equity a reality. We will be shaking our heads and saying: "What do we do now?"

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
The Bill before us is a betrayal, a betrayal of the wishes and hopes of those Canadians who have been shut out for too long from employment. They have been denied a right to independent living. The door has been closed on those Canadians. The Government says that it is not prepared to put in the enforcement mechanisms which are necessary.
Rights that are not enforceable are not rights at all, as the committee has said. I hope that the Government will recognize that the committee which studied this question, heard representations and did the kind of consultation which the Government should have done, has seriously criticized this legislation. The committee has said that it falls short in a whole series of areas documented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr Nystrom). It falls short in the area of enforcement mechanisms, in the area of contract compliance and in the area of resources available to implement this legislation. I say that the Government has displayed contempt for the consultation process, and one does not have to look any further than the legislation to see that that is very clear.
Yesterday 150 disabled people appeared in Parliament, many of whom had to be literally carried to their seats. They sought in good faith answers to serious questions which they have been asking for many, many years. When Hon. Members on that side of the House treated their concerns and questions, hopes and criticisms of this legislation with contempt, with indifference and with laughter, we on this side of the House felt that that was totally unacceptable.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say something about the two amendments put forward by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I would like to consider particularly the matter of ensuring that the Bill not be made even weaker than it so clearly is in its truncated form which provides primarily for reporting on employment practices. I want to ensure that there are no clauses in the Bill that can be used in court challenges to undercut the effectiveness of the Government's intention to achieve employment equity or, as we suggested with the first motion put by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Government's intention to encourage and promote rather than achieve employment equity.
The two amendments before us relate to our concern for ensuring that the Bill is not flawed in one way or other. There has been comment on the matter of consultation between the Government and target groups, including the target group that was in Ottawa yesterday. We have all noted those criticisms.
I would like to suggest more particularly that, although there was a call for consultation with representatives of the workers, consultation with the union and, as this amendment before us now proposes, consultation with representatives of the target groups in the letter of the Bill, the consulting itself is
a weak form which this amendment does little enough to advance.
If the Government was really serious about achieving employment equity, as it claims to be in the language of the Bill, there would be provisions for negotiation. Instead, there is the recognition of workers who are not organized. This amendment would recognize representation from the target groups. However, consultation is not going to be adequate. We want to ensure that employers actually negotiate with their workers in ways that will ensure that employment equity is achieved.
I would like to suggest that workers' organizations have in fact been recognizing the need for action. I think particularly in terms of my own responsibilities for ethno-cultural communities, and particularly those in the visible minorities whose plight was dramatized in Toronto during the past year with a couple of reports describing discrimination in Toronto. In that case we saw evidence of racism in the employment practices of the employers of the City of Toronto.
I would like to recognize and place on the record the work the Ontario Federation of Labour has been doing in ensuring that workers and their organizations can deal with these issues, that workers will recognize the kinds of attitudes and practices that constitute racism and that workers and their organizations, negotiating committees and excutives, will be equipped to take a leadership role in ensuring that employment equity is actually achieved in their workplaces. That action by the Ontario Federation of Labour is very important and indictes that workers are prepared to take their part in ensuring movement toward employment equity. The legislation is very weak, if all it talks about is consulting. There is need for genuine negotiation of these conditions.
I would like to note particularly the action which one provincial Government has taken to ensure genuine movement toward employment equity. The Manitoba Government negotiated with the representative of all of its employees and arrived at a plan through which, over a period of time, the public workforce of the Government of Manitoba will be recomposed in such a way that it will represent the population of the Province of Manitoba. It will take time, of course, to do that. Workers do have concerns about their own careers, seniority and so forth. I am sure it is in recognition of those needs that the negotiations between the New Democratic Government of Manitoba and the Union of Government Employees provides for a 20-year time line. The end result of that 20-year process of reconstituting the workforce of the Province of Manitoba is that it will truly reflect the population of the province through the inclusion in the workforce of women, native people, persons from visible minorities and the disabled.
That kind of determination on the part of a Government and its readiness and ability to negotiate with the representatives of its employees is, as far as I am concerned, exactly what is required if we are to have real progress toward employment equity. It is that kind of program for which this Bill does not
April 15, 1986

really call by asking only for consultation and reporting. Because it does not commit the private sector, Government Departments and all employers to that kind of program, there are these weaknesses in this Bill which have concerned us so much since it was tabled in the House.
The second clause to which we are addressing ourselves is a clause which provides for the possibility that employment equity programs might be invalidated by other statutory provisions. Here there is an even clearer case for support of the amendment put by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. If there is one thing that a Government can do to render a Bill weak and quite possibly useless for the purposes it is intended to achieve, it is the inclusion of that sort of a clause. Surely it is an open invitation to the lawyers of the country to hunt through the statute books to come up with provisions they can use in legal challenges to affirmative action or to employment equity proposals. For that reason it is important to follow the line which the Hon. Member put forward in this; to strike it out and replace it with the following: "except those in conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act". It is particularly important because a clever lawyer can seek to argue that employment equity proposals and plans themselves involve us in discrimination.
Because the Canadian Human Rights Act deals explicitly with that, and ensures that such action plans do not involve discrimination, it becomes important to include this amendment in the Bill so there is not an expedition or hunt through the statute books to come up with ways of invalidating plans, and to ensure that genuine employment plans, supported by the principles of the Canadian Human Rights Act, will in fact be implemented. In both cases we have amendments of real value. 1 trust Government Members are listening and thinking carefully, and will in fact be prepared to give their support to both these amendments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 12A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace

Lachine East (Mr. Allmand):
Motion No. 12A
April 7, 1986-That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line
30 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing agent, or with such persons as have been designated by the designated groups to act as their representatives, implement employment equity by".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Employment Equity


Some Hon. Members:: Vea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 14A. Mr. Allmand, seconded by Mr. Gauthier,
moves:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 33 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
''except those in conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act, that results".

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. We will now proceed with Motion No. 16A.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East) moved:
Motion No. I6A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 46 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
"eligibility or geography according to whichever of these reference criteria provides the most opportunity to qualified members of the designated groups and from which".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to summarize Clause 4 of the Bill. 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 or in segments of the workforce.
This clause attempts to indicate that in putting in practice employment equity policies, we must try to achieve in different workplaces the representation which is generally found in the workforce for those designated groups. If there are so many women in a particular workforce, for example, a firm should have more or less that same percentage of women, and the same would apply for disabled persons. In other words, the clause to which I am referring sets up a mechanism to determine what is the best standard in judging whether employment equity is taking place or what is the standard of representation.
I point out very strongly that what is contained in the Bill is extremely defective. It indicates that we should look at the proportion of the representation in the workforce. The problem is that many of these people are unfortunately not in the workforce; they are unemployed. I forget the percentage of unemployment among disabled people but it is extremely high. If we look at the workforce and try to devise affirmative action programs, we will not see too many disabled persons. Therefore it would not be a very good standard by which to make improvements. Clause 4 goes on to indicate;
(il) in those segments of the workforce that are identifiable by qualification,
eligibility or geography-
If we look at the workforce in some parts of northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta, unfortunately we will not find too many Indians. To use that as a standard of judgment is almost ridiculous.
In determining unemployment figures, Statistics Canada has a very special definition of who is and who is not in the workforce. One either has to be working or looking for work, or one has had to attend a job interview in the last four weeks. Many of the people who have given up the hope of finding jobs- they are on welfare and so on-are not even counted in the workforce.
The purpose of my amendment is to correct that situation in a small way. It does not correct it altogether. I am limited by what I can do because of the terminology in the Bill. My amendment suggests that Clause 4(b)(ii) should be changed to read:
-according to whichever of these reference criteria provides the most opportunity to qualified members of the designated groups-
In other words, if we are to look at different situations in the workforce, we should at least oblige the employer in implementing employment equity or affirmative action to base it on
that representation which would give the best deal to the designated group. I should like to refer to an example of this.
Let us look at the percentage of Indians and Metis in the entire Province of Alberta. I do not know what that percentage might be; perhaps it would be 15 per cent. However, if we were dealing with an affirmative action program of a particular firm in the constituency of Athabasca in northern Alberta, the percentage of native people would be much higher. I am suggesting that we should look at the geographic area of the plant or the province and make a judgment based upon a standard for affirmative action which gives the best deal to that designated group.
Let us look at the Province of British Columbia. There are many visible minorities in the Vancouver or lower mainland area, but the percentage would be much smaller if we took into account the total Province of British Columbia. If a firm were setting up business in the suburbs of Vancouver and took into account, for example, the percentage of Sikhs or people of East Indian origin in the entire province, it would get away with a much smaller standard in implementing affirmative action or employment equity. In those cases firms must be obliged to take the geographic area or the qualification area which gives the best deal to the target group. As the Bill is presently worded, the employer is not obliged to do that. He must look at the various regional and geographic possibilities, but he has no obligation to come down on the side of that geographic zone, or whatever, which gives the best possible deal to the designated group.
We moved this amendment in committee and it was rejected by the Conservative Party. Members said at that time that they might do this through regulations to the Bill. Some of these things are too important to do through regulations which can be changed by Ministers and officials in the darkness of the night without anyone's knowledge. We all know that. In recent years the Special Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has examined these issues. We found that Orders in Council are changed, very often to the detriment of the Canadian population and we put that watchdog instrument in place.
I suggest that this kind of amendment should be in the Bill. This is a Bill dealing with employment equity and this is one way we can stiffen it and give it some teeth. In implementing employment equity we can oblige employers to use the segment of the workforce which is identifiable by qualification, eligibility, or geography according to whichever of these reference criteria provides the most opportunity to qualified members of the designated groups. In other words, they would be obliged to look at the area which gives the best deal to the designated group. I think that is fair and should be agreed to by the Government. We do not even have a firm commitment that the Government will deal with this by regulation, which would at least be a step forward. However, I think it should be dealt with in the Bill.
April 15, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 16A:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 46 at page 2 and
substituting the following therefor:
''eligibility or geography according to whichever of these reference criteria provides the most opportunity to qualified members of the designated groups and from which".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19B.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East) moved:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 2
at page 3 the following:
"(c) having full access to, for the purposes of subsections (a) and (b), consultative services concerning employment equity as provided by the Department of Employment and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would add a further subclause to Clause 4. As I pointed out, Clause 4 is the key clause of this Bill. It says that employers shall implement employment equity by doing certain things. Unfortunately, if the employers do not do these certain things, there is no penalty. I will deal with that in a later amendment.
Clause 4 says that an employer shall implement employment equity by doing certain things which are listed in subclauses (a) and (b) and paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subclause (b). This would add subclause (c) to Clause 4 after line 2 on page 3. It says that the employer should implement employment equity by:
having full access to, for the purposes of subsections (a) and (b), consultative services concerning employment equity as provided by the Department of Employment and Immigration.
Employment Equity
The Government and Parliament of Canada want private firms to introduce employment equity. Let us assume that the private firms, in good faith, want to do that. The Bill lays out certain obligations in subclauses (a) and (b). It says that they must eliminate obstacles to employment for the target groups and must institute positive policies and practices to achieve employment equity. Very often private firms do not know how to go about this. They should have access to the consultative services on employment equity within the Department of Employment and Immigration. The Government of Canada should go a long way toward assisting the private sector to achieve employment equity.
I am 100 per cent in favour of a strong Bill obliging affirmative action by the private sector, but I do not think we should leave the private sector all alone to do it. We must help it to do this. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the private sector has access to the services of the Government in setting up systems for affirmative action and employment equity. We must ensure that the Government has the personnel available to assist these firms in doing that. That is the purpose of this amendment.
We tried to amend the Bill in committee by having this policy accepted. It was rejected in committee. We are now trying again. In committee a representative of the Government said he agreed with the amendment in principle, but did not believe it should be in the Bill. I am afraid that if it is not in the Bill, when this law is passed private firms will say that they want help from the Government with the burden which has been laid upon them and the Government may say that it has other priorities. Therefore, employment equity will not take place because firms will not have the support of the Government which they require. I do not think it hurts one bit to put this in the Bill. It shows a greater commitment to employmet equity by the Government. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, it was I who made the commitment when this amendment was moved before the legislative committee. I said that the Government is committed to providing those services and, therefore, we do not need an amendment. It is our intention to market the program. We have made it eminently clear how beneficial we feel employment equity is going to be for all Canadians, how productive it will make us as a nation, and how we require it to prosper and make full use of the entire potential of the community. We cannot continue to operate in the absence of the rich resource of 60 per cent of the population. It will certainly be in our interest to ensure that this program succeeds.
We have already stated, on numerous occasions, that we are ready to stake our futures on the social justice and social conscience of the Government. I assure my hon. friend that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission will provide those consultative services concerning employment equity to all employers who want to establish employment equity programs,

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
including those covered by the legislation, those covered under the federal contractors program, and all others who want our advice.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not sure about the rhetoric with regard to social conscience and justice, but perhaps it will be there.
I support the motion before the House, but I do not make a big issue of it because I think it will be in place anyway. Unless they have holes in their heads, representatives in the Department of Employment and Immigration centres across the country will obviously be involved in the consultative process with regard to employment equity or any other employment program in the country. The employment centres act as consultants on all employment programs in the country. 1 know in my own riding the manager of the employment centre, Mr. Self, is always very open. His staff is there to be consulted and worked with. They are always very open and very cooperative so I assume that is the case right across the country.
1 do not feel strongly one way or the other about this motion. I suppose what the Hon. Member wants to do is give the Bill more protection, more power. I do not oppose, that so I would support the motion without making a big issue of it.
I just wanted to say that I have found in my own riding that the employment centre has been very, very useful for a lot of groups over the last few years. I know the manager, Mr. Self, and his staff must be commended for the help they have given on a lot of programs. I am thinking of the Canada Works Program last year, Challenge '85, and the student programs. I think of the efforts we are now undertaking in my riding to set up a local advisory committee. I know the staff has always been at the disposal of people who come into the centre. I am sure they will be doing the same thing with this legislation once it goes through. It is very important that they do so because the unemployed are often really frustrated. They go down to the employment centre as a last resort. They often feel that their problem is not dealt with as quickly as possible. After all, they are unemployed and not making any money. The young Indian person in my riding is the person who does not have the skills but needs a summer job. So it is very important that the staff function as efficiently and quickly as possible. I hope they do the same thing in this case.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's amendment would enshrine in law the obligations and responsibilities not only of the employer but of the Department of Employment and Immigration. Clause 4 outlines the employers' duties. If the target groups are going to be able to access the jobs they want and we want them to have so that they enrich our society to the degree we know they can, then we need to put in law the obligations that we undertake as a Government to enable them to do so.
I agree with the Hon. Member who just spoke, that we have excellent staff in the employment centres. However, that does not mean they have the obligation to undertake additional responsibilities. In my own riding we have a very high unemployment rate among a specific target group, the visible minorities and the handicapped. The local employment officers have all the responsibility of helping these people locate jobs. We also have a very high unemployment rate among youth. I pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary that in the black community over 60 per cent of young people under 25 are looking for jobs. If the staff of the employment centres are doing their job in that respect, then they do not have the same kind of time or energy to go out and work with the major industries in the area, let us say. They do not have the time to visit the banks or the supermarkets. They do not fall under this Bill, unfortunately, although through contract compliance they are supposed to. The banks, the post office, the CBC, and Cable TV companies should all reflect the multicultural dimension of Canada. If we do not assure through the amendments put forward by my colleague the staffing and budget necessary, how can we expect this help to be forthcoming?
I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with the approach in principle. Principles are lovely, but if you cannot put them into practise then they are of no value. I heard the lovely phrase that we have put our stake in the future on our social conscience and we intend to apply social justice, or something of that nature. If you really want to apply social justice, then you have to get your act together and put your energy where it is required. That means an enforcement provision in this Bill which will make it a reality.
If we look at the series of amendments put forward by my very conscientious colleague, I suggest that the wish of the Government to assure that employment equity becomes a reality in our society would be greatly improved if they are accepted. The targeted groups would not have to come here with a great deal of personal difficulty, as the handicapped had to do, and say: "Hey, do something, you are hurting me".

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about target groups, about the groups that are involved in this legislation, the groups that will be affected by this legislation, and the groups on which this legislation will have a negative social and economic impact because this legislation is just a lot of eloquent posturing and offers nothing in the way of concrete action. It is not compulsory. We do not have the option of Government support to help us help each other. Employers have a whole list of things they are supposed to do, a list that is not complete, but with all that, the legislation does not even provide for any action by the Government to help them help each other.
If we really want to put the onus on the employer and see this policy reflected on our television screens, on our aircraft, in our banks and in our post offices, we will have to have mechanisms that will make this possible, so that I, as a black
April 15, 1986

person or I as a Sikh living, say, in Vancouver which has the largest Sikh population outside Eastern Asia-
Mr. Speaker, I believe that what I am saying is relevant. Our pious wishes must be implemented. They must be enshrined in legislation in some other way, and they must not be just pious wishes but concrete action arising from the very foundation of the principles of our legislation.

Therefore I strongly recommend adoption not only of this amendment but all the amendments put forward by my colleague.
1 cannot understand how this Bill can be effective if we do not target it regionally. There are regional differences across this country. The reality of multiculturalism can only be reflected properly if we consider how to apply this Bill in a concrete way across the country. 1 pointed out that Parliament, as a matter of balance, accepted multiculturalism in law, and as an official Government policy in 1971. It guaranteed not only cultural freedom but equality for all Canadians. Multiculturalism was entrenched in 1982 in the Charter. Officially we decided that it should be entrenched in all Government documents and in all Government publications, and hopefully the fallout would show up in the catalogues of large companies such as Sears, Eatons and The Bay; hopefully we would see reflected on the the screens and in the publications of this country the kind of people that we targetted, the kind of people that make up Canada. We are not a white country; we are a multicultural and multiracial country, and we need that reflected.


John Horton McDermid: When was the last time you looked at one of those catalogues. I have noticed a change in the last year.


Sheila Finestone: I have noticed that as well. There has been a slow, ineffective change taking place. We should not have to wait for that normal slow rate of change. I suggest you reread, understand and have a commitment to the equality and employment report of Judge Rosalie Abella, who statistically examined the impact of that slow, non-mandatory, nonenforcement principles under the Crown Corporations and what they did. Believe me, the snail's pace at which the Government made changes to the multiracial, multicultural, bilingual nature of this country is truly reflected in Crown Corporations across this land. You should be ashamed to have even mentioned that. I bring to your attention the report. Go back and read it and understand why beautiful words never brought about change. We need change in law, and you need to learn how to be a leader. Read Equality Now and see the changes. You had nothing to do with that report, we brought that report in here. We have applied many of the principles in that report, and there's still a long way to go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, order.
We have run out of time. Debate.
Employment Equity


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to perhaps complete the remarks the Hon. Member's started. I am really surprised that Government Members are not supporting this amendment proposed by the Hon. Member. What the Government of Canada is doing is, on the one hand it is saying to employers you must do this, you must do that, you must do something else, but really not telling them how they are supposed to do it.
If we look at Clause 4 that we are discussing, it says:
An employer shall-
That's how it starts out. Clause 5 starts out:
An employer shall-
What does the Government of Canada do to assist the employer? You have this very hazy formula laid down as far as designated groups are concerned, and then you have this incredible Clause 12 in which it says:
-the Minister may-
Now, the employer shall do this, the employer shall do that. Then it says the Minister may issue guidelines to assist in the implementation of the requirements of Sections 4 and 6. Proposed section 6, which is under discussion, says:
-the Minister may issue guidelines-
The employer shall do this, the employer shall do that, and here is a hazy formula; perhaps he will meet the intended guidelines of this Bill and perhaps he will not.
This amendment, which the Hon. Member has proposed here today is simply to add the words:
(c) having full access to, for the purposes of sub-sections (a) and (b), consultative services concerning employment equity as provided by the Department of Employment and Immigration.
The Hon. Member did not want to go as far as to say that the Minister of Employment shall provide these guidelines, shall assist the employer, must assist the employer. The Department of Employment and Immigration must assist the employer. The Hon. Member did not want to go that far because he figured the Government would not do that anyway. It would not want to impose something on the employees of the federal Government and the Cabinet Minister to assist the employers to meet the targets. It does not want to do that.
So the Hon. Member said, in a very nice way, to provide the assistance that would be available in the Department of Employment and Immigration. I cannot see why the Government would not approve that kind of an amendment, given the fact that it has already stated that the Minister has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to the employers or the employees under this Bill. I am really shocked that Government Members would not support this amendment and at least go halfway and provide some source of information so the employers would not only have to follow it, but be held accountable to it.
I support the Hon. Member who introduced this amendment and the Hon. Member who just spoke, and I am sure that the Government Members, if they are really thinking about it, will

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
fall over themselves to support this amendment to make it fair to the employers and the employees covered by this Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
[ Translation]


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 14(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 21 A.


William Warren Allmand: That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 12 to 16 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"section (1) shall be
(a)	retained by the employer at the employer's principal place of business in Canada for a brief period of at least three years after the last year in respect of which the plan is prepared;
(b)	communicated to the employer's employees and any existing bargaining agent; and
(c)	made avaible to the Human Rights Commission, on request."

He said: This amendment is one of the more important ones I have put forward. The others were important, some of them were technical, but this is a substantive amendment which 1 believe to be extremely important.
In the committee nearly all the witnesses criticized the Bill in that it did not provide for employers to have action plans with targets and timetables to achieve employment equity. Most witnesses criticized the Bill and criticized the Government for not requiring the employers to set out action plans with targets and timetables. Both myself and the representative of the NDP put forward amendments asking that that be done, and they were not acceptable. Finally, the Government came forward with an amendment, and I congratulate them for moving to that extent, which is now set out in Clause 5 of the Bill in which the Government said:
An employer shall, in respect of each year prepare a plan setting out
(a)	the goals that the employer intends to achieve in implementing employment equity-
(b)	the timetable for the implementation of those goals.
That was a step forward. In subclause 2 of that very same clause the Government says:
A copy of a plan prepared under Sub-section (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 it for the employer to set out an action plan for employment equity with timetables and goals if only the employer gets to see it? It is not even given to the employees. It is not given to the Human Rights Commission, which they say will enforce the Act. There it sits in the employer's vault for at least three years, the action plan that they have been obliged to prepare. I cannot understand the logic of the Government. I suppose if one went to court and subpoenaed them they would have to produce the action plan and one could see it. If not, the only requirement is in Clause 5(1) which states that they must prepare a plan setting out goals and timetables. Clause 5(2) states that the plan shall be retained by the employer at the employer's principal place of business.
For example, let us consider Canadian Pacific Railway with its head office in Montreal. If some of the employees in the designated groups, such as the women's groups or visible minorities, have a problem with employment equity in Vancouver or Calgary, and the officials did not want to send the action plan to them, I suppose they would have to go to Montreal to look at it. The same is true for Bell Telephone which has its head office in Montreal, and some of the big banks with their head offices in Toronto. While these companies must prepare an action plan with timetables and goals, they do not have to distribute them.
My amendment says that the employers must keep it at its principal place of business for three years but the action plan must also be: "(b) communicated to the employer's employees
April 15, 1986

and any existing bargaining agent". Therefore, those companies with unions must provide the action plan to the union for it to see, and if there is no union it must be given to the employees. The amendment goes on that it must be: "(c) made available to the Human Rights Commission, on request".
This seems to be a logical suggestion. The Bill finally requires an action plan with timetables and goals. At the very least, that action plan should be distributed to the employees who are affected by it and to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that must enforce the action plan. That is all that this amendment asks. 1 cannot understand the reticence of the Government in turning this down. I suppose the only explanation is that it was trying to please the many target group witnesses who wanted more teeth in the Bill and finally admitted that there should be an action plan with targets and timetables, but it did not want to upset the employers and therefore did not require those action plans to be distributed.
This amendment states that those action plans must be made available and communicated to the employees so they will be in a position to judge whether or not the action plans effective. They will also have to be made available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which has the right to enforce them under the Bill as amended by the Government. Unfortunately, there are not many sanctions in the Bill for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to use. However, if it is going to enforce it at all, it should have access to these action plans for examination and response. That is the purpose of the amendment. 1 do not see on what logical basis the Government can contest this amendment. 1 ask the Government, in the spirit of non-partisanship, to give consideration to this amendment and accept it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to support this very reasonable amendment suggested by my hon. Liberal friend. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will accept it with much enthusiasm.
When this Bill was first introduced there was no reference whatsoever to the concept of action plans. After many hearings and many witnesses the Minister introduced an amendment to include an action plan. We made some progress because the Bill now provides for an action plan. However, that action plan will essentially remain secret because it cannot be seen by the employees, the employment centres or even by the Human Rights Commission.
Why bother having an action plan if it is going to sit in the vault of the employer and not be seen by anyone? This is particularly puzzling when we consider that the Conservatives campaigned on the importance of freedom of information and openness in Government.
For the benefit of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), let me read the clause of Bill C-62 which states that an action plan will be prepared by the employer but remains secretive under the Bill. Clause 5(2) of the Bill states:
Employment Equity
A copy of a plan prepared under subsection (I) shall be retained by the employer at the employer's principal place of business in Canada for a period of at least three years after the last year in respect of which the plan is prepared.
I find it very strange, in a democratic state in the 20th Century, to have that plan absolutely secretive.
Many witnesses said that action plans are required and should be public. The witnesses were unanimous in that regard. Our Party also suggested in committee an amendment similar to what is now before the House. We said that a copy of the action plan should be filed with the Canada Employment Centres, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and that a copy of the action plan should be permanently posted in each of the employer's workplaces. I believe those are very reasonable requests. Perhaps this is one area where we can have an all-Party agreement at report stage in the House.
As further evidence, I want to refer to a speech made by a distinguished former Member of the House, Gordon Fair-weather, who is now Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I have a copy of notes that he used in a speech made on February 4 at the international conference at the Weston Hotel.
He said:
Returning to my example, we would use the investigation powers of the Canadian Human Rights Act to find out why women were undcr-rcprcscntcd and what was being done about it. We would conduct interviews and study the relevant documents, including a second kind of information contemplated in the Employment Equity Act-the action plans that employers are expected to develop for ensuring that the target groups are fairly represented in the workforce.
Perhaps we would find that women were applying for these jobs-
Second, he says:
In these and like cases, the complaint would prove to have been superfluous. So I would like to make a pitch here. There is no legal requirement on you under the Employment Equity Act to let us see your action plans. The legal requirement comes under the Canadian Human Rights Act after a complaint has been filed. But I believe it would be as useful to you as it would be to us if you made your plans available to us informally, on request, before the complaint stage. Wc would both be spared the trouble of some unnecessary complaints.
Mr. Fairweather, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is saying that he would appreciate the possibility of having these action plans made public, or at least made available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In another statement relevant to making the action plans public, Mr. Fairweather states:
Since they are on the public record, reports filed under the Employment Equity Act would be an element in this judgment. This is the state at which an informal look at action plans would help us screen out unnecessary complaints.
He is reiterating the necessity for looking at the action plan.
I support this amendment because it would make those action plans public so that the Human Rights Commission could see them. The action plans should be public so that the employees in a particular industry would have a chance to see them, and they should be public so that the Canada Employment Centres across the country could see what is in those action plans.

April 15, 1986
What good is an action plan if it is to be secret and kept at the premises of the employer for several years? One of the values of an action plan is that it be made available to the other parties involved in achieving the goal of employment equity. If it is available to everyone there is a greater chance that employment equity will be achieved. May I call it one o'clock?
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order please, it being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concern about the legislation pertaining to drugs which the Government is expected to announce shortly.
It has referred to the possibility of creating new jobs, through negotiation, in the pharmaceutical industry by guaranteeing a monopoly to companies which manufacture trade mark drugs against an increase in the prices of drugs.
Before a decision is made, I want to indicate to the House just how concerned I am about a possible increase in the prices of drugs. Women will probably be very much affected by such a legislation. A large percentage of them are users of drugs, either for themselves or their children, and the older they are, the poorer they are.
When we know that single parent families headed by women live below the poverty line will suffer the most because of the social and economic policies of this Conservative Government, we cannot denounce too strongly any possible increase in the prices of drugs that the Government is said to be about to go ahead with and which would be bad news indeed for women.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, concerned and thoughtful people everywhere condemn terrorism in all of its forms and seek viable solutions to end it.
So, too, must we as responsible parliamentarians seek ways and means to stop the escalation of these hideous international terror tactics.
Today, however, our concern must lie with the welfare, security, and safety of the 1,300 Canadian citizens living and working in Libya whose lives have been placed in considerable peril. The Canadian Government and Parliament must give the utmost priority to all actions and initiatives which will reduce this risk to Canadian lives in Libya and nearby areas.
We call upon the Government, Parliament and, indeed, all Canadians to work together at this very tense and critical moment to accomplish whatever is necessary to bring about an expeditious end to these events of fear and bloodshed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the Government for some action on behalf of my constituents. We in northern New Brunswick want to participate in the great recovery Canada is experiencing at present. In general the Progressive Conservative Government must be commended for its achievements in combating unemployment. We have only just begun and already the unemployment rate has dipped to its lowest point since March, 1982.
Unfortunately, Restigouche has not enjoyed the benefits of this national recovery and I am now asking for some relief before it is too late. The most recent statistics show northern New Brunswick with an unemployment rate of 25.6 per cent. This figure is tragic enough in itself but the real unemployment rate is much higher if one considers those who have just given up trying to find work. In reality it is probably closer to 40 per cent. We need help, and we need it immediately.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate the necessity of Canada Post operating on a cost efficient basis, but consider, Mr. Speaker, a town of 10,000 persons being cut off from mail delivery service. In effect that is what happened when the only Canada Post operated post office along the St. Lawrence Seaway was closed, cutting off for many seamen the only contact they have with their families and business and commercial interests.
The Marine Post Office on the Welland Canal was the only address sailors on the Seaway knew. It was there to serve the ordinary postal needs of Canadians who worked the ships on the world's greatest inland waterway. There are many other
April 15, 1986

ways for Canada Post to save money. The Seaway is not dead yet, so why does Canada Post act as though it were? Business improves with better service, not poorer service. Restore the Marine Post Office that has been serving the Seaway for over 20 years.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Since January 1 of this year, Mr. Speaker, all those who took early retirement and receive a pension are no longer entitled to their full unemployment insurance benefits.
Last week in Oromocto, New Brunswick, I attended a meeting of early retirees who are opposed to the Government decision, rightfully denouncing this unfair treatment. First, they paid their unemployment insurance premiums throughout their active life. Second, they were not even consulted, let alone given sufficient notice of this change. Finally, the issue was not debated in the House of Commons.
These early retirees are so upset that they are prepared to travel all the way from New Brunswick to Ottawa to protest against this new measure, a clear indication that it is a bad and unfair decision!



THE LATE SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR

Svend Johannes Robinson: Following the death of the French writer, Simone de Beauvoir, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I would like to pay special tribute to the author of The Second Sex, Old Age, and many other famous works, and the extraordinatry contribution she made. It was Simone de Beauvoir who said that to leave one's mark in the world, one had to be of this world. We shall remember her, not only for the spirit of her feminist writings but especially as one of the greatest philosophers of our time, and, with her companion, Jean-Paul Sartre, as the greatest defender of the Left in France. She was fond of quoting these words by Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that goodnight. Rage, rage against the dying of the light". Her light will continue to shine for us all.
5.0.	21 FORESTRY



EDUCATION-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION

Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, at the annual meeting of the Forest industries Council, the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) announced an allocation of $6 million to maintain our support to the forestry education program. This program is comprised of four elements, as follows: subsidies to universities, $2 million; scholarships, $605,000; research and development contracts, $1.2 million, and student employment, $1.3 million.
Six Canadian universities with forestry departments will receive over $2 million to improve their training resources for forestry graduate studies. In addition, the Canadian Forestry Service has set up a scholarship program to help 50 second-and third-level students and has also allocated $1.3 million to job creation under the Summer Employment Program for 300 forestry students. This is good news for the forestry students of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup. The forest industry plays a major role in the economy of my constituency.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, CBC President, Pierre Juneau, announced that the CBC will have a $48 million shortfall in its annual budget, despite a $22 million increase in its grant from Parliament and an increase in advertising revenues.
In a period of fiscal restraint the last thing a private sector firm would do is cut its product line. Would Campell's cut out tomato soup? Yet Mr. Juneau has ordered the cutting of 122 hours of network TV programming, including Toronto's CBLT Morning.
Rather than slashing at its product line, the CBC should consider trimming some of the excess fat in senior management. If the CBC is serious about its commitment to expenditure reduction and long-term survival, then its quality programming should be the last thing to go.
Is nothing sacred? Barbara Frum, you could be next!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
April 15, 1986

Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment is falling in Canada faster than almost anywhere else in the industrialized world. Our rate of decline in unemployment is faster than in Australia, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Only Belgium has been cutting its rate of unemployment faster than Canada. Britain, Italy, and Spain have actually had an increase in unemployment.
We still have a long way to go insofar as this blessing is distributed unevenly across the country. However, there are regions where unemployment is between 6 per cent and 7 per cent. The Government is coping effectively with the problem of unemployment, the greatest challenge it faced when it took office. We are doing it in the most effective way-the private enterprise way-by building a climate of confidence in which people can invest and make job opportunities.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. Last Saturday we saw the actions of the federal Government with respect to the conference on multiculturalism. However, we see that its actions in another matter show that it is really not concerned about the Canadian people as per the following letter which states:
Dear Prime Minister Mulroney:
We wish to add our voices to a matter of great concern to all Canadians of Italian heritage. The recent incident of a slanderous and bigoted remark directed by the Member for Nunatsiaq at the Member for Bourassa in the House of Commons has not been resolved to our satisfaction. The namecalling-only continues to perpetuate a mythical association of a large group of Canadian citizens with criminal activities. As lawyers and as Canadians we cannot tolerate such prejudicial assertions from our legislators.
The damage-has been done, not just to Mr. Rossi's reputation, but to the Canadian-Italian community-a full apology by Mr. Suluk specifically for the remarks-and your public condemnation of his remarks would be an acceptable means of communicating to all Canadians that statements tending to slander a community will not be tolerated in Canada. Further, a strong statement from your office, may dissuade public-


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



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Guatemala's people have lived under a brutal dictatorship since the United States invasion of 1954. Four out of five Guatemalan children under age 5 suffer from malnutrition because the farmers, mostly Indian, have been driven out of the fertile plains by armed landlords' gangs.
The U.S. armed terror that kept the people from peaceful change or guerrilla war has cost over 100,000 dead and 38,000 have disappeared. GAM, a group of relatives of the disappeared, bravely demands searches for relatives. The newly elected Government of President Cerezo is trying to restore a just and workable economy and to defend human rights, but it does not yet control the army and political violence has not yet ceased.
Canada won high praise for helping 769 refugees to escape from Guatemala in 1985, and for aiding church-based groups helping the families of murdered farmers to re-establish their livelihoods. I commend the Canadian Government for its help to Guatemala and urge that this help be extended.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of pass cancellations for former employees of CP Rail has come to a very successful conclusion. The President of CP Rail has advised all former employees, in a letter dated April 9, 1986, that they will now have the choice of having their CP Rail passes reinstated or continuing on with the health plan which was substituted for the pass. The important thing is that the people directly affected now have a choice and can make this decision.
The old adage that each journey begins with a single step certainly holds true in this instance. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha), and particularly the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais) who arranged the meeting with the President of CP Rail. I would also like to commend the President of CP Rail for the role he played in this policy change.
April 15, 1986



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about that area in which the Conservative Government excels: jobs, jobs, jobs. Five hundred and seventy-four thousand jobs have been created since the election, including 437,000 in the past 12 months. The unemployment rate has declined to 9.6 per cent compared to the 11.7 per cent it was on election day. The number of unemployed has fallen by 227,000 since September, 1984.
Since the election, employment has increased in every Province of Canada. By George, Mr. Speaker, if we get any better at creating jobs we will never be able to find sufficient people to fill them all!


Mr. Speaker:: There being no further statements, we will move to Oral Question Period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to put a question to the Prime Minister on the Libyan crisis. He said in a statement this morning to Canadians that his prime concern all along has been the safety of Canadians. What did he do between one o'clock yesterday afternoon when he first learned of the intended American action and seven o'clock last evening, our time, when the action was taken in concrete fashion, to assure the safety of Canadians in Libya?


Right Hon. Brian Muironey (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to my right hon. friend, but inasmuch as the Minister of National Defence and Deputy Prime Minister had specific responsibilities in that area, perhaps he might accept a response from the Deputy Prime Minister.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, our putting in place of contingency plans started happening a good deal before one o'clock yesterday afternoon at which time I met, in the absence of the Prime Minister, with the President's special envoy. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that those plans are in place and have been for some days.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ADVISE CANADIAN WORKERS IN LIBYA TO RETURN TO CANADA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Prime Minister. For perhaps three or four weeks now he has been telling Canadians working in Lybia that the decision was entirely up to them. Now, here is my question to the Prime Minister: In light of the present situation, why does he not advise Canadians working in Lybia to return to Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been saying that for three or four weeks. Indeed, if my memory serves me right, I made a statement on January 10, 1986, saying that "according to our best information, Canadians in Lybia are not under threat for the time being, but the Government feels that those who work there would be well advised to assess their own situation in light of current events, with a view to determining whether they might justifiably fear for their security".
Since then we have had an opportunity to consider our position in that respect and to urge all Canadian citizens to take any means deemed appropriate. We were also fully aware of the question of security of Canadian citizens, and we have set up security measures to assist them.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the statement just quoted by the Prime Minister, Canadians in Lybia are quite free to make their own decision. I would suggest that perhaps the time has come to ask Canadians to return to Canada. In any event-


INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC MEASURES
John Napier Turner: My third question is directed to the Prime Minister. In his statement this morning he talked about a negotiated settlement to reduce tensions in the Middle East. Why does he not propose international economic measures which would act as a better substitute for future military action?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed we have done precisely that. If my right hon. friend will take the time to consult the statement of January 10, 1986, he will see that the Government of Canada set out a number of economic measures that it was taking as a way of conveying to Libya its disagreement with any kind of terrorist activity directly or indirectly associated with that state.
Canada as a civilized country sought to convey in a peaceful and, we hope, thoughtful way our deepening concern with actions taken by that state. We considered that these were, as my right hon. friend would agree, important conditions prior to any other avenues being explored. We took those measures because we believed they were an important but non-bellicose

April 15, 1986
Ora! Questions
manner of conveying a very important message about the fact that there ought not to be any sanctuary for those who export terrorism against civilized people.


FORTHCOMING OECD MEETING
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In two days' time the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be meeting with representatives of 24 other countries in Paris at the meeting of the OECD. Will the Government use this unique opportunity to put forth concrete proposals for co-ordinated action against international terrorism? Will it show leadership in this way to help prevent further escalation of the current crisis situation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The very distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has just completed a successful tour and working visit throughout the Middle East, will be bringing his suggestions and his good influence to bear on this problem at upcoming meetings later today and tomorrow.


FORTHCOMING TOKYO SUMMIT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister share with the House the nature of these suggestions? Will he also undertake to use the opportunity provided in some three weeks' time by the Tokyo Summit of major nations to bring about and show leadership in respect of co-ordinated action against the rise of terrorism and the risk of escalation of world violence?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to our statement on January 10 I began a series of meetings-and I believe it was on January 12 or thereabouts-with Prime Minister Nakasone to develop and to set forward Canada's views and a program which might very well be considered by the Summit in Tokyo in the first week of May, in the event of that group being seized or being desirous of being seized of a program which the allies could implement. I have had occasion to discuss this with Prime Minister Nakasone, President Mitterand, and President Reagan.
We will bring forward our ideas and those of our colleagues, friends, and Members of this House. It is a burning and vital issue to be resolved on the side of sanity and civilized conduct.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL PARTICIPATE IN SPECIAL DEBATE ON SAFETY OF 1.300 CANADIANS WORKING IN LIBYA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Does he intend to participate directly in the discussions concerning the situation in Libya generally, but more specifically to take part in tonight's emergency debate on the safety of 1300 Canadians in that country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I take part in all Government decisions concerning this matter. I met last night with the Deputy Prime Minister. I met this morning my colleagues of the Cabinet. About 11 o'clock this morning, I met the Press Gallery. I am in the House today to answer questions. If possible, I will have the opportunity to participate in other debates, but I do not know whether I will be in the House this evening.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the gravity of the situation, 1 find that answer a little disappointing. Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, not only answered questions throughout Question Period today but will be participating in a thorough debate and discussion in the British House of Commons.


COMMUNICATIONS WITH LIBYAN AUTHORITIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, has the Government of Canada been in contact with Libyan authorities in the last 12 to 15 hours to discuss, directly with them, the security of the Canadians, and to ensure that those Canadians who want to leave Libya will have no trouble doing so?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that there would have been communications between our envoys and the representatives of the Government of Libya, which I suppose took place, yes, there would have been communication. Our primary concern from the beginning has been the welfare of Canadians in Libya. The Government of Canada has taken, through diplomatic and other initiatives, every possible measure to ensure that it is being helpful. We have received good reports from our representatives on site, and we continue to be encouraged by the situation in which Canadians find themselves.


POSSIBLE DEPARTURE OFCANADIAN CITIZENS FROM LIBYA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister himself was not directly involved in discussions with the Libyan authorities. I would understand that. He did not answer my question directly, but perhaps he, or the Deputy Prime Minister, who has immediate responsibility for the situation, could tell the House if the Government, very specifically, has been in discussion with the Libyan Government about the possible exodus from Libya of Canadians who may want to leave. Has that question been raised with the Libyans? Have we received assurances that any Canadians who want to leave will be able to do so? Also, has the Canadian Government made transportation facilities available for Canadians to leave, if they so wish?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to conclude other than that Canadians in Libya are safe. They are in no way existing under any threat, and it would not be useful to convey any message other than to repeat what the Prime Minister said in the House last Friday and in his press
April 15, 1986

conference. With respect to the contingency plans which are in place, I am sure that the hon. gentleman would agree that it would not be in the best interest of security to discuss those in detail because they, themselves, might be jeopardized.

[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM UNITED REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I draw to the attention of Members to the presence today in our Gallery of a delegation from the United Republic of Cameroon, led by His Excellency Benjamin Itoe, Minister of Justice and Lord Chancellor of Cameroon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR SAFETY
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who announced yesterday a number of steps to reinforce security.
Why did not the Minister take these steps immediately following the Air India tragedy, and especially why did he not announce yesterday immediate steps such as giving his Department full control over airport security and the hiring of all security personnel?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that a number of measures were implemented after the Air-India incident. Furthermore, assessments and audits of all of the major Canadian airports were conducted, deficiencies identified, and corrective measures were being taken. The point the Hon. Member refers to with respect to Transport Canada taking over the security screening, as I indicated earlier, is an option which can be considered. However, I do find it rather strange that the Hon. Member, as a supporter of the Government which put the existing system in place, now finds it convenient to be opposed to that system which he supported as little as 18 months ago.
Oral Questions


DEGREE OF TRAVELLING PUBLICS SAFETY
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to forget that there is now a level of international terrorism which did not exist at the time.
I ask the Minister, who promised on three occasions to the travelling public to reinforce the security, to assure today to the same travelling public that it is now completely safe to go to airports and that the 30 to 60 day delay which he is suggesting is not a way of telling them: "Until then, travel at your own risk".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member cracked a smile when he made that statement. He knows full well he could not say what he said with a straight face. Is air travel safe in this country? 1 can only say that we are taking every step we possibly can in a collective manner, with the co-operation of the airlines, the RCMP, the unions and all concerned, to ensure the utmost safety to the travelling public.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister at what point the U.S. consulted with Canada about the proposed military action against Libya, and did the Canadian Government at that point suggest alternatives to military action? If so, what were they?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as was contained in the Prime Minister's press release yesterday, we have been in touch all along. The meeting yesterday at which I was briefed was the culmination of a long series of intense consultations which at one time or another have included the Prime Minister, President Reagan, Secretary Shultz, Secretary Weinberger, the President's National Security Adviser, Vice-Admiral Poindexter, as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, indeed, the Minister of Finance and myself.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, there was no cause for concern last Friday apparently. Therefore I am wondering if the Deputy Prime Minister can tell us if the Canadian Government in the interval presented alternatives to military action. If so, what were those alternatives?


Erik Nielsen: I want to reiterate that, with respect to the

April 15, 1986
Oral Questions
safety of Canadians in Libya, there is still no evidence of any threat. To say otherwise would be to raise undue alarm. I think the moderate response of the Prime Minister last Friday is the proper message to be conveyed to Canadians in Libya. Of course there are always alternatives, and again the Prime Minister pointed that out in his statement of last January 10 as he did last Friday and also today.


FREEDOM OF CANADIANS TO LEAVE LIBYA
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister has assured the House twice in the last few minutes that there is no reason to believe anything other than that Canadians are safe in Libya. We welcome that assurance. Why then is the Minister reluctant to assure the House that, indeed, Canadians are free to leave Libya at will and that, indeed, the Government of Canada has secured from the Libyans the ability for Canada to fly planes into that country and to take our people home?


Hon.   Eril. Nielsen@Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence: The hon. gentleman distorts what I said. I said that there is no evidence of any threat to Canadian citizens in Libya. That is not inconsistent at all with the statement of the Prime Minister on January 10 and again last Friday, urging Canadians in the circumstance to re-examine their own safety and act accordingly. Again, with respect to contingency plans, surely the hon. gentleman realizes that to discuss any details of any such plans would prejudice the very plans themselves.


POSSIBLE EVACUATION OF CANADIANS
Brian Vincent Tobin: There is an inherent inconsistency in the Deputy Prime Minister's answer. Given there is no reason to fear for the safety of Canadians according to the Deputy Prime Minister, and given that the Deputy Prime Minister says they can come home at will, has the Deputy Prime Minister assured himself, by discussing directly with representatives of the Government of Libya, that Canada is able, if Canada desires, to fly into that country with aircraft and to bring home those of our people who want to come home, directly and safely?


Erik Nielsen: The answer to that, Sir, is at this moment there is no reason to anticipate that we would not be able to do that. If the hon. gentleman has difficulty in understanding what was said let me refresh his memory with a direct quote from the Prime Minister of last week:
We would recommend those Canadians in Libya that they might want to reassess their position very carefully and determine whether they have grounds for additional anxieties about their security.
The ordinary methods of travel are still providing ingress and egress from the commercial airports in Libya, and
Canadians can come to their own conclusions with respect to their own personal circumstances.


REPORTED STRIKE BY LIBYA AGAINST UNITED STATES COMMUNICATIONS BASE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister have any concrete information that there was a follow-on strike by Libya against U.S. installations somewhere in the Mediterranean, a communications base south of Sicily?


Erik Nielsen: The Government has had reports, Sir, as yet unconfirmed in a hard way, that a small island some 60 kilometres south of Malta, Lampedusa, and an American telecommunications establishment on that island, were attacked. The unconfirmed reports from the Italian Government are that there were no casualties and the attack was of a minor nature.


POSSIBILITY OF RETALIATION FOLLOWING UNITED STATES ACTION
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Based on the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, would he not agree then that the use of force by the United States is possibly leading to retaliation, forceful military retaliation, which is the very thing that President Reagan wishes to avoid and wishes to bring to an end in that part of the world?


Erik Nielsen: I do not make the assumption that the initial reports with respect to Lampedusa are confirmed, which the hon. gentleman may mistakenly have been doing. Let me say that the Government has made it clear many times in the past that terrorism, as the Prime Minister said in his statement today, is reprehensible and evil, an evil which all members of the international community must work to eliminate. The United States was seeking to do precisely that, and Canada supports that objective.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the Government decided to delay tabling changes to the pharmaceutical patent Act because senior Ministers in the Mulroney Government have finally come to the conclusion that its approach to free trade negotiations with the United States on an item by item basis has seriously damaged Canada's bargain position?
April 15, 1986

[ Translation)


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I will merely repeat that the Government has always maintained its intentions of developing policies to promote job creation and investment in Canada. Those policies will also apply to the pharmaceutical industry. When we are ready, we will announce our decision to that effect.
[English\


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, would you not agree that by dismantling Canada's National Energy Program and by allowing the Prentis-Hall buy-out by Gulf Western, and now by tabling changes to the Patent Act affecting pharmaceutical industries, you are going to leave Canada with very few bargaining chips left on the table when you get into serious negotiations with the United States?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the record of this Government speaks by itself. The number of jobs created and the many investments made during the past 18 months rightly prove the efficiency of this Government in the statement of its various policies.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ian Deans: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister know on Friday that the United States intended to launch an attack on Libya when he said in the House of Commons that "there is no immediate cause for undue concern for Canadians"?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that it was I, on behalf of the Prime Minister, who met with the special envoy in Ottawa in the absence of the Prime Minister. I have been involved throughout. It would not be helpful, to begin with, to respond to cross-examination as to when the Government knew what, and when it did not know something else. The fact is that we were fully and continuously consulted throughout. That is a refreshing, historical First, I would think.


PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF UNITED STATES INTENTIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister, since the words that I quoted were
Oral Questions
his words given in the House on Friday, did the Prime Minister know on Friday, when he said that there was no immediate cause for undue concern for the safety of Canadians-did he know at that time that the United States intended to launch an attack on Libya?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when I indicated what I did in the House I was aware of certain information beyond which I would not want to go, nor would I think my hon. friend would ask me in these circumstances to set out publicly. I can tell my hon. friend that we have conveyed on an ongoing basis our deep concerns about the safety of Canadians. We put forward political views as to certain options, and we remained in close touch and consultation with our American allies.


BOYCOTT OF COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS TO LIBYA
John Napier Turner: would like to comment upon that question from the Member for Hamilton Mountain. I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. When that statement was made on Friday we did not have the current crisis. Now what the people in this country want to know is how can Canadians in Libya get out? There are no regular air flights into Libya any more; the International Federation of Air Line Pilots has boycotted it. How do we get them out? Do we have any undertaking from the Government of Libya that Canadian planes will be able to fly in and get our people out?


Erik Nielsen: That is precisely the detail which would be prejudicial, I think, to discuss in public. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that we have, on the ground in Libya, consular personnel in a well established system, which was in place when he was in Government, and they are in positive contact with Canadian citizens. If those Canadians express a wish to leave, the means are there to effect their departure.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday in the House the Minister indicated that he recognized that Government action, including the stabilization payment, was inadequate to meet the farm crisis. He went on to say that the Government was quite prepared to do more. We thank the Government for that commitment.
Has the Minister or his colleague met with the wheat pools in the Prairies, the Wheat Growers' Association, the Farmers' Union and other farm organizations, to determine the best
12246

April 15, 1986
Oral Questions
course of action the Government can take to deal with the crisis in grain growing?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, beginning in January and February I had meetings with all of the pool presidents, the presidents of the grain companies and other industry people in the west to discuss this very situation and try to make sure that everyone basically understood the situation as we saw it in the Government, and attempted to make sure everyone understood the serious situation that we faced internationally.
As we said yesterday in Winnipeg, I realized that it could be more, on an individual farmer basis. In fact we would like to make it more. However, when one considers that $580 million is going into circulation at the beginning of the planting season, it will be of significant benefit to western Canadians in putting their crop in the ground this spring.


DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS OPTION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, in his discussions with these organizations now and in the future, will the Minister make deficiency payments for low prices that we expect for grain one of the options for dealing with the crisis?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the amount of money that was announced yesterday under the Western Grain Stabilization Act is for the present crop year. We have yet to plant and harvest the crop for which initial prices were announced a week ago. I do not believe we want to get totally ahead of ourselves.
The amount of money that could potentially come from the Western Grain Stabilization Act next year could be substantial. Again we would like to point out that it was this Government- and we should give some credit to both opposition Parties-that amended the Act to allow for this kind of funding to be available when it is most needed by prairie farmers, that is, prior to spring seeding.
I might add that we hope to have those cheques in the mail as early as Friday, and by the end of next week at the very latest. It will be well before May 1.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism. At the conference in Toronto last Saturday, concern was expressed by members of some ethno-cultural organizations that the new initiatives being taken in multiculturalism and business will draw resources away from some good programs existing in Multiculturalism Canada. Will the Minister tell the House whether these concerns are justified?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the conference was a smashing success. It resulted in many positive recommendations, new thrusts and new opportunities which came forward from the delegates who represented all parts and all regions of the country.
I can assure the Hon. Member that none of these new opportunities or new thrusts which we are in the process of discussing with the ethno-cultural community will take anything away from the very positive existing programs. Rather, they will complement our commitment to provide equality of opportunity to all Canadians in all areas of the economy and Canada as a whole.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today, we received the Fifteenth Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and there are a number of serious problems with official languages policies and programs, both with respect to the provision of services and the policies of this Government.
The situation of official language minority groups is a critical and disastrous one. Are you prepared to ask today for a Royal Commission of Inquiry that will examine this whole subject with a view to providing quick and effective solutions to the problems we are having at the provincial level?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I assume my hon. friend is referring to the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Of course. Last year, Mr. Speaker, upon receiving the report, I set up a committee of Senior Deputy Ministers to deal with this problem and to outline an action program that would promote the development and expansion of Canada's two official languages and their use on a daily basis. I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that the committee has submitted a report. We are now at the ministerial level, and I think that in the near future, the Government will be in a position to make some important announcements with respect to this second facet, if you wish, of an action program to promote official languages.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RIGHT TO WORK IN FRENCH OR ENGLISH-UPPER MANAGEMENT-MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, considering the right of federal public servants to carry on their daily work either in French or in English, and considering that the Commissioner of Official Languages has criticized the Prime Minister's Office, levelling rather severe criticism at his senior Staff-the Commissioner says that ten out of eleven
April 15, 1986

senior Staff members are Anglophones-what does the Prime Minister intend to do to take corrective action at the top and thus set an example for others, and show that employees can work in either English or French in federal offices?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not see the Commissioner's comments regarding this particular allegation. I think it is public knowledge that with Paul Tellier, whom 1 appointed Clerk of the Privy Council and Bernard Roy, who is my Chief of Staff, and with whom 1 work regularly, that as a result of this situation, in the course of a normal working day-aside from Cabinet meetings and my presence here in the House- about 70 per cent of my work in the course of the day is done in French. I think that is not only normal but desirable, and I am prepared to explain and defend my point of view at any time, before the Commissioner or anyone else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It was reported on CBC television news last night, and confirmed in Washington today, that the introduction of the Canadian Government's generic drugs Bill has been delayed until after the vote by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on the proposal for free trade talks. Since this clear linkage between free trade and generic drugs was explicitly denied by the Minister for International Trade in the House yesterday, will the Prime Minister explain that statement and inform the House of other free trade preconditions demanded by the U.S. administration and Congress?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister for International Trade clearly spelled out the Government's position yesterday. If his position is inconsistent with the CBC, so be it.


POSSIBLE PATENT LAW AMENDMENTS-EFFECT ON CONSUMERS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since it has already been disclosed that the generic drug Bill will contain no legal requirements that the multinational drug companies increase their Canadian investment in research, will he explain how these continuing concessions will do anything for the Canadian consumer who may be faced with paying an extra $100 for each new prescription for the next 10 years?
Oral Questions


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member wait until we make the announcement on this policy before making any comments on any rumours of that kind.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. When will the Minister release the decision on the 6 per cent agri-bonds which we promised during the election campaign?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, I can assure you of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: Perhaps I should go back and remind my hon. friend and colleague that, consistent with our campaign commitment, we referred that and two other items to the appropriate standing committee. That committee reported on those three items and, with respect to the specific item raised by the Hon. Member, the agri-bond issue, it is currently being discussed, in the over-all context of the farm finance issues, between myself and my provincial colleagues.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This morning the Commissioner for Official Languages tabled his annual report in which he criticized the Government for its lack of commitment to language equality. He said: "Last year we called for renewal but so far no real action has been taken". When will the Prime Minister table his renewal program and his amendments to the Official Languages Act?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, I think the critical remarks to which my hon. friend refers were addressed to past Governments, plural.


William Warren Allmand: Oh, no, last year.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I said I believed so. I will take another look at it and we will see.

April 15, 1986
Oral Questions
I indicated publicly after the last report that 1 would designate a senior committee of senior Deputy Ministers, which I did, to prepare amendments to the Official Languages Act in order to ensure that vital piece of legislation was strengthened and enhanced and adapted to new conditions and requirements. That has been done.
The work is now at a senior ministerial level. It will go to Cabinet and will be introduced in the House at the appropriate time, and it will be of benefit to the country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner said there were some immediate problems to deal with, and I quote again: "Are we to suppose the Government can't walk and chew gum at the same time?" How and when is the Government going to deal with the Commissioner's criticism against CNR, Petro-Canada, Agriculture Canada, CMHC, the Prime Minister's Office, National Defence, Correctional Services of Canada- and I could go on and on? When is the Government going to deal with these criticisms in the report?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, while we will work very, very effectively to protect and promote the interests of minorities, the English-speaking minorities in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities across the country, with enthusiasm and vigour, I can assure the hon. gentleman that 1 have no apologies to make to anyone about my stand and the stand of this Government in regard to protecting linguistic rights.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Last week I was in Shawinigan, in the constituency of Saint-Maurice, and I met workers from the Hanna Shoe Company which closed down temporarily on February 14.
My question is this: Since the company has already received federal grants, what steps does the Government intend to take now to find a solution and thereby prevent the permanent shutdown of that major industry in the constituency of Saint-Maurice?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the situation to which the Hon. Member refers is only one of such situations we are now living
with in the footwear area. I can only assure the Hon. Member that we have the situation under review and, hopefully, we will be able to come up with a solution to keep the plant open.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET COMPANY MANAGEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there are 250 workers in that industry. Does the Minister intend to meet personally with the management of the Hanna shoe company in Shawinigan, in order to find a solution to that most important problem?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if it would be helpful, of course, I have no objection to meeting with those who might want to meet with me, including representatives of the workers, although I want to caution the Hon. Member that some footwear companies are doing comparatively well at the present time, while others are in difficulty. I think our Department can perhaps be most helpful in ensuring that those which are not doing as well as others can at least be made aware of where the opportunities are in the footwear industry in Canada today.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible in this House for Canada Post operations. Canada Post seems to continue to act as though service to the public is a secondary consideration. Is the Minister aware of the closing of the only post office which for 20 years has served the seamen and users of the St. Lawrence Seaway? What can be done to restore that service?


Michel Côté: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the closing of that post office. Unfortunately, we had to close it for different reasons, mainly because it was a seasonal office and had a very limited clientele. To achieve important savings we had to close that post office. However, I can assure my colleague that we are looking for a convenient alternative to accommodate the sailors.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Government likes to claim credit for firsts, and in that
April 15, 1986

connection I would like to ask the Minister of Justice why he authorized his officials to appear in a criminal proceeding in Newfoundland where two Francophone Canadians are seeking a trial in their official mother language and, for the first time since the Canadian official languages policy, argue on behalf of the federal Government that they should not be given their trial in their own official language of Canada?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is misinformed. The position taken with respect to the trial in Newfoundland is that under the Criminal Code, under the legislation introduced in this House in 1977 or 1978 by the previous administration, of which the hon. gentleman was a Member, it was provided that both official languages will be used in criminal trials by agreement with the provinces, and those provisions would be proclaimed as the provinces were ready to provide the facilities.
At the present time there are a number of provinces which are not yet in the position to provide the necessary facilities. At the meeting of Attorneys General held in Vancouver in February, I urged the provinces to proceed apace with their preparations. They have agreed to meet with my Department and each set up a timetable of when they are going to accomplish this.
It is our policy that trials in both official languages will be available in every area of Canada as soon as possible. We are doing all we can to urge the provinces to reach that timetable under the legislation proposed by the hon. gentleman's Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LANGUAGE BASE IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that there is a Charter as well, and the argument which was made was partly based on the Charter. I ask the Minister again why the federal Government did not take the position of fairness in a case where a trial can be provided? The Minister knows that there is enough of a base in the province of Newfoundland to provide for a criminal trial to be conducted and adjudicated in the French language.
Why did the representatives of the Government which, the Prime Minister just tells us, stands up so strongly for official languages, not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why does the Government not take the other side-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There should be a trial in French.
Point of Order-Ms. Copps


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's question is too long.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is really being hypocritical because, during the years of his Government, no action was taken by it to make it possible for there to be trials in French or English in Newfoundland and certain other provinces across the country.
We are now urging the Province of Newfoundland where, by the way, less than 1 per cent of the population speaks French, there are no judges at the moment who are bilingual-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What does that matter, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: -to proceed apace and to sit down with us and agree to a schedule where the province will be able to grant trials in both French and English.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What about my riding, the French area in my riding?


John Carnell Crosbie: We are taking the position before the court that the present provision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -which allows us to proclaim this law-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is three o'clock. On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


POINT OF ORDER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that either the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) may have misled the House during Question Period today-


John Carnell Crosbie: Sit down, Sheila!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -when they stated that no Canadians were at risk. There are reports from the press, which 1 think should be resolved, to the effect that there has been a Canadian diplomat picked up in Libya. I would like to get some more information-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is really raising a question for Question Period. It is not a point of order.

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 21A (Mr. Allmand).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House broke at 1 p.m. the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) had the floor. Resuming debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, what we are debating is an amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) which would make public the action plans of employers. When the Minister introduced the legislation she did not introduce any measures with respect to action plans at all. After a great many groups appeared before the committee the Minister introduced an amendment to the Bill to provide for action plans. However, these action plans are not to be made public. What is the purpose of having an action plan if it is not to be made public?
What we are calling on the Government to do is accept this particular amendment in order to make the action plan available to the workers in a plant or in industries which are affected by the Bill. We are also calling on the Government to make the action plans public to the Human Rights Commission. Gordon Fairweather, the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, has said that he would like to have access to these particular action plans. Under this legislation they will not be made available. I call upon the House to listen to Mr. Fair-weather. He is a distinguished Canadian, a distinguished former parliamentarian and a member of the Conservative Party. He is a very progressive member of that Party. I think we should accede to his wishes.
I wish to refer the House once again to the speech made by Gordon Fairweather in which he stated that the action plans of employees under this Bill should be made available to the Human Rights Commission. They should be made public. I agree with Mr. Fairweather's words. I agree with Motion No. 21 A. I think it is a reasonable amendment to the Bill which has been introduced by a member of the Liberal Party. It is supported by ourselves. I think all reasonable members of the Conservative Party would have to support it as well. After all, the Conservative Party is the Party which campaigned for freedom of information. Why not support this motion to ensure these action plans are made public?
[ Translation]


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the amendment to Clause 5 of the Act respecting employment equity. It concerns the plan of goals to be prepared by the companies
involved and the implementation of such plans to achieve a more equitable situation for the designated groups, the minority groups in our society, and people whose future is not very promising unless we take concrete measures.
Here is the amendment, and I quote Clause 5:
5. (1) An employer shall, in respect of each year, prepare a plan setting out (a) the goals that he 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.
And second, the reference to the retention of the plan.
(2) A copy of a plan prepared under subsection (1) shall be retained by employer at the employer's principal place of business in Canada for a period of at least three years after the last year in respect of which the plan is prepared.
Mr. Speaker, I find fascinating the suggestion that the plan be kept in a drawer or at the work place. But if we want real improvement, if we want the legislation to have more impact, if we expect more than pious wishes, if we do not want this to be a joke or the kind of academic exercise a la Harvard Business School, if instead we want it to become an open plan of action so that all people concerned will know what this is all about, then I think the amendments proposed by my colleague are very important. These amendments indicate what the employer must do. A copy of a plan prepared under subsection (I) shall be:
(b)	communicated to the employer's employees and any existing bargaining agent; and
(c)	made available to the Human Rights Commission, on request.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, at least that makes sense. Why go through that exercise if nobody is to know what it is all about? Why go through the motions if nothing comes out of it, if everything is done in great secrecy?
I simply fail to see why, at least during the three years after the last year of a plan, a plan should be prepared if nobody is going to see it. If it is to remain in a file or a safety vault, why waste the time of the major employers? In my judgment, it does not make sense at all.

