1986-04-14

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions numbers 331-20 and 331-23.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 493 and 506.

BELL HEL1COPTER/TEXTRON LTD.


Mr. Dingwall: 1.	Did the Government announce on October 7, 1983, that it would be assisting Bell Helicopter/Textron Ltd. in establishing, at Mirabel Airport, a light twin helicopter manufacturing facility and that Pratt and Whitney would also be asked to produce the engines for the new model of helicopter and, if so (a) what was the total cash value of assistance offered by the Government (b) what amount has been spent to date by the Government?
2.	What is the estimate of additional assistance that will be provided to this project and what is the schedule for these payments?
3.	Is the Government to be repaid in the form of royalties on all sales of helicopters, Step engines, spares and accessories made by the companies during the life of this project and, if so, what is the expected time frame for repayment?
4.	(a) What is the current number of employees at Bell Helicopter Canada's Mirabel operation (b) what are the plans for the recruitment of additional workers to bring the workforce up to the original estimate of 2,700?
5.	To date, how many Model 400 helicopters have been ordered?


Hon. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: i. Yes. (a) $126 million 1982 U.S. (b) $64.0 million 1982 U.S. as of October 31, 1985.
2.	$62.0 million 1982 U.S. over the period of fiscal year 1985-86 through to 1991-92.
3.	The Government will be repaid in the form of a royalty of 2 per cent of total net sales over a 25-year period of the Model 400, 400A and 440 helicopters including derivatives, accessory kits and spare parts (payments commence in 1990).
4.	(a) As of December, 1985, 239 employees, which include 80 engineers receiving training and participating in the development phase of the Model 400 helicopter in Fort Worth, Texas.
(b)	The company plans to commence hiring production workers in early 1986. The long-term build-up employment will depend on future production levels based on international market requirements.
5.	As of December 3, 1985, Bell Helicopter have obtained approximately 200 options for Model 400 helicopters but none of these have yet been converted to a Firm order.


Mr. Rodriguez: In the Budget of May 23, 1985, under the heading "Other Tax and Tariff Changes" the Government outlines changes to northern allowances and severance pay in isolated communities (a) to date, how many communities and/or employers have applied for relief under this budgetary provision (b) if communities and/or employers have applied for relief, list them (c) it is obvious that this provision conflicts with the earlier change by the Government with respect to severance payments and the UI Act. How is this obvious contradiction being applied in remote communities where the principal industry closes?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Departments of National Revenue and Employment and Immigration as follows:
(a) and (b) The issue relates to the statements made by the Minister of Finance in his Economic Statement of November 8, 1984 (p. 10) and Budget Papers of May 23, 1985 (p. 81). The matter is primarily the concern of the Department of Finance. Review mechanisms have been set up by the Department of Finance to deal with applications for relief under the statements of the Minister and to date seven applications have been received from employers in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, northern British Columbia, northern Manitoba, Cape Breton and the Yukon. One application from Sidbec Normines involving Gagnon, Quebec has been approved and relief granted under Remission Order 1985-1359 of April 19, 1985.
The remaining applications consist of one which is under review and five preliminary requests. Since no decision has been reached on the application under review or the preliminary requests the rules regarding confidentiality of taxpayer information prevent us from releasing the names of the applicants at this time.
(c)	The changes referred to in the Budget of May 23, 1985 with respect to northern allowances and severance pay in isolated communities refer to tax changes and would have no effect on the application of the UI legislation. The UI legislation has set up a social insurance scheme which by its very nature must be applied uniformly across the insured population. There is no provision in the UI legislation which grants

April 14, 1986
Point of Order
the Minister of Employment and Immigration the discretionary authority to consider special circumstances and allow benefits in situations where it is expressly denied by legislation.
Since the amendment of the UI regulations pertaining to income and earnings which became effective March 31, 1985, severance pay which is paid or payable after March 31, 1985 is considered to be earnings for benefit purposes. Transitional exemption from this regulation can be found provided these moneys are paid as part of a separation package paid pursuant to an employer's written policy, a formal labour-management workforce reduction agreement or collective agreement that was in force before December 31, 1984 and had not expired before the payment of the money.
"Northern allowances" have been determined to be earnings arising out of employment and are allocated as same. It is considered that this is a benefit which is regularly and customarily paid by employers in the North to compensate for the higher cost of living and thus, the payment cannot be considered anything other than earnings arising from employment. It is clear that this payment does not continue beyond the complete termination of employment, but may continue during a period of sickness or maternity leave in which case it is definitely earnings without the performance of services. The northern allowance is a benefit of a kind received by a claimant from or on behalf of the employer in respect of the employment and falls squarely within the definition of moneys to be considered earnings for benefit purposes. All northern allowances are allocated accordingly.
[Translation}


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday last you will recall that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) wrote to you, and the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) also raised with you the difficulty that those with wheelchairs have in entering the House of Commons for the purpose of viewing the proceedings. You indicated, Sir, that you would give the matter some consideration and report back. Do you have any report on that question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I do. The Sergeant-at-Arms advises me that he can handle, on a rotating basis, up to 10 wheelchairs at a time today and will organize his affairs that way.
The original request I had, of course, was to allow the use of the Chamber. I cannot do that, as the Hon. Member knows. I may say to the House that I have also asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to look at this problem. Anytime these things occur, we
discover our limitations. We are looking at different ramps that are possible for future use to allow the entire galleries to be used better in future.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 10, consideration of Bill C-62, an Act respecting Employment Equity, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Nystrom).
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are certain procedural arguments with respect to Bill C-62 which we wish to make. I want to indicate to my colleagues opposite that we are prepared to make them at whatever time you should decide, or when they are prepared to go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the House that I had indicated that I wanted to hear those arguments now. Is there some suggestion that they be delayed? The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on Motion No. 1. If you are ready to pronounce on these-


Mr. Speaker:: I was interrupted by a point of order from the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
The House will remember that when I first gave a ruling on the amendments I indicated that in respect of procedural arguments about the motions on which I had made procedural comments, as opposed to the issue of being in committee, I was prepared to hear them at this point, if anybody wished to do so prior to resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and then the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on procedural debate.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I looked for your guidance on this the other day; maybe it was not the right time. I made some representations and I would make the same arguments at this time. They are on the record, so I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them. I hope that they are taken into consideration.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if it is in order I would proceed with points of order with respect to two of the motions.
We have had an opportunity to look at Bill C-62, and there are two procedural arguments. First, with respect to Motions Nos. 13A and 15. In our opinion, these motions appear to be trying to introduce irrelevant matters into the Bill and are essentially redundant to it. In our view these motions are partly dependent upon the acceptance of Motion No. 10, about which the Chair has expressed some reservations in its preliminary ruling. In other words, it seeks to import the principle of equal pay for work of equal value into a Bill which concerns itself with the participation of certain groups in the workforce. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we feel it is irrelevant to the Bill.
April 14, 1986

In addition, you have indicated that it was because it was attempting to introduce a substantive amendment by means of an amendment to the interpretation clause of the Bill that Motion No. 10 is out of order.
Inasmuch as Motion Nos. 13A and 15 are at least partly dependant upon the adoption of Motion 10, because the definition contained therein gives meaning to the phrase "equal pay for work of equal value", and without that definition neither of these motions is intelligible with respect to that principle, we would argue that they ought not to be put to the House, since to do so would not be consistent with Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(4)(a):
An amendment is inadmissible if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules, or if it is otherwise incomplete.
While this citation would argue the inadmissibility of that provision referring to equal pay for work of equal value, I believe that Citation 428(2) would also apply in this case. In Beauchesne's Fifth Edition that citation states as follows:
When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of order.
Since these motions are dependant on a motion which is out of order, it follows that they too ought not to be put to the House.
The second motion I wish to discuss is Motion No. 21 A. Motion No. 21A seeks to provide for enforcement of the Act by extending the powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I feel that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that by putting this motion to the House we would violate our usual custom, since we would be, in effect, amending the powers of the Commission which should properly be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act which deals with those powers.
In addition, these motions would appear to be incomplete inasmuch as they refer to the "Human Rights Commission", and nowhere is it made clear that this refers to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This may seem to be a small technical point, but as there are provincial human rights commissions, there may be confusion as to what is meant by this amendment. If the motion were to be adopted, the clause would be rendered partly incomprehensible and, therefore, it would be contrary to our practice outlined in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citation 773(4)(b):
An amendment may not make the clause which it is proposed to amend unintelligible or ungrammatical.
On these two grounds, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the motion ought not to be put to the House.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary argues that two of my amendments should be ruled out of order. Amendment 13(A) attempts to spell out what employment practices are. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent employment practices which act as barriers to employment equity. We must define what those employment practices are. There is no definition of "employment practices" in the definition section of the Bill. Consequently, if the Bill is to
Employment Equity
have any meaning whatsoever, a definition should be spelled out to some extent in Clause 4 of the Bill. The clause now reads:
An employer shall implement employment equity by (a) identifying and eliminating each of the employer's employment practices ...
It does not say what "employment practices" are, and my amendment attempts to list the employment practices which should be subject to the Bill. I do not see how that contradicts any rule of the House of Commons or any interpretation of those rules.
With regard to Section 21(a), the Minister and the Government have brought the Canadian Human Rights Commission into the act through an amendment they made in committee. If that is the case, we must ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is in a position to enforce this Act. I agree with my hon. friend that the human rights commission should have been defined as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If he believes that this is a required amendment, he should be willing to amend that through agreement of all Members in the House, and I would move that. However, he seems opposed to any kind of amendment, which I find unfortunate. Nevertheless, I argue for the principle of that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. These are arguments about procedural admissibility rather than arguments one way or another about the points and substance of the matter.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make only a very brief argument. In your ruling the other day you reserved judgment on certain motions and quoted a new part of our rules as follows:
... 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.
I argue that Motion 15 is such a motion. It is the motion with regard to equal pay for work of equal value. This is a very significant motion because it is a concept of importance to all groups. This breaks new ground in the House and the House itself should make a judgment on this very important issue. The committee has already made a decision on that particular issue. I think it is a motion of exceptional significance which would warrant a decision by the House itself. I think it is a very good example of "exceptional significance". The same argument could be made for some of the other motions, but I feel that the motion with regard to equal pay for work of equal value is the most exceptional of them all.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in summary I would ask my colleague to strike the word "any" from his remarks about what motions we are prepared to consider. No one doubts the importance of the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. However, the Bill, as passed at second reading, did not encompass that concept. That is the reason we are arguing it is inadmissible at report stage.

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will reserve, consider all of these arguments, and come back to the House.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), namely that Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 6 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"2. The purpose of this Act is to promote and encourage".
employment equity, and we know what that means as far as the wording is concerned. The Hon. Member wants to amend this Bill because according to him, and we agree, the Bill does not go far enough, does not have enough teeth to provide any assurance or guarantee that employment equity will be achieved, and I quote the present wording of the Bill in Clause 2, which describes the purpose of the Act:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or...
... benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the debate last Thursday, and I thought the comments made by Members supporting this amendment were rather important, and I would like to recall some of them, since we are starting a new week and in a debate like this it is good to put things into perspective.
The House will recall that the Government was not very receptive in committee to the amendments presented by the Opposition. At the report stage, parliamentary procedure allows certain amendments to be laid on the Table of the House for consideration.
To the Members on the Government benches I would like to say that a refusal to amend Bill C-62 and give it teeth and real power will look like they are not taking this Bill seriously. In fact we do not think Bill C-62 will help to achieve employment equity but, and this is something on which everyone will agree, that it will help further employment equity, but it inch by inch is a typically conservative approach, inch by inch and step by step. We say that a Bill as important as this one which affects the four target groups we want to help in their search for employment, and I may recall that these four target groups are women, the disabled, native people and what are referred to as visible minorities, these four target groups have asked and are continuing to ask the Government to amend the Bill and give it teeth so it will not be a paper tiger.
Unfortunately, until now, the Government has been saying: We refuse. So let us be honest and change the purpose of this Bill. Let's not say it will achieve employment equity but that it will gradually encourage employment equity, someday or other.
Mr. Speaker, that is why some of us are going to wait until the end of this debate to see whether this Government has the good will to amend this Bill and whether they can show they are taking this debate seriously and demonstrate their good
will by amending the Bill to give it teeth and give us something we can take seriously.
Last week I listened very carefully to the comments made by some of our colleagues. I remember one in particular, and I forget who made it, which referred to Judge Abella, who chaired the Royal Commission on Equality and Employment in 1984, at the request of the Liberal Government at the time. After it was tabled, her report became the subject of public debate. I remember that in her report, Judge Abella said, substantially, that rights that are not respected are no better than rights that are not granted. These may not be exactly the words she used, but it means that existing rights that are not respected are no better than rights that do not exist at all.
And I think this certainly applies to Bill C-62, which they would have us believe will truly encourage and in fact give us employment equity.
Mr. Speaker, in her report Judge Abella said four things: She wanted federally regulated employers to be obliged by law to adopt employment equity programs. If I have time later on, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what happens to our employees in the federal Government. I think that there we have a very striking and very clear example of what can be done with the requisite good will.
Second, she said: Persuade the provinces to adopt similar legislation in areas under provincial jurisdiction. That is an important point.
Third, that respect for the contractual obligation be legally mandatory for all federally covered employers.
And fourth, the establishment of an organization whose mandate would be to enforce employment equity.
Those are the guidelines, Mr. Speaker, but what do we have here? What we have is Bill C-62 which attempts to make employment equity a reality, a principle which we all endorse. But we all agree that it is nothing more than an expression of goodwill, in our opinion a toothless measure which does not give us the necessary power and authority to make sure that employers will indeed abide by employment equity standards concerning groups which we know have long since been discriminated against, be they women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, or disabled Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on what the federal Government is doing these days, if only because Members opposite keep saying that nothing was done for 16 years under the Liberal administration, which is utterly false, and they know it. Perhaps they should read the remarks of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), as reported on page 12113 of Hansard where she relates the events of 1971 and the achievements of the Liberal Government, particularly with respect to women's rights. As for me, all I want to do is talk about what the Public Service Commission of Canada has done about employment equity.
In 1971, Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, the Public Service Commission set up a service to protect women's rights.
April 14, 1986

In 1975, according to Cabinet decision 564-75 which I will read, the federal Government came up with a policy to offer employment opportunities to men and women alike, and to ensure that within a reasonable period of time the representation of men and women within the public service would be roughly proportional to the number of interested and qualified applicants of both sexes. Proportional is the key word, Mr. Speaker.
The goal then was quite clear, but now Bill C-62 falls far short.
In 1977, pursuant to Cabinet decision 144-77, the federal Government adopted a policy to increase Indian, Metis, nonstatus Indian and Inuit participation and representation in all occupational groups and at all public service levels. 1 urge Hon. Members to see for themselves that it has been done, Mr. Speaker. All those groups are now represented within the public service.
In 1977, the Liberal Government adopted the Canadian Human Rights Act to ban discrimination based on sex, another fair and constructive achievement.
Under Treasury Board decision 775694 of 1981, Mr. Speaker, we implemented a policy to ensure that more physically and mentally handicapped Canadians would be able to join the public service at all levels. This was done because the political will was there, because we wanted to see results, and we did that with our own employees. I fail to see why Bill C-62 should be so weak and not reflect the same political will to make sure that all Canadians feel at home throughout this country and all employees are given fair treatment.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks at report stage of Bill C-62 with respect to Motion No. 1 affecting the purpose clause. This motion attempts to bring the purpose clause in line with the reality of the Bill. Like so many other Conservative measures, this Bill uses the right rhetoric but does very little to achieve the stated goals. For example, we hear a great deal of talk from the Conservatives about fair taxes. They discovered that concept in the middle of the leader's debate in the last election. They talk about tax reform but we have seen nothing which will lead to tax reform. In fact, we have seen quite the reverse. More taxes are being loaded on low and middle-income people while upper-income people are getting more of a break. We have had a legislation which is supposed to introduce more competition in the market-place and result in the protection of the consumer, but when you look at the legislation closely it just does not materialize in the way the rhetoric says it will. In other words, we have Bills with a lot of talk but very little action.
In Bill C-62 the talk is about employment equity. Judge Rosalie Abella, in her Royal Commission report Equality in Employment, defined the larger context in which employment
Employment Equity
has to be seen with regard to each of the four target groups, women, visible minorities, native people and the disabled. Concerning native people she said on page 4:
For native people, equality in employment means effective and relevant education and training, accommodation to cultural and geographic realities, a primary voice in the design of the education, training, and funding programs established for their benefit, meaningful support systems, and the delivery of services through native-run institutions.
When we look at specific measures for employment equity she emphasizes that they all require enforcement. On page 10 she says:
Equality demands enforcement. It is not enough to be able to claim equal rights unless those rights are somehow enforceable. Unenforceable rights arc no more satisfactory than unavailable ones.
In spite of good intentions, Bill C-62 lacks the concrete steps necessary to achieve its goals. It has absolutely no enforcement mechanism.
There is an interesting passage in the letter of James in the New Testament where James asks if someone sees a brother or sister who is hungry and lacks clothing and shelter and tells them to go in peace, be warm, be clothed, God bless them, more or less, but does nothing to actually put clothes on that person or food in their belly. What good is that? What we have here are good intentions, but there is nothing to put clothes on the backs of people, nothing to put food in their belly, nothing to give them any real chance for employment equity. Obviously the Conservatives believe that the road to re-election is paved with good intentions.
This House is a place where we should speak the truth, a place where we should call a spade a spade. Motion No. 1 calls a toy shovel a toy shovel. Instead of pretending, as does the present wording of the Bill, that the purpose of the Act is to achieve equality in the work-place, the amendment says that the purpose of the act is to promote and encourage equality in the work-place. I am sure the Government would like to promote equality in the work-place. That is not enough given the reality of today's situation for women, native people, visible minorities, and for the disabled. It is not enough to encourage employment equity. It is not enough to encourage employers to do away with discrimination. There has to be some measure of enforcement.
What the Bill does is call on employers to identify and eliminate those practices which create employment barriers. It calls on employers to put in place positive policies to give designated groups at least proportional representation in their firms at different levels. It calls on employers to draft a plan outlining the goals and timetables by which they seek to do this. There is no enforcement mechanism for any of these practices. The only part of the Act with any sanctions at all calls for employers to file annual reports with statistics indicating what they have been doing. The first of those reports is not even due for another two years, June 1, 1988.

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
If the Bill passes in its present form we can be sure of one thing and one thing only, and that is, employers who have federal contracts and have more than 100 employees will be filing annual reports. That is the one thing we can be sure of as a result of this Bill, and that there will be more help for the pulp and paper industry because more paper will be needed for these reports. There is not going to be the kind of help that is needed for women, for native people, for visible minorities or the disabled.
I would like to contrast what we have in this Bill with what Judge Abella said in her recommendations. Recommendation number two spells it out very clearly. She says the following:
Employment equity legislation should have three major components: (a) a requirement that employers implement employment equity; (b) a requirement that employers collect and annually file data, by designated group, on the participation rates, occupational distribution, and income levels of employees in their work-forces; and (c) an enforcement mechanism.
Without that enforcement mechanism this Bill is really of very little assitance to the target groups.
When the Assembly of First Nations came before the committee that was studying this Bill they talked about some of the problems they are having right now. In native communities across Canada there is an average of 35 per cent unemployment. In many native communities unemployment is as high as 80 and 90 per cent, is expected that up to 20 per cent of the growth in the labour force in the next few years is going to be amongst native people. The lack of adequate statistics for the participation of native people in the labour force is something that makes it very difficult for us to get a real handle on this. This is an area where the Government has to take action to give an adequate statistical base so we know from what base we are trying to operate.
I am reminded, in conclusion, of the story of the old man who went to hear an evangalist, and the evangalist was waxing very eloquently about the day of judgment. He said, "there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth". The old man thought a while and said, "I'm afraid that I'm going to have to gum it". He did not have any teeth. This Bill is going to have to gum it, it lacks teeth, it is not able to do the job at hand. Thank you very much.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise following that conclusion of my colleague. I have, however, managed to secure my teeth for the balance of this intervention.
I am compelled to rise because I can recall during the second reading debate on the Bill making the point that had been made on a number of occasions prior, and has been made on a number of occasions subsequent to that intervention about the toothless, to use my colleague's phrase, nature of this legislation. I want anyone who happens to read, or listen to, or watch this debate, to understand what this Bill is intended to do. And why we have moved the amendment that we are now debating.
It says in Clause 2 of the Bill under "purpose" the following:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work-place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfillment of that goal, to cmclioratc the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and persons who arc. 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 do not think there is anyone in the country who would disagree with that objective. I think it is fair to say that every single member of this Party, in reading that particular purpose, could come to no other conclusion that was a worthy goal to set. The problem with it is that having said that it stops, it goes no further.
What is going to happen is that over the course of five years there may or there may not be changes in the work-place, depending on the whim of the many employers in Canada. Clause 13 states:
Five years after the coming into force of this Act, and at the end of every three year period thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act including the effect of such provisions, shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
That is the extent of the requirement that is conveyed by this piece of legislation. It says at the beginning that it is our desire to have employment equity. It says at the end that after five years we will take a look and see if it has happened. In the intervening period of time there is absolutely no requirement on any employer in Canada that does not now exist. That is what I find most difficult to understand.
There is no employer who, with good will, could not have done what this Bill requires prior to its introduction. There is no change as far as the legislated requirements for employment by any employer in Canada that flows from this Bill. What we have is a situation where, up until now, employers could, and ought to have, created within their employment the opportunities for all of the groups that are mentioned. There ought to have been employment equity in the work-place. We all agree. Now we have written down that we have not required it to happen but nothing that could have taken place previously is mandated by this legislation. Nothing that could have been avoided previously is required to occur.
What we have now is the most unusual of situations. Any employer who cares about employment equity could at any time in the history of this country have established within the place of employment the opportunities for women, for those who are visible minorities, for aboriginal peoples, for people who are disabled, but that did not take place. They refused to do it. Somehow we believe that by virtue of saying that it is the desire of the House of Commons that that should take place, that will alter the mindset and employers will automatically admit they were wrong. It is absolute nonsense to believe that they will automatically change their ways as a result of this piece of legislation.

April 14, 1986

The Bill sets out a very decent and supportable principle. However, it provides no way of ensuring that anyone who has not conformed with that desirable principle within the workplace will do so as a result of this Bill.
Frankly, I believe this is a backward step. Our Party believes, as I think other Parties in the House do, that in the 1980s and the last quarter of the 20th Century employment equity is not only desirable but necessary. If that is the case, we should not pass legislation that simply sets this out as a good principle without requiring that people conform to it. That would be like saying it is our desire that everyone drive on the right side of the road, but if they do not like that, they can drive on the left side. It would be like saying that it is our desire that people ought not to steal, but if they do they should not worry about it. We will be unhappy and monitor the situation in the next five years to see what they are doing. That is wrong.
I know that most Members of the House believe as I do, that there should be fairness, equity and equal opportunity in the workplace to all. Therefore, why do we not say that it is the law of Canada and penalties must be paid if it does not happen? Why does the Government not decide that it is appropriate at this point in time, given the increased knowledge of people about the nature of discrimination, to say that discrimination is not only bad, we will not tolerate it. Why do we not say that discrimination in this country is not only undesirable, it is unacceptable socially because it does not reflect the way we evaluate the worth of individuals here and it will not be tolerated in the workplace?
It should be made clear that we will not allow women to be paid less than men, people with disabilities to be denied job opportunities by virtue of that disability, aboriginal people to be denied fairness and equity in the workplace by virtue of being part of the aboriginal society of Canada, and we will not permit people who can be identified by virtue of colour or background to be discriminated against in Canada. That is what we ought to be saying.
I say to the Minister that the Bill is a sop. It does not reflect the will of the Canadian public. It does not reflect the changes that have taken place in the way society judges discrimination. It does not reflect the changing standards which have been set in the last 20 years.
Let us change this legislation together and mandate that there will be no further discrimination in Canada. Let us make the decision now that we are not simply going to add yet one more voice to the cry from the wilderness that we ought not discriminate against people. Let us make sure it cannot happenj because the Parliament of Canada not only wants to see change but demands it.
That is why we have suggested that if the Government refuses to accept that as law, making those who discriminate subject to certain penalties, the Bill could be changed to simply reflect the somewhat frivolous nature of the legislation.
Employment Equity
I believe that most Members of the House, including the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), want to see this happen in five years. She wants to be sure that we will not have to go through this exercise again in five years. She wants to be sure that people are not discriminated against. I have heard her say that. Therefore, why not change the Bill in the House to ensure that those who refuse to conform with the will of the Parliament of Canada should have to pay the penalty for non-conformance?


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the amendment suggests that since the Bill will not achieve equality in the workplace it should state that its purpose is to encourage and promote equality in the workplace. Frankly, I would have worded the amendment differently to say that the real purpose of the Bill is to delay the achievement of equality in the workplace by putting up a smoke screen hiding what the Government is actually doing to further the needs of women, handicapped, native groups and minorities in achieving real equality in the workplace.
As the Treasury Board critic in my Party, 1 am particularly concerned about what is not being done in the Government of Canada. For instance, this Bill does not apply to the Government of Canada since its provisions do not apply to federal Government departments, but only to employers outside the federal Government. In other words, while the purpose of the Bill may be to achieve equality in the workplace, it does nothing about achieving equality in the federal Government workplace. Therefore, I suppose one must presume that this equality has been achieved. However, I can tell the Minister and my colleagues in the House that that is definitely not the case.
Let me give the case of one of my constituents as an example to demonstrate how far we are from achieving equality in the workplace in the Government of Canada. This constituent is handicapped. She was hired on term some time ago as an affirmative action co-ordinator in her Department. It was her job to seek out ways to implement affirmative action in her Department for people who are disabled or handicapped.
As of the end of March, her term employment came to an end and my constituent was out of a job. In fact, rather than affirmative action, it was affirmative inaction that left her out of a job. She found that in spite of her work in that particular Department she could make no progress at all.
The reason is very clear. It is extremely difficult to implement any kind of affirmative action program in an atmosphere of cut-backs as a result of the Nielsen report and a Government which is determined to cut and slash, regardless of the impact on the services provided to Canadians by federal Government employees. It is extremely difficult to create new positions and ensure that systemic discrimination against handicapped people is eliminated.
Furthermore, there is tremendous pressure within the public service to try to make room for those employees who are being

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
displaced. In other words, if there is a choice between making a position available to someone who is being displaced from a Department and an applicant who is handicapped but is not known and has not worked in the federal Government before, the federal Government will tend to take care of those who are already on board, as in any other institution or organization. Since handicapped people have traditionally been disadvantaged and have suffered from systemic discrimination, it becomes extremely difficult to overcome that situation.
The provisions of Bill C-62 will not of themselves assist that much. It is such a lousy Bill. However, at the very least the Government should indicate some good will by making applicable to its own Department the provisions which are being applied with respect to large employers in the private sector. I think it reflects hypocrisy that the Government not only has brought forward such a weak Bill, which is why this amendment is proposed, but in that it is not even prepared to make the Bill apply within its own employ, and I am not sure whether or not it applies to Crown corporations. That is one of the reasons the Bill is such a disgrace, particularly when we consider the solid promises made by the Conservatives when they were in opposition.
You may have read recently, Mr. Speaker, a number of remarks by journalists who are perhaps growing cynical beyond their years. They remark on the fact that when Conservatives are in opposition they make promises which they forget when they come to power. That is certainly the case in terms of the commitments made by the present Government to affirmative action when it was in opposition. The journalists also remark that when the Liberals were in opposition they made promises which they were not prepared to implement when they came to power. We can witness what is happening in the province of Quebec now that Premier Bourassa is in office. He is finding that suddenly all of that room for spending he claimed existed when he was fighting in the provincial election campaign magically disappeared the moment he got to look at the books.
I would like to suggest that the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative Parties are giving politics a bad reputation because of the way in which they so cynically break promises when they come to office. They have led journalists to the view that Canadians cannot trust promises made by political Parties when they are in opposition because these Parties are prepared to promise everything but not prepared to deliver once they confront the reality of power.
I represent a Party which has demonstrated in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, at various times in British Columbia, and now in the Yukon, that when we make promises we do in fact implement those promises. I am getting a bit sick and tired of the Liberals and Conservatives, tweedle dum and tweedle dee, giving politics a bad name in this country because of the way they break their promises. That is why I am concerned about this Employment Equity Bill. We have made some solid
promises, yet when we make solid promises about such things as equal pay for work of equal value and affirmative action for the handicapped and disabled the journalists say all politicians are all the same, and, therefore, they do not rely on our Party to implement those promises when we come to power. As one politician, 1 would like to say that I am determined that we do, and that we continue to keep those promises. Certainly I have kept that commitment since becoming an Hon. Member of this House in terms of the promises I made to my constituents over the course of the election campaign of 1984.
1 would comment to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), who seems to be making comments, that his Party promised to give political rights to public employees over the course of the last election campaign, which was 18 months ago. I had to spend all last week in court trying to get the courts to enforce that promise because the Conservatives were not prepared to deliver once they came to power.


Mr. McDermid:: Grandstanding as usual.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What a bunch of cynical hypocrites those Hon. Members opposite are, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is the promise about affirmative action, political rights or the promise of "job, jobs, jobs", the Conservative Party, now the Government, is not prepared to deliver. I suggest that it is about time those Hon. Members went back to the book of promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the course of the election campaign. Rather than implement them they introduce measures in the way so cynical that we have to come up with these kinds of amendments to a Bill which essentially does nothing. The Government should come up with direct implementation of the promises made to the people of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: We will put our record up against yours any day.


Michael Morris Cassidy: In conclusion, I want to suggest that it is a sad day in this House when we are finally considering employment equity, that we have before us a Bill which is demonstrably so weak and ineffective that, rather than bringing forward the day when employment equity is a reality for minorities and the handicapped, it essentially delays that day by several years until the true weakness of the Bill is demonstrated. As it is now, it will not do a damn thing to ensure that equity arrives for the people it is meant to benefit.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I came here to listen, but I was provoked by the last speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to rise and say a few words in response to his and his Party's position, as he would seem to indicate. How self-righteous that group of individuals of the New Democratic Party are when it comes to some type of labour legislation. They purport basically to represent one group in our society, and that is labour.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Ordinary Canadians. We represent 20 million Canadians. Twenty-six per cent in Quebec.
April 14, 1986


Felix Holtmann: So the Hon. Member jumps up and tells us that his Party represents ordinary Canadians. He also said the NDP Government has demonstrated in Manitoba and Saskatchewan that it never breaks its promises. He tells us that New Democrats are the kind of people who never break promise. I want to tell the House something interesting. We had an election in Manitoba recently. The Premier of Manitoba said: "We are going to enact laws and take action on April 1 to bring gas prices down by at least nine cents". Almost a week after he was elected he said: "Oh, we will have to postpone it." That was a direct promise to take action on April 1 and he has since postponed it until June.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Felix Holtmann: How can the Hon. Member jump up and say that if his Party promises to do something it will act? The Hon. Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) should live in Manitoba how they and read the papers which tell the people in Manitoba have been led down the garden path, how they have been fooled by that type of activity.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You are a sore loser.


Felix Holtmann: No, I am not a sore loser.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You dropped by 20 per cent in the polls in the last year and a half. You had it in the bag two years ago and you blew it.


Felix Holtmann: While I was listening to what the Hon. Member said 1 thought about how the NDP portrayed itself as representing the labour force. I was flipping through Private Members' Bills which were put forward by Members of the NDP and found that his Party did not bring forward any type of legislation with respect to equality. In fact, they talk about Nicaragua and places around the world, but not Canada. That Party has not introduced any legislation on employment equity, which it has the ability to do, but it has addressed all kinds of other subjects.
I wonder why the Hon. Member rises in his place and criticizes the first type of legislation which moves employment equity in the right direction, something which could not be done by the previous administration? He says the legislation has not gone far enough. I ask him what has gone further than this? The Hon. Member could not comment on that because he just wants to criticize. The legislation is moving in the right direction. We cannot legislate every type of scenario which could occur in terms of equality. That Party would like us to, but it must understand that people are only human. I am sure everyone in this House would admit that it is not a perfect world. There is some discrimination in this country and always will be, 1 suppose.


Michael Morris Cassidy: This is a lousy Bill as well. Admit it is a lousy Bill.
Employment Equity


Felix Holtmann: I do not admit that it is a lousy Bill. The Hon. Member should have the decency, I think, to rise and admit it is moving us in the right direction.


Mr. Althouse:: It doesn't move us anywhere.
Mt. Holtmann: Never before have we gone this far.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It doesn't move us an inch.


Felix Holtmann: The Hon. Member says it doesn't move us an inch. Well, I will ask him what he has proposed in a Private Members' Bill which would move us further? What has he proposed? Nothing. When does he intend to propose anything, if ever? He might be provoked into doing something now because he knows that we have found out that he has not even thought of anything. Today all that Hon. Member wants to do is criticize.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Felix Holtmann: He is probably going to run back to his office to draft something up.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member alleged that I have not only done nothing but I have not thought at all about this issue. In fact, I would point to my record over the past 13 or 14 years.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe that is a point of order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please repeat what he said?


Michael Morris Cassidy: 1 rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member disregards the fact that when I was Leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party, my Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think that what the Hon. Member is saying is more a matter of debate between Hon. Members than a question of privilege.


Mr. Taylor:: Tell us why they kicked you out!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake (Mr. Holtmann).


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Let's hear about your promise regarding political rights. Where is the action from the Conservative Government?

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity


Felix Holtmann: As a matter of fact, it was our Government which introduced some study on exactly that point.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where is the action?


Felix Holtmann: We are the Party which put a book together entitled Equality for All. It presented these topics for discussion, not necessarily as our policies.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where is the action? Some 18 months have gone by.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre cannot stop talking to listen. He keeps his jaw jiving, whether or not he has gums in his mouth.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Why haven't you put forward a Private Member's Bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You made your speech when you were standing up.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Felix Holtmann: The point is that we have gone further in this particular Bill than was ever anticipated. It certainly is not perfect. We admit that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is far less than you promised. You promised and you did not deliver.


Felix Holtmann: Well-


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It relates to the unparliamentary conduct of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I wish to listen to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann), and I am being prevented from doing so by the unnecessary interruptions of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. 1 think the Chair has a responsibility to stop the Hon. Member from interrupting or to name him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not believe that is a point of order.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on this matter much longer. I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is being so provoked that he cannot stand his position and he will probably jump up again. That will cause the debate to deteriorate. The Hon. Member has had an opportunity to speak.
I would like to say that the Government can stand proud with respect to the introducing of legislation which will move us in the right direction. Some people think it is not enough. We will examine how it will effect equity in terms of employing people who are not as fortunate as the rest of Canadians. This is a matter which needs to be considered fully. That is
what we are doing here today. I would like to listen to good and adequate representations from members of the New Democratic Party and not this rhetoric-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where is your Bill on political rights?


Felix Holtmann: -of promises and broken promises.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with respect to Bill C-62. The motion moved by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) calls a spade a spade. It has been put forward to point out that Bill C-62 is weak. Therefore, we would not be too concerned if the motion were defeated, if the Government would allow the remaining motions to pass. If that were to happen then the defeat of this particular motion would not mean a thing.
The Hon. Member who just resumed his seat said that the Government has done a lot. He spoke about the book presented by the previous administration, which happened to come out during the administration of the present Government. God knows that the previous administration did not do too well in the area of equal opportunity.
It must be understood that the philosophy of equality is not the philosophy of the Party in Government. That Party does not feel that equality should be part of its responsibility as a Government. It has shown this in almost every area in which it has brought forward legislation. It is a word which members of the Party like to use but which does not fit their philosophy. Consequently, they use it in vain at every opportunity. They have suggested equal taxation for all people, while moving in the opposite direction. They have suggested equal opportunity with respect to training; yet they have reduced the amount of money which they pay to colleges and training institutions. They have suggested equal opportunity and assistance for small business. What have they done in this regard? They have given assistance to big business instead, in order to keep it in place. They have said that they would give equal opportunity to civil servants, yet they have cut back in this area, both in terms of pay and in terms of the opportunity to work. Members of the Government have suggested they would give equal opportunity to farmers. What has happened is a degeneration of opportunity in terms of farmers being able to stay alive and survive on this earth.
The point 1 wish to make is that if this particular motion is defeated, and the reason for it being defeated is the passage of the other 59 motions, then we will be happy to vote against it. However, what we can expect is the defeat not only of this motion but a defeat of all the others. The motion before us would amend the Bill to state exactly what it is. It is a Bill which has no teeth in terms of any kind of equity being achieved. So if members of the Government wish to defeat this motion and pass all the others then we will go along with them. If that is not the case, then at least let us be honest and pass this motion in order to say that this is what the Bill really does.
April 14, 1986

This motion encourages equality. The Bill does nothing to make equality a fact.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a few words to say with respect to Motion No. 1. It relates to a serious problem in the workforce today, or perhaps one just outside the workforce. 1 refer to the problem of those in their forties and fifties who have been laid off, whose jobs have been terminated or those who have lost their jobs because the plants or factories in which they work have been shut down. At this stage of their lives they cannot find gainful or meaningful employment. In other words, Governments at the municipal, provincial and federal levels are telling these men and women that they are too old for the workplace. They are being told that they are no longer needed. That is the impression with which they are being left. These people should be recognized just as we recognize other minorities in society who are in critical positions with respect to gaining employment.
1 think it is absolutely tragic for men or women, who started work in their late teens or early twenties and spent 25 or 30 years in the workplace only to find that they no longer have jobs. They have worked hard for their employers. They have attempted to save a few bucks. They have tried to educate their children and to pay off their mortgages. They try still to provide a fairly decent standard of living for their families. Then all of a sudden they receive the pink slip. Or perhaps through no fault of their own, the factory in which they work goes belly-up, or the business in which they are employed shuts down and their jobs no longer exist.
We cannot stop progress. We cannot stop scientific and technological development in the workplace. However, we can surely devise means by which to put these men and women back to work. If we can put men on the moon then I think we can spend the time and make the effort to develop careers for people in their forties and fifties.
It is a fact that the private and public sectors have devised all types of interesting pre-retirement schemes. All types of incentives have been devised to encourage an employee to leave his or her place of employment at the age of 50 or 52 instead of waiting until the age of 60 or 65. By taking such action what are we really doing? We are telling these people that they are no longer required. We are saying that they are no longer important in terms of input into the workplace and in terms of earning a living and looking after themselves. We are saying: "Here is the golden handshake, goodbye and good riddance". We are saying that we do not need them anymore; they have become redundant because of their age. That is a growing tragedy not only in our country but in the United States and western Europe. Governments at all levels are really not putting their minds and hearts toward some kind of effective solution to this problem.

1 do not think that there is anything more emotionally distressing or depressing than for a person who has been used to being a useful contributor to his community to be laid
Employment Equity
off, forgotten and bidden farewell at the age of 50 or 55. We just do not care about those people anymore. This is one of the great problems all Members of Parliament face daily in their constituency offices.
1 am not trying to be emotional about this, but I have had visits from men in their 50s who were weeping simply because they had been out of work for a year or two, their unemployment insurance benefits were gone and their children were probably trying to help them financially. That is something which they almost resent because it embarrasses them. A few of them have actually had to go on welfare or take jobs on a temporary or part-time basis, something which again is very degrading. Surely, with the amount of money this Chamber expends in the name of the Canadian taxpayer we should be able to devise programs, policies and retraining schemes to assist these people.
I cannot prove this, but I am convinced that in virtually every employment centre in Canada, those who are given the last opportunities for retraining are those who are in their 50s, those who no longer have dependent children. They are being discriminated against because of their age. We seem to think that the last 10 or 15 working years of a person's life are no longer important. They may no longer be important to the state but those last 10 or 15 working years are still very, very important to the person. Even with some kind of generous preretirement program, he or she does not want to go home at the age of 50 or 51 to sit there and stare out of the window for the next 15 or 20 years.
Politicians in Canada range in age from 21 to 60. This present generation of politicians is supposedly in control of things, but politicians are going to be held morally accountable some day for the way they are treating those in their 40s and 50s who cannot find work. We cannot provide training and expertise for these people so that they can live out the rest of their working years in dignity and security by paying their own way. That is all they want.
I hope that the Minister responsible for employment will come up with programs which are much more effective for these people we are casting aside, people to whom we are saying, if not out loud then certainly by implication or inference: "You are no longer needed, you are redundant, you are just a UI number, a welfare number and that is it". Certainly that is the impression those people are getting. I hope that all of us will put our minds and hearts together and come up with some kind of legislation to assist these people


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. I standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Pending the Speaker's decision on Motions Nos. 2 to 6, we will now proceed with Motion No. 8.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 13 to 15 at page
2.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the House to support this amendment. It is an amendment that would include the federal Government itself under the provisions of the employment equity Bill, Bill C-62. I think it is a very reasonable amendment.
If we are passing legislation that is to apply to private companies operating under federal law or to federal Crown corporations, then why should the same law not apply to the Public Service of Canada? I appeal to Hon. Members of the Conservative Party to accept this motion which would make this Bill applicable to Canadian public servants. For example, when this law is passed, it will not apply to the employees of the Ministry of Employment and Immigration. I do not think that is right and proper.
In committee, the answer of Conservative Members to this question was that we do have Treasury Board guidelines. However, Treasury Board guidelines are guidelines and guidelines change as Ministers and Governments change. We have seen that all too often throughout the history of our country. This motion says that we should give those guidelines the force of law. We should put them into statute form and make it the law of Canada that employment equity is to be applicable to the federal Public Service, just as it is applicable to Crown corporations and the parts of the private sector that do business with the federal Government or fall under federal law like federal banks.
I would like Hon. Members of the Conservative Party to listen very carefully to the list of groups which have asked Parliament to support this motion, to make sure that Bill C-62 applies to public servants. These groups have said that they want federal Departments to fall under the jurisdiction of Bill C-62. The first such group is the Canadian Ethnic Cultural Council of Canada, an organization representing the many
multicultural organizations. In my riding, many such organizations exist, particularly Ukrainian-Canadian organizations. These people are saying that the Department should be under the umbrella of Bill C-62. The second group is the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, a very important organization. The third very important organization is the Coalition on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities. I appeal to my Conservative friends to think very seriously about that.
At noon hour today there will be a demonstration outside the Parliament Buildings involving about 100 or more disabled Canadians. This may be the first time in the history of Canada that disabled Canadians have come to Ottawa to speak collectively to Members of Parliament. They will be asking us to strengthen Bill C-62, to make sure that a number of things occur to help disabled Canadians. For example, they have indicated that 70 per cent of disabled Canadians who work for the federal Government work on a term or contract basis.
I know that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has a lot of experience in Government. He was the Minister of Highways under the Social Credit Government of Alberta for years. He knows that in Government, regardless of political stripe, when there are cut-backs or freezes it is often the term contractors who are the first to be laid off.
Four weeks ago when disabled Canadians came to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), 1 was personally very shocked to find that 75 per cent of disabled Canadians who work for the federal Government are on term contracts. That alone is reason enough to accept this amendment and to make sure that federal Government employees come under the purview of Bill C-62. Treasury Board guidelines are obviously not good enough. They are not good enough for disabled Canadians.
I appeal to this House now to listen to disabled Canadians who are in Ottawa today. I appeal to the House to try to accommodate what they are saying to us. They are saying, bring the Public Service under the purview of this Bill. They are saying, have a better definition, or a definition of reasonable accommodation and that there must be an enforcement agency. They are saying two or three other important things about which I will talk later this day.
The third group which says bring the Public Service under the Bill is the Organization of Persons with Disabilities. The fourth group is equally important, The Urban Alliance on Race Relations. Again, the visible minority is one of the four target groups for this Bill. They are saying to us, make sure this Bill applies to the Public Service of Canada.
Fifth, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, a very important union and organization for employees of the Government itself, is saying that the Treasury Board guidelines are not enough and that we must have the force of law in terms of promoting employment equity in Canada.

April 14, 1986

The next group, Mr. Speaker, is the supply and service union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. That group has also asked us to amend this legislation to make sure that the Bill applies to the Public Service of Canada.
The next organization is one called BOOST the Blind Organization of Ontario with Self-Help Tactics. 1 had the opportunity in Toronto, along with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), about two months ago to meet some blind Canadians who came to a rally at City Hall to talk to those of us interested in this Bill, and they asked us to make certain amendments. One amendment they asked us to make to the Bill is Motion No. 8 standing in my name today. I am sure some of their representatives will be on the Hill right now demonstrating in front of Parliament. What better piece of evidence that we are listening to Canadians could there be than the acceptance of this motion?
Another organization that has asked up to accept this idea of having the Bill apply is an organization called Committee for 94. It is a very prominant, well known and articulate women's organization. Another is the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and finally, the Assembly of First Nations, the assembly of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. They are one of the four target groups to which this Bill pertains. They have asked us, as one of the four target groups, to make sure that we apply Bill C-62 to the Public Service of Canada.
I make that argument. I make my first argument as one that we should listen to the people, that we should listen to the organizations affected. They are all telling us to do the same thing. 1 appeal to Members of the Conservative Party to put aside some of the political partisan debate we have heard from time to time and listen very carefully to what the people of Canada are saying to us. They are telling us that they want the federal Public Service to be included, and I think we should move in that direction.
As I said before, the Minister had said at committee that the Public Service guidelines are enough, that Treasury Board guidelines are enough. I do not think they are, and nor do these organizations. Treasury Board policies on equity are totally management controlled. It seems to me if there is any Party in this House that has been critical of the way the senior public servants have sometimes handled and conducted themselves, it is the Conservative Party whose members have criticized the bureaucrats and mandarins in Ottawa. This is one way of making sure that the will of Parliament takes precedence over the management of the senior levels of the Public Service of Canada. That is another reason we should be making sure that Motion 8 carries.
Treasury Board guidelines in the past years have made the promoting of women to senior positions in the Public Service a very high priority. My understanding from women's groups is that they have often ignored the vast majority of women in the Public Service who are not in senior management positions but
Employment Equity
in middle management positions in the Public Service of Canada.
There has been no serious effort or initiatives taken to identify or to eliminate systemic discrimination in all aspects of Public Service employment practices. That is a very important part of what we are trying to achieve today, and Treasury Board guidelines are just not adequate, according to all the organizations that have come before our committee. Treasury Board policies on equity lack the force and the commitment of law. To me, that is very important.
Let me say that we have a lot of disabled Canadians who have made the effort to come to Ottawa to have a demonstration in front of Parliament at noon hour. That demonstration should be starting about now, if it has not already begun. First, they are asking us to listen to them and to govern on their behalf. They are joined by seven or eight other organizations representing native Canadians, visible minorities, women and others who say that this motion is important, that it should carry and that the Public Service must be included. Second, they are saying that Treasury Board guidelines are not enough. They do not have the force of law. It is important, as Governments come and go, as Ministers come and go and as Treasury Board Ministers come and go, that the force of law have some continuity and that the force of law be there. Be it Liberal, New Democratic or Conservative, be it the present Minister of the Treasury Board or some new Minister, it is important that the force of law in statute tell the public servants, managment, that we want employment equity in the Public Service along the same lines as we want it to apply in the private sector.
Finally, it is of particular importance for disabled Canadians. Seventy-five per cent of disabled Canadians now work on term contract in the Public Service of Canada, according to their spokespeople who were here four months ago. The Prime Minister said to them at that time that they could have a meeting with Geoff Norquay, a special policy advisor. They spent over half an hour in his office. He said to them that he would be letting them know what he could do by the time this Bill came back to the House. The Bill is now before the House, Mr. Speaker. What better day to say yes to disabled Canadians than today, because they are here with us, and saying it now in part by accepting Motion No. 8 now before the House.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for this amendment which would knock from the Bill those sections which prevent the Bill from applying to the Public Service. I had a similar amendment to that of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) but, because he tabled his first, mine was ruled out of order. In any case, I fully support his amendment. I want to put on the record our reasons for doing so.
The Government has said that such an amendment is not necessary, that it is not necessary for Bill C-62 to apply to the Public Service because there is already a program in place of employment equity applying to the Public Service under

