1986-04-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government response to petitions Nos. 331-3, 331-7, 331 -11, 331-15, 331-27, 331-28, 331-29, 331-30, 331-33 and 33137.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 7(2) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1 have the honour to table in both official languages the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the 1984-85 crop year.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the third report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association in both official languages.



STRIKING


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Twenty-Eighth Report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
# * *


PETITIONS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 33 residents of the National Capital Regional who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take their concerns into consideration and reject the proposal to build an embassy on the Mile Circle.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, once again 1 have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, from the constituents of the southern part of the Province of New Brunswick expressing their concern with regard to the current assessment being conducted by Canadian National into its maintenance facilities across Canada. The petitioners are concerned that any results of that study that would downgrade in any way the facility in Moncton would have a drastic effect upon the economic wellbeing of the Province of New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of an application under Standing Order 29 from the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).

April 10, 1986
Order Paper Questions MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 29


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday you ruled on a motion that was somewhat similar to this, but I believe there are at least two items of which you were perhaps not aware at the time that I would like to bring to your attention today. The first is that the Legislature of Saskatchewan spent the day yesterday discussing this very subject on the basis of it being an urgent and pressing matter for the economy of Saskatchewan. I think the west part of the country is a very important part of the economy of Canada and the decision that was made on Monday impacts very heavily on the people of the West.
A group of farmers from that area of the country have to use the decisions made this week to decide what it is they should be planting. Those decisions are not made lightly or quickly. The farmers have to know whether or not the decision the Government has made is final. They have to know whether there will or will not be deficiency payments. Therefore, we say that this debate is of an urgent nature and have posed the question in a little broader sense again today.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has given me notice. May I remind him, as I perhaps should have reminded his colleagues yesterday, that what is intended when one rises to put the application is that only the letter that has been given to the Speaker should be read. The Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) came very close to paraphrasing that letter. The reason I say this is that the only information the Chair has with which to answer the application is that which is contained in that letter.
I received the application of the Hon. Member on time. I am not yet persuaded that the application does meet the terms of the rule as it is envisaged in our Standing Orders.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 534.


Mr. Angus: 1.	In the past ten years, what was the cost of all improvements and upgrading of facilities related to the movement of grain at each of the major ports in Canada and which were paid for or legislated by the government?
2.	What expenditures are planned for future upgrading of such ports?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: 1.	In the past ten years, the federal government has spent approximately $6.5 million on improvements and upgrading of grain facilities at Ports Canada: $3.1 million on upgrading of the dust control system in the Halifax elevator, and $3.4 million on other grain related improvements such as dredging, solar heating, tug replacement (to be completed in 1986) at the Port of Churchill. Ports Canada has also undertaken (from port generated funds) dust control improvements projects at elevators in Montreal ($3.0 million), Prescott ($2.2 million). Port Colborne ($2.4 million) and Churchill ($0.3 million) for a total of $7.9 million, to conform to Labour Canada standards for airborne dust in the work environment.
In addition, the federal Government contributed $30.4 million towards the construction of infrastructure for a new grain elevator constructed by a consortium of grain companies at Ridley Island, Port of Prince Rupert.
2.	Over the next five years, federal Government funded grain related improvements are planned only at Churchill, and are estimated to cost $13.9 million: $7.6 million for dust control and $6.3 million for berth deepening.

[ Translation]


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker if question No. 533 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 533 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Did the then Minister of the Environment travel to France and Sweden in April 1985 and to Paris, Corsica, Helsinki and Leningrad in June and July 1985 and, if so (a) what was the purpose of the trips (b) was the purpose changed or altered and, if so, for what reason (cl what was the duration of the trips (d) who accompanied the Minister and was it at taxpayers' expense (e) what official events did the Minister attend and what events were arranged (i) prior to the Minister's departure from Canada (ii) after her departure (f) how many days were devoted to official business (g) what was the cost of the trips?
2.	Did the Minister reimburse the government for any portion of the trips and, if so, in what amounts?
3.	Did an aide or employee of the Minister travel to Paris in the week prior to the visit to France and Sweden and, if so, (at for what purpose (b) at what cost?
Return tabled.
April 10, 1986


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, we are now working under the new Standing Orders. I may recall that there are some questions on the Order Paper that require a reply within 45 days and other questions that do not. Upon checking today's Order Paper, I noticed there were some questions dated February 24, which means that 45 days have elapsed since these questions were put. I would therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he intends to reply to these questions tomorrow. There are at least six, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member inquiring as to whether or not we will meet the timetable tomorrow? I think he will find that we are making every effort to meet the timetable, and tomorrow at this time I will probably be able to give the Hon. Member the news that we have.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the point was well understood. Today is the forty-fifth day since at least five or six questions were put on the Order Paper. The new rules indicate that the Government must respond within those 45 days. Since the Parliamentary Secretary has not responded to them today, does he intend to do it tomorrow? We are going to be flexible.


Philip Derek Lewis: I am sorry, perhaps I did not understand the Hon. Member's presentation. I thought he said that tomorrow was the last day. If Hon. Members have requested replies- and the Hon. Member will know that we have replied to several petitions under the new rules-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am talking about questions.


Philip Derek Lewis: -we will make every effort to reply to as many of them as possible. I will look into the matter and get back to the Hon. Member tomorrow vis-a-vis the petitions which have not been responded to.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Questions.


Philip Derek Lewis: Questions, 1 am sorry.

Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Competition Tribunal Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Langelier) that Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the conclusion of business yesterday and prior to the adjournment of the House, we endeavoured to determine whether we had reached the end of debate. At that time the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon-


Mr. Keeper:: Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Was it not the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: All right, that is fine.


Mr. Speaker:: At the time the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) had the floor. He indicated that he wished to debate. He is not here to complete his speech, let us put it that way. Therefore, resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to-


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mean to interrupt the Hon. Member, but since the Parliamentary Secretary raised a point of order, I should like to raise another one. I should like to know if the Minister intends to be absent for the third day in a row while we are discussing his legislation in the House. I think it is very important legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the Hon. Member has a viewpoint, but I think he knows that it is not a point of order.


André Ouellet: If it is not a point of order, it is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has put his view on the record, but he has not raised a proper point of order, let me put it that way.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-91 today. To date the debate has been a very intelligent, which I believe reflects the seriousness of Members of Parliament in terms of what is now very clearly happening in the country, that is, the continuing move to more and more corporate concentration. I am

April 10, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
referring not only to corporate concentration in a political sense but to the fact that more and more of the control of the Canadian economy is falling into fewer and fewer hands. When more and more economic power falls into fewer and fewer hands, those few hands are given some significant political muscle as well.
When we consider that about 50 per cent of the value of stocks traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange are controlled by nine Canadian families, a picture begins to emerge of corporate concentration which would never be tolerated in most industrialized nations. Even the United States, that bastion of capitalism, has sufficient anti-combines legislation which would not enable the extent of corporate concentration that has become a reality in Canada to occur in that country.
Year after year attempts have been made by various Governments, particularly successive Liberal Governments, to bring forward legislation which would tend to restrict corporate concentration. However, inevitably, because of the corporate lobby, successive Liberal administrations have never brought a significant piece of legislation to the floor of the House of Commons.
Today we are debating Bill C-91. While it may be recognized as a step in the right direction, it really has insufficient teeth to make any significant dint in the trend toward corporate concentration in Canada. Obviously takeovers in this country have been increasingly dramatically; mergers and takeovers are accelerating. In the 1960s the average number of takeovers per year were 253. During the 1970s that increased to 382 corporate takeovers on an annual basis. In the 1980s- and we can only measure what happened in the first half of this decade-it would appear that about 522 corporate takeovers per year have already occurred, which indicates a significant acceleration. This means that more and more of the economic activity within Canada is being controlled by fewer and fewer corporations.
Since 1975, the hundred largest companies in Canada have been involved in more than 150 mergers and takeovers, and more than 25 per cent of the growth of these large companies has been from financial transactions rather than the development of new products or new growth in the market-place, so to speak. At a time when we ought to be more concerned than we are in terms of finding ways and means of providing employment for unemployed Canadians-and in my estimation the track record of the Government in this regard is rather abysmal-we see corporate takeovers and mergers taking place. This almost inevitably results in a net loss of jobs. As corporations take over other corporations, they are not creating any new business. They are not creating any new enterprises, any new product lines or new jobs. They are simply concentrating their economic power.
The most insidious type of takeover and merger is the one which is on our minds today, that is, the takeover by Imasco of Genstar. What is particularly insidious about it is that it is an example of a non-financial institution, which has vast holdings, taking over one of the largest financial institutions in Canada.
Let me quote the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Hon. Member for Missisauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who said, "Imasco is buying a bank".
We have seen this trend develop in the last while with Branscan, Trilon, Power Corporation and the Power Financial Corporation, with financial and non-financial institutions merging and melding. The concern is that this will give some unfair advantage to the corporate giants which have their own financial institutions. Self dealing will inevitably result.
There are many classic cases of self dealing, of conflict of interest, when unscrupulous corporate leaders have taken advantage of their access to financial corporations in which they own major shares. We do not have to go any further than the famous Leonard Rosenberg and his trust company. Seaway, Greymac and Crown Trust. They were making loans to other interests of Rosenberg that were totally inappropriate in terms of using depositors' money.
If Imasco is allowed to control the largest trust company in Canada, the sixth largest financial institution in Canada, namely Canada Trustco, will this enable Imasco in its operations to have special opportunities in the free market place? I think the concern of every Member of Parliament here is that in fact it would.
Having sat on the Finance Committee now for a number of years, let me suggest that there are hardly any issues on which all of the members of the Finance committee agree. I can recall only three or four instances where the collective members, reflecting all the political Parties in the House of Commons, agreed. One of those issues was that we should not permit financial institutions and non-financial institutions to meld, particularly when the ownership was over 10 per cent. There was a unanimous motion of the committee to that effect in its report. It was a unanimous motion of the committee the other night when it examined the Imasco Genstar situation.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, on that committee are some very thoughtful and experienced financial people. We heard witnesses from the trust companies and from the financial industries of Canada. People made the point very clearly. After a great deal of thoughtful pondering and reflection members of the Finance committee unanimously agreed that the action we are seeing take place in Canada today, the takeover by Imasco of Genstar is not in the best interests of Canada or Canadians.
The other night in the Finance committee I put that very question to the Superintendent of Insurance, Mr. Robert Hammond, who is responsible for monitoring and supervising the trust companies of Canada. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable individuals when it comes to trust companies and the role they play in the Canadian economy. I asked him if, in his opinion, this particular type of takeover was in the best interests of Canada. His answer was that he could not identify any compelling reasons to make that case. I am
April 10, 1986

convinced there is not a single Member of the House of Commons in his or her heart of hearts who believes that the Imasco takeover of Genstar is in the best interest of Canada, Canadians or the future of the Canadian economy.
The decision is clearly now in the hands of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), who has the authority under the Bill now before the House, retroactive to the end of November, 1985, to stop this transaction and to say here and now that the Government of Canada will not tolerate the takeover of financial institutions by non-financial institutions.
If the Government were wise enough, it would follow the recommendations of the New Democratic Party in the White Paper where we recommended that financial institutions, such as banks and large trust companies, should abide by the 10 per cent rule, that no group ought to own more than 10 per cent of a bank. Those are the rules we have today. 1 believe when you look at the large trust companies in Canada, there is no logic, no justification for not having that 10 per cent rule apply to them.
If that were the case, this discussion and concern, now reflected in the House of Commons for many days, would not be in evidence. This takeover would not be allowed.
In closing, we oppose this so-called competition legislation, because we see that it will not result in more fair competition. In fact, quite the contrary. This Bill does very little toward easing the accelerating corporate economic and political concentration emerging, best reflected, as I said earlier, in nine families controlling 50 per cent of the value of the Toronto Stock Exchange.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the floor, and I would like to say a few words about this competition legislation.
First of all, it is clear that this is an extremely complex Bill which required months of preparation. Several ministers with responsibilities in this area have worked on the subject, and although the Bill is not perfect, there will be discussions in committee. The Official Opposition intends to support the principle of the Bill and help improve the present situation and protect consumers against excessive concentration.
When we look at the problem as a whole, and we realize that a limited number of families and corporate groups control over 50 per cent of the Canadian stock market, on the exchanges in Toronto and Montreal, there is reason for concern not only about the consumer but about the survival of our free enterprise system. I have often told businessmen, when I had occasion to speak to them as a colleague or as a politician, that excessive concentration is probably the greatest enemy of free entreprise, a principle they tend to uphold in their professional associations. When faced with excessive concentration, not just of economic activities in general but in a specific sector, which is very similar to a monopoly situation, I thought it was clear that if voters had a choice between a
Competition Tribunal Act
public monopoly and a private monopoly, they, or our democratic system in general, would opt for the State monopoly. I think that, in this respect, the business community may be somewhat to blame for Government intervention in this area.
I therefore support the idea of legislation that will allow and promote increased competition and make it possible to avoid concentration as far as feasible, in such a way that the consumer will benefit and that our enterprise system, which encourages individual initiative, will continue to prosper in this country.
Mr. Speaker, had this debate on the Bill before the House taken place two or three weeks or a month or two months ago, perhaps the context would have been different.
Today, in addition to the Bill before the House, there is another matter on our minds, and 1 am referring to a transaction that would place one of this country's largest trust companies under the control of Imasco.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to define the position we of the Liberal Party have taken on this matter. The report made to the House by the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs last November, says in Recommendation 58, which we approved, and since I have the English text, I will quote the recommendation in English:

58. That the Minister of Finance not approve any merger between Canada Trust and Canada Permanent Trust until an ownership policy for financial institutions has been developed and implemented.

Mr. Speaker, we endorsed this recommendation of the report tabled in the House by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) did not do anything. To my knowledge, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) did not intervene publicly to stop the deal between Genstar and Canada Trust. All of a sudden now, because Imasco seeks to do the same thing with Genstar, they are raising hell.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I personally approved Recommendation 58. More than that, we presented a minority report stating that in principle the Official Opposition did not agree with non-financial institutions being allowed to take over financial institutions, particularly larger ones. But I do not see any explanation, and I certainly intend to fight this one to ensure fairness. If the deal was good for Genstar, so it is for Imasco. What is good for Peter is also good for Jacques. If the Imasco deal is to be blocked, in the context of the Bill now under study concerning concentration, I will ask the Government to be consistent by honouring and implementing Recommendation 58 which was unanimously proposed to the House by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

April 10, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
If nothing comes out of Recommendation 58 I will ask the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), to take the same approach with respect to these two companies because they are not financial institutions.
I am saying to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) that we want fairness. If indeed these deals are now being blocked under some kind of principle, considering that nothing was done a few months back to stop a similar operation which was much more significant since it involved the merger of two companies, two trust companies, with the result that Canada Trust is now among the largest Canadian trust companies, if not the largest, well if the first deal was not blocked I fail to see why this one should be.
I would humbly suggest that in the case of these two companies, Genstar or Imasco, both have been behaving as good corporate citizens in this country. I do not see why the Genstar deal should be okayed and the Imasco deal rejected. That would amount to outright injustice. Nor do I see why the Conservatives should be inconsistent if the law is enforced and if they are quite prepared to fight for that law and that principle. They simply must not change the rules in the middle of the game; having allowed Genstar to merge Canada Permanent with Canada Trust there is no way they can now prevent Imasco from doing the same thing, because the situation is similar in terms of these deals.
If the law is enforced, I shall be in complete agreement with Recommendation 58. However, if it is not enforced, I would have to say that there hits been a lot of hypocrisy in some of the activities we have witnessed and the comments we have heard.
This is why I say that there must be some sense of equity. On the whole issue of the concentration of power, we must not act too quickly either, because we could prevent other smaller groups from organizing to compete with the larger groups, especially if the Government does not have the courage to dismantle these larger groups. I am thinking of much smaller groups which must become organized to provide effective competition for the consumers. I humbly submit that if the present situation is maintained and if the Genstar deal made last November and finalized in January is not changed and if the Imasco deal is blocked, there will be a basic inequity which could have been avoided if the Government had shown its colours as soon as the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs made this unanimous recommendation.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I come back to what I was saying at the beginning, namely, that it is important to have legislation to limit concentration, that this legislation must have teeth and that we must ensure that there is a competitive capacity in our Canadian system to protect consumers and free enterprise; but to meet this objective, we must act fairly and equitably so
that legal entities from whatever region of Canada will be treated fairly and equitably.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are certainly not ready for the question. I wonder why government Members are so anxious to rush this Bill through the House, rather than giving it full and adequate debate.
The legislation now before the House, Bill C-91, purports to be competition legislation. Obviously, with its level of corporate concentration, Canada requires effective competition legislation. My colleague who spoke a few minutes ago mentioned that nine families control the vast majority of the companies on the Canadian stock exchange. That gives Canada an image similar to that of a banana republic. Corporate concentration is a real problem in the country and must be dealt with effectively.
We must ask why the Government is so anxious to rush this legislation through. Is it afraid to have the provisions of the legislation examined? Is it afraid of having an evaluation of what this legislation is capable of accomplishing? We oppose this lesgislation because it is weak. It is weak legislation which is meant to deal with a very difficult situation.
We know that the Government was faced with a challenge when it sought to introduce competition legislation. Over the last couple of decades the Liberals have played around with attempts to draft competition legislation. They always hesitated to bring such legislation before the House because they knew that once they drafted effective legislation they would run into opposition from the corporate community. Therefore, they danced around the issue rather than coming to grips with it.
We are not surprised that the Conservatives have not dealt with this matter effectively, because the problem of concentration of corporate economic power in the country is a very difficult one. Rather than dancing around the issue the Conservatives chose to water down their solution. Thin gruel is no answer, Mr. Speaker. We need effective legislation.
While this legislation purports to deal with monopoly, merger, and conspiracy, it is riddled with loopholes. One of the biggest loopholes in this legislation is a clause which refers to mergers which will lessen competition substantially. Through this loophole the Government can allow continued concentration of corporate economic power. The Government can say that it has legislation to assure competition, but if the economic activities result in the substantial lessening of competition, it has gone too far and will not be allowed.
April 10, 1986

High priced corporate lawyers will argue before a competition agency about whether competition will be increased to the benefit of the public, whether we are going too far in seeking to increase competition, and whether, in fact competition has been lessened "substantially", whatever that means. While the lawyers argue before judicial bodies, the concentration of economic power will continue to take place.
That is why we consider this legislation to be weak, ineffective, and to be legislation in name only. It lacks the required substance to deal with the fact that nine families control the vast majority of the companies on the Canadian stock exchange. This is clearly a terribly over-concentrated pattern of ownership.
We have to ask why the Conservative Government has come up with such weak legislation to deal with such a difficult problem. We do not have to look far to find the answer. Who have the Conservatives been listening to? We are not surprised when we learn that the Conservatives have listened very carefully to the five major business organizations who represent corporate interests in this country: The Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Grocery Products Manufacturers Association, and the Canadian Bar Association. When we have a Conservative Government with the ideology of big business, when we have a Government that runs its political machinery on the basis of donations from large corporate enterprises, then it is not surprising that it listens to the Business Council on National Issues.
What the Government must be severely criticized for is the fact that it has chosen to listen to the representatives of business and not those of ordinary Canadians. The Government has consulted with labour in a very token fashion. Yet it has consulted with the representatives of corporate enterprise in a detailed, clause-by-clause fashion. The Government has failed to listen to the Consumers' Association of Canada. Yet if there is any organization that should be listened to very carefully concerning competition legislation, surely it is a body representing the consumer. They are the ones who pay the price every time competition is decreased, every time a monopoly is created, and every time a merger takes place. The Conservatives have failed to listen to the ordinary Canadian expressing concern about the need for adequate competition legislation. They have failed to recognize the need for measures which will decrease the concentration of corporate ownership in this country. They have produced weak legislation precisely because of who they listen to. They listen to the representatives of corporate Canada and fail to listen to ordinary Canadians.
We are worried about the continued concentration of corporate ownership because it increases the disparities in wealth and adds to the poverty which exists, which in turn adds to the social injustices in our country. The fact that
Competition Tribunal Act
poverty has increased with the election of this new Government is no surprise. This legislation tells us why. The Government continues to condone ownership of the Canadian economy by fewer and fewer people, by nine families. If we are to have a true democracy it is necessary for wealth to be shared equitably. The trend towards increased corporate ownership goes in the opposite direction. We are also concerned about this trend because an economy owned by a few families undercuts political democracy. It allows for large corporations to finance a political party which, when elected, will serve business interests rather than those of ordinary Canadians.
It is time we had decent, effective competition legislation. The Government, rather than trying to rush this legislation through the House, should pull back to reconsider what it is doing and bring forward legislation which can work.
We are particularly concerned about the takeover by Imasco of Genstar. What this means is that a large corporate enterprise is able to buy its own bank. When it wants to borrow money, it can just reach into its other pocket. That is a very dangerous precedent to establish. It is a sad commentary that when we are dealing with competition legislation the Government has to bring in another piece of legislation to deal with this kind of takeover. It just shows how weak this legislation is. Clearly, if we allow large corporations to buy their own trust company or their own bank, we run real risks of conflict of interest, risks that depositors cannot have confidence that their money will be properly taken care of.
I see you indicating, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean I have one second or two seconds?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It means your time is up.


Cyril Keeper: It means my time is up? Perhaps my time for speaking in this House is up, but the time is up for this Government. It is time it brought in good legislation.


Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I think that there are two major points to consider in the Imasco deal and the Genstar-Canada Trust transaction. The first concerns a deal between associated corporations, especially between a financial institution and a non-financial institution. The concern raised by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) on this point seems indeed justified. In my opinion, because of the circumstances, the same policy must apply to the second transaction between Imasco and Genstar as to the first one between Genstar and Canada Trust. I think that the same mechanism must apply to both transactions.
The second aspect to be considered is the concentration of economic power in the hands of certain financial groups or certain families. I think that, in this regard, we should not be reacting to the concentration of power by dealing with isolated transactions. I think that what is needed now is a general set of rules to make an in-depth review of the concentration of

April 10, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
economic power in the hands of certain groups. If I remember correctly, in Canada, 46 per cent of all private corporations are concentrated in the hands of seven or eight families or financial groups. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, what I suggest is that the same mechanism must apply to the Imasco-Genstar transaction as to the Genstar-Canada Trust transaction. Otherwise, if we do not apply the same criteria to the two transactions, it might lead people to believe that there is a conflict between certain Ontario lobbies and interests in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I wanted to say about the Imasco-Genstar transaction.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be useful in the few minutes that I have to review very quickly some of the provisions of Bill C-91. I am going to start by looking at the existing competition law, just to remind ourselves just how wretchedly ineffective it has been in policing the market-place. I want to quote two well known competition analysts, William Stanbury and Gill Reschenthal-er who wrote this about our competition track record in Canada:
The Canadian anti-combines legislation is quite properly viewed by practitioners and academics-in Canada and abroad-as relatively weak. Recent decisions have further weakened the law.
The lack of sensitivity to the non-economic arguments for anti-trust enforcement and the concomitant absence of a fundamental distrust of economic power concentrations account, in large measure, for legislation which is largely behavioral in orientation and which relied exclusively on the criminal law until 1976.
This means we do not have either the motivation or the law to deal with competition issues, and the record bears this out. If we review the major aspects of our competition law we can see how barren the record of correction really is after 100 years of attempts at anti-competition law.
Let us look at that record. In all that time there has been one successful prosecution of illegal mergers, and I believe that was successful because the defendant pleaded guilty. There has been only one successful prosecution of monopoly of a market. Price discrimination is regarded by experts as unenforceable except under the most extreme conditions. What about conspiracy to fight fixed prices and share markets? This is regarded as weak, but workable, and has been found of limited use because of continuing court decisions. What about the question of misleading advertising and resale price maintenance? These have become a little more effective as a result of changes that were made to the Act in 1951 and again in 1969 respectively. There we have five major measures of an effective piece of legislation dealing with competition, and only two of them have been moderately effective. It has not been effective in legal mergers, monopoly of a market or price discrimination. When we get down to some of the market sharing and misleading advertising, we do occasionally find the legislation works on behalf of consumers.
There is no need to wonder why competition reform is necessary, or the reasons for bringing forth Bill C-91. What did we get? We do not seem to have the kind of remedies that are needed. We have recognized that the law courts do not seem to be a proper place for these kinds of cases to be dealt with. We have come up with a sort of halfway mixture of the tribunal and civil law procedures. We are not sure that this is going to solve the problem either.
How are we proposing to handle the monopoly or the abuse of a dominant position of a company that controls the market? In order to win a monopoly case the director of investigation and research now has to meet four basic tests. He must prove substantial control of a market; he has to prove that that control was exercised in a persistent and consistent manner; he has to prove that the anti-competitive act of that person or company means less competition; and the Crown has to prove that the practice that has been followed will lessen or prevent competition substantially. It is not clear what "substantial" means in the court.
Given these difficulties, meaning all four parts and the built-in defence that can be offered, that superior competitive performance brought these results about, means that many people who study this field say there is really little chance of a director winning any cases. Certainly Section 51 should be rigorously examined at committee level to ascertain whether its weaknesses mean that it will rapidly become just another inoperative section of the law.
We encounter the same problem in merger enforcement with this Bill. The director of investigation and research will have to demonstrate a "substantial" lessening of competition with another built-in defence that the merger brings "gains in efficiency". The defence is almost written into the Act by the method we have chosen in Bill C-91 to write the law. The confusion of the wording and the lack of any number of successful cases in past law do not give any ground for optimism for people who are worried about the competition field.
With regard to conspiracy, the third area of practice that we had hoped this law would be able to tighten up in favour of consumers and people in Canada, we find that price fixing, market sharing and restricting entry to competitors is at the heart of any competition law, and yet Canada's law in this area has been critically less effective in recent years.
It has been shown, for example, that prior to 1976 the Crown won close to 90 per cent of all conspiracy cases, but since that time the Crown has been winning just over 50 per cent. Bill C-91 does not really change the provisions of Section 32(1) to tighten this up, and we are continuing with a change in the Bill which does nothing to deal with the problem of conspiracies.
When we go into some analysis of conspiracy cases we find that the average fine has been about $71,000 for the period between 83 and 85, which means it has only kept pace with the
April 10, 1986

inflation rate since 1900. In effect there has been no change in the way we treat conspiracy in the courts since the year 1900.
I see my time is coming near an end, so I would like to point out very quickly some of the other shortcomings in the Bill. This Bill leaves out many of the protections to consumers that were introduced in other Bills that pass. Let me give some of the aspects of consumer competition legislation that have been left out of this Bill.
There has been no provision to permit class actions, as we see in competition legislation in other countries. There is no means of offering substitute actions. The question of interlocking directorates and management restrictions is not permitted to be brought forward under this legislation, so the influence directors have, by sitting on a large group of different companies and using their information to carry it back and forth and perhaps use their influence to fix prices, cannot be looked at under this Bill. The abuse of intellectual property is not a subject for investigation under this Bill. Neither are agreements to restrict imports or exports subject to this Bill. We are living in a very international kind of economy, yet agreements to restrict imports or exports are beyond the relevance of this Bill, as, indeed, are international conspiracies. There are no amendments to the aspect of price discrimination in this Bill. I see no amendments to cover predatory pricing in this Bill. It is essentially a policital gesture designed to try and appease the public with the appearance of action, while leaving the structure of business totally unaffected. Bill C-91 is another Conservative Government triumph of symbolism over substance.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-91, An Act to establish the Competition Tribunal, provides the House with an opportunity to reflect on a number of matters, which I will attempt to do in the next 10 minutes.
First, 1 want to talk about the whole question of productivity. We have heard much from the Conservatives, both in Opposition and in Government, about productivity and the problems in the Canadian economy being caused by decreased productivity. The argument that our economy had to be made more productive was generally associated with the view that the decrease in productivity was ralated to decreasing labour productivity. Very seldom did we hear Conservative Members talk about other aspects of the productivity debate.
Today's debate concerns a matter which directly relates to the productivity of the Canadian economy. Many economists have noticed in the last 10 years that the Canadian and American economies in particular, and the European economy to some extent, have seen a decline in productivity which is largely a result of the merger phenomenon that has been taking place.
Many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have already explained how the rash of mergers and takeovers do
Competition Tribunal Act
not increase employment, and the point has not been made sufficiently clear that these mergers also have an effect on the over-all nature of economic activity. In fact, rather than stimulating new activity and producing new wealth, during the last 10 years the capitalists in this country have been farming the corporate system in such a way that ours has become a paper economy in many respects. The capitalists have been planning how to make money through mergers and utilizing the tax system, rather than through real productivity. Our economy is not nearly as productive as many of those in the corporate sector would like us to believe. They are looking to blame others for the lack of productivity in our economy when, in fact, much of the blame lies with those in the corporate sector who are trying to find the easy way to legally increase their profits in non-productive ways.
Our Party does not believe that this is a good Bill. The debate on this Bill basically centres around the tension between the traditional poles of the capitalist economy; irrational competition on the one hand and monopoly on the other. Neither of these tend to be good for the ordinary citizen. The trend in this country has been toward the pole of the corporate monopoly, and 1 was shocked to hear that some nine families now control 50 per cent of the Toronto Stock Exchange. Certainly this does not reflect the spirit of free enterprise and rugged individualism, but rather a move toward a new feudalism in this country where a handful of families can make economic decisions which affect all Canadians. If that is called democracy, I must ask Members opposite just what they mean by democracy.
The New Democratic Party believes that democracy is more than just electoral politics. It is a question of social and economic democracy. When our country can allow itself to be in a position that nine families control over 50 per cent of the Toronto Stock Exchange, it can hardly call itself democratic in any comprehensive sense of the word.
I believe that we are debating the future of democracy in this country. When so much power is concentrated in the hands of so few people our function in Parliament as the appearance of democracy becomes increasingly irrelevant, as decisions that affect the economic future of this country are being made elsewhere with no accountability to the well-being of Canadians, or to the Government for that matter.
Previous Liberal Governments and the present Conservative Government have refused to stand up to the beast and make the capitalist economy accountable to the people of Canada. The debate today is essentially whether or not we will ever have a Government that is willing to make the capitalists accountable for those decisions.
We have often heard Members opposite talk about the notion that big Government reduces accountability for the decisions which affect Canadians in their daily lives. While we all must be concerned about big Government, it should not be at the expense of concern for other equally important decisions that are taken without any accountability. At least one can say about Government, however big and bureaucratic, that there is

April 10, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
still a political process in place by which we can occasionally rein in its power, if not in a comprehensive way at election, through political pressure exerted on the Government between elections. Regardless of its size, Government still has accountability.
The debate on Bill C-91 concerns economic power which basically has its way with the Canadian people and the Canadian economy. It has had its way for years in systematically intimidating former Liberal Governments not to do anything about monopolistic power in this country. It has had its way with the present Government by ensuring that it fully agreed with the Government's policy before the introduction of the its legislation. The Government, having made the deal with the devil, is trying to say that it has stood up to these economic powers, when it in fact made an agreement with them.
The absence of good competition legislation in Canada continues to be one of the saddest stories in Canadian history. Canada continues to be a country where very few people make many important economic decisions. I refer to John Porter's book The Vertical Mosaic, the subsequent book by Wallace Clement entitled Canadian Corporate Elite and other studies which have been made. The trend is obvious that more and more power is being concentrated in fewer hands. That is the exact opposite of what the New Democratic Party believes should be the case. That is why we will continue to oppose this Bill. It does absolutely nothing about that trend.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the concern of my colleagues about the deplorable implications of this Bill. This Bill reflects a long history of inadequate competition legislation in the House, beginning with the Liberals and now being propagated further by the Conservative Government.
When one listens to the debate, one cannot help but reflect on how many monopolies in Canada are controlling our lives. Many Canadians do not realize the very subtle and, in many ways, evil influence. My colleagues have referred several times to the nine large, rich and powerful families who control most of the stocks in the Toronto stock exchange. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia, and I am sure in other provinces in the west as well, we do not have to dig very deep at all to see the monopoly powers of the Canadian Pacific Railway. These kinds of powers were given early in our development to this huge monopoly, which even to this day controls our lives and developments in a very anti-social way.
I would like to give a couple of examples 1 hear about frequently in Vancouver. The fact is that the CPR moved funds from the gifts given to it by the Canadian Government into a merchant fleet which was taken out of Canada. That in effect ruined any chance of a merchant marine in Canada. Instead, the merchant fleet went to places like Panama, where it is allowed to employ non-Canadian crews, thereby destroying the potential for Canadian jobs in Canadian shipping. That is the monopoly of the CPR.
Even last week when I was in my riding of Vancouver East the powers of Marathon Realty, which is a branch of the CPR, made apparent its influence in anti-social development. The transfer points for dangerous commodities in downtown Vancouver is being moved eastward into my riding of Vancouver East. It is alleged that this is largely because Marathon Realty wants to develop expensive condominiums at the location where these downtown rail and ferry lines meet. All of the recommendations made by the planners to get the dangerous goods right out of the city were completely disregarded. We do not want them moved from one very densely populated residential area into another. All good sense would say that these dangerous goods should be moved right out of Vancouver. I must say I am extremely disappointed that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has allowed this decision to go forward.
You may think, Mr. Speaker, that this particular example is a bit distant from this particular Bill. However, it illustrates the total power of monopolies and corporations which really control our lives, and do not allow either businesses or communities to flourish.
I would like to put some points on the record about the background of competitive legislation reform which, according to one expert, has been one of the "saddest experiences in Canadian public policy". This Bill is the finale to a very sad history of abortive gestures in dealing with competition reform in Canada. That is not just a judgment of the New Democratic Party, but is an assessment of one of the leading competition economists in Canada, Mr. Irving Brecher of McGill University. In 1981, in a study called "Canada's Competition Policy Revisited", he stated:
This judgement is made all the more painful by the realization that, contrary to often expressed belief, the outcome was not inevitable or beyond the control of Governments determined that it be otherwise.
This is the story of continuing failure over a long period of time. The Economic Council began its deliberations toward a modern competition policy in 1966. Its interim report was completed in 1969. Probably one of the best competition Bills was tabled in 1971, Bill C-256. Perhaps the Speaker who was here at that time remembers that Bill. As of today, however, none of the studies, commitments, Bills or speeches in this House have produced a law which would reform our simplistic, judicially hamstrung and grossly ineffective competition law. Only one very modest Bill was passed.
Today we are being asked to accept Bill C-91 as the ultimate development in competition policy. According to the experts, and I do not profess to be an expert in this field, this is not true at all. It is a fifth generation descendant of a Bill which has been trying to pass this House since 1971. Bills C-256, C-42, C-13 and C-29 all attempted to reform competition law in this country, and all failed. One certainly wonders why.
Anyone who believes that competition law reform is a priority for this country, either under the Liberals or under the Conservatives, should approach Bill C-91 with a good deal of suspicion. The question is not what is in this Bill, but what is
April 10, 1986

not in the Bill; that is the concern. To introduce this legislation, the Minister had to pay a shameful price. In the name of promoting competition in Canada, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) had to reach prior agreement with the very same people who had prevented the passage of all four of the previous Bills, namely, the representatives of big business. We know who the spokespersons are for big business. Conservative Hon. Members are usually very proud to say that they are the spokespersons for big business. How can the Tories effectively negotiate with the very large families and corporations which have a vested interest in this issue and give to the Conservative campaigns?
It is not as if the Government is resigned, after fighting the good fight, to getting half a loaf in Bill C-91. It has brought about this outcome by deliberately lowering its sights and being afraid to fight for a better economic deal for average Canadians in most of their every-day purchases. Just how much average Canadians are paying for this continuing policy failure will no doubt surprise Hon. Members.
We should take inventory of what this policy failure has cost the country and ordinary Canadian consumers. The Canadian economy, as we know, is highly concentrated. It is susceptible to price increases associated with high tariffs. Domination of markets keeps prices high throughout a business cycle. The cost to Canada for this kind of anti-competitive system has been estimated at 7.5 per cent of the Gross National Product. I will elaborate on that.
In 1984 the GNP was $416 billion. The cost of economic wastes attributable to the absence of price competition in Canada was, therefore, $31.4 billion and rising yearly. This estimate comes from a noted competition economist, Mr. A. M. Moore. I do not believe the Nielsen task force looked into this whole area; certainly it should have done so. But there again, of course, most of the representatives on the committees who were advisory to the evaluation were also representatives of big business.
There are further costs to the economy, as Profesor Brecher noted. Highly sheltered markets mean a sluggish economy which is slow to adapt. These non-competitive markets also breed persistent and powerful private attempts at manipulation of the political process to sustain the economic status quo. Thus we can see a New Brunswick dominated by K. C. Irving family interests, a Newfoundland dominated by Water Street merchants, or the western provinces, formally dominated by C.P.R., in fact still dominated by Marathon in Vancouver, and or many industries such as the food industry, now regionally dominated by only one or two groups.
This legislation in its weaknesses and omissions will is going to allow this trend to continue. That is a disgraceful situation. It affects every Canadian consumer. I am sure that if the Canadian consumers were only more aware of what the Government is trying to do to them, they would join us today in strongly opposing this very inadequate and, indeed, negative Bill.
Competition Tribunal Act


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-91, a Bill which in many ways is one of the most important and fundamental pieces of legislation to come before this Session of Parliament. This legislation is about the smoke and mirrors that goes on when the Tory Government is actually asked to make its rhetoric a reality. The rhetoric of the Tory Government is that it believes in the free market, in free enterprise and in letting the market-place make decisions. The history of competition legislation in Canada shows very clearly that it has been the Conservative Party which over and over again has thwarted attempts to make effective competition a reality. We need look no further than at the level and nature of the consultation which took place before Bill C-91 in order to establish the reality in Canada. A Government which professes its belief in competition and free enterprise in fact believes nothing of the sort when it comes to the crunch.
The big five, the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada Association and the Canadian Bar Association-


Mr. Allmand:: The Gang of Five.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That Gang of Five, as my colleague has called it, is once again writing competition legislation for the Government. Was there any consultation with groups representing farmers, working people, consumers or the academic community? No. Rather, the Government consulted the Gang of Five. That is not surprising because we know the old saying that he or she who pays the piper calls the tune.
This morning I took the opportunity of looking through the record of contributions made to political Parties during the last federal election. Lo and behold, as I looked through the list of corporate contributions I found that the Gang of Five was very generous indeed, and in most cases its generosity was shared in equal portions by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. The big five banks each donated $50,000 per year to the Conservative Party and $50,000 per year to the Liberal Party. He or she who pays the piper calls the tune, and we see in this legislation that the big corporations and the big banks have been calling the tune on competition legislation.
What is the effectiveness of this legislation? We have seen many cases of individuals being arrested and convicted of theft and sent to jail, or if fined and unable to pay the fine, sent to jail in default. However, when a corporation steals from Canadian consumers through excessive pricing or many of the other mechanisms which are used to rip off consumers, do corporate executives go to jail for that? Of course not. They write it off as another tax expense.
We in the New Democratic Party believe in economic democracy as well. We do not happen to believe in the rhetoric of the Conservative and Liberal Parties which is that if we have a wonderful free enterprise system in which competition

April 10, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
takes place, then somehow everything will be just fine. As democratic socialists, we remind Canadians that in the pursuit of profit through corporate greed, many other human values are twisted, eroded and destroyed.
What results from the pursuit of global maximization of profit? First, because the costs of production are driven down, we see destruction of the environment, pollution, destruction of our beautiful lakes and rivers and destruction of clean air. It costs money to properly protect and nurture our precious environment. If a corporation is trying to drive down the costs of production and externalize those costs, it wll pollute and destroy the environment.
We know that in an attempt to maximize profit, working men and women have their health and safety threatened. Of course, it costs money to make sure that the workplace is safe and healthy. In the corporate drive for profit we see regional disparities and inequities resulting. The levels of unemployment in some parts of the country, including the Maritime provinces, rural Quebec and British Columbia are tremendously high.
We see the results of the pursuit of corporate greed in the production of shabby and unsafe goods. Of course, it costs a little more money to produce quality goods. If a corporation wants to maximize, then the bottom line is that it does not care about effective, safe and non-hazardous consumer goods. It builds in the costs of a few deaths, as did the manufacturers of the Pinto, knowing full well that that car would explode and result in a few deaths. That is the corporate greed which we in this Party reject.
Corporate greed means that there is advertising to promote a demand which in many cases is ineffective. It means that the corporate sector will be fighting tooth and nail against effective affirmative action to ensure that the hiring of the disabled, women, visible minorities and native people is promoted. As we know, that is action which the corporate sector has vigorously rejected.
While we recognize that we should be holding the Government accountable to its own rhetoric about competition, free enterprise and letting the market rule, we in this Party believe in a very fundamental alternative. We believe that the economy should be organized, not to squeeze as much profit as possible out of it for a few faceless shareholders in some corporate board room in another part of the world, but to serve the needs of Canadians and to ensure that global inequities in the distribution of wealth and power are eliminated. We believe that an economy should be organized in such a way as to ensure that the overriding goal of full employment, a job for each and every Canadian who wants one is met. We believe that there are many ways of achieving this other than using corporate cutthroat greed and competition.
In the short time available to me I will not have an opportunity to elaborate to any great length on some of those alternatives. However, surely we should be looking far more seriously at an important and significant role for the co-operative sector
to play in society. We must look at an important role for local communities to play. Local communities should be able to make decisions about their own economic priorities.
I see that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is present in the House. He very ably chaired a task force on unemployment and job creation. One of the things we on that task force heard over and over again was that smaller communities wanted to make their own decisions about their economic priorities, rather than seeing more and more mergers and acquisitions which contribute not one new job, but merely line the pockets of a few corporate shareholders.
We in this Party say that this legislation is fundamentally flawed. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), has pointed out so eloquently in his remarks, many of the objective commentators have pointed to the weakness of this legislation and to the fact that it has been systematically eroded over the passage of time. We know that effective provisions for class actions, for example, which are so important for consumers, are totally lacking in this legislation. We know that effective provisions to deal with predatory pricing are absent from this legislation.
We look forward to an extensive study of this legislation in committee in order to ensure that, to the extent that it is possible to improve this badly flawed legislation, it will be improved.
Surely the bottom line is that we as a country must recognize that the way to organize the economy is not to try to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the country, but to serve human needs and human values.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is the following one. Mr. Cote (Langelier), seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


April 10, 1986

5.0. 21


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Cote (Langelier)), which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 218)
Allmand	YEAS Members Fraleigh	McLeanAttewell	Garneau	MinakerBeatty	Gass	MitgesBerger	Gauthier	NicholsonBissonnette	Gervais	(Trinity)Blenkarn	Gormley	NickersonBoyer	Graham	NielsenBradley	Gray	NowlanBrightwell	(Windsor West)	NunziataCaldwell	Gustafson	OberleCarney	Hamilton	O'NeilChampagne	Hees	Ouellet(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Hicks	PaproskiClark	Hnatyshyn	Penner(Brandon-Souris)	Holtmann	PennockClifford	Hopkins	PlourdeClinch	Howie	PorterCooper	Hudon	RcdwayCopps	Isabelle	ReidCorbett	Jelinek	ReimerCossitt	Johnson	SchellenbergerCote	(Bonavista-Trinity-	(Wetaskiwin)(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Conception)	ScottCote	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Langelier)	Kaplan	ScowenCrombie	Kempling	ShieldsCrosbie	Kilgour	Sparrow(St. John's West)	Kindy	StevensDantzer	King	StewartDaubney	Lawrence	Tardifde Corneille	Leblanc	(Charlesbourg)Della Noce	Lewis	TaylorDesrosiers	Mantha	ThackerDingwall	Marchi	TowersDomm	Marin	TremblayDor in	Mayer	(Quebec-Est)Edwards	Mazankowski	TupperEpp	McCrossan	Vankoughnet(Provencher)	McCuish	VincentFennell	McDougall	WarnerFerland	(St. Paul's)	WeinerFinestone	McKenzie	WinegardFontaine	McKinnon	Wise-116.Forrestall	McKnight	NAYS	Members	Althouse	Epp	MurphyAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	OrlikowBenjamin	Manly	RiisBlackburn	McCurdy	Robinson(Brant)	Mitchell	Waddell-13.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, is the result of that vote because some Members voted twice, or are some of the Members being counted as voting once? I really think there should be some clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think the Hon. Member knows that the votes were counted as Members intended them to be counted.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that under the circumstances it would probably be appropriate to call it one o'clock. Now that the Bill has been called for consideration, we can commence our deliberations in earnest after Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the House agrees that the Chair now see it as one o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 12.56 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Government has done it again. By moving the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) from the Secretary of State to Employment, the Government is downgrading the importance of youth in Canadian society. All the Government is going to do from now on is to consider youth as an employment problem.

April 10, 1986
Until now, women, the disabled, minorities, the native people and youth were looked upon as an integral part of Canadian society. By relegating the Minister of State for Youth to Employment and Immigration, youth is dropped from the Canadian scene. In essence the Government says: "You are no longer a partner in Canadian society. You, whether native, multicultural or otherwise, have no place at the national table and we decide, not you."
In the Liberal Party we reject vigorously this ill-considered decision by the Tory Government and we will do what is in our power to ensure that youth regain their strong voice and role in Canadian society.

[ Translation]



CANADIAN CULTURE


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I, and with me all the people of the riding of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, all Quebecers and all Canadians, wish to pay tribute to a man who has made an unprecedented contribution to the history of film in Quebec. From the Depression years to the Quiet Revolution, he produced and made an impressive number of films.
Father Maurice Proulx, a pioneer in the art of cinematography, was among the founders of one of our greatest Canadian cultural institutions, the National Film Board.
In recognition of the admirable work done by this resident of La Pocatiere, yesterday, Father Maurice Proulx was made a Member of the Order of Canada.



FORESTRY


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) participated in the National Forest Congress which is concluding today in Ottawa, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the plight of forestry workers in Canada, particularly in British Columbia. Some 26,000 people have lost their jobs in the forest industry in B.C., 16,000 of them members of the IWA. Of those, 5,500 are older workers whose pensions are threatened because their lay-offs have extended beyond two years. I call on the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), the Minister of State for Forestry, the Minister of Employment
and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Prime Minister to help immediately develop a labour adjustment program for these disadvantaged older workers.
Given the Government's failure to introduce a national forest policy, it must now take measures to introduce a National Forest Act, a Department of Forests, and a full Minister of Forests in order to bring the industry into the prominence it should occupy in our country.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the number of services available to the physically disabled in our communities is growing, but many people have trouble finding out about these resources. Today in Calgary the Secretary of State has opened a centre which will keep track of all the information and services available to physically handicapped persons, their organizations, and rehabilitation professionals across the country. The federal Government is giving $720,000 to the University of Calgary over the next two years to develop and operate the centre.
I am particularly delighted that the Disability Information Service Centre is to be named after my predecessor, the late Hon. Walter Dinsdale. Periodically, individuals make an outstanding commitment to a cause. The Hon. Walter Dinsdale was such a person. He devoted a lifetime of work to increasing the awareness of all Canadians of the specific problems encountered by the physically disabled. He worked to make life easier for those who were so disadvantaged. Therefore it is exceedingly appropriate that this Centre be named in his honour.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, why is the Government more concerned with creating jobs in foreign countries than in Canadian shipyards? Canadian shipbuilders will see their jobs either gone or about to disappear. They are outraged with the latest insult to their industry by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre). On April 4 in Halifax the Minister told a news conference that "I am still entertaining the possibility" of buying up to $100 million worth of foreign vessels for the naval reserve and auxiliary fleet.
April 10, 1986

Whatever happened to the eight separate promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election campaign to the shipbuilding industry to increase the number of workers?
These proposed offshore purchases must be scrapped immediately and replaced with a commitment on the part of the Government to build these ships using Canadian labour in Canadian shipyards in British Columbia, the Atlantic provinces, as well as in Quebec. The Government of Canada has an obligation to support Canadian workers in this industry and it is about time it began living up to that responsibility.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, not long ago, The French network of the CBC, Radio-Canada, announced that the program "Contact" would be dropped. This program had a daily listener rating of 40,000. "Contact" was the only program covering social and cultural activities in the Gaspe.
The half-million dollars Radio-Canada wanted to save in Gaspe could have been found in other areas, by cutting back on administration and overtime, for instance.
The decision by Radio-Canada to drop "Contact" reflects a petty attitude and a desire to politicize a decision that should have been a purely administrative one.
The people of the Gaspe will not tolerate being used by Radio-Canada in its attempts to blackmail the Government.
Remote regions really need Radio-Canada's regional services. If the Crown Corporation no longer wishes to accept that mandate, its very existence may be challenged.
Our Government's goal is to cut fat, not to cut services to remote communities.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, today is a day of victory for CP pensioners. As a result of the lobbying by CP pensioners across the land, as a result of the lobbying by Members of this House, and as a result of the petitions tabled here by members of the New Democratic Party, CP Rail has informed its present pensioners that they can get their rail passes back.
In a letter to CP pensioners the President of CP Rail, Mr. Allison, indicated that pensioners can have a choice: they can either keep their rail passes or join the health care plan offered by the company. This is exactly what the pensioners wanted. CP Rail could have avoided this controversy if it had given the pensioners this choice in the first place.
To the pensioners' credit they fought back this attempt to take away something that is rightfully theirs. CP Rail should have learned from the experience of this Conservative Government: you do not do anything to get our senior citizens mad. Seniors fight back, and as they should, and they invariably win.



REQUEST THAT QUEBEC GASOLINE SURTAX BE REDUCED

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, gasoline was selling at 44.1 cents a litre in Ottawa and at 50 cents a litre in Montreal. That is a difference of 6 cents a litre and it does not go to the oil companies. It does not go to the retailers either, nor to the federal Government. The fact is that the Quebec surtax has not been adjusted to the lower prices since September 1984. Apparently, the elevator cannot go down when the prices fall.
Mr. Speaker, why wait for the next provincial budget to adjust this odious and unfair surtax charged to Quebecers?
When prices have increased in the past, the adjustment was made the very same week.
I have been denouncing this surtax since November 18, 1981, and I shall continue to denounce it until it is completely withdrawn because it was supposed to be temporary and variable. Withdrawal of this surtax would not make things better in Quebec than in Ontario, but it would put both provinces on the same footing.
This is my fondest wish for all Quebec consumers. This surtax is unfair and it has cost Quebec consumers about $64 million. This money should be given back to them immediately.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the employment growth attests to the success of our administration. Instead of closeting ourselves with Government technocrats, we made sure that we would have the ongoingco-operation of the people.

April 10, 1986
In my riding of Levis for instance, a private company, Versatile Davie, its unionized workers, the Chamber of Commerce, the economic development councils and businessmen have been openly co-operating with their Member and the Government.
Our Government paid close attention to the wishes of people in the constituency of Levis, and today the Lauzon Versatile Davie shipyards workers know that they need not worry about unemployment for several years.
As a result of this co-operation, Mr. Speaker, the various economic interests in this case will take part in a radio program aired between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. tomorrow over our regional station CFLS.
We are successful, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the co-operation of other Canadians.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Employment and Immigration has released statistics which prove that once again older Canadians have been had by the Conservative Government as a result of unemployment insurance cut-backs: 34,000 pre-retirees have been had, including 13,000 in Quebec, 8,000 in Ontario, 6,648 in western Canada, and 3,087 in the Maritime provinces.
Those people had been assured by their employers and Department officials that they would be eligible for early retirement to enable younger workers to keep their jobs, but on January 5 the Government arbitrarily slashed their income.
Mr. Speaker, a national organization is being set up to urge all those people to launch an appeal, and I do hope we will have the support of all Hon. Members to help those retired Canadians.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the Commodity Based Loan Program represents an innovative approach to farm financing for those existing FCC clients who find themselves in financial stress.
The CBL permits refinancing at 6 per cent interest, while principal and annual payments will fluctuate according to the
percentage increase or decrease in the selling price of the borrower's main commodity.
This is not an interest rate subsidy plan. The purpose is to reduce the number of farm failures among FCC clients by reducing payments, and thus easing demands on cash flow in times of falling commodity prices. Should prices rise greatly, which we all hope, there is a cap. A borrower cannot pay more than the amount called for in the CBL mortgage.
The CBL program will be monitored over the initial two years and a decision will then be made on whether the program has merit and can be expanded to other potential borrowers.
This is a bold initiative, one worthy of consideration. I commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) for this new and imaginative measure.



OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament may have noticed the unhappy story of the de Havilland employee who was forced to work in a smoke-polluted office or quit her job.
The fact that this case falls under provincial jurisdiction and proves the inadequacy of provincial occupational health and safety legislation should give us no cause for complacency.
Federal legislation is no better, as other cases of employees wishing to work and breathe safely have shown. Treasury Board still fights employees and their unions who seek a smoke-free workplace.
Returns from a survey in my riding show 90 per cent support for legislation to ensure a smoke-free working environment, and support goes up to 93 per cent, 94 per cent, and 95 per cent respectively for smoke-free buses, planes, and trains.
With 35,000 Canadians dying every year from tobacco related diseases, 5,000 of them from secondary smoke, largely in the workplace, surely it is time for the Government to bring in effective legislation.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, some recent examples illustrate that Saskatchewan people are being heard in Ottawa.
Despite quite a bleak outlook for Canada's grain exports, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. April 10, 1986

Mayer) announced an initial price which was low, but higher than it could have been. With a good grain stabilization payment anticipated, and a serious commitment to raise the domestic price, our Saskatchewan citizens know that the Government is doing everything possible to improve prices.
In the energy field many of us have worked hard to see the Husky upgrader stay alive. Federal Ministers and Premier Devine have agreed to a $90 million plan to see the project through until the construction phase.
What about the issue of farm credit? Just minutes ago the bank rate dropped from 10.14 to 9.33 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Kenneth Gormley: This will help the farmers and the small-business people of Canada. Indeed, Saskatchewan is being heard here in Ottawa.



CANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, much of Canada's navigable waters yet remain to be accurately sounded. This is particularly true in the Arctic where Canada would exert its sovereignty.
Conventional bathymetry, using sonar equipment carried by surface vessels, is costly, time consuming, and hampered by ice cover.
The Canadian Hydrographic Service is to be complimented for its excellent work over the years and now for its interest in developing new airborne depth measuring systems such as those using electromagnetic and laser techniques.
Speedy, accurate, and cost effective airborne bathymetry will improve the efficiency and safety of navigation in Canadian waters.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR MINISTER OF CULTURE, RECREATION AND YOUTH

Mr. Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of the Hon. William Matthews, Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth for Newfoundland and Labrador.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Because of yesterday's news that the initial grain prices would be 19 per cent lower than the 1985 initial prices, the western provinces, already reeling from lower oil and gas prices, find themselves in a wholesale crisis. I wonder if the Prime Minister would respond to what I put to him yesterday and convene a meeting of the western Premiers to address the question and come up with some sort of farm emergency relief.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the serious situation facing western grain farmers, in fact all grain farmers in Canada. As was said yesterday, we are getting very close to being able to announce an initial payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. 1 think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the many initiatives taken by the federal Minister of Agriculture and the amount of money which was pumped into the Canadian grain economy last year.
We are well aware of the situation. We have been communicating as well with our trading partners in order to make them aware of how serious we view this situation, and how much we question their actions in terms of trying to be helpful to farmers in all parts of the world.


John Napier Turner: 1 would have hoped that my question would have merited a response from the Prime Minister. However, I will put my second question to the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION ROLLBACK
John Napier Turner: The
Minister knows that, as a result of the difference between the
1985	and 1986 initial grain prices, gross income for many western grain farmers will drop by about $20,000. Under these circumstances he will understand what that does to western communities, the municipal base, machinery companies and automobile dealers, in fact the whole community. Would the Minister talk to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance to see whether he could get a guarantee to move the
1986	prices back up to the 1985 level?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance needs to be congratulated for the way he has been handling things so that we can see such a dramatic drop in interest rates as we have today.
12086

April 10, 1986
Oral Questions
Farmers are large borrowers and users of money. This will have a beneficial effect on them and help to reduce some of their operating costs.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: But they can't pay their debts.


Charles James Mayer: We know that is not the total answer. Something the Right Hon. Leader should also be aware of is the Striking Committee Report this morning on the establishment of a committee to investigate increasing the price for domestic wheat. That also involves consumers. We were very happy that Sally Hall, the President of the Consumers' Association of Canada, said this morning that she supports an increased domestic price of wheat used to make pasta, flour, and other food products, as long as the money reaches farmers. There are some encouraging things and some things we can do there.


John Napier Turner: The Minister refers to his colleague, the Minister of Finance. 1 doubt whether people in his constituency or other farmers in western Canada would be in the same congratulatory mood.


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON FARM FORECLOSURES
John Napier Turner: Under the circumstances I will direct my third question to the Minister of State for Finance. She knows that farmers are now paying about $1.1 billion annually in interest rates. Since she has been so generous to the depositors in the western banks, to the tune of $1 billion, would she convene her friends in the banking industry and arrange a moratorium on foreclosures in western Canada until this crisis is over?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, let me just point out two rather important pieces of information to the Right Hon. Member since he seems to have missed them. First, we had another decline in interest rates today which is of great benefit to farmers.


André Ouellet: He just said that.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Second, many of the depositors in those banks were farmers.


REQUEST FOR CO-OPERATIVE PLAN
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he may well know, if a farmer in southern Manitoba were to find some way of moving his land across the border to North Dakota he would not only receive double the value for his wheat, he would get cheaper machinery, fuel, and chemicals. This crisis calls for a totally co-ordinated approach covering all aspects of the farm cost price squeeze. Would the Prime Minister undertake to put that co-operative plan into place to look at things like reducing the fuel tax for farmers and providing a deficiency payment so that they can at least have a chance to compete in top world markets?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about a coordinated approach. He should know that the U.S. Farm Bill was put in place not solely by the administration but by the Congress as well. We have gone across the line to speak to farm groups and we have encouraged farm groups in Canada to do the same.
As I understand it, the Hon. Member had a chance to participate in the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association meeting which occurred at the end of February and the beginning of March. I would like to know if he took the concerns he is raising now on behalf of farmers to the U.S. Congressmen to see what kind of response he would get. If we are going to have a co-ordinated approach, 1 would like to know if he has been participating in seeing that that coordinated approach comes about.


INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF GRAIN EXPORTING COUNTRIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again those people are abdicating their responsibilities and asking us to form the Government. We would be quite happy to take on that responsibility.
My supplementary question is again directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of State for the Wheat Board has said that he expects there to be an international meeting this summer of all the export grain producing nations. In his discussions with President Reagan did the Prime Minister gain the agreement of the President for American participation in that conference, and did he also get the President's agreement that the Americans will co-operate in trying to find an international solution to this very deep and devastating problem affecting our farmers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about abdicating responsibilities. He should know that, as a result of a Government of which he was a part, which totally abdicated fiscal responsibility, we saw interest rates go as high as 20 per cent and that put a lot of farmers on their backs. We have a Minister of Finance who today is able to see the bank rate go under 9 per cent. That tells me that there is some responsibility on behalf not only of farmers but of everyone else in the country.


REQUEST FOR DEFICIENCY PAYMENT ANNOUNCEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister. He said earlier that the Government would soon have something to say about stabilization payments. The Minister knows that there is a major distinction between that and deficiency payments. Since the Governments of the United States and European countries are doing a lot for their farmers to enable them to keep their farms and to keep producing, much more than our Government is in the present
April 10, 1986

crisis, will our Government announce a deficiency payment soon in order to put our farmers into a competitive position?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this is the beginning of the growing season and it is a long way away from being completed. Admittedly it is bad news at the beginning because of world grain prices over which Canada has very little control.
The President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the largest grain handling company in the country, said that "only crop insurance, grain stabilization and other agricultural programs kept the provincial farm economy from plunging into the red in 1985," and that in 1985 farm income showed "a net loss of $405 million when payments from these Government-supported programs aren't considered". We have been aware of the serious situation in agriculture and, as Mr. Turner said, without the help we gave in 1985, prairie farmers would have been in the red. That is the kind of record we have had in the past and we want to see what we can do to see that that record survives into the next year.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to what Mr. Turner said last year. I will refer to what he said the day before yesterday. The day before yesterday he said that prairie farmers needed $1 billion from the Government. The Government did it for the banks. It should do it for the farmers now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Minister deal with that substantive question? Considering that the Europeans and Americans are helping their farmers, and considering that the Government bailed out the banks when they were in need, will he bring in a deficiency payment to help out our farmers who are now in need?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question. By listening to him, one would think that the federal Government has done nothing for farmers. In fact there have been over 100 initiatives for farmers involving several billions of dollars.
As 1 said yesterday and on previous occasions-and if the Hon. Member wants to do the arithmetic, I will give him the figures after Question Period-the amount of money the federal Government put directly into the prairie grain economy in 1985 amounted to something like $1.5 billion. We have seen the problem, and we have acted by transferring literally billions of dollars to the western economy.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the crisis that is being faced now is in 1986. The Minister was talking about 1985.
Oral Questions


FARM FUEL TAXES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. On the eve of the last general election, in Prince Albert, appropriately enough, he made a number of promises on behalf of his Party to the agricultural sector. Among them was the promise to remove all federal taxes from farm fuels. Since at least four cents per litre has not been rebated to farmers, will the Prime Minister at least live up to his promise which he made in the Prairies to farmers, and remove all federal taxes from farm fuels?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was reading the wrong document. The document to which he should more accurately refer suggested that we would remove the sales tax from farm fuels. If he checked the record, he would see that we did that. In fact we did it about three days after this House convened after the election.


EFFECT OF REDUCED INITIAL PRICE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. In the last general election the Prime Minister made a campaign commitment that he would make Canada into a superpower in terms of agricultural exporting nations. How can the western farmer even survive with the initial price announced this week, it being the lowest since 1930 in terms of purchasing power back in the days of R. B. Bennett and Bennett buggies?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, in terms of Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of high quality food products around the world, Canada has an extremely good reputation. The Canadian Wheat Board has a very good reputation of being able to sell and maintain our markets. The Canadian Grain Commission has a reputation second to none. It is one of the oldest and most respected agencies in terms of grading and quality of grain in the world. We have maintained that reputation. The problem we face is not unique to Canada and Canadian farmers. The problem we face is a larger problem, that is, very depressed world grain prices.


REQUEST FOR 1985 INITIAL PRICE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, why is the Government not prepared to provide 1985 initial prices which would provide about $1 billion worth of support to western farmers who are in serious financial difficulty? The Minister knows that during the last several weeks, or a month or so, we have advanced several billions of dollars to support banks in trouble. Why can we not give the same kind of support and assistance to farmers who are in deep trouble?

April 10, 1986
Oral Questions


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have to say again and again that we have been spending many, many millions, in fact billions of dollars, in terms of the federal Government's support to Canadian agriculture. Let me also tell the Hon. Member what some people in the grain business are saying. He talked about raising prices to the 1985 level, which everyone would like to see return. Here is what some people are saying: "Please tell the farmer the truth and don't use initial prices to mislead him". That is what we tried to do. We have tried to be as honest and as straightforward as possible in the very serious situation which we face in world grain prices.
As I pointed out, the Government has a good record in terms of seeing the problem, being able to address it, and of the amount of money which has been transferred from the federal Government to the grain economy.


REMOVAL OF FARM FUEL TAX
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Prince Albert Declaration indicated that they would remove the 9 per cent sales tax and all the excise tax. Will the Minister now tell us that they will do exactly that?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that action was taken so long ago that I would have to check the record, but my memory would lead me to believe that indeed that has been done.


John Edward Broadbent: Ask the Prime Minister.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, along the same lines of agricultural finance, would the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board at least consider the payment of a deficiency payment?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member knows that that is not a supplementary question. The Hon. Member for Papineau.


AIR SAFETY
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. What guarantees can he give this House that today, as he promises to tighten security in our airports, his credibility is any better than it was on June 25, 1985, after the Air India tragedy, when he announced that exceptional air safety measures would be taken?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Hon. Member yesterday, a number of steps have been implemented and a number of steps
are under review. Airports across the country are undergoing audits. I also indicated yesterday the additional steps we would be taking in view of the very serious issue which occurred last week. I take this matter as a very serious one. I indicated that 1 would be calling in the executives of the airlines and the Burns security people. As well, I will be inviting representatives of the unions to sit down to see what further steps can be taken to ensure the highest level of safety at all airports throughout the country.


RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE SECURITY
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister jumping on his feet to try to save the credibility of the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Could the Minister of Transport tell us whether it is true that 100 recommendations were made a long time ago that are now before Cabinet and before the Government for study, and that the Government has not yet taken any action because of costs? The Government is now nickel-and-diming with the lives and the security of Canadians.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, 1 will put the credibility of this Prime Minister against any past or future Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We will take a bet.


An Hon. Member:: Tell John Fraser that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: To respond to the serious part of the Member's question, as I said yesterday, the Solicitor General and myself are in the process of preparing a joint memorandum to Cabinet which will provide for a comprehensive security enhancement program at all our airports. I am sure the Hon. Member will be very interested in that.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He knows that the United States floor price for grain is $145 a tonne Canadian, and that the announcement the Wheat Board made in this country for initial prices works out to $130 Canadian.
Why is the initial price for Canadian grain $15 or $10 lower in Canada than in the United States when the U.S. floor price
April 10, 1986

in reality becomes the world floor price? Why is there a $15 shortfall for Canadian farmers? It is not necessary, Mr. Speaker.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure the Hon. Member does his arithmetic correctly. There is more to setting prices than simply looking at the U.S. rate. Also, if the Member wants to get into the U.S. Farm Bill, he will know that it is a very complex piece of legislation. I have said previously, and I will say again, that we do not want to be totally spooked by the U.S. Farm Bill. We want to look at the bigger problem and look at it in context with what the Europeans are doing.
We have set, to say it again, the initial prices this year at probably a higher percentage of the anticipated realized final price than has been the case in the past.


COMMITTEE STUDY OF PARITY PRICING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board knows that this morning we had a striking committee on a special study of parity pricing and a higher domestic wheat price.
Can the Minister say whether or not he is now prepared to make a recommendation that we have a parity price for Canadian grain sold to Canadians for domestic purposes and that we adjust it annually according to the increase in the cost of production?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate for anybody to prejudge what the committee will find. What I said on Tuesday, and say again, is that we want to look very seriously at raising prices for domestic consumption.