The Bill, which did not originally promote action plans with targets and timetables, has been amended, at least in that sense. It is a substantive amendment. It is an amendment which only makes good sense. What on earth good is there in developing a plan to sit around a table in order to take a look at information from Statistics Canada and then file that information away in a drawer? No one will ever see it. For the life of me 1 cannot understand why the Government would not find this a logical follow-up on what seems to be the first of the two objectives under the plans in terms of goals to be prepared. It is the type of action which should follow on the heels of working on those plans.
Not only do plans need to be prepared, they must also be made available to the employees-the people involved in this whole process-and to the Human Rights Commission upon request. Unless employees and the target groups about which we are talking are aware of the new opportunities, then they
April 15, 1986

are unlikely to apply. It is as if the Government has looked only at voluntary measures. If this law is not applied to the principle of submitting these plans for revision, then there is no point in having them. If the Human Rights Commission cannot access employers' plans then it will be unable to assess whether the measures planned by the employer are adequate and, indeed, whether the plans have been implemented.
The other part of the farce is that if the plans are not implemented, then nothing happens. All one has to say is that the plans have been drawn up. If they do not have a set of plans, they can be fined, but who knows what they have if the plans are filed away in drawers? At least the plans should have to be submitted somewhere so someone knows they exist. They should be sent to the Employment and Immigration offices so that it may be determined if they are really targeting the population and they need to be viewed in light of the statistics which are being undertaken at this point.
We had to fight hard enough to get StatsCanada to continue so that we will know where we are at and can take a good look at the composition of our society. What is the point of doing that if we are not going to apply the findings? I think this amendment is only an intelligent progression that would enable the law to be applied in its entirety.
I would like to suggest that not only should the plans be retained by the employer at the employer's principal place of residence in Canada for a period of three years, but as well that they be communicated to the employees and any existing bargaining agent, and further that they be made available to the Human Rights Commission on request. I would like very much to support my colleague's amendment in this regard.
There is no doubt that both the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, feel equally strongly that this amendment is a necessity if we want to measure progress in society in any way. I have said from the very beginning that the concept of this Bill could be very effective for the target groups, but there is no way that it will be effective if we continue with the farce of keeping secret the plans of action that one has undertaken.
1 would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he and the Minister have agreed to these amendments which make sound sense and would give the Bill some coherence and potential for action. I sincerely hope that they will take this into consideration and that the Government will support this amendment.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring one or two comments about this amendment to the Parliamentary Secretary and through him to the Minister. The game the Government intends to play is called: "I've got a secret". I must say that I am extremely disturbed over the Government's reluctance to allow any voluntary enforcement of goals and targets set by an employer, because these goals and targets will not in fact be communicated to employees
Employment Equity
except in the better workplaces where the employer tries to be open about this process. The exact areas where employment equity is most needed are those areas in which there will be the least amount of information made available.
Suppose there was a law in this country indicating that we would wipe out discrimination against a particular religious group, but this was going to be done in stages. We would tell employers that they have to set goals for eliminating discrimination against that particular religious group but they are not to communicate those goals to the people who are affected- why I do not know. When we put it that way it sounds pretty awful, and the reason it sounds pretty awful is that it is pretty awful.
I would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary, being himself a member of a group which has suffered a great deal of discrimination in the past, would have been sensitive to this issue and would, if he has not been given the authority to do so by his Minister, say that he himself personally endorses the change even though the Government is not prepared to go along with it. That is the kind of courage we would like to see displayed by that Parliamentary Secretary. We do not want to see him go along with something which will make useless this particular provision in the Bill.
Clause 5 of the Bill, which was inserted in response to a great deal of pressure during the course of the hearings, requires that an employer shall prepare a plan each year to set out the goals the employer intends to achieve in implementing employment equity as well as a timetable for implementing those goals. That would be a step forward, except that both the amendment put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), and the amendment which we are debating, put by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), relate to the salient point that there has to be a way by which the people affected have cognizance of what those goals and targets for implementation actually are. That is not the case in the Bill as it now stands.
The proposed amendments would simply ensure that in one way or other the information be communicated to employees. If there is a bargaining agent, the information should go to the bargaining agent. It can go to the employees by means of a company memorandum or by being posted on bulletin boards throughout the workplace and copies could be made available to those employees who are interested in receiving copies. There are different ways of making information available, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that there are well established ways of communicating this kind of information in the workplace.
I draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the high-flying language of Clause 2, the purpose of the Bill, which indicates that the purpose is to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women and the other groups affected, by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
same way, but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences. How the devil do people know how that is seen by the employer if in fact the employer does not have to communicate just what it is he intends to do?
Clause 4 of the Bill indicates that the employer is required to implement employment equity in consultation with designated representatives of the employees, however those designated representatives happen to be chosen. If I consult with the Government, but then at the end of the day the Government says it is not going to tell me what the goals and targets are, then 1 will have no means of knowing what is going on and that is a pretty weak consultation. In fact, that takes the meat out of the process. That is not consultation.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a small body. It cannot monitor the actions of every employer who falls under federal regulation. There has to be a certain amount of voluntary enforcement. In fact, that is the system on which a great deal of federal law is based. Standards are set out and means are provided by which people can make complaints if they feel that the standards are not being respected. However, such a process is impossible if people are not allowed to know to what extent the employer's achievements, if any, reach the plan which the employer worked out, presumably in consultation with the employees. Only if the employer chooses to share that information will that be able to occur.
Under the Human Rights Act, the Human Rights Commission has the power to look at the implementation of employment equity, but there again the amendment would give the Human Rights Commission access on demand to the employer's plans and targets. However, because that is not as yet required, another obstacle is put before the Human Rights Commission. Conceivably it will have to go to the courts in order to get the information which in fact should be made freely available.
Canada Employment Centres are meant to ensure contract compliance in the case of larger employers who do business with the federal Government, but there again one of the ways of ensuring compliance is to see how targets and goals are being met. But that information is not going to be made available to employees. There is no requirement that it be made available to the Canada Employment Centres either. The information could simply be locked in a safe, and if anyone came to try to find out about the plans the employer need simply indicate that he has kept the information in a safe for three years where it has been safe from any form of public scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the fact that Clause 5 of the Bill as drafted after committee consideration is so weak that it is practically useless.
It is useless because the employer must spell out in a plan each one of his goals with respect to employment equity, but this plan would not be unveiled to the employees, the unions
representing the employees, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or the manpower centres.
So nobody will know the goals of the employer because the Government refuses to give that right to the employees. Mr. Speaker, I am wondering just how they can have the kind of consultation referred to in the subclauses of the Bill when the people who will be consulted will have no idea whether the employer has accepted or rejected their suggestions. They might even be given contradictory information. The employer will tell them: Yes, I agree, it is a good idea, your suggestions are excellent. But the day after, the employer prepares a plan of goals which completely ignores the remarks and suggestions made by the employees. But ask the employer whether he considers suggestions made by his employees and the employer will answer: of course. I promised I would consider their suggestions. That is, he considers them and then ignores them, and his employees will never know whether he included a substantial portion of their suggestions in the action plan set up by the employer for a three-year period.
As I said earlier, I am amazed, especially since the Parliamentary Secretary belongs to a group that has suffered terrible discrimination in the past, that he should fail to see how important it is to shine the light of information on all this so there are no secrets and employers, employees and unions discuss the plans together. That is what they want, Mr. Speaker. But in our society, we often get no further than voluntary compliance with legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada. In this case, Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for people to try and influence the employer and make him meet the objectives set in his action plan, because his employees do not know what they are, except when the employer is a good employer who is serious about meeting his obligations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. 1 am sorry but the Hon. Member's time has expired. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Weiner).


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very concerned remarks of my hon. colleague. Indeed he is correct when he states that I am a product of an environment which caused me to suffer a great deal in my lifetime. However, for me life has fulfilled much of my hopes. This has been an absolutely marvellous country to myself and to my antecedents. My father-in-law, who is still alive and very well, came to Canada without five cents and became one of the outstanding achievers in our community as a result of hard work and dedication. We are sending forth a message, and that message is one of hope.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Keep it secret, that is the message.
April 15, 1986


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: We are not keeping anything secret.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is exactly what you are doing, keeping it secret.


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


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: We are not keeping anything secret. We are sending forth a message that all Canadians will be able to contribute to and participate in society. Canada is the most wonderful country in the world. Its immigration policy is the most open and accessible of any in the world, one that has gone out with heart-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Keep it secret, keep it secret.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Chair is very much under the impression that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) would like to make a comment-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Yes, if you would like me to, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: No, I am not inviting the Hon. Member to make a comment. He has already spoken, and I draw his attention to that fact. Obviously the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the same right.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: All those things we feel give us the confidence to know that we will have the support, encouragement and cooperation of all Canadians in our goal.
We have run a series of advertisements which talk about the world next door. I invite all Hon. Members and all Canadians to visit my world next door. They should come with me to the streets of St. Laurent where they will see that 50 per cent of the population has come to this country, 25 per cent in the last 15 years. All of them are about to or have already taken a very viable place in the community. A lot more has to be done; much has already gone on. I would be the first to say that that is exactly what we are highlighting by saying loud and clear that they all deserve an equal chance. We will see to it that they get that chance. All Members of the House agree with that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In secret.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said that all countries of the world post their plans.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I didn't say that.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: He will know that in the United States there is no posting of plans.


Michael Morris Cassidy: They bomb Libyans there too. We have to look at what we have to do in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.
Employment Equity


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: There is a purpose in listening. There is a purpose in communicating. There is a purpose in putting into effect a piece of legislation which will work. Philosophically we do not agree, but we on all sides of the House want to ensure that there is true equality. We want to ensure that we are not patronizing and that we have results.


Mr. McCurdy:: What does that have to do with publishing a plan?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why keep it secret?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Employers are required to consult with their employees. There is no need to mention the word "brief since the Bill already specifies that it will be three years. Employers will be encouraged in guidelines to make the plans available to employees.


Michael Morris Cassidy: But not required.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The guidelines to employers will specify that a good employment strategy includes making the plans available to employees. The plans will not be available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission on request. However, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will have access to the plans when investigating complaints.
Gordon Fairweather, Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, indicated during the committee hearings that the reported data would be sufficient to initiate complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Commission can initiate complaints, examine data and plans and, if necessary, appoint tribunals which have the authority to impose sanctions where findings of discrimination are made.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about freedom of information? Didn't you used to stand for that?


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


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Since Members are so wonderful in quoting Mr. Fairweather, a great Canadian, a very concerned man and one of the foremost leaders of human rights in the world, I too would like to have a moment to quote him.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: You are talking about everybody but the target groups.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you give him a chance to speak, you nerd?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Is that a parliamentary word?


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


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I should like to refer to what Mr. Gordon Fairweather said at the fifty-fifth annual meeting of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce last September. He said: "I am convinced that the time for affirmative action is now, but let me make it very clear that I do not at this stage advocate mandatory affirmative action".

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is not what is being proposed here.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: That is what he stated, that he did not want mandatory affirmative action. Affirmative action does not have to be the same thing as quotas, if we get on with the job and start to show some real progress without them. We want to get on with the job. Let us pass the Bill, let us put employment equity into effect, and five years down the way when we review it together we will all praise the progress we have made.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Government-in this particular case the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Weiner)-is in fact repeating to the House, to the people of Canada and to those groups which want some kind of protection and equality the following old ditty:
"Mother, may I go out to swim?
Yes my darling daughter,
Hang your clothes on the hickory bush,
But don't go near the water."
That is the kind of thinking the Government is asking us to follow. I do not know whether the appropriate word to describe such an approach would be "hypocrisy". However, it certainly is an attempt by the Government to act as if it were doing something, when it knows perfectly well that it is not. It is pretending really to care about a certain group, but it is not going to give them the protection it is pretending it will give them. That underlies the Government's response to this motion.
This motion relates to the need for action plans to be known. We heard the convoluted thinking of the last speaker. He said that the Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot have access to this information, but can request it when it wants to prosecute or act. How can the Canadian Human Rights Commission know whether it wants to act unless it can get the information? That is double-talk. To put it at its nicest, it is a catch-22.
The handicapped who came to the Hill yesterday to protest know this double-talk for what it is. They know that this Bill simply requires companies to make a report with some statistics which they can then hide in their drawers for three years. After kicking, screaming, and resisting, the Conservative Party finally agreed that there should be a plan, but no one can see the plan. It is tragic, or laughable. In any case, it is totally unacceptable to any reasonable, sincere person.
We are not talking only about human rights here. We are talking about human responsibilities. The Government does not seem able to accept human responsibilities. Through the way in which it has handled this equality Bill, it is obvious that the Government does not know what human rights are. It has no idea of how it is necessary for Parliament to be responsible for the protection of the interests of large numbers of citizens.
Women represent at least 51 per cent of our population. One in every eight Canadians, which amounts to millions of our citizens, is disabled. The native people represent a very large section of our community. Visible minority groups also form a very large percentage of our population. A responsible Government would provide legislation to act responsibly in the interests of those people. This Government is not doing so and is fighting, in a most hypocritical way, resolutions which give some meaning to this Bill which, at the present time, is nothing but a bunch of words.
The Government must take the responsibility of ensuring that corporations and companies are responsible to their employees, to the communities which they serve, and to the taxpayers which often support those corporations. We are asking that the taxpayers who fall within these groups be given the right of access to jobs. The Government is not showing responsibility, nor is it calling upon companies to be responsible with regard to the people of the country by making plans to ensure that proper and equal access is provided to all Canadians, and to ensure that their plans are made known so their records can be measured against those plans. That is precisely what this motion is all about.
It is absolutely incredible that the Government is taking evasive tactics by requiring companies to provide action plans, but keeping those plans secret. I call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to re-examine his thinking on this matter and to explain the purpose of having such a plan if the plan is not to be made available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Why should a company go to the trouble of making a plan if it stays in the files? It is absurd to require such an exercise. We asked for an action plan because we wanted action. This is inaction.
One cannot conclude other than that the Government is not really sincere about employment equity. It has totally evaded Judge Abella's recommendation to ensure that the Bill has teeth. She said that the passage of a Bill without teeth would be to continue as we have before. We have really made no step forward other than jawboning. I have been speaking to a lot of human rights people. I have been talking to people in the churches concerned with human responsibility. They feel that in terms of this Bill the Government should go back to the drawing board and re-examine its purposes. If the Government passes this bill it will only hinder the cause. The Bill will have practically no effect in terms of bringing about immediate action for the people who have been waiting for the Government to fulfil its promises.
If the Canadian Human Rights Commission wants information, it will have to use sleuths. It will have to guess what companies are doing. It will not have ready access to reports on companies' plans. It can only guess what those plans are, and that means it can do nothing. It will have nothing more than figures with regard to the companies' intentions. We will throw an enormous task upon the back of the Canadian
April 15, 1986

Human Rights Commission which we know it cannot perform. We are handcuffing the commission.
This motion requests that this information be made available to the commission upon request. Why would the Government not be delighted to go along with that part of the resolution? It should not be necessary for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to scramble around to find information when it thinks something is wrong. The Government wants the Canadian Human Rights Commission to play a guessing game and look stupid and ineffective which will give the groups that are discriminated against a sense of frustration and a feeling that the commission is no good. People will say that the commission is incompetent and inept and it will be blamed for that which the Government should be blamed for.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to determine whether the rejection of this amendment was due to silliness, stupidity or unconscionable trickery. In response to a significant concern, 1 heard the Parliamentary Secretary telling us that he lived in a good neighbourhood where people worked hard. He told us that his father came here with a nickel. That was his explanation for the denial of this simple amendment. Let me tell him that the women, the disabled and native people of this country reject that. Let me tell him that people like my great, great grandfather who were brought or came to this country as former slaves with less than a nickel in their pockets will not accept that as an explanation.
The fact is that this Government did not in the first instance want to have goals. That is why we have this silly arrangement in this Bill which separates the process from the goals. Having conceded that there should be a definition of goals, year by year, how silly it is to reject having those goals revealed to those directly involved! It has to be a deliberate attempt to sabotage the intent of the clause which adopts the goals. There can be no answer except trickery. I cannot believe that the Government would be so stupid as not to realize that the one way to ensure that an employer will implement serious employment equity processes is by ensuring that every employee subject to those processes and benefiting from those goals knows what the goals are. Could it be possible that the Hon. Member does not know of incident after incident of complaints of discrimination against employers where the excuse has been that the employee responsible for hiring was unaware that the company had a non-discriminatory or affirmative action program?
What concerns me most of all is that this is another example of this Government's refusal to address the needs of those people who are supposed to be benefiting from this legislation. We know the scenario. It is to go slow and not to offend those who are responsible for what many people who are victims regard as a criminal act, that is, the rejection of these people for a job, the denial to them of economic opportunity, the denial of the opportunity to participate in this society in a way
Employment Equity
that would accord them independence. That is what is at issue here.
Does this Government not have the will to address the needs that exist? It is obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary does not care that this legislation not only fails to address the needs of minority groups, but he denies a proper hearing for this amendment. It cannot be denied now that this Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister he represents are so lacking in conscience that they will pass a shadow of a Bill, one with no substance, and one which will deny the needs of those whose needs this Bill is supposed to meet.
Let us give reconsideration to this denial. Let us examine what is being said. Let us consider the fact that you have at least accepted that there will be goals set year by year. Give us an explanation different from the history of your family, the neighbourhood in which you live, and different from this oft-repeated notion that those who are not visibly definable as minorities have sometimes achieved success in a way which leads them to believe others are not denied that success because of their colour, their sex, their disability, or because they are a member of the aboriginal peoples of this country. Reconsider this and put yourself in the shoes of those who cannot deny to which group they belong and therefore have no support in fighting the discrimination they have experienced in many ways all their lives without the recourse this Bill is supposed to provide, which in fact this Bill manipulates in so many ways so that recourse will not be there at all.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 21 A. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) moves:
Motion No. 21A
April 7, 1986-That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 12 to 16 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
''section (1) shall be
(a)	retained by the employer at the employer's principal place of business in
Canada for a brief period of at least three years after the last year in respect of
which the plan is prepared;
(b)	communicated to the employer's employees and any existing bargaining
agent: and
(c)	made available to the Human Rights Commission, on request.''
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

April 15, 1986
12256_______________________________________
Employment Equity


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now debate Motions Nos. 24, 25A, 26A and 27A and vote on them separately.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 24
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 22 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"ance with the duties imposed on the employer under sections 4 and 5 and
further in accordance with prescribed instructions indicating,".


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 25A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 39 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"moted, trained, transferred, demoted and terminated and the degree of'. Motion No. 26A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 3 the following:
"(e) the number of individuals in designated groups who apply for specific
openings."
Motion No. 27A
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 3 the following:
"(e) a list of those acts undertaken by the employer pursuant to section 4 of
this Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have presented three amendments here, all of which amend Clause 6 of the Bill, the reporting clause. This clause at present is the only clause which can be considered a sanction. It says that employers who must introduce employment equity must report certain information about their workforce. I presume that the purpose is, as it should be, that once you know what is going on in your workforce, you will be able to tell whether employment equity or affirmative action programs are necessary, whether there has been a lack of progress and so on. My amendments are meant to improve Clause 6, the reporting section. Since these amendments are all grouped together for purposes of debate I will go through them one by one. Amendment 25A is an amendment to sub-clause (d) of Clause 6. At the present time Sub-clause (d) says that the employer must report:
The number of employees hired, promoted and terminated and the degree of representation in those numbers of persons in designated groups.
Mr. Speaker, that is good as far as it goes. You have to report the numbers of native people, visible minorities, women
and disabled people who have been hired, promoted and terminated. My amendment would add to these three categories of those who are hired, promoted and terminated. We would add those who are trained, transferred and demoted.
The reasoning is as follows. If you do not train the women at the bottom of the ladder in your labour force, or the visible minorities, they are not going to get into middle management, they are not going to get to the top. If you are aiming for a situation where you have good representation of these target groups, not only at the bottom of your labour force but in the middle and at the top, we should know who is being trained.
The next amendment concerns those who are transferred. Transfers are used by employers to punish or to reward employees. Those whom they want out of their hair they send to places like-now, 1 have to be careful here. If they want to reward them they certainly send them to Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East and Montreal, in general, and to the Province of Quebec, that is natural. If they want to punish them they will send them to some part of the country which is not too enjoyable.


Roland de Corneille: Overseas.


William Warren Allmand: Well, I don't know. In any case we all know that employers do that, and it is a way of getting target groups out of their hair. It is a way, by the way, of sidetracking them from promotions and participation in the firm.
Finally, I ask that we add those who are demoted. If you ask that the employer reports on those who have been promoted we should also note who has been demoted. You can be promoted in one month and demoted six months later. Sometimes what appears to be a lateral transfer in the firm ends up, in fact, to be a demotion. I am asking that this information be added to the report, it being Motion No. 25A.
Motion No. 26A adds a Subclause (e) to Clause 6, the reporting section which would require the employer to report on:
(e) the number of individuals in designated groups who apply for specific openings.
If we simply get reports from these employers on what is happening in their static labour force and we do not know how many people from the designated groups are applying for employment, we do not know how many disabled people are sending in applications that are being turned down. We do not know how many visible minorities are sending in applications and being turned down, and so on. That is important in judging whether that firm is serious about improvement in its employment equity program. I am asking in Motion No. 26A that that sort of information be added to the report.
My Motion No. 27A is probably the key one of them all in this clause because it will act as an improvement on the sanctions in this Bill. This Bill needs sanctions. As we all know the only legal sanction in the Bill at the present time is a
April 15, 1986

penalty if you do not report at all, or if you report incorrectly. There is no sanction if you do not meet your goals on employment equity or affirmative action.
Motion No. 27A says the following:
(e) a list of those acts undertaken by the employer pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
In the report the employer is going to have to set out what he has done as an employer to fulfil his obligations under Clause 4. Clause 4, which is the key section, says that an employer shall:
-implement employment equity by
(a)	identifying and eliminating each of the employer's employment practices, not otherwise authorized by a law, that results in employment barriers against persons in designated groups;
They are going to have to say in their report what they have done to identify and eliminate each of the employer's practices that serve as barriers to people in the designated groups. Subclause (4b) reads that an employer shall implement employment equity by the following:
(b)	instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in the various positions of employment-
Under the amendment the employer will have to report what positive policies and practices have been put in place to ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation.
The purpose of Motion No. 27A, as 1 said earlier, is to oblige the employer, subject to this Bill, to list those acts undertaken by that employer pursuant to his obligations in Section 4 of this Act.
I must say that I find it very strange, and I have respect for the Parliamentary Secretary, that although the Government has claimed this to be a very important Bill, we have only seen the Minister at the beginning of each day. It is usual for the Minister to be here to pilot the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, order! 1 will take the opportunity to remind the Hon. Member that it is not permitted to mention either the absence or presence of Members in the House.


William Warren Allmand: I accept the ruling by the Speaker without mentioning whether or not the Minister is present. I know she must be embarrassed by this Bill. Knowing the Minister, I know she would want a more effective Bill. I have known her and listened to her for years on these questions and have always found her to be a person committed to employment equity and to affirmative action. I guess the Bill is a bit embarrassing to her and she must be hiding somewhere.
1 hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government Members who are here, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), a man committed to justice, a fair-minded man who is listening to the debate, and behind him the Minister for Immigration, both progressive, fair-minded people, are listening to my comments. I am sure that before this debate is
Employment Equity
over they will telephone the Minister and tell her that further amendments should be made to this Bill to make it an effective Bill to help the native people of Canada, the visible minorities, the women of Canada and the disabled people, who are the groups that are to be assisted by this Bill but will not be assisted unless amendments are made to make the Bill more effective and to accept at least these amendments which have been put forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Debate.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, with regard to these three motions, which have been submitted by the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), all are amendments designed to improve the Bill to provide definitions. One would think that the Government Members would welcome these suggestions. Tragically, some of these have been proposed in committee. Although some of the committee members indicated there was value to some of these amendments, the committee was unwilling to give assent to these amendments at that time. The amendments we have suggested in the last three days and the amendments we are debating today are designed to improve the Bill. These three amendments can greatly improve the specifics of the Bill.
If government Members can boast that their strength is their inability to think for themselves, then surely the Tories can be called invincible. It is sad that no Government Members are prepared to stand up and explain why they oppose these amendments which are designed to improve the Bill. I might explain to those who might be listening that the reason the walls in this place is resounding is that there are so few Members here from the Government. In fact, saying there is a corporal's guard would be exaggerating. In any event, they vote the same way and are uninterested in examining the value of the amendments. There is no willingness to examine what is being offered.
The amendment would include not just those who are promoted but also those who are trained, transferred, demoted and terminated. This would obviously improve the Bill. However, it seems that the Government does not want to accept suggestions from anyone because it believes that it must stand by what it has written and that it must be accepted as perfect. To admit that there could be improvements may in some way minimize its omniscience. Everyone knows the Government is not omniscient and it need not pretend to be.
It is unfortunate that it is not prepared to listen and seriously consider these amendments. The Government claimed that it would be open to consultation and dialogue. However, there is no response to dialogue and there has been no consultation because most of these resolutions we have brought forward have been proffered by the groups that are affected. It does not matter that we have offered the opinions of COPOH, women's organizations and native people-the

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
Government has made up its mind that it knows best. It is autocratic, it is paternalistic, and one might say that it is ruthless. It will not listen despite all of the highest claims that it would enter into a new era. There is a complete lack of response to the suggestions in these motions.
I want to use this occasion to say that these motions involve technical changes that would improve the Bill. Perhaps between now and the time we vote on these motions the Government might consider accepting some of them on the basis that it has had time for repentance and of its willingness to accede to the fact that these suggestions may improve and strengthen the Bill. I hope the Government will take some of the major clauses into account and attempt to rectify them. These motions involve technical improvements which, if not passed now, hopefully will appear in the guidelines. The Government is not impressing the handicapped, native people or anyone with its obturate and stubborn attitude.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, these amendments reflect need, logic, common sense and fairness. They have been suggested by the affected groups, and perhaps that explains why they will be rejected by the Government like the other constructive amendments which have been offered.
First, let us consider Motion No. 25A. It states:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 39 at page 3 and
substituting the following therefor:
"moted, trained, transferred, demoted and terminated and the degree of".
I received a letter from a group representing minority employees in the Public Service. They told us that because of the ineffectual affirmative action program in the Government of this country and the Public Service, members of visible minority groups were being demoted, transferred and terminated-all of those things which are mentioned in the motion. The remedies which this Act should provide should extend beyond mere hiring, promotion and termination. Therefore, this amendment should be accepted by the Government because of its logic, fairness, common sense and need.
Let us consider Motion No. 26A. It states:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 41
at page 3 the following:
"(e) the number of individuals in designated groups who apply for specific
openings".
Let us assume that we have counted the number of minority groups in the employ of a particular employer and determined the distribution of the designated groups in the population but will only consider what happens to those already employed, of which there are likely to be few. What good is that exercise if we do not determine the hiring practices of the company?
Motion No. 27A addresses the fact that Clause 4 makes no specific provision for reporting the actions required of the employer to the Minister or to anyone else. It is curious that the amendment proffered by my colleague refers only to Clause 4. Let us turn back to Motion No. 24 moved by my
Party colleague which begins with the words: "containing information in". It goes on to read:
"accordance with the duties imposed on the employer under sections 4 and 5
and further in accordance with prescribed instructions indicating."
It goes on to say, "in the form and manner prescribed". This means that the company's plan with respect to process or goals would at least be reported to the Minister and at least be available through that means since the Government sneakily omitted reporting provisions from Sections 4 and 5.
The Parliamentary Secretary has the opportunity to reconsider his refusal to provide for reporting to employees by accepting Motion No. 24 and providing more details with respect to the treatment that might be accorded to the target groups by accepting these amendments. So I would ask him to reconsider and acknowledge these amendments as a useful contribution to strengthening this Bill. If he refuses to do so, that will be another concession by the Government that it is attempting to pull one grand joke on women, visible minorities, natives and the disabled.
My colleague mentioned earlier how few members of the Government were here to listen to this debate. Perhaps they ought to remember that half the population is made up of women and perhaps one person out of 20 in the population would benefit from employment equity provisions which apply to the disabled. They ought to know that the visible minority population of the country represents between 500,000 and 600,000 persons and that they are presently concentrated in certain areas.
If those Hon. Members think they are going to get away with this garbage with impunity, perhaps they had better reexamine their thinking. I believe there is a notion held by the Tories that women, the visible minorities, the disabled and native Canadians are not watching what is going on or are too stupid to understand. But they will not be fooled by this nonsense, this parade of fancy rhetoric, this voluntary employment equity program which offends every notion of how affirmative action programs ought to be designed. It is about time the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister started to think about how to address the real needs of so many people in this country who are tired of having promises broken and equality delayed. Government Members delay equality and break promises when they sit here silent, listening to the debate but rejecting constructive changes, which these target groups to whom the Bill is supposed to be directed have asked for and, indeed, demanded.
In the end, two groups will suffer. Those Hon. Members opposite will suffer when those millions of individuals who should be benefiting from the Bill have lost hope. They will lose votes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, there are a series of amendments here which are being proposed in order to improve the unimprovable. I think one has to ask oneself
April 1 5, 1986

whether it is really worth the effort given the fact that only part of the Bill which has any effect at all is the reporting requirement. As the amendments make clear, the reporting requirement is weak and could and should be improved. However, as 1 stated earlier during discussion of different elements of the Bill, the Bill as a whole is so ineffective that it is a pity it is called an employment equity bill. It might be better called a Bill on employment inequity or a Bill on delay to employment equity.
I would like to say that I was perhaps a bit more passionate a few moments ago when I was speaking about the secretive nature of the planned objectives and targets for employment equity. These things will not be shared with employees. However, I think an important opportunity is being lost by the House of Commons in this employment equity Bill. 1 know the Minister is extremely sensitive about the criticism she has received from members of the New Democratic Party with respect to the weaknesses in this particular Bill. I have been in politics long enough to recognize that not everything we hope for in a Bill will be there. Politics does require compromises and, and to some extent, some balance between the views of different groups, individuals and institutions in our society. Those things I am prepared to recognize, but when it comes to the Bill, it seems to speak almost entirely to the fears of business that it will somehow be made to do something it does not want to do. The Bill, therefore, purports to give some progress towards employment equity in order to cool down the various groups representing women, native Canadians, the handicapped and visible minorities, while in fact doing next to nothing. It seems to me that such is the nature of the compact which has been made with the business community. 1 regret to say that we are going to have to pass this Bill and it will be five years before anyone knows whether or not it works. There will be some reporting but it will not be very onerous. In the meantime, business can go on as if nothing has changed.
I do note that in certain areas of activity in the United States that country has gone further in terms of affirmative action than anything even envisaged in this Bill. I am speaking now in sorrow as much as in anger. The Government is not even prepared to make the reporting requirements adequately detailed with respect to the size of the companies which will mainly be affected so that they are to receive the kind of information which might be helpful as a starting point in measuring progress towards employment equity.
The Parliamentary Secretary has had in the past the reputation of being a man with progressive views. It is a pity that he finds himself in such regressive and reactionary company as is to be found within the Conservative caucus.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) was known in her day as a red Tory. The red seems to be rapidly blending into blue, but it may very well be that she herself disagrees in a very fundamental way with a lot of things she has had to do in order to get this pale shadow, this thin thing, into the House of Commons as a Bill which purports to deal with employment equity. Perhaps she
Employment Equity
privately wishes she could have done a lot more. My message to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister of Employment and Immigration is that there comes a time when one has to speak with one's conscience rather than simply being loyal to one's Party for reasons which are perhaps hard to defend when one is forced to do things one cannot live with or stomach.
Is the Minister of Employment and Immigration so negative and angry with the New Democratic Party because we are speaking truths about this particular Bill? We are telling her about the things which should be in the Bill. Has she had to reject these things because of pressure from reactionaries within her caucus and within the Cabinet? Was the Parliamentary Secretary so acid in his comments to me the other day because he also recognizes the weaknesses of this particular Bill? There is still time. I recognize that it will be a dramatic moment, but if members of the Government feel, as I do and as my Party does, that we have a commitment-perhaps those Hon. Members opposite share that commitment-to genuine affirmative action and employment equity, if there are still a few Tories who have that commitment, let them speak up now and vote against their Party when the amendments before us right now come to the fore. If that does not occur, I want the Parliamentary Secretary to take a message, not just to his Minister but to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as well.
During the last election a lot of people were looking for change, including individuals in the different minority groups which are dealt with in this Bill, and they were prepared to change their political allegiance and support the Progressive Conservatives because they thought they were going to see a real change. I personally, and representatives of my Party, will go from coast to coast and will joke and mock the Progressive Conservatives over such things as the fact that the plans which were meant to be put forward for employment equity are so important that they are not going to be shared with the employees but are going to be kept secret. Any semblance of credibility developed by the Progessive Conservatives on this issue during their period of opposition is going to disappear utterly by the time we get to the next election. I speak the truth. That is the warning I want to give to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women who is here with us in the House. She is perhaps only one of two Ministers in the House.
The credibility which his Party might have had is going down the drain. When people examine this legislation and see how weak it is, when they see from experience how little has changed as a consequence of it, then when the Conservatives say to native people, women, visible minorities and the handicapped: "See what a great job we are doing for you", they will be laughed at. No one likes to be laughed at, least of all members of the Government who came to power so proudly after the Liberal dynasty. They felt that they had ended that dynasty which had been around for such a long time. It was good that the Liberal dynasty was ended. What is bad is that

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
the present Government seems to be acting with exactly the same type of arrogance, insensitivity, inability to consult and understanding of the needs and aspirations of ordinary Canadians as the Government which it replaced. We saw how the electorate dealt with the previous Government as a result of the way it behaved toward ordinary Canadians. I tell the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministers who are in the House now that the people of Canada will deal in exactly the same way with this Government as they did with the previous one if it continues to follow the same course.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, perhaps I may say that today, in the province of Quebec, although the New Democratic Party failed to get any candidates elected, the fact that we tell the truth as reflected in the amendments we are proposing to this Bill on employment equity, did not go unnoticed by Quebecers, so much so that 26 per cent of the population has indicated that if an election were held today, it would vote for the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, with 57 Conservative members, the Progressive Conservatives have only one per cent more than we do in terms of public support in Quebec for their party. And this is only eighteen months after the federal election of September 1984. The Conservatives in the province of Quebec will continue to lose public support and will lose support across Canada, if they keep up the kind of arrogance reflected in the Bill before the House today, despite the amendments proposed by our party and the other Opposition party.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to correct my colleague and tell him that the citizens of Quebec are represented by 58 Members, not 57 as he indicated. Each one of them works as hard as any of the Conservative Members here in the House. Canadians will eventually have an opportunity to pass judgment on the way we have done our work. For the time being I would say that our duty and right is to conduct public affairs, to administer soundly, and to do everything we can to guarantee equity in all employment sectors and for all citizens in the Province of Quebec. And it is in that field that we are working very hard to enact the kind of legislation which will provide employment equity for all residents of Canada, including those who came from other countries.
All I can say to my colleague is that in due time, like all other Canadians, he will have an opportunity to make up his mind and settle the matter.

I am delighted that employment equity will be one of the issues on which we will be judged.
I would now like to tell Hon. Members why we are objecting to the motions which have been presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). We certainly appreciate his suggestions, as we do
those of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). We have listened to them. It must be understood that we had to weigh them in order to see whether or not they would be helpful and useful. We had to consider whether or not they would complicate matters. We asked whether or not they would make it more difficult to administer this legislation. Where they were not practical and did not add anything, and where they would perhaps cause more problems with the process, then achieving results would be affected.
We feel that Motion No. 24 is unnecessary. Employers are obligated to implement employment equity and to report on results.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: No, they are not.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I gave the Hon. Member a chance to speak. 1 would appreciate it if he would do the same for me.


Mr. Keeper:: Only if you have something to say.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Clauses 4 and 5 refer to process, while Clause 6 refers to results which are to be reported. The stated intent of the legislation is that employers are required to report on results, not actions or programs. Clause 5 of the Bill clarifies that employers must have goals and timetables; but employers will develop their own process activities to achieve desired results.
With respect to Motion No. 25A, I do not see how it can be helpful. It is complicated. It would be difficult to see what information with respect to transfers would show. How would training be defined? Data collected on employees who were trained, transferred and/or demoted is not considered essential in monitoring the results of an employment equity plan. Training and transfers may be part of a plan to develop and broaden employee skills, but it does not actually reflect results of employment equity, where employment equity means more proportionate representation of designated groups. Any major changes which occur because of training, transfers or demotions will show up in a year-by-year comparison of data reported.
Motion No. 26A deals with "the number of individuals in designated groups who apply for specific openings". It is difficult to collect designated group data at the applicant stage. Proportionate representation in hirings will not be measured against the status of applicants but according to availability data, which may include more people than those who apply for a position.
With respect to Motion No. 27A, flexibility with respect to process is a basic philosophy of this Bill. The Bill's focus is on results of such acts, not the fact that employers report such acts. The employer's executive summary can provide information about measures taken in support of employment equity.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
April 15, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 24. Mr. Nystrom moves:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 22 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"ance with the duties imposed on the employer under sections 4 and 5 and further in accordance with prescribed instructions indicating,".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 25A. Mr. Allmand
moves:
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 39 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"moted, trained, transferred, demoted and terminated and the degree of'.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 27A. Mr. Allmand
moves:
Employment Equity
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 3 the following:
"(e) a list of those acts undertaken by the employer pursuant to section 4 of this Act."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not hear you call Motion No. 26A. It is my recollection that you went from Motion No. 25A to Motion No. 27A.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is correct, so I will now call Motion No. 26A.

The question is on Motion No. 26A. Mr. Allmand, seconded by Mr. Berger, moves:
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 3 the following:
"(e) the number of individuals in designated groups who apply for specific openings."

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.

April 1 5, 1986
Employment Equity


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 31A and 32A will be grouped together for debate and voted on separately.
Hon. Warren Ailmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East) moved:
Motion No. 31 A.
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. An employer who fails to comply is guilty of an offence and is liable on". Motion No. 32A.
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 16 at page 4 and
substituting the following therefor:
"five hundred thousand dollars."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is my last opportunity to attempt to make some amendments to this Bill. I have not been too pleased with the results so far, but hope springs eternal in the human soul, so I will carry on.
The Bill as it now stands is no more than a piece of rhetoric. Clause 2, which contains the purpose of the Bill, sounds great. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities, etc. Clause 4, the operative clause of the Bill, says briefly that an employer shall implement employment equity by identifying and eliminating barriers to employment for designated groups and instituting positive policies to achieve a degree of representation in the various workplaces. However, when we come to the principal sanction clause of the Bill, Clause 7, we find that the only penalty provided is a penalty for not filing a report in accordance with Clause 3 in its present weakened form.
Let me read Clause 7 to the House. It reads:
An employer who fails to comply with section 6 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars.
Clause 6 simply requires employers to report on the composition of their workforces. As I said in committee, an employer could be in complete accordance with this Bill by reporting year after year the same composition of his workforce. For example, he may report in 1986 that he had 100 employees, five were women, one was a member of a visible minority and one was disabled. In 1987, he may report that he had 100 employees, five were women, one was a member of a visible minority and one was disabled, and he may report the same thing in 1988 and 1989. He would not be penalized because he is reporting, but no progress is being made as far as employment equity is concerned. There is no penalty for not proceeding with employment equity or for not complying with the great obligations that are set out in Clause 4.
Motion No. 31A indicates that an employer who fails to comply with the provisions of the Bill is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000.
My next motion increases the limit from $50,000 to $500,000 because, for the large firms that are subject to federal jurisdiction like the railways and communications companies, $50,000 would be part of the cost of doing business. If they wanted to, they could simply ignore the requirement for filing reports. It would probably cost them more to prepare their reports than it would to pay the fines.
1 suggest that the penalty clause apply to all the obligations under the Bill and that the penalty be increased to $500,000. If there is not a penalty in the Bill for not proceeding with the obligations listed in Clause 4, then the Bill is a complete and utter farce and means nothing. As I pointed out, an employer could continue to report no progress year after year but would still be in compliance with Clause 6 and would not be fined.
Some people believe that if an employer were to do that over and over again, the so-called court of public opinion would bring pressure to bear against him and would force him to improve his hiring practices. Some say that those voices would bring enough pressure to bear to have changes made. The Abella Commission which reported to us in 1984 indicated that voluntary affirmative action programs do not work and that we cannot rely on the court of public opinion to move employers who will not move ahead with employment equity.
Experience throughout the western world where it has been tried shows that voluntary employment action does not work. I will quote once again the statement made by a famous businessman from the United States. He said that if voluntary action worked, Moses would not have come down from the mountain with 10 commandments but with 10 directives and he would have hoped that they would have been voluntarily complied with.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Ten Bill C-62s.


William Warren Allmand: That is right. He would have come back with something like Bill C-62, but he had more sense than that. He came down with 10 commandments, and we all know what the sanctions for not complying with those 10 commandments are.
In any case, how could the Government think it could get away with imposing certain obligations on employers in Clause 4 of the Bill but not imposing any penalty if those obligations were ignored? It is sheer folly. As my hon. colleague said a few minutes ago, they will become the laughing-stock of the country. They have gone to a great deal of trouble to draft a Bill setting out requirements and obligations, but there is no penalty whatsoever if they are not carried out. Perhaps the Minister will rise in the House and chastise those employers, but we all know what some of those big companies will do in response. They will laugh at her as well. She will be laughed at
April I 5, 1986

from both sides. As was pointed out by my colleague from Windsor, it is not a laughing matter for people who have suffered discrimination generation after generation. It is not a laughing matter for those disabled persons who came here yesterday. Those who came here in their wheelchairs, those who were blind, deaf and infirm, struggled to get here. They want jobs. Many of them are very competent and would be quite able to hold down jobs. However, the workplace is not designed for them, or they are discriminated against before they are given a fair hearing. They will not be happy. They will not be laughing at the Government over this. They are mad. We found that out yesterday when the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) directed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). When the Minister gave an answer which was not correct, we heard a cry from the gallery from a woman who has suffered discrimination because of her infirmity and was not too pleased with the answer. People will let the Government know what they think of the Bill.
At the beginning of the debate someone described the Bill as containing a list of pious platitudes with no means of putting them into force. There are no sanctions if the Bill is not obeyed. In my many years in the House of Commons I do not think I have ever seen a Bill with no sanctions, a Bill which lays out obligations but no sanctions if one does not comply.
I know the Parliamentary Secretary will rise and say that the Government agreed to an amendment in committee which is now Clause 8 and reads as follows:
The Minister shall, on the receipt of a report filed under Section 6. send a copy thereof to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Because the Minister will send a copy of the report under Section 6 to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the commission will be allowed to enforce the Bill. I say that is not so. Government Members have referred me to certain sections which I have read. I am a lawyer with a good deal of experience. As far as I am concerned, that is not correct. If the Canadian Human Rights Commission sees discrimination in particular workplaces, it can enforce sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act against those firms. However, the Bill deals with affirmative action. If the obligations to proceed with affirmative action are not complied with, as far as I can see there is nothing the Canadian Human Rights Commission can do. It is misleading to suggest that because there is a requirement in the Bill to send the report under Section 6 to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the commission can apply penalties to firms which thumb their noses at the obligations under Clause 4.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I continue to hope that the Government will see the light and accept the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-
Employment Equity
Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), but his time has expired.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose an amendment, of which I am the mover. It has been laid upon the Table of the House, and its purpose is to clarify Motion No. 31 A. I will read it in English.

Therefore I move:
That Motion No. 31A be amended as follows by deleting the following words:
"is guilty of an offence and liable on" and substituting the following therefor:
"with Sections 4, 5 and 6 is guilty of an offence and liable on".
I understand that a copy of this amendment has been sent to the Table, and I believe it is acceptable and appropriate that 1 move it. If it requires a seconder, it is seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: The
House has heard the terms of the amendment to Motion No. 31 A.
[ Translation]
The next question is on the sub-amendment.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), on a point of order.


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: I was intending to comment upon my amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has been recognized on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: I just wanted to say that I think the amendment to my amendment is a great improvement. Despite the fact that it changes my amendment, I hope Your Honour will find it in order and that the Government will find it acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: It was my intention to comment upon my amendment.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we heard the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary-

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) knows perfectly well he cannot take the floor on a motion for a sub-amendment.
Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, earlier the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had an obligation to do everything to ensure equality and opportunity. Presumably he was making specific reference to the designated groups to which the Bill would apply. He also said that the proposed legislation was directed to the achievement of goals and oriented toward the achievement of results. This has been reiterated over and over again.
The fact is, as was pointed out by my colleague, that we would have an equally effective Bill if it were proposed that at nine o'clock every day of the week employers would get up and say: "I will not practise discrimination. I will treat the disabled, women, visible minorities and native people well today". In effect that is all Bill C-62 promises. We have come to the nub of the issue, the point at which the Government must decide whether or not it is serious. It must decide whether it is on the side of those employers which surveys indicate would reject affirmative action. By and large they would reject it, as the record would indicate, because they now have licence to practise a three-to-one bias against visible minorities. Of course the record in respect of native people, women and the disabled is clear. They would have us believe that voluntary affirmative action and voluntary employment equity is the answer. As was indicated earlier, Judge Abella was specifically assigned terms of reference requiring her to make a choice between voluntary affirmative action and mandatory affirmative action. It is perfectly clear that the judge carefully considered the alternatives. She made her decision on the basis of evidence which is unambiguous. The evidence from the United States was certainly clear that only mandatory affirmative action is worthy of consideration if one is serious about achieving equality in the workplace for the designated group. That is irrefutable.
The evidence is equally clear in Canada. The good judge looked at the evidence with respect to the employment of women in the Public Service and found that the result of nearly a decade of voluntary affirmative action has not been affirmative at all. There has been no significant progress in most areas. Women are still relegated to the clerical and lower administrative niches of the Public Service. Little progress has been made in achieving status, in significant numbers, at the management level.
Voluntary affirmative action has been attempted with respect to the disabled, and that has been equally a failure.
The federal Government has invoked voluntary affirmative action with respect to visible minorities, and I speak in particular of the program in Nova Scotia. The proportion of visible minorities employed in the federal Government during the period of voluntary affirmative action was 2.2 per cent of the workforce, whereas the percentage in the population was 4.4.
Mandatory affirmative action with specification of goals has worked undoubtedly, unquestionably, and unambiguously. One need only cite the non-voluntary affirmative action program with respect to the Francophone national linguistic group in the country. It was successful. I will assert here and now that if the French people of the country had been faced with a proposal for a voluntary equity program they would have rejected it, and their numbers would have caused their rejection to be taken seriously.
This proposed amendment would provide for penalties for the failure by an employer to proceed with the provisions of Clauses 4, 5 and 6. It presents the Government with an opportunity to ensure mandatory affirmative action. We do not want merely a reporting, on an annual basis, of the number of women, disabled, and visible minorities employed, but rather we want to have specified goals which must be achieved. That is mandatory affirmative action which was recommended by Judge Abella and which is unanimously demanded by all representatives of the designated groups.
The Government is now in a position to respond to those demands. It is at last in a position to be taken seriously because it will have manifestly taken a serious action in response to the cry for mandatory affirmative action which will respond to those in need rather than those who will be inconvenienced because they must correct the injustices of the past.
[ Translation]


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to join the other Members of this House who have already established the importance of the amendment and the sub-amendment.

We are probably now considering the most crucial amendment of all those which have been proposed. There have been a couple of dozen of amendments proposed by the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and members of the NDP. This particular amendment goes to the core of why those handicapped persons brought their grievances to the House of Commons and demonstrated on the Hill yesterday. We heard the chant: "Mulroney, baloney, your equity Bill is phoney". The reason for that chant is specifically the lack of enforcement which exists in the current proposed legislation. Clause 7 reads:
An employer who fails to comply with section 6 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars.
That sounds fairly ominous to the lay people in the gallery. Fifty thousand dollars seems like a very substantial amount of money. However, the motion, without the amendment, does
April 15, 1986

not refer to a $50,000 fine for non-compliance, but simply for failing to report. When employer ABC of the Hamilton East Widget Company sends his report to Ottawa advising that he hired one woman this year, one woman last year, and one woman the year before, for a total of three out of 3,000 employees, the report will be tabled and there will be no fine. The fact that there are only three women working in a company which employs 3,000 people is immaterial. It will continue to be irrelevant and immaterial unless and until the House accepts the amendment and the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the issue of employment equity. Until we introduce a specific amendment, including Clauses 4 and 5, we will continue to have a toothless piece of legislation which is nothing more than a phoney and a sham, an attempt by the Government to pretend it is doing something with regard to employment equity when, in fact, it is doing nothing.
The first part of the amendment suggests that the fine be raised to $.5 million. A major corporation with thousands of employees may consider $50,000 to be the cost of doing business. Unless the Minister is given the power to bring forth a summary conviction and a fine for failure to implement a program of employment equity or affirmative action in a business, all of the Government Members who say that they believe in equality for women, for minorities and for the handicapped are fooling themselves, but are not fooling the Canadian people.
In the women's debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised all the women of Canada that the moment he was elected he would immediately begin to reclassify tens of thousands of jobs in the Public Service to ensure that women get their fair share of promotions within the Public Service. Through this Bill the Government is failing to move on the issue of enforcement with respect to employment equity and is also determining that no government agency will be covered by this legislation.

If they really believe in the principle of equity, Mr. Speaker, all Members will at least have to agree with the amendment that has just been moved. I know that about two dozen amendments have been presented by Opposition Members , and I realize the Government cannot accept all these amendments. I know that. I know how Parliament works. But I think it should be said that with the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and the new amendment to the amendment, moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), we now at least have the principal that equity should apply and not just for reporting purposes. We are not sitting here in the House just to make the headlines and to report on the lack of progress in providing equity for the disabled, the blind, women and the neediest in our society.
Employment Equity
If we really believe in equity, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to at least accept this small amendment that could enhance the equity principle so eagerly sought after by the Members of this House, or so they say.
Mr. Speaker, are you trying to tell me that my time has expired?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay) (Lotbiniere)):: No.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Excuse me. I would like to go on for a while. Because the Speaker nodded, I thought my time had expired. I know the rules for playing basketball better than the rules of the House of Commons. I didn't see the "timeout".
OO)

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I realize we are all new to this business. If I have four minutes left, I have many, many important points.
Those points harken back to the demonstration we saw on the Hill yesterday. Unfortunately, the reality is that many disabled Canadians are frustrated. This is, on the one hand, because of the promises they get from the Government and directly from the Prime Minister, and, on the other hand, because of that same Prime Minister's failure to respond. We heard some promises made during the women's debate. We heard the mellifluous baritone telling the women of Canada that if they vote for the Conservative Party everything is going to be all right because Mr. Mulroney will look after things.
There was another promise made and it was exposed yesterday on the Hill for the sham and fraud it was. We saw a representative of the disabled community who had literally snagged the Prime Minister with her wheelchair a couple of weeks ago. I want to give her full credit for snagging the Prime Minister, which is no mean feat when he is racing away from a horde of media who were trying to get answers from him on a number of issues. She told him directly that they were not satisfied with this law. It has no teeth. It is a phoney Bill. They wanted him to have a look at it. He promised her that he would personally review the legislation and before it came back to the House he would personally ensure that enforcement mechanisms were applied and see that the Bill had some teeth. Unfortunately, as soon as he escaped from the clutches of this particular woman, who was prepared to confront him and force him to tell the truth, he not only refused to review the Bill or come before the committee, he not only refused to allow any amendments to be carried forward from the government side of the House, he totally ignored phone calls and other contacts from the woman who had originally approached him about this question. This woman was in the House yesterday. Only 10 persons in wheelchairs were allowed into the House, and she was one of them. She cried out from the seats on high: "What about the promise that was made by the Prime Minister?"

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
We know that if he were really sincere about his promise to review the legislation and ensure that this particular Bill had an enforcement mechanism and the kind of teeth that would at least begin to address the problems of employment equity among the handicapped, minority and women of this country, he would have allowed this amendment to pass. This amendment is not offensive. All it says is that an employer who fails to comply with Clauses 4, 5 and 6 is guilty of an offence. Clauses 4 and 5, as you know, deal with employment equity.
Hopefully 1 have explained the case to the House. I wish the Prime Minister were here to explain his position. 1 urge Government Members to support at least this amendment.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in participating in today's debate, although 1 do not do it with too much heart because I think the Bill is unworthy of this House. Obviously it is not considered unworthy of the Government side, and 1 suppose it is for that reason that the Minister responsible has not taken too much personal interest in seeing it go through the House. It must be a bit of an embarrassment because it really is a hollow Bill.
I want to refer Members back to the what the purpose of this Bill is and demonstrate why Clause 7, as it stands, is really of little value to those who are discriminated against in the workplace. The purpose 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.
Let us start by looking at the special measure which the Minister and the Government have included in the Bill. As other Members have pointed out, Clause 7 simply 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.
I think we have to be practical. There are all kinds of corporations, from small to big, who will simply say there are lots of ways to get around this. It is not as complicated as you might think. Turn back to Clause 6 and all you have to do, as other Members have pointed out, is to take a single sheet of paper and write down:
(a)	the industrial sector in which employees of the employer are employedpersons in designated groups so employed;
(b)	the occupational groups-and the degree of representation-in designated
groups in each occupational group;
(c)	the salary ranges of employees-
(d)	the number of employees hired, promoted and terminated and the degree
of representation-of persons in designated groups.
It would take you a grand total of five minutes once a year to do that. We have to keep in mind what the courts would think. Obviously the judge is going to read that clause, flip to Clause 7 and say, "It is a maximum fine of $50,000. They did not get it in the first year, it is new, so we will not give them a
fine, we will give them a conditional or absolute discharge". The Government might not even proceed with prosecution.
If Government Members have any integrity at all regarding putting teeth in this legislation, they will accept the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), and the subamendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. McCurdy), to provide some kind of substantive usefulness to this Bill. Otherwise we are really spinning the wheels of the taxpayers of Canada. The Bill states that it has a purpose, but the rest of the Act has nothing in it. Employers are not really required to do anything. Obviously various employer groups have managed to get to Government Members, lobby them, and get this Bill watered down to where it is not just pretty thin soup, it is gruel. It is pretty tough stuff for anyone to stomach who has been discriminated against on the basis of anything in Canada.
I am going to be interested to hear what Government Members have to say as to why the penalty section is the way it is. 1 came to this House after having worked in the courts. I was a probation and parole officer. I can read the penalty section probably better than anyone else. 1 know that people who are looking for ways around things go straight to the penalty clause first as well. I would like to hear from Government Members why it should not apply to Clauses 4 and 5, because that is really where something could be done. It would be some way of giving some kind of realistic stimulation to employers to get on with the job of providing employment equity.
Let's take a look at the size of the fine. There is a maximum fine of $50,000, and only by summary conviction. Why does it not allow for an indictable section or, as is proposed, a fine that is reasonable, say $500,000, where it gives the courts some leeway when a large corporation with a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand employees simply is not living up to it? How is it reasonable to expect that a fine that is so small, one which is only the amount they would be paying a couple of employees per year or one management person per year, is a realistic penalty? This is not incentive legislation, this is disincentive legislation in that a business is punished, supposedly, if it does not live up to the intentions of the Bill.
We have to look carefully at the purpose section. Clearly that is what the Government and its Members are going to peddle to the public saying, "Here is the purpose and let us look back to the purpose section". Why are they bringing this in? We are intending to assist women who are being taken advantage of in many situations, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and people because of their race or colour or in a visible minority who are discriminated against in the workplace.
The understanding of it can be promulgated through all kinds of propaganda that can be put out by the Government.
April 15, 1986

There are very few people in the workplace who have the time, the interest or the opportunity to go through a Bill like this and ask themselves whether it is really worth the paper it is written on. Certainly in this situation it is clear, judging by the overwhelming majority of Members speaking on this Bill who are saying that there is nothing in this Bill, that it is unworthy of parliamentary time in the form that it is written in.
The penalty section is inadequate and totally inappropriate. Why bother to have a section in there providing a fine of up to $50,000 if someone does not fill out a form that is going to take them five minutes? The reporting section may be of interest bureaucratically, but it really does not strike at what the purpose section has outlined in terms of employment equity, which is the employer's duty. Clause 4, is very specific in that there must be an identification and elimination of employers' employment practices which set up barriers to those designated groups in terms of bringing in new policies and practices which will accommodate those groups. These things are seen as being an employer's duty. If the employer is not living up to these guidelines, then clearly there should be a penalty section. I stand to be corrected by anyone who studied any law who would not agree that that should be the purpose of the penalty section. You find that in almost every seasoned and reasonable piece of legislation that this House has ever passed, from the Fisheries Act on down those parts of an Act that are going to require some kind of stimulation by the courts, some kind of realistic and persuasive action by the House of Commons, are drafted in. The House should not pass Bills that are so totally inadequate that the penalty section applies only to reporting.
The other section in which this amendment would require the use of fines would be in relation to the plans of goals to be prepared, where an employer shall, in respect of each year, prepare the plan and the goals to achieve and implement employment and the timetable for it in relation to places of work and in relation to the groups that are identified in the purpose section of this Act. If the employment equity Bill is going to work and actually pick up some steam from British Columbia through to Newfoundland, then clearly the Government has a responsibility to accept the amendment and the subamendment that has just been proposed. The mover of the amendment has agreed that this is a wise subamendment.
I am very interested to hear from the Minister or from any Government Members, the Parliamentary Secretary or others, how it is possible to achieve what is laid out in the purpose section of this Act without bringing in some kind of enforcement and compliance section with a reasonable level of fines that can apply on a downward scale. I suggest that the maximum fine should be $500,000 down to $1, which would give the courts some leeway. If it is only from $1 to $50,000, a large corporation in this country might or might not file. Obviously it would want to comply bureaucratically, so it might not even get the fine.
Employment Equity
If these amendments are not accepted, 1 would write the employment equity Bill C-62 off as a dead loss and no one should see it as anything other than that.