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
Treasury Board directives or guidelines. The Minister is correct in saying that. That program was introduced by the previous Liberal Government. When it was introduced it was not meant to be the last word. As a matter of fact, after that program of employment equity had been introduced into the Public Service by means of Treasury Board directive the previous Liberal Government appointed the Abella Commission to seek out advice and to report on how we could bring about employment equity in the labour market more effectively. We as Liberals were awaiting the recommendations of that report to proceed further.
On that very point, I hear many Hon. Members on the Government side pointing out that this is the first time any Government has brought in a Bill on employment equity. That is correct, but they do not mention that there were several steps leading up to this which had to be taken first.
The Canadian Human Rights Act was passed in 1977 by a Liberal Government. We then spent a long time bringing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which entrenches equality for all Canadians in the Constitution. That entrenched equality prevails over all other legislation. Once that was completed in 1982 the Government moved on to the next step, which was affirmative action for employment in Canada for certain target groups including women, visible minorities, native people and the disabled. The Abella Commission was set up to study how that might best be done. Judge Abella recommended very strongly that, rather than leaving this to voluntary compliance and good will on the part of employers, it be legislated. She recommended that the legislation apply to the public sector as well as the private sector.
Judge Abella proposed that we use the term "employment equity" for what was previously described as "affirmative action". She recommended that it be legislated for the public service and for the private sector. The Government's response that it is not necessary to legislate, is no longer acceptable for two good reasons. If the employment equity program for the public service is in the form of guidelines rather than legislation, it can be changed at any time by the Government of the day without approval of the House of Commons. It can be changed by orders in council or directives issued by the Cabinet. If employment equity is legislated, changes must be made through a Bill passed by the House of Commons. In that way the principles which protect Canadians in employment equity are more firmly entrenched than they would be through directives, regulations or orders in council. That is very important.
In addition, how do we explain to Canadians in the business sector that there should be binding and entrenched legislation for them but not for public servants? They may sensibly ask why it is necessary to have laws for them if orders in council and directives are good enough for the public service. In order to be consistent we should put these principles in law for public servants as well as the private sector. By doing that we will
entrench, in a more substantial way, the principles of affirmative action and employment equity.
Another good reason why this legislation should apply to the public service through a Bill rather than through simple directives is to set a good example for the provinces. As Hon. Members know, the federal Bill we are debating today will only cover the part of the private sector which is subject to federal jurisdiction. That is a very small percentage of the total businesses in Canada. In order to have widespread affirmative action and employment equity in Canada, similar Bills must be adopted by the provincial Governments to cover the approximately 80 per cent of employers who fall under their jurisdiction.
Over the years the federal Government has set a good example in labour legislation. It must set the same example in this case through legislation. If the federal Government introduces a Bill to cover the private sector and not the public sector, the provinces may do the same thing and may not even have any directives or guidelines under Treasury Boards in the provinces such as we have at the federal level.
I fully support this amendment. It is essential to entrench, in a substantial way, the principles of affirmative action and employment equity in order to establish equity between the private and public sectors. It is also important in order to set a good, solid example for the provincial Governments which should act on this matter as well if there is to be employment equity in the country.
1 am sure the Minister supports this kind of principle. I am sure that she believes in more firmly entrenched affirmative action but, for one reason or another, is being handcuffed by dinosaur types in her Cabinet. I have known the Minister over the years and I know she is a fair-minded person who believes in employment equity. She has fought for a long time for employment equity and now she has introduced a Bill which has no teeth and does not attempt to do the things which she really wants to do. I feel sorry for her because she has fought so hard and so long for these principles. I hope that her Consersvative caucus colleagues will support her against the reactionary and dinosaur- type elements in the Conservative Party. I hope they will give her the support she needs to put forward a good Bill to cover the private and public sectors. Only in that way will we do justice to this important issue in Canada.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 8 affecting the employment equity Bill. It is clear to me that this motion relates to a very important matter of public policy; that is, that the public service should fall within the purview of the employment equity Bill. The intention of the employment equity Bill is to bring about greater equality in the workplace. On previous occasions in the House we have pointed out the weaknesses of the employment equity Bill. It does not have any enforcement mechanisms and is disappointing in that regard. However, if we are going to have an affirmative action
April 14, 1986

program, it makes a great deal of sense that it should apply equally to the public sector and the private sector.
The legislation which the Government has presented is inconsistent to the extent that parts of the public sector are covered while other parts are not. Crown corporations fall within the purview of this legislation, but Government Departments do not. We have, therefore, moved that federal Departments should fall within the purview of this legislation. It is important not only to be consistent in the way in which we treat Crown corporations, private sector corporations, and federal Departments, but also to ensure that the federal government Departments set an example for the private sector. They should be leading the way and demonstrating the effectiveness of an affirmative action program.
Perhaps the Government feels it does not need to do that because there is already an affirmative action program in the public sector. We know that the Government has what it likes to call an affirmative action program in the federal Departments, but we know from its results that the program is ineffective. Taking the Department of Employment and Immigration as an example, while there may be one or two token women in top management positions, the vast majority of the senior civil servants who are running that Department are men. That comes as no surprise. Obviously these men are capable, but it is a sign of the unjust distribution of employment opportunity in the Public Service. It clearly demonstrates that the present affirmative action program is ineffective.
The argument that there is no need to apply the employment equity Bill to federal Departments because we already have an affirmative action program just does not hold water. With Government Departments themselves operating under guidelines it is possible for the Government to change those guidelines willy-nilly. If the affirmative action program were passed by this House into law, then the Government would have to live with those guidelines. Obviously a Government can change legislation. We have democratic processes for that purpose. However, it is much more difficult to change legislation than to change guidelines. Therefore, we recommend through this motion that the employment equity Bill apply to federal Departments.
While we are very skeptical of this legislation and point out its weaknesses, the Government could learn from the experience of applying this legislation to federal Departments. There would be a kind of direct window on affirmative action. Program weaknesses could be seen. Presumably the Government would then be able to change the program in this or that way. It might even come to the conclusion we have already come to from examining experience in other jurisidictions, such as the U.S. and Australia, that it is essential that any employment equity or affirmative action program be enforceable. Government must not only be able to set out the targets, it must also be able to demand that companies or Departments put in place programs to achieve those objectives. That is of
Employment Equity
course lacking in this legislation, and it would be lacking even if the motion we have before the House today were to apply.
If we apply this legislation to Government Departments, that would be a persuasive factor in our dealings with private sector companies. We could say that these are not just rules we are laying on you, we have applied them to the Government as well. The Government would be better able to lean on companies to get their act together on employment equity in the workplace.
In addition, the experience the Government gains from applying this to its own Departments would enable it to distinguish between legitimate concerns raised by private sector companies and those who are simply crying the blues. If a company came to the Government with the argument that it is an impossible burden to achieve the goal of equality between men and women in the workplace, it would know whether it was being faced with a legitimate concern which needed to be dealt with in order to achieve the ultimate objective of equality in the workplace, or whether it was something else.
This is an important motion, Mr. Speaker. If this program is to carry any weight it must be seen as being consistent. It cannot be seen as simply an imposition on the private sector. It must be seen as necessary for the economy, and obviously Government is a large part of the economy. Therefore I call upon the Government to realize the need for consistency, the need to set an example, rather than just laying the burden on the private sector. Doing that will bring closer the day when managers in the Public Service and not just clerks are chosen on the basis of their ability rather than on the basis of their sex or race or handicap.
This motion would add to the effectiveness of the program the Government is planning to put in place, even though I have very serious and fundamental concerns about the program as designed. However, with the passage of this motion the Government would more quickly learn the weaknesses of the program and could therefore improve it more quickly.
Whatever is done regarding affirmative action and equality in the workplace must be done quickly. Women will no longer stand for second place in the workplace. They are second-class citizens no longer. They represent a very powerful and legitimate lobby. The Government needs to respond to that lobby and have federal Departments set the example.
There are a good number of Members across the way who are not only here in their seats but are listening. I can see at least one Member over there who is listening intently. I hope he takes my arguments seriously.


John Horton McDermid: Say something serious.


Cyril Keeper: I hope he will be convinced by these arguments and bring them to the attention of the Minister. If he cannot stand up and refute those arguments, then I hope he will vote with us in favour of this motion so that we are able to bring about justice and equality in the workplace more quickly.

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected in 1974 I remember speaking in this House on the issue of what was not called pay equity but affirmative action.


John Horton McDermid: All you Liberals did was talk.


Aideen Nicholson: At that time I took the view that the Canadian style, which tended to be more of voluntary compliance and good will, really did not call for affirmative action. At that time 1 thought that as society was changing we would see changes in the employment practices of the public service, and in business. I had hoped that without anybody needing to legislate we would see more women, more visible minorities, more physically challenged people in jobs that they had not traditionally done.
Twelve years later one has to say that the progress has been abysmally slow and, reluctantly, one has come to the point that some legislation is necessary. The Bill before us, in fact, sets very minimal conditions which are not going to be any great hardship on firms that are doing business with the Government. They are only asked to record and report on their progress. At least there is an expectation that firms will question and examine their own progress.
It is disconcerting to find in the Bill that the public service is specifically excluded. That is why I would support the amendment before us which would, in effect, require the public service to meet precisely the same conditions that are being asked of the private sector when doing business with the Government. If the reporting requirement is considered onorous by the Civil Service then, surely, it is even more onorous for the private sector. Equally so, if the reporting requirement is considered a reasonable one for the private sector to meet, then surely it is more than reasonable for the public service to meet.
The advantage of having a legislated reporting requirement is that it is not easy for the Government of the day to change it on whim. When it is there in legislation any change would have to be brought back to Parliament and approved by Members of the House. The people who are in need of, not necessarily special consideration, but equal consideration under the Bill, are listed as women, physically challenged, native peoples, and visible minorities. I want to speak particularly about the physically challenged.
In my own riding I have a residence which has been turned into apartments for physically challenged people. Some of these people are very young and are really fighting against enormously difficult odds. It is typical of their spirit that the words they want to use are physically challenged and not physically handicapped. They want to contribute to society, as everyone else does. If that means making some arrangements to accommodate a wheel chair, to have larger doors, to have wheel chair ramps, surely this is the kind of accommodation that society is more than ready to make so that bright, talented
able people can contribute to society in the same way as those who have been luckier with their physical health.
In the last Government five departments of the public service were asked to undertake special programs by way of employment equity, with the idea that this would spread over to the public service generally. The progress has been abysmally slow. The jobs are still going to able-bodied, and physically handicapped people are still having to tolerate patronizing and inappropriate remarks. The assumption that because of a physical handicap they are not able to meet the requirements of a job is an assumption that is made too often and too lightly. It is very wasteful in our society and we cannot afford it.
For these reasons, although my own taste and talent is always for a negotiated settlement where possible, rather than imposing things by law, I do approve of legislating employment equity in this area. I certainly think the public service should be included in anything that is required of the private sector doing business with the Government. The public sector employment practices set an example for the provinces, for the provincial Civil Service and the federal Civil Service should not be allowed in any way to escape any requirement for creating more opportunities for the less favoured in our society.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the occasion to rise in support of Amendment No. 8, which would have the public service included under the purview of Bill C-62. It is rather curious that the public service has been omitted when one considers the debate on the issue of affirmative action qua employment equity. There is no doubt from whom opposition comes. It has come primarily from employers. There have been a number of studies done about employer attitudes, employment arrangements, hiring practices, practices with respect to promotions, attitudes towards minority, women, disabled groups as well as natives, all of which testify to opposition to any strong action taken to ensure that job opportunities would be available to members of the target groups which are covered in this legislation.
The curious thing is that the employers in the public market-place are to be subjected to legislation, however inadequate that legislation may be. The Government finds itself in a very curious situation in which it is clear that, at least in some respects, it is behaving in a way which is consistent with the opposition the private employer has, and expresses; the Government has excluded itself. This is reason for concern, because in 1968 the public service of Canada initiated a voluntary program of affirmative action which was to be directed to visible minority groups. In the interim very little was accomplished, until around 1983 when there was some initiative to begin the process of data gathering for the purpose of permitting an analysis of the distribution of the target groups in the public employ. That report was supposed to have been submitted to the Treasury Board in 1984. By spring of 1985 no evidence that such a submission had been made.
April 14, 1986

What we have is clear evidence that the Treasury Board has not been very effective, indeed, perhaps not even willing to implement what slight steps towards affirmative action programs there have been in the past. One must have considerable doubt whether a Treasury Board will be any more effective when faced with the new responsibility of implementing affirmative action, or employment equity in the public service. It seems to me that there is increasing and mounting evidence that there needs to be the inclusion of the public service in this legislation. That evidence is the treatment that minority group members have experienced in recent weeks-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House the plight of the Lubicon Indian Band in Alberta. This band is still fighting, in 1986, for land that was promised to it in 1940. That promise was made by the federal Government and that promise has been broken by the federal Government.
Our failure to fulfil our obligations to the Lubicon Indian Band has had devastating consequences. Powerless to exercise any control, the band has had to watch its way of life being systematically destroyed by oil development on its Members' traditional lands.
The band's claim is a legitimate one. It has been substantiated by the report of the Minister's own special negotiator.
I call upon the Government now to fulfil its responsibility to stand with the band and to negotiate a just and equitable settlement without any more delay.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this morning in Winnipeg the Minister of State for the Canadian
Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) announced a $580 million pay-out to grain farmers under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. This payment has long been anticipated by western producers and it is greatly appreciated.
However, a number of points should be made. First, part of the money being paid out to the farmers is their own money that has been collected over the last five years. The timing and the amount of the payment are set according to provisions of the Act and are not the result of the largesse of the Government. The size of the pay-out indicates that there was a shortfall of $600 million in the incomes of grain producers this year compared with the average of the last five years. Even knowing this shortfall, the Government has announced another 20 per cent reduction in the income of grain producers by the lower initial grain prices it has established.
It is imperative that the Government announce, in the next few days, a program of deficiency payments for the next crop year. Farmers are on the verge of seeding. They need to know their income prospects for the coming year so both they and their bankers can have some assurance that planting anything is worth while.


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



ANIMAL WELFARE


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to bring to the attention of Members of the House that this week of April 14 to April 20 will be the second annual Animal Health Week. This occasion, sponsored by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, is to promote animal health care by means of good nutrition, hygiene, and preventive medicine, and to increase public awareness of the importance of animals in our lives. This Animal Health Week, as such, will focus on all types of animals, including food producing animals, work animals, research animals as well as pets.
It is particularly important to highlight the vital contribution of animals to agricultural and medical research. In this regard it is a fundamental responsibility of all researchers, particularly veterinarians, to ensure that animals used in research are humanely treated and well cared for.
If Animal Health Week can in some way improve the health and well-being of even a small proportion of the animal population, it will have served its purpose.
12182

April 14, 1986




Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, at this, the beginning of Animal Health Week, I wish to highlight a very special achievement to Members of the House. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association has established a pet food certification program to certify pet foods in Canada. This voluntary program requires that manufacturers demonstrate their ability consistently to produce pet foods that meet an animal's nutritional requirements at all stages of life as established by both chemical analysis and feeding trials. The subsequent production of certified foods is monitored continuously to ensure product meets the standards established by the Veterinary Association.
The program is unique in the world. The small fee paid for the service generates significant moneys applied only to research for animals. Already half of all pet foods sold in Canada bear the seal of certification.
The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association has provided a standard for the multimillion dollar pet food industry. This is a remarkable achievement.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, can terrorism be dealt with by moving a United States fleet into Libyan waters? Can Khadafy be isolated from the Arab world by way of an attack on him? With its latest move in the Mediterranean Sea, is the U.S. not encouraging further retaliation by terrorists? Is the threat to Lybia not going to enhance Khadafy's stand in the Arab world? The Lybia-U.S. confrontation in the Mediterranean poses a threat to peace in the world today. In addition, terrorism will hardly be eradicated by a U.S. attack on Lybia. There are more subtle ways to check terrorism.
Canadians would support the Government of Canada if it would speak frankly and openly in Washington about the danger to all in the escalation of the U.S. military threat off the coast of Lybia, if it would renew efforts at the U.N., as is our tradition, aimed at dealing more effectively with international terrorism, and if it would urge an end to gunboat diplomacy.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, last week the Canadian Navy fired four dummy torpedoes off the coast of Vancouver Island. Unfortunately the sensing devices failed to track properly and one of the four torpedoes was lost. The Navy had to post a S200 reward for the finder, dead or alive! It would be laughable if it were not so dangerous.
While officials tried to play down the incident, these failures of technology remind us of the potential danger from the presence of nuclear armed American submarines sharing the Nanoose Test Range.
Freedom of Information has forced the U.S. Navy to admit to 630 incidents or accidents involving nuclear weapons between 1965 and 1985. If we continue to let American nuclear submarines use our waters with no questions asked, we are the "dummies" in a very dangerous game.



AGRICULTURE


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, farmers throughout western Canada are uneasy this spring. Not only are they having to fight their age-old battle with the weather, but this year they will have to contend with a drop in the initial price for wheat of some 19 per cent because of the total international situation.
The Opposition and the news media say that the Government has turned its back on farmers. University professors, lawyers, economists, and drugstore cowboys in the front benches of the Opposition are trying to tell those of us in the Government who are farmers that we do not understand the needs of farmers. Shame! It is the professors, the lawyers, and the economists who in the past put thousands of farmers into bankruptcy. They should be happy to remain silent now.
Our recent Budget cut the deficit, but not on the backs of the farmers. Western Grain Stabilization payments, capital gains tax exemptions, special drought assistance programs, fuel tax rebates-and the list goes on. We have delivered over $4.5 billion in more than 180 agricultural initiatives for farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
April 14, 1986

[Translation}



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Last April 8, Mr. Speaker, Canada's Minister of Employment and Immigration and Quebec's Minister of Manpower and Income Security signed an agreement to set up a manpower retraining committee for Montreal East. The committee will be made up of officials of both Governments, the municipalities involved, unions and employers, and will take every step required to spur the Montreal East labour market and industry.
In addition to the two Ministers, the agreement was signed by several interested parties, including the Montreal Executive Committee Chairman, the Ville-d'Anjou mayor, the Montreal East mayor, the Quebec Conseil du patronat executive vice president, the CSD president, the Montreal Central Council president, the CNTU, and the QFL vice president.
Mr. Speaker, that is a good example of the kind of cooperation we now have among the various-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the 60 seconds have expired.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, over 700 delegates from ethnocultural communities across Canada attended the very successful Multiculturalism Means Busi-nesss Conference held in Toronto last weekend. Over 1,500 persons heard the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) address on Saturday evening. This Conference launched a new dimension in multiculturalism. Heritage language, cultural enrichment, group and cross-cultural development, and race relations will all continue to receive strong federal Government support. In addition, new emphasis is being placed on equality of economic opportunity.
The conference focused on assisting individual entrepreneurs in our multicultural communities to promote their skills in business. Hand-in-hand with this, the Employment Equity Bill currently before the House is designed to ensure equality in hiring, promotion, pay, and training. We will not have true equality without equality of economic opportunity. The Government is committed to this goal.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I hope Members of the House will not take somnolent self-satisfaction with regard to the Government's announcement today of the wheat stabilization payment. It is not an answer to the problems of farmers in western Canada. As Members of the House will know, it is a payment for last year's crop, at a time when prices were 20 per cent higher than they will be this year. This means that farmers will still face major problems in the forthcoming crop year.
What are we expecting? A $1 billion pay-out from that stabilization fund next year? The fact is that we need much better answers. We need a comprehensive approach to the problem which will involve major initiatives in the international arena. This means obtaining the co-operation of the United States in a conference.
Most of all, we hope that all Members of the House will support a call for a major economic summit meeting of the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to come to the rescue of the western Canadian farmer before the economy goes down the drain.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Government has announced that it is now in the final stages of privatizing Quebecair, to guarantee regional services and to maintain and increase the number of jobs in this company.
Quebec realizes that in many cases, the private sector can provide as good a service as, if not better than, the public sector, and at less cost to the taxpayer.
I am surprised to see that our Liberal colleagues, who object to every step taken by our Government to privatize or enhance profitability do not have the same attitude where Quebec is concerned. Have they finally recognized that it makes sense to restrict Government intervention to areas where it is absolutely necessary?
Throughout the world Governments are re-assessing their policies in this respect. In France, more than thirty companies have been sold. In Spain, industries like the automobile industry, truck manufacturing and industrial products have been returned to the private sector with great success.
We have faith in the ability of our entrepreneurs to provide a good service to their fellow citizens. It is too bad that the Opposition does not.

April 14, 1986



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, concern about the new direction of Conservative multicultural policy was not allayed by the Multiculturalism Means Business Conference in Toronto on the weekend. The conference was well attended, but the delegates were there as much to ask questions about matters the Government is not addressing as they were to celebrate the multicultural resources on which Canada can draw.
The conference itself demonstrated the shortcomings of the approach of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). Frank Stronach of the Magna International Group made an impressive conference chairman, but the featured business speakers were John Bulloch of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and Roger Hamel of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Multicultural business accomplishments received only limited recognition. Those who asked questions remained anxious about reduced grants to multicultural organizations, lack of Government action on employment equity, and the certification problems of foreign-trained professionals.
The Multiculturalism Means Business Conference was a good initiative but it will not serve as the new multicultural policy for our country.


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



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) in Winnipeg this morning is good news for western Canada. The $580 million interim payment is the largest ever made under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. It will be placed in the hands of hard-pressed producers before they begin seeding the 1986 crop.
The payment, following the over $2 billion our Government has contributed to western Canada since September of 1984, very clearly demonstrates the high priority we place on agriculture. This interim payment will be made as a result of amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act made in February, 1985. It will give participating producers a return of $4 for every dollar they have contributed to the program from January, 1983, to July, 1985.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, minority shareholders require more protection from the self-serving schemes of powerful families.
Last week, Crown, an insurance conglomerate, asked shareholders to split their shares to create more non-voting stock. This favoured the largest shareholders, the Burns and Jodrey families. Fortunately the CN pension fund stopped this plan.
In another questionable scheme Trilon Financial said it is raising $102 million in a new stock issue. While the controlling shareholders own less than 35 per cent of the current shares, they are taking 50 per cent of this new issue, thereby diluting the rights of minority shareholders. The minority shareholders are also the losers with regard to the exorbitant $2-million underwriting fee on a risk-free deal. Great Lakes Group, 62 per cent-owned by Brascade, which also controls Trilon, will pocket the $2 million.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. At the end of last week the Prime Minister was obviously caught off guard by the reaction of key U.S. Senators to opening formal discussions on trade-
[Editor's Note: And the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) having entered the Chamber.]


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I bid the Minister welcome on his return to the House. It is good to see him looking in such great shape.
May I start again, Mr. Speaker? That is the old Quebec way of interrupting a meeting. Someone comes in in the middle!
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was obviously caught off guard by the attitude of certain key Senators to the trade negotiations. Why was the Leader of the Government so surprised? Where was the 100-man trade office here in Canada? Where was the half-million-dollar consultant, Michael Deaver? Where was the briefing to
April 14, 1986

the Prime Minister? Why is it that the Leader of the Government is so far behind on the facts of this particular issue?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that apparently this was a last-minute development which occurred-


Ian Deans: There's the reason.


James Francis Kelleher: -in the Senate Finance Committee. As Mr. Yeutter himself explained, he too was very surprised and taken aback by the events. I can assure the Right Hon. Member that the people who assist us in these negotiations are very good people and are keeping on top of things for us.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we were really on top of that issue. Maybe the real reason is the Minister-I do not know.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my second question to the Minister.
According to the Prime Minister, President Reagan gave him the assurance that all was well in these negotiations and that the Administration would guarantee their success.
Apparently, somebody overlooked the fact there is separation of powers in the United States, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
My question to the Minister is therefore: Why has the Government conducted its business in such a way that we are now on the defensive with the U.S. senators?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not on the defensive in any way, shape or form with respect to these negotiations. We have reminded the administration and the President of his commitment that there would be a clear launch for these discussions. We have asked the President to advise the Senate Finance Committee of that. This is presently a matter between the administration and the Finance Committee and we are awaiting further developments.


CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought that the new-style diplomacy down there was to keep in touch with Capitol Hill at the same time as keeping in touch with the administration. Despite this so-called special relationship with the United States, why is it that we have gotten ourselves into a defensive position? Will the Minister assure us that the Canadian Government will not make any concessions against the export of Canadian lumber in order to get that Senate committee back on track?
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: would again like to reassure the Hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition, that we are not in any defensive position whatever. The fact that these discussions at present have been stalled in the Senate Finance Committee will not in any way have any bearing on our ongoing discussions with respect to current trade problems or irritants.


PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LAW
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. The amateur hour approach that has been taken to the trade negotiations with the United States has already led the Prime Minister to concede on energy, on publishing, and on foreign investment, and we have received absolutely nothing in return.
Will the Minister now give assurances to this House that the Government will not cave in to the pressures to change the pharmaceutical patent law? Will he make it very clear that that law will stay to protect the Canadian consumer and that we will not give in to the American multinationals?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member and myself have a different interpretation how events are going. 1 do not feel in any way that we have conceded or given in to the Americans at any time on anything.
Dealing specifically with pharmaceuticals, lumber, or any of those issues, they stand on their own merits. They will be dealt with on their own merits. They are not in any way tied to the present discussions as to whether or not there should or should not be trade discussions between Canada and the United States.


ROLE OF PROVINCES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the kind of approach that has gone wrong has just been exemplified by the Minister's statement. You cannot deal with issues one by one. They are part of a total package with the United States that has to be bargained effectively.
The Senate has said that the problem it has is that the Canadian Government has not made clear what the role of the provinces will be.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary question, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: In light of the statement by the Senators that they do not know what the Canadian Government's position and the provinces' position will be, can the Minister tell us what steps will be taken to clarify what the role of the

April 14, 1986
Oral Questions
provinces will be so that the U.S. Senate and the administration will have a clear idea for the first time what our bargaining stance will be in the talks?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, we will be notifying the Americans quite clearly, fully, and forthrightly about our position in the talks if and when the Americans decide they wish to have those discussions with us.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On the weekend, an American envoy discussed the situation in Libya with Governments in Europe, and he referred more specifically to the possibility of using military force against the Libyans.
My question for the Government is simply this: Did the Americans discuss the plan with the Canadian Government before the weekend, and if so, what did the Canadian Government have to say?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister assured the House last Friday, both in his press conference and in response to questions in the House, that the Government of Canada remains in very close continuous touch with the United States, and in so far as the safety of Canadians in Libya is concerned, the Prime Minister last Friday in the House of Commons again drew attention to his statement of January 10, and suggested that Canadians should once again take stock of the situation in Libya vis-a-vis, their own individual safety.


UNITED STATES PROPOSALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important matter, as l am sure the Deputy Prime Minister realizes, and he did not answer the question.
Since the Americans are discussing very specific proposals with the Europeans, were they discussed directly with the Government of Canada and, if so, what was our reply? It is an important matter that could potentially affect directly some 1,300 Canadians in Libya.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 differ with the hon. gentleman. 1 did answer his question by saying to him that the Government of Canada remains in close and continuous touch with the Government of the United States, particularly with respect to the safety of our citizens in Libya.


Mr. Ouellet:: Tell us the truth. The answer is no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. A supplementary question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we saw how close the Government was in touch on trade matters by the action in the U.S. Senate last week. I hope it has been in better touch, in advance, of an American decision on this matter.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS IN LIBYA
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister referred to the answer the Prime Minister gave on Friday in which he said: "-there is no immediate cause for undue concern for Canadians". How does he square that with the following, said by a spokesperson for the Department of External Affairs on the weekend: "We have twice advised Canadians to look to their safety"? Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if Canadians are in danger in Libya? If so, have they been informed directly of their danger? Has the Government of Canada taken action to get them out, if need be?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the short answer to that is absolutely.


Some Hon. Members:: Absolutely what?


Erik Nielsen: Those who ask the question "Absolutely what?" obviously were not listening to the question. If they read the question in the "blues" they will find that that is an adequate answer. 1 assure all Members of the House that we are indeed in very close and continuing consultation with the Government of the United States-


André Ouellet: You're taking your orders directly, that's what you're doing.


Erik Nielsen: -with respect to the situation in Libya and the safety of Canadians-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: They don't consult us, they tell us.


Erik Nielsen: -indeed, as recently as less than a half hour ago.


John Edward Broadbent: Will you share some of that with us?
April 14, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the unprecedented crisis facing agriculture, particularly western grain farmers at the moment, why did the Minister of Agriculture not announce programs for this year at the same time as he made his belated announcement earlier today with regard to last year's western grain stabilization plan?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty following the logic of the Hon. Member's question, but perhaps that is not unique. A couple of hours ago my colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, announced the largest interim payment in the history of the country under the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Lloyd Axworthy: For last year's crops.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: For the benefit of my colleague, that was a payment of $580 million. It was possible for us to make that interim payment because of a decision taken by this Party and this Government to amend the Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WESTERN GRAIN INDUSTRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has told us that the payment was of that magnitude because of last year's situation. Now that we have the largest crisis in agriculture in the country, why will the Minister not announce what is needed for the western grain industry this year? What is he waiting for?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, in the last 18 months the Government has taken well over 200 initiatives-


André Ouellet: No, no. Last week it was 100.


John Wise: -which supplied over $4 billion to the agri-food industry.


André Ouellet: What happened over the weekend?


John Wise: About $2 billion of that was directed to western Canada. That is the record.


Don Boudria: It's a record of broken promises.


John Wise: It's not a record of broken promises. If anyone is an expert on broken promises, it is the Hon. Member who sits across the way.
Oral Questions PETRO-CANADA


SENATE COMMITTEE EVIDENCE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. The Minister has frequently stated that the oil companies should be reducing prices and giving consumers a break. How can she explain the evidence of George and Cora McAra of Graven-hurst, Ontario, who today told a Senate committee that Petro-Canada not only padlocked their gas pumps when they tried to lower prices, but was in fact, in a general way, forcing prices up rather than down?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to the answer which I have given before to that Member in this House. This is an issue between Petro-Canada and its agents with which it has contracts. I suggest that the Member address his question to Petro-Canada.


INQUIRY HOW GOVERNMENT WILL HELP CONSUMERS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. How does the Government intend to help consumers, if it removes the petroleum revenue tax and in its stead introduces a tax of two or three cents per litre of gas for the refineries, as reported in the press?


Pat Carney: That is not true, Mr. Speaker.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, about official languages: "Alliance Quebec and Francophones outside Quebec criticize Ottawa's failure to act"; "Ottawa has failed to consult us on reforms: language minorities"; "Bilingualism: exasperation with Ottawa's hesitant attitude". Here is my question, Mr. Speaker.
When is this Government going to deal with the problems that concern official language minority groups, and when can we expect some solutions to the problems in Newfoundland regarding access to French in the courts; in Ontario, regarding French television; in Manitoba, regarding services in French, and throughout the province, regarding education and Section 23? When is this Government going to act?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is aware, a full review is being made at this time of the Official Languages Program that was set up in both languages. The Task Force that is

April 14, 1986
Oral Questions
considering these matters should soon be reporting its recommendations to Cabinet, and we shall of course act as soon as possible.


INQUIRY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL ACT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about amendments to the Official Languages Act, which is what the Minister was referring to. I am talking about existing programs this Government hesitates to support, whether it is someone who wants to make himself heard in French before the courts in Newfoundland or someone who wants to watch French television in Ontario, I want to ask the Government: When are you going to stand up and do something to help the minority groups in the provinces? I think that is pretty straightforward!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at my hon. colleague's comments, because one of the first things we did as a Government was to clearly establish our full support for official languages policies in this country in October 1984, and this is a commitment we are meeting through substantial improvements in official languages programs across the country.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I think she is aware that today more than 100 disabled Canadians have come to Ottawa at considerable expense to tell Parliament they want positive changes in the Employment Equity Bill. Why did the Government not keep a promise that the Prime Minister's Office made to Beryl Potter and other disabled Canadians about three weeks ago and respond to three specific requests by disabled Canadians to strengthen the Employment Equity Bill before it came back to the House at report stage?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as you will be aware, Bill C-62 on employment equity is before the House this very day for debate. We are debating a number of items. With regard to the Hon. Member's question, the Right Hon. Prime Minister responded to Miss Beryl Potter by writing to her at some length regarding the legislation. He pointed out that, among other things, the Bill itself is the first piece of legislation ever brought before any Legislature in Canada dealing with employment equity and designed to improve the employment
opportunities of disabled persons, visible minorities, native people, and women.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question.


PUBLIC SERVICE JOBS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker-
[Editor's Note: And a spectator in the gallery having interrupted.]


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


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think she said it for me, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Then sit down.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Disabled Canadians have asked me to ask when the Government is going to move on its election promise to provide full-time permanent jobs in the federal Public Service for disabled Canadians? As of now, 75 per cent of its disabled workers are on term contracts.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have had since 1983 an affirmative action program in the federal Public Service to help target groups, including the disabled. Each Department is required to develop and maintain non-discriminatory practices in employment. Reports have to be submitted to Treasury Board every six months for review to ensure that the affirmative action programs are functioning properly. To add to that, we have an advisory committee on the disabled at Treasury Board which meets three times a year to ensure that the program is proceeding as it should and full opportunities are given to employees.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Some 75 per cent are on term contracts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Recently the Prime Minister personally met Beryl Potter and promised her and a number of other disabled people that he would personally review his Government's employment equity policy. That is why they are here demonstrating on the Hill today and that is why that voice has been crying out. There has been no answer, no reply to their phone calls-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Roland de Corneille: Yes. My question is to ask the Minister what she has to say now to the hundreds of thousands of disabled Canadians who have called upon the Government to act, and to say that this Government's policy is toothless and phoney.
April 14, 1986


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I find it ludicrous that a member of that Party who sat in this House on the Government side for a good many years did absolutely nothing about employment equity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: At least we are doing something.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No legislation was brought forward-


Ms. Copps:: You are a phoney, Flora.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Short supplementary question.


AFFIRMATIVE ACTION-CONTRACT COMPLIANCE MEASURES
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the one out of eight Canadians who have a disability want to know what the Prime Minister is going to do to fulfil the promises made in the election campaign that affirmative action programs would be carried on by companies which expected to get contracts from the Government. What has happened to that election promise?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that promise will be implemented just as soon as the Hon. Member and members of his Party cease obstructing passage of Bill C-62. That is what they are doing at present. The contract compliance measures are ready to go into effect in conjunction with Bill C-62.


André Ouellet: It is not in the Bill.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for international trade. Many Canadians cannot understand why the Government is planning to change generic drug laws which have saved ordinary Canadians billions of dollars since 1969. Will the Minister confirm that these plans were all part of a strategy of concessions to the U.S. to try to get a free trade arrangement from that country?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not in any position to confirm any such arrangement because there never was any such arrangement. Neither was there ever any such strategy. It exists only in the mind of the Hon. Member.


Steven W. Langdon: And very much in the statement of the Shamrock Summit itself.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


Steven W. Langdon: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will he now abandon this drug sell-out to the U.S. given the assault by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on our thrust for free trade?


Mr. Stevens:: You are getting worse.


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, we have already announced our position and when we unveil our policy it will be in keeping with the Government's approach which is to promote investment, research and development, and to create jobs in the pharmaceutical industry.
[DOT] * *


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to know whether the Minister of Justice personally decided to have his Newfoundland officials appear in a criminal case and request that the two French-speaking accused not be allowed to testify in their official mother tongue.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I am afraid I am going to have to take notice of that question. I will ensure that the Minister of Justice responds to the Hon. Member on his return with respect to the details.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands.


FUNDING OF NATIVE ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The no-win situation of many native young people was shown tragically last month when six young Metis died after a drinking party. I would like to ask the Minister, when so many young native people have difficulty with alcohol and drugs, why has the Government broken the

April 14, 1986
Oral Questions
Prime Minister's promise of last year and cut $4.5 million from the Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us recognize the difficulties that both drug and alcohol abuse create in many sectors of our society. In regard to the NADAP program the Member's information is not correct. The money was not cut from NADAP. There were some projects that did not go forward. There were a number of reasons, not budgetary nearly as much as whether or not the programs could be put in place and the agreements could be met with the sponsoring groups. He should examine that before he makes the statement he did.


CONSULTATION INQUIRY
James Douglas Manly: The
fact is that there is less money in the Estimates this year than last year for this program, and it has been cut across the country. I would like to ask the Minister how he can square those cuts with the Prime Minister's statement of last year that policies regarding aboriginal people will be made after open, public consultation, especially at the grass roots level. There has not been that kind of consultation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is not true. There is an advisory committee of NADAP made up of native people. They meet with the officials of the Department and they occasionally meet with me. What I am saying to you is they are representing the grass roots. The statement he has made simply does not stand up to the reality of what is happening.


MULTICULTURALISM
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. At the Multiculturalism Means Business Conference this past weekend concerns were expressed regarding discrimination in business and in employment. Is the new Multicultural Business Centre that is proposed by the Minister going to deal with this problem and, if so, how and when will this new centre be established?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the conference this weekend did provide a lot of new insights and new opportunities to the ethnocultural communities in this country which prompted me to announce the formation of the new Multicultural Business Centre. We are in the process, as I pointed out over the weekend, of establishing and setting out the criteria, beginning today. I would hope that within the next two or three weeks we would begin to have them put it in place. The purpose of dealing with these well
founded recommendations would be for us to be able to keep this Government's commitment to provide equality of opportunity to all Canadians in all areas.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and it has to do with the Matane papermill.
Now that Norwegian Sauburgs company officials have received the federal-provincial draft agreement spelling out the terms and conditions-it was sent to them by Quebec Minister John Caccia-can the Minister tell us if he will officially sign the agreement on behalf of the federal Government so that we will finally know whether or not the Government will participate financially in this project?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, I spoke to Mr. Etholn, Chairman of Saugbrugs, the Norwegian company, earlier today, and he indicated that not only had he not received the draft agreement the Hon. Member is referring to, but he had not heard that it was coming. In fact he did not know who I was referring to when I said: "I presume you received Mr. Ciacca's letter".


INQUIRY WHETHER AGREEMENT EXISTS WITH PROVINCE OF QUEBEC TO HELP MATANE PAPERMILL PROJECT
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have directed my question to the Postmaster General! Another one of this Government's departments which does not work.
So I would ask the Minister if he will . . . Stop attacking your colleague from another department. Can the Minister stop beating around the bush and tell us if it is true that the Governments of Canada and Quebec have agreed to support the proposed Matane papermill? Yes or no, not maybe. What is the answer?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated several times before, the company in Norway-and this was reiterated again today when I spoke to Mr. Etholn about this matter-says that they cannot deal with the Canadian project until some time after April 24 when they will know who is in control of the company. They say at the present time their president and the

April 14, 1986
board members are tied up on the rather hostile take-over bid that they are trying to fend off. Therefore they cannot consider any proposal from Canada until some time later this month or early in May.
We, as I have indicated before, at the federal level are very interested in a comparatively large project for Matane. That has been our position and will continue to be our position.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Western Grain Stabilization Act has been in place for ten years and the announcement made this week indicates that there has been, in the last year, a $600 million shortfall in the income of grain producers. Does the Minister recognize that this pay-out is not going to help the income projections of those farmers, and that they need operating loans even if that money is out there?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the Hon. Member, having the background and the knowledge of the industry that he does, can stand here in the House and indicate that an interim payment of some $580 million is not going to be of assistance to western farmers at this time. That is just sheer nonsense. My reading of the situation is that, indeed, it is. It is not enough, we admit that.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Will the Minister make sure the farmers do have enough money to get into operation this year? Will the Government make an announcement of deficiency payments which will give them enough money so the bankers and they themselves know they will have enough at the end of the year to make it worth-while planting this year?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that it is impossible for me, as Minister of Agriculture, at the moment to stand here and make that commitment. I remind him of the commitments that we made and the action that we have taken since we have assumed office. I also remind him of the response by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago when he indicated this Government has passed more agricultural legislation and pumped more money into the agricultural sector than any other sector, with the exception of the gas and oil industry. He recognized that farmers have urgent and burning problems. The action that we have taken is not enough and we are quite prepared to do more. Those are the words of the Prime Minister. If that is not a commitment to the industry, I don't know what is.
Oral Questions FINANCE


ELIMINATION OF PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX-COST TO TREASURY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. Since the Government is negotiating with Alberta an early end to the PGRT, will the Minister tell the House how he proposes, or how she proposes, to recoup the $2 billion in revenue that this will cost?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be happy to take notice of that question and refer it to my hon. colleague, who, 1 am sure, will be in a position to give an answer to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Next question. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


EMPLOYMENT
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to know whether it is true that she has failed to spend all of the money that was allocated for job development in Manitoba during the last fiscal year. If it is true that those unspent moneys will be returned to the general revenue for deficit reduction purposes, how can the Minister explain that fact in light of the Prime Minister's commitment during the election that there would be no cut-backs in those areas that impact upon the lives of ordinary working Canadians?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will recognize that lapses are part of the ongoing administration. I can assure him that lapses have happened every year in the past, and that the lapses this year are consistent with the pattern in other years.
In the meantime I want to assure the Hon. Member that what we have been able to do that is different from the past is introduce multi-year funding into the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Canadian Jobs Strategy so that we will continue to approve projects on an ongoing basis as they come forward.


Cyril Keeper: Canadians elected a new Government to change the pattern, not to continue the errors of the past.



April 14, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY-CARRY-OVER FUNDING
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not carry over the unspent moneys from last year into this year so that those Manitobans who need work can have work?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is in place and working well. Projects are continuously being approved from the funding for 1986-87. We have seen a tremendous response to the program itself and its various components.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that indeed this is a successful program and I hope he will give it his support.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is he aware that failure to settle the legitimate and outstanding claim of the Lubicon Indian Band in Alberta is attracting increasingly unfavourable international attention? There is even growing talk in Europe about boycotting the 1988 Winter Olympics. Does the Minister not agree that now is the time to honour the commitment to the Lubicon Indian people and not allow this claim to remain unsettled any longer?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I beleive all Members of the House would want to join me in indicating to all participating countries in the 1988 Winter Olympics that we know they will be a success and that this issue is not related to the Olympics. In the past these kinds of political issues have too often been linked to the Olympic movement and we would not want to see it happen in Calgary in 1988.
The Hon. Member should be aware that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been working on this issue and has taken it on as a personal issue which he wants to resolve. I will pass the Hon. Member's representations on to the Minister.
I think the premise that the Hon. Member is presenting is unfair to the Minister and to the actions he has taken so far.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT TO RESOLUTION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he use the influence of his office and provide some effective leadership so that this outstanding aboriginal claim can be
settled? 1 want him personally to make a commitment now that he will take some part in this and help to get it resolved.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made very firm commitments at the last conference regarding constitutional and aboriginal rights. He wants to resolve these issues. Another conference was scheduled for 1987 and the commitments have been made directly by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and other members of the Government.
I repeat what I said to the Hon. Member in regard to the specific case. He knows that the Minister has worked very carefully on this case. The issue before us concerns who will be at the negotiating table. If we can deal with that matter, the issue can be resolved. I know that the Minister wants to resolve it very quickly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Documents which were published today reveal that the Canadian Government was not only aware of but collaborated closely with the United States Central Intelligence Agency in secret brainwashing experiments at McGill University in the mid-1950s. In view of the fact that the Canadian victims of this outrage are seeking justice in United States courts today, will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to co-operate fully with their U.S. attorney and immediately make public the George Cooper report on this very serious matter?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I will advise the Hon. Member that the Minister is presently seized of this report and is studying it. It is quite voluminous and when he has completed his review he will be reporting in due course.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF COOPER REPORT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Government has had this report for some time. I seek a commitment from the Minister that the Canadian Government will stop playing patsy to the United States Government and stand up for Canadian citizens. I ask him very specifically if he is prepared to give a commitment to the House and the victims of these brain-washing experiments that the George Cooper report will in fact be made public?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what 1 said in response to the first question. The Minister is presently studying the report. He will report back on it in due course.
April 14, 1986


COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has been studying the Cooper report for more than three weeks. If in fact the Cooper report corroborates reports directly linking the Canadian Government to the CIA brainwashing experiments, will the Minister tell the House if the Canadian Government will offer full and adequate compensation to the victims?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon. Member is making some assumptions. There is no evidence to that effect before the House at this time.
I can only repeat that the Minister is studying the report. When he has completed that review he will report to us in due course.


CONTENT OF REPORT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has had the report in his possession for more than three weeks. It is quite clear that he can table it. If the Cooper report corroborates press statements, which have not been denied by the Government, will the Government offer full and adequate compensation instead of forcing Canadians to seek justice through American courts?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon. Member has repeated her original question. I suggest that it is completely hypothetical. We have to wait until the report has been reviewed and the Hon. Minister of Justice makes his report.


SHIPBUILDING
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He is undoubtedly aware that last September the Government promised to have a Polar Class 8 icebreaker built in response to the concern of Canadians about the assertion of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. When will the tender for the construction of this vessel be accepted so that workers can get busy at construction of this Polar Class 8 icebreaker?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can only advise the Hon. Member that this is a subject currently before the Cabinet for consideration. I am sure that he would be delighted with the progress that is being made.


Abram Ernest Epp: I am not yet delighted. This question has taken too many months of study and I am still waiting assurances.
Oral Questions FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister assure us and all Canadians that the Government will find the money to get this project under way so that Arctic sovereignty will be defended by means of a vessel and not just by Bills in the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, major projects require lengthy deliberations. I can assure the Hon. Member that, as my hon. colleague here has suggested, the Government is breaking ice on that subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Teleglobe is a very profitable high-tech, well managed jewel of a Crown corporation that the Minister is looking to auction off to the highest bidder. Will the Minister undertake to protect this high-tech Montreal based firm by assuring that only Canadian companies committed to maintaining the Montreal operation will be entertained and considered as purchasers?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this question is very similar to others that were raised earlier. I have always indicated that we would entertain bids from Canadians and would anticipate that, after privatization, the majority ownership of Teleglobe would certainly be Canadian.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, he did not respond to the question on Montreal based firms,
[ Translation]


INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLY OF TELEGLOBE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Finestone: While he is busy improvising these auction sales, can the Minister assure us that, in the negotiations, he will see to it that Teleglobe maintains in Montreal a lasting and permanent monopoly over Canada's international communications?

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, there has never been any question but that Teleglobe after privatization would remain, as far as its head office is concerned, in Montreal. In relation to the main thrust of the Hon. Member's question, I want to assure her that Teleglobe, after privatization, will remain an entity, hopefully, which will become more and more active in the field in which it has been so active up to the present time.

April 14, 1986
Points of Order


Mr. Speaker:: The Elon. Member for York Centre has indicated he wishes to raise a point of order arising out of Question Period.


POINTS OF ORDER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to ask a supplementary, and I know there is a very long tradition of allowing supplementaries even when the Minister to whom the previous question was put is absent. In fact, my question was directed to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and dealt with the same subject. It concerned the Government's policy on bilingualism, which was the subject of my first question. And even if my first question was intended for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), I submit, with all due respect, for the Chair, that I had the right to ask my supplementary, to demonstrate its validity even without the answer to the previous question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful for the Hon. Member's repre-sentions. I suggest in that situation he should start with the question which goes to the Minister who is present. The Hon. Member knows my difficulty in this matter. I have indicated to the House before that 1 have some problem-how shall I say this? This particular speaker has been reminded ad nauseam that it is the Speaker's responsibility entirely with regard to supplementary questions. I think I have to say that it does seem difficult to me to grant a supplementary question when all that has happened in the Government benches is that the question has been taken as notice.
Does the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) have a separate point of order?


Aideen Nicholson: It is a similar point of order, Mr. Speaker, on which I would appreciate your guidance. I understand the point that if there has been no answer, it may not seem logical to have a supplementary question. However, on past occasions what has been accepted in the House is a statement such as: "Since notice has been taken of that part of my question, could you also take notice of something else?" That is what I would have wished to add today, if that had been possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. These are not in fact points of order. As the Hon. Member knows, they are representations to the Chair, and I accept them as such. However, I think my view is pretty well known on this matter, although I would be happy to discuss these matters again.


DISABLED VISITORS TO PARLIAMENT HILL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Chair has anything to report with respect to the point raised last week by the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille). It was with respect to access to the Chambers by the disabled because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That matter was raised this morning at 11 o'clock and was responded to in the House.



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. 8 (Mr. Nystrom).
Mr. Speaker:: Before we resume debate I think I must deal with the procedural arguments. 1 listened carefully this morning to the procedural comments made by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I now wish to make a final ruling, having expressed my gratitude to them for their contribution.
The Chair has no doubt that Motion No. 10A, as a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause of this Bill, is out of order. The Parliamentary Secretary has argued that Motions Nos. 13A and 15 are consequential to Motion No. 10A and, therefore, should also be ruled out of order. Since I intend to deal with those motions later on in my ruling, I will say nothing further at the moment.
The Parliamentary Secretary also argued that Motion No. 21A is enlarging the powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The effect of Motion No. 21A is to make certain documents available to the Human Rights Commission on request. The Chair cannot in the context of this Bill envisage this amendment as an enlargement of the powers of the Commission and will, therefore, allow the said motion to be put to the House.
In summary, as I indicated to the House on Thursday last. Motions Nos. 3A, 4, 5A, 6, 10, 19, 19A, 20B, 23, 28, 29 and 33A are out of order and will be dropped from this day's Notice Paper.
The Chair is also ready to inform the House of the result of the private representations it has received on the motions that were moved and defeated in committee. Those motions are the following:
April 14, 1986

Motions Nos. 2A, 9, 11 A, 13A, 14A, 15, 16A, 20A, 22, 24, 25A, 26A, 31 and 36A.
After consultation,	1 have decided to	select for	debateMotions Nos. II A,	14A, 16A, 24, 25A and	26A.	They will	begrouped and voted	on	as follows: Motion	No.	11A	will	bedebated and voted	on	separately; Motion	No.	14A	will	be
grouped for debate with Motion No. 12A but will be voted on separately; Motion No. 16A will be debated and voted on separately; Motions Nos. 24, 25A and 26A will be grouped for debate with Motion No. 27A with separate votes on each of the said motions; Consequently, Motions Nos. 2A, 9, 13A, 15, 20A, 22, 31 and 36A will not be put to the House and will be dropped from this day's Notice Paper.
The House should know that in selecting motions already dealt with in committee at this time, the Chair has borne in mind the fact that all the motions in amendment to Bill C-62 were on the Notice Paper before the provisional Standing Order 114(10) was adopted.
Resuming debate on Motion No. 8.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might prevail upon the Chair; in the future when extensive rulings are being made perhaps the Table could provide us with a copy of the ruling in order that we could follow it?


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize. Normally that is our practice, as the Hon. Member knows. I thought it had been circulated. It turns out that it had been prepared but because of a change in language which 1 added at the last minute before Question Period, it only reached my hand a few moments ago. Normally, absolutely that would be our process.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the ruling you just made, the second paragraph, you refer to Motion No. 10A. In my Order Paper there is no such Motion No. 10A. 1 do not know what you are referring to. Could there be a typographical error?