Mr. Benjamin:: What the hell is your policy?


Charles James Mayer: We give credit to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville and also to the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, for this is something we want to look at very seriously.
I quoted before the President of the Consumers Association of Canada, Mrs. Sally Hall from Edmonton. Anytime we have gone to consumers with our case and consumers understand where the money is going, we have been treated very fairly by them. That, however, is up to the committee. Whatever the committee recommends, as far as the Government is concerned, we will be prepared to take a very serious look at it.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns the matter of the Public Works contract or contracts at the Museum of Man construction site in Hull.
When did the Prime Minister become aware of this situation and could he inform the House whether his Office or the Privy Council Office has investigated the matter, and more specifically, what the scope of the investigation was? Was it a full investigation and will it be tabled in the House?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the House dealt with this question the other day. As the Hon. Member knows, he alleged in the House of Commons that there was a police investigation under way. It would not be appropriate for the House to comment further on it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How about the Government?


INQUIRY CONCERNING SEARCH WARRANTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. He seems to want to answer lots of questions on this subject. My question concerns the same case.
Can the Solicitor General inform this House whether the RCMP has obtained warrants for the search of parliamentary offices of any Members of Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 will not allow that question.


An Hon. Member:: Why not?


Mr. Speaker:: Any matters with regard to that are entirely within the province of the Chair.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There are now so many chronic unemployed in Vancouver that the Vancouver food bank is running out of food and has to close down on "welfare Wednesdays". Why, in the last fiscal year when $55 million was approved for job creation and job training in British Columbia, was only $40 million spent? Why, Mr. Speaker?

April 10, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that, indeed, the situation in British Columbia is serious with regard to unemployment, but he will also recognize that since this Government came to office 60,000 new jobs have been created in the Province of British Columbia.
In the past year some $260 million alone has been spent by the Department of Employment on programs to assist individuals and organizations in the Province of British Columbia.


FEDERAL FUNDING
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, there are 50,000 fewer people employed in British Columbia today than there were in 1981. There are 5,000 fewer people employed on Vancouver Island than when this Government came into office.
Even though that money has officially lapsed, will she reprofile it so that the people of British Columbia can at least get some benefit from it and the $15 million will not be completely lapsed?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, unemployment in the Province of British Columbia is down 32,000 since our Government came to office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is not a full answer, but it is the right trend. We want to see that trend continuing.
As I said, in the last year some $260 million was spent in the Province of British Columbia by the Government, and this year we will continue to fund projects that will help alleviate the distress in that province.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of National Revenue. One way American citizens cope with the complicated personal income tax system is with a special one-page tax return for filers with few deductions, called 1040EZ. Can the Minister tell the House whether it would be possible to provide over 10 million eligible Canadian taxpayers with similar and much needed tax simplification?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that for many many millions of Canadians who are claiming tax credits, such as refundable sales tax or child tax credits, the T-l Special affords them an opportunity to simplify greatly their income tax filing. On the
other hand, for Canadians whose social benefits are delivered by both the federal and provincial Governments through the tax system, we are still trying to devise a way to simplify their tax returns.
As Members know, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South made reference to the contribution that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs hopes to make in this regard, and I can assure him that our officials are also working very hard in conjunction with the Minister of Finance's officials in proceeding with this important task.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question about the matter raised by my colleague and not answered by the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has been silent about the matter but his officials have not. Officials of the RCMP have made official statements about the matter.
Therefore, with the cloud that has been raised by these statements over the activities of the Ministry of Public Works, has the Prime Minister discussed this investigation with the Minister of Public Works? Will the Minister of Public Works continue to be responsible for all of his duties, or does the Prime Minister intend to call him in for a discussion about this matter, which has been officially raised by the RCMP?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. gentleman to the comments of his Leader made on November 30, 1984, reported on page 770 of Hansard. He said the following:
Would he-
-meaning my predecessor as Solicitor General-
-review the practice of his Department, and perhaps his own approach to investigations, by reinstating the practice that used to apply in this House, and I believe still should, reflecting the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
He must realize the reflection that announcements of investigations may have on private reputations, and should refuse to reveal whether an investigation is in progress by the police unless and until charges arc preferred.


Mr. Nunziata:: That has nothing to do with the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: 1 expect that the Hon. Member would respect the wishes of his Leader, which were not to do that.


John Napier Turner: The issue has been raised by your own officers, Perrin, and that's quite different.


Ms. Copps:: That's right, get your facts straight.
April 10, 1986


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Solicitor General has raised a red herring in the remarks he has just made. A cloud has been cast over the operations of the Government. There is an inquiry going on and there may be charges laid. I am not asking about that.
With regard to the ongoing operations of the Department of Public Works, has the Prime Minister spoken to his Minister of Public Works? Does that Minister continue to exercise fully the responsibilities of that office?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, all of the questions which are being asked by the Liberals today are premised on the belief that there is a police investigation under way. I refer them to the comments made by their Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who was very explicit and said that the Minister "should refuse to reveal whether an investigation is in progress by the police unless and until charges are preferred''. 1 believe that was the position of the Liberal Party of Canada as enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition. It is the correct policy, and I would expect that his members would respect it.


HOUSING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for CMHC. I have just learned that 20 more hotels in downtown Vancouver are undergoing renovations which could cause another 1,000 evictions. Will the Minister now reconsider and approve emergency funding for the five downtown social housing projects which were requested as a special CMHC Expo project?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, prior to January of this year I approved five special projects for the City of Vancouver. I received a communication from the Mayor of the City of Vancouver recognizing the fact that CMHC and the federal Government had recognized that there would be additional strains in the City of Vancouver this summer. He thanked us for that recognition. We put forward five or six additional housing projects in the City of Vancouver in anticipation of Expo 86.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that the Member for Vancouver Centre would agree
Oral Questions
that the people of downtown Vancouver are suffering greatly. What are they supposed to do-sleep under a bridge?
Is the Minister responsible for housing still determined to transfer responsibility for social housing to the B.C. Social Credit Government when it has demonstratred again and again its lack of consideration for poor people, especially those in downtown Vancouver?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, we anticipate a 60 per cent increase in the number of social housing units in British Columbia this year because the provincial and federal Governments are joining together to spend additional dollars on social housing.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're creating ghettos.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Member for Hamilton East says that we are creating ghettos. Under the policy of the previous administration only one-third of the housing dollars spent by the taxpayers of Canada went to those in need. We will be spending 100 per cent of those dollars on Canadians in need.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TAX CREDITS
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Revenue. Dreamstreet Holsteins of the United States, presently constituted as Redgen Holstein Research Inc. in Canada, is planning to use $10 million or more in Canadian Scientific Research Tax Credits to conduct what appears to be a superficial test of red and white versus black and white holsteins.
Can the Minister assure the House that the audit procedures in place in his Department will guarantee Canadian farmers that the $10 million in research tax credit will be used efficiently to benefit Canadian agriculture?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can. In view of the rather unfortunate history of this program, all applicants for SRTC are being audited. When necessary, appropriate expertise is employed to ensure that the research qualifies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.
While I cannot talk about the specific affairs of any taxpayer, I can assure the Hon. Member that in every case the interests of the Crown are being looked after.

April 10, 1986
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Undoubtedly the Minister is aware-and I am sure she disagrees-that her Government arbitrarily decided to reduce the income of 34,000 Canadians by changing the unemployment insurance regulations, overnight as it were.
Considering that they were misinformed, would the Minister be prepared to write to these 34,000 people and advise them that they are entitled to appeal and seek redress?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been raised many times in the House of Commons. I have said that the question of pension income as it affects unemployment insurance benefits has been referred to the Forget Commission. We are awaiting the recommendations of that commission with regard to this issue. In the meantime I am sure the Hon. Member knows that anyone making any claim whatsoever under the Unemployment Insurance Act has a right of appeal.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not reply to part of my question.
I would point out to her that the people whose income was reduced were misinformed when told that they did not have the right to appeal.
That is why I am asking the Minister, in light of these changes, to write to these 34,000 Canadians and tell them they have the right to File an appeal, including those who were misinformed and for whom the appeal deadline is over.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As I said, Mr. Speaker, anyone who feels that he or she has any claim whatsoever with regard to unemployment insurance has the right to appeal.


AGRICULTURE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. All of the western cattlemen who experienced drought conditions last year have received some kind of compensation except those in central and southern British Columbia. Can the Minister
explain to the House why this is the case, and why he has not taken action to provide relief to these troubled cattlemen as well?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 have received questions on this serious matter from the Hon. Member before, and more particularly, and more frequently, from members of my own caucus. As I have indicated before, the federal-provincial committee was under a great deal of pressure to identify the areas affected and the seriousness with which they were affected. I appreciate that the committee has met its deadline and, in doing so, has perhaps overlooked certain areas in the interior of B.C. If it is possible to secure some financial assistance within the existing package, I will direct it to that area. Today I am not in a position to indicate other than that at this time matters are fairly positive.


BRITISH COLUMBIA GRAPE GROWERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. The president of the largest fruit growers' association in British Columbia has found that very few of the financially strapped B.C. fruit farmers will be able to take advantage of his FCC proposal. What does he plan to do to help the lion's share of farmers in western Canada who do not qualify for his FCC program?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty following the Hon. Member who has moved from the vineyard to agriculture in B.C. specifically, and then on through to western Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: I thought B.C. was in the west.


John Wise: His Leader should realize that the three of them deal with different programs. I am not aware of any specific difficulties which exist with the B.C. grape growers. In cooperation with the provincial Government we provided some financial assistance. Recently I signed an order, at the request of British Columbia, changing an agreement to allow greater paricipation by the grape growers in that replant program.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. Last evening we learned from her Deputy Minister that since January more than 34,000 Canadians have suffered the harsh impact of her unemployment insurance changes. Of those, 2,000 have already taken their cases to appeal. Will the Minister not recognize that this is an expensive and difficult process for unemployed Canadians, and
April 10, 1986
[Stage Direction]
immediately suspend these measures until the Forget Commission reports?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate that this question has been raised on a good many occasions in the House of Commons. 1 have indicated to the Hon. Member and to the House on a number of occasions that the matter has been referred to the Forget Commission. I am awaiting its recommendations.


UPHOLDING OF APPEALS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, since unemployed Canadians have already won several of these appeals at the board level, will she not at least let these decisions prevail until the Forget Commission reports? Let the positive decisions prevail.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, again, as I have said in this House each time this question has been raised, decisions have been made by Unemployment Insurance Boards of Referees, on both sides of the question. It now proceeds to the Umpire. That is a judicial hearing. The hearing will proceed and 1 do not feel I should intervene in that process.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion whose emissaries have returned from Japan. Will he give us a report on whatever progress has been made with respect to the continuation of voluntary import restraints on the part of the Japanese auto manufacturers, as well as Japan's intent with respect to part sourcing in Canada?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in 1986 we seem to be having a repeat of what happened in 1985. You will recall there was continual questioning concerning negotiations between Canada and Japan regarding the voluntary export program. We arrived at an agreement last July, and I ask the Hon. Member to be patient. Negotiations are continuing very well and 1 think he will not be disappointed with the results.


SOURCING OF PARTS FOR TOYOTA PLANT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give his response to today's CBC report that Toyota officials have indicated they intend to source 90 per cent of their parts in Japan for the new plant in Cambridge, Ontario?
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope no other Member of the House would use a source for his questioning such as the Hon. Member has just done. Let me assure him that when 1 met with Mr. Toyota, Chairman of Toyota, in Davos, Switzerland, about six weeks ago-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Name-dropper.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: - he specifically said that he intended to source in Canada with respect to the parts that were needed for the plant he intends to build in Canada.


CHALLENGE '86 PROGRAM APPLICATION MADE BY VANCOUVER FOOD BANK
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can see the Minister goes right to the top in a neutral country.
My question is directed to his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She knows that the Vancouver food bank is now obliged to close its doors one week a month because of a lack of funding. She was not able or did not see fit to respond to my request that that bank be funded either under the Job Development Program or under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Will she consider an application by the food bank to be funded under the Challenge '86 Program so that during the summer students may collect any surplus food in the Lower Mainland to help that bank operate?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member has followed Challenge '86 and its various aspects and will know that the application date for Challenge '86 projects has already passed.


Lloyd Axworthy: The soul of generosity.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines and concerns the safety of miners working in Canadian mines. Following four mining fatalities in the Sudbury area in 1984, the Province of Ontario commissioned an inquiry into ground control and emergency preparedness, the findings of which have recently been made public. In light of the inquiry could the Minister tell us what the federal Government is doing

April 10. 1986
Oral Questions
about the hazards involved in working in this very important sector of our economy?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to acknowledge the Hon. Member's concern for the safety of workers in the mines. The federal Government has been sharing in the cost of that very special study which followed the accident. We have been providing one-third of the cost. There is a very extensive $4.2 million program into rock bursts, and we are providing an information exchange on ground control in mining involving the EMR, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and the Ontario Ministry of Labour.


PETRO-CANADA-SALE OF GASOLINE TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. Petro-Canada and Imperial Oil are selling gasoline in the U.S. at 7.5 cents a litre less than in Canada. American buyers are turning their trucks around at the border and reselling it to Canadian consumers at our domestic price. How can the Government allow the people's own oil company to participate in such a sham?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we have virtually open borders with the U.S. in energy products at this time. Therefore there is naturally a lot of movement of product across the border in both directions as entrepreneurs look for the best marketing opportunities. I think that is in the interest of consumers.


PRICE OFGASOLINE IN CANADA
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: American companies are making a profit at the expense of Canadian consumers of as much as $3,000 per tanker truckload. Will the Government take action to stop this shameful practice and assure Canadians that they can buy their own gasoline at a fair price?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that, upon reflection, the Hon. Member will agree that gasoline in a tank does not have citizenship papers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: It is almost impossible to tell whether a molecule of gasoline came from the American side or the Canadian side. I suggest that the situation as he presents it-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 clearly find that they do not want to hear my answer.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister with respect to the summit in Washington. Can he tell the House now whether or not he raised with President Reagan personally the question of the list of potential American radioactive dump sites near the Canadian border which can possibly affect Canadian water basins?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What did he say?


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 know it is not a tendency of the Prime Minister to go on and on, but can he tell us whether or not he got a positive response from Mr. Reagan, and what action we can expect from the American administration to alleviate the concerns which many Canadians have about that list of potential dump sites?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The
President was very interested.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question from Monday is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Barry Turner: As energy prices decline I would like to know if Canadians, especially senior citizens and students, can expect to see a decline in their transportation costs, particularly bus fares, air fares and taxi fares, as well as all other direct transportation costs?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: declining consumer prices, and hopefully the deregulation with respect to transportation will lead to lower consumer prices. Of course we are monitoring the situation with great interest.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows the National Forest Congress is being held in Ottawa. In fact the Prime Minister participated briefly yesterday at that Congress. I want to ask the Prime Minister why has he not announced, as requested by both industry and labour in the forestry sector, the establishment of a full Ministry and full Department of Forestry as the Prime Minister himself committed to do during the course of the last election campaign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What we announced after 20 years of Liberal neglect was a creation giving the forest industry a proper and responsible voice at the cabinet table for the First time in years. One of Canada's most important industries had been deprived of an opportunity to have representation at the cabinet table. I know that my hon. friend would agree that the present Minister of State for Forestry is doing such a remarkable job that 1 would not displace him except to promote him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in receipt of a notice of a desire to raise a point of order and a notice with regard to a question of privilege. Since privilege takes precedence I will recognize the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: 1 rise on a question of privilege arising from what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said in reply to a question earlier today. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sticks around because his words are directly relevant to what I have to say in a minute. There goes the man, Mr. Speaker, who said he would speak up for the west.
Point of Order-Miss Carney


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Questions of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: All right. 1 raise a question of privilege because the Minister of Agriculture, who we know without exception to be an honest person, would not want to mislead the House deliberately. I think inadvertently he has misled the House and that is my question of privilege.
He said in response to a question from me today that his Party did not promise to remove federal taxes from farm fuels, he said only sales taxes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member may have a dispute about facts or debate, but I take it he is raising a question of what the Minister said. That is not a question of privilege. All he is doing is debating what the Minister said. Does he have a question of privilege?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thought that might be the case, and 1 will raise the matter directly with the Prime Minister tomorrow, and I hope he will answer at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of two points of order. The Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), then the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


POINT OF ORDER
Pat Carney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there is any interest in this matter I wanted to advise the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pat Carney: I am attempting to say that yesterday in response to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) 1 may have inadvertently misled the House in terms of the expenditures of the $90 million which will be shared between the provinces, the company, and the federal Government. In his question to me the Hon. Member indicated that it was his view that all the money was for historic or past cost. In my answer I inadvertently indicated that all of the money is for future costs. I just want to clarify that I have been advised that of the $90 million, some is going for historic costs because the project is an ongoing one. In response to the Hon. Member I may add-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. On the business question, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).

April 10, 1986
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the customary questions for a Thursday. Will the Government House Leader give us an indication of the business he intends to call for the coming week?


Mr. Speaker:: I gather the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) wants to raise a point of order. Order, please. A point of order? Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.


John Wise: I appreciate you recognizing me, Mr. Speaker, and if I just had the support of the House for 30 seconds I think I could clarify the information that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party raised earlier during the Question Period. I indicated that I was responding from memory.
I had an opportunity to receive more specific information and I think that perhaps it would be good information to be shared by both of us. The actual commitment was to reduce the price of farm fuels by 20 cents a gallon by removing the 9 per cent federal sales tax and by not collecting the current excise tax. The action, of course, was to remove the 3-cent sales tax rebate and the 1.5-cent excise tax. That goes into effect, providing a benefit of some 18 cents a gallon.


Mr. Speaker:: On the business question the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed with the customary question on House business. I might say parenthetically that the interjection of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has nothing whatsoever to do with House business. I say with all due respect to him that if he wanted to make a statement of that kind there is another time and place to do it. 1 hope the Government House Leader will now give us a statement as to the business he intends to call for the coming week.


John V. Nunziata: Just as the Minister of Energy had almost completed her point of order, and as she was sitting down 1 distinctly heard her either call you or the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) an s.o.b., and I would ask Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. I will check the record as is our custom. I did not hear the comment. I take it the Hon. Member would like me to check the record and 1 will do so.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, some time back the House Leader of the Official Opposition asked me about the business for the next week. I would like now to respond to that question. Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I might say that we look forward to a very busy and interesting week. I hope we can make some progress.
Today on Orders of the Day we will, of course, start the consideration of report stage of Bill C-62 regarding employment equity. After some consultations with opposition representatives and the House Leaders I will interrupt the consideration of Bill C-62 and call as an item of business Bill C-99, an Act respecting the borrowing authority which has now been reported out of committee. Hopefully we can make some progress on that. If we have not completed our consideration of Bill C-62 by tomorrow, we can maybe go back to that particular item of legislation.
I would like to put forward Bill C-45 and Bill C-103 in that sequence as the business into next week. We will continue to monitor progress on that legislation and consult. If there is progress made we will bring forward further legislation, and I will advise the House at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded with consideration of Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There were more than 60 motions on the Order Paper to amend Bill C-62, an Act respecting Employment Equity.
Let me first deal with the motions standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin). From the consultations that I have had with the Official Opposition, I understand that the Hon. Member for Outremont will not proceed with her motions. Accordingly, motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37 and 38 will not be selected for debate and will be dropped from the Notice Paper.

Motion No. 1 is in order and will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 2A, 9, 11 A, 13A, 14A, 15, 16A, 20A, 22, 24, 25A, 26A, 31 and 36A have all been dealt with in committee, or closely resemble motions dealt with in committee. The new provisional Standing Orders not only allow the Chair to group motions for debate but also, in effect, instruct the Chair to use its discretion in selecting motions for debate, guided by the note attached to Standing Order 114(10) which reads in part:
-a motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage.
Of course, this is our first time through this procedure and the Chair finds itself in a dilemma at this point. How is the
April 10, 1986

Speaker to decide that a motion previously defeated in committee is of such significance that it warrants further debate? In fact, the note would appear to instruct the Chair not to select for debate any of the motions that I have just mentioned. I am not ready to make a final ruling on this question because some discussions are still going on about those motions, but I invite Hon. Members concerned to make further representations to me. But it must be absolutely clear that under no circumstances, reading that note correctly, could the Chair ever accept to put to the House all of the motions mentioned.

Motions Nos. 3A, 4, 5A, 6 and 10 standing in the names of the Hon. Members for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) give the Chair procedural difficulty in that these five motions significantly modify the interpretation clause of the Bill. It would be my intention to rule these motions out of order and I refer the Hon. Members to citation 773(10) of Beauchesne's 5th Edition.
Motions Nos. 8 and 8A are identical and it is the Chair's intention to select motion numbered 8, since it was the first one submitted.
Motion No. 12A will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 19 and 20B in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) appear to seek to add the principle of collective bargaining to the Bill, which was not contemplated at second reading. In keeping with our precedents, it would be my intention to rule these motions out of order.
Motion No. 19A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine-East (Mr. Allmand) attempts to introduce into the Bill a new group of employers who were not considered for inclusion when the principle of the Bill was agreed to by the House at second reading stage. To paraphrase Citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, an amendment is out of order if it is beyond the scope of the Bill it seeks to amend. Therefore, it would be my intention to rule this motion out of order.

Motion No. 19B will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 21A will be debated and voted on separetely.
Motions Nos. 23, 28 and 29 seek to incorporate provisions from the Canadian Human Rights Act into the Bill. This was not contemplated by the House when the Bill was read a second time. I would be very reluctant to proceed with these motions.
Motion No. 27A will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions 31A and 32A will be combined for debate but voted on separately.
Employment Equity Act
Motion No. 33A would have the effect of enlarging the duties of the Human Rights Commission by making it a partner with the Minister in the preparation of reports under the provisions of the Bill. This is beyond the scope of the Bill and, in the view of the Chair, out of order.

Motions Nos. 34 and 35 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motion No. 37A will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 39 and 39A will be debated together. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 39 will dispose of Motion No. 39A. A negative vote on Motion 39 will require the question to be put on Motion No. 39A.
For the benefit of Hon. Members, I will review those motions which the Chair believes to be out of order. These are Motions Nos. 3A, 4, 5A, 6, 10, 19, 19A, 20B, 23, 28, 29 and 33A.

In order to allow Hon. Members sufficient time to present any procedural arguments they may wish to make, I will hear such arguments on the day when the order is next called or sooner if necessary.
Motions Nos. 2A, 9, 11 A, 13A, 14A, 15, 16A, 20A, 22, 24, 25A, 26A, 31 and 36A previously dealt with in committee will be allowed to stand on the Notice Paper until the Chair has received representation from the Hon. Members concerned and a final ruling is made.

The motions that the Chair finds now to be in order and to be debated are Motions Nos. 1, 8, 12A, 19B, 21A, 27A, 31A, 32A, 34, 35, 37A, 39 and 39A.
May I say to those present that one of the Chair's concerns with the motions that were defeated in committee is that those motions were laid on the Order Paper prior to the adoption of the new rules. For the moment the Chair will put Motion No. 1 to the House, unless there is some argument to be made.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, since you asked for some representations in your ruling, I would like to make some representations and arguments.
You stated in your ruling that you invite Hon. Members concerned to make further representations, preferably in private. I must say that since this is the first time that we are dealing with some of the new rules as they apply at report stage, I want to make my comments in public because I believe it is important business that should be considered by the House.
First, let me speak to the new guideline under one of the Standing Orders which states that a motion previously defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant further consideration at the report stage. I believe that the

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity Act
motions I have reintroduced here at report stage, that were defeated in the committee, are all of exceptional significance.
1 note that you said at the end of your comments in this respect that: "- it must be clear that the Chair cannot accept to put to the House all the motions mentioned." This indicates to me that you might not be following the rule which is in the Standing Orders, but some sort of quota system. It would seem to me that if none of the motions which were defeated in committee are of exceptional significance, none of them should be allowed. On the other hand, if there are four or five such motions put forward and they are all of exceptional significance, then they should be accepted. I agree that this type of guideline puts the Speaker in a very difficult position because he is not always able to closely follow the debates in committee and in the House. Since we deal with such a wide range of questions, how is the Speaker to know what is of exceptional significance? I can only say that in interpreting this new guideline in the rule I hope you would give it broad interpretation and err on the side of permitting the motion that was defeated in the committee rather than keeping it out. If you do not do that, I suggest Hon. Members will begin to keep most of our key amendments for the report stage and not take a chance. I suggest this will simply clog the House with far more motions than you would otherwise get.
It has been my experience so far with the new legislative committees that little attention is paid to them. It is very difficult to reach the public in those committees because they are not covered by the press or television. In other words, one cannot have the impact on public opinion; whereas we can have impact to a certain extent in the House. If Members believe that every time they put a motion in the legislative committee and it is defeated it cannot be dealt with here, they will simply reserve and put them here. Therefore, I would argue for a broad interpretation of that rule.
You also stated in your ruling that it would be your intention to rule these motions out of order and you referred Hon. Members to Citation 773(10) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. That citation reads as follows:
A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill.
I would argue that two of the motions to amend which you say you intend to rule out of order are not substantive amendments to the interpretation clause because the interpretation clause of the Bill simply says:
"employer" means any person who employs one hundred or more employees-
We simply changed the number from 100 to 25. So we are not really changing the substance of the interpretation section but suggesting simply that the level be changed. I would ask you to reconsider that submission.
Finally, in point 13 of your ruling you say:
Motion numbered 33A would have the effect of enlarging the duties of the Human Rights Commission by making it a partner with the Minister in the preparation of reports under the provisions of the Bill.
In committee the Government agreed to an amendment which brought in the operation of the Human Rights Commission. After it had originally drafted the Bill and the Bill had gone to committee, the Government agreed to an amendment to the Bill to mention the Human Rights Commission and to bring it in as a partner. All we are doing simply is refining that new provision which the Government itself provided. I would respectfully ask that the Chair give some consideration to the points 1 have made.


Mr. Speaker:: I will, of course. My dilemma, as the Hon. Member well knows, is that although I was happy to hear him on the selection question, he has continued beyond the selection question into his concerns about particular procedural arguments, which I had indicated I thought Hon. Members would prefer to make when the matter is next called.
However, I am perfectly happy to hear other Hon. Members on the procedural admissibility question now, if they want to be heard, or to proceed with Motion No. 1 and those motions which have been ruled in order for those Hon. Members who may wish to take a little time and make argument when we call the Bill again. 1 am perfectly prepared to hear argument now if the Parliamentary Secretary is ready to respond.


Philip Derek Lewis: May I ask for a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker? Did I understand the Chair to say that Motion No. 21A has been ruled on?


Mr. Speaker:: I did indicate that I found it in order and subject to a debate and vote. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary wish to make an argument that Motion No. 21A is out of order?


Philip Derek Lewis: 1 just wanted to clarify the position on Motion No. 21 A. Motion No. 21 has been withdrawn and the Chair has ruled on Motion No. 21 A, then.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Philip Derek Lewis: Thank you very much. If Motion No. 13 has been withdrawn, that leaves for discussion the matter of whether or not Motions Nos. 13A and 15 should be proceeded with.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. Motions Nos. 13A and 15 are two of the motions which were defeated in committee. 1 have not yet made a ruling as to the procedural admissibility or inadmissibility of any of the motions which were defeated in committee. If the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary wishes to make a procedural argument that, even if they were to be considered significant, they should be regarded as inadmissibible on other grounds, I have not reached that stage. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary wish to make that argument now or wait?


Philip Derek Lewis: I am prepared to wait.
April 10, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, we will proceed to Motion No. 1.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 6 at page 1 and
substituting the following therefor:
"2. The purpose of this Act is to promote and encourage".
He said: Mr. Speaker, we now begin the next stage of Bill C-62. This debate has been going on for over a year since we first received the report of Judge Rosalie Abella. Judge Abella was appointed by the former Government when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Judge Abella brought down with a very superb report. She stated that this country needed what she called "employment equity" for the majority of women as well as for the three minority groups, the disabled, natives and visible minorities.
We have gone through the preliminary stages. A Bill was introduced for first reading by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). We then had a second reading debate. We have gone through very extensive hearings in the parliamentary legislative committee. It has been an interesting and fascinating process.
I have proposed Motion No. 1 which deals with the purpose of the Bill. The purpose section of Bill C-62 states:
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 ameliorate 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-
The key words in the purpose section are: "The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place".
I moved this amendment because I do not think this Bill will achieve equality in the workplace. I call as my witness to this fact the four target groups for which this Bill was planned. Several women came before the committee and all said to us that the Bill was not strong enough, what we needed were targets. The Bill does not have targets. They said we needed goals and timetables, but this Bill does not have these either. In addition to women, disabled Canadians came to committee and told us the Bill is not strong enough, that it does not have timetables, goals or objectives. In effect, this is not a Bill to achieve employment equity. It is a Bill to report on employment equity. There is a big difference.
I was proud of several disabled Canadians who came to this Parliament about a week and a half ago and waited outside the Conservative Caucus Committee room. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) came to the caucus they confronted him. They pleaded with him to strengthen Bill C-62. 1 remembered a blind Canadian, a deaf Canadian, and a very articulate woman from Toronto who was in a wheelchair. They spoke to the Prime Minister as part of a coalition against Bill C-62 as drafted. They pleaded with the Prime Minister to strengthen it. To his credit, the Prime Minister sent them up to
Employment Equity Act
see his policy adviser in the Prime Minister's Office. They spent about a half hour with him and were promised that a report will come back to them.
But I make an appeal now on behalf of disabled Canadians, one of the four target groups, that we strengthen Bill C-62. If we do not, we might just as well accept Motion No. 1, because my motion brings Bill C-62 in line with what it is really all about. My motion would change the words "to achieve employment equity" to the words "to promote and encourage employment equity", because all we see in the Bill is the reporting of employment equity, we do not see the achievement of employment equity. So on behalf of disabled Canadians I call upon the Goverment majority to persuade the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Prime Minister to bring us some targets, an enforcement agency and some goals and objectives so that employers will be made to achieve employment equity on behalf of women and disabled persons; that is what they asked for in committee.
I also call as witnesses the visible minorities. They came to our committee and contacted us in person by telephone and by letter. They also said the Bill was not strong enough. They want an enforcement agency, targets, goals and objectives. If these things are not written into law, because of the human psyche of the majority in our country and everywhere else in the world, these minorities will still be discriminated against.
My last witnesses are the original Canadians, the Indians, Metis and Inuit people of Canada or, as the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) used to call them in our constitutional committee a few years ago, the "prefounding Canadians". They are not the founding races such as the French and the English, but they are the ones who were here first of all. Those people spoke to us as a predominantly white, male-dominated Parliament, and said that this Bill is not strong enough and would only encourage and promote employment equity in reports on employment equity rather than achieve employment equity.

Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative Party was elected to government, I was greatly optimistic that there would be a new era in Canadian politics.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Shame on you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am being shamed by my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway, and she is right.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Vancouver East, but he's ashamed too.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When the Conservative Party was elected to govern, I thought that there would be more openness. I thought that Conservative Members would listen to various groups and draft legislation that ordinary Canadians wanted. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a solemn promise that he would do so. In fact, he made over 300 electoral promises on which Canadians elected him. Even new Members

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity Act
like the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) who is sitting here in all her splendour are disappointed that the Conservative Party has not kept its word.
The Bill before us has been drafted for the benefit of women, natives, disabled Canadians and visible minorities but all four groups say that it is not good enough. All four groups have rejected the Bill. Is that participatory democracy? A former Prime Minister used to talk a lot about participatory democracy. He lasted here for about 16 years before the people wisened up. Now members of the Conservative Party talk about the same thing without using those words. They said they would listen to the people and that there would be more openness in Government. They said that they would bring people into the centre of power and cut away the bureaucracy.
I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is probably quite embarrassed by all this. Having been Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at one time, he has a great feeling for native Canadians. I am sure that if he had drafted this Bill, it would be a stronger one. I know that he is a good progressive Tory and he would have drafted a stronger Bill.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There's no good Tory.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member seems to be very anti-Tory. She has said that there is no such thing as a good Tory.


Mr. Waddell:: There's a good suppository but not a good Tory.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps she is right, but I tend to be a bit more optimistic than that. I do think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have developed a more progressive Bill than did the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare could use his good offices and influences to try to persuade the Minister of Employment and Immigration to accept some amendments that would ensure that this Bill will listen to disabled Canadians and other targeted groups and include an enforcement agency and a maximum fine increased from $50,000. After all, what is $50,000 for the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal or General Motors? It is peanuts.
We are going to have to get a lot tougher. We are going to have to have targets. As well, Government Departments will have to be brought into line with Bill C-62. I know that there are Treasury Board guidelines, but those guidelines are ignored. In fact, we heard in committee that over 75 per cent of disabled Canadians who work for the federal Government work on contract and are not full-time employees. When there are budget cut-backs, the contract employees are often the first to be let go. That is why disabled Canadians want a stronger Bill.
I know that many Conservative Members are afraid to take a stand against the big banks and large companies but I appeal to them to listen to the target groups for which we are trying to
draft legislation and to put into law the things that the groups are requesting. These groups are saying that they want collective bargaining to be implemented in this Bill so that workers in the different industries will have a guaranteed role to play in the implementation of employment equity. Women are telling us that they need equal pay for work of equal value. Like the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), 1 was not optimistic that the Conservative Government would listen to us about that, but perhaps we can make a few more appeals.
I see you are getting a little restless, Mr. Speaker. Last, on behalf of those four target groups, we want to have a tough provision in this Bill on contract compliance so that companies that sell goods or services to the Government of Canada will have to achieve employment equity or be cut off like you are trying to cut me off, Mr. Speaker. I am now taking my seat. I ask the Government to either amend the Bill according to the wishes of the four target groups or accept this motion which says that instead of achieving employment equity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not wish to cut off the Hon. Member but he knows that under Standing Order 14(9) of the new rules, he has 10 minutes to speak. 1 would love to listen to him, but unfortunately his time has expired.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I fully agree with all the criticisms levelled against this Bill by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). He is quite correct in stating that the Bill is a toothless tiger. It is not nearly as good as the Charter of Rights which is entrenched in the Constitution and prevails over all other ordinary legislation. If this Bill did something, it would be worth while, but it is a toothless tiger. There is no means of enforcement of the Bill.
While I agree with everything the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has said about the Bill, to change the purpose of this Bill, which is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities, at this stage before we have had a chance to deal with the other amendments that he and I have put, amendments designed to strengthen the Bill, would be wrong.
It is too bad that the amendment put by the Hon. Member could not be put at the end of the process. Both and he and I and others have put amendments on the Order Paper which, if the Government accepted them, would create a Bill that would achieve equality in the workplace. At the present time, the mechanisms in the Bill are not sufficient to achieve equality in the workplace.
If all the clauses of the Bill remain as they now are and if all our amendments are defeated, then I think it would be appropriate to change the purpose of the Act as the Hon. Member suggested and perhaps even to change the name of the Act. Many of the witnesses we heard in committee suggested that this Bill should not be called an employment equity Act because it is not an employment equity Act. They
April 10, 1986

said that it should be called an Act to collect information with respect to employment equity. That is why I will put such an amendment at the very end of the process. If the Government will not accept any amendments to make this Bill enforceable, then we should change its name and purpose.
While 1 appreciate the spirit in which the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has put his amendment to change the purpose of the Bill so that it would describe what it really is, 1 think we should deal with the other amendments that will strengthen the Bill first. I would like to reserve my vote on that amendment until we see what gets done. Since all votes are deferred in any case, I will know at the time whether or not it is worth while voting for this amendment.
I should remind the House that during the extensive hearings on this Bill, not one of the target groups said that this Bill would achieve employment equity and they all recommended amendments. Many of the amendments that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, and I have put down for consideration were suggested to us by the people who are being discriminated against, the visible minorities, the disabled, women and native people. We are simply trying to act for them in this Parliament. There are not enough of them here. We must voice their views on their behalf. If none of the amendments put forward to strengthen the Bill are accepted, I will certainly vote for Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of pride and humility in responding to the comments of my two hon. colleagues. I have lived my entire life in the milieu, although I am not a member of a visible minority, of a minority community. Through my lifetime I have been exposed to quotas. I can say honestly that I feel I am a worthy representative of all target groups which have been mentioned. Sixty per cent of all Canadians fall within that range. I represent a riding which is very heavily ethnic in its nature. My consultations with my supporters and the people who live in the riding of Dollard indicate to me how pleased they are with the Government, the first Government anywhere, having the guts to bring in legislation which will actually put into effect an employment equity program.
We want jobs. We know that when goals and timetables are put into effect, we will get those jobs because we are qualified. We do not want quotas. We do not want to focus upon process. We want results. We want initiative. We want a commitment to change. We want measureable goals. We get all this with employment equity.
Today I heard the request for a new enforcement agency. We are already involved in enough bureaucratic red tape. We are in the process of examining ways of dismantling some agencies. We know the high costs of governing. We already have in place the Canadian Human Rights Commission which
Employment Equity Act
is very well prepared to handle all cases of systemic discrimination resulting from employers not following the program we have put into effect.
My friend in the New Democratic Party wants us to put water in our wine before we ever begin. We are introducing today a mandatory program for the first time. The wording "to achieve equality" more correctly reflects the purpose of the Bill. What we are doing is achieving it. Promoting and encouraging are voluntary terms, and that is not what we see in the Bill. We want to see all groups move forward, not strictly by legislation because that is simply a process. We want to send out a signal of how productive society will become when we use the full constituent part of our community.
I am certainly completely against this motion. In terms of what might be the position of the two opposition Members, it has been a pot-pourri. In terms of all other motions, 1 know I will have an opportunity to speak on each one of them. April 10, 1986 is a proud day for us because we are sending out a signal to Canadians in all walks of life that from now on one's colour, sex, nationality or racial origin does not matter; if one is qualified, the job will be his or hers. We are doing it with an affirmative action program.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Motion No. 1 in amendment to Bill C-62. I am concerned with the remarks which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made.
1 am somewhat amazed that he should rise and say that he represents a minority which has suffered from the imposition of quotas and then imply that we do not need positive mechanisms to deal with the problem. He is making quotas, an example of enforcement machinery, a dirty word. He is using the same language for positive measures to promote real employment equity. He is trying, by guilt by association, to suggest that it is somehow discriminatory. He says that they want results, but we have Bill C-62 which will not bring results. He says that we have mandatory employment equity. It is not mandatory if there are no employment equity enforcement mechanisms. That has been made very clear. Judge Abella said that voluntary enforcement simply would not be adequate. It does not matter how much it is called mandatory. If there is no enforcement mechanism to make it work, it will not be truly mandatory.
I support the motion before us which calls the Bill really what it is. Turning to Clause 2 of Bill C-62, it reads;
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to ameliorate 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-
That is certainly the objective. That would be fine, but since we do not have teeth or enforcement mechanisms in Bill C-62, the clause dealing with the purpose of the Act is misleading. It tells the public that employment equity will be achieved, but it
Employment Equity Act
will not be achieved until there are real tough mandatory provisions. The proposal of the NDP is simply to be honest about the Bill. It has good intentions, and that is all. Therefore, in part our amendment reads:
The purpose of this Act is to promote and encourage.
Of course it will promote and encourage employment equity. It is looking in the right direction. It has the right goal at the end, but it is just that it is in no hurry to get there. If we are to have effective enforcement of employment equity, we would have serious penalties for violation. However, Hon. Members will recall that the only penalty contained in Bill C-62 is a $50,000 fine, and $50,000 is peanuts for a company which is making a fortune by exploiting people and paying them less than they ought to be paid. The only penalty is for failing to report. There is no fine for failing to make progress in achieving employment equity. If this Bill were really about the achievement of employment equity, the fine would be in the failure to move ahead, the failure to see that women, visible minorities, handicapped people and native people really made it into the labour force in sizeable numbers, the numbers they deserve, not just token members here and there.
By comparing successive reports, the Minister hopes that the evidence will be sufficient for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to correct systemic discrimination identified by the reports. However, the Minister intends to rely heavily upon public opinion to persuade firms to remove discriminatory barriers which face women, native people, visible minorities and disabled persons. This is precisely the approach which was rejected by Judge Abella in her study. It is precisely the point made by representatives of organizations representing women, native people, disabled persons and visible minorities. They have said that this is not enough. Indeed, some of them said very strongly that we ought to vote against the whole Bill unless the Government is prepared to bring in amendments or to accept our amendments to put real teeth into it.
Public opinion will not work because profits are involved. People make money by paying victims in the market-place less. That is what they will do. They are not moved to change their practices. They are not moved to make reasonable accommodation to incorporate disabled persons. They are not moved to change their recruitment practices to find people who have not heretofore been available for that kind of work. All of that requires a bit of effort and a bit of money. Who is going to put forward that effort and money to bring their employment practices up to fair standards when they can go ahead without any fear of penalties by maintaining the practices that they already have?
We recommend that this Bill should include all Government Departments under federal jurisdiction as well. As it is written now, it applies only to federal Crown corporations. It does not extend to Ministries. At the very least, as a matter of principle, the Government should expect itself as an employer to follow these quite low expectations, not high enough expectations, but
April 10, 1986
surely that at least should be a requirement for the Government to follow.
Treasury Board guidelines are in place for affirmative action in the federal Public Service, but these have been very weak. They have not been effective. We have seen very little movement as a result. The guidelines can be changed. They are not subject to a statute. They can be changed without the matter coming to Parliament at all, whereas if the requirement were right in the Bill, then that could not happen without a new Bill being brought back into Parliament.
The Bill as it currently stands does not allow for adequate participation by labour unions, which have shown a great deal of sensitivity and willingness to work to achieve employment equity. Many of the employers who fall under federal jurisdiction have largely unionized workforces. We have asked that wherever a union is present in the workplace, the employer must bargain the implementation of employment equity. The Bill does not require this. It simply requires the employer to consult with the bargaining agent, but not to sit down seriously and work out a plan that is fair, reasonable and will be effective.
Throughout debate in the House and before committee we emphasized the importance of enshrining the concept of equal pay for work of equal value in this Bill. We moved amendments to this effect, but our amendments were rejected. The Abella Report was very clear that equal pay for work of equal value should be part of all equity programs. It is not here in the Bill.
Finally, I would like to point to contract compliance. We fought to have this added to the Bill. The answer we got was: "Well, we are going to go ahead with it anyway so we do not need a statute on this". But the provisions which the Government is planning to go ahead with are not as vigorous as they could be. They are limited to firms doing $200,000 or more worth of business with the Government and where the firm has more than 100 employees. It is a start, but why should it be restricted to only those companies?
If we really want to encourage employment equity and equal pay for work of equal value, we would extend that principle and use the bargaining power of a contract with Government to make more companies be fair in their employment measures. They would have a positive incentive for coming up with employment equity measures instead of relying on the same goodwill which we know has not been effective. If that had been effective, we would not need this Bill. Employment equity would already have been achieved and it would have been achieved years ago. But it has not.
What we are calling for is real teeth. Unless and until we get real teeth we think at the very least the Government should have the decency not to mislead the Canadian public and to call the Bill precisely what it is, namely, an attempt at goodwill to promote and encourage employment equity, but it should certainly not claim that it is a Bill that will achieve employment equity.

April 10, 1986


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to motion No. 1 which has been proposed to amend the text on the purpose of Bill C-62 from saying it is a Bill to achieve equality in the workplace to stating instead that it is a Bill to promote and encourage such equality.
The explanation given by the mover of this motion is that regrettably the Bill does not achieve the goals that are needed and, therefore, the Member proposes that we call it what it is and say that it is simply something to promote equality in the workplace, a very desirable thing.
I have to say that I do not want to support this motion because I feel that that would be a way to give satisfaction to the Conservatives. They would then be able to say that they had achieved something by saying that they were promoting something. We know they are not going to achieve a thing through this Bill, other than to deceive the public into thinking that they have done something. This is the regrettable part of this Bill. It will betray by delaying those people who are still waiting for their rights, rights which were promised to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, at least guaranteed to them by law if they take their cases to court. The Government, instead of now applying the provisions of that Charter, for which we had to fight so hard in the last Government, is postponing its implementation by making people think that by a long, circuitous action they will some day arrive at the promised land.
Some people say they are eternal optimists. They have to wait an eternity. One of the Tory Members said that she was an eternal optimist. Those people who have to wait, the handicapped, the deaf, or the blind do not want to wait for an eternity. They want action now. They want the kind of action that has been called for by all who are experts and knowled-gable in this field as to what the purpose of a Bill that brings about equality means. They want action that will have teeth in it.
Judge Abella brought a report forward. We had the Obstacles Report before that. Various reports in other countries have been made. All reports call for legislation to make it clear that the victim does not first have to prove his right to justice. It is up to the Government, if it has courage, to provide to people the kind of guarantee that they will have their rights protected.
After fighting for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against the Tories during the last administration when they rang the bells, attacked the Chair and yelled and stood up hour after hour on various questions of privilege and points of order to stall and deter the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution from being brought to this country, that same Party, in this kind of hypocritical stance, now pretends it will stand up for those rights and enforce them. It is not standing up for rights. It is not enforcing them. It is making a mockery of them.
Employment Equity Act
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment and Immigration (Mr. Weiner) speak about how he represents minority groups in his riding. I hope he will continue to try to represent them. I am sure he is sincere in believing in his heart that he is effectuating something helpful to them, but I want to tell him that I have worked for most of my life in human rights causes and as head of a human rights organization. One of the reasons I came to Parliament was to try to see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms brought into effect. One of the reasons I am in Parliament is to try to bring about those things that I saw needed to be done as head of a human rights organization.
I saw the discrimination that took place, the delays, and I saw the poor people who do not have the money to bring their cases to court. As a Government, we should provide effective machinery for them to carry their cause so they do not have to go to court to plead it. That should be the next step. The question must be asked, is that what is happening?
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the field of human rights you will find that all minority groups, all oppressed groups, say that if you want to know whether or not something is good, ask us because we are the ones who suffer. We have heard the people. We have asked them. They have come to the committees. They have practically unanimously said that this Bill is not enough, it does not protect us.
I suggest that we should leave the word "achieve" right where it is. It is not as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration said. If we put in those other words, it would not be watering the Bill down to say, "to encourage". What the Member of the New Democratic Party was trying to do was to mock the Bill. That is why he did what he did. The Bill deserves to be mocked. I will not, therefore, support the idea of changing this to "encourage", but would rather leave it as "achieve" so that the record of history will judge them on what they did to help the people of the country who are handicapped, the women, the native people, and the minority groups.
Are they really satisfied in their hearts that they have done enough? I think they will not say that they have achieved nothing else but to ensure that some reports are sent in. Is that what they are going to do? They are giving companies three years to make reports. If the reports are not made, they will be fined $50,000, but if they do make a report, it will be okay. That is the kind of enforcement this Bill gives us. They can dilly-dally in the courts indefinitely with regard to what that report said and did.
This a tragic travesty. I hope that when the Government comes to its senses it will either change this Bill or accept the condemnation of all of these groups: women, minorities of various racial backgrounds, visible minorities, native people, and the handicapped.

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)- Public Service-Impact on Employment of Government Policy, (b) Government Position; the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)-Trade-Provincial Fresh Water Rights, (b) Grand Canal Company Proposal.



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. I (Mr. Nystrom) (p. 12098).
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to have the opportunity to comment on the employment equity Bill as it moves into report stage. I have been interested and involved in this Bill since its inception and through the committee stage. It is a very proud moment for me and my colleague, the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, to be here today as the Bill goes through its final stage in the House and becomes reality.
The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) referred to a Member who has been referred to as an optimist. 1 am that Member. Yes, 1 am an optimist, and I am proud of it. I am proud of this country and I am proud of Canadians. I believe that Canadians support the concept of employment equity, and it is Canadians who will make it work rather than government. Social change does not come about merely because government decrees it. This kind of social change comes out of the consciousness of Canadians. We, as legislators, provide moral leadership, but Canadians themselves, who recognize inequity, are prepared to make the changes which will be so important.
If we are going to mock anything, I think we should mock the horrendous record of the opposition Party which was in power for almost 20 years and did not do anything to ameliorate the conditions of inequity in the workforce. It had lots of opportunity, but did nothing. In a mere 18 months the Progressive Conservative Government has put this proposal forward, has listened to the people of the country, and is achieving results.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: The purpose of this Bill is to achieve equality, and 1 believe it will do that, for a number of reasons. Those of us who have been involved in the committee are aware of the process. Employers will be required to report on their progress in employment, training, and promotion of people from the target groups. Data will be available to which companies may compare their figures with the number of people available in the community with those qualifications. It will be quite an easy process and it will be on the public record.
There will be, first of all, the public assessment. I know that some of my colleagues in the Opposition pooh-pooh that and say it does not matter. I do not agree with them. Public assessment will operate in two ways. People who are concerned can respond with their dollars. They can withdraw from purchasing the goods or services of those companies which do not fully participate and achieve employment equity. There are other interesting things which I am sure my colleagues are aware of.
In my own hometown of Vancouver, the Vancouver City Savings Credit Union and a private sector group have already new investment funds in place which they will only invest in socially responsible companies. Part of the criteria will be that companies implement and achieve employment equity. That kind of recognition is taking place out in the market-place. That is not Government telling people to do it. Canadians are saying that they think it is right, and they will achieve it themselves.
This piece of legislation is perhaps a carrot on a stick. Being the optimist that I am, I really believe in the carrot. I certainly think this legislation provides that carrot. The companies will have to make their reports, and they will have to start to examine themselves. They will have to start to put in place proper human resource management policies in order to achieve equality. They will have to reach out into the community.
As I said in committee so often, if we spent less of our time arguing about the process and procedure, and more of our time getting representatives of the target groups together with the employers to talk about how we are going to do this, we would achieve more. I recommended this to representatives of the target groups and companies. They said that, since they were not quite sure of what they should be doing, they would like to talk to people in those groups. If we used that co-operative, consultative approach, I think we could achieve employment equity even without the stick which we have in this piece of legislation.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: There is no stick.


Mary Collins: My colleague has said that there is no stick. He is totally wrong. There is a very heavy stick. There is the stick of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If the Member had attended the December 19 meeting of the legislative committee, he would have heard from Gordon
April 10, 1986

Fairweather, the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, that we can enforce employment equity by enforcing the Canadian Human Rights Act. He said that we can initiate complaints, examine data and plans, and then appoint tribunals which have the authority to impose sanctions.
Mr. Fairweather also said, as have my colleagues, that some of the groups would like their own agencies to be there. There is enough fragmentation in the country now without dividing into a proliferation of boards, commissions, and agencies. We want to improve opportunity. Gordon Fairweather, who I know all Parties acknowledge for the pre-eminence of his work, supports this position. He said that we can do it.
One of my colleagues in the NDP said that a fine of $50,000 is peanuts. Maybe for the NDP $50,000 is peanuts, but for someone involved in business $50,000 is an awful lot of money. No company would want to be faced with the shame of being brought before an inquiry, with the cost involved in such an inquiry, or with the public shame of receiving a fine which would not look very good on their bottom line when they have to report to their shareholders and the public.
My colleagues on this side of the House have worked hard. This Bill does provide mandatory sanctions and a mandatory system of enforcement. However, I do not know why we spend so much time on this issue because, more importantly, the Bill provides the new thrust and thinking which will achieve employment equity for women, natives, racial minorities, and the handicapped in this country. I applaud this Bill and am happy to have been a part of it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). She mentioned that she believes in the carrot. I know that Bugs Bunny believes in carrots, but I do not, nor does my Party. What we really need is a big stick in this Bill.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Bugs Bunny turned 50 the other day and what happened?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Bugs Bunny turned 50? He still likes carrots, but I do not.
There is no question, as we have said over and over again in committee and in this House, that this Bill must be strengthened if it is going to achieve the goals of equal opportunity in the workplace for women, native people, visible minorities and the disabled. There is no way we can expect movement in this direction unless the federal Government sets the example. We need a Bill which is far more comprehensive. It should affect a far greater number of employers and employees. It should have real teeth so we can have real enforcement of affirmative action or employment equity as the term is used in this Bill.
I am really rather amused by the amendment we are speaking to because it attempts to define the Bill as it really is. In its original state the Bill refers to the goal of achieving
Employment Equity
employment equity. As my colleague has pointed out through this amendment, it will not achieve employment equity. It is aiming at promoting, encouraging and persuading a few large companies which do business with the Government to give more attention to employment equity.
It will be very interesting to see how Conservative Members vote on this amendment. Are they going to vote in favour of our amendment which describes the Bill as it actually is? Or are they going to go back to the existing wording in the Bill? I hope that in the time remaining they take action with the Minister to try to change the Bill to strengthen it so it will have some real meaning. As it is now, it is just paying lip service. It will really be regressive to raise people's expectations only to find that in practical terms it cannot work.
My colleagues have also talked about the things we object to in the Bill. All the target groups who appeared in committee, I refer particularly to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, as well as the coalition groups, the CLC and many trade unions-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope Hon. Members will give the Hon. Member an opportunity to speak. I love to listen to her expound on this particular Bill and I would hope the other Members would, too.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the wisdom with which you listen to these profound remarks I am making and I also thank my colleagues for listening.
I was saying that many groups will be affected by employment equity or the lack thereof. There were many women's groups, groups of the disabled, trade union and labour groups, as well as various representatives of native groups, including the Assembly of First Nations, and certainly other groups concerned with race relations and muiticulturalism. I know there was a consensus among them all that this Bill was not strong enough. It did not have the teeth to enforce the stated goal of achieving employment equity. There is no effective enforcement mechanism. The only penalty is one of $50,000 if a designated employer fails to report. Even just providing a picture of what their business is, is hardly achieving employment equity in a very real sense.
We have also expressed a number of objections about the kind of myths the Minister has put forward. Sometimes I wonder if she really understands what mandatory affirmative action is. I really feel that she does not comprehend it. I have respect for her, I think her motives are very strong and she wants to do something for the target groups we are talking about. However, she brought in an amendment which provides an action plan for employers. It was added after all the various groups objected that there was no enforcement. However, it is just words because there is no enforcement. There is no penalty for the employers who do not adhere to the plan. What is the point in putting it in? It is, once again, just platitudes.
I cannot believe that the Minister did not listen, but she did not seem to comprehend what organized labour is saying.

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity
These are the people who work in these large corporations. The CLC and various other labour groups have said over and over again that employment equity must be negotiated. It must be part of the collective bargaining process.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Must be negotiated?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What does the Minister do about that? She brought in some reference to token consultation with unions. I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) is here. You cannot really blame the labour movement for really being very angry about this. This is undercutting the whole collective bargaining process. There must be negotiations involving employment equity and all employees must be involved.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Negotiations? What happened to the big stick?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) comes from Manitoba. I wish he would stand up and tell us about the pay equity Bill which the Manitoba Government brought in. That is an attempt to put into legislation equal pay for work of equal value. Judge Abella strongly advocated that this must be part of the legislation. The NDP tried to present amendments here and they were rejected. There is no contract compliance which requires every company doing business with the Government to practise employment equity. There is no penalty if they do not. This Bill only applies to a few very large employers. There are probably only about three or four in British Columbia who will even be affected. Again, all they have to do is to report.
Another thing I want to stress, something to which Judge Abella made reference, and I have not heard other speakers referring to it, is that Judge Abella said that for there to be employment equity for employees in Government and private industry, there must be access to child care for parents who are workipg. If they do not have affordable access to child care suited to their shifts or their hours of work, they do not have equal opportunity in the workplace. They certainly do not have equal opportunity for promotion.
We have travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back again. Everyone is asking us to do something about the crisis in child care. One of the things that should be done is to have more access to workplace child care and the federal Government has given no attention to that whatsoever. There has been no attention given to training opportunities. People who know about affirmative action say you must have opportunities to upgrade people, especially women and disadvantaged people, so they have a chance to move into other kinds of better paying, promotional jobs. It is an inadequate Bill and I feel very sorry that in this first attempt we have not made a better job of it.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable reluctance that I rise to speak to the question and the amendment before the House.
First of all, what we want is to obtain equality for all Canadian men and women: equality as such and equal access. However, this Bill is a sham.

Mr. Speaker, although I would like to support the Bill as it stands, assume and hope that it would achieve employment equity, there is no way the content of this Bill will enable people who are suffering at this point from a lack of equal access and equal opportunity to bring to the workforce their talents and skills.
We do have, unfortunately, a systemic discrimination that is indigenous to our workforce. The goal of employment equity is real and it is practical. It is a distant goal that is not going to be realized for those people who really need it.
I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), both of whom 1 had assumed had a much larger heart and a bigger understanding of the issues. It is with a deep sense of regret that I listened to both of them. On the one hand the Parliamentary Secretary talks about the fact that he is a witness to what discrimination can do. I can speak as well from the same perspective. On the other hand the Member for Capilano spent six months with me travelling across this land and was witness, as I was, to the testimony of one group after the other who, unlike my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner), and myself, have lived the experiences that we heard about. We have not had to live our life being deprived of earnings, which has a negative impact on our life and our ability to raise our family and give them the things we would love to give them. This would apply to native people in this country, the aboriginal peoples, the blacks in this country, or any of the other visible minority groups and some of the nonvisible minority groups as well as the handicapped who are looked at constantly based on their disability rather than their abilities.
I wish the Parliamentary Secretary had come along; maybe he would not have spoken the way he did. I regret that the Member for Capilano, who did come along, did speak the way she did. The reality is that there are few industries upon which this Bill will impact. We have had a sensitization of our population to this problem by Judge Abella. She is a very fine spokesman, extraordinarily articulate, and she made her voice heard. She said that voluntary action has not worked. Appeal to the hearts and minds does not impact on the people who are included in our concept of non-discrimination and equal opportunity in the workforce. From what I heard I can only tell you that we have missed the boat, and it is sad. The potential was there. I think the Minister wanted to realize her goals, but I think she was blocked at every turn by big business and by the corporate sector which, if you read the Nielsen task
April 10, 1986

force Report, indicate quite clearly that they did not want this Bill to be mandatory and they were not at all interested in seeing it applied in its fullest measure. 1 am sorry to say she has had to cave in.
One of the disappointments in this Government is the breaking of the promises that were so glibly falling from the tongue of our charming Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). In the Throne Speech the Prime Minister stated, and 1 quote him, "economic equality is the vehicle through which women-", and he is referring here, of course, to a lovely target market, 52 per cent of whom were supposed to buy his promise, and I continue my quote, "-will come to full partnership and participation with men in our society". These are very laudable principles, and words are very simple, but a law is another matter.
I would suggest to you that this law has no mechanisms to effect what we want in principle and in practice through equality. Judge Abella said that employment equity is a strategy designed to obliterate the present and residual effects of discrimination and to open equitably the competition for employment opportunities to those arbitrarily excluded. It requires a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair and what is workable. Obviously what was necessary, fair and workable did not work to date. In order for it to become workable you have to have a law that has teeth, otherwise it is a law in name only and it is a farce and a joke. To play games with our visible minorities, with our handicapped, with the ethnics, with the native people is a sham, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Sheila Finestone: You may think I am wrong, but it is you who are wrong.
I bring to your attention that when an evaluation was done in New York on the impact of the affirmative action program, which was mandatory in the United States, the analysis was, and I quote Victoria Smith, the senior consultant in New York, that, "Business is comfortable with numerical goals and targets. That is how business works. We just did surveys of our clients and most of them are Fortune 500 big corporations, they are now Fortune 1000, and of 142 responses 95 per cent said they would keep on using numerical goals to track the progress of women and minorities regardless of government requirements".
She went on to say that first you have to get them to understand that we are not imposing on them something that is anathema. The focus and the goal of employment equity is to bring the talents and potential of individuals to enrich our business community. It is not to punish them because we wish to give equal opportunity to those people who were discriminated because of the systemic barriers that need to be revised and reviewed.
Employment Equity
1 think it is about time that our federal Government, its agencies, Crown corporations, the federally operated and regulated sectors, and companies doing business with Government start to recognize the diversity of Canada's population and the potential of these disadvantaged people. This Bill demonstrates that this Government lacks the willpower and the leadership that is needed to implement employment equity programs effectively. I can only ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go back and read what the Canadian Ethnocultural Council has said or the coalition of provincial organizations for the handicapped. They are all disappointed with this Bill. I would specifically direct the Parliamentary Secretary to take a look at a research piece that was done in his own area. How will he respond to the Jamaican Association of Montreal? We have 18,000 Jamaicans and the statistics are quite astounding. There is a 69 per cent unemployment factor for 18 to 25 year olds; 41.5 per cent unemployment for those between the ages of 25 and 35; 31 per cent unemployment for those aged 35 to 45; 22 per cent unemployment for those between the ages of 45 and 60; and over 43 per cent unemployment for those aged 60 and over. That takes only the Jamaican community of Montreal into account, not including Haitians, Vietnamese or the handicapped. It is a shame. Tell me how this Bill will answer the needs of those people. It will not.
Employment equity deals with many things, including education, child care, re-education and training. Many activities are required and this Bill will not meet the needs of those members of his constituency, mine or that of anyone else in this country. It is with a deep regret that I indicate that we on this side of the House are not satisfied with this Bill.
There is no such thing as voluntary compliance according to affirmative action laws right now. A law without teeth is not a law. If voluntary compliance worked, then Moses would have come down from the mountain with the 10 guidelines.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 1 in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom), to amend Bill C-62. This Bill is purportedly designed to achieve equality in the workplace. The amendment attempts to change that to read:
The purpose of this Act is to promote and encourage-
-equality in the workplace. This motion recognizes the particular lack of enforcement provisions that would be required to achieve employment equity and, therefore, justifies our proposing that the Bill is designed only to promote and encourage employment equity. It is a fair description of the Bill and it is particularly important to recognize that this is the extent to which the Government plans to take action. I believe that various groups in Canada hope that the Government will do more; which leads one to question how one views this particular Bill. We trust that the Bill will provide the necessary information to undertake additional action through various forms of compliance with the required enforcement to

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity
ensure that employment equity is actually achieved. The information provided in this Bill is certainly necessary in achieving that goal, and these groups will argue that the Bill should be passed so that the Government can introduce additional measures to meet the criticisms that my colleagues have already put forward and which I will consider as well.
The fact is that the Government does not intend to do anything more. There has been enough dicussion about the need for enforcement mechanisms to be included in the Bill.
A few minutes ago the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) made a fine argument for depending on carrots. It is similar to what a Liberal Leader of the Opposition in the 1890s called "sunny ways", against the harsh measures that a Conservative Government was trying to bring to bear on the Province of Manitoba. One can celebrate sunny ways and one can enjoy carrots almost as much as Bugs Bunny has during his 50 year career, but the sad fact of the matter is that human beings frequently need a little more pressure than that.
The corporations to which this Bill will apply are those with more than 200 employees and having sales to the Government amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those corporations in particular will require some pressure, but the Government does not plan to bring any of that pressure to bear because once the Bill is passed-as the Government will presumably ensure-and the reporting begins, the Government will argue that several years must pass before we have any real basis to say that on the evidence of the reports they failed to act. The Government will argue that we must let that time pass before we envisage bringing in any substantial pressure to bear on these companies.
There will be a great deal of disappointment and anguish across the country in the next two or three years because there is no doubt that we will not see any enforcement provisions before the end of the Government's mandate in 1988 or 1989. Furthermore, there will be no action to meet the other criticisms that I will explain in a moment. Undoubtedly we will hear many fine intentions. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) makes that kind of speech very well. The Parliamentary Secretary is undoubtedly an honourable person and speaks to the need to achieve employment equity. I am sure that other Government Members can state those intentions very well too, but the Government does not intend to ensure that employment equity takes place.
It will depend on the Human Rights Commission, which is an independent body. I fear that when amendments to strengthen the Canadian Human Rights Act are introduced sometime in the next year or 18 months, they will not include some of the provisions that are needed so that the Canadian Human Rights Commission-the only enforcement means envisaged by the Government-will have the authority to ensure that employment equity will make progress. It is clear that this Bill does not provide the means to achieve employment equity but is undoubtedly designed to promote and encourage employment equity.
Let me point out some of the more specific weaknesses in the Bill. I have already commented on the lack of enforcement mechanisms. The most the Bill provides for is a $50,000 fine to those who fail to file reports. The Bill should have included provisions that take into account how a workforce reflects the local labour force, including the number of women in the workforce or who want to be in the workforce, the number of native people and visible minorities who live in the area and would like to find employment, as well as the number of disabled who are seeking employment. As the evidence mounts that these companies have not employed these people, we will only have the effect of public opinion on the Government.
In a week when we have been considering Bill C-91 relating to competition, I am reminded of other Governments that thought public opinion would do a great deal. The Combines Investigation Act is a splendid example of that. The best that could be said for William Lyon Mackenzie King in his day is that if companies were exposed as combining with others to constrain trade in order to drive prices up, to take from consumers more than those consumers should have to pay, and if he thought public opinion would make any difference, there is a lot of evidence that it did not in fact happen. Although fines are assessed against companies these days for a variety of offences, there is no lack of evidence to show that when companies are found guilty, they pay these fines and presumably go on their way, which leaves us to appreciate the fact that the lack of enforcement mechanism is a very serious flaw in the Act.
The first words in Clause 2 of the Bill, "to achieve equality in the workplace" makes this Bill unworthy because of the fact that it refers to the "workplace" in general terms. The Bill does not not provide for federal Government Departments themselves who are, after all, fairly substantial as employers. One of the things we sought in committee was an expansion of the Bill to relate specifically to Departments of the Government. I fear that in this area the report of the special committee on the participation of visible minorities may deserve some part of the blame for what has happened. In the distinctions which were drawn in that report we have discussion of the need for "affirmative action", as the language was at that point. There was a section which related to the country generally and to the private sector, if you will, and then we have another part which related to Government and the needs of Government. I believe that if the Government of our day were really serious about achieving employment equity in the workplace, it would have ensured that the Bill applied to those Departments. It would have overcome the shortcomings of that aspect of the Equality Now Report and ensured that there was such an application.
For these reasons, among others, I support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville that Clause 2 be amended to read "to promote and encourage", because that is the most that this Bill will do.
April 10, 1986


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am also pleased to participate in the debate on report stage of Bill C-62. I would like to preface my remarks by recalling to the House a quote by Judge Abella, the architect and author of the Abella Commission Report. She said: "Unenforceable rights are no more satisfactory than unavailable rights". 1 think that speaks volumes about the malaise of Bill C-62. I believe it is the malaise of Bill C-62 to which Motion No. 1 refers itself. Following the presentation of the Abella Commission Report, which was a very courageous, forthcoming and progressive report, great expectations were created among Canadians and, more specifically, among the four target groups which the Abella Commission identified. There were great expectations that the Government of the day would take the window of opportunity and the momentum which was offered by the Abella Commission, by the Equality Now and Equality for All Reports and that somehow those recommendations and bold findings would be put into legislation. But neither the recommendations nor the findings are in Bill C-62.
Bill C-62 does not achieve employment equity. It only talks of and about employment equity. There is a world of difference between the two.
During second reading, Hon. Members on this side of the House asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to strengthen Bill C-62. It was hoped that at the committee stage, where we would be meeting with those four target groups and other Canadians interested in Bill C-62, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Government would see the merit and the reasons for strengthening such a Bill. Group after group, the Ethnocultural Council, the Urban Alliance for Race Relations from Toronto, women's groups, native groups and groups of the disabled, all came forward with hope in their hearts that the committee would grant equal opportunity not just to you and me, Mr. Speaker, but to those individuals. These groups appeared before committee and told Hon. Members from all Parties what they were seeking and had been seeking for years. It is not an easy process, nor is it an overnight process. It is a longterm difficult task. There should be no shortcuts nor the easy public relations gimmicks about which Bill C-62 speaks.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said so often on the hustings in 1984: "We will provide a Government for the people". If there is an absence of that promise, it is in Bill C-62. It is a piece of legislation which says that we are going to have basically four targets, women, natives, the handicapped and visible minorities. But those people came before the committee and before Members of Parliament in other forums, such as public meetings in Toronto, and said that they are not in agreement with Bill C-62. They told us that it falls short and will not do the things it says it will do. But those submissions fell on deaf ears. If this is a Government for the people, then the Government should at least have the decency to respond specifically and honourably to these requests and aspirations.
Employment Equity
Those groups have gone away with the hope that at report stage, at which we are now, the eleventh hour, the Government will address in a bold and courageous manner that which it said it would. There is a shortage of action between Bill C-62 and the Abella Commission Report. There were great expectations which once again have not been met.
As Members of Parliament, perhaps one of the most difficult things for us to tackle in terms of individual representations in our constituencies, are the requests of individuals seeking employment. Individuals come to their Members of Parliament and say: "Look, 1 have not had a job in the last year. I have put in X number of applications and the answer is always the same. Would you please try to help me?" We, as Members of Parliament, try to do our utmost to assist those constituents. What is more hurtful is to have individuals within the four target groups come to us and suggest they are being denied opportunities of employment because of who they are or because of their handicaps. That hurts deeply. It is the dignity of work which I believe gives definition to one's self worth. It is having employment which gives one the hope of carrying on and providing for one's family. But when a black Canadian, a handicapped Canadian, a native Canadian or a woman come to us and tell us they are being discriminated against based on their particular traits, we must feel that this is something that should not happen in this country. It should not happen with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Yes, Canada is a great country. We all realize that we have no peer in terms of our greatness. However, we should not end the debate there. There are a large number of Canadians who unfortunately cannot concur with those sentiments. Some Canadians are saying that the opportunities that exist for their neighbours or for people in other provinces do not exist for them. As long as that is the case, Canada does not mean to those people what it means to you and me, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is important for Bill C-62 to deal with opportunities in a forthright and courageous way and, perhaps, in the most challenging and difficult way.
It should be admitted that this problem is not an easy one to eradicate. However, that is not an excuse to give the issue only some PR and patchwork. There is no excuse for doing that. We should have built on the momentum of the findings of the various reports to which I have referred. We should have built on the representations that these four communities made not only during the constitutional process and the making of the Equality for Now Report but during the Abella Commission hearings. The Government is not delivering the goods.
It is no wonder that we are hearing representatives of these individual groups saying that they are losing faith and trust in the system. They have been telling the system to change for the last number of years. Here in Parliament we have the window of opportunity open that would allow us to make the lot of these four groups better, but I am ashamed to be a part of a Parliament that is presenting Bill C-62. That is why I was

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity
astounded when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister rose to say that April 10 is a great day and he is proud. What is he proud of? Why do we not ask members of the four target groups if they are proud of the Government? Does the Parliamentary Secretary understand the struggles of those Canadians day after day or, in some cases, generation after generation?
We should not be proud of Bill C-62. We should put it back on the drawing board. Motion No. 1 speaks to the malaise that has gripped Bill C-62. I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but it is my hope that following report stage, the Government will find some sensitivity and will be progressive rather than simply do a PR job on what is a very fundamental issue for Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this Bill. But before 1 do so, Mr. Speaker, noticing you in the chair, I would say that I was severely critical of 21 Alberta MPs for not speaking out on another matter the other day. I would like to make that 20 MPs and certainly exclude you, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, then, 19. Are there any more? Let me speak on this Bill. It is important-


Mr. Desrosiers:: Shame on you.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I invite the Hon. Member to rise to speak on this Bill if he wants to reply. Unfortunately, unlike the Hon. Member, I cannot speak while seated. We know where the brains of the Tories are. They are better when they are sitting on them.
This Bill is supposed to be about employment equity. I think the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) summed it up very neatly when he said that the Bill talks about employment equity and looks as if it were about employment equity but does not really do very much about employment equity. He outlined the four major groups that have made submissions to the Government over three inquiries, one commission and one constitutional hearing, namely, women, visible minorities, natives and the disabled. Apparently the Government was not listening to them. Certainly if it had been listening, there would have been a much stronger Bill with some teeth and enforcement provisions presented to the House.
Let us confess, we all like the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) a great deal. However, I have picked up from the debate that Hon. Members feel that she kind of struck out in Cabinet. That is an appropriate metaphor as baseball season is just beginning. Flora got up to bat and struck out in Cabinet. This Bill certainly will not do effectively that which we believe the Minister of Employment and Immigration would like to do, giving her the benefit of the doubt, and that is, to bring in a Bill that will give a sense of equity and fairness to Canadians who are not in an equal position.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In French!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My hon. friend asks me to speak French. Well, the problem is the same for Quebec as it is for other regions in Canada. The problem is exactly the same, and that is why I intend to continue in English.

We have to ask ourselves why the Government has watered down this Bill and the policy of real equality.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Because they are Conservatives.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Exactly, because it is a Conservative Government. As we can see by the competition Bill, and with only a few exceptions, this is a Government that is in tune with the wealthy and big business interests. Its relentless pursuit of tax increases, elimination of jobs, protection of the wealthy minority, taxes on old age pensioners, taxes on pensionable UIC recipients and cut-backs on social services for the needy show the basic thrust of the Government. We can see evidence of that in the competition Bill, a sweetheart Bill for business, and this Bill, a backtracking Bill that does not really deal with employment equity.
In Proverbs, chapter 22:16, the Bible says:
He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that givcth to the rich, shall surely come to want.
In spite of today's opinion polls, I predict that if the Government continues on this path, it too will surely come to want, if not in heaven then at the next election.
There are ways to deal with the flaws in this Bill. It could be made stronger. Women are members of one group that is affected. Employment equity pertains basically to women. They are the ones who are unequal in the workplace. All sorts of commissions have said that, and some eloquent speeches have been made by some of the women opposition Members today. I need not repeat them.
This Bill will not have the tough enforcement procedures we need to make equality a reality. It will not come overnight. We have to have some enforcement procedures and some specific goals and targets. Again, there have to be ways of enforcing those goals and targets. The Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) spoke about possible effective enforcement procedures in some detail.
Visible minorities form another group that will be affected. In my riding, there are many Chinese Canadians, probably more than in any other riding. In many ways, Chinese Canadians are now receiving a measure of equality and acceptance that they never have in the past, mainly through their own efforts but also through a change in attitudes on the part of the people of British Columbia. In the past, there were race riots in British Columbia. The stores of Chinese Canadians were burned. A recent survey taken in British Columbia revealed that British Columbians had become one of the most tolerant people in Canada. That is real progress. The Chinese
April 10, 1986

struggled to get that equality. 1 am not pleased to say that the place which Chinese Canadians used to occupy is now occupied by East Indians who are a very visible minority in the southeast part of Vancouver, especially Sikhs who wear turbans and so on. Sometimes it is a real struggle for them to get equality in the workplace. They have made progress. Unions such as the 1WA have helped to make progress in integrating East Indian people into the forest industry, but it takes a lot of effort. Native people are another visible minority group.
1 remember the worst thing that happened to me in the last election campaign. The people in one household absolutely turned me away. I can sense some heckles coming from Hon. Members opposite; I leave myself open when I refer to the worst thing that happened to me. I can knock on a door and be confronted with people who may not agree with me. They may be Conservatives or Liberals, although there are few of them in the West.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Watch it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, not Liberals, because people in the West believe that politicians should stand for something, so they vote either Conservative or NDP.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You will live to regret those words.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They realize that Liberals are like-


Sheila Maureen Copps: A former member of the Liberal Party, shame on you, Ian.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -mugwumps who sit on the fence with their mugs on one side and their wumps on the other and do not know on which side to come down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I am willing to give this popular Member an extra minute or two, but if this carries on, I think I will have to cut him off.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, even I know that I am being irrelevant.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) really insulted the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) when she said that he used to be a former Liberal. That is not the case, is it?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, it is. Now he is really embarrassed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order. Now, look it, let's grab a lifestyle here and let's get with it, okay? It is three minutes after five o'clock and the Hon. Member has two minutes remaining.
Employment Equity


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A nasty rumour went around a few years ago that there was a fellow who looked exactly like me and knew the most intimate details of my personal life. There used to be, years ago, a former assistant to a Liberal Prime Minister. I do not know where this fellow gets around, but I want to say that I am certainly not a Liberal, today.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That was a Liberal answer.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, it was. However, let me conclude by saying that we think the Bill is flawed. The Minister of Employment and Immigration had good intentions but she could not get a really tough Bill through Cabinet. We need a Bill which will help women, visible minorities, native people and disabled people. We need a Bill with better goals than Bill C-62. We need targets to reach those goals and some way to enforce those targets and goals. That is what a good Bill would be about, and we would vote for such a Bill. However, this Bill ain't it.


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill C-62. Much has been said about it this afternoon. For a moment or two I should like to refer to the contents of the Bill itself. Its purpose is defined as follows:
-to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and. in the fulfilment of that goal, to ameliorate 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.
I hope it is clear to everyone that the target groups are women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who are, because of their race or colour, in a visible minority in Canada.
In that Your Honour is from Edmonton, I think you would be the first to agree that southeast Edmonton contains large numbers of people in the target groups. It may surprise Hon. Members opposite to know that in Edmonton-Strathcona 62 per cent of the people living there are of origin other than British or French. As was stated so eloquently by the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner), this is a step forward in Canada. It is the first time in our entire history that a Government has done something about employment equity. It is a day of which all of us in the House should be proud. I, for one, am very proud to be associated with a Government which is doing this.
It is self-evident that the target groups are not given the same opportunities as other Canadians. I recall being in Montreal a couple of years ago when it was pointed out to me that the unemployment rate among visible minorities in that city was in excess of 20 per cent. It is an unfortunate fact of life in Canada that people in the target groups do not have the same opportunities as have other Canadians. If my Party believes in anything, it is that we believe in equality of

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity
opportunity for all Canadians including the four targeted groups,


Sheila Finestone: Certainly you do, David.


David Kilgour: It is not perfect, but I ask my close friend, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), what has any other Government in our history done in this regard? I think the answer, in fairness, would be, absolutely nothing.
I should like to deal with some of the points raised by Hon. Members opposite. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal referred to employment statistics on visible minorities and to Canadians of Jamaican origin. For the first time employers in Montreal and elsewhere will be required to implement equity and demonstrate the results of their efforts. For the first time those employers will have to account to the people of Canada and to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which will take action if companies fail to show positive results. As 1 understand it, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) stated that she did not like the enforcement question. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will monitor progress under the Bill. I understand the commission appeared before the committee and indicated that it fully supported the proposed enforcement process and that it would continue to monitor the progress made. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) indicated that public opinion, as 1 understand it, was not important in the achievement of employment equity. To what do any of us answer? It is public opinion, and 1 am not referring to those days when we do well in a public opinion poll. Public opinion is the governing factor in a democracy, and I hope it always will be.
I listened to the remarks of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). I would ask him: Which recommendations in the excellent Abella Report we are not attempting to deal with? My parents and his ancestors came to Canada with hope. In my view we must all start at the same point on the starting line and compete together. However, the reality is that the target groups in the Bill all too often do not have the same opportunity. We are determined on this side of the House- and I hope that is the case for those on his side-to ensure that Canada takes this very significant step forward today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate. There have been a number of facetious and fallacious statements made by Government Members. It is unfortunate that they do not know the facts. They do not know that this particular so-called step forward has been criticized by every group and every organization involved in the search for equality and for minorities.
It is also pretty clear, as stated by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), that the heavyweights in the Conservative Cabinet put their foot down and blocked any move toward real equality for women. It is very clear that some of those heavyweights do not believe in equality for women.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is the Minister responsible for the implementation of the equality report. Let us look at what the Minister of Justice thinks about women and what he thinks about equality even in this very august Chamber. At a fund raising dinner a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of Justice made his comment very clear, Mr. Speaker. An article in a newspaper, in part, reads:
Saying federal opposition MPs presented "strong arguments for retroactive birth control" and likening Liberal MP Sheila Copps to a codfish, federal Justice Minister John Crosbie was on the attack-
One of his more venemous attacks made against Ms. Copps. After describing a codfish as having a "stupid looking face" with a mouth that is "usually wide open," he went on to say: "The perfect example of a codfish would be Sheila Copps."
The Minister of Justice who said that the opposition Parties are the greatest justification for retroactive birth control is, in fact, the same Minister who is responsible for the implementation of equality. If Members on the Government side of the House had taken the time to read the equality report, they would know that in the report itself there is an absolute and direct challenge levelled at the Government with respect to the employment equity Bill.
The equality committee, made up of a majority of Conservatives, studied the laws of the land, including the proposed Bill we are discussing today, and found that this particular legislation did not meet the needs of women, did not meet the needs of minorities and was a violation of the principles of equality. Why is it still a violation of the principles of equality?
First, built into the legislation is a clause that states that all federal agencies covered under the Financial Administration Act will not be covered by this Bill. In one fell swoop, with one stroke of the pen, the federal Government has introduced a Bill which does not apply to the RCMP, to the Canadian Armed Forces or to any federal Government agencies which are directly under the rubrick of Treasury Board. It only applies to federally regulated companies. To boot, Mr. Speaker, all federally regulated companies are not covered under this legislation. Only approximately 100 of over 30,000 federal companies will be covered by this legislation. Approximately 100 companies, and the balance, over 30,000 companies, can thumb their noses at the Government and can tell the Government that they will continue to pursue the voluntary approach which has proven in the past not to work.
Even though this measure covers only 100 companies, it will target a number of employees within federally regulated bodies, such as the banks and various transportation industries, and for that we would give them a great round of applause if the Bill said anything. The Bill should say, "You have targets which you must reach, otherwise the federal Government, through the auspices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, will step in and do something". There is no requirement upon any company to do anything. All that is asked of a company is to send in an annual report on its progress.
April 10, 1986

How will those reports be monitored? An audit, a random audit which would lead to absolutely no response or no conditions on the companies at all. We have heard over and over again in the House of Commons today from a number of Members who should know better. I think of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), who was presumably informed on the issue since she spent the better part of last year criss-crossing the country, studying questions and saying that nothing had been done under previous Liberal Governments. I would like to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker.
Those of us in Parliament realize that under any Government the progress we have made is not enough, but it is pretty important that the public recognize that in 1971 Canada became the first country in the western world to recognize women at the highest levels of decision making by establishing a cabinet position for women. In 1973, a non-governmental advisory council on the status of women was established. In 1972, the federal Government ratified the International Labour Organization's convention concerning equal pay for work of equal value, even though the current Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) with respect to the labour dispute in Newfoundland has made it quite clear that the Government does not intend to respect the ILO convention signed by previous Liberal Governments. In 1975 there was the introduction of an omnibus Bill to provide equality of status for women. In 1976, we had the adoption of the Canadian Human Rights Act forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex. In 1978, we had an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the equal splitting of pension credits and amendments to the Canada Labour Code to eliminate pregnancy as a basis for lay-off or dismissal. In 1982, we had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over the dead body of a particular Progressive Conservative Premier of a certain province in Canada. Over his dead body the federal Liberal Party introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guaranteed equal rights to men and women, including an override clause, which was blocked at every step by Conservatives across the nation.
When we talk about equality, let us look at the question of unemployment benefits, which has a direct bearing on how we can seek equality in the workforce. We know right now that the federal Conservative Party, the Government sitting across the way, is looking at taking pregnancy leave out of unemployment insurance benefits. It is one of the things being studied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
When the Liberal Government introduced pregnancy leave as a right through unemployment insurance, as with other types of leave which were not covered under the Searching for Work section, it was introduced because Liberals believed and continue to believe that in order to give women the opportunity to compete equally in the workforce they have to have an opportunity of access to child care, access to bearing a child without being penalized and without fear of losing their jobs, without financial hardship and disability. It seems to me that
Employment Equity
what we have here is a Government that is sending the women of Canada a double-whammy.

It is a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that many ministers in this Government, in this Cabinet, have not the slightest interest in achieving equality for women. We also know that as far as this Bill is concerned, all groups, including women, minority groups, racial minorities, all those groups have already told the Government that the Bill does not meet the needs of Canadian men and women. Not just the ethnic groups and visible minorities and women's groups have voiced their disapproval. The Conservative Committee said in the report on equality that Bill C-62 went against the principles of equity as previously defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If Progressive Conservative Members would take the time to read the Charter, they would see why the Committee was unanimous in demanding that the Government change the Bill, and the reason is that the Bill as tabled fails to provide for Government responsibility.
For instance, most companies are not covered by the Bill, including the Government, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which has been said to discriminate against Francophones. Today, the Canadian Forces fail to respect the equality of women as far as career opportunities in the Armed Forces are concerned. All these groups are not covered by the Bill because the Government, or rather the Minister-1 suppose as a result of the enormous influence of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen)-has decided to eliminate all the groups included in the Financial Administration Act. In other words, Government employees will not have the same rights as employees in the private sector, before the federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear there are incredible deficiencies, and if Progressive Conservative Members are truly interested in equality for women, they should reject the Bill in its present form.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 listened to the remarks of the Minister when she introduced this Bill and to those of the Parliamentary Secretary, I could only conclude that either they are completely ignorant of how the real world of employment operates, or they are involved in a charade trying to fool the Canadian people into believing they are doing something when, in fact, they are not.
In terms of employment, the fate of four important groups will be vitally affected by the effectiveness of this Bill. Those groups have expressed their opposition because they know from experience that without targets and numerical goals being set in the Act, nothing will happen. I refer to women, natives, the handicapped, and people from the visible minorities.

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity
I heard the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) say that 62 per cent of his constituents come from neither Anglo Saxon nor French origin. That Member grew up in Winnipeg and he will know that the percentage is even higher in my constituency. 1 had the opportunity to work for a dozen years with the labour movement, ethnic groups, and community organizations in precisely this area of how to deal in Canada with the problems of prejudice and discrimination.
In the 1950s we suggested to Governments, federal and provincial, that legislation was needed to stop employers from refusing to hire people because of their race, religion, or colour. We heard all kinds of lectures about the fact that legislation would not work. We were told that legislation would only exacerbate the prejudices and that we needed education. After a few years of really studying the problem, the Government realized that legislation was needed.
I give credit to the first Government to enact such legislation in the form of the Fair Employment Practices Act, the then Conservative Government of Ontario lead by Mr. Frost. Some years later, when we went to work on the question of accommodations, we were able to prove that there were hotels, summer resorts, and even districts in certain cities, which made it impossible, or very uncomfortable, for people to get accommodation because of their race, colour, or creed. We then had passage of the Fair Accommodation Practices Act.
We are told that all we need do is to encourage people. The federal Liberal Government targeted certain Departments. It said that it believed in making employment for minority groups easier. It targeted certain Departments to hire people from minority groups. The record was very poor. I am not saying that that Government did not want a better record and did not try. However, it is easy to pass legislation or announce policies, but if the personnel managers do not believe in it, it simply will not work, and it has not worked.
If one studies the Departments which were targeted by the former Government to make progress, one sees that there was very little progress. How many natives and other non-white people work for the federal Government? How many women are there in senior executive positions? There are very few, although our universities have graduated large numbers of women lawyers and doctors and some women engineers and architects. They are not working for Governments because the personnel managers have not been convinced that they ought to do this, and we have not set goals.
The United States has had a great deal of experience in this area. Under the Johnson and Carter administrations, legislation very similar to ours was passed. However, they set goals and targets, and those targets were monitored. The American Government is now headed by the most pro-business President that the United States has had in 50 years. The present Government is against legislation and regulations which interfere with the rights of businesses to make decisions which they think are right for themselves. They have been considering getting rid of these targets. This is a very interesting situation. Even though they are ideologically committed to
getting rid of these targets and goals, the Secretary of Labour, Mr. Brock, is telling President Reagan that they should keep the goals and targets.
In addition to Secretary of Labour Brock, representatives of the National Association of Manufacturers in the United States, the major organization representing the major business corporations in the United States, have said openly, clearly, and on the record to the President of the United States that they do not want those numbers to be eliminated. They have explained it very simply by saying that as long as the Government sets targets and tells them clearly and precisely what they are required to do by way of bringing more equity into the workforce, hiring more people who are non-white, native, handicapped, and women, they are prepared to do it. They feel that there will be no doubts or difficulties and that they will not be criticized in the future for not having done the right thing. If that is what the American business community has learned through experience, surely Canadian business and industry would come to the same conclusion if given the opportunity and requirement.
I go into the banks, supermarkets, and major retail stores in my city of Winnipeg. We have thousands of non-white citizens in Winnipeg. I challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who comes from my province, to come to Winnipeg, as I am sure he does, and to go, as I do, into any of those establishments. Mr. Speaker, you would have to look for a long time and wear very large magnifying glasses before you would see a few, if any, people who are non-white, handicapped, or native, working in any of those places. The record of my city Government is no better. There has been a long campaign to try to get the Winnipeg Police Department to hire a few native people, a few Filipinos, a few Sikhs. We have as well a very small percentage of women on the Winnipeg Police Force. When I use my city as an illustration, the record in other cities such as Montreal, Halifax, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver is, I am certain, no better. Passage of this Bill without a requirement for targeting as well as provision for enforcement will make it a mockery and it will not work.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Ona point of order, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


David Kilgour: He is sending someone out to get another Member.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot hear because of interjections on the other side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville on a point of order.
April 10, 1986


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker-well, that's okay.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Pretty shabby.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) wishes to participate in the debate?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The debate is on the motion to change the preamble of this Bill to "promote and encourage" rather than to "achieve". At first sight this amendment is almost trivial. However, 1 think it communicates something of importance, that being a recognition of the limitations of this legislation, which are considerable. It reminds us, too, of the limits of past legislation dealing with human rights. There have been a number of laws passed in this country the purpose of which in general has been to give the force of law to the notion that there ought to be accorded equal opportunity in the first instance to minority groups and, as our philosophy on equality evolved, to women, the disabled, natives and others. Never has any of this legislation achieved the purpose for which it was intended. It has always been a case of an effort to make progress along a path which has always proved to be far more difficult than people want.
Of course, this legislation is dramatic testimony to the failures of the past in attempting to achieve anti-discrimination legislation. At one time it was possible to hope that by saying it was against the law to discriminate in employment practices and providing a mechanism by which someone could enter a complaint, in the end employers would not discriminate. Of course it failed and ultimately led to a whole new point of view regarding anti-discrimination legislation, usually described as affirmative action. Therefore, even if you accept that this Bill was able to promote employment equity or affirmative action, the fact is that it has none of the requirements which are essential to achieving that end.
It is to mislead the public and the target groups to suggest that this Bill promotes that goal, because it lacks so much. Even were it to contain every necessary element, the essential purpose of the Bill could not be described as any more than promoting and encouraging employment equity. Therefore, to suggest this amendment is to do nothing more than to suggest that the English language be used properly.
Of course, there are more substantial difficulties with this Bill. These have been enumerated on many occasions. The claim that it does achieve or even promote employment equity or affirmative action dissolves into nothingness when you realize that all it really does is to demand that employers determine the numbers of minority groups or target groups in an employer's shop. That is fine, that is progress, but let us not make it any more than it is. It does not set any kind of penalty for failure to achieve some measure of equity. It has no targets, no timetables, and none of the things that just about everyone concerned, certainly the target groups, have demanded.
Employment Equity
I have many opportunities to talk in particular to members of visible minority organizations and many who are not part of any organization at all. Many of them have lived in this country for many, many years, watching a moving target. That moving target is to achieve equality and equal opportunity not only in employment but in a number of other areas. This Bill specifically deals with employment. In Toronto, for example, the Urban Alliance discovered two things in two studies, first, that members of visible minority groups have one-third the chance of the majority population of even getting as far as an interview. The same survey found that many employers, without provocation and quite spontaneously, uttered the most awful stereotypical and negative comments and views about members of visible minorities.
We were told in an earlier intervention that this Bill imposes a really serious requirement in its demand for enumeration, that to impose anything more would be to increase the degree of factionalism in this country and increase division. I have never heard a more absurd argument. What could be more divisive or faction-generating than that significant portions of our population, something of the order of half a million citizens of this country, should have the perception that they have one-third the chance of the general population of getting access to ordinary jobs in a city which historically has been regarded as one of the best urban areas with regard to access to opportunity? Many of these people have watched effort after effort to implement anti-discrimination legislation only to see such legislation fail. Often the legislation has been excellent for its time. The anti-discrimination legislation of Ontario led the continent. The anti-discrimination legislation and its implementation in Nova Scotia became the symbol for the world of the success of that kind of an effort. No matter how successful this good legislation was, it failed. It failed because attitudes hardened and practices developed that made discrimination more subtle, and now is the time for change. Everyone who has looked at the issue knows that the only approach is through affirmative action programs which are mandatory and enforced. This Bill, therefore, lacks its essential quality to provide affirmative action and employment equity which are mandatory and have teeth.
This is a toothless wonder that disappoints the minority groups of this country and it is far too long that they have been disappointed in their goal of achieving a nation in which equity, fairness and opportunity are accorded to them in the way that history has given them cause to earn.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: 1 would like to support the amendment that has been put forward because I think it is more in keeping with what is going to be achieved if Bill C-62 is passed. There is nothing in this Bill to indicate that the purpose of the act of achieving, as it is presently stated, equality in the workplace can possibly be realized. It is a Bill of statements and a Bill of wishes, but nothing that would indicate anything in the area of what is

April 10, 1986
Employment Equity
going to be achieved. Neither is there any indication or likelihood that it will be achieved unless this Government brings forward some proper sanctions.
1 think the idea of the Bill and the statement of what we would like to see brought forward and achieved in it is a laudable one, and I commend the Government for that. I am very much concerned that we have this Bill before the House at the present time, and we have stated what we would like to see achieved, but I am very concerned that it is not going to be achieved.
It has been said in debate in this House, "Well, here we have Bill C-62, and this is a start, this is something that we can build on, this is more than we have had before". I do not see it that way. I am concerned that the opposite will be the case, that by passing this Bill into law, Members of the House and the Government are going to say, "Well, that is that subject out of the way. We can put this question of employment equality aside for a while and get on to other things", when actually this matter has not been dealt with adequately.
To delude ourselves that this Bill is going to allow us to push this question aside and to get on with other things I think would be a travesty. In fact, there is so much that needs to be done for the visible minorities, women, native peoples and the handicapped that this Bill does not scratch the surface.
We are not even putting our own house in order as a federal Government and as a federal jurisdiction. The federal Departments and agencies are not all being brought under the auspices of this Bill. We have got to create an example in the federal jurisdiction. We have not done that and this Bill is not going to do it. If the Government is not going to set the example, how can the Government possibly expect others to adhere to what this Bill would like to see achieved?
None of the requests or objectives of the four minority groups that this Bill hopes to cover have been met. All four groups have appeared before the committee relating to this Bill and have asked for a stronger Bill, for more stringent provisions, and certainly sanctions that would allow this Bill to be followed the way we all would like to see it followed.
We owe a great deal in this country to the groups that are mentioned here, and I think that by giving this question such a cursory glance and such cursory attention we are really doing a disservice, not only to the groups but to our country. We have heard so often about the problems that exist with respect to the disabled. We have had an excellent task force on the disabled which presented a report during the last Parliament called Obstacles. I think it brought to our attention and to the attention of Canadians in a much more detailed fashion the problems facing the disabled today. The disabled have a right to achieve equal opportunity in the workplace and in the market-place.
We must certainly do a great deal more. I know we have given special attention to entrance and exit requirements, to special parking requirements, and to service requirements for the disabled, and these are very important. These have been
very sizeable steps in recent years. This Act does not complement these advances. This Act does not add anything further to what has been done, because what we need now is to be able to give the disabled the assurance that they are going to be treated fairly when it comes to gainful employment.
Another group that is mentioned here are native people. A great deal still needs to be done. Many of the problems have been historical problems that we have created. I think that trying to deal with the problems that have been created from past attempts, albeit very noble and well meaning attempts to deal with the needs of our native people, trying to address and correct these problems here with this Bill, is only going to make the situation worse. It is going to indicate to our native people that by bringing this Bill forward in the form that we have it we are not sincere, we just want to make a cosmetic attempt. This is wrong because it deserves much more attention.
What I have to say about the first two groups applies as well to the visible minorities and to women whose problems and needs have been emphasized and discussed already in the House. There is a great deal more that needs to be done. There needs to be some way of getting to the problems and ensuring that the problems are going to be corrected. We cannot let employment equity take place on an honour system. It is far too important. We must create an example by imposing sanctions to show that we, as parliamentarians, mean what we say and are determined to improve the situation of these groups.


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


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I know there are some Members who may be disappointed that the House is not ready for the question, but they will have to listen to one more speech and, hopefully, many more.


An Hon. Member:: The Bill disappoints you.


Cyril Keeper: I hear the cries of disappointment across the way and they bring joy to my heart because they indicate that we must continue the debate. Perhaps if we repeat the points that must be made government Members will begin to see the error of their ways and realize how this Bill is deficient. Perhaps they will decide to withdraw this Bill and introduce adequate legislation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With new ideas.


Cyril Keeper: More than anything else, the Government needs new ideas and new initiatives. It must begin to take real action on the problems facing Canadians.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They're Conservatives.


Cyril Keeper: Of course, it comes as no surprise with a Conservative Government that it fails to take effective action
April 10, 1986

when it involves social justice and equality in Canadian society.
Although this employment equity Bill purports to have a mandatory affirmative action program, its compliance is essentially voluntary. Experience has shown that in order to have an effective affirmative action program it must be truly mandatory, which means there must be an enforcement mechanism to make sure that companies falling within the domain of this legislation will pay a price if they do not take the necessary action to ensure equality in the workplace. That penalty must be sufficient to encourage them to take the necessary action.
This legislation fails fundamentally because it does not have any teeth to enforce the policies of equality in the workplace between men, women, visible minorities, native people and the handicapped.
Enforcement mechanisms are necessary because the decisions made by companies are motivated by the ability to make profit from products that are marketable and competitive. Those companies face these pressures when making decisions on the allocation of their resources. If the Government expects these companies to bring about equality in the workplace, it must apply sufficient pressure to encourage them to introduce those programs.
One of the basic elements of an affirmative action program is enforcement. That mechanism is lacking in this Bill. Therefore, this legislation needs to be debated at length.


An Hon. Member:: For at least another five minutes.


Cyril Keeper: Given the quality of the legislation, five minutes would be a long time.
[ Translation]


Margaret Anne Mitchell: In French.


Cyril Keeper: That is a good idea, Mr. Speaker.
One of my colleagues here says the legislation should be debated in French as well. I must say I agree, because the legislation is important for all Canadians, both Francophones and Anglophones.
This legislation on employment equity is inadequate. It is inadequate because it lacks a basic provision, which is the authority to force a company to set up a corporate employment equity program.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen how affirmative action works in the United States and Australia. The Australian experience is especially important because, in that country, the affirmative action program has positively changed the income ratio between men and women. They found that legislation can be effective.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would appreciate it very much if the Hon. Member would stick to the amendment.
Adjournment Debate


Cyril Keeper: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker ... yes I have it now, I can read the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill provides, and I quote:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality-
We do not think it will ever be achieved with this Bill and that is why we have introduced an amendment which states: The purpose of this Act is to promote and encourage-
Mr. Speaker, the amendment implies that the measure now before the House is too weak and inadequate. It is unfair, we must change the law, we must introduce an adequate law which can be enforced-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have approximately 15 seconds. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on debate. It is six o'clock. The Hon. Member will be the next to speak.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. This evening I would like to speak to an issue which affects the Ottawa-Vanier region in particular, and the National Capital Region in general, namely the fate of federal employees as a result of budgetary measures and especially staff cut-backs. I would like to refer to a situation which is alarming, to say the least, and say how sorry we are to see the lack of sensitivity shown by this Government towards its federal employees.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will recall that on January 21, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) whether his Government will make sure that, in the future, collective bargaining will include a provision under which layoffs might be negotiable.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is very important in terms of job security and in looking forward to a career within the public service to know whether the main employer, the Treasury Board, is aware of what it can mean to a family to learn one day that the income earner has been told: "We no longer need your services."
I simply asked the President of the Treasury Board, who has jurisdiction as employer, whether he intended to keep his word to negotiate an agreement concerning layoffs with these public servants.
12118

April 10, 1986
Adjournment Debate
1 would like to quote his answer, which can be found on page 9995 of Hansard for January 21, 1986. Here, then, are the comments of the President of the Treasury Board:
I would like to emphasize the fact that we indicated in the May Budget that 15,000 person years would be eliminated over the next five years, including 5,000 during the next fiscal year. We have negotiated with all our unions a policy concerning employees who might be adversely affected by this program. ... most of them will be re-assigned either in their own Departments or in others.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the fiscal year began last April 1. There will therefore be 5,000 lay-offs, and since one third of those will involve people who work in the Ottawa-Hull region, nearly 1,500 and perhaps as many as 2,000 workers will be directly affected by this staff reduction policy.
In a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether he would keep the promise made by his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to federal public servants during the 1984 campaign to the effect that he would initiate discussions with the unions to ensure that such matters would be negotiable, and I quote from the Prime Minister's letter-
A PC Government will negotiate directly with Public Service unions and associations toward the establishment of an improved collective bargaining system ... Staffing procedures, classification, technological change, designations and other issues will become negotiable.

Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder if this promise will be kept, and God knows that this is a current issue, because this Government is becoming one of the least credible we have had in a long time! To the cut-backs announced by the Treasury Board, namely, the 15,000 jobs in the next few years, must be added the staff reductions by agencies and corporations whose person-years do not come under the control of the President of the Treasury Board, that is under direct Government control. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Budget Papers of May 1985 where, following an explanation of the budgetary cutbacks, one can read all about staff cut-backs over the coming years with respect to Treasury Board controlled person-years. I quote from page 31 of the Budget Papers:
Similar reductions will be made to the salary budgets of those departments and agencies whose person-years are not controlled.
Mr. Speaker, "similar" might mean another 15,000 employees. It is not complicated! All journalists got the message, and so did I!
So we are looking at a minimum 30,000 job cut-backs in the staff of departments, agencies and corporations of this Government.
Mr. Speaker, let us delve deeper into this issue and see whether this Government really has a specific policy. I am referring in particular to the recent Treasury Board announcement that maintenance workers would be laid off. One can read in the press release issued by Treasury Board that only 15 of the 265 Public Works maintenance workers declared
surplus in October 1985-therefore prior to the new fiscal year-had found alternate jobs in the Public Service. And then the Government announced the adoption of special incentive measures to convince other cleaners that they ought to hand in their resignation. In doing so, the Government has admitted that its reassignment policy is a failure, and as for the promises made by the Minister in the House, that a substantial percentage of the 5,000 jobs to be declared surplus in the coming year would be reassigned within the Public Service, while others would find other positions, and that as far as the Minister was concerned, only 700 people would be affected . . . Mr. Speaker, if we only consider what is happening in the maintenance sector, we see that this policy does not work. Among Public Works maintenance workers, 15 found jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are looking at the clock, and I would like to conclude by reporting a comment I heard.
Phillip Aspinall, Chairman of the Nielsen task force study, said, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of March 12, that "the 15,000 (Public Service job cut target) is not necessarily the limit or maximum."

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of grave concern, and I may say I consider it to be a disaster for my area.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 21, 1986, my hon. colleague asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) if the Government would allow negotiations in the future on layoffs and job security. I can appreciate my hon. colleague's concerns about job security of Public Service employees.
The Hon. Member was right in stating that the legislation does not provide for collective bargaining on this issue. In fact, we are dealing with two different Acts. The Public Service Employment Act provides that the deputy head of a Department may lay an employee off where his or her services are no longer required because of lack of work or because of the discontinuance of a function. The Public Service Staff Relations Act, which governs management-union relations and collective bargaining in the Public Service, precludes negotiations on the subject because it provides that no collective agreement can include any provision which would require the amendment of any Act of Parliament listed in an attached Schedule, a Schedule which includes the Public Service Employment Act. This does not mean that the Government is not concerned about the jobs of Public Service employees. Certainly the Government has no wish to lay off large numbers of its employees.
As Members of the House will recall, the Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of May 1985 included measures intended to ensure the more effective and efficient

April 10, 1986

management of Government business as well as to reduce the deficit by reducing government spending. One of these measures was the reduction in the size of the Public Service by 15,000 person-years over the next five years, starting with some 5,000 person-years in 1986-87. Where possible, the reductions will be achieved through attrition. Through the application of the workforce adjustment policy, efforts are to be made by Public Service managers to minimize the impact of the reductions on employees whose jobs are to be eliminated.
Since the person-year reductions were announced last May, a great deal of planning has been done by Departments and by both the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission to minimize the impact of the reductions on Public Service employees. Based on data received from all Departments for the period through to March 31, 1987, the President of the Treasury Board announced on Friday, January 17, 1986, that of the 5,000 employees who will be directly affected by the elimination of their existing jobs, the Government is projecting that 3,200 will be redeployed to other jobs in their own Departments, 1,100 will be placed in jobs in other Departments with the assistance of the Public Service Commission, and a maximum of 700 could be faced with layoffs and be without jobs. Many of the 700 could be placed in other jobs if they were willing to move at Government expense or if they were willing to accept lower-paying jobs. Those who accept lower-paying jobs would have their salaries protected for one year under the workforce adjustment policy.
On the question of designations to which the Hon. Member also made a brief reference, Section 29 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act places the onus on the Treasury Board, as the employer and in the public interest, to propose for designation employees who cannot participate in a strike because their duties are necessary in the interest of the safety or security of the public. This same designation under the Act also allows the certified bargaining agent to object to the employer's proposals for designated employees and, where an objection is lodged, it is the Public Service Staff Relations Board that determines which employees are designated. Under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, a legal strike cannot occur until the matter of designated employees has been resolved.


TRADE-PROVINCIAL FRESH WATER RIGHTS. (B) GRAND CANAL COMPANY PROPOSAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise to contest the answer or non-answer of another Minister. That particular non-answer relates to a question I put in the House some months ago in respect of the water diversion project which is being contemplated by the Government.
We have the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) stating that the federal Government does not endorse a policy of diverting water from James Bay through the Great Lakes for sale to the United States. The Minister of the Environment says no. However, through my own research I was able to determine that the National Research Council, through its
Adjournment Debate
office in St. John's, Newfoundland, had given a $30,000 grant to the Grand Canal Company Limited to begin a feasibility study into the project the federal Government claims it opposes.
On the one hand we have the Minister of the Environment saying that he is against it. On the other hand we have proponents within the NRC who are trying to promote the project. The third and most unsettling point, the one to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) did not respond in the House of Commons, is that our chief negotiator in the free trade agreement, Simon Reisman, has made quite clear that he feels the sale of Canadian water to the United States is the ace in the hole and could be the most important issue facing the country over the next 100 years. He has quite clearly made his position known.
It is the fear of many Canadians that the Canadian Government, under the current free trade discussions with the United States, will use water as the lever to force the U.S. Government to accept some of the Canadian propositions. This is occurring at a time when the Minister of the Environment has stated that he is opposed to the particular project. On February 13, Energy Probe contacted the Minister expressing its very grave concerns on behalf of Canadians in respect of any Government funding for water diversion projects. It appears that the Government does not know what is going on in this dossier. When I originally directed my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he said that that was absolutely not happening and that there had been no funding.
I have been able to establish that there has been funding. In an attempt to take attention away from the issue in Ottawa, it was a local grant through the NRC in St. John's, Newfoundland which permitted the project to go forward. The grant structure was applied for here in Ottawa. It was turned down by the Interdepartmental Committee on Water Quality which said: "No, we do not want to fund this project. In particular, we do not want to fund the Grand Canal Company to do a study on a project which has already been endorsed for the last two decades". As indicated in one press report, it is like asking the monkey to do a test on the peanuts. That is exactly what the NRC has done with this particular grant. It has told the Grand Canal Company to go ahead and study a project which has been the lifeblood of the company since the late 1950s.
Quite clearly we have two messages coming from this Government. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) appeared muddled and befuddled in the House of Commons when presented with the evidence. We need a clear-cut response, not only from the Secretary of State but also from those responsible for the National Research Council, as well as the Minister of Environment, that clearly and categorically the Canadian Government will in no way support through research funding or any other measures a water diversion project which could threaten the very delicate ecological balance which is currently facing the development of the far north.

April 10, 1986
Adjournment Debate
1 am happy to see the Parliamentary Secretary will be responding to the questions I have raised, but it would have been nice had the Minister been here because this is a question confronting Canadians and Americans on both sides of the border of the Great Lakes. We have seven million Canadians living in the vicinity of the Great Lakes water table who will be affected by this particular measure.
Indeed, it is a matter of some gravity that our chief trade negotiator in Washington, Simon Reisman, is making public statements about a project on which he at one time held a directorship. We know his personal interests. We know his private interests in the particular company and the project in question. He has to state categorically for the record that our water is not for sale, that the diversion project will not be carried forward. Indeed, he should give some reassurance to Canadians, to those on both sides of the Great Lakes borders as well as those who are affected by any waters coming from the Arctic table, that they will not be adversely affected by this project which, at the moment, has been given the Good Housekeeping seal of approval by the Government since it decided to go through the back door and provide $30,000 seed funding through its office of the National Research Council in Newfoundland.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the question raised by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) concerning potential water sales to the United States. I am particularly happy to have this opportunity since I have had my answer ready since March 18 when this question should normally have been raised in the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) not responding to the question. He simply has no desire to raise a point that from the outset may seem absurd.
Mr. Speaker, there are three very important aspects to this matter.
First of all, the trade negotiations will be just that. We certainly have no intention of giving up any rights to our natural resources, and I must say, I do agree with my hon. colleague when she says that water is one of our natural resources. So Canada does not intend to give up any control whatsoever over its natural resources.
Second, I would like to say that the National Research Council and the Newfoundland Regional Office have every right, within reasonable limits, to enter into agreements with other parties. Now, if it is supposed to be Government policy to maintain control over every single contract for which authority has been delegated to the regions, that is another situation altogether, but it is not our policy, Mr. Speaker.
Third, just because the National Research Council has decided to enter into an agreement does not mean that Canada's foreign policy is automatically involved. That may have been the case under the Liberal Government when contracts by the National Research Council involved a commitment and even influenced Canada's external relations or external trade, but this Government, Mr. Speaker, does not work that way.
A National Research Council contract is not going to shape our country's external policies. That is more or less the point I want to make. Now I suppose 1 could conclude by saying that if the Hon. Member opposite, and I agree that water is part of our natural resources, if the Hon. Member opposite doesn't want this country to sell water abroad, she can avail herself of the rights she has as a Member and have a Private Member's Bill passed in the House, prohibiting Canada from selling anything at all to the United States during the next couple of hundred years.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, April 11, 1986