Jean Augustine

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 1st, 1995]

Rubbish.

[South Africa, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the commencement of the first multi-racial democratic election held in South Africa.

Last year, serving as a part of the Canadian observer team, I was fortunate to contribute to Canada's effort to ensure the election process was free and fair, an essential step in setting up a post-apartheid, non-racial democracy.

President Nelson Mandela remains one of the great moral and political leaders of our time. His lifelong dedication to the fight against racial oppression in South Africa continues to inspire individuals and nations alike.

On this anniversary I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in welcoming to our country South Africa's first black high commissioner, His Excellency Billy Isaac Letshabo Modise.

Canada remains committed to working to promote human rights and security for all communities in South Africa.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present to the House here assembled a petition from many citizens who request that this Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase "sexual orientation".

[Interpretation Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake and give the perspective of the Minister of the Environment. I want to assure the member the accomplishments of the Government of Canada at the recent climate change negotiations in Berlin are proof that Canada has an essential role to play in finding solid solutions to environmental challenges both at home and on the international scene.

The government and the environment have come out of that conference a clear winner in what is considered a significant step forward. Countries agreed in Berlin that current commitments contained in the framework convention on climate change are inadequate.

All developed countries that signed the convention will be required to begin negotiations on the protocol concerning future commitments. Countries will be required to report on the emission reduction policy and measures as well as set quantified limitations and reduction objectives.

Also, countries have agreed on a pilot phase for projects which can be undertaken jointly between developed and developing countries. This concept, known as joint implementation, is an important opportunity for Canadian business. We now have the green light to pursue commercial emission reduction projects in other countries. This is good for global climate change objectives and good for business here at home.

Canada's national action program on climate change tabled in Berlin sets out strategic directions which Canada will follow to meet our own commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

[Interpretation Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to consider Bill C-254, which the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing has introduced.

Bill C-254 proposes to amend the Interpretation Act to provide that every act of Parliament shall be construed and applied so as not to abrogate, abridge, or infringe any rights recognized in the convention on the rights of the child.

Bill C-254 also deems the reservations and statement of understanding Canada entered upon ratification not to be part of the convention.

Before commenting on Bill C-254, I will briefly examine the process that led to Canada's ratification of the convention.

Members are no doubt aware that Canada played an active role in the world summit for children held in September 1990. At that time world leaders spoke of the need for action to better the lives of the world's children. Canada's efforts at the world summit and its involvement in drafting the convention on the rights of the child served as a catalyst for increased federal efforts on behalf of children in Canada. These efforts, which included such initiatives as the action plan for Canada, entitled "Brighter Futures", began with the ratification of the convention on the rights of the child on December 13, 1991.

Canada's ratification of the convention on the rights of the child followed extensive consultations with the provinces and territories under the auspices of the continuing committee of federal, provincial, and territorial human rights officials. Since 1975 the continuing committee of officials on human rights examines questions concerning domestic implementation whenever Canada contemplates ratifying or acceding to another international human rights instrument. Consultations with national aboriginal representatives and organizations formed another important element of the consultations prior to ratifying the convention on the rights of the child.

These federal, provincial, and territorial consultations are held because while the federal government has the power to sign, ratify, or accede to international instruments, many human rights matters fall within spheres of provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution Act of 1867.

In Canada, international human rights conventions that Canada has ratified do not automatically become part of the domestic law so as to enable individuals to go to court when they are breached. Rather, each level of government is responsible for implementing in legislation or in practice those human rights obligations that arise within the constitutional powers it possesses. For this reason, Canada seeks provincial and territorial support before ratifying international human rights instruments.

Toward this end, legislation was reviewed at the federal level for consistency with the convention on the rights of the child. In particular, federal officials considered whether changes in legislation were required or whether Canada should consider entering a specific reservation or statement upon the standing to the convention. With respect to the latter, the law of treaties provides that in making a reservation a state or a nation indicates

that it is not bound by an obligation of the convention. In a statement of understanding the state explains how it interprets a particular convention obligation where the nature of the obligation is unclear.

Following the federal review of legislation and a similar review at the provincial and territorial level, Canada decided to enter two reservations and one statement of understanding to the convention on the rights of the child. I will speak to those two.

Canada entered a reservation to article 37(c) to ensure that in determining the custodial arrangements for a young offender, the well-being of other young offenders and the safety of the public may be taken into account.

Canada entered a reservation to article 21 and a statement of understanding to article 30 following consultations with national aboriginal organizations. Canada entered a reservation to article 21 to preserve customary forms of care among aboriginal peoples in Canada. By its statement of understanding to article 30, Canada seeks to ensure that in implementing the convention in relation to aboriginal children the child's right to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language are considered.

The Government of Canada takes seriously its obligation to implement the obligations of the convention on the rights of the child in Canada.

However, implementing these obligations without reference to the reservations and statement of understanding which Canada entered to the convention, as section 39.1(4) of Bill C-254 contemplates, would not reflect the manner in which Canada determines the custodial arrangements of young offenders and the concerns of aboriginal peoples of Canada. In this way Bill C-254 does not reflect the result of extensive consultations with provincial and territorial governments and with national aboriginal organizations. Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-254.

Bill C-254 also proposes to change fundamentally the relationship between domestic and international law in Canada. As I mentioned earlier, international human rights conventions that Canada has ratified do not automatically become part of domestic law so as to enable individuals to go to court when they are breached.

Bill C-254 would fundamentally change the existing relationship between domestic and international law for matters within federal jurisdiction. Bill C-254 would fundamentally change the precedent setting. To go along with Bill C-254 would set some important precedents.