Roland de Corneille: I am
addressing the matter of the subamendment to call upon the Government in this House to amend the present proposed employment equity Bill, as it is called, to include Clauses 4 and 5, as well as 6 to be subject to penalties. The Bill as it presently stands finally ends up being nothing more than an employment report, which, in fact, is incomplete in itself. It is nothing but a reporting mechanism.
One of the members of the committee said that she was an eternal optimist. She believed in the good will and the good faith of the Canadian people. She thought that by waving the flag and saying this it should make us all feel content and go back to sleep and count on the idea that all will be well if we leave things in the hands of the good will of the Canadian people. First of all, it is a non sequitur because we are not talking about the Canadian people in general, we are talking about people who are trying to run their organizations and who are interested in profit and who, perhaps, are interested in keeping the status quo. It is always easier to keep the status quo. I have to say that the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) who was counting on the good will of Canadian people is perhaps so naive that she might as well write off the fact that we have worked our way out of the primeval ooze of human exploitation of fellow man, and realize that we have had to fight over centuries to bring about charters of human rights.
In fact, human rights are a relatively new idea, tragic as this may be. We cannot count on good will, so we must count on penalties. We must count on law. We must count on regulations and orders. That is why the House is here. The House is here to pass laws for this country. We are sent as parliamentarians to this House to represent the people and to make sure that their interests are protected and that law and order prevail, an order that is humane, civil and caring.
That is why we have penalties. We have, of course, the carrots with which to encourage, but we have penalties to discourage inhumane action by people. While we would prefer always to appeal to the best sides of people and to their better emotions and better instincts, we know we also have to provide penalties.
The penalties in this Bill are only $50,000 and apply only to whether or not somebody sent in a report. That is why the people across this country, the various groups that this purports to protect, are protesting that this is a sham, a phoney. It is not coming to grips with anything. The Government is trying to make it look as if it were doing something when, in reality, it is doing nothing for those people.
The reason for the amendment is to try to make this apply to something more than reporting. It is to try to make it apply to other aspects which make companies responsible citizens. Not

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
only must we talk about rights, we must talk about responsibilities. We are not only concerned about human rights, we are concerned about the responsibility of being a good citizen, a good corporate citizen and a good employer in Canada.
The Government would have people believe that it has done something to bring about responsibility. I am afraid that there is a type of cynicism involved here. Perhaps Members opposite could understand what is at stake by imagining themselves in a situation that could happen to them at any time. They could have an accident and be in exactly the same situation as the handicapped who were on the Hill protesting on behalf of all people with disabilities.
According to Statistics Canada, one in every eight Canadians has a disability. Perhaps these Members could imagine themselves being handicapped and trying to find a job. If they had to wait from five to thirty years to get a job, feeling worthless, they would be concerned about providing penalties. They would be serious about this Bill instead of making it into a political mockery. It is grossly cynical.
The Government counts on making promises during elections. We saw its promises about patronage and about support for post-secondary education. In fact, the Government has broken hundreds of promises, but it wants to tell women, native people, the disabled, and the minority groups of this country that it passed a Bill to ensure that they would have employment equity, which has never been done before. What cynicism! Rather, the Government should be telling those groups what it is taking away from them. People may believe they are protected, but that is not the case. People are promised that they will be protected, but they will not be protected unless amendments such as this, which provide for penalties rather than simple reporting, are accepted. The Bill is a sham. It is phoney, as the handicapped people said yesterday.
My colleague from Hamilton said the Canadian people will not be taken in. I am afraid that sometimes they are taken in because they are not told the truth.
When the time comes for the Government to talk about its record, it will not talk about how it fought against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for months and months, thereby tying up the House of Commons. It will say that it has accomplished a great deal because it brought about employment equity for the first time. It will not talk about the Abella Report which recommended what was necessary in order to provide a Bill that would have any effect at all. It ignored the reports of the commissions and it ignored the groups that are supposedly being protected. It simply carried on in this cynical fashion.
If the Government does not consider this kind of amendment seriously, it is throwing away its chance to make a truly meaningful contribution. If the Government accepted such an amendment it could truly take credit for passing a Bill that has achieved something. No one could take that away from the Government.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I find it necessary to speak against the Bill in the form of speaking for this subamendment. The Bill is bad.
Bill C-62, called the employment equity Bill, is so bad that without this subamendment and the amendment it is a sick joke. All that the Bill provides without the amendment is that an employer will send in a list of how many employees he has, how many women, how many visible minorities, how many native people and how many disabled people and send in a list of last year's promotions, firings, et cetera, and how many of each. He will do nothing more.
For this, the Government has wasted over half a year of the time of this Parliament and has raised the hopes of the target groups in the public and disappointed them.
If this amendment is to be adopted, then the Bill would have some effect. Right now, the Bill does nothing for employment equity. It does provide a little bit of employment for clerks or other minor officials in some Department of the Government who will receive some reports from some employers and file them. It may provide some work for a post-graduate student who is doing a thesis 10 years from now and wants to look at some records. Apart from that, it will not provide work for the disabled, native people, visible minorities or women to the extent that they are now being mistreated and discriminated against in employment. That is a fact.
This subamendment would extend the penalty provision two ways: increasing it to $500,000 so that the big corporations would not laugh at the penalty; extend the penalty so that it applies to Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill.
Those are the only clauses that, by themselves, have any real meaning.
Clause 4 begins very boldly by saying:
An employer shall, in consultation with such persons as have been designated by the employees to act as their representatives or, where a bargaining agent represents the employees, in consultation with the bargaining agent, implement employment equity by-
The way it is worded it says that the employer shall implement employment equity. It lays that on not just as good advice, not just as something that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) wishes they would do or her Parliamentary Secretary wishes they would do, it says with the force of Parliament that the employer shall implement. He shall identify and eliminate the employment practices that result in employment barriers. He shall institute positive policies, making reasonable accommodation and ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation that is at least proportionate to their representation in the workplace. The employer shall do these things.
Clause 5 goes on to say that the employer shall, in respect of each year, prepare a plan. He is going to make a plan that will set out the goals that the employer intends to achieve in implementing employment-what he is ordered to do in Clause 4-and the timetable.
April 15, 1986

With respect to the timetable, how many corrections is he going to make in his workforce next year and the year after so as to bring up a more just balance of the disadvantaged groups with which this Bill is supposedly concerned? That is fine as far as it goes but it does not go far enough. What it does not do is to provide any reason for an unwilling employer to do those things which the law says he shall do. The Minister has prated and preached about the court of public opinion. We know from experience in this country and in the United States that the court of public opinion cannot make most employers do those things the Minister claims this law makes them do. So the Minister's claim is not to be believed. Whether she can wake up in the morning and believe what she is saying is not the point. The point is that no one outside Parliament can believe it.
This is not only the opinion of members of the Opposition. This is the opinion which was expressed by the representatives of the very groups the Minister claims she wants to help. Last October there was a press release from a coalition of these groups. For example, Chaviva Hosek, the President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, said, and I quote:
We are disturbed and disappointed by the Government's responses. We hope to be successful in persuading the Government to amend Bill C-62, which is presently before the House, to make it an effective tool for creating equality.
That is what she said back in October. She and other persons came and spoke to the committee and were ignored. The Parliamentary Secretary and other members of the Government majority ignored the witnesses and stonewalled every amendment made by opposition Members at the request of those witnesses. These feelings were not only expressed by the representative of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Navin Parekh, President of the National Ethnocultural Council, said, and 1 quote:
Mandatory affirmative action has been recommended in Canada by report after report from Parliamentary Committees, Commissions and Inquiries. Most recently, the Abella Commission squarely addressed the problem of inequality in employment experienced by all the groups represented here today and recommended that mandatory affirmative action with strong enforcement procedures be introduced now.
It was not only the women and the Ethnocultural Council but Mr. Jim Derksen of the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped who said, and I quote:
If employers do not voluntarily undertake affirmative action programs, and if their yearly reports on their workforce show no progress towards equality, nothing happens. Bill C-62 only requires reports. Reports are not enough.
Joan Brown-Hicks, President of the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women, said, and I quote:
Data collection and reporting are essential parts of mandatory affirmative action systems because they allow measurement of change. But the Government's Bill gives us no mandatory affirmative action system; it gives us only data. With no programs and no enforcement, this is form without substance.
Carol Tator of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, a group which went to some trouble to develop the scientific evidence that a white person has three times as many chances
Employment Equity
of getting a job as a black person with the very same qualifications, said about the Bill, and I quote:
This is simply unacceptable. The point of affirmative action programs is to move away from the complaint system which places the onus for change on the victims of discrimination and instead place the onus where it properly belongs, on the employment systems themselves.
The Canadian Labour Congress, which represents the major part of the organized workforce in Canada, which this Bill pretends to respect by requiring the employer to consult, also condemned the Bill, as well as did the whole coalition of these groups.
Although we tried in committee to move the amendments asked for by these people, the Government stonewalled everyone. Clause 8 is only a sick joke because it states that the Human Rights Commission will have a report about which its statute does not enable it to do anything. That report is nowhere reflected in the duties given to the Human Rights Commission. Therefore, this law is a monumental fraud on the part of the Government as the Bill before us stands. Without the subamendment which would require enforcement of Sections 4 and 5, it would be better for this Government and the people of this country if this Bill were withdrawn now and buried. That would save the Government any further embarrassment.
[ Translation]


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, since as you may recall, I spoke previously at the second reading stage of Bill C-62. However, luck would have it that today I was on duty again, so in these last two days, I have listened to a lot of debate on the many amendments that were moved and that are supposed to improve this legislation.
A while ago, when 1 was sitting in your chair, Mr. Speaker, 1 heard the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) say that we are here to pass laws. Of course, that is what it says in our job description. No one will disagree. But if we take a closer look at this definition, this job description it is not something that happens automatically, it is not an obligation that means we absolutely have to pass laws, because if people, if society were to exercise its judgment the way we would like to see it exercised, the way a good citizen would do, in many cases we would not have to pass laws.
So we often pass legislation when a majority or a large part of the population is not progressing at the same rate as the average citizen.
I may also recall, Mr. Speaker, that 1 was a member of the Committee on Equality Rights and that I signed the report. During the last two days frequent references have been made to that report. I would say it is a fact that out of the 85 recommendations made by our committee, 61-not 59, not 60, but 61 have been accepted by our Government.
1 said so on several occasions during committee proceedings, and I repeat today that if the citizens expect the legislator to find a solution to their problem, they are mistaken. The way of thinking has to change if the problem is to be resolved. Indeed,

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
but how? The mentality has to be changed, and legislation is one way to do it.
As far as 1 know, Mr. Speaker, and 1 stand to be corrected if I am wrong, this is the first Government, yes, the first Government in a long time-


Mr. Lanthier:: -in 22 years.


Maurice Tremblay: -in 22 years I am told, and 1 stand to be corrected which will enact such legislation on the right to employment equity.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think this approach is insidious at best, considering these individuals - let us be honest and give credit where credit is due- gave their time and energy for years, to the Council on the Status of Women among others, in a sustained effort to convince the former Government to promote this cause through legislation which would have changed this mentality. They never ever did anything. The Liberal Government did not make a move when it was in office. So the least 1 can say is that it is indecent that we should now be lumped together with that Party.
It has been said that the Bill does not have enough teeth. Maybe so, but admittedly it does have some. To those who claim that it is not compulsory I say that indeed there is a clear and specific obligation, that the companies affected under this Bill will have to meet their responsibilities. They want more. They are already passing judgment on Canadian men and women affected by this Bill, claiming that they will automatically ignore it. They would prefer that not a single citizen, not a single company be given the opportunity to have free and ready access to what everybody with common sense would strive for, equity.
Mr. Speaker, again 1 say that this Bill is unprecedented, and I fail to understand why they speak so harshly against a measure introduced by a Government which, as I said, has been responsive by endorsing 61 of the 85 committee recommendations. This Bill may not be perfect, I agree, but then show me perfect legislation. Once again, the legislation will be there so that those who unfortunately would ignore common sense will be forced to toe the line.
We are dealing with a very special sector. It is a matter that affects us all. Access to equality. In the last two days, I heard no one speak out against that principle. Through our 282 ridings, we represent all Canadian men and women. Now, no one here in the House said they were against the principle. The Bill may not be perfect, but why should we waste our time saying it isn't perfect? Let us speed up the process and adopt the Bill, and we will see how it turns out in practice. We never had this kind of legislation. Let us start for heaven's sake! It will be very interesting to see how this evolves.
Mr. Speaker, once again I would urge all those taking part in this debate, and especially Opposition Members, to consider what, in the final instance, is reasonable. It is all very well to be highminded, but we still have to run the country. And running the country means making decisions, and I think we
have made the right decision. And once again, let it be understood that we hope we never will have to amend this Bill. We hope that the companies in question will basically implement what the House of Commons is asking everyone to practise.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I say through you to my friend, the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay), with whom it was my pleasure to travel across the country with the Special Committee on Equality Rights, that I listened with a great deal of interest and some considerable concern to his remarks. I thought that the Hon. Member would have learned a great deal as a result of being a member of the committee. He certainly seemed to be very sensitive. We enjoyed his presence. However, I think that his learning stopped somewhere along the way.


John R. Rodriguez: He's a Tory!


Sheila Finestone: The penalty clause should not be restricted to the implementation clause r and the action plans clause 5. This is why I will support the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party.
The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere referred to the 22 years in which nothing had been done. If we lived in a perfect society, as he says, we would not need laws to effect change. Perhaps I am quoting him out of context. However, he seems to think that citizens should not wait for the Government to resolve their problems. He seems to think that it just takes a change of attitude, a change of mind and a change of heart.

A change of heart sounds lovely, except that the Government's role is to show leadership. And I am sorry, but with all the action that has been taken, the requisite changes have not taken place. I hope the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) is listening, so he will learn what we in the Liberal Party have done in the last 22 years, something about which he is unduly concerned, because I can assure you that we have accomplished a great deal. And that is why I believe these amendments are so important. In this respect . . .

Apart from environmental concerns, issues which directly affect women have risen to the forefront faster than any other concern in our society in the last 20 years. The Hon. Member spoke of 22 years in his remarks; I will give him two years. I will talk about 20 years of accomplishment.
I think that that issue is of equal concern to men as it is to women since we are looking to a partnership society. We are looking to a society based on merit for the job-just remove the barriers to getting those jobs. We are not saying: "Hire people for the sake of hiring them". We are saying: "Hire where they have the capacity to fulfil the task". If a few
April 15, 1986

modifications need to be made, then make them, and put them into practice.


Michael Morris Cassidy: No Liberal Bill was ever brought in.


Sheila Finestone: I would ask the Hon. Member to wait and listen. I will give him a few history lessons, too.
Over the past 15 years, female participation in the Canadian labour force has grown at a greater rate than in any other OECD country. I suggest that the Hon. Member cut my remarks out once they have been printed so that he can use them in his speeches. It grew from 41.9 per cent in 1973 to 51.6 per cent in 1982. That was when we were moving into the height of the recession.
I would now like to move on to the major steps which were taken which brought us to this point of evolution today. Hopefully, they would have brought us to a point of changed mentality so that we would not need to have a law of this nature, so that the actions we take would lead to the natural maturation of our society where equality between men and women would be a reality. They should have brought us to a point where we would have acceptance on merit, not blocking through systems which are rampant in our society.
In 1967 the Royal Commission on the Status of Women looked at the problems which were creating economic difficulties for women in our society. These are two of the questions which were asked at that time: What was making older women poor in our society? What was the problem with part-time work? For the first time the women sat down together and drew up a list of the problems which they faced in an evolving 20th century society.
Following the report of the commission in 1967 we saw many issues undertaken, most of them voluntary. I am sorry to say that those voluntary issues which my Party put into place were not sufficient. That is why the Bill before us is necessary. It is necessary as mandatory legislation with enforcement principles.
In 1969 we saw the first of the revisions to the divorce laws which came about as a result of a great deal of economic suffering for families, and therefore pressures on women were created. There was an unfortunate series of family breakdowns of which we were not even aware. That is when the issue of the single-parent family first came to the fore.
In 1971, Canada was the first country to appoint a woman to a cabinet Minister position specifically responsible for the status of women. That was the first appointment ever to be made that recognized the role of women. In 1972, we ratified the International Labour Organization's convention concerning remuneration to men and women workers for work of equal value, the first of the equal-pay legislation, which we cannot even find in this Bill. Hon. Members should be ashamed of that. If Hon. Members are using a principle of sensitizing and growing and of having society take those obligations upon
Employment Equity
itself in a voluntary way, then equal pay for work of equal value should be part of the mores of society, but it is not, and that is a key point.
In 1977, we had the Canadian Human Rights Act which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex and ensures equal pay for work of equal value. That provision is still not applied and is still going before the courts. Women still need financing so that they may get their right to equal pay. This is true as well for visible minorities, the handicapped and native peoples.
In 1978, we took a good look at the Canada Pension Plan and put in equal splitting of pensions between spouses on divorce or annulment of a marriage. In 1978, the Canada Labour Code was amended to eliminate pregnancy as a basis for lay-off or dismissal. Are Hon. Members telling me that we did not do things that were sensitive and in the interests of women? We did do those things because we heard from councils and groups that spoke about the concerns of women.
In 1979, we composed a five-year national plan of action for the status of women called Toward Equality for Women, and 114 legislative and administrative changes were made. I suggest that Hon. Members look at those 114 legislative changes that were made and tell me that we did not bring in good, substantive legislative change.
In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which my hon. friend just referred, was brought in against screaming voices from the Party across the way, but we still brought it in with an equality section. In 1984, we developed a new plan of action, which I am sure will not see the light of day under the Conservative option.
We have had a child care task force. We have done something about divorce reform. We did something about the enforcement of maintenance orders. As I said, we reformed the pensions. Take a look at our views with respect to sexual stereotyping and affirmative action.
For many women, the first of the affirmative action programs were put into place by Treasury Board directive. Those Treasury Board directives still did not bring about the kind of change we want in a voluntary way, and that is why we say that this Bill should apply to public servants. If affirmative action objectives were being reached, that would be fine and dandy, but we should be using this Bill as a yardstick and move on from there.
Many Candian women saw affirmative action as the central issue in economic inequality. While 40 per cent of the workforce is composed of women, they still earn only about 64 per cent of men's wages. That is why we need equal pay for work of equal value entrenched in the Bill as well as affirmative action. As Hon. Members well know, 70 per cent of women work in job ghettos.
After the affirmative action plan was successfully implemented in five federal Departments and was carefully watched, it was then extended throughout the federal Government, but because it was not mandatory as it should be, it has

April 15, 1986
Employment Equity
not had the same degree of impact. Where are the handicapped and the visible minorities? Are they reflected here as they are in society? They are not and we should be ashamed of that. That is why affirmative action needs to be mandatory and monitored and why a simple payment of a fine for not filing is no action plan at all. The Harvard Business School would not give very good marks for that kind of action.
The Abella Commission studied every one of the kinds of concerns to which 1 am referring today and showed where affirmative action, when undertaken in a voluntary way by our Crown corporations, did not have the success rate that we want for society. Here we are committing the same error by not making it mandatory. In 1983, when that affirmative action plan came *into force, we set up the Abella Commission because we knew the plan was a temporary step that would be in place only until the study was done. What did the Conservative Government do with the study when it came back? It turned it around ignored its advice and that is very unfortunate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. 1 am sorry to have to inform the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) that her time has expired.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to rise in support of the subamendment which was moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). In effect, that subamendment attaches a penalty to Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill.
The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) said that never before have we had a Bill like this. I would like to remind the House that we have had Bills like this. 1 recall the competition policy Bills brought into the House by the Liberal Government. Even Bill C-91, which was brought before the House the other day to provide for competition and control mergers, was, as were previous competition Bills, designed to give the impression that something was being done when in fact we were not really serious about doing anything. This Bill is of the same genre.
Clause 4 of the Bill reads as follows:
An employer shall, in consultation with such persons as have been designated by the employees to act as their representatives or, where a bargaining agent represents the employees, in consultation with the bargaining agent, implement employment equity by-
The clause goes on to indicate what they have to do. One must ask oneself, what if they do not do it? 1 have not been convinced that employers are really interested in creating a climate in the workplace which would eliminate the kinds of discriminatory practices which have existed. As a matter of fact, as reported by today's Toronto Star, Judge Rosalie Abella addressed the Canadian Club in Toronto.
The article reads in part as follows:
More women are working in Canada than ever before-but most are still "ghettoized" in the occupations they have been confined to since 1901-
The article goes on to say:
Sixty per cent of working women in Canada remain "occupationally segregated," receiving 60 per cent of men's wages, "an 11 per cent improvement over 70 years," Abella said.
The article goes on:
It's clear, that expectations about the role of women arc so deeply rooted "that without active and persistent intervention, the subtle barriers women experience will remain stalwartly erect."
Is the Tory Government a neophyte in this field? We realize it is inexperienced in governing. Perhaps Conservative Members are looking in the mirror and seeing their own reflections. As members of a business-oriented Party, they do not want to put some teeth in this Bill. We have enough legislation in Canada without any teeth. In this particular Bill, the only penalty provided is the filling out of forms as prescribed by Clause 6 of the Bill. If Hon. Members have not read it, I suggest they should, because Clause 6 creates more bureaucratic red tape for businesses and corporations. They have to fill out a form indicating how many employees they have and how many are working in certain sectors. If they do not file that form, they get a $50,000 fine.
The real meat of the Bill is employment equity, and that is where the penalty of $50,000 should apply. It should not apply for paper shuffling. All you guys are interested in is bureaucratic paper shuffling. That is what you are involved in. You are not involved in any meaningful changes. You are not interested in that at all.


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


John R. Rodriguez: I have five minutes more, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has asked for unanimous consent to proceed. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt wants to call it six o'clock.

It being six o'clock, the House will now adjourn until eight o'clock, when the House will proceed with a debate on the U.S. attack on Libya.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
April 15, 1986

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 29, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has obtained leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the attack of the United States against Libya


John Edward Broadbent: Thai this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are having this emergency debate tonight in the Canadian House of Commons is that within the past 24 hours there has been an attack by United States forces on Libya in many locations, in response to what the United States Government has described as a Libyan-sponsored act of terrorism in a West German nightclub not many days ago. According to President Reagan, the evidence for this specific Libyan link to what the whole world would describe as a deplorable act of terrorism is, to use President Reagan's words, "direct, precise and irrefutable". That is the contention of the President of the United States. If that turns out to be direct, precise and irrefutable, it is indeed a damning case made against the Government of Libya.
The Canadian interests in this tragic historic situation in the Middle East are twofold. First, there are upwards of 1,300 Canadians living in Libya and therefore we as a Parliament have a direct interest in and concern about the security of those Canadians. Second, like men and women in nations all over the world today, Canadians have to be assessing the implications of the response to the acts of terrorism which the United States has attributed to the Government of Libya; that is to say, we have to be concerned and we have to assess the response of one of the world's superpowers in this circumstance. 1 want to deal with both these questions, the Canadian situation specifically and the broader international implications of the situation in the Middle East today. First I make clear, and I am sure I speak for all Members of Parliament on this particular matter, that anyone living in a free and democratic society who believes in freedom and democracy has to abhor terrorist violence in all its forms. I take that as a given which all of us in Parliament share.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The use of violence against men, women and children to express a political will in a free society is completely and utterly abominal, and I am sure everyone in this Parliament agrees with that. The use of violence, I say immediately, in an unfree society, as the Catholic Church has recently noted, sometimes regrettably becomes a moral necessity. That is an entirely different circumstance. We are
talking about violence against innocent people in free societies as a political weapon.
1 have done some checking into the matter of violence in Europe over the past 12 months. Apart from the Middle East itself, almost all the violence in the past few years about which we have been concerned, to put it in those terms, has been violence that has taken place in European countries-Spain, Belgium, West Germany, Austria, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Sweden. All these countries in the past 12 months have had acts of violence within their borders. These are free, democratic, peace-loving societies. I could go outside these northern democratic nations and talk about violence elsewhere in the world, but I am restricting my comments and observations now to that part of the world alone to say that even in genuinely free societies where means are available to all citizens to bring about political change, this modern plague of terrorism has been demonstrating its evil force.
In a few moments I will come to the European reaction to the course of action taken by President Reagan in the present circumstances. However, before doing that, I want to pause and briefly consider the Canadian situation in this important matter. Unless the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) who will be participating in the debate shortly has some different information to give us, the information which is most current in terms of news broadcasts is that no Canadians have been injured in any way. For that we as Canadians can be thankful, but there are some unanswered questions which have to be answered by the Government.
I want to say at the outset, and I do not say it lightly, that I think on a matter this serious, affecting Canadians as well as the international order and the principle of international law, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) ought to have been here to participate and to explain the Government's case. I regret that he is not participating in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that the mention of the presence or non-presence of another Member is out of order.


John Edward Broadbent: I am not talking about his presence. I am talking about what 1 regard as the obligation of a Leader of a Government in a free society in which his citizens are involved to talk on the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: There are a number of questions which I think ought to be answered and have not yet been answered by the Government of Canada. 1 want to list some of them, and 1 hope the Deputy Prime Minister will deal with them.
For example, has the Government or has it not spoken directly in the past 12 hours to Libyan authorities to ascertain whether or not the Canadians who are still in Libya and want to leave that country are able to do so without any hindrance whatsoever? It seems to me that the Government ought to have answered that question today, and it did not. Has the

April 15, 1986
Government provided aircraft and made it known to Canadians that they will facilitate their exit if they so desire?
I would like to know, as I asked yesterday and as the House Leader of the New Democratic Party specifically asked today, when the Prime Minister was informed of the specific nature of the plan of attack or approach that was to be taken by the United States. Did he know this before last Friday when he said in the House: "There is no immediate cause for undue concern for Canadians"? Again that question was not answered today in the House of Commons. We are not concerned here with quibbling about a small matter of history; it is a rather important matter. We now know, for example, that Margaret Thatcher knew about the middle of last week, and there is good reason to believe-and I will not put it any stronger than that-that the Prime Minister of Canada knew about the same time.? We attempted to obtain that information earlier today; we did not. 1 say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he has an obligation tonight when he speaks to come totally clean with Members of Parliament and the people of Canada about the degree of knowledge the Canadian Government had and when it obtained that knowledge. We want that information.
These are not matters in a particular order of importance. They are all important to us and to the people of Canada, in what the Deputy Prime Minister has described the ongoing discussions with the United States in the past week or so. We want to know on this side of the House, and virtually every European Government would like to know 1 suspect, with the exception of Margaret Thatcher in England, what proposals were made by the Government of Canada to President Reagan as alternatives to the use of violence. Did we have something to suggest concretely, and if we did, will the Government now tell the people of Canada what we suggested to President Reagan?
Beyond these important Canadian questions to which we would like answers, there is the broader question on which I would like to spend some time, namely, whether under the present circumstances in the Middle East the United States ought to have used its power in a military attack on a number of targets in Libya.
Is the death of an American soldier in a dance hail or a club of some kind in West Berlin-as horrendous and as horrible as it was, and it was an action to be deplored by us all-a cause for response such as that taken by the United States? Is it appropriate to use military forces and attack another nation's capital and kill-we do not know the numbers yet-a number of innocent victims as retribution for an earlier abominable act, assuming for a moment that the evidence is very clear that the Libyan Government itself is responsible for the murder that took place, and that is what it is, in West Germany? Surely that is a fundamental question.
As well, Margaret Thatcher, who has always supported President Reagan quite clearly in the past, has said that when you deal with violence and acts of terrorism, the response has
to be commensurate with the act itself. You have the violent death of a young American soldier on the one hand and you have this response. I am raising the question; whether that is appropriate. I want to raise some related questions about that.
As I mentioned a minute ago in listing the countries in western Europe, there has been great concern in the past 12 months among the peoples of western Europe with violence. They have lived with it much more than we have in this part of the world, not only in the past 12 months but in the past dozen years. They have had to live with a modern form of political terrorist violence in democratic society. One would have thought that under such circumstances the United States of America would have considered very seriously the views of their friends and allies in western Europe.
I have been on the phone today with people in West Germany and with people in Great Britain, Government and non-government sources, to get from them their response to what President Reagan has done in the present circumstances.
What do we know, Mr. Speaker? We know that one of the most respected foreign affairs ministers in the world-not simply in Europe, but the present foreign minister of West Germany, who does not belong to my Party, Hans Dietrich Genscher-was en route by air yesterday bringing a message, not simply from his Government but from the whole European Parliament. All the Governments in the European Parliament, with the exception of the Government of the United Kingdom, wanted to send a clear message to President Reagan late yesterday. That clear message was: "Don't use force. Don't take military action at this time". He was speaking at that time for his Government and, I repeat, for all the other governments in western Europe except that of the U.K.
We now know also that France and Spain not only opposed this action, but refused the granting of their airspace to the American aircraft en route to their attack in Libya. That is how strongly the Governments of Spain and France, which have had to deal with terrorism themselves, felt about this action by the United States. The Government of the Netherlands has publicly condemned the action; Prime Minister Craxi of Italy has publicly condemned the action by the United States. The West German Government, I was informed just before coming into the House tonight, described the American action as scarcely understandable.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the response of all these countries which have had to live with terrorism and which are democratic societies, not namby-pamby or wishy-washy, but made up of serious men and women who want to maintain peace in their own society for their own members. They want to maintain international order and international law. They have said under these circumstances to the United States that a wise superpower knows when not to use its power. They have objected very clearly. Why have they objected very clearly? Why, Mr. Speaker?
One reason was given to me in a conversation with a former Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain. He said that in
April 15, 1986

his understanding, and in that of most international law experts, the United States has violated international law. It is as simple and as clear as that, in his view. It is as important as that. It is a violation of international law; not according to some young person or some activist but, I repeat, according to a former Chancellor of the Exchequer of the U.K. who told me that that is a commonly held view in Europe. There is an objection to a democratic state like the United States, which ought to be upholding the principles of law, going against international law.
The second reason, for which they are opposed is that this kind of violence by the state-because that is what it is when you use military force-simply does not work. It has had a tendency, a history, of simply causing repetition, more violence.
I ask the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, to consider a man like Mr. Khadafy. We would like to see evidence in this case, but let us assume that the Libyans are guilty. We know they have been guilty before. It is quite possible they were. We know that Mr. Khadafy is quite an irrational man. We know that moderate states in the Middle East like Egypt have been wanting for a long time to put distance between themselves and Mr. Khadafy. We know that the Soviet Union for a long time has wanted to put distance between itself and Mr. Khadafy. When a superpower uses this kind of violence against a Government headed by this kind of man, how is he likely to respond? Is he likely to respond calmly, coolly and rationally? Is he likely to say "Oh, my goodness, I better not do any more violent things because they may hit us again"? Not at all. That is a profound misunderstanding in my view of modern terrorism. The more likely response from such a man is to accelerate his own violent propensities. If it does not happen this week, this month or a month from now, the likelihood is that we can see more acts of violence in the future by Mr. Khadafy, violence of the kind we have seen in the past. I suggest that this kind of response is not likely to be very effective at all. It is likely to produce just the opposite of what is intended.
The other concern 1 have relates to the Middle East, and I am going to come to the broader question with regard to the Middle East in a moment. Some years ago the courageous Egyptian Government worked out the Camp David Accord with the Israelis and the United States. The very courageous head of the Egyptian Government, Anwar Sadat, moved in a constructive way. Ever since then the Egyptian people have been under pressure in the Arab community to lend support, from time to time, to more violent regimes. The western world, including the United States, has caused all kinds of emotional tension and conflict among the Egyptian people, and others who will be emotionally drawn toward Mr. Khadafy. When one of their own is attacked, the immediate tendency is to move with their own, rather than against them.


Mr. Speaker:: This seems to be an appropriate time to ask whether the House gives its unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
That is another reason for our being opposed to the means which the United States has decided to use to deal with the deplorable practice of modern terrorism.
I want to list some alternative approaches, and 1 do not want to pretend they would guarantee the disappearance of terrorism. However, 1 do not believe that the action which the United States has taken in the past 24 hours will cause it to go away either. Indeed, we have already heard about an attack, allegedly initiated by Libya in the early hours this morning in response to the attack made on that country. However, there is a stronger list, in terms of effectiveness of approaches which ought to have been pursued, and which our Government ought to be urging upon the Government of the United States.
When we ascertain with clearly understood evidence that a state is perpetuating state terrorism against innocent people or other states, the Government of Canada should willingly and eagerly participate in the following kinds of action. It should partake in tough economic sanctions. I remind Members of Parliament that in 1980 we passed an Act of Parliament with reference to the Iranian crisis. It was a measure that had teeth, a measure of economic sanctions. It had punitive provisions for violation. We set an example, because in that instance there was a clearly perceived act of terrorism under way in the form of a hostage taking.
There is a variety of sanctions which can be taken. By way of example, there is no real movement to get rid of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Our Government has stated that it is prepared to act in terms of economic sanctions. With regard to acts of terrorism instead of using the state power with equal acts of terrorism, we should be using law and economic sanctions. That is the kind of thing which makes sense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In dealing with a violent state which perpetuates terrorist acts against others we should, as a nation, totally isolate such a state diplomatically. Things can be done to bring that about.
I would suggest that efforts be made outside the framework of Interpol. Interpol is not an effective instrument to deal with political terrorism. It was set up to deal with conventional crime, if I can put it that way, rather than with political crime. The world knows that certain state members of Interpol have been involved in state terrorism, so that is not effective. I suggest that we, with other like-minded states, perhaps the Europeans and the Americans, make a determined effort to coordinate anti-terrorist police investigations among ourselves, creating a special council of Ministers representing our

April 15, 1986
Governments which would have the responsibility of coping in a tough way with international violence, which Interpol has not been able to act upon. That is a practical proposal I would like to see tried.
I would like to conclude with the following observation. We as a nation must recognize the historical origin of terrorism in the Middle East-not to condone it. To recognize the human and sociological origin of crime is not to condone crime. However, if you do understand some of the background you can cope with it more adequately, and remove it in some cases. To understand modern political terrorism which comes out of the Middle East we must have other than a mad-dog view of human history. The truth is that most terrorist activities coming from Arab countries is directly related to the very sad post-war history of the Palestinians and their quest for a homeland. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his recent statement made in the Middle East showed that there is one member of the Government who has some understanding of what is required historically. Until Israel is left with secure borders, until the Palestinians are granted their homeland and, in short, until some solution is found to what is called the Middle East problem, there can be no real solution to the violence. In my view this is sad, but it is also true. In the meantime we need understanding, not slogans; we need firmness, not violence. Instead of undermining international law, we need to adhere to its fundamental principles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is not here. This is a matter affecting the peace of the world, and the Prime Minister should be here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I was giving the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) an opportunity to respond to the case put by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent).


An Hon. Member:: He chickened out.


John Napier Turner: No, he is not a chicken, but he is waiting to see what the Opposition has to say and will try to gather whatever argument the Government can muster in favour of a very obscure position. This is not the first time that the Prime Minister has not met a major national issue in the House of Commons. This is where the issues ought to be discussed. I do not care whether it is a television world or an immediate electronic world, the issues of the country are discussed here on the floor of the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister ought to be here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have the opportunity to discuss a very important
international issue involving all nations, including Canadians who do not yield in their thrust for peace to any other people on the face of the globe.
I want to second what the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has so eloquently said. I am sure that we prompt the unanimity of the Canadian community when we say that as far as we are concerned international terrorism is a cancer afflicting mankind. It is indiscriminate in wiping out innocent victims. The lives lost now are beyond count. People in civilized communities are now afraid to travel. 1 agree at this stage with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he said we in this country must all work together to eliminate terrorism. It has become a new style of guerrilla warfare. It is a blight on civilization and we in Canada should do everything we can within the framework of international law and international comity, in conjunction with our friends and allies and other civilized nations, to meet it on a mutual basis. Libya has made no secret of its support for some of these terrorist groups. Its leader, Colonel Khadafy, has been, if nothing else, a cheer-leader in support of some of those attacks.
Before I get into the issues as we see them I want to summarize our position. We support the U.S. objective in its strike against the core of terrorism. We at this stage are obliged to accept the word of the President and that of his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. Our Government, whether or not it was in consultation with or informed by the U.S., has not given us, and Canadians through us, information upon which to make a firm judgment. We do not have the facts. We have not been told what the linkage is between terrorism in West Germany and other parts of the world, and Libya. We have not been told of the nature of the consultation between the American and Canadian Governments. We do not know whether the President personally informed the Prime Minister, or whether the consultation was only between an anonymous American official and the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada. What was the nature of those discussions? Was it a one-sided conversation? What questions were asked by the Deputy Prime Minister? Indeed, what questions were asked by the Prime Minister of the President of the United States before a position was taken this morning by the Canadian Government? Did we ask the U.S. and the U.S. President whether there was to be a limited military engagement against specific terrorist targets? Did we ask the President where the U.S. goes from here? Did we have any evaluation from the President as to the risks of escalation? We do not know, and today's Question Period did not enlighten us one whit.
The Liberal Party has a long tradition of seeking ways to end terrorism. Mr. Trudeau, Prime Minister of our country for 16 years, raised the issue many times. We in this corner of the House await with interest what the Deputy Prime Minister has to say, but we are disturbed that we do not have the information upon which to make a secure judgment. Whatever information the Government of Canada may or may not have
April 15, 1986

obtained from the President or senior U.S. officials has not been communicated to us.
We note that the President personally briefed senior U.S. senators, as I believe he was properly obliged to do under current U.S. legislation, and certainly because of the responsibility for foreign poilcy which the U.S. Senate has. However, we in the Opposition have received no such briefing from the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister or any of their officials. We have this evening been placed in a position where we have to take on faith, if you will, the statements of the U.S. President. We have not been given any assurances from our Government or our Prime Minister as to the questions we put to the President or the problems the world faces on this issue.
Our immediate concern, and it was reflected of course in the statement of the Prime Minister this morning, is for the safety of 1,300 Canadians living and working in Libya. We say at the outset that the Government of Canada did not take strong and definitive action immediately it learned of the escalating tension. If it is true, as the Prime Minister suggested to the House this afternoon, that the Government has been kept continually informed of the American intentions and their estimate of the situation in the Middle East, particularly in Libya, as this tension escalated, then we feel it was the duty of the Government of Canada to indicate to Canadians living in Libya that the situation had changed from that statement of January 10. We believe it was the duty of our Government to advise Canadians to come home.
What has the position of the Government been with respect to our fellow citizens working in Libya? The Prime Minister stated that his Government "repeatedly exhorted them to look to their own security. Make up your own mind. It is your decision. Make your own judgment". Here we have a Government derelict in its duty, knowing that those people are working in a land which is engulfed in crisis, engulfed in terrorism, saying to its own citizens: "Make up your own mind. It is up to you. Your own decision." We do not believe that is nearly good enough. Surely, if the Canadian Government was brought in to the confidence of the U.S. administration, as the Prime Minister suggested to us this afternoon, and, to use his words, "fully consulted by the U.S. all along", we should have communicated immediately upon learning from American intelligence with our own citizens, and attempted to get them out. How are they going to travel, by regular airline? Who is flying into Tripoli these days? The International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations has recommended a unanimous boycott of Libya. Who is going to get them out? The Deputy Prime Minister may have some resources that he is going to explain to us. We would like to hear about that when he gets up.
The Government's immediate concurrence, ambiguous as it is, in the U.S. action raises serious questions. We note that the Prime Minister, while applauding the U.S. objective in this action, neither supports nor condemns the American method of attack. Of all the leaders that were apparently briefed by the President of the U.S., our Prime Minister is the only one who
had all the information, and perhaps had it earlier than most- we do not know-yet he failed to take a stand on a military strike. Canadians deserve to know at least where the Government stands. The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) took us through some of those positions.
Major allies were consulted by the U.S. on the specific action of a military strike. Every one of those countries has taken a stand. Britain supports the action. West Germany has given-well, the phrases are difficult to evaluate, but let us call it moderate support. France, Spain, The Netherlands and Italy are opposed. The Prime Minister has said that he supported the objective of stopping terrorism, but he has refused to say whether or not he supported this specific American military strike.
If the Prime Minister has been consulted as intimately as he claims to have been the question that hits my mind immediately is, was he continually informed-and if the President or senior members of the administration told him the crisis was worsening and the United States had intelligence indicating a link between terrorism and the Libyan Government and the United States intended to take action, why did our Prime Minister not suggest other avenues?
The United States has been frustrated because its European partners have not supported the economic sanctions. Why did our Prime Minister not suggest an alternative route? Why did he not say to the President: "Give us a day or two; give us an opportunity to see whether there are other ways we can go about it; see what we can do within NATO to bring a more coherent economic response"? The question that hits everybody in this country and I am sure in the House is, if we were informed and if the information was directly communicated by the President to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister was apprised of the growing situation, why did we not offer some alternative solutions or offer to intermediate with our European friends? This is a question that only the Prime Minister can answer.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) was told about the attack by an American official. But questions remain: Did the Prime Minister and the President of the United States discuss this question and this operation? Were they in complete agreement? Did our Prime Minister approve of the military strike? Did our Prime Minister suggest options, other alternatives to cope with this situation? Did American leaders ask for Canada's advice? Did Canada propose other solutions?

Was there a conversation or a one-way information ritual between the President, or whoever he delegated, and whomever that delegate spoke to, conveying information but did not asking for our views, our co-operation, or for other ways of solving the problem? The Government is putting the country in
12278

April 15, 1986
5.0.	29
a terribly difficult position it they will not tell us what it knew, when it knew it, what alternatives it proposed and what basis there is for Canadian support of the American action.

What instructions did we give our ambassador to the United Nations?
Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the use of force. However, Article 51 allows the use of force as a temporary measure of self-defence. And that is why the arguments of our colleague from Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) may be somewhat ambiguous, because that article is subject to interpretation. In any event, perhaps the forum ought to be the United Nations, sooner rather than later.
In this instance we fear that such an exceptional use of force might become the rule.
Was the Government convinced that all other avenues had been explored? Were other political, diplomatic or economic sanctions considered? We have no idea. Communication is not the forte of this Government, and especially of our Deputy Prime Minister. To him, silence is always golden, but we needed more specific information to pass judgment.
Is Canada committed to take any other measure? Does the Government have a plan to convince our allies in Europe, for example, that strict economic sanctions are required to prevent further military action?

We welcome the assurances of the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will be presenting a plan when he attends the OECD meetings in Paris this week. We look forward to a report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this House. We will also be interested in knowing what he and his officials have concluded will be the possible impact on Soviet-United States relations, given the fact that the Soviets have cited earlier today that this incident in Libya is the reason for cancelling the high level presummit meeting.
We believe the battle against terorism can only be won if we and our allies are willing to impose tough economic sanctions and reinforce our commitment to international anti-terrorism organizations, and also by renewing our commitment to the institutions of international law and order. We should also work through the United Nations, where our recent initiative to break the link between drug trafficking and some forms of terrorism is an example of the role that the United Nations can play. We also have the advantage of hosting the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal. A proper response in airports around the world, by way of an international treaty, is an element we can advance to meet this threat of terrorism. We have the avenues of the Commonwealth, and we have the avenues of NATO.
The United States is our closest friend and good neighbour. We share their frustration and their dismay when planes are bombed, airports are attacked, ships are hijacked, people are
maimed, and lives are lost. We also share their deep and abiding respect for the rule of law, and the search for peaceful settlements and negotiations in areas of international tension. We have not heard the full story. If the Government does not know the story then we believe there is negligence. If the Government does know the story then we believe the Deputy Prime Minister owes it to us this evening to tell us and the country. We will give the President the benefit of the doubt, subject to receiving further facts. We would urge the Government of our country to caution our friends south of the border to pursue prudence and restraint in this exercise. The stakes are too high and the risks are too great. We would have preferred to enjoy an atmosphere in which our Government had been less of a passive partner in what has been happenng.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the events of the past 24 hours have directed our attention once again to the tension and conflict in the Middle East. In essence the United States, after vigorously pursuing a variety of diplomatic and economic options, was left with no alternative but to take military action against a country which posed an even greater threat to the citizens and interests of the United States and, indeed, to those of all democratic countries throughout the world. Libya has demonstrated a consistent lack of respect for international law and for the accepted norms of behaviour. We know that the American decision was not taken lightly. We remember that only last month United States' aircraft were fired upon by Libyans in international airspace over the Gulf of Sidra.
The House will recall that on January 10 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a series of economic measures against Libya following terrorist attacks in Rome and Vienna. On that occasion the Prime Minister reviewed existing policy. He said that we had already developed over the years a comprehensive series of measures to limit our bilateral relationship with Libya, including the prohibition of the export of all military or strategic equipment to Libya. We had refrained from opening an embassy in Tripoli, although it would have been to our commercial advantage to do so. There had also been restrictions on the number of Libyan students in Canada and on their areas of study.
On January 10 of this year this Government went further. New contracts for the export of oil drilling equipment containing unique western technology were stopped. Canadians and Canadian companies were advised against seeking to fill jobs which were vacated by Americans leaving Libya.
Most importantly, in recognition of the seriousness of the escalating tension and Libya's unwillingness to end its support of terrorism, Canadians were advised at that time to look to their own personal circumstances, to ascertain whether they had grounds for anxiety about their security. The Prime Minister reiterated this warning last Friday afternoon, both in the House of Commons and at his press conference, urging
April 15, 1986

Canadians to reassess their position very carefully. He added that Canadians should refrain from travelling to Libya.
We are profoundly concerned by recent terrorist incidents, including the attack on a West Berlin discotheque on April 5 and the bombing of the TWA airliner near Athens on April 2. The Government has accepted the substantial body of evidence linking Libya directly to the Berlin attack and to plans for further operations in Europe and elsewhere. The Prime Minister and Ministers of this Government have repeated on many occasions that terrorism is reprehensible and an evil which all members of the international community must work to eliminate.
We continue to believe that all states have a responsibility to make concerted efforts to develop more effective measures to eradicate terrorism. Canada has been in the forefront of all of these efforts, and we were instrumental in the development of the 1978 Bonn Declaration on Terrorism at the Economic Summit meeting. While the effectiveness of the Declaration has not lived up to our expectations, we have to pursue a broadly based approach, since it is through collective international effort that the solution is most likely to be found.
We stand resolutely opposed to those individuals and Governments who turn to terrorism as a means to achieve their ends. Canada has long abided by the principle embodied in the United Nations Charter that only peaceful means should be used to resolve differences. While it is unfortunate that our neighbour and ally, the United States, found it necessary to take military action in order to combat Libyan state support for international terrorism, we have accepted the American explanation that their action was not based on reprisal or revenge, but rather on a need to demonstrate to those who continue to support terrorism that they will pay an extremely high price for their actions.
In order for the cycle of violence to end, Libya must end its support for extremists and its savage attacks against innocent and defenceless individuals thoughout the world. The American strike against Libyan terrorists and military targets was an extraordinary measure, taken in response to a particularly difficult set of international circumstances. Although the United States bent every effort to avoid civilian targets, we cannot but profoundly regret the loss of innocent life in their undertaking.
In advance of last evening's events, the Government had been in close and continuing consultation with senior United States officials. We are satisfied with the evidence available to us of Libyan complicity in recent terrorist actions. Over the past days and weeks, we had informed American authorities of the location of Canadians in Libya and stressed that they not be endangered directly or indirectly by any American military response to the support Col. Khadafy's regime continued to provide to international terrorists. They assured us that they were fully seized of the Government's overriding concern for the safety of Canadians in Libya and would take those concerns fully into account in their planning.
The safety of Canadians remains of paramount importance to us. The Canadian Consul in Tripoli has informed us that throughout last night and today he has been in close contact with the Canadian community throughout Libya. He has reported that no Canadians have been killed or injured as a result of last night's events.
There are approximately 1,300 Canadians working in Libya, mostly in the petroleum industry. Many of them work on a rotation system whereby for every four weeks they spend in Libya they are granted four weeks leave out of the country. It is therefore difficult to establish precisely the number of Canadians in Libya at any given time. We have therefore established a system of wardens which permits our consular officials to contact efficiently and positively the various Canadian communities. This system, which has been in place for some years, continues to work well. We have also maintained close contact with those Canadian companies with employees in Libya.
Since the beginning of the crisis, we have been in regular touch with our western allies; France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany-which themselves have large numbers of nationals in Libya-in order to co-ordinate any evacuation plans which may become necessary.
We have, of course, continued diplomatic contacts with the Libyan Government. Our concerns about the safety of our citizens have been made abundantly clear on several recent occasions. The Libyan authorities have assured us that Canadians are welcome in Libya and will be protected there. They also assured us that should conditions in Libya deteriorate to the point where it would be best for Canadians to leave, the Libyan Government would facilitate their departure. As the Prime Minister said in his press conference on April 11, the Government is reviewing and updating plans to deal with contingencies as the situation warrants.
Let me sum up the Government's position. As the Prime Minister reiterated again today, our overriding concern has been and remains the safety of Canadians, and this has been paramount throughout. Second, we recognize clearly that the American action was an extraordinary one, taken after careful consideration, in order to demonstrate that terrorism will incur an unacceptable cost to its supporters. Third, the cycle of violence must be broken and Libya must resume its place as a responsible member of the international community.
Finally, we will continue to look to concerted international action to achieve the eradication of the evil scourge of terrorism. We recognize clearly, however, that this approach must of necessity entail co-operative efforts to resolve the root political causes of tension, conflict and instability in the Middle East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 15, 1986
5.0.	29


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), says the cycle of terrorism and violence must be broken. The act of the United States, as has been pointed out by other speakers tonight, excluding the Deputy Prime Minister, will only exacerbate terrorism and violence just as other acts taken by the United States sorrowfully in the past have exacerbated terrorism and violence.
We who say tonight that we must eradicate international terrorism are, however, being told by the Government that this was an exceptional occasion, that the United States had to take this action against Libya, that it did not really want to have to do it, but Libya was such a mad dog that it had to do it. Only a year ago the United States was looking at Syria and Iran, countries which may indeed be a dangerous source of terrorism, for all we know. We have had a great deal of evidence provided that there were probably more centres of terrorism in other countries than, in fact, Libya. However, the United States has made up its mind that it would be in its best interests, not in the interests of eradicating terrorism, to have a military strike against this particular nation.
1 believe we are never going to understand and attack the root problems of terrorism, as the Deputy Prime Minister said at the end of his speech we should be doing, unless we really try to understand the root causes of terrorism, particularly terrorism in the Middle East. I would suggest that all Hon. Members of the House read an excellent presentation made to the Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations less than a month ago by SFU Professor Allan Cunningham, who is an expert on the Middle East. He said, and I quote:
Too often we talk about terrorism and treat it as a phenomenon whose causes we do not actually bother to investigate too carefully and we therefore give our attention to the immediate problem of counteraction to it.
I think that terrorism should be seen as a measure of the prevalence of diplomatic failure on the part of many states.
There is, of course, a mindless degree of terrorism and this is the sort of terrorism which tends to hit the headlines but is actually less often present than people are led to believe if they just read today's paper re the episode and do not inquire, as newspapers usually do not, about what lies behind the episode in question. In fact, more often than not, people who do try to get behind terrorism to explanations and causes find themselves dismissed to the extent that it is sometimes thought to be a disadvantage to know something about.
William Casey, Director of the CIA, himself tells us there is no evidence that the Soviet Union orchestrates international terrorism, a theme which he seems to have not communicated to his President.
Professor Cunningham continues:
The President of the United States presents the United States as a country on guard for civilization against barbarian challengers. The barbarian is usually an Arab or a Latin American, . . . But this is playing both sides of the street. One is on the one hand condemning terrorism and on the other practising it, often on a much larger dimension. For Canadians it is important to recognize the associated language, the language which is all symbols rather than substance, and this is all, I think, very dangerous and to be guarded against in our own country because the argument tends to run that if terrorism is generally in our interests then it ceases to be terrorism.
But if it is against our interests, then of course it genuinely is terrorism.
That is the end of the quotation. That is what we should be discussing tonight in this debate. Unfortunately, that is not where the Government has helped to place the debate. Did the Government express any profound concerns about the causes of terrorism to the United States Government? Did it express what, in its view, if it had a view, were some of the causes of terrorism in the Middle East? Did it have any assessment of its own on the degree to which the evidence produced by the President was in fact reliable? Did it have any evidence about other sources of terrorism in the Middle East and did it communicate these to the President or to his advisers? Did the Canadian Government, as we asked earlier today, actually propose alternatives to this military strike which, unhappily, is going to lead only to more terrorism?
Did Canada, a nation which has supported the United Nations from the very beginning present international alternatives? Did the Canadian Government say: "We feel this matter should be brought before the Security Council of the United Nations before any military action is taken"? Did the Canadian Government even mention the United Nations in its discussions with the United States? I see it is not one of those nations which has now put the matter before the Security Council. The Deputy Prime Minister has not even mentioned the Security Council or the United Nations in the context of trying to resolve the conflict about which we are speaking tonight. Apparently we took no initiatives, or they surely would have been mentioned. Did the Prime Minister say to President Reagan before this act was perpetrated: "In light of the Soviet Union's equal concern regarding Khadafy, as has been evidenced over the past months, have you discussed with it what diplomatic initiatives you might take together to isolate Khadafy?". Was that ever done? Did the Government take that type of initiative when it was talking with the President of the United States?


John R. Rodriguez: I don't think so.


Pauline Jewett: There were United Nations initiatives. There were diplomatic initiatives. We talk about wanting to see the development of crisis management. However, did the Canadian Government have any suggestion for crisis management in this particular instance? I am sure that if it had, we would have heard about it today or this evening.
Thus one is reluctantly led to the conclusion-and I do mean reluctantly because Canada has a good record on these types of initiatives at the UN and elsewhere-that Canada took no initiatives on this matter. It simply accepted the American decision to follow the military course of action. That country now says, well, it's too bad but this type of thing has to be done from time to time.
It appears that the Government will just follow suit and not take any initiatives when the next action is taken, and the one after that, and the one after that. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, and I think all of us in the House would agree, the cycle of terrorism will not stop. It will be exacerbated by
April 15, 1986

this very act. I take it that we will not now take any diplomatic or political initiatives vis-a-vis the United States, or the Soviet Union, in terms of dealing with the problems of terrorism in the Middle East.
Not only do we not attempt to understand the causes of terrorism, we make no attempt to at least present some alternatives to military solutions. In this connection, one of the most frightening aspects of all is that there now appears to be an attempt to link the provision of aid to the Contras, who are terrorists in Central America-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are now getting ridiculous.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: - to some Libyan action taken in Nicaragua against the Contras. It was distressing to hear live today over television the President of the United States addressing a business luncheon bringing out what 1 am told is total misinformation with respect to $400 million having gone from Libya to Nicaragua, as well as an arsenal of weapons and advisors. There is no evidence whatsoever from any reliable source in Washington that this is the case. Even the Department of the Secretary of State in Washington says that there are only a small number of advisors and that there have been no weapons since a report in 1982. The report to which I refer proved to be erroneous since the planes in question were carrying nonmilitary aid. This is an absolute nightmare coming to us once again. Is it only coincidence that this happened today when the vote is tomorrow or the next day and the attack on Libya took place yesterday?
It is somehow being suggested that Libya, which is not a democracy and in which there is no freely-elected Government, is pushing to develop a support system for Nicaragua which will in turn justify the Americans sending more aid to the terrorists in Central America. To all of us-and I hope it is to all of us-this is frightening as it makes one wonder if the timing of this particular raid on Khadafy was deliberate because of the coming vote this week in the United States Congress.
We are all terrified by the possibility of the use of force becoming a pattern in our lives, be it the force of the Libyans, the force of Khadafy, the force of the Americans, the force of the Contras, all the violence and the repression. As Canadians, surely it is incumbent upon us, and upon our Government, to try to persuade the Americans, the Soviets, whoever is exercising this pattern of violence, that to try to end violence with violence will not end it.
It is a great disappointment that the Canadian Government, rather than propose strong, valuable and constructive alternatives to the United States, simply said when it was informed of what it planned to do: "Ready, aye, ready". Surely we could have asked more, and must ask more, now, today and tomorrow, of the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I came to this Chamber tonight with all other Members in the hope that it would be the first real opportunity for Members of Parliament to gather the information necessary to make an informed judgment, to draw conclusions and to comment intelligently on the events which have unfolded over the last number of weeks with respect to Libya and the United States Government.
We have heard some interesting speeches this evening. The most important speech, the one which Members waited for with bated breath, was that speech delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). It was to be beyond the opportunity in Question Period today, which I do not believe elicited too much real information. It was to be the speech which would say to Members of Parliament, and through Parliament to Canadians, exactly what information the Government of Canada had in the days, weeks, perhaps even the months, preceding this military action. More than that, it would indicate to Canadians in a more tangible way than we have seen thus far what the position of the Government of Canada is with respect to the military action which occurred last night.
In my judgment, two things came out of the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister. First, he began his speech by saying that the United States had no alternative in this matter. That is a radical departure from the position which has been taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), even as late as this afternoon. This afternoon the Prime Minister said that Canada supported the objective of the United States Government in combating terrorism. However, under questioning by both the press and by Members in the House, he refused to take a position on the military action by which the United States tried to meet its objective last night. He refused to say whether he condemned it, condoned it, or what he felt with respect to it.
This evening, the Deputy Prime Minister, who, as the Prime Minister himself has said, has been charged with Canada's response in this matter, said that the United States had no alternative whatsoever other than the military action that took place last night. That is new information. For the first time, the Prime Minister, if he will not be contradicted or has not spoken out of turn, has indicated Canada's position on that military action. That is useful when one is trying to find a road map of the position of the Government of Canada on this very serious affair.
What the Deputy Prime Minister did not do is share with Members of this House, and through them the public, or with the leaders of the various Parties in private, any of the information that was communicated to the Deputy Prime Minister by the American administration official who came to Canada to provide the Government with a briefing and with the so-called unassailable information which indicated that Libya was involved in the terrorism of recent weeks and furthermore that Libya has planned for additional attacks. He

April 15, 1986
did not share with us any of the unassailable logic that would lead one to the conclusion that there simply was no other way of dealing with the situation of international terrorism, and particularly Libyan-sponsored international terrorism, other than sending in the F-llls and dropping bombs on military targets as well as, as we learned today, civilian targets and populated areas. We have not heard that rationale from the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) has said that for the moment, we in this Party accept the word of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State of the United States with respect to the military attack which occurred last night because we have no other means of information; not even the most obvious source, that of our own Government. It seems to me to be an unhealthy and frightening precedent that a matter with which Canadians are deeply concerned, and on which the Government on behalf of Canadians should take a position, is something that is discussed only in the context of Question Period and its 45 minutes of gamesmanship and partisanship.
It seems to me to be almost unbelievable that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister would not have called the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the New Democratic Party into a private conference, if necessary, to share the information upon which the Government of Canada has taken the decision it has taken. It is unbelievable that they would not have expected, given that kind of co-operation and sharing of information with parliamentary leaders, that that confidential information would be respected.
The Government has invited many Parliamentarians to stand in this Chamber to cast their minds around the subject, to seize upon suspicions about the extent to which we really have been briefed and to vocalize those suspicions because the Government has acted in a very strange manner. I have a personal view about this matter. I find it tragic that tonight we are discussing last night's military attack on Libya in a black-and-white context. We are discussing whether the strike was right or wrong. We are tempted by those who would like to see this matter in only black or white as being either for "Madman" Khadafy or for Uncle Sam. The issue is not that simple; it is far more complex.
We are cast in these roles because the western world has been unable to develop constructive, effective and real sanctions to deal with Libyan-sponsored terrorism until today. I believe there is another alternative other than direct military action. I believe there is another alternative other than terrorizing the terrorists and expanding the cycle of violence. The alternative would not put us in a position of voting either yea or nay to U.S. action when that country finally moves out of frustration. The alternative is to see the western world act in a co-ordinated manner to develop real sanctions that have teeth.
In reality, what have we seen happen? Every time there has been a bombing, every time an innocent life has been taken, every time the cameras have shown us the destruction and
blood on the floors of terminal buildings, we have seen every western nation in chorus condemn Libyan-sponsored terrorism. We have seen every leader proud to put himself in the national spotlight of his respective country to condemn Colonel Khadafy. We have seen an inability to enforce effective sanctions because those same national leaders who have condemned Libyan-sponsored terrorism have continued to do business indirectly through their citizens with the terrorist leadership of that country. Those who condemn that country have continued to provide the means to fuel the machines that produce the dollars required to sponsor terrorism all around the world.
In that regard, it is my view that Canada is equally guilty. That is why we are debating a military alternative, rightly or wrongly, out of frustration or out of genuine belief. It is because we have not been able to get our act together. It is because we wanted on the one hand to be principled people who would oppose terrorism wherever it is found and on the other to share in the dollars being generated by an oil economy in Libya. We have not been able to walk away from the opportunity to compete for those dollars, and that is why there is a massive foreign workforce in Libya. That is why that workforce is composed of Americans, Canadians and citizens of those countries which are today condemning the U.S. action in Libya.
I believe there is another alternative. I do not believe that every other avenue has been tried. 1 do not believe that there have ever been real effective sanctions developed and applied to Libya in a co-ordinated fashion. 1 believe we have been talking collectively through our hats for too many years about the renegade and murderous leadership that exists in that country. We cannot have it both ways.
I say to the Government of Canada that if we are to develop alternatives that work, if we are to develop a way beyond sending F-llls in a long and arduous flight path around France to drop bombs, then Canada can play a key role in this. We can begin, not by asking people to make their own decisions, but by asking our citizens to come home. We can begin by saying that Canadians will no longer on the one hand condemn terrorism and state-paid-for and sponsored murder while on the other expect to fill their pockets with the money generated in Libyan oil fields.
We can no longer expect to have it both ways. In taking that kind of decisive action, perhaps we will set an example of the effective leadership which must occur throughout western Europe. The brutal reality is that it is foreign workers, be they Canadians, Americans, West Germans, French or Italians, and foreign technology and know-how which keep the engine running that generates the billions of dollars used to purchase, manage and sponsor the terrorist attacks that occur all over the world.

April 15, 1986

President Reagan said over television today that Libya had sent $400 million worth of arms to the Sandinistas. Representatives in the U.S. Congress today talked about the shiploads of Libyan purchased arms which have gone into that country. Let them remember as well that it is American technology, and in many cases American workers, that feed, fine tune and keep the engine running which produces the capital required to buy those weapons.
We cannot have it both ways any longer. If we are to find consensus in the world for real, meaningful sanctions, if we are to avoid having any country finding itself frustrated enough to say that it had no alternative, the job and challenge of the Government of Canada is to take a leadership role in putting an end to the international hypocrisy which has existed in respect of the state of affairs in Libya and in a number of other similar regimes around the world.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the emergency debate we have been asked to take part in this evening should be seen as an opportunity for the Members of this House and for all Canadian men and women to reflect on violence and its underlying causes.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are generally reputed to be a profoundly peace-loving people. Abroad, our country enjoys an enviable reputation. Whenever the opportunity arose, we have managed to be peacemakers instead of warmongers. Other countries have often turned to Canada for advice, and 1 saw an example of this last year in Central America, where we were asked to share our expertise in the area of control commissions and peacekeeping forces.
I think I should also mention our efforts, as a Government and as a country, to fight poverty and neglect and try and bring greater social justice wherever possible. We are trying to achieve social justice through a substantial co-operation program in over 100 countries on continents.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, we cannot but be deeply concerned about the rise of terrorism in the world. Terrorism is a thoroughly repugnant evil. It strikes down innocent victims. It paralyzes, through fear, the free movement of persons. It engenders suspicion, misunderstanding and hate.
Although up to now, its effects have been felt largely in Europe and the Middle East, the violence of terrorism has not spared Canadians. We need only recall the Air India disaster which claimed the lives of so many Canadians last year. I am also reminded of the highjacking of an EgyptAir jet to Malta, which led to the death of a Canadian woman and her young child. The highjacking of the Achille Lauro off the Egyptian coast also illustrates the increasing risk to innocent victims when travelling abroad.
The Canadian Government emphatically condemns all terrorist acts as unacceptable, irrespective of where they take place and what motivated them. I say it this evening in this House, and I will say it again in every international forum where I am given a chance to do so.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have no hesitation in stating that this Government has set a very high priority on promoting various initiatives designed to counter international terrorism.
For the first time in its history, on December 9 last year the U.N. General Assembly condemned all terrorist acts as being criminal acts. Canada made every effort to get this resolution adopted. Similarly, at the International Civil Aviation Organization, we have spoken out most emphatically in favour of reinforcing aviation security. In two weeks, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will take part in the Tokyo Summit, and I know that he will be examining with his colleagues, the heads of State of the large industrialized countries, ways of further enhancing co-operation between our countries in fighting against this scourge.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the United States of America attacked in Libya a number of centres of terrorist activity and military targets. The Canadian Government had been informed of the imminence of this raid. As stated in an official press release, we accepted the statement by the President of the United States in which he said that Libya was involved in perpetrating terrorist attacks in Europe.
Mr. Speaker, we can always try to understand the psychology of the terrorist. A man who destroys, who wounds and kills is often a human being who has been deeply wounded himself. However, 1 cannot understand a country that agrees to train, help and officially support such people by encouraging them to commit such desperate and hopeless acts. We are seeing the birth of state-supported terrorism which can only be countered by a response at the same level. That is what we saw last night. The United States acted on a principle that is well known in law, the principle of self-defence.
Without applauding the American raid, we understand it was unavoidable in the circumstances.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government will continue to work on identifying political and thus peaceful solutions to the various international conflicts that have engendered terrorism. I am of course thinking first of all of the tensions existing in the Middle East.
Our policy in this region consists in encouraging as much as possible the use of negotiations to resolve this conflict. This concern for peace was reiterated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on his recent tour in the Middle East.
Canada has long since declared itself supportive of a fair, lasting and full settlement of the Israel-Arab conflict, on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. These resolutions acknowledge the right of all countries of that region to exist within safe and accepted borders, and they ask for the withdrawal of Israel from the territories occupied in 1967.
We have given our support to initiate peace negotiations between Israel and Arab countries. With that in mind, we rejoiced at the moderation shown in this respect by many Arab

April 15, 1986
5.0.	29
nations. For instance, we greeted with satisfaction Egypt's decision to conclude a peace treaty with Israel, and the will shown since then by the Egyptian Government to abide by the treaty.
For its part, Jordania has long been seeking a formula of coexistence with Israel and has shown leadership in all endeavours to that end. During his recent visit to Jordania, our Secretary of state clearly expressed his appreciation concerning King Hussein's efforts to promote peace.
On several occasions Canada also expressed its concern about the civil war in Lebanon. We sincerely deplore the untold sufferings this conflict continues to inflict upon the Lebanese people, and did not spare any effort to lessen their plight by regularly providing emergency humanitarian assistance to Lebanon. Canada has often voiced support for Lebanon's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, particularly before the UN General Assembly in the fall of 1984. We sincerely wish that a genuine and lasting national reconciliation will soon enable the Lebanese people to live in peace again.
The ongoing Irak-Iran war is also an issue which gives us great concern. Canada spoke in favour of a peaceful settlement of that conflict, to the extent that we readily endorsed all international efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement and made representations to both sides urging them to show moderation. We have placed an embargo on our arms shipments to both warring parties, who have been urged to avail themselves of the good offices of the U.N. Secretary General. We have also protested against the international human rights violations that continue to arise from this war.
Mr. Speaker, in making its positions clear on the conflicts that are raging in the Middle East, Canada's sole concern is to promote peace. We want an end to the suffering and misery caused by war and violence. We want a return to peace, a precondition for all economic and social development.
At this point, I would like to reiterate the feelings of friendship we, as Canadians, have for the Arab nations. The isolated actions of a single government will not be allowed to cloud our perception of the grandeur of their civilization, nor to diminish our desire for substantial and cordial relations with these countries.
Mr. Speaker, even in this hour of crisis, I remain confident that moderation and the brotherhood of man will prevail.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not particularly relish intervening in this kind of debate this evening. It has been a rather sad 24 hours, sad for the world in general in view of the fact that a major power, indeed a superpower, has seen fit for whatever reason to launch a preemptive military strike in a part of the world that is a tinder-box of political conflict and, in some areas, in political chaos. No one yet knows, and we will not know for a long time, all of
the ramifications that can flow or possibly will flow from the action taken at Tripoli just about 24 hours ago.
It is late in the day to be entering into debate. We should face the fact that we are basically debating in the dark, both literally and figuratively, because we do not have all the facts at our disposal. What little we have comes largely from news reports, and most of these reports come from the United States.
We have the public statements of American officials. President Reagan, Secretary of State Shultz and Secretary of Defence Weinberger. We also have one short press release from the Prime Minister's office, and some rather circumspect answers from Question Period today; all in all very little hard information.
Certainly all Members of this House share my concern for the safety and security of Canadians presently resident in Libya and, indeed, all people resident from foreign countries in that state. We feel helpless that we can do so little at this hour to ensure their safety. If we feel helpless and ill informed, just think how Canadians in Libya feel this evening. They have even fewer sources of information at their disposal. What sorts of questions might they be asking themselves? They know, of course, there has been an armed attack by the United States.
When exactly did the Government of Canada learn the nature and details of the U.S. action in Libya? Were we consulted before the pre-emptive strike? Was Canada merely informed of the mission to be carried out? What was the Government's immediate reaction? Did our Government initially disagree with the information given it by the special envoy? Did we encourage or attempt to dissuade the United States? Did Canada present any other options for the U.S. to consider? Did the Government do anything to ensure the safety of its citizens in Libya before the air strike last evening?
I cannot help but recall the era in which I grew up in this country, the era of Pearsonian diplomacy when Canada made every effort to be an active peacemaker. We did not go in lock step every time a major power made a move. That established Canada in world fora as a cautious, reasonable country, concerned more about peace than scoring military brownie points or launching full scale vengeful type or pre-emptive type military strikes.
I am not blaming the United States entirely at this hour for what it did. I do not know what the evidence is. I do not think any Member sitting in this House knows the evidence that existed and on which the American military strike was based. We can only go by those reports and those statements on television last night and what little information has come to us today.
For example, I would like to know when the Prime Minister first learned the exact time of the attack. Only the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) have the anwers to these questions. The Prime Minister has suddenly become as tight-lipped as his friend across the aisle. We know
April 15, 1986

that he issued a statement which offered a qualified endorsement of the American position, even if it stopped short of support for the military response. The Prime Minister has also told Canadians to "look to their own safety". Under the circumstances, that is hardly adequate. As we have already noted, they lack significant information to make a rational decision in this matter.
A few things are certain. The attack did take place. The Canadian Government's action was restrained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that Canada at least acquiesced in the American military action. What were the results of these developments? Are Canadians more or less safe as a consequence of the U.S. attack? That should be the focal point of our debate. We should not be quick to condemn the United States, at this point at least, for we lack the information which President Reagan says justifies his ordering the attack. Can we say that the safety and interests of Canadians have been enhanced by the developments of the last two days? 1 think not.
There are Canadians in Libya, and Libya is under attack. As we have seen from television reports, civilians are not immune to military action. The notion of a surgical military strike is a myth. There is no way, no matter how sophisticated the weapons employed, that any armed force can guarantee that only military targets and personnel will be affected.
Last night there existed the real possiblity that Canadians might have been injured or killed in the violence in Libya, because innocent people have already died in that attack. Civilian areas of the city of Tripoli were hit, one in particular in downtown Tripoli. Some may say that Canadians were not near the targets hit by U.S. forces. That is not true this time. The danger of escalation exists. Libyan radio has called for reprisals against both the United States and its allies. Canadians are not immune to mob violence either.
Are Canadians elsewhere safe from terrorism as a result of this strike? I, personally, do not think so. If Libya chooses to make reprisals, it will not confine itself to Libyan or American territory. Remember that an innocent Turkish woman died in the same Berlin bomb blast which Presiden Reagan says he is avenging. Remember, too, that the Berlin bombing was said to be retaliation for Libya's embarrassment in the Gulf of Sidra. We saw that same sort of attack today on an American installation in the Mediterranean resulting from last night's pre-emptive strike.
In other words, we already see violence begetting violence. We see a pattern of escalating violence, not a pre-emptive strike which will eliminate terrorism. I fear that we can expect further reprisals from both sides. Sadly, it will not only be their own armies or citizens which will be affected. Already violence is begetting violence, the very thing this attack was supposed to diminish.
Their allies will be expected to take sides. Already we have seen Egypt line up behind more radical Arab states and condemn the U.S. raid. Does this further the cause of peace in which we all have a stake? Clearly, the answer is "no". We are all the poorer as a result of the degenerating situation in the Mediterranean and the Middle East in general.
We should be asking ourselves if other options would be better to serve our interests. There is diplomacy, as others have mentioned this evening. Some scoff at the notion of diplomatic pressure reducing terrorism. It may be that diplomacy cannot solve this problem by itself, but diplomacy has a place, and certainly has its uses.
It may strengthen the position of the United States to seek a United Nations condemnation of Libyan terrorism. It is unfortunate that the Reagan administration has spent so much time attacking the UN. It has effectively closed off that course of action by alienating the UN and its supporters. The UN's critics say that it is a useless institution anyway. They fail to realize that their own criticism undermines the political will to give international bodies the muscle to be more effective. If the UN enjoyed wider support, its members might, for example, consider economic sanctions against Libya. There is an oil glut now. Surely Libya would be vulnerable to concerted economic pressure.
I recall a speech presented to the political committee of the North Atlantic Assembly in mid-February in Brussels by Professor Wilkinson of Aberdeen University, an acknowledged international authority on terrorism. I remember his remarks of that Saturday morning very clearly. He said that military strikes and military action will not solve the problem of terrorism in the Middle East, in Europe, or anywhere else. He argued most strongly that the only effective weapon which will diminish terrorism in that part of the world is effective economic sanctions. If you begin to tear down the economies of the host countries which permit terrorist training and activity to take place, the pressure will build up and become so intense that even Colonel Moammar Khadafy would have to relent and stop allowing terrorists to be trained in his country. That is important.
We have other examples as well. A very pertinent example is Ireland where, for 300 years, the United Kingdom attempted to "solve the Irish problem" by force upon force upon force. Yet, as we all know, today there is more violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland than ever before in those 300 years of violence. Military intervention, pre-emptive strikes, and the use of missiles in the missile age will not bring to an end terrorism in the Middle East or in Europe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I want to suggest now, as has been mentioned by my Leader and the cabinet Minister who spoke just before me that, for perhaps the first time in 40 years, we must look at the disease. Let us stop looking at the symptoms. Let us, for the first time in a debate in this House, try to think

April 15, 1986
about the cause of terrorism rather than simply treating the symptoms, as President Reagan did last night.
The cause of terrorism in the Middle East is the 40-year struggle of the Palestinians to regain a homeland. Bombing Tripoli will not eliminate that terrorism, but will exacerbate the problem. It will intensify the hatred, bitterness, and disillusionment. Young Palestinians would not be engaged in acts of terrorism if they were working in pharmacies, teaching school, acting in local politics, farming their lands, or had a flag flying over their homeland.
I am not suggesting for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that we embark upon the dismemberment of the state of Israel. There is room in the Middle East for both of those peoples to live in peace. It will not come overnight, but neither will it come as long as the President Reagans of the world continue to send pre-emptive military strikes against Tripoli, Damascus, Beirut, or wherever it happens to be. Peace will come about in the Middle East and there will be a diminution of terrorism if the major powers; the United States, the U.S.S.R., western Europe, and Canada, recognize the true cause of the terrorism, the disease which has caused this cancer that has killed so many innocent people on both sides in the Middle East and in Europe, and perhaps, as a result of last night's actions, in North America as well.
I call upon my colleagues to consider the real issue. Certainly part of the real issue of paramount importance is to bring terrorism to an end, to protect the lives of future innocent people, and to pay homage and respect to the innocents who have already died as a result of that conflict, that cancer, in the Middle East. We are not going to solve the problem, cure the disease, or actually perform a true political surgical operation, unless we recognize the cause. I sincerely hope that other nations will make an effort to bring the Palestinians and the Israelis together in order that they can solve and settle their problems so that they do not continue to spill over throughout the entire Middle East, Europe, and perhaps even North America.
There is a major problem, Mr. Speaker. That problem is simply that one of the two superpowers, the United States, has consistently chosen to give almost its total support to the one side. In doing so, it has lost almost the entire support of the other side. I do not know whether that damage is irreparable. I do not think it is. Muslims are anti-communists by nature. I see very little future for the Soviet Union anywhere in the Arab world if we begin to change our attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, as long as the U.S. supports only one side, as it has consistently done, you can expect the others to look elsewhere for support. That, too, must be addressed.
I hope, in the spirit of Pearsonian diplomacy to which I made reference a moment ago, that Canada will return to the role of peace-maker and not say: "Yes, go ahead, bomb them", or: "We agree", or ring our hands and say there is nothing we
can do. I congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for what he said in the Middle East a couple of days ago with respect to the Palestinian problem. I continue to hope that both he and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), and the Government Party, will bring pressure to bear on our American neighbours and friends to try to take a more balanced view of the Middle East, to try to bring peace to that troubled part of the world. In doing so I am convinced that there would be a very perceptible diminution of state sponsored terrorism and violence in that part of the world. Unless we are prepared to take the tough, moral road, that will not come about. If we simply continue, as the U.S. did last night, to exert violence against violence, the Middle East will continue to be the world's northern Ireland and we will all suffer the sadness that will come from that.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, like other Members of Parliament who have spoken in this debate I want to start by saying that we in Government, we in Parliament, must do everything possible and reasonable to combat and destroy terrorism. Surreptitious terrorism is the instrument of demented cowards. It is not acceptable that ordinary citizens from any part of the world, including the United States, the Soviet Union and the Arab world, should be unable to travel freely by air, to visit places of entertainment, or to go to public places at all, without fear of terrorist attack. That is not acceptable in 1986. As I said, we in Government, we in Parliament, must apply our intelligence and political will to provide creative solutions to this most important problem. It must be a priority. It must be a commitment. I do not believe that has been the case up until now.
While I say that we must combat terrorism with all our intelligence and might, I am not convinced at this point that the U.S. military action last night was the appropriate response at this time. I may very well be convinced with the proper evidence and information, with the intelligence which has been provided to certain groups around the world. However, I stand here with doubt in my mind. Certainly there was no justification for the bombing of civilian targets.
This makes me wonder about the alleged technology of our military equipment. We hear how we are so advanced that we can strike a target 3,000 miles away with a nuclear missile; we have aircraft that can go beyond the speed of sound; we can do all sorts of marvellous things. Yet here we have American aircraft attacking what the President said were military and terrorist targets and by mistake they hit civilians. That makes us wonder. If that is being done in a limited operation like that, what could happen with respect to our nuclear arsenals?
As I say, I have these doubts in my mind with respect to the attack which took place last night and much depends upon the intelligence and information which should be provided to us by the Government. I was sincerely disappointed in the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister tonight. As a matter of fact, it is my submission that he gave us a different version than was
April 15, 1986

given to us this morning in the official release by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). At the beginning of his address this evening the Deputy Prime Minister said that the U.S. had no alternative. I thought he was then going to provide us with a good deal of information to substantiate that alarming statement because it is not contained in the statement released by the Prime Minister this morning. I ask again, as others have asked before me, what information did the President of the U.S. give the Prime Minister or Canadian officials? What information did they give to connect Libya with the recent terrorist attack in Germany? Was this a one-sided conversation? Did the Americans simply advise us of what they were going to do and not ask us as a good ally for our advice and suggestions? What attempt was made to explore alternatives, economic and political?
As was mentioned a few minutes ago, in the days of Pearsonian diplomacy, when Mike Pearson was the Foreign Minister of this country and the Prime Minister, we had a reputation of exploring peaceful solutions to very difficult and complex world problems. Perhaps my doubts with respect to the statements made by the President last night are based in part on what we have been told in recent months about what was happening in Central America. A few weeks ago the American Government told us, at the time a vote was taking place in the American Congress, that there was a massive incursion into Honduras by Nicaraguan troops. When journalists and others went down there to search out evidence of this attack, they found it was not at all what had been alleged. It appeared to be some kind of trumped-up story simply to justify the U.S. Congress authorizing funds for the Contras. One must also ask: Even if Libya can be connected to the most recent terrorism, will this sort of action by the U.S. stop a person- and I only go by his reputation-like Colonel Khadafy? We must remember in using this type of action that we could trigger an even worse situation.
The U.S. and the Soviet Union as well bear a very heavy responsibility when they use their military power. 1 say this as a friend of the U.S. We cannot forget that any small incident, and this is not small, can escalate into a much more serious war, one which brings with it the threat of nuclear terror. 1 remind the House that the United States and the Soviet Union now have between them 50,000 nuclear weapons that are more accurate, more concealable, more destructive than ever before. These weapons have one million times the destructive power of the bomb that fell on Hiroshima. It is alleged by experts that they could destroy 800 million lives in less than one day.
This is the concern of many Canadians. I spoke to a man this afternoon who told me that his 12-year-old son asked him this morning, "Daddy, are we going to have a war? Are we going to have a nuclear war?" That is the kind of concern that touches many Canadians when they see a superpower like the United States launch a military attack like this in a situation where all the facts are not known, where we do not know the basis for their attack, the justification and so on.
As was pointed out by other Hon. Members in this House, many of the United States allies in NATO have rejected this action: Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands. I presume they know much more than we know here in the Opposition. The United Kingdom has given its approval, and West Germany has given a limited approval. This contributes to the doubt that many of us have. Many who have disagreed with the United States on this are their good friends. I am a good friend of the United States, and I expect much of the United States because they are my friend. Maybe I am more critical of them on occasions because I expect so much of them. 1 expect certainly more of them than I expect of Khadafy and Libya, and I expect more of them than I would expect of the Soviet bloc.
We must also consider what this action will do to the balance of power, to the realignment of forces in the Middle East and the world, and the shift of certain countries in that area more to the Soviet bloc and away from non-aligned positions. That is a possibility that is being discussed by the experts. There are other alternatives. I do not believe that we used the economic sanctions that were possible to the extent they could be used. I do not believe that we used international forums, the United Nations, the World Court, and other instruments of international action-political and legal action-to the extent they could be used.
In conclusion, and I repeat once again that certainly we cannot tolerate terrorism in any form, and we must attack and destroy terrorism. Military intervention must be the last resort in dealing with a problem like this, and never the first resort. We must always prefer the rule of law and non-military solutions. Those with great military power like the United States and the Soviet Union must use that power with great wisdom and discretion. I and some of my colleagues are still awaiting evidence, information that this was done in this case in this unfortunate incident.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate this evening. We Canadians are fortunate in the freedoms that we possess. Chief among them is freedom from fear. Terrorism is challenging that freedom. It has disrupted the lives of many Canadians, and for some has brought their lives to a tragic end. In looking at events in the Middle East we should recall that they represent no isolated incidents, no "bolt from the blue". Canada's own experience with terrorism extends back many decades. The tragedies have been many. According to figures published in 1984 by the Department of National Defence, between 1964 and 1983 there were 64 politically-motivated terrorist incidents involving Canada, all of which were violent, and some of which resulted in death. Here I recall the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) when he spoke before an audience gathered in commemoration of the Air India flight 182:
We are in real danger of allowing a new form of global conflict to dominate the international order and govern our lives. Death, as a result of international terrorism is as real and as shocking as any of the deaths in the last global conflict.

April 15, 1986
5.0.	29
For Canada and Canadians the past 12 months have seen tragedy upon tragedy. In March of 1985 the Turkish Embassy was taken over and a Canadian died. Less than two weeks later the Toronto subway system was held to ransom. In June there were the double tragedies of the Air India flight 182 and the Canadian Pacific Air explosion at Narita Airport. In October Canadians were again confronted with terrorists aboard the Achille Lauro, and the following month witnessed the death of two Canadians at Valletta Airport in Malta.
We have yesterday witnessed yet another consequence of the global conflict to which the Minister referred. There are causes and effects not only in the Middle East but in all parts of the world. We recognize the tragedy of terrorism. First, there is an immediate tragedy visited upon innocent victims, their family and friends. Their lives have been sacrificed for causes which were not their own. In company with others we must seek to break the logic of terrorism which so often exploits the very freedoms we take for granted. We must improve our security preparedness and strengthen our laws against this crime. I note that certain steps have already been taken. The Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty), for instance, announced on March 10 a comprehensive upgrading of our counter-terrorism program. He created a special emergency response team and substantially strengthened the protection of foreign missions and personnel. In addition, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), both within the context of the International Civil Aviation Organization and at international airports in Canada has come to grips with wide-ranging improvements in aviation security. I believe Canadians will support this initiatve.
Second, a terrorist act is carried out in the name of a cause often born in tragic circumstances. The tragedy of terrorism has political roots. We must seek, as indeed we have sought, to contribute to the search for peace and justice in the Middle East and elsewhere. This cannot be obtained by means of terror. Canada is second to none in its search for civilized solutions to world problems.
Third, there is the tragic potential that terrorism holds for disrupting orderly discourse among nations. The terrorist cause becomes identified with the terrorist consequence, and this complicates the conduct of international relations. Terrorism itself becomes the issue rather than the conditions which created it.
We must resist the terrorist goal, which is, of course, to force political change through violence. We support negotiations and we support the peaceful settlement of disputes. We will not be deviated from this principle by those who would seek their political ends by bringing suffering to innocent people.
In this regard, the words of the Prime Minister on April 9 are particularly apt. He referred to the concern about:
The irresponsible and criminal misconduct of some agents of countries which appear to be giving succour to terrorism and terrorist activity which is
reprehensible and completely unacceptable to Canada and every other civilized country.
Leaving aside the latest American action in Libya, we should remind ourselves that terrorism has suffered some defeats, although at great costs. Those responsible for the deaths of Valletta were brought to ground. Terrorists responsible for the Achille Lauro incident were also apprehended. For the first time in its history, on December 9 the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted a landmark resolution that condemned all acts of terrorism as criminal. This latest action by the international community was presaged by a ground swell of international public opinion against terrorism expressed in world institutions as diverse as the Association of South East Asian Nations and the Commonwealth. We should also recall that in the aftermath of the abhorrent attacks at the Rome and Vienna airports in December, Canada undertook a comprehensive series of measures to signal clearly that the Government will not condone the terrorist activity of Libya.
Speaking before the United Nations this fall, the Prime Minister said that no nation alone can combat terrorism; it demands concerted international action. We must exchange information. There must be nation-to-nation understanding and we must have international conventions.
Those who murder and maim innocent people, those who bring anarchy to civilized society can have no sanctuary, no comfort, and no indulgence. Canada has a commitment in joining with other countries around the world in the search for a determined and effective response against terrorism.
Canada has already taken a number of measures and is in the forefront of the struggle to make the world safe from terrorism. For example, at the ICAO, Canada, in company with others, is leading in efforts to make international air travel safer. Within the context of the economic summit, we and our partners are examining further co-operative means to come to grips with terrorism. Heads of Government of the economic summit countries-the leaders of the industrialized democracies-will meet in Tokyo in May. Preparations for this meeting are already well in hand. There is an opportunity for further international co-operation in this context and our goal should be to promote it and thus defeat this terrible scourge of terrorism once and for all.
I have no doubt that the war against international terrorism will be prolonged and that further tragedy lies ahead. But I also have no doubt that with resolution and determination we can move toward eliminating that evil.
The battle against terrorism can be won on the basis of the following principles and objectives: First, it is in the interest of all countries to oppose international terrorism. No nation is safe.
Second, no nation alone can combat terrorism. It demands concerted international action.
Third, Canada will seek international action against international terrorism in all available places.
April 15, 1986

Fourth, Canada will take, as it has taken, fitting action against states which support international terrorism.
Fifth, Canada will co-operate in developing consistent and effective measures to improve civilian aviation security and to ensure that there is effective international action in the resolution of crimes committed by terrorists.
These principles have already found their voice in the international economic community. I believe that this voice will grow in strength. I also believe that our country's great strengths derive from the resilience and tolerance of its peoples and from the freedoms we possess. We can build on these strengths in the conviction that we can achieve a safer and better world.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks in the debate this evening. I want to begin by quoting some words from the Prime Minister, as reported at page 9722 of Hansard on January 13, when he was introducing Prime Minister Nakasone from Japan.
He said:
There is a new, insidious threat to stability in the world, the murderous scourge of terrorism, an international plague that knows and respects no boundaries, from which no person is safe, and to which democracies such as Canada and Japan, to name but two, are most vulnerable. Japan and Canada were linked in the horror of terrorism last year when a bomb exploded among the luggage of a Canadian commercial flight after its arrival in Tokyo. Our people have a right to expect their Governments to take forceful action to rid the world of these cowardly creatures who do not recognize the bounds of decency or the dictates of reason.
As it happens. Prime Minister, we, as leaders, are not powerless to do something about this. We can encourage support for more effective enforcement of international law, as you have done on many occasions. Under your leadership at the summit the partners may yet contemplate effective, co-ordinated action against terrorists of every origin and terrorism in every form.
These were the comments of our Prime Minister when he was welcoming Prime Minister Nakasone. We are not powerless when it comes to dealing with international terrorism. We can work through international law.
Unfortunately, the American bombing of the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya last night has to be seen as a confession of powerlessness, a confession of weakness when the mightiest nation on the face of the earth had to resort to a kind of naked force to deal with a question of terrorism in a way that is not at all effective. It has been pointed out several times already this evening that this is a breach of international law. The Americans talked about a so-called surgical strike. How can we talk about a surgical strike when 100 civilians were killed, when innocent babies are killed? What kind of surgery is this? It is surgery with a meat axe.
The Deputy Secretary of State for the United States, John Whitehead, said that the United States planned to avoid casualties. He even made the bizarre suggestion that perhaps the casualties which took place were as a result of misdirected anti-aircraft fire. That kind of self excuse just does not make
5.0.	29
sense when we are faced with the enormity of what happened last night.
The Americans are pleading self-defence as the reason for this strike. I would like to suggest that instead of a plea of selfdefence, perhaps a plea of temporary insanity might make more sense. What happened last night does not make sense to any sane or rational person who looks at our world.
I would like to suggest five reasons why 1 think we have to oppose what the Americans did last night. First, it increases world tension. We have already seen the results of that in the cancellation of the planning meeting which was to have led up to the United States-U.S.S.R. Summit. We have great hopes that somehow when the leaders of the superpowers sit down together they will be able to reach some kind of understanding with each other, some kind of resolution of world tensions. These summit meetings are very important. The fact that the planning meeting has been cancelled is something that has to be regretted very seriously.
In addition to that, the tension has been increased in the Arab world. In fact, the effect of last night's bombing has been to solidify the Arab world in support of the extremists. It has solidified the Arab world behind Colonel Khadafy and instead of rooting out terrorism, it has made a hero of him among his fellow countrymen and other Arab nations.
Second, we oppose this action because innocent civilians were killed. I know we feel very strongly when innocent civilians are killed by terrorist actions, for example the commercial air flight, the bombing of the discotheque and other terrorist actions which have taken place. However, two wrongs do not make a right. The bombing of civilian areas of Tripoli and the killing of upwards of 100 civilians is not something that can be condoned. Certainly we have to oppose this action because it is not at all effective in dealing with terrorism. As I have already pointed out, it has unified the Arab world in support of Khadafy and Libya. It has marginalized people who were moderates. People who wanted to speak up in the Arab world for a more moderate position have been pushed off to one side by the American action. This American action has been very counterproductive in terms of the longterm objectives which the Americans themselves should be seeking.
By the same token, if, as President Reagan says. Colonel Khadafy is a mad dog, we can be very sure that this kind of action is not going to have any effect on him at all. We do not try to solve the problems of a mad dog by giving it a kick. That in effect is not going to help the question of international terrorism. In fact, it will exacerbate it. Fourth, we have to be very concerned about this action because of the fact that some 1,300 Canadian lives are involved. We heard from the Government that it has no real plans on how to deal with the situation if a real crisis should erupt which involves those lives.
Finally, I think we have to recognize that the United States does not come to this situation with clean hands. The Americans do not have clean hands when it comes to international

April 15, 1986
5.0.	29
terrorism. In 1975, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee which studied U.S. intelligence activity around the world. That committee detailed CIA involvement in assassination attempts on such diverse world leaders as Fidel Castro of Cuba, Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic and Diem of South Vietnam. These were people on all sides of the political spectrum, just people who happened to be in the way of the CIA at that particular time. These particular attempts at assassination did not succeed. We still have Fidel Castro very much with us. But other attempts did succeed. Right now President Reagan is attempting to link the situation in Libya with the situation in Nicaragua and at the same time he is again coming before the House of Representatives for $100 million worth of support for the Contras, the people whom President Reagan calls freedom fighters.
I would like to give some details of those so-called freedom fighters. On February 16 a Swiss development worker in Nicaragua was driving a truck home when he saw a group of 16 women who asked for a ride. He picked them up, and as they drove along they hit a land mine. The truck was forced to stop, and as it stopped the Contras stepped out of a ditch and gunned down the development worker and four of the women. The Washington office on Latin America has sponsored a report on violations of the laws of war by both sides in Nicaragua. It was prepared by Mary Dutcher, a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Missouri. I would like to read the following dominant conclusions of this report:
The preponderance of the evidence indicates the continuation of a systematic pattern of gross violations committed by Contra forces ... The presence of Contra troops in a given locale seemed to give rise to a pattern of indiscriminate attacks against civilian targests, kidnappings, rapes, assassinations, mutilations and other forms of violence-
On the other hand, the violations that were committed by members of the Nicaraguan armed forces appear to be relatively isolated cases of abuses of authority and breaches of military discipline. There was no evidence that violations were condoned by superiors.
The report also shows that in a number of cases Nicaraguan soldiers or militia who were guilty of abuses were punished with long jail terms. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the great majority of abuses in Nicaragua have been committed by the Contras, the very people for whose support President Reagan is asking for $100 million.
A few months ago it came to the attention of the American public that the CIA had published a manual, quite contrary to American legislation, on psychological operations in guerrilla warfare for the Contras operating in Nicaragua. This manual calls for a selective neutralizing, or assassination-that is what the word "neutralizing" means-of targets such as judges, police, security officers and local militia heads. It calls for that kind of selective assassination as a way of inducing terror among the Sandinista people, those people who would want to support their Government. These are the Contras for whom President Reagan wants to provide $100 million in support. Yesterday morning I heard a report on the CBC that I can scarcely credit. I would be interested in having this chased down because it seems to have disappeared from the news. However, I heard it twice yesterday on early morning news
reports. They indicated that the Contras had considered a plan to assassinate the United States Ambassador in Costa Rica, with the idea that this assassination would later be blamed on the Sandinistas, giving a pretext for an invasion of Nicaragua. These were reports I heard on the CBC.
We are talking about Americans concerned about terrorism in Libya. I want to emphasize the fact that the Americans do not come to this situation with clean hands. We want to see an end to terrorism. We want to see an end to terrorism in the Middle East. We want to see an end to American-sponsored terrorism in Central America. I think the answer has to be a greater reliance on world law and world opinion. Unfortunately, the United States turned its back on world law by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the World Court in its dispute with Nicaragua last year. Today, world law is needed more than ever. Today, reliance on the United Nations and the offices of the United Nations is needed more than ever.
In the face of the threat of international terrorism what we need is not hasty, ill-considered vigilante action. Rather, what we need is a degree of patience, self-control, a co-ordinated attempt to work with all nations to eradicate this evil. Terrorism will not be defeated by vigilante action. It has to be defeated by the rule of law, and the rule of law has to be based on justice. We have to make sure that we provide justice for the people of our world, otherwise we will continue to face the threat of terrorism.
There have been alternatives suggested. Unfortunately, those alternatives were not suggested by our Government when it was in touch with the United States. I think we should be pushing for tough economic sanctions when we have conclusive evidence that one country is harbouring terrorism. We should be pushing for an international anti-terrorist police force which can act effectively in this area. Given the historical origins of terrorism, we need more than a mad dog view of human history which feels that by hitting at someone such as Khadafy we will solve the problem.
In conclusion, I would like to quote again the words of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from Janaury 13 when he
said:
-we, as leaders, are not powerless to do something about this. Wc can encourage support for more effective enforcement of international law

I only wish that our Prime Minister had done this during this past week when he was aware of the threat of the American invasion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that it is impossible to remain silent and indifferent in this debate. I admire the cool and the indifference of Tory back-benchers who so far have chosen not to participate in it. I look forward to hearing some voices of Members from across the way taking a stand on this very important resolution before us.
April 15, 1986


John Horton McDermid: What about the speech of the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard)? It was brilliant. Where were you?


Mr. Caccia:: We will hear what comes next. I entered this debate with the intent to be concise since a great deal has been said on this issue which makes it difficult to be novel. However, there are a few things which, in my way of looking at parliamentary debate and politics, need to be said. I build my reasoning on this base; when a civilized nation decides to answer terrorism with an act of war, it seems to me that then it gives legitimacy to terrorism. It elevates terrorists to the level of those who attack them, or believe that they are attacking them, with sophisticated weapons. I do not think that I am alone in adopting this starting point in thought. I believe that tonight there are millions of Canadians and Americans who think that way. 1 believe they are asking themselves questions about what is happening to the reputation of that great nation in this world.
Acts of terrorism, as we all know and concur, are awful. This act of war, too, is awful. Last night on television we saw the destruction of homes and the killing and maiming of civilians. That is awful, too. Tonight, when the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) told us that in his view the United States had no alternative, I held my breath waiting for the evidence, since a statement like that requires some pretty heavy, and important, convincing evidence. When he finished his speech and sat down, and this is why I am surprised at the indifference of the Tory back-benchers, I asked myself: Does he really believe in what he said tonight and does this Government really believe in what it put forward?
If he condones the attack provided that Canadians are not hurt, as he put it to us implicitly in his speech, then let us suppose-and perish the thought-that Canadians were to get hurt. Would he still condone the attack? Would he still say that the United States had no alternative? Last night watching what happened we saw that the attack was not just on military bases. We saw that by condoning this act, or by accepting the inevitability of it, the Government of Canada took a big risk.
The question is also one that goes beyond our own individual interests as a nation concerned with 1,300 Canadians in Libya. We must also ask ourselves the question: Can terrorism be checked by moving a fleet near Libyan waters? What does this achieve? I really do not know. I do not think that it goes to the root of the question. Can Khadafy be isolated from the Arab world by an attack on him? I submit that if the attack which we have just witnessed succeeds in doing anything it is in consolidating Khadafy's status in the Arab world.
The next question is: Is the threat to Libya not a way of enhancing the shaky status of Khadafy in the Arab world? The most overriding and dominant question, in my mind at least, behind all this is: Does the Libya-U.S. confrontation in the Mediterranean not pose a threat to peace in the whole world? What does it do to East-West relations and, in particular, what does it do to the relations between the two superpowers? Does yesterday's U.S. attack represent a danger to Canadians who
are in Libya? If it does, as I believe it does, how can we be ambivalent to the U.S. attack on that country? There is a contradiction here. The Government of Canada has to protect the interest of Canadians in Libya, but at the same time it takes an ambivalent stand on the attack. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion in this debate, as it strikes me at this late hour, is in the form of a question which asks: What are the alternatives to gunboat diplomacy? Many other speakers tonight have put forward a number of interesting approaches.
Against the background of violence begetting violence and violence leading eventually to escalation, we must ask what we are doing in terms of economic sanctions. What are we doing by way of taking the appropriate actions at the United Nations? Could we pursue counter-terrorist activities by way of an international police force?
The basic and fundamental questions which have also been asked is, what is at the root of all this, and if there is a solution to the situation in the Middle East, would that not perhaps remove the necessity of becoming engaged in counter-terrorist activities? We must ask if the Government of Canada has pressed these alternatives and if so how and to what degree of success. Is the Canadian public not entitled to know that at this stage?
I also ask myself some other questions, and I will conclude with them. I ask myself if the so-called Progressive Conservative Government of Canada understands the potential danger of this attack for world stability. Does the Government not realize that with this attack, the United States may have moved the world one step closer to midnight, the hour of World War III? Does the Government of Canada not realize that if Spain, France, Italy and Greece are opposed to the attack on Libya, and these are countries across the street from Libya, so to speak, there must be reason for this that we, comfortably sheltered by distance and the Atlantic Ocean, must understand and take into account in the formulation of our own foreign policy? I also ask myself if the Government of Canada does not realize that this attack is more than just a matter between the United States and Libya. It is an issue that could escalate into a world-wide conflagration.
My conclusion would be this: these are dangerous times. In part they are dangerous because the West is bereft of constructive leadership and resourceful initiatives. Considering how our country contributed to peacekeeping and peacemaking in the fifties, the sixties, the seventies and the early eighties, the inevitable question, almost in the form of a cry, is: "Where are you, Canada?"


Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add some thoughts of my own to tonight's debate and I would like to say quite genuinely that I have learned from every speech made tonight. This particular tragedy that is being lived right before us is the kind of tragedy that encourages Members of

April 15, 1986
Parliament to think more deeply about foreign affairs and to think about the principles that define a country. That, of course, is flawed a bit by this feeling of tremendous distaste and concern for the violence that is sweeping the Middle East.
I would like to share with the House by way of introduction to my comments a preliminary conclusion I am drawing from the travels of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations as it deals with matters of this sort. 1 am finding that Canadians are perhaps more than ever before feeling vulnerable to international events. They are feeling more captive of what is happening outside of Canada than ever before. I am not speaking simply of commodity or oil prices or of trading arrangements but of international terrorism and arms control. This feeling of vulnerability is a strong one. I would like to speak to that tonight and explain how I feel that what the Government is doing is trying to come to terms with that.
The second major conclusion I believe anyone would gather after travelling the country and listening to Canadians talk about international relations is the paradox that Canadians seem to be rather ambitious about what Canada can do in the world; we feel vulnerable but there also seems to be an insistence that Canada should act and try to help in what seems to be intractable conflicts around the world. There is a feeling of vulnerability but also, curiously, a feeling that Canada can do something. I believe both feelilngs are responded to in what the Government is trying to do in this tragic situation.
First, dealing with vulnerability, we find ourselves, together with virtually all members of the world community, grappling with the increasingly alarming and seemingly intractable problem of international terrorism. This terrorism is arising from the tensions and conflicts of the Middle East. Canadians have not been unaffected by this cruel scourge of our time. We need only remember the hijacking of the Egyptian aircraft in Malta which led to the death of two innocent Canadians, a mother and her young son. We cannot deplore strongly enough such terrible events and the increasing threat to all international travellers. That is a vivid, sad reminder of our vulnerability. Nevertheless, it is clear that terrorism is not an irrational phenomenon. To analyse it as being simply the work of madmen is deceiving. No, in our view, it has its roots in deep political conflicts. It will not be eradicated until these conflicts are addressed and resolved.
Clearly, the Canadian Government is deeply committed to doing all it can to assist efforts to find political settlements which will reduce the tensions and frustrations which lead to desperate and cruel acts of terrorism and which will enable the countries and peoples of the Middle East to live together in peace. At the same time, even in our pursuit of these political settlements, we recognize the necessity for firm actions to deter those who would use terrorism to their own ends. I repeat, we recognize the necessity for firm action to deter those who will use terror as an instrument of state policy.
As a member of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations, I was privileged to preside over an extremely productive panel on international terrorism held in Fredericton last month. In that peaceful town, it seemed strange to be speaking about terrorism. However, we had a vivid and very useful discussion of that subject and I commend it to the House as reported in issue 46 of the committee proceedings. As I indicated then, it is my view that if we are going to be constructive internationally, we will have to become more tough minded. Canadians cannot simply retreat behind sentiments and vain hopes. We have to analyse toughly and be willing to take tough actions.
One of the conclusions of the panel discussion was that while most international terrorism is poltically motivated and sometimes the result of political grievances which we recognize to be genuine, nonetheless acts of terrorism try to force compliance with political demands through violence and murder.
Whatever the motivations, these acts must be unequivocably condemned. It was unanimous among the panelists and among members of the committee. Indeed it became clear in that discussion that terror is not an abstraction. It is a psychological strategy and a physical strategy. This being so, it must be responded to not only psychologically with words but with physical reply at times. In addition, we found that terrorist organizations, whatever their original political objectives, tend to become self-sustaining. This is the terrible irony of terrorism. Over time, some terrorist organizations become increasingly less concerned with the political solution which presumably led to their formation in the first place and start to jockey for prominence and try to intimidate more than other terrorist groups. While the resolution of tensions such as those in the Middle East may well help to reduce the level of terrorism, it remains essential for the international community to take firm and courageous stands against terrorist acts so that these organizations will not proliferate or start to develop a life of their own almost independent of chances for a political solution.
At the conclusion of that day's discussion, it seemed to be clear to all those who participated that it was state-inspired terrorism, terrorism which is encouraged and perpetrated by Governments, that is particularly offensive and really calls for the clearest response. In fact, it may be the form of terrorism with which one can come to terms because at least one can communicate with a Government.
Following that discussion and following our examination as a Government in the last two years, there have been clear actions. Canadians are ambitious about what Canada can do in the world. They are insistent that it do something to protect its own citizens. I would argue that the Government has done this. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a number of economic measures against Libya because of our deep concern that that Government was actively involved in
April 15, 1986

supporting terrorist activities. That seems to have been acknowledged by all Members of the House tonight. These measures supplemented earlier steps which we took to limit our bilateral relations with Libya. The new measures about which we have heard tonight included a ban on the export of oil drilling equipment containing western technology. Canadians were advised not to take the jobs vacated by Americans leaving Libya. We cautioned Canadians in Libya then, and again last week, about the potential risks to their personal security. Other measures were mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
Following the recent terrorist attacks against the West Berlin discotheque, the only criticism of what I have heard tonight is that that terrorist bombing was not a surgical act either. It was an indiscriminate act. We have accepted President Reagan's assertion that there is substantial evidence linking Libya directly to terrorist acts and plans for further measures against American targets in Europe. How much do we have to let happen before we reply? There can be no doubt, as the Prime Minister said, that terrorism is reprehensible, an evil which all responsible members of the world community must strive to eliminate. All this is clear. Nonetheless, it is a matter for regret that the situation should have become so serious in that part of the world as to lead the United States to feel obliged to take military action. The Government and I hope that this reply will be sufficient and that restraint on both sides will be the future pattern.
The eradication of terrorism will require a concerted effort by us and what we do in the House and by the entire international community, which we consider must address not only the manifestations of terrorism but also its causes that lie in large part in tensions and instability in the Middle East, and which can only be resolved on a lasting basis by political solutions and negotiated settlements. We have heard a great deal about this in committee, in the House and in past parliamentary committees. Canada has long supported an approach of political solutions and negotiated settlements. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) reiterated that last week during his visit to that region.
Clearly the most serious and destabilizing conflict in the Middle East is the Arab-Israeli dispute. That was clearly outlined by the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) earlier tonight. Canada's long-standing position has been in support of a just, lasting and global settlement of this dispute. We are clear that this settlement must be based on resolutions Nos. 242 and 338 of the Security Council.
The House also knows our support for the well-being of Israel as a secure and independent state. This is a fundamental principle of Canadian foreign policy. Israel must be secure and it must be an independent state. However, we also recognize- and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has recently reaffirmed this-that there can be no lasting peace in the Middle East which does not take into account the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. This includes their right to participate fully in negotiations concerning their future and
5.0.	29
their right, as was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few days ago, to a homeland within the territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Consistent with our belief in the necessity of a negotiated settlement, Canada welcomed the efforts of King Hussein to initiate such a process, seeking to find a common position with the PLO which could open the way to negotiations with Israel. Canada's commitment to promoting and encouraging peaceful solutions to the conflicts and tensions in the Middle East is also at the heart of our position on another seemingly impossible regional conflict. I refer here to the awful war between Iran and Iraq about which we do not hear much in the House. It is now well into its sixth year. It is a war which has caused hideous loss of life and human suffering and to which there is sadly no end in sight. Like other Middle Eastern conflicts, this war has its roots in old historic grievances aggravated by a more modern clash between two neighbours with radically opposed religious loyalties as well as by a conflict between political and cultural values. In this case it is Iraq's secularism versus Iran's commitment to the Islamic fundamentalism propounded by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Like other Middle Eastern conflicts, this war is particularly alarming to any civilized observer because of its potential to draw in against their will other moderate neighbours such as the countries of the Gulf.
Our priority as the Government of Canada in this instance, in conjunction with like-minded members of the international community, has been to support strongly all mediation efforts. I refer particularly to the efforts of the Secretary General of the United Nations who is trying to reach a political rather than a military solution to the Gulf conflict.
In keeping with established policy, Canada has banned the exports of armaments to both parties in that conflict. Likewise, consistent with our desire to promote and strengthen respect for international conventions, Canada has been an active player in efforts to proscribe the use of chemical weapons in this war. This was made clear in the Canadian delegation's statement last month to the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. In addition, Canada has co-operated with other western states to prevent the export, to both belligerents, of chemicals used to manufacture such weapons.
Canada particularly welcomed the Security Council's resolution on the Iran-Iraq war, passed unanimously on February 24. This resolution called for an immediate ceasefire first, a return to internationally recognized boundaries second, and the initiation of negotiations toward a peaceful settlement. We have since conveyed Canada's position and support of these proposed measures to the Governments of Iran and Iraq, and we have urged them to comply.
While recognizing that the resolution of these political conflicts and tensions would not necessarily and of itself eradicate international terrorism, we believe that peaceful settlements could eliminate much of the political motivation

April 15, 1986
behind such acts. Instances of terrorism would then be both much reduced and more amenable to prior detection and appropriate policing action by the international community as a whole.
In conclusion, let me mention a wider point that affects this debate tonight. Not long ago I sent to my colleagues in the House a book sent to me by a constituent entitled How Democracies Perish outlining the vulnerability of democracies to all sorts of forms, but primarily terrorism. We do not have many democracies in this world, and they are vulnerable. They are vulnerable to acts of terrorism. This the United States has had to recognize. This, 1 think, all civilized people will recognize. Peaceful political settlement, especially with the long term objective of democratization of more and more countries, is both the process and objective of our policy. It is our hope this will soon penetrate the Middle East. Let us not give up on this, Mr. Speaker. Let us remember that regional conflicts have been resolved in the past. Regional conflicts can seem intractable but nothing is intractable. Let us resolve again tonight to do what we can to stop the spiral of violence and help bring that region to a new and genuine security.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) was referring a few minutes ago to an 11-year old boy who asked his father whether there was going to be a World War, when he heard the news about Libya. Mr. Speaker, I remember clearly that as a boy of nine, in 1961 I asked my mother and father the same question: Mom, Dad, is there going to be a World War? They answered: We don't know. We don't know.

It is with a sense of anger, shame and pain that I participate this evening in the debate on the events in Libya. I believe that all of us in this House should share the sense of shame that Canada's voice, which historically has spoken out for peace and against the use of violence to resolve international disputes, has been silenced. Not only has that voice which has been respected in international fora been silenced, but that voice has been joined in unison with the voice of the perpetrator of murder of innocent civilians.
I believe the response of the U.S. Government and of the President of the United States in this instance was fundamentally immoral. I say immoral because surely it cannot be right to suggest that by taking the lives of innocent Libyans, who had no dealings whatever with people in other countries, certainly no dealings with terrorism, that somehow we are reducing the risk of terrorism in other countries. It cannot be right to suggest that by paralyzing a 14 year-old Libyan boy for the rest of his life by breaking his spinal cord that we will in some way be reducing the likelihood that Colonel Khadafy may engage in acts of violence himself.
It cannot be seriously suggested that by murdering the 15 month-old adopted daughter of Colonel Khadafy that we will
in any way reduce the possibility that that man, who has certainly been an instrument of hatred, of intolerance, of antiSemitism and of violence will suddenly become a man of peace. No, Mr. Speaker, by adopting the approach that President Reagan has adopted, far from reducing the likelihood of violence, of the loss of life of innocent civilians, he is increasing the possibility of further death and further violence.
The message which he is giving to the people of this world is that we respond to terrorism with terrorism. 1 say terrorism, and I say state terrorism, because if we examine the definition of terrorism, I understand that to be the taking of innocent human life for political motives. Innocent human lives have been taken to send a political message by the President of the United States.
What is that message, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, the message is clear: Violence is being met with violence, murder with murder and terrorism with terrorism.

Government of New Zealand, in response to a murder on the Rainbow Worrier, to send the New Zealand bombers raining bombs on Paris, Marseilles, and Lyon? That kind of response to violence with violence inevitably leads to further deaths.
This act of state terrorism is in breach of international law. It is in breach of the fundamental rules of international ethics. As my colleagues have pointed out, there are other alternatives for responding to international terrorism. Tough economic sanctions are an important and effective means, when taken collectively, of responding to international terrorism.
1 note as well that it is important for us to recognize the hypocrisy in the approach of the American President. Are the lives of black South African children worth any less than the lives of other innocent people who are victims of terrorism? Black South African children are dying at the hands of their government, yet we hear nothing from "Rambo Reagan" about sanctions or terrorism against the Government of South Africa. That hypocrisy and silence is shameful.
Finally, and most fundamentally, surely we must recognize that the roots and seeds of terrorism are found, in many cases, and particularly in the context of the Middle East, in desperation and a sense of total powerlessness and lashing out against conditions of economic servitude, poverty, and injustice. Two million Palestinians have been uprooted from their land. A generation has grown up as strangers without any sense of roots in their own land on the West Bank and elsewhere.
Until we come to grips with the reality that the treatment of the Palestinians has been profoundly unjust by the Israeli occupying authorities on the West Bank, that it has discriminated against them, and has resulted in a denial of justice, we will not fully come to grips with the realities of the Middle East. My colleagues have spoken about the fundamental importance of a homeland on the West Bank for the Palestinian people living in an independent state in peaceful coexistence and mutual respect with the State of Israel.
All Members of the House condemn, without equivocation, terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in other countries. However, let us not be deluded into believing that we will reduce the level of intensity of such violence by responding in kind. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, the opposite will be the case. Ronald Reagan has argued that the Libyan attacks are state-sponsored terrorism. I say that a Government and a president which engages deliberately in bombing attacks on civilian targets is itself guilty of the terrorism which it proclaims to be attacking.
I expect my Government to speak out on that. I would have hoped that, during the consultations which we were told took place, my Government would have had the courage to tell President Reagan to stand back and examine the alternatives, as the European Community did. Instead of our Government taking that responsible approach, it was ready-aye-ready, full steam ahead. That is cause for sadness and shame today.
My colleagues have spoken of the importance of assuring the safety of the 1,300 Canadians in Libya. Indeed, that is a
5.0. 29
concern which all of us share. I hope that the Government has taken the steps necessary to ensure, if necessary, the evacuation of those Canadians who want to leave Libya.
In conclusion, I want to again emphasize my concern that Canada's voice has not spoken out against this act of international state terrorism. I sense that the support of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government of this country will be seen in the future as one of the gravest and most profound black marks in the history of the country. I feel a sense of sadness, shame, and anger that we have allowed this act to go by and that, indeed, we have approved it.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, terrorism is a threat to all of us. Most visibly, terrorism has killed and maimed thousands of innocent civilians around the world. Because terrorism has blurred the distinction between ends and means and led many in the world to accept violence as a means of settling disputes, it threatens world stability.
I believe that the American attack on Libya was wrong. It is not the way to deal with terrorism. First, it is stupid. Chances are that this attack will trigger a wave of terrorist attacks which will go far beyond what we have seen to date. People who engage in terrorism will not be restrained by the American action of yesterday. Libya was a convenient target for the United States, given some of the outrageous statements of Colonel Khadafy. It was easy for the United States to attack Libya under these circumstances. Why not Syria? Why not Iran? Those countries could just as easily, and probably have, been behind some of the recent terrorist attacks which have occurred in the Middle East and Europe.
Second, I have it on good authority that the attack is a violation of international law. During this debate in the House this evening, no one has quoted from the United Nations Charter. I would like to do so, but without any sense of superior authority. I just had a good teacher a number of years ago. I would like to read from Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which was referred to in one or two interventions.
It states:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any stale, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Yes, we have heard President Reagan state that the American action was in self-defence. However, I again quote from the UN Charter, this time from Article 51 which describes the right of self-defence:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, ...
I am not aware of any armed attack against a member state of the UN which would lead to the American response. Therefore, quite clearly, the American response was a violation of international law and the UN Charter. It was not justified under Article 2 and it is not deemed to be an act of selfdefence under Article 51.

April 15, 1986
I am astounded by the response of the Government of Canada as we have heard it in the House over the last few days and from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) earlier this evening. He stated that the U.S. had no alternative. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of international law and of the UN Charter, and the basic principles which should govern the conduct of nations.
As well, I believe the American action will add to anti-Americanism and diminish any influence the U.S. has in that part and other parts of the world. I believe the moral position of the U.S. would have been much stronger if it had made greater attempts to deal with terrorism within the bounds of international law. I am not aware of any resolution submitted at the UN in recent weeks as a response to the bombing in Berlin. 1 believe that, given the right circumstances, it would be possible to get the Soviet Union to agree to a tough proposal before the Security Council. Over the last few nights I saw Mr. Arbatov on television. He has special responsibilities in the Soviet Union for western relations. He took great pains to distance the Soviet Union from Libya. 1 saw no understanding of that in the response of the U.S. and its spokespersons in recent days.
This attack is a tragedy because we are seeing a breakdown of international order. It demonstrates the extent to which international legal systems and the UN have been unable to cope with terrorism. It demonstrates the extent to which a policy of appeasement of terrorists has undermined the trust and confidence between western democracies. Many countries have accommodated or accepted terrorism. They have not imposed sanctions or used the UN or other international agencies to deal with terrorism and its causes. I have to question whether the U.S. did all that is humanly possible within international law. I ask any Member in this House: Why is it that the U.S., with all its power, was not able to get the Europeans to agree to adequate sanctions? What does that tell us about American foreign policy? What does that tell us about our position and our ability to influence other countries in this world?
We have to develop methods of dealing with terrorism. I suggest that public opinion will play a vital role in dealing with terrorism. However, a vital element in mobilizing public opinion is evidence. You have to present people with evidence which will allow them to come to the necessary conclusions and adopt sanctions. Yesterday Mr. Reagan said that he had irrefutable evidence, but none of us have seen it. He has said he cannot produce it because that would damage the U.S. intelligence system. That is not the first time he has said that. I would like to quote an article from The New York Times of January 9, 1986, which dealt with this problem of evidence. It said:
Claiming "irrefutable evidence" of Colonel Khadafy's role in the airport killings, Mr. Reagan was unwilling to produce it. He said the location of 15 terrorist training camps was known but wouldn't say where "because there are things that should not be revealed."
Such diffidence leaves Mr. Reagan looking like a chronic blusterer. Where are the photographs of those camps? Why aren't they included in the State
Department's white paper on Libya's offenses? If they cannot be published, why not at least circulate them among allied leaders, as President Kennedy did when he sent emissaries to document the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962?
The New York Times conceded that the President's options were limited but said:
The way to enlarge them is to share the evidence of Libya's complicity.
That was on January 9 and we have yet to see the evidence.
I also feel a sense of shame because the Government of Canada has been a party to an attack which destroys international order. It has been reported in the media that the United Kingdom and Canada are the only two countries in the world which approved this action. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in recent days has proudly said that he was consulted. He was made fully aware of American actions. What does that mean?
Did the Government approve the general idea of an attack? The Deputy Prime Minister said that the U.S. had no alternative. I must believe that the Government came to that conclusion too readily. Did the Government even attempt to convince the U.S. that alternatives were available? Did the Government say that we have imposed sanctions on Libya but we are prepared to upgrade those sanctions? We are prepared to take more increased sanctions. Let us try that before we resort to an armed attack. Was the Government given a list of targets? Did it approve such a list? Were they military targets? Did the Canadian Government tell the U.S. that civilian targets should not be hit? The Deputy Prime Minister earlier this evening said that Canada expressed concern for Canadians. Canada gave the U.S. a list of the locations where Canadians are located in Libya. What does that indicate? Does it indicate that we are only concerned about Canadian lives? Is that the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada?
In trying to come to grips with terrorism perhaps we, who are in Government, might take some advice from younger people. They seem to have more cogent, rational, reasonable answers than we in Government have sometimes. Recently a group of Jewish students lobbied Parliament Hill to encourage the Government to take action against terrorism. These students represented the group, North American Jewish Students Network Canada. They urged three things of the Government and of parliamentarians. They urged the establishment of a joint Senate parliamentary committee on terrorism. They urged the implementation of effective legislation to seek out, investigate, prosecute and punish terrorists and their supporters. They urged that known terrorists and representatives of terrorist organizations be barred from entry into Canada for any purpose. Did they suggest that we should strike at Libya? No. I would suggest again that young people perhaps provide wiser counsel than we get sometimes in the area of Government.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote a letter that appeared in Le Devoir on January 18 of this year, signed by a
April 15, 1986

Mario Lavoie, member of a Canadian delegation to the International Youth Conference held in Kingston, Jamaica from April 6 to April 9, 1985. This young man quoted a resolution adopted by young people representing some 50 countries. In their resolution, they said, and I quote:
Violent attacks against individuals can never be justified in any way. Few priorities are more important than that of imposing severe sanctions on groups or governments that encourage such practices by training, equipping, sheltering and supporting the people concerned.
In concluding, this young Canadian said:
The recommendation is clear. It is now up to the governments of the West. If the situation is not remedied as soon as possible, it may become uncontrollable.
Mr. Speaker, we know this letter failed to get the desired results, because the Governments of our western countries have failed to take joint action to impose sanctions on those who propagate terrorism. And although it has made some attempts in this direction, the Canadian Government has failed to do everything in its power to do so.

I am sure there is considerable public support in the United States for the action of its Government. I am sure that many Canadians probably support this action also. The gut feeling that anybody has is, finally, we did something about it. Ronald Reagan gave it to them. What we feel in our guts is not the way we are supposed to govern countries. It is not the kind of feeling which is supposed to govern the actions of nations in this world. It is our heads which count. I am dearly afraid that the wiser counsels, the wiser heads in the American Government and in the Government of Canada have not prevailed in recent days. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: I want to begin my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by complimenting those who have entered the debate today. I would say that we do not all share the convictions of our colleagues opposite, but they have spoken with the courage of their conviction, and that is what this House and this debate is all about.
On the Government side we have tried to lay out in our comments, first with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), the extent to which the Government of Canada went to ensure the safety of Canadians in Libya. I think that the case was stated very clearly by the Deputy Prime Minister. He also made reference to our general over-all Government response to these very serious events in Libya. The Minister of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) dealt with the Middle East and the very, very tragic situation of terrorism which reigns there. The Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) very capably put forward a response of the Government to terrorism and our deep conviction that terrorism is a problem which is stalking the entire free world and that we have to do something about it. My colleague from London West wrapped up, so to speak, and dealt with issues, particularly from his perspective as the chairman of a very important joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. I think we have had generally a high tone of debate. We have not had heckling,
and I think I speak for all Members of the House when I say that that is because we realize that this is a very serious situation.
We have heard eloquent statements on the crisis in the Mediterranean and on terrorism in general. Some very vivid remarks were made about Ireland by my colleague from Brantford and about terrorism in general, then about the root political causes which bring us to this crisis. We all realize that these problems have to be resolved by responsible members of the international community acting together.
This Government and our Party have been very forthright in our comments on terrorism. I want to reiterate the Prime Minister's statement of January 10 when he said:
We must look to concerted international action to achieve our objective. We must redouble our efforts, along with our friends and allies in the community of nations to establish the necessary security measures to protect effectively our citizens. We must strive for meaningful international co-operation to this end. We must make better use of the economic summit group and the International Civil Aviation Organization, as well as other forms to achieve these goals.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made special reference to the word "concerted". In the long run, no action against internatiional terrorism will be possible, effective or successful except through international co-operation.
As the United Nations has recognized, terrorism is a worldwide problem that must be tackled through the co-operative efforts of all nations.
We believe there are three areas which deserve intensified Canadian efforts. Within the context of the economic summit, we have already achieved certain success and co-operation on air piracy. We feel that we should look to expanding this cooperation and building on the arrangement which is already in place. Within the International Civil Aviation Organization we should seek, through the Canadian representative, further cooperation on air security measures. International confidence in what is really a remarkable world-wide air travel system that has been developed since World War Ii is fully justified. We must work at sustaining that effort. The adoption of vigorous methods through the ICAO is a vital element in achieving that goal.
We believe we must take practical steps to build upon the body of international law so as to fill in any gaps which may now exist which allow terrorists to attack aircraft. For example, I pose the question: Should we consider the possibility of a convention on international co-operation on airport security so that we could all share the experiences and methods that various countries use to catch the terrorist before that act of terrorism which we all deplore takes place? if we were to do so, perhaps we could eliminate the tragedies of Vienna and Rome so that they are never repeated and we never witness those shattering pictures of innocent people suffering from the attacks of terrorism.

April 15, 1986
Perhaps we should consider further agreements among nations to forestall incidents such as that of the Achille Lauro hijacking.
We are all fully conscious of the intractability and the bitterness which the tensions and conflicts of the Middle East have engendered. These threaten not only that region but the peace of the entire world. The risk is growing, as we all realize. That is why we are involved in this debate tonight. The risk is growing as problems of economic adjustment due to declining oil revenues pose an economic challenge to the moderates and peacemakers of that region. The unresolved Arab-Israeli dispute and the senseless and bitter fighting in the Iran-Iraq war provide a somber background to the issue which brings us to this debate tonight.
As the House will know, the Secretary of State for External Affairs recently concluded a very successful trip to the Middle East. I am sure all Members will agree that he spoke eloquently of the need to resolve the region's problems. He noted how countries outside the region-countries such as Canada- could help provide the conditions and encouragement that would assist in making that peace possible. He spoke of Israel's right to secure and recognize boundaries. He also spoke of the right of the Palestinians to a homeland within a clearly defined territory-the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We are on record as saying to both sides that there must be a recognition of this problem and an understanding of each other's position.
If the international community could work to achieve peace in the Middle East and resolve those problems which have been with us for so long and have alienated and embittered a generation of young Palestinians and Israelis, it would remove one of the elements which contributes to the causes of the problems. Many people claim that if this alienation and antiwestern feeling that it engenders continue to grow, it will feed the terrorism that we see today.
Canadians are among the most travelled people in the world and mention has been made of the number of Canadians working in Libya. I do not want to overstate the problem but the fact that we travel so much exposes our people to certain risks. The diversity and the ability of Canadians to work in certain fields make it impossible for us to turn into ourselves. We cannot avoid the risks and the problems of international
contact and commerce because it is our life blood. Our national reality demands that we work with determination and vigour in conjunction with other members of the world community. For that reason, Canadians have a very real stake in a concerted attack on terrorism itself and its root political causes so that we can overcome this scourge.
It has been stated that we accept President Reagan's assertion that there is substantial evidence directly linking Libya to terrorist acts and plans for further measures against American targets in Europe. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that there is no doubt that terrorism is reprehensible and an evil which all responsible members of the world community must strive to eliminate. Nevertheless, it is a matter for regret that the situation should have become so serious as to lead the United States to feel obliged to take military action. We hope this will be sufficient and will lead to further restraint.
Let me say in closing, the eradication of terrorism will require a concerted effort by the international community which we believe must address not only the manifestations of terrorism but also its causes, which lie, in large part, in the tensions and instability in the Middle East. Terrorism can only be resolved on a lasting basis by political solutions and negotiated settlements. This is an approach which Canada under various Governments, including the previous Government and ourselves, has long supported. I am sure 1 speak for all Members of the House when I say that we all want a resolution by political means and a negotiated settlement of the root cause of those problems in the Middle East. This is a position that we all support and which the Secretary of State for External Affairs reiterated during his recent visit. I see that you are indicating that it is twelve o'clock, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of all Members, I want to thank you for being with us during this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: It being twelve o'clock midnight, pursuant to Standing Order 29(13) I declare the motion carried.
This House stands adjourned until later this day at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3( 1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.01 a.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, April 16, 1986