Mr. Speaker:: In Parliament, anything is possible.
I can see the confusion. The Hon. Member should know that Motion No. 10A which I referred to is Motion No. 10A in the original Order Paper which was put to the House and was ruled out of order earlier. The Parliamentary Secretary argued earlier today that two motions which were still available were consequential to that motion. That was his argument for Motions Nos. 13A and 15 if I remember correctly. The Chair indicated that it was dealing with the admissibility on procedural grounds of Motions Nos. 13A and 15 on the basis of their having been presented in committee, as a prior condition.
Resuming debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, before we rose for luncheon, I had reviewed, at least in part, the record of the Public Service in respect to the application of affirmative action and what little success it has achieved, in particular, with respect to the implication of affirmation action programs for visible minority groups. Of
Employment Equity
course, it has already been said that in spite of a claim to affirmative action programs for the disabled, some 75 per cent of federal employees who have supposedly benefited from that program are on term or temporary employment. Similarly, where women have been the subject of what might be deemed a more effective affirmative action program, there is a considerable record of deficiency, a lack of uniformity and a lack of understanding of exactly what steps have been pursued in each department. In the last year in particular 1 have received complaints from members of the visible minority population with respect to the treatment of their job applications and, once employed, the failure to promotion which remind one of the experiences of so many minority group members in attempting to obtain jobs in the private sector. These are the types of experiences which led to studies by the Urban Alliance on Race Relations on discrimination in employment which were reported from Toronto. These reports indicated that visible minority group members have about one chance in three as compared to white applicants to obtain employment in that city. I have described that city previously as one which has a record of inter-racial understanding. On that basis it must disturb us all in respect to the situation which might exist elsewhere.
If there is any doubt of the need for affirmative action in the Public Service, one need only take note of the recent formation of a visible minority caucus in the Public Service of Canada which records a very serious situation evolving with respect to visible minority employees of the federal Government. This is as a result of the failure to have a strong affirmative action program, as well as the recent spate of lay-offs and the promise of further lay-offs in the Public Service. What is being said is that the old record of last hired and first fired is being played again in the federal Public Service. As lay-offs are occurring it is being said that since visible minority group members have been more recently employed they are experiencing lay-offs. More important, and I think more serious, are mounting complaints that visible minority group employees are being subjected to re-evaluation with respect to merit. They are having their grades altered in such a way as to promise the almost certain outcome that they will be laid off in the near future when the lay-offs penetrate into the departments involved in this Government effort to cut expenditures by dismissing employees.
There is also increasing concern among those seeking promotion that because of the threat of lay-offs, the lack of effective affirmative action and a lack of sensitivity, members of visible minority groups who are employees of the Government are becoming very concerned about the lack of effective protection for what status they have so far achieved. This is a record which is similar to that in the private sector.
It is clear that the amendment which has been proffered by the New Democratic Party should be postively entertained. It should be adopted to ensure that the federal Public Service is included in the legislation. If it is not, then members of the

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
target groups, whether they be women, the disabled, visible minorities or natives, will be subject to the same types of threats, exclusions and inhibitions with respect to promotions and hiring as they are subjected to in the private sector.
I suppose there is one argument for excluding members of the Public Service from the legislation. We have been over and over this story. It is that it will do the target groups no good, even within the Public Service, if all we are to do is determine their numbers without having a positive affirmative action program or employment equity program in place which seeks to achieve targets and which has firm timetables. To include the Public Service within the legislation, however limited it may be, will at least provide some degree of security. Future Governments will not be able to turn back the clock to beyond a point which is improved to some slight degree, even though the types of targets and timetables which we would desire are not there. Beyond that, we can at least expect that the process carried out by means of the Treasury Board guidelines will proceed to establish targets and timetables, even if the private sector is not subject to the same types of provisions.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for stating the case as clearly and as fairly as he has. Certainly, we all understand and know the need for more participation at all levels of our society with respect to the full range of our potentiality. We will never really achieve our full potential as a nation until all of our citizens are brought into the vortex of all of our opportunities.
I am in somewhat of a dilemma. On the one hand I am told how the Bill about which I am so excited does not have enough teeth. On the other hand, in an area where we have already a stronger program in effect, that is, the federal guideline on affirmative action in the Public Service, the Hon. Member is now almost asking us to back-track and include it in a voluntary program. The Hon. Member will probably agree with the effectiveness of that program, certainly with respect to how all Canadians will recognize the need to make use of all of the energy of our society.
That being said, what I want to put on record is that I am totally against Motion No. 8. It has the effect of proposing that the Bill apply to all federal government departments and corporations as defined in the Financial Administration Act. Under Treasury Board direction, the employment equity program is mandatory. Therefore, this Bill excludes those departments and corporations. The Treasury Board has the authority under the Financial Administration Act to direct the personnel practices of these departments and corporations. The Treasury Board has directed departments and corporations to implement affirmative action since 1983. The March 8, 1985, announcement on employment equity reiterated that directive and clarified that the Public Service Affirmative Action Program was designed to achieve employment equity.
Under the Public Service Employment Equity Program, departments and corporations develop employment equity
plans. The Treasury Board examines and approves those plans annually, which plans are available to the public. Departments and corporations submit annual reports of their results to the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board prepares an annual report on results. The report is made public. Enforcement procedures operate in a manner similar to that for Bill C-62.
As the Canadian Human Rights Commission testified before the legislative committee, it has access to the employment equity plans and the results of departments and corporations and can initiate an investigation if necessary. I quote from the proceedings of the legislative committee on December 19, 1985, at which Mr. Cocksedge of the Canadian Human Rights Commission said:
-the Treasury Board has been fairly rigorous in the review of those plans. Some have been bounced back to the departments and the numbers significantly changed-there is a very clear accountability line.
The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) asked the following question:
Just to be clear, you do have access both to the data and the action plans?
Mr. Cocksedge said yes.
Treasury Board employment equity directives apply to federal Departments and Departmental corporations listed as Schedules "A" and "B" in the Financial Administration Act. Bill C-62 does not apply to some Departments and corporations and I could deal a little further with that. However, all I really want to say at this point is that we want to see more visible minorities in highly visible positions of Government, not only in federal Government but in provincial and municipal Governments, as well as all of the agencies they serve, to say nothing of industry and commerce. It is the responsibility of this Government, the agencies and all other Governments to create that environment for opportunity.
We are fighting for the strength of Canada and its people, not the wealth of its resources. We are fighting for human resources above ail. The message we are sending out loud and clear today is that with employment equity, with the program we are putting into effect and with the management of the 1983 federal Public Service guidelines which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and his consultative committee will continue to pursue, this program will have benefits and will bring about the participation of all the target groups. Therefore, I see no reason to weaken our existing position on the Public Service when my hon. friend is not even as sure as we are that the voluntary affirmative action program is ail that Canadians are waiting for.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary. Because of the seriousness and importance of his remarks, I think it is worth while to put on record my views on this amendment which would strike out lines 13, 14 and 15 of Bill C-62, thereby including Government Departments in this Bill.
April 14, 1986

The Parliamentary Secretary has made the case that the exclusion of Government Departments in the Bill as it now reads is possibly justifiable since there are affirmative action programs in the Public Service and, as I said this morning when 1 was speaking to amendment No. 1, the Treasury Board does have a program in place and it is working. It is true that the example set by the public sector in dealing with employees since 1981-82 has been getting better and the public sector is trying its best to answer some of the pre-occupations of the four target groups, women, visible minorities, the handicapped and native people. However, it is because sometimes politicians like to fiddle with legislation that we are asking that the Government's program be entrenched in the legislation so that the public sector would be able to preach by example to the private sector. The Government should not ask the private sector to be subject to a law against discrimination in employment practices while the Government itself is not. In order to be fair to the private sector, the Government should accept graciously that it should also be included in the legislation so there is the appearance of fairness and justness.

That the appearance of justice and an element of fairness be perceived and understood by everyone.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial public sector, for instance, should be urged to follow the example of the federal Government. That is one of the things we hope to achieve, namely, that the provinces, which are I believe responsible for 80 per cent of Canadian workers, will emphasize employment equity and fairness in their policies.
Hon. Members will recall that the Affirmative Action Program, when it was at the developmental stage in 1982, was aimed at introducing affirmative action to various pilot departments. Hon. Members will recall this did not start with a huge comprehensive program but with pilot projects in a number of departments, and subsequently, these programs spread to other departments. This initiative was taken under the Liberal Government, and it was not until after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted, and especially Section 15, that the Government asked Judge Abelia to proceed with a thorough study of the application of the employment equity principle, to find out whether it was possible to expand this concept to the private sector. And Judge Abelia herself made the recommendation in her report that the federal Government should included into and come under the legislation. So this was not our idea. Judge Abelia, an expert in this field, chaired a committee which sat for a year or more and whose report was tabled in the House in 1984, recommending that the federal Government and all departments be included in the legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we are to follow the kind of logic to which I am used, if the expert tells us it should be included in the legislation, if logic dictates that to set the example it is imperative that the private sector have the impression of being on the same wavelength as the public sector, in the sense that the public sector does not do anything which is not expected of
Employment Equity
the private sector, or vice versa, it seems normal to me that we include departments as defined in the Financial Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, I could go on at length about that definition, how a corporation or a department can be defined so that the provisions of the Financial Administration Act do not apply to Crown corporations, not to mention other statutes which are amended as a consequence of that. Mr. Speaker, there would be practically no end to examples where the governor in council enjoys full discretion to exclude certain departments from Schedule B. Not all departments are covered by this exclusion provision contained in Bill C-62. No. I would imagine that some Crown corporations are affected by this measure and, hopefully, they will obey the law and abide by its provisions.
In 1983, Mr. Speaker, and I am saying this because it is important, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), who was then President of the Treasury Board, officially launched the Affirmative Action Program in the public service. The program was administered by the Public Service Commission and was aimed at promoting equal access to public jobs for all Canadians. The main objectives-I will repeat them, because they are very important-are: first, to help women plan their careers and maximize their opportunities for employment in the Public Service of Canada. Second, to promote equal access to jobs in the Public Service for native people, including Indians, Metis, non-status Indians and Inuit. Third, to increase participation by the physically and mentally disabled in the Public Service.
Mr. Speaker, all this to try and set an example, and act like a dedicated employer, a good corporate employer, by trying to set an example to the rest of the industry, by creating affirmative action programs that could, I image, be imitated by the private sector. Today, we have a Bill, the result of a Royal Commission of Inquiry chaired by Judge Abelia who made a number of recommendations.
I said it with regard to Amendment No. 1 and 1 say it again with respect to Amendment No. 2, Mr. Speaker. It is not something we made up, it is something Judge Abelia said, and I think the Government ought to listen: federal Government departments should be subject to the requirements of Bill C-62.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 8 which would amend Bill C-62. I would like to comment on the few statements the Parliamentary Secretary made suggesting that the Government had in place an adequate affirmative action program. We recognize that the Financial Administration Act requires the Treasury Board to take some affirmative action. We also recognize that that has been put in place, but Treasury Board's policies on equity lack the force and commitment of law. The Member suggested that we would be going backwards. He said that there is no need for any Government, unless it wants to go backwards, to take away anything that is presently a policy of the Treasury Board and

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
put in place what is in this Bill, because there is plenty of room to go beyond what this Bill does.
This Bill requires reports to be made and they will, therefore, be available in the House. We abhor to some extent the inadequacy of just allowing corporations affected by this Bill to report. The Bill does not force corporations to take any affirmative action. If we had Motion No. 8 in place we would be able to have a further reporting, and the requirement of that reporting would give it the status and commitment of law.
The federal Government cannot say at any time or cannot have said at any time that it is a good example of what should be done in equity employment. In the process of getting to where we are, the Government has not put in place the kind of solid requirements to make us believe that 10 years down the road we will have equality for all in employment in the federal Government any more than this Bill will force equality of employment in the corporation that will be affected by it.
Not too long ago, during the Leaders' debate in the election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a commitment to affirmative action. In this case it was affirmative action for women. He said:
The P.C. Party has had a long commitment to an effective affirmative action program within the federal Government to provide equal opportunity to women. Our Government will make sure the hiring and promotion practices give women the oppotunities they deserve. We will carefully and regularly monitor-
By accepting Motion No. 8, we would be sure that that monitoring was done and that reports would be available to Members of Parliament who would be part of the monitoring.
I want to put on the record for the House recommendations from the Boyer Report. Recommendation No. 60 on page 110 reads:
We recommend that employment equity legislation apply to all federal public sector employers and to employers under federal jurisdiction, with necessary adjustments being made by regulation for small businesses and agencies.
Many witnesses told the committee that this approach was necessary. What is the Government's response to that requirement? It is almost exactly the same as the response of the Parliamentary Secretary, namely, that the Government considers it unncessary to make federal Crown Corporations subject to the legislation because Treasury Board has already taken the lead in employment equity.
If we could believe that, if we could see it happening, if we knew it was there, it would mean something, but as it is, we cannot see it. Even if this Bill is inadequate, it does require reporting at the end of the period of time in which it is to take effect. When we show the report to the world we will then be able to say, "here is an example of what we in the federal Government are doing in the civil service", because the report would be available to all.
We recognize the program that is in place, but we believe that it should be given the force and the commitment of law. It would in that process be an example to the people we are
asking to provide the affirmative action in their particular corporations, and it would also provide the world with a substantial recognition of progress that has been made within the Government of Canada.
A number of organizations have made a specific request in this area. Again, many of them request action by the federal Government. The aim is not so much, if the Bill passes as it is, that the Bill give them the opportunity for jobs and further equality in employment, but rather that it show that one part of the Government was living up to its rhetoric.
There are good reasons why we think this clause should be in place and force the federal Government to abide by its own laws. Treasury Board policies are totally management controlled. If management decides it wants to have affirmative action and to operate in the particular ways suggested, it may do so. If it does not, and it appears from the past record of federal civil service that management has not indicated any particular pressing desire to abide by the regulations, management will not do so.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act, which controls a certain amount of the affirmative action program, exempts that area from collective bargaining. Consequently, that can be used for an excuse for less action than is adequate. Treasury Board guidelines were made to suggest the promoting of women to high management positions. There is a tendency for those guidelines to be used for token promotions in those areas and not to recognize the majority of the women who need to be recognized and who need jobs on an equal level with men in the community. The requirements of the Treasury Board guidelines can be fulfilled without effectively doing anything about the entire population of the workforce. The Government has taken no serious initiative to identify and eliminate systemic discrimination in the Public Service. The passage of Motion No. 8 will force the Government to study the structure and do something about it, because what it has and has not done will be publicly reported.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Motion No. 8 is to eliminate certain words from the Bill in order that the Government will not be exempt from complying with the intentions of this legislation. The legislation is so lacking in teeth, compliance, and requirements, that one wonders whether it is worthwhile continuing with debate unless the Government is prepared to listen to the people who are affected by this employment equity Act, and to provide the assurances for which they ask.
It is fairly obvious why we want the Public Service to comply with this legislation. Through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Abella Report, and the Obstacles Report, a lot of work had been done in an effort to alert, study, sensitize, and act in order to ensure that people have access to the courts to enforce their rights. Despite the fact that we have laws on the books as well as the Charter of Rights, inequities continue to exist, even in the Public Service.
April 14, 1986

As recently as March 17 I made a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 to call to the attention of the Government the fact that in 1984-85 the vast majority of disabled people hired by the Public Service Commission were hired on limited or term positions. When cut-backs come into effect, term positions are among the first to go, leaving many disabled as the first victims of unemployment. We cannot, therefore, look lightly upon this amendment.
We want to ensure that the Government is sensitized and forced to comply with the same standards with which it expects others to comply. Unfortunately, in addition to large parts of the Public Service, the House of Commons is not under the jurisdiction of this Bill. There is no provision to ensure that we practice employment equity in the House of Commons with regard to women, visible minorities, the handicapped, and native peoples.
We are addressing a serious matter. The Government should ensure that, by enshrining them in law, the provisions of this equity Act will apply to the Public Service. If another Minister, administration, or point of view comes along, these policies may be simply swept under the rug. There is no law to protect employment equity because it is simply a regulation at the present time. We are not confident that it is good enough to enforce it through regulation. It must be put into law.
We had the same argument with the Conservatives over the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. They argued that it was sufficient to leave it with British common law or tradition. We said that that was not good enough.
We have seen what happened to Japanese Canadians and what happened with the padlock laws. We have seen miscalculations and miscarriages of justice in the past. Therefore, this must be enshrined in law, in the Constitution, or in the Charter of Rights.
Now that it has been passed, our Conservative friends are hailing the Charter as part of their thinking. We had an awful battle trying to convince them that it is important to enshrine in law protection for people in order to secure their rights. Surely it is time to ensure that minority groups, the handicapped, native peoples, and women have guarantees by this time. Now that we have the guidance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is time to put into effect the legislation which makes the Charter something other than merely a piece of paper to which people resort in order to ensure their rights.
The Government has left the Opposition with no recourse but to fight at every level because this legislation is too weak and does not cover enough. How do we expect the provinces to pass legislation applying to provincial Public Services when the federal Government is unwilling to apply it to its own Public service? We have proposed dozens of amendments to the Parliamentary Secretary for consideration and revision. We have told him that we want a comprehensive Bill which will meet the needs of the people.
Today disabled people came to the Hill at great expense, with some pain, and with tremendous effort in order to
Employment Equity
express, in democratic fashion, their protest against the inadequacy of this Bill. They called it phoney and toothless. They are the ones who suffer. They do not want to wait for long processes to be undertaken only to discover that companies are not complying. That is not good enough.


John Horton McDermid: Where have you been for the last 20 years?


Roland de Corneille: We must provide them with something which is concrete and immediate. My hon. colleague across the way in the Conservative Party asks what the Liberals did about this.


An Hon. Member:: Good question.


An Hon. Member:: We want to hear the truth. Don't lie.


Roland de Corneille: He does not want to hear the answer. They are yelling and screaming over there. I have already cited what has been done. We had to fight them tooth and nail in order to get the Charter of Rights and Freedoms through to provide protection for these people and to ensure that at least they could go to court. The Conservative Party was kicking, screaming, yelling, attacking the Chair, and mounting every kind of obstruction to prevent the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from going through and to prevent the handicapped from having their protection and rights, at least in court. It is about time the Government straightened this out and came up with a Bill which shows its good faith and puts some action behind its pious words.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62 purports to deal with employment equity. As you have heard from members of my Party, it does no such thing. One aspect of the Bill, which has given rise to this motion, points out one of its major weaknesses. The Bill excludes Government Departments from the protections this Bill claims to give minority groups. I will return to that, but I specificially want to address the inequities in this Bill as they affect disabled Canadians. They are really severe. This is especially so in light of all the things we in this Party, organizations of the disabled and individuals across the country have been saying to Governments at the federal level over the years, and particularly since 1980. It was then that the former Liberal Government established the special task force on issues concerning the disabled in preparation for the International Year of the Disabled. It was recognized very quickly that the key issue-in fact it was named as such by the UN-was going to be independent living for disabled persons. This Bill does not even touch on that key area.
As weak as the Bill is, including the fact that it has specifically excluded Government Departments from its coverage, we are not even practising what we preach. In other words, despite the recommendations made in the report Obstacles, in the Abella Report and by organizations of the disabled over the years, Parliament itself is not even prepared to give leadership in this area.

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
The argument has been made that leadership has to be given by the public sector to encourage the private sector to open up employment opportunities for disabled Canadians. Yet this Bill, as I said, specifically excludes Government Departments and Parliament. Parliament would not be required to bring in affirmative action programs to employ the disabled. What does that say to the private sector employer? We require them to hire disabled people but we will not do it ourselves. That in essence is what we are saying to the private sector. It flies in the face of everything that has been said to Governments for at least the last six years. We do not practise what we preach.
1 know that you will be interested to hear that the Coalition of Provincial Organizations for the Handicapped, COPOH, sent a questionnaire to the candidates during the last election campaign. They asked those candidates whether or not they supported the recommendations made in the Obstacles Report. One of the candidates, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), responded to that questionnaire and said specifically that he agreed with the recommendations in the Obstacles Report concerning employment opportunities for the disabled and the influence the Government should have on that process. Since the election, COPOH issued two responses to the Government's lack of response. They were called report cards. The first one was issued on August 14, 1985, and the second on March 14, 1986. The reason this organization was forced to issue those report cards was the lack of movement by the federal Government on promises it had made nearly 18 months ago. In the key area of employment, the COPOH report card gave the Government an F grade. On the key issue of income security, the Government got a D. On the special parliamentary committee, we got a B, and there are specific reasons why we are so high there. Human rights and freedoms got a D minus. Disabled refugees got a C. Independent living got a C minus. Transportation got a C plus. The average grade was D, for a very poor performance. That is an absolutely horrible reflection on a Government that promised so much during the election campaign while it was looking for votes. 1 do not think it should be satisified to respond to criticisms of the Bill by saying it does not have to do that because Treasury Board has its own affirmative action programs. Previous results from Treasury Board clearly indicate that the affirmative action program does not work.
It became very clear last month that some 76 per cent of disabled individuals hired in the federal Public Service were hired on term contracts. What that means, of course, is that when there is a shortage of work or a downsizing, when Government has made a decision to reduce the size of the federal Public Service, those term contract employees are the first ones to be let go. That is not my idea of affirmative action. For the disabled concerned, it is not simply a question of downsizing Government Departments and laying people off. For the disabled it means a threat to the security of their immediate and future income. A disabled person who has held a job for a period of time has tremendous problems earning an income after his release. Most disabled rely on a public
pension, which requires that they have an income at a certain level in order to qualify. When they are laid off it could be several months before they requalify.
It seems that we, the parliamentary committee that was party to this Obstacles Report, did not do our job right the first time around. We should have policed what the federal Government was doing when it was hiring disabled individuals. I was not aware, and 1 know other members of the committee were not aware because 1 have discussed this with the members of that previous committee, that that is what the previous Government was doing. It was showing a large increase in the number of disabled individuals being hired into the Public Service. What it did not show was that they were all temporary employees.
I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I have many more points I wish to make. By the way, one of the key players on that issue, Jim Dirkson, is sitting in the public galleries, I believe, and he also may have some things to say about this subject over the next several weeks.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few brief words with respect to Motion No. 8 dealing with an amendment to this Bill, Bill C-62, the employment equity Bill. The effect of the amendment, as you know, would be to delete a particular part of the Bill, and that would in effect mean that the Bill would apply then to Government Departments. The Parliamentary Secretary has quite rightly pointed out the fact that there is already in place, and has been since, I believe, 1983, an affirmative action program in federal Departments put in place under a Treasury Board regulation which does in effect require affirmative action and includes certain targets for Departments.
The Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure, has in his possession information relating to the way in which, to date, that program has been implemented and how it has worked in the Public Service.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee I have, in my possession, as do all members of the Public Accounts Committee, a report from Madam Huguette LaBelle, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, indicating what has happened with respect to the implementation of this program in the senior levels of the Public Service.
That report, to my mind, is rather shocking. This program has been in place since 1983. I must readily admit that there is some progress being made with respect to women. With respect to the disabled and visible minorities it appears that there has not really been much progress at all. I would like to direct my comments particularly to the visible minority category, because therein, as I understand it, lies a difficulty. In the past, all employment regulations, legislation, and all of the human rights legislation that we have had in place, have in fact said that you are not required to reveal the colour of your skin, your race or anything else. It has made it virtually
April 14, 1986

impossible, when you want to implement a program of this sort, to identify, other than by looking around and just by sheer personal observation, who falls into this category of a visible minority person and who should be identified for this affirmative action program.
Perhaps, as a result of that, the program so far does not seem to have been effective at all. In fact, the figures I have seen and have in my possession indicate that there has been virtually zip as far as progress is concerned in the visible minority category in the senior area of the Public Service.
That program was put in place, as 1 understand, in 1983. We are down the road about three years. It is interesting to note that the Bill that is in front of us, Bill C-62, has a provision in it that provides for review. I think this is an important provision. It says in the Bill that we are not going to be satisfied to just put the law into place, Bill C-62 on employment equity, but in five years time we are going to look at it and see how it works. Then every three years thereafter we are going to take another look at it to see how it works and make sure it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.
As far as I can see, with respect to the Treasury Board regulations, three years down the line after they were put in place they are not working. At the end of five years I definitely hope the Government will publish, if it does not start publishing immediately, reports from the Public Service Commission as to how these affirmative action reports are working in practice, and that we will be able to judge for ourselves as parliamentarians whether affirmative action is working in the Public Service under the Treasury Board guidelines. It seems to me that five years is a good review period. It is enough for the Public Service to identify the problems, get the program working and make sure that it is starting to show some effective progress.
We are running out of time, as far as a five-year review is concerned, for visible minorities and for the disabled. Although women are making some progress, I am sure that much more should and could be made. I hope that we will have a commitment from the Government sometime during this debate that, whether or not Motion No. 8 is passed-whether or not the Public Service is included in the provisions of this Bill-the Government will publish reports from the Public Service Commission on how the existing Treasury Board guideline or regulation with respect to affirmative action is working. That would enable us to take some further action if, in fact, that is not the answer. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
Employment Equity
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Pornography-Request for tighter customs and excise laws; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Consumer and Corporate Affairs- Request that warning label be placed on drug ASA; and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)- Trade - Canada-United States negotiations - Negotiator's views on water exports.



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. 8 (Mr. Nystrom) (p. 12176).
Sheila Finestone: There seems to be some misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker. So perhaps it might be necessary, although not in the nature of a history lesson, to clarify and elucidate for certain Members across the floor the history of affirmative action and how we come to call this a sad day. In fact, it was a black day as the members of the handicapped community came in large numbers with black balloons and called it Black Monday. I think that is truly what it is. The Member for York East (Mr. Redway) put into focus quite well the fact that there was a need for affirmative action for women, the handicapped, native people and visible minorities. The Treasury, through the action of the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) when he was head of the Treasury Board, brought in the guidelines in 1983. At the time that those guidelines were brought in, the question was so serious and the situation of such great concern that the Abella Commission was also set into motion.
That commission carried out a mandate to study what the real problems were around what was then called affirmative action, which Judge Abella then named employment equity, but only after having studied, at great length, the particular problems that faced these particular constituencies. If the Members across the way had read the Abella Report they would know that it became quite apparent that the Treasury guidelines were not enough. They were not acting quickly enough. As the Member for York East pointed out, although women have moved forward somewhat, there has been very little forward motion for those of the other three groups who are of concern to us. The employment equity report by Judge Abella followed the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms being entrenched in the Constitution guaranteeing a series of equality factors for all sectors of our society, and in particular equality for the four groups concerned. Following that, in 1983 we had the Treasury Board guideliens; in 1984 the Abella Report; and in 1985 the Equality For All Task Force went out.

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
Again, we learned the discrimination and difficulty with which these particular target groups in our society must live.
I will remember today as Black Monday for a long time. Members on this side of the House posed questions with respect to the demonstration by the disabled community that was taking place outside of the House. They had come into the gallery to hear the proceedings. I was saddened, disheartened and turned off by what was, without a doubt, the most inapproprite interjections on the part of the Conservative Party both during the questions from this side of the House and particularly following the interjection from the gallery by Beryl Potter, who had made a most eloquent speech on the Hill. 1 can accept and understand differences in the philosophical approach, particularly with respect to the economic vision of how a society should be organized, but I never would have thought it possible to witness such lack of respect and unnecessary reaction on the part of members of the Conservative Party when it comes to misery and unhappiness. I find that most regrettable.
I have already given a short history lesson about what has been done for women, visible minorities and the handicapped and the fact that many of the recommendations in a series of six reports were put into action. Subsequently, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) issued a Blue Paper entitled Declaration on the Decade of Disabled Persons 1983-1992. The issue of integrating disabled persons into our society as full partners is a fairly new phenomenon. The Prime Minister decided to issue his Blue Paper which would bring to the attention of society-particularly during the electoral period when there is a constituency which he felt could be captive-a series of wonderful pronouncements and rhetoric which essentially mean very little.
In this declaration, the Government of Canada recalled the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, the declaration of the United Nations on the rights of mentally retarded persons and the rights of disabled persons, and also recalled Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prohibits discrimination on the basis of any mental or physical disability.
The Prime Minister emphasized in this declaration the objectives of the World Programme of Action and bore in mind the distinction made between impairment, disability and handicap and the resulting conclusion that a handicap is a function of the relationship between disabled persons and their environment. He bore in mind a number of other aspects of the World Programme and recognized the significant loss to the Canadian economy when the full potential and abilities of persons with disabilities are not utilized, and recognized the real cost upon the economy due to segregation. I raised that point recently when I attempted to point out that it was in the best interest of the corporate sector to include people based on their ability rather than exclude them based on their disability.
The Prime Minister went on to enunciate 11 principles, all of which are laudable in words. However, nothing has happened. Let me cite Principles Nos. 4 and 7 for the record.
Principle No. 4 states:
Persons with disabilities shall be ensured involvement in decision making which pertains to the design and organization of programs and services considered necessary for the integration of disabled persons into all facets of society. In this respect there shall be a particular emphasis on rehabilitation.
Principle No. 7 states:
The development of self-help organizations of persons with disabilities shall be encouraged so as to provide those citizens with a means of self-development and a voice of their own to articulate their needs, views and priorities.
One would presume that action would follow the articulation of these bons mots and bons voeux. Unfortunately, that is not the reality.
Today there was a most eloquent demonstration on the Hill, at a time when we are debating an amendment to Clause 3 of the Bill which in effect exempts Government Departments, the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament from the provisions of this Bill. Since these are places where disabled people could best find jobs, the Government should take the lead in this area rather than follow.
1 want to read into the record what Beryl Potter said during her eloquent speech calling for understanding. She said:
When Flora MacDonald was appointed Minister of Employment, we thought things might get better. When discussions were started to legislate an Employment Equity program we were very encouraged. But that's as high as our hopes went. What came out of those talks and meetings was Bill C-62, a condescending piece of paper that has no strength-no teeth-no proper enforcement mechanism for non-compliance-no penalties. It is simply not worth the paper it is written on.
Two weeks ago, we came to Ottawa to confront Brian Mulroney. We took him by surprise and held on to his hand till we told him what we were driving 600 miles to tell him-that Bill C-62 was far too weak and could even be detrimental to disabled persons.
We asked him to take a close look at the Bill before it went through for its third reading in the House. He told us he was very open to our comments and to prove it he introduced us to his Chief Policy Advisor. Gcof Norquay. He directed Mr. Norquay to have an immediate meeting with us and to report back to him. This was even brought up in the House that afternoon. He even waved to us and gave us that big smile of his as he went into the House for Question Period. The meeting lasted for half an hour. All of our concerns were recorded by Mr. Norquay, and he promised to get back to us within two weeks before Bill C-62 went in for the third reading.
We have heard nothing, they even refused to return our phone calls this week, but the Bill had its third reading last Thursday. Are we going to stand for this?
He promised to keep an open mind. He promised to take a serious look at the Bill. They promised to get back before third reading.
These promises have been broken. The Bill is nothing more than an information Bill for employers. Are we going to leave it at that or arc we going to keep fighting for what we know are our rights? We must stand together and fight for a repeal of the Bill so that the necessary amendments can be made.
The disabled must stand and be counted in this country.
I finish with her last words:
So let us fight, fight, fight for our rights.
I hope that the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and those who have a possible role in the decision making will listen to that group of people in our society who need the
April 14, 1986

opportunity to demonstrate how much they can help us grow, develop and become economically more viable.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is simply designed to ensure that when the federal Government enacts legislation to apply to corporations in the federally regulated private sector-even if it is weak legislation like this-it should apply to the federal Government itself.
There have been many criticisms about the mechanisms in this Bill. For example, it does not ensure effective action but simply proposes to measure what has been done. It does not even require the setting and achieving of targets.
However, the Government has told us on many occasions that it intends to follow this course of action because one must walk softly in order to achieve affirmative action for women, the handicapped, the disabled, natives and minorities. If the Government is convinced that this is the proper policy, it seems to me that at the very least it should demonstrate its conviction by ensuring that the provisions of this Bill apply to federal Government Departments. We are not talking about an insignificant number of people.

There are about 250,000 people in the Canadian public service, and in many cases these are women, native people, disabled persons and members of minorities who are all supposed to be covered under Bill C-62.
Now then, if the Government really intended to show it is committed to affirmative action we might suppose that the Government would want to make sure that the measure applies equally to public service employees and to other private sector employees who come under federal Government jurisdiction. Such is not the case, unfortunately.
Mr. Speaker, in this respect perhaps I might quote some of the answers given to the Saskatchewan action committee on the status of women. During the last election campaign they sent the three Party leaders a questionnaire containing eleven questions concerning women.

In response to the the questionnaire from the Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women the New Democratic Party talked about affirmative action in the Public Service in very explicit terms. I would like to put that on the record and then go to the promises made by the Conservatives and compare that with what they are doing in this particular case. We said, and I quote:
The New Democratic Party is committed to an aggressive affirmative program within federal Government departments and Crown corporations.
This was in response to a question addressed to each Party Leader which was:
Would you, as Prime Minister, implement and monitor for effectiveness, an aggressive affirmative action program with the Federal departments and Crown corporations?
The New Democratic Party said, and I quote:
Employment Equity
The current affirmative action program in the Public Service must be strengthened and subject to rigorous monitoring. The mandate of the program must be expanded beyond its focus on women already in senior management positions. We would revise the guidelines of the program to make it relevant to the 95,000 clerks and secretaries in the Public Service by including measures such as bridging positions, comprehensive skills training and a non-traditional occupations program.
The affirmative action program for Francophones in the Public Service under the Official Languages Act resulted in equal representation for Francophones in all job categories, at all wages levels proportionate to their presence in the population-
If that is the case, why can the Government not do the same thing with respect to affirmative action for women, and in this debate I would extend that to the other groups covered by Bill C-62? We had indications that the Government saw results coming from the affirmative action program for women by the year 2000. We said that that was unacceptable and that is why we would seek to have the same results for women as have been achieved for Francophones in the civil service.
We called for the extension of mandatory affirmative action to Crown corporations as well as to companies in the private sector under federal jurisdiction. But all we have here is mandatory counting, nothing more. We called for the support of the establishment of targets for all affirmative action programs and stated that that should also apply to appointments to federal boards, commissions and agencies. Those were the promises the New Democrats were prepared to make and we have stood up for them during the course of this debate on Bill C-62.
The response to the questionnaire from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was, and I quote:
The P.C. Party has had a long commitment to an effective affirmative action program within the federal Government to provide equal opportunity to women.
That is a laugh, given the way in which women are finding . themselves turfed out of the Public Service because of the layoffs now taking place. The Prime Minister continued, and I quote:
Our Government will make sure that hiring and promotion practices give women the opportunities they deserve.
Women feel, Mr. Speaker, that they are getting the short end of the stick right now and I suppose they have to conclude that those are the opportunities they deserve as far as the Progressive Conservative Government is concerned. The Prime Minister continued:
We will carefully and regularly monitor those practices because too often in the past, women have not been considered, even though there arc competent and capable women available.
We support the need for effective human resource planning within the federal bureaucracy which includes goals and objectives to achieve parity for women at all levels if Government operations commensurate with thier skills and expectations. Numerical goals are one of several measures required. Training and retraining are others.
That policy left a fair amount to be desired. Nevertheless, it is a lot more explicit than what is occurring in Bill C-62. What it comes down to is that not only does Bill C-62 not involve setting goals and objectives that the now Prime Minister

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
promised during the election campaign, but it does not even apply to federal Government Departments unless the Government is prepared to accept the amendment which is now being proposed and which is currently under debate. I find that disillusioning and disappointing. Of course, what applies with respect to women, applies equally to the other minorities which are affected.
Experience has shown that we cannot achieve equality with respect to disadvantaged groups just by means of pious wishes, nor can we achieve it by pious counting, which is now the current Government's position. I would like to suggest that this question is going to come back and haunt the Progressive Conservative Party, as will many other things, in the course of the next federal election campaign. The Government made promises because of the commitment, which 1 think is genuine, of the wife of the Prime Minister, the wife of the Minister of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and some other people in the Conservative Party. There was an impression that the Conservatives were serious about affirmative action. Now we know it is not. 1 say to the Minister of State for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) as well as to other Conservatives, this is going to come back and haunt their Party.

This is going to haunt you in the province of Quebec, because people were under the impression during the last election campaign that the Conservative Party would not be satisfied only with making broad statements on the status of women, as private companies were doing, but would fully support affirmative action, would implement and enforce equality legislation for visible minorities which are discriminated against, such as women in the Public Service and the private sector.
I will tell the Minister directly and openly that this Bill is doing nothing in this respect. The fact that it does not apply to the federal Departments which are specifically excluded, as opposed to Crown Corporations, which are included, is a clear proof that the Government has forgotten its commitments of the last election campaign.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that encouragement, incentives, good wishes and those kinds of things are simply not good enough. Today, at a time when we are suffering enormous cutbacks in the Public Service, it is the people who are in the disadvantaged groups who are most likely to be victimized by the cut-backs. They are the term employees who cannot get full-time employment. They are the people who, for various reasons, are judged to be lacking in merit and, therefore, are dumped because of the reverse order of merit system which is applied within the Public Service. I note that the Minister of State for External Relations is making some notes. I hope she will rise and try to defend the indefensible with respect to this particular Bill. I hope she will explain.
[ Translation]
Why is the Government not making sure that this Bill applies to Public Service employees? Why continue to discriminate against people in the Public Service? Why is not the Government showing leadership to the private sector by making sure that this Bill, however weak it may be, applies both to the Public Service and the private sector?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Nystrom, seconded by Mr. Althouse, moves
That Bill C-62; be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 13 to 15 at page
2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11 A.


William Warren Allmand: That BUI C-62, be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 24 at page 2 the following:
"reasonable accommodation" includes, without restriction, the reasonable adaptation of the workplace, hiring practices or the job description to accommodate the needs of designated groups, including the special needs of a qualified disabled person, through provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification, and human support services.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to add to the Bill a definition of "reasonable accommodation". The Bill already uses the term "reasonable accommodation" in line 37 of page 2 in the section which deals with the obligations of the employer with respect to employment equity. In summary, Clause 4 states that an employer shall implement employment equity by:
(b) instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodation as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation-
In the Bill there is already an imposition on employers to implement reasonable accommodation. However, nowhere
April 14, 1986

does it state what "reasonable accommodation" means. When witnesses appeared before the legislative committee, in particular those from associations for the disabled, they argued strongly for a definition of reasonable accommodation. They said that if there were not such a definition included then it is likely that the type of employment equity for which they are looking would not be achieved. The definition is almost verbatim to what was recommended to us by COPOH, and other organizations of the disabled in committee. It reads as follows:
"reasonable accommodation" includes, without restriction-
The words "without restriction" are very important because they mean that the definition is not limited to what we are suggesting. It continues:
-the reasonable adaptation of the workplace, hiring practices or the job description to accommodate the needs of designated groups, including the special needs of a qualified disabled person, through provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification, and human support services.
It is my understanding that disabled groups have recommended to other parliamentary committees, in particular the Subcommittee on Equality Rights and the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, which sat in the previous Parliament, that this definition of "reasonable accommodation" be accepted in our legislation and that a policy with respect to it be adopted.
While this amendment is a rather technical one, it is extremely important for the target groups, in particular the disabled people who are supposed to be helped by this legislation. So when it is said in Clause 4 that an employer shall implement equity by "instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodation as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation" we will then know what is meant and progress will be made.
There are others here, including members of my own Party, who are more au courant with the technicalities involved. I plead with the Government to accept this definition. I cannot understand why it will not accept it since it is so important. When the amendment was made in committee and the Conservatives voted against it, they said it was too limiting. The words "without restriction" have now been added. Thus members of the Conservative Party can no longer use that argument. It will not limit. It will give guidance to employers, to the Government and to the Canadian Human Rights Commission when it makes judgments as to whether or not progress is being made in terms of employment equity.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take this request seriously. I wish to repeat that many of these amendments are not amendments which we in the Opposition have drafted simply to embarrass the Government. Nearly every one of these amendments come from the target groups which are supposed to be helped by the legislation. They come either
Employment Equity
from the disabled, the visible minorities, natives or women's associations. They are the ones who have told us time and time again in committee that they want amendments such as this. They are the ones who have told us that they will not be happy with the Bill unless such amendments are made to it. When 1 put forward amendments such as this I am not doing so in a partisan way. I am doing so in order to achieve something that is required and needed by the target groups.
I ask that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, who was here earlier but who is no longer here, take this into consideration and not respond in a defensive or partisan way to our amendments. The amendments have been made with great feeling, sincerity and intelligence by the very people who are suffering from discrimination. We are their instruments in putting them forward. I hope that they will be listened to by members of the Government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words to support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). It is a very important motion for handicapped people in this country.
Motion 11A provides a definition of "reasonable accommodation", Mr. Speaker.

This is very important for disabled Canadians. As the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has already pointed out, under the definition of employment equity there is a reference to "reasonable accommodation". What the motion before us calls for is a definition of "reasonable accommodation". I wish to read to the House and to members of the Conservative Party the definition of "reasonable accommodation" which is so important to disabled Canadians. I plead with them to include it in the Bill, it states:
"reasonable accommodation includes, without restriction, the reasonable adaptation of the workplace, hiring practices or the job description to accommodate the needs of designated groups, including the special needs of designated groups, including the special needs of a qualified disabled person, through provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification, and human support services.
This is what disabled Canadians want. This is what they have said to us as parliamentarians. This is what they have said to members of the Conservative Party. It seems to me that members of the Conservative Party said in September of 1984 that if they were elected they would listen to the people of Canada.
Bill C-62 was designed with four different target groups in mind. Why does the Government not listen to disabled Canadians? I am sure that a long-time Member of this House such as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) must be getting pretty restless with his own Cabinet and Government when he sees disabled Canadians come to Parliament Hill asking for things such as this and the Minister says no. He must get pretty frustrated when he sees, as we saw today, 100-

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
plus disabled Canadians come to Parliament Hill. In this very institution they found out that accommodation is not as great as it should be. There are only 10 places for wheelchairs in the galleries. Some people who were in wheelchairs had to be helped by the guards into seats in order for them to be able to watch the proceedings of this place. The Bill before us does not even include Parliament Hill. It also excludes the Public Service of Canada. Is it any wonder Beryl Potter interjected from the gallery today during Question Period to say that the Government had not done enough? Is it any wonder that she feels betrayed by her politcal Party? She has said publicly that she is a supporter of the Conservative Party. There are not washrooms on the same floor as the galleries to accommodate persons in wheelchairs. That is not reasonable accommodation. In the House of Commons, there are washrooms with doors that are not wide enough for people in wheelchairs to get into them. We do not have enough ramps, wide enough elevators or the facilities required.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why did you keep the Grits in for so many years?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is a very good question. That excuse is wearing rather thin. That is the only excuse members of the Conservative Party have been able to come up with in the last 18 or 20 months. They blame everything on the Liberal Party.


Mr. Merrithew:: Blame it on you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I'm not a Liberal. The people of Canada voted for the Liberal Party just like they voted on September 4, 1984, for the Conservative Party. In fact, some of those disabled Canadians worked and organized campaigns for the Conservative Party of Canada, but when they come here they get snubbed by the Conservative Party of Canada. The Hon. Member from Alberta may laugh if he wants, but he is not a disabled Canadian. Perhaps he does not understand what some of those people go through.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why so late? Where were you in the last 15 years? You haven't said a word in 1 5 years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Where were we? We were proposing amendments on behalf of disabled Canadians. Motion 11A contains their definition. In a smart-I had better watch my language in the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Smart-ass.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It was said by an Hon. Member back there. Perhaps old loose lips across the way can rise to say why he is saying no to disabled Canadians. He could tell us why he is saying no and why he is laughing at them.
I was just saying that today was a good example of why we need "reasonable accommodation" defined in law. Right here on Parliament Hill we do not have reasonable accommodation for disabled Canadians, and a Tory from Alberta laughs about
that. It is utterly disgusting and disgraceful that that could happen in this country in the 20th century.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just happened to be in the Chamber listening to the Hon. Member, who usually understands the appropriateness of relevancy in debate and obeys that particular constraint on us. He is making reference to the facilities of the precincts of the House of Commons. As the Hon. Member and you will know, Your Honour, the Board of Internal Economy is in control of the facilities and operates the budget for the House and is composed of representatives from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party under the new arrangement. It seems to me that if the Hon. Member has complaints about the facilities in the House, he might use the appropriate opportunity to bring those complaints forward through his caucus representative and make sure that these matters are addressed in the proper forum.
The legislation is one thing, but the precincts of this place are a matter for the Board of Internal Economy. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has long been a proponent of having all-Party representation on the Board of Internal Economy. Because the matter has not been raised as yet, to my knowledge, by the Hon. Member's Party except on the floor of the House of Commons, perhaps he will bring it to the attention of the proper forum so that we can take a legitimate look, through the chairmanship of the Speaker of the House, at the facilities here in the House of Commons and Parliament generally. As the Hon. Member will admit when he recommences his remarks, no one has been more forthcoming and supportive of facilities for the disabled than the Progressive Conservative Party which has shown leadership in this area.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not disagree with my colleague from Saskatchewan whatsoever. Obviously we need to try to improve this place through our Parties. However, the point I was making that is very relevant to the legislation is that this legislation does not pertain to Parliament Hill or to the federal Public Service. Handicapped groups have asked us to pass an amendment that would make this legislation pertain to Parliament Hill and the federal service. I think that my approach is a fairly relevant one to use in this debate.
I was pointing out that we saw a good example of why this legislation should be applicable to Parliament Hill today when over 100 handicapped people from across Canada came to Parliament Hill to demonstrate and to tell us why they wanted this Bill improved. I ask Members of the House to listen to disabled people and accept an amendment that would call for "reasonable accommodation" to be defined in the legislation and to make sure that this legislation is applicable to the 3,000 employees on Parliament Hill and the several thousand employees of the Public Service of Canada. I do not think that that is asking too much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has the floor.
April 14, 1986

The disabled people who came here today made three requests. One is that this legislation be applicable to federal Government Departments. The second is that the penalties in the legislation be made broader and more all-encompassing. The third is that "reasonable accommodation" be defined in the legislation. 1 do not think it is asking too much to implement that.
In the few minutes remaining, I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, an excerpt from the testimony given before the legislative committee on Bill C-62 by Beryl Potter, the lady who interjected from the galleries today. She was one of the most articulate spokespeople for disabled Canadians and really objected to the answer the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) gave to my question in the House. She appeared as a witness before a special committee on Bill C-62, and I would like to read to the House what she says about "reasonable accommodation", which is as follows:
Reasonable accommodation is essential to job accessibility for disabled people.
This is recognized by the Government in s. 2, the purpose section, which states "that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way, but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences." Accommodation means the reasonable adaptation of the workplace or the job description to accommodate the special needs of a qualified disabled person. Let me give you an example of reasonable accommodation:
Let's suppose 1 am hard of hearing and wear a hearing aid. I am well trained as a secretary but will not be able to use a telephone unless it is compatible with hearing aid equipment, if I apply for a secretarial job and am qualified in all ways except for my limitation in using the phone, the employer could be required as part of employment equity to make his telephone hearing aid compatible. All this requires is the insertion of a small, very inexpensive coil into Bell Canada receivers. But many employers do not know this and without a requirement to provide this accommodation, might not be willing to hire me because of my disability.
Reasonable accomodation is so crucial to employment equity for disabled people, that it should be adequately outlined in legislation. Section 4(b) make reference to reasonable accommodation but does not define it.
We recommend that reasonable accommodation be spelled out in the Bill to include provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification, and human support services. Since reasonable accommodation is so central to employment equity for disabled people and since disabled people themselves and others can assist in devising creative approaches to accommodation, we recommend that employers be required to have in their workplaces employment equity committees consisting of representatives of management, labour and the designated groups.
That was an excerpt from the testimony of Mrs. Beryl Potter of Scarborough and the Scarborough Action Awareness Group of the Organization of Disabled Canadians. I think she summarized very well why Parliament should include a definition of reasonable accommodation in the employment equity Bill.
This is not an economic matter that should be dividing socialist, Liberal and Conservative Members of Parliament. This is an issue that deals with human hurt and human misery. Surely to goodness we should be united on this kind of question. It does not matter whether one is a neo-Conservative like my friend from Alberta, a social democrat like me, or a Liberal like others. This is the type of thing that should unite us.
Employment Equity
I appeal to my Conservative friends to listen to those disabled Canadians who came here today in their wheelchairs or with their crutches. They came here at considerable expense. Many of them had to use specially designed vehicles and buses for the handicapped to get here. Some of them had to come here last night and stay at very expensive hotels because some of the hotels in Ottawa with more reasonable rates do not have reasonable accommodation for wheelchairs. 1 was not aware of that until it was pointed out to me outside of the Parliament Buildings this afternoon.
Most of us are very fortunate in this House not to be disabled. We do not realize these kinds of problems, but when you start talking and dealing with these people, you start to understand why it is necessary to say in the law of Canada that we have to have a definition of "reasonable accommodation", otherwise those of us in the vast majority will tend to ignore their problems, hoping that the problems will go away. The problems will not go away because that is the way they are. The handicapped are asking us to listen. 1 plead with my Conservative colleagues to do that.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right. This is not an issue that divides us. We are together in our understanding of what the Member is attempting to do. All of us want to be as helpful and as useful as we can. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), says the purpose of the phrase "without restriction" is to give guidance. That, I will say, will be done through the guidelines and the regulations.
All Members of the House accept the principle of reasonable accommodation. The only question is, what is the most effective place for this definition? For reasons discussed, we believe the best place is not in the legislation itself. I know that we had a discussion on whether or not it is limited.
Certain target groups are already left out in what has been placed before us, but that is not what we are trying to do. We understand the process. 1 think we can do all that with the guidelines. We have an evolving process here. We have a definition that through technology we will undergo rapid change. The Bill itself, while cast in a little more firmness, can have guidelines that may have to change from time to time. I think all of that is understood. We know those are essential elements in implementing any employment equity program.
There are measures that have to be put into effect, remedial measures, special training programs, support measures, things like career counselling, internships, day care and flex time. All of these things will be essential in carrying out employment equity programs. Those are still matters of process. Philosophically we can spend days, weeks and months going through a definition. For practicality, we want the Bill and we want the Bill now. A lot of those matters can be tackled in the guidelines and in the regulations.

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
I might say that the Department of Justice is presently reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Act and, in view of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions, will be considering the best way to amend the Act to include the concept of reasonable accommodation. However, there is a body of application for the term "reasonable accommodation", including the results of Human Rights Tribunal decisions. The Canadian Human Rights Commission provides an interpretation of the meaning and application of the term in the bona fide occupational requirements guidelines with regard to employment practices.
To insert a definition of "reasonable accommodation" in legislation at this juncture I think would not be helpful and would probably be inappropriate.
We have certainly listened. We share the concerns of all Members. All I can say very positively is that those concerns will be addressed in the guidelines and regulations.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak to the amendment on reasonable accommodation. It is a very important amendment if the wishes of the Minister are to be met. I think I have said from the very beginning that I know the Minister is of good will and that she would like to see this Bill have the needed impact. Although the Bill has a number of holes and a lacune, this is a particularly serious one on reasonable accommodation.
Reasonable accommodation is very important for religious minority groups as it is for the handicapped. The whole concern was expressed in a case which came before the Supreme Court. A decision has been rendered. What is sad is that the Conservative Government cares to move only when the court decisions are rendered. The decision was rendered. There is no reason not to meet the wishes expressed by the disabled.
The Government can just follow the court's expression on reasonable accommodation and how it is used as a bona fide occupational undertaking. I do not think it takes very much creativity to have the lawyers in the Department of Justice develop the language required to define what reasonable accommodation is all about. The Government has had the landmark decision rendered by the Supreme Court. I think that that should be good enough to direct the Minister and her staff.
When you do not apply "reasonable accommodation" and define it, you economically deprive people who have a handicap from the potential of having the workplace make small adjustments to accommodate their differences. They are not necessarily major. The Bill can accommodate that because the human rights code covers the aspect under what would be considered a bona fide or a justifiable occupational change.
As disabled people suffer from an extraordinarily high unemployment rate, and as it is against our principles and practices as Canadians to discriminate based on religious preference, that clause on reasonable accommodation becomes even more important.
I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, our own Equality for All Report. The committee listened to many groups and supports one of the wishes the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) outlined in his promises to the disabled. It was during the course of consultation with many of these groups that they pointed out the need to adapt that phrase, "reasonable accommodation" to serve them best.
I bring to your attention. Sir, that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not now impose a duty of reasonable accommodation in so many words. Mr. Fairweather pointed out that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has introduced the concept as part of its guidelines on the application of the bona fide occupational requirement defence to a complaint of discrimination in employment. Essentially it says that if you cannot be unreasonable in your quest to serve the disabled in society, there are reasonable barriers that can be removed, escalators, elevators, the height of the toilet seat, the size of the bathroom, the accommodation of the rails, the hearing aid and certain accommodations for the handicapped who have a visible disability. They are in many instances small and insignificant, but even in one of the Minister's programs she offered a $10,000 subsidy. If you wanted to accommodate a handicapped individual, you could ask for renovation funds in your building. What a nice incentive. Too bad the Bill is not prepared to back it up in a more substantive way.
As I said at the time we were hearing the 250 groups who came before us and spoke in the name of 1,000 signatures and for tens of thousands of people, the Binder decision had not been rendered on the Canadian National Railways Company. It has now been rendered.
Reasonable accommodation is an important way of according the full benefit of the law to disabled people as well as to religious minorities. If you want positive action, employment equity, affirmative action, then we need to respond to the special needs of disabled people in the workplace. Our Employment for All Report in Recommendation No. 80 reads:
We recommend that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended so that employers are obliged to make "reasonable accommodation", that is, such special provisions as would not cause undue hardship to the employer-
You can see how considerate we were of the employers. Too bad we do not have contract compliance in this Bill as well. It continues:
-in response to the needs peculiar to those classes of employees that arc protected from discrimination by the terms of the Act.
In essence, I have been trying to say that we have a moral and legal responsibility to put "reasonable accommodation" into this Bill. It is inherent and implicit in the application of Section 15 of the Canadian Constitution. That section, in essence, defines the character which we wish to see in this wonderful Canada of ours. If we want to have the multicultural and bilingual nature of Canada expressed equally by men and women in such a way that all members of our society can
April 14, 1986

participate, we must insert "reasonable accommodation", keeping in mind the bona fide occupational justification.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I would like to appeal to my Conservative colleagues with regard to the suggested amendment which calls for some definition of "reasonable accommodation". We discussed this in committee. The Parliamentary Secretary has again expressed his misgivings about this matter. He feels that there may be problems with the legal aspects, that if we define "reasonable accommodation", it may restrict other factors. This resolution was modified in order to meet that objection. He may say that if it is too defined it may put too great a burden on a company or organization and, therefore, we should not be too precise. There has been some effort on the part of the courts to begin to define this matter. With the assistance of the Department of Justice, such a modification could be worked on before this Bill is passed.
Some people may see this legislation as a vehicle to ignore its real intent. One could provide reasonable accommodation for a person who has lost part of one finger and call that person disabled. One could look after a large number of people with very slight disabilities and then claim to have dealt with a lot of disabled people. That would make one look good, but one would not really be dealing with disabled people.
This amendment is really only providing examples and guidelines. It would provide, in the legislation, an indication of the direction in which Parliament wants to go. It wants to deal with genuine disabilities. Numerous reports over the years have indicated a requirement for clarification as to what is meant by "reasonable accommodation". That is in the spirit of what is intended by the Government. Some will say that it will cost lots of money. Specifying the requirement for very expensive equipment would put an organization into jeopardy.
A very high percentage of disabled people are on welfare or out of work. Is it not a good idea for the Government to assist companies to provide facilities for the handicapped so that they may work? When the handicapped were on the Hill today they chanted that they wanted jobs. They do not want welfare. They want equity, employment, jobs.
Instead of passing a Bill which says that companies should do something about this, why does the Government not put in place a financial program to give support to companies and organizations to provide those facilities? The Government should provide incentives to companies to make them feel it is worthwhile to use the skills and resources of the handicapped.
We are told that one in every eight Canadians has a disability. That amounts to millions of Canadians. We are not talking about a small or insignificant group of people. This is a major need in the country. One in eight potential workers has a handicap. A high percentage of that group cannot hold a job because of a lack of the required facilities and access. They do not have reasonable accommodation.
I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to attempt to have his Department and the Department of Justice work out a
Employment Equity
solution for this concern. The Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) gleaned his definition from handicapped groups which have given a great deal of thought to the matter. Perhaps it can be improved, but to ignore this request, which provides a direction or guideline, seems to me to be most unfortunate.
Clause 4 of the Bill says that:
An employer shall implement employment equity by
(b) instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodation as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation-
It does not say what kinds of handicaps and needs must be fulfilled. What does this refer to? Unless we have an indication that we are talking about provision of physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification and human support services, it will not be implemented. This Bill is so vague that it is hard to even talk about it. It contains too many vague good wishes and too little in terms of specifics. I would once again like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reflect on this with his colleagues and determine whether "reasonable accommodation" could not be specified more clearly.
[DOT] (mo)


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the right of the disabled to equal employment opportunities has a necessary prerequisite. This amendment will put that prerequisite into the Bill. Although the Bill recognizes the need, it does not make it a requirement and does not define it in such a way that people covered under the Act will know exactly what they have to do. Again 1 ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the need. It makes much more sense to put it in the Bill than leave it to the guidelines. That often means leaving it to the bureaucrats to decide.
Over the years, and I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes this, regulations have often been used to weasel out of the commitments made in the Bill. Regulations are worded in such a way that some of the best legislation loses its effectiveness. We as parliamentarians only get a marginal look at the regulations and very little opportunity to make sure their wording is acceptable. In the end they do not have the weight of law. They can be changed in many cases by Order in Council. In some cases that is not a bad thing, but they are interpreted by the bureaucrats rather than the courts.
This amendment says we should define reasonable accommodation and put it in the law so that everyone will know what it is. As was expressed on many occasions, particularly by a number of witnesses who came before the committee, although Clause 4(b) makes reference to reasonable accommodation, it does not define it. The report Equality for All makes specific recommendations but they were not taken into consideration when the Bill was drafted. I guess it was not even in place at that time. However, that is no reason for not using it now. Recommendation No. 80 says:

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
We recommend that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended so that employers are obliged to make "reasonable accommodation", that is, such special provisions as would not cause undue hardship to the employer, in response to the needs peculiar to those classes of employees that are protected from discrimination by the terms of the Act.
We are in the process of passing a Bill which is supposed to require certain groups to put in place affirmative action and in some cases we should require that the necessary facilities for the hiring of disabled people be put in place so that the job is not beyond their reach. It is too late to provide the facilities and accommodations after the person has been turned down.
It is very discouraging for disabled persons to apply for job after job and then find that the reason they are not being hired is that the particular office or plant is not able to accommodate their particular disability. Therefore, it seems quite logical to require by law reasonable accommodation facilities in those companies that are or should be able to hire the disabled. We call on the Government to make the necessary changes to put this into law so that the disabled can apply for a job with some hope of being accepted.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). Unless you add a definition of reasonable accommodation, the term is hollow. Everything needs to be defined. That is why we have dictionaries. Even the job of Parliamentary Secretary needs to be defined. If we did not have a definition, then Parliamentary Secretaries would not know what they are supposed to do. You must have a definition of everything that is meaningful. If not, you have something that is meaningless. I think it would be beneath Parliament to allow a law to go through when it has meaningless terminology.
My second point is that if we do not define the term, the courts will. If we allow that to be done, we will be dropping out. We were sent here to legislate thoroughly and define legislation accurately so that we say clearly what we mean. It is not the job of the courts to define legislation, it is their job to refine legislation, to reflect on nuances and rule on them, but certainly not to rule on the primary definition of what we mean.
I want a definition of that term because this Parliament and this country has a record known around the world. We are well known and well respected simply because we are able to reach accommodation in our legislation. That is the secret of our success. Canada is successful because it has a record of reaching accommodations or compromises between minority groups and regions. Surely if we have been good at anything, it has been tha,t and people around the world know it. Whether it is bilingualism, accommodation of language groups, disadvantaged minorities or disadvantaged regions, Canada has a record of dealing with the problem. I say to my colleagues here that unless we continue that record in this legislation presently, we will not be living up to what I believe is a very enviable reputation.
The time allotted to us is very short, but I was struck by the words of the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), that we do not really understand what it is like to be disabled. We do not understand because most of us in this Chamber have been blessed with good health. He said, and I agree with him, that we should listen to those people who fully understand what it is like. When they say that this phrase does not suit their purposes, then we must give some credence, some credibility and some weight to what they say. I agree with him that in light of our limited experience in understanding this situation we should, indeed, listen to what they say. They have asked for a clear definition of what that means.
Is the cost too great of defining that and putting some responsibility on the private sector and the public sector? Has the Government costed out pride? Has it costed out dignity? Has it costed out fulfillment? Has it costed out all those things? What is the price of human life? What is the price of self-fulfillment in this country? I do not think that the cost is too great. More than that, I think it is incumbent on us today to listen to the request of the disabled community and to accede to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, and to define very clearly what we mean by reasonable accommodation. We have a chance now in this Parliament of living up to what I believe is a great record throughout the world. If we lose this chance I think we will be casting a blot on this Parliament.


Alan Redway: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a word or two in connection with Motion No. 11 A, the motion to move a definition for the words "reasonable accommodation".
I have been listening very carefully to the comments and interventions of Members this afternoon with respect to this whole issue of reasonable accommodation. In particular, 1 listened very carefully to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary on this Bill. I heard him very clearly say that there was going to be a definition of "reasonable accommodation". It was going to be set out in the regulations to the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. That is not the only thing that is going to be set out in those regulations. It has been said in this House on debate on second reading-and I am sure it was said in committee many times-that there would be other things in those regulations, particularly the specific goals, the specific requirements and time limits for meeting the whole purpose of this Act.
The reason they were going to be in the regulations and not set out in black and white as part of this Act was so there would be flexibility, so we could make changes when it was shown they were needed. The debate on this Bill has proved very clearly that legislation is very inflexible. It is virtually impossible to make changes without going through a debate that has lasted from June of 1985 to April 14 of 1986 on this Bill. If you call that flexibility then there is something strange going on.
April 14, 1986

When you put it in black and white in the legislation in the Bill, there is no flexibility, there is no way of making those changes. When you put it in the regulations, there is. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary said and that is why I expect we are going to see flexible regulations or regulations in a way that are flexible and can be changed to accommodate the needs of disabled people, and can be changed to deal with this whole question of reasonable accommodation in a logical way.
When municipalities start defining the requirements for reasonable accommodation for disabled people they do it in a very detailed way. They tell you how many inches or how many metres or centimetres wide the opening has to be in a washroom, they tell you about the slope on a ramp and they tell you the kind of lock you should have on a door. All of those things are set out in municipal by-laws relating to the sorts of accommodation to be made for disabled people.
I am sure the Hon. Members in the Opposition, whether they be the Official Opposition or the NDP, would not expect to have all those things set out in this Bill in such a way that it would take almost a year of debate and another amending Bill to get them changed. They want to see some sort of flexibility, and that, of course, is what the Government has said.
What I personally would like to see is more evidence of commitment to make changes, not only in the physical accommodations in this House on Parliament Hill, but also in all of the Government offices that we have in every part of this country.
When 1 was serving in my municipal previous life 1980 was the International Year of the Handicapped. In 1980 various provincial Governments put in place funding for municipalities to make changes in their physical accommodation to make sure that they were accessible to the disabled. That happened back in 1980. As far as I can see, a vast number of local Government buildings were changed to accommodate the disabled that far back. The same has happened with provincial Government buildings. What astounded me when I came to Ottawa and what I wondered about was why we have not moved along as fast as municipalities. Why have we not moved along as fast as the provinces with federal Government action to change the accommodation for the disabled?
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) is in the Chamber at the present moment, and I know he is committed to making those changes in Government buildings and in Government locations to accommodate the disabled. 1 am sure he is going to take that message back to the Minister and before very long I am sure we are going to see those changes because I know that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are committed to it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this amendment put to us by the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), which asks the House to add a definition to line 25,
Employment Equity
page 2 where we will define "reasonable accommodation" as follows:
Reasonable accommodation includes, without restriction-
I say this to my friend from York East. It goes on as follows:
-without restriction the reasonable adaptation of the workplace, hiring practices or the job description to accommodate the needs of designated groups, including the special needs of a qualified disabled person, through provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification, and human support services.
That is a clear definition, without restriction. 1 fail to understand the logic of my friend from York East, who has great experience in the municipal field and is a good politician but cannot tell the difference between a regulation and a policy. We are talking policy here, we are talking politics. We are talking objectives. We are not talking regulations. The Member for York East (Mr. Redway) said that regulations should be flexible. Well, damn it, they should not be flexible. Regulations have to be specific, they have to be directed to a specific case and they must say black on white what is right, what is wrong. A policy can be almost anything we talk about around here, it can have just about any objective you want to set. That is what a policy is all about, and that is what politics is all about. We talk about objectives to be set. Anybody in this room who can tell me that he knows all about regulations in any subject matter is incompetent, unless he specialized in one field some time ago. As politicians we have never applied ourselves to being specific about regulations.
As a matter of fact, we adopted a metric policy a year ago. We have not got those regulations as yet. Who is complaining? Nobody that I know of in this House because the policy was set by the politicians. The regulations will come because they are the work of the professionals in the trade, the professional public servants. Those are the ones I want to address because they have been leading the pack in terms of accommodation and in terms of reasonable accommodation.
I had a conversation not very long ago with Madam Suzanne Azzi. Madam Suzanne Azzi, for those of you who do not know who she is-

-she is co-ordinator of the Public Service Commission employment service for the disabled in professional positions. Under federal programs which have been in place for many years, she finds jobs for people with physical or other handicaps who sometimes need special assistance to find paid employment in our Canadian Public Service.
Mr. Speaker, I could give you a multitude of examples of problems, beginning with the lowering of the buttons in the elevators. Even here in Parliament, we cannot receive physically handicapped people because we do not have the necessary facilities yet, but we have lowered the call buttons in the elevators even though we have not yet put in sound for the blind. There are many things to consider as concerns physical accessibility to a building.

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
I remember a case in my constituency where the Department of Public Works finally had to do something after being told that the handicapped need a ramp to have access to a building. Otherwise, they had to use the backdoor, not because the authorities did not want to accommodate them, but because no one had thought about it. Telephones have now been installed for the handicapped. I invite other Members to visit as I did seven or eight years ago the National Research Centre to see what the federal Government is doing to help give the handicapped access to an adequate working environment. Research has been done to provide transportation and technical or physical assistance needed by the handicapped, such as typewriters. I even saw a mouth- operated typewriter. This typewriter would work rather well in this House because there was a little mouthpiece in which to blow to operate the keys. I saw things which surprised me because I was not more aware than anyone else about the needs of the handicapped. It is essential for politicians who want to be understood and heard by the Canadian public and by the people who will be affected by Bill C-62 that there be a definition of the term "reasonable accommodation". It seems to me very important that the employer meet these requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too long because I know that this matter concerns other Members of this House who also want to speak. Regarding access to employment, I just want to say that for the disabled it may be humiliating at times. I remember I once had to accompany a person on the Hill because the elevator doors closed too quickly and she didn't have a chance to get in before the doors shut.
We will have to be more sensitive and we may have to be more specific about what we want in the way of facilities and adequate job environments for people. I know some people have back problems, and as a chiropractor, I certainly know what I am talking about. There are an incredible number of people, even Members of this House, who have bad backs because they are not sitting properly, either too low or too high, or the chair is too soft. Well, if someone has a bad back and cannot function properly, we must do something. Mr. Speaker, I would say to these people: You should remember that the job environment is important, including the height of your desk and the height of your chair. For the physically disabled it is even more important, because they cannot work if the job environment is not adapted to their needs, and that is why this Bill must be amended, and why we insist there must be a definition, not because we want it to be more specific than a regulation, but because we want a clear and specific policy aimed at a group of people who have special needs and who naturally need special assistance.
I may remind the House that in five years nearly 400 people have been hired by various departments and agencies here in the National Capital. That is a lot, and these are people who in the past had been unable to find the right job or the right job environment.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore support the Hon. Member's amendment, and I hope that this House will not concentrate on
drafting regulations but on more careful definition of a term that is important within the context of this Bill, namely, reasonable accommodation in the job environment including all the "adaptations" that are necessary to enable the disabled to have access to their place of work.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I hope the Government will accept proposes to provide a more adequate definition of reasonable accommodation in Bill C-62. The Government has said that this has been left to the regulations.
I have had an opportunity to read the Government's discussion paper on information and proposed contents of regulations. One of the proposed definitions that has not been implemented is that there should be a reference to making appropriate accommodation for members of designated groups to enable entry to areas from which they have previously been excluded. That concerns accessiblity rather than reasonable accommodation. For example, does someone who is disabled because of a hearing loss have the right to have a simple device to carry out a job or will that person in fact be denied a job because the employer is not prepared to pay $500 to provide that device that is required to do the job properly? It is situations like that which are covered under the definition of reasonable accommodation.
We know that access is still a problem in many areas under federal jurisdiction. It is my personal experience, and I am sure that of other Members in the House, that we are the most likely culprits in terms of providing reasonable accommodation for handicapped people who wish to see us in our constituency offices. Now that the weather has changed, we are about to build a ramp and install a communications device at our constituency office. Unfortunately, my riding office has rather high steps at the front and disabled people will have to use a ramp at the rear in order to enter the building. However, although it has been a year since we moved into those premises, we are aware of the problem and are rectifying it this spring.
I suspect that more than half the Members of the House have constituency offices which are not physically accessible to many handicapped people. I suspect there are virtually no Members who have communication devices that enable them to communicate with the hearing impaired. While improvements will be made as our awareness of these problems increases, it will take more than increasing awareness on the part of many employers in the private sector and the federal Government itself, I suggest, that has shown itself to be incredibly obtuse in the past on this particular issue.
I return to my point that 1 believe we have great human potential. Many people who are disabled or otherwise suffer from employment discrimination could be doing a good job. Charlotte Whitton and many other women have said that women succeeded when given employment because they had to
April 14, 1986

be twice as good as the men with whom they were competing in order to get there in the first place. It is a sad fact that such a comment was probably true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is not too difficult. That is what Charlotte said.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) says that it was not too difficult, but it is a sad commentary on the loss of resources and human potential as a consequence of discrimination which still takes place.
The proposed amendment has been developed carefully and thoughtfully by the Coalition of Provincial Organizations for the Handicapped. They have given some thought to it, and I believe it is a reasonable proposal. Instead, we are told that this will be dealt with in the regulations.
Furthermore, the Government's document dealing with what the regulations might say does not speak to that question at all. We are basically left to trust the Government on this particular question. I have no grief for the former Government with respect to this issue because the only thing worse than this particular Bill on employment equity is having no Bill on employment equity. It is a sad fact that the previous Government did not even try introducing legislation in this particular area. However, now it is being done and surely it is possible to do it right. It does not necessarily mean that we can cross all the "t's" and dot all the "i's". 1 am sure there will be some experimentation, evolution and development in this particular area.
I read the very excellent report called Obstacles, which was put together by a House of Commons committee over the course of the last three and a half to four years, with a great deal of interest because I thought it was one of the most thoughtful and constructive documents at a parliamentary level or otherwise in terms of what needs to be done in public policy with respect to the physically handicapped. In that report-and I do not have the citation in front of me-the concept of reasonable accommodation recognized that different people have different needs and employers should not discriminate against someone because in order to do their job they have to have some instrument to help them. Employers, unfortunately, have been very obtuse about this. For example, it would be extremely difficult to work at a lathe, which is designed for a man of a minimum height of five-foot-six or five-foot-seven, if one is a woman and less than five-foot-six, unless she uses a small platform to enable her to reach the required height. Yet, because that platform would interfere with the sweepers, something as simple as that is resisted by the foreman and senior management because it disrupts the way things are done.
"Reasonable accommodation", in many cases, is as simple as putting down a small platform so a person of either sex who happens to be short would be able to work at a lathe. I have worked at a lathe. I know that the work, while demanding, is
Employment Equity
not physically so exhausting that it cannot be done by a wide variety of people. One does not have to be a 200-pound male in order to do the kind of work which is done at a lathe with the increasing use of computer controls, numerical control and that kind of thing. So why the devil would the Government resist a provision to ensure that in federally regulated businesses there is resasonable accommodation in that particular area?
I would like to say that I think the Government is hypocritical on this issue as it is on so many other aspects of the question of employment equity. I suggested earlier that this Bill would probably be just as useful in delaying equity as it would be to advance it. It gives us numbers and nothing more. It asks employers to comment or report, and then relies on public opinion. For God's sake, we know what public opinion says in terms of employment equity. The people of Canada want it. There is something wrong in the structure of our society when employers in the private sector, the people who own capital in many cases, are not prepared to implement what the people of Canada want.
I would like to say that when we get to the kind of economic democracy which I would like to se in our country, we would be in a position where working people would be involved directly in making those kinds of decisions rather than having arbitrary and thoughtless decisions made on their behalf by those persons who happen to be the managers or owners of capital. I note as well that what is regrettable about our society is that in certain cases the people who are the owners or managers of capital will be very busy in their private lives working for the Diabetes Foundation or for some other group which raises funds for some particular critical and disabling disease, but they will not see the inconsistency between that and the fact that at the workplace the company for whch they are responsible in setting policy does things which involve systematic discrimination against people who are physically handicapped.
The reason we bring in laws in this particular area is that we now have generations of experience which indicates that of its own volition, the private sector, whatever other benefits or costs it may have, has been prepared to do those things voluntarily. One of the reasons, quite simply, is that the private sector wants a level playing field. It asks why it should spend $5,000 to ensure that a job will be available for a particular handicapped person when the company down the street is not required to do the same thing. When we put in a definition of "reasonable accommodation" which covers everyone, we create that kind of level playing field.
So I appeal to the Government in the kind of a language which perhaps it can understand, because we are hearing it from the businesss community, to create a level playing field and ensure that all private sector employers are covered by Bill C-62 so that they will be required to provide reasonable accommodation rather than possibly disadvantaging one employer who wants to do justice and eliminate systemic discrimination while the employer down the street does not.
12214

April 14, 1986
Employment Equity
God knows, the Bill is weak as a whole and this would be one way to strengthen it. I hope the Government listens to the coalition of the physically handicapped and for once stops listening to the people who pay election contributions to the Conservative Party. Listen to the people of Canada on this particular issue.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to join in on the debate and the request to the Government to reconsider its rather narrow view of "reasonable accommodation" as it relates to this particular amendment. 1 know the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) had an opportunity in committee to suggest a number of changes to the Government. Unfortunately, for some reason the Government chose not to be more specific about the issue of reasonable accommodation.
We can look at the question of reasonable accommodation within this Chamber itself. It was clear today that the potential for participation in the democratic process of the Parliament of Canada was impeded because this Chamber does not have reasonable accommodation. I hope that in the next election campaign, we will be forced into reasonable accommodation by the very fact of electing a person to Parliament who may in fact fit into one of the categories of the disabled, that is, a person in a wheelchair. The ruling of the Chair was to allow 10 wheelchairs into the Chamber following the demonstration this afternoon. I appreciate the logistical problems with which the staff is faced in either removing chairs or permitting more people into the House. But we know that one Canadian in eight has some kind of a handicap. Granted, all of those people are not in wheelchairs. However, if we take that as given, we can estimate that there are hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of Canadians who suffer some kind of handicap. Yet we only had ten chairs availalble in the House of Commons on an extraordinary day when there were literally over 100 pepole from across Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada who were demonstrating in front of Parliament.
Quite clearly, we cannot leave the issue of "reasonable accommodation" to the regulations and to the bureaucrats because it speaks to the fundamental issue of access. If we in our own Parliament, in these hallowed halls, do not permit access to the physically disabled who happen to be in wheelchairs, and when we do permit it, it is in such limited numbers, then we must realize we cannot leave the job of that definition to a bureaucrat. I think the other reality-

-the other reality is that if we really believe in regulations that will accommodate everyone who wants to work in the community to the best possible extent, if we only want to give the right to regulate, regulations can be changed overnight, without prior notice to the Parliament of Canada. I think that if the Government is really serious about integrating the disabled in the Canadian labour market, one of the fundamental principles is to accommodate them with respect to access to
buildings and to certain guides and tools they need in order to work.

Without reasonable accommodation, all the greatest wishes and good intentions in the world are without purpose. For example, the amendment before us deals with the issue of how many people we can integrate into the workforce. If one works in a building which is not accessible by wheelchair, as is the case in the House of Commons, then a Member who is elected who happens to be in a wheelchair would have to have the system changed around in order to accommodate him or her. We would have to make reasonable accommodation. More often than not employers choose to turn a blind eye to those people from the handicapped community because they do not want to be put in a position of having to make even the most minimal of accommodations. Unfortunately, in many respects, society is still deeply embedded in the prejudice which says that people who have a handicap may not be as productive as other working people. We know that the converse is exactly true. In fact, when handicapped people are given a chance, the only handicap they have is in the way they are viewed by their fellow men and potential employers. We have heard a number of good arguments this afternoon for having a more precise definition of "reasonable accommodation". The defintion as suggested by COPOH is fairly broad in that it does not restrict. It states:
"reasonable accommodation" includes, without restriction, the reasonable adaptation of the workplace, hiring practices or the job description to accommodate the needs of designated groups, including the special needs of a qualified disabled person, through provision for physical accessibility, assistive devices, flexible job design and modification, and human support services.
Motion No. 11A is an attempt to clarify a principle which the Government claims to already endorse. The Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and other representatives of the Government have stated that they endorse the principle of reasonable accommodation. If they endorse it then they should have no hesitation in including it in the law. They should not leave to regulation more precise definitions which would ensure, for example, that accommodation includes the notion of physical accessibility. We too often say that these things take time. I know they take time.
In the context of Governments, I saw not too long ago in the Province of Ontario a detention centre that was opened in the riding of Hamilton-Wentworth. When I asked about accessibility I was told: "We have no need for accessibility. People in wheelchairs are in hospitals". I asked whether or not it was conceivable that somebody in a wheelchair could at some time commit a crime which could necessitate him or her being put into prison. In the mind of the official to whom I was speaking this notion seemed incomprehensible. It was felt that if one is in a wheelchair then one is supposed to be in a hospital. This official just could not make the connection that one can be a productive and competent person in society, also be a criminal and be in a wheelchair. In order to be a criminal
April 14, 1986

one does not have to be necessarily robbing a 7-Eleven store. It seems that where Governments are concerned we too often ignore the potential for accessibility, as is the case with the Chamber itself. Without a more precise definition of "reasonable accommodation" handicapped persons will continue to be denied jobs simply because they do not have access to them.
It was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that many Members of the House have offices which are not able to be entered by people in wheelchairs. It seems to me it should be a prerequisite in constituency budgets of Members of Parliament to make constituency offices accessible to those who are in wheelchairs as well as to those in the general population. If there is not reasonable accommodation in the context of constituency offices then, quite clearly, two-hundred of the constituents in one's riding do not have the right to come and visit his or her Member of Parliament. They are not able to lay out their grievances in the same way as grievances can be laid out by every other Canadian.
Let us first start in the context of our own backyard, here in the Chamber of the House of Commons, as well as in our constituency offices. We must ensure that reasonable accommodation is more than a principle. It must be laid out in practice in the precise definition suggested by COPOH which speaks to some of the concerns raised by government Members. Let us not leave it to regulation. We know that regulations come and go. We are the ones who have to decide that accessibility is a right and not a privilege. By including this particular definition in the Bill we will ensure accessibility to jobs. We must have a level playing field. The opportunity to compete equally must be available to all. The fact that one person happens to enter employment premises in a wheelchair and another comes in on his or her own two legs should not be a factor in obtaining a job. At the moment it is a key factor. It should not be one. The only way to eliminate it as a condition of employment is by including this definition of "reasonable accommodation" in the Bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in the five minutes remaining 1 would like to express my own wish that the Government adopt the amendment and make it part of the Bill. Our attempts are to bring to the attention of the country the significance of this point. The failure to add such a reasonable and sensible amendment on a day when the disabled have come in such large numbers to plead with the Government for legislation that has teeth in it and clear definitions gives us the greatest suspicion that what the disabled and other critics of the Bill are saying is true. The fact is that the Government has failed to respond legislatively.
As the justice critic for my Party I have tried again and again to bring to the attention of the Government and the country that we are not here creating rights. What we are doing with our legislation is implementing, or trying to implement, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which has been established as the basic law of Canada. In my opinion, Bill C-62 falls short of delivering the rights established in the Charter. We are going through the motions here of producing
Adjournment Debate
legislation which will not fill the bill. It is legislation that will be challenged, as we already know, by the very people whom it was intended to help. The Government is bringing forward inadequate legislation. It is making pious statements instead of implementing legislation. It is turning over to the courts of the land the responsibility for giving rights, in this case to the disabled and other designated groups. I am disappointed that the Government is taking this position. Of course, in the Opposition, being disappointed is almost a way of life, especially with the present Government. For disabled Canadians it is far more serious.
I have noted the important impact that the Charter has had in our country in creating a feeling of dynamism in a great many places where it has never been felt before. For example, the women's movement was very much a motivating factor in the process of creating the Charter. The Charter has given a new sense of legitimacy to groups which are receiving less than equal treatment, groups which feel the Charter is there for them. They are calling on us in this place to try to do justice here and not leave it to them to take their cases to court to fight for the funding which the Government has promised. After seven months those funds are still not forthcoming to groups which want to challenge present legislation. Instead of doing that as legislators, why can we not address ourselves to what we really owe the disabled and disadvantaged groups under this legislation and do it? It is not that difficult.
In criticizing the definition which is before us, members of the Government are saying that it adds nothing to the legislation. They are saying it does not mean much more. I would point out to them that that is an argument for adopting the definition. If they do not feel that they are giving away anything by putting the definition into law, and if the disabled out there in front of the House of Commons are saying that they want it, then what is the problem? I urge members of the Government to think again and to let us have this important amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) when the customs and excise laws were going to be tightened to prevent hard-core, violent pornography involving women and children from entering Canada. Almost all pornography in Canada is imported; 85 per cent from the United States and 12 per cent from Europe. Only 3 per cent of

April 14, 1986
Adjournment Debate
it is domestic. These figures make it obvious that tighter customs and excise laws are required to keep this filth from entering Canada.
Police estimates have placed the annual Canadian market in pornography at $300 million. There is increasing concern in Canada that more pornographic material is available than ever before and that it is in character more explicit and violent than it has been in the past. Another estimate is that 30 per cent of all Canadian news-stand sales consist of periodicals which would have been illegal 20 years ago, so relaxed have community standards become.
The Fraser Committee, the special committee on pornography and prostitution, was established by the Department of Justice. Its mandate was to investigate the current system in Canada with respect to pornography and prostitution and make recommendations for legal and social reform. The committee made several significant findings about pornography in Canada. It strongly submitted that there is a definite harm associated with much of what is pornographic, that it exhibits and encourages attitudes and activities which are detrimental to the quality of the lives of men and women and that it presents demeaning images as being normal. The concerns of most witnesses at the committee hearings were that pornography degrades women, that male violence against women is treated as socially acceptable and viewers are desensitized to suffering and that there is a strong negative influence on children and the family.
The Fraser Committee also conducted research in several countries with social and cultural traditions similar to Canada's. Their research revealed three trends: first, in all jurisdictions, there is a movement toward a less restrictive approach to sexually explicit material; second, there is a growing concern about child pornography; and third, there is a growing concern about the video explosion and the introduction of legislation to regulate the distribution, sale and rental of videos.
The Fraser Committee proposed a thorough revision of the criminal law in relation to obscenity. The term "obscenity" and the offences related to it in the current Criminal Code would be dropped to be replaced by a three-tiered system of prohibitions to define and categorize pornography. This would replace the subjective community standards test now used by the courts to determine obscenity.
The first tier, under which offences would be the most seriously punished, would involve the making, printing, publishing or distribution of visual pornographic material which was produced in such a way that actual physical harm was caused to the persons depicted. This tier would also include visual representation of persons under 18 participating in explicit sexual activities or material which presents as normal the sexual abuse of children. This offence would be punishable by 10 years imprisonment.
The second tier would apply to sexually violent and degrading pornography, including sexually violent behaviour,
bestiality and the like. Its production or distribution would be punishable by five years imprisonment. The third tier would involve the display of pornographic material in a public place. It would be an offence to sell these materials to persons under 18 years of age. This tier might perhaps be an appropriate one in which the test for community standards apply.
Since most of the pornographic material in Canada is imported, it is important to note that Canada Customs has jurisdiction to examine all goods entering Canada. If, in the judgment of the examining customs officer, the materials constitute explicit pornography, they are so classified and are prohibited entry. The importer is advised of this and can appeal this decision. If the appeal is denied, the importer can appeal further.
At the Fraser Committee hearings, concern was expressed about the increased availability of pornographic material and an implied increase in the number of people who are exposed, willingly or unwillingly to such material, and the resulting harm to individuals and society. This trend is truly cancerous in so far as its impact on the morals of the country and the quality of life in which we take so much pride. A recent poll by two leading U.S. experts found that people who have repeatedly been exposed to non-violent pornography develop a preference for more exotic material, and that includes violence. In other words, it is addictive. Hard core comes from soft core and this process goes on until we completely desensitize people who are afflicted by this problem.
There are, however, a few positive actions being taken. The 7-Eleven convenience stores have recently announced that they will stop selling magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Forum after the May issue. We applaud the management of that company for such action.
In my riding of Don Valley East, hundreds of people are extremely concerned about this issue. Many have written to me, including Mrs. Michaeline Bennet, M. E. Ward, H. C. Frawley, J. Looby, Mary B. Desautels, Mrs. C. Kennedy and Clare McKee. On Saturday, April 26, we will convene a policy conference at which we expect 100 to 200 people. Sergeant Wendy Leaver of Project P, Metropolitan Police, will lecture and show us the type of garbage and filth that is now all too readily availabe in different stores.
I look forward to obtaining the views of the residents of Don Valley East and their recommendations. I intend to come back to Ottawa and recommend those thoughts, whatever comes out of that meeting on Saturday, in the strongest possible terms to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) so that we do not commit the crime of inaction of not taking this subject seriously enough.
We honour and take very seriously the responsibility we have as legislators to protect society from these insidious trends that we have seen eroding the quality of life in Canada, eroding the values of people and eroding family life. It is one
April 14, 1986

of the most important topics I have ever dealt with. 1 hope and pray that we are successful in our recommendations and that a proper piece of legislation will be forthcoming from the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's concerns regarding obscene material entering Canada which depicts women and children in a sexual context and the proposed reduction of person years within the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, as some people link both issues. I can advise Hon. Members of the House that the Department of National Revenue shares their concern with regard to the importance of prohibiting child pornography and material which appear to degrade and dehumanize women.
The Department of National Revenue is responsible for administering tariff Item 99201-1 of Schedule C to the Customs Tariff which prohibits the importation into Canada of certain materials. Materials suspected of being treasonable, seditious, obscene or hate propaganda is inspected thoroughly by customs officers, and if it is judged to come within the terms of tariff Item 99201-1, it is prohibited from entering Canada.
Regarding the matter of cut-backs within the Department and the control of pornography, 1 can assure Hon. Members that measures have been selected to allow the Department to streamline its operations, improve productivity and, at the same time, maintain its level of service to the public. None of the reductions will affect the Department's capability to carry out its mandate, including the interception of pornography.
One of the measures is the centralization of the examination of international mail in order to improve service to the public while substantially reducing costs. Customs' ability to screen the mail entering Canada will not be affected by this centralization. Customs inspectors will be concentrated in 12 screening centres. Their functions will not change. Customs inspectors will continue to examine the mail, assess duty and taxes owing, and prohibit the entry of such goods as drugs, pornography, and firearms.
The prevention of such contraband will be aided by the use of X-ray systems in the primary screening centres. Furthermore, sophisticated detection equipment now being developed by the Department will be utilized to screen incoming international mail for drugs. Customs' efforts to intercept pornography, both through the mail and at border crossings, will not be diminished by the person-year reduction.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the general question of control of such materials, Hon. Members will be interested to learn that department officials have been meeting ever more frequently with the various groups that have expressed great concern about this matter. As a result of those meetings, we
Adjournment Debate
are now considering a number of procedures designed to tighten up control of this kind of imports.
In addition, the Government's legislative response to the Fraser/Badgley reports will give customs officials more power to control pornography.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I might emphasize that the department will maintain its essential role in preventing imports of child pornography and materials which degrade and dehumanize women, materials which are unacceptable in Canadian society.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-REQUEST THAT WARNING LABEL BE PLACED ON DRUG ASA
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, at the end of February or the beginning of March of this year, a 15-year old girl became ill with what her mother thought was either a cold or the flu. She was treated with a drug such as Aspirin or Anacin which contained acetylsalicylic acid. It has been a long time since I have had classes in chemistry, Mr. Speaker, but we know that drug as ASA. About 10 days after the girl took this type of medication, she died. The cause of death was identified as Reyes syndrome.
That girl was the daughter of a well-known citizenship court judge. That highlighted the problem and put the spotlight on a concern which people around the world have been aware of for the past three years, that is the concern about the possible link between ASA and Reyes syndrome. In spite of the fact that that concern has been known for the past three years, the manufacturers of drugs containing ASA have not put a warning label on their products. They have not indicated on their labels that there is a potential problem connecting ASA with Reyes syndrome.
I understand that the Department of National Health and Welfare has been carrying on discussions with the pharmaceutical manufacturers for the past several years about this problem. The industry has now voluntarily agreed to place a warning label on their products. I have a letter from one of the well-known drug companies in the country dated May 30, 1985, indicating that it is going to put a warning on its labels in the following terms: "Consult a physician before giving this medicine to children or teenagers with chicken pox or influenza". They indicate as well in this letter that they will have these labels in place by the fall of 1985.
That did not happen, as you know, Mr. Speaker. The labels were not in place by the fall of 1985. There is nothing in the letter referring to the potential problem with Reyes syndrome. In spite of the fact that the industry indicated it was going to do this last fall, in spite of the fact the industry indicated it had nothing to do with Reye's syndrome, the Department of National Health and Welfare has not moved in any way to make this sort of warning compulsory and the fact that it refer to Reye's syndrome. The U.S. has made it compulsory to have such a warning on the labels in this situation and it has made it compulsory to refer to Reye's syndrome and that problem.

April 14, 1986
Adjournment Debate
What is Reye's syndrome? It is becoming more and more well-known to us. It can attack all of us, but generally speaking it attacks children 18 years of age or under. It occurs equally in boys and girls. It usually occurs toward the end of an illness such as the flu or chicken pox. After a brief period of what appears to be recovery, the patient develops certain symptoms. They start to vomit violently, their hands and feet become cold and clammy, they suffer from extreme sleepiness, disorientation and hostility toward those who are looking after them. They are combative. Then they lose consciousness and lapse into a coma. This disease can be fatal or it can leave people with various degrees of learning disability.
I understand that somewhere between 30 and 300 out of every 100,000 children infected with influenza B will be stricken by Reye's syndrome. About 20 per cent to 30 per cent of those do not survive. About 10 per cent to 25 per cent suffer either minor or major disabilities due to brain damage. The disease requires hospitalization and treatment in intensive care, either in a children's hospital or university medical centre. The cause of Reye's syndrome is really unknown, but it has been suspected for the last three years that there is a link with ASA. It seems to me that, given that suspicion, we should not just be sitting calmly and coolly and urging the industry to voluntarily put some sort of warning on their labels, that we should require them to do it. We should require them to refer to the problem with Reye's syndrome.
I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that at last the Government is committed to doing just that and will announce that this sort of warning and reference to Reye's syndrome is going to be made compulsory in this country.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I understand the concerns of my colleague. I want to assure him that the Department of National Health and Welfare has continuing concern over the safe and wise use of all drugs, including analgesics or pain-killers.
The Department has consulted widely with members of the health professions and the pharmaceutical industry in order to bring about changes to the way that analgesics are presented to the public, including changes to labelling and advertising. Most of the improvements result from the recommendations of a non-governmental expert advisory committee established by the Department. These changes are being introduced so that consumers can make more informed decisions about how and when to use analgesics.

For security and efficiency reasons, a number of analgesic products can no longer be sold without a physician's prescription. They have to be prescribed by a physician. The concentration of analgesic drugs sold over the counter has been standardized at 325 miligrams per tablet to enable consumers
to compare products more easily and avoid taking overdoses or underdoses.
Advertising concerning nonstandardized drugs is now subject to stricter regulations.
The provinces have been urged to ban the sale of large-size or nonstandard concentration analgesic tablets outside drugstores so that the consumer may consult a health specialist before buying large quantities of such products.
The labels of drugs containing acetylsalicylic acid must warn the consumer to consult a physician if the product is to be used during more than five days. These drugs sold without prescription are intended only to relieve temporary symptoms. All salicylate-based adult products must bear a label urging breast-feeding women or women in their last three months of pregnancy to consult a physician before use so as not to endanger the health of the fetus or newborn child.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned about the security of our children, just as we all are. That is why bottles of analgesics for children which are sold over the counter cannot contain more than 24 tablets. Under recently implemented regulations, analgesics for children are sold in containers which children cannot open. Moreover, the pharmacist who sells salicylate-based products for adults must offer them to the public in containers which children cannot open.
The Department is aware of the possible link which may exist between the use of acetylsalicylic acid, also called ASA, and the development among children and teenagers of a rare and serious illness, often fatal, called Reye's syndrome. In October 1983, as a warning to the parents, we sent to all Canadian households, together with the family allowance cheque, a guide to the treatment of fever. Methods other than medicine were suggested to treat fever among children, and the possible link between the use of ASA and the subsequent development of Reye's syndrome was emphasized.
This guide was published again in 1985 for distribution among consumers. The Department and the manufacturers of over-the-counter pharmaceutical products in Canada have studied together the issue of warnings printed on salicylates' labels. These changes of course compelled manufacturers to change their products' labels and packages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Attewell):: I wonder if I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary to summarize.


Gabrielle Bertrand: 
TRADE-(A) CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS- NEGOTIATOR'S VIEWS ON WATER EXPORTS (B) GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to follow up on the question of the Government's stand with respect to the Grand Canal project, a matter which I have raised in this House on a number of occasions. Most recently I became concerned about the Government's attitude toward the project when I heard the words of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) a week ago Sunday on the program Question Period. With respect to the question of massive water exports and diversionary schemes like the Grand Canal project, he was asked whether he was fighting these kinds of plans. He said he was fighting them now. I wonder who he is fighting.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has indicated a number of times-in fact, he has become irritated with me on occasion as he has had to indicate it more than once-that the question of water exports is not on the table in the controversial free trade negotiations. However, the Minister of the Environment indicated that he was fighting to keep them off the table. Who is he fighting? Is the Government's decision not as firm as the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated to the House on occasion, or is the Minister of the Environment simply trying to make an impression? That was my most recent question.
I have another concern with respect to the Grand Canal project. It involves a dimension of this project that I do not believe has received enough attention. It coincides with another long-standing interest of mine in the House dealing with the whole question of nuclear energy.
I wonder how many Canadians are aware that this Grand Canal scheme to move water uphill from James Bay to the upper Great Lakes would require 10,000 megawatts of electrical power for the pumps, according to the originator, Mr. Tom Kierans. That demand for power equals half of the demand of the Province of Ontario at peak hours.
Let me illustrate what is involved with this project. In order to supply 10,000 megawatts, it requires approximately 12,500 megawatts of generating capacity, which is more than that required for the entire James Bay project. It appears that the originators of this project contemplate supplying this power through nuclear powered generation.
Indeed, AECL indicated in an article in the Ottawa Citizen on Tuesday, January 14, that it is studying a proposal that calls for the use of nuclear powered pumps to lift water from James Bay for export to the United States. Of course, I am not surprised that AECL is in cahoots with the Grand Canal project originators. AECL is always looking for a reason to justify its nuclear reactor program, and I am not surprised they would see this as a great opportunity.
Adjournment Debate
Let us be clear about this. According to a researcher at Energy Probe, the proposal would require 17 Bruce-sized nuclear reactors. The scheme would also require a major transmission system that would be a megaproject in itself. In almost every respect, this Grand Canal project should be regarded as it was a number of years ago-an environmental Frankenstein. I believe that is an appropriate description. Until recently it has been regarded as an idea held by kooks. Now it has been given a sense of credibility by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the new Premier of Quebec and others who I believe have the responsibility of saying that this is not an option. Instead, a grant under the auspices of the NRC has been given to a group to study the feasibility of this project. Indeed, it is the very group that is interested in carrying out this project. Rather than an independent objective study, the money is going to the very people whose objectivity is suspect in this regard.
I am very concerned that the Government has been ambiguous in saying that this matter is not on the free trade negotiating table. I have given the Prime Minister and the Government a number of opportunities to say that it is against this proposal and that it is not part and parcel of any future Conservative Government policy for Canada.
This is an opportunity for the Government to say so. Perhaps it would help if I pointed out that this project is backed by a lot of high powered Liberals, both in the private and public sector. Perhaps, for no other reason than partisan concern, the Government might be more suspect of this proposal than it has been to date.
Surely, when it comes to a proposal that has such alarming environmental and economic consequences, the Government has an obligation to be honest with the people of Canada and state its real attitude toward this project.
[ Translation\


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, in recent months a number of attempts have been made to link the issue of massive water exports by means of river deviations, with the Canada-U.S. trade talks. Many a time the Government has emphasized its position on the matter. As early as September 30, 1985, when the federal water enquiry commission published its report, the so-called Pearse Commission, the Minister of Environment (Mr. McMillan)indicated he saw no relation between water exports and free trade.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will please let me have a minute to conclude, because I think the issue raised by the Hon. Member is important.
Since then, the Government has repeated that the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations would deal with nothing else but trade and were not aimed at relinquishing any part of Canada's sovereignty on our own natural resources. The Government of Canada has received no representations from any American state or federal Agency on the issue of water exports, and neither does it expect to raise that issue in the context of the

April 14, 1986
Adjournment Debate
free trade negotiations. Much has been said recently about Mr. Reisman's ideas on the subject of water exports to the United States. Mr. Reisman clearly stated he made no comment and proferred no statement concerning water exports since his appointment as negotiator. Mr. Reisman will be following Government instructions, and this Government has clearly stated that Canada will always retain control over its natural resources.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, April 15, 1986