In essence we would elevate some of Canada's obligations under the convention on the rights of the child, namely those obligations within federal jurisdictions, and make these directly enforceable before Canadian courts while other convention obligations, those within provincial jurisdictions as well as human rights obligations in other international human rights instruments, would not be so enforceable.

Not only would we be creating distinctions between different international human rights obligations but we would be fundamentally changing how international law is applied in our domestic legal system.

My difficulties with Bill C-254 do not, however, diminish the Government of Canada's support for implementing the convention in Canada. The Government of Canada in its first report to the UN on the convention on the rights of the child considers not only how Canada has implemented the convention to date but also discusses factors and difficulties we have encountered and sets out some goals for Canada in the future. The United Nations committee on the rights of the child will continue to supervise our government's performance, in particular our progress in meeting these goals.

Therefore, it is important the government respect its obligations under the convention when creating legislation or policies which may affect the rights of the child. For this reason the Department of Justice takes the convention obligations into account when providing legal advice. Parliamentarians should similarly take the convention into account when enacting legislation.

As well, Canadian courts have a role to play. Generally the courts presume legislation will be interpreted in a manner consistent with Canada's international obligations, including the convention on the rights of the child. Courts take international human rights instruments into consideration when they interpret the guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Finally, courts may turn to international human rights instruments like the convention on the rights of the child when interpreting legal concepts relating to children.

The speaker who proposes this motion had very good intentions. I cannot but agree with some of his expressions. Justice L'Hureaux-Dubé in the 1993 Supreme Court case Young v. Young addressed those questions of access and custody. The need to affirm the best interests of the child is a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, including legal proceedings.

In Justice L'Hureaux-Dubé's view, this reference to international law assisted in demonstrating the best interests of the child test is of enduring value in Canada. The court plays a very important part in ensuring Canada's international human rights obligations are respected.

As parliamentarians we have a similar responsibility; however, Bill C-254 is not the means by which this responsibility should be undertaken. Bill C-254 seeks to directly implement some convention obligations into domestic law but not others. Bill C-254 rejects the results of extensive consultations which

have been held with provincial and territorial governments and aboriginal organizations.

In government, in Parliament and in our courts Canadians must be vigilant and ensure the values and guarantees in the convention on the rights of the child are respected. The Government of Canada takes seriously its responsibilities to better the lives of Canadian children. Toward this end we will continue our efforts to meet the goals set out for us in Canada's first report on the convention on the rights of the child. In this way I hope to make the convention on the rights of the child a living, breathing document in Canada.

[Financial Administration Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administra-

tion Act, sponsored by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

I as well endorse the objectives of the bill to increase the accountability of exempt crown corporations to the taxpayers of Canada. At the same time I have reservations that this proposal is the best approach to the question.

Let me deal with the proposal to make the officers and employees of the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre and the International Development Research Council part of the public service of Canada.

On February 27, 1995 the Minister of Finance introduced a historic budget to the House. Part of the announcement was the need to reduce the size of the public service by some 45,000 positions over the course of the next three years. That is a major undertaking which will require a great deal of effort to manage with both wisdom and compassion.

These three corporations have approximately 850 employees combined; roughly 230 in the Canada Council and 280 in the National Arts Centre and 340 in IDRC.

Adding 850 positions to the size of the public service at this time is swimming against the current. For this reason, if for no other, I cannot support the bill as presented to the House.

I share the point of view expressed early in the debate by the hon. member for La Prairie that broad brush legislation of the sort reflected in Bill C-263 is not the only approach that can be taken to this issue. There are other approaches that can and have been taken recently to strengthen the accountability of our crown corporations.

One such approach is improving the quality of corporate governance. I am referring to the role of the board of directors whose responsibility it is, to put it simply, to manage the mangers. In this respect I invite the attention of the House to the final report of the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal and agency review released on February 16, 1995, the same day as the budget.

The purpose of the review announced in the February 1994 budget was to review the continuing usefulness and the currency of the mandate of the federal government, several hundred agencies, boards and commissions.

Among the measures adopted by the government in the final report to streamline the appointment process were decisions to reduce the size of the governing bodies of a number of agencies including crown corporations.

Accountability for taxpayers' dollars is a key consideration for these exempt corporations. In this regard it is worth noting the review concluded reductions in governor in council appointments will take place in three exempt corporations, two of which are identified in this bill.

The board of governors of the CBC will be reduced from 15 to 12 members. The board of trustees of the National Arts Centre would be downsized to eight members from the current eleven. The governor in council position of secretary will be eliminated in Telefilm Canada. The agency review taken as a whole will result in the elimination of some 589 governor in council appointments.

As well, the final report and agency review revamped the tenure provisions of the appointment process which would make it easier for the government to remove under performing individuals holding full time appointments, including officers of crown corporations appointed by the governor in council. Incumbents of these positions will now serve at pleasure. The government is committed to improving the appointment process, including appointments to the board of directors of crown corporations.

That is a commitment of the red book. Those were the recommendations in the report commissioned by the Prime Minister and submitted by Mr. Gérard Veilleux. "Unfinished Business, a Report on the Appointment Process to Boards of Directors of Crown Corporations", was released by the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal last July. That was the focus of a conference held in October by the President of the Treasury Board for the chairpersons and chief executive officers of crown corporations.

The subject matter of that conference will perhaps reinforce the message to the sponsor of this bill that there are other avenues to improving the accountability regime for all crowns, including the exempts beyond the legislative approach.

The October conference, "Corporate Governance: Improving the Effectiveness of Crown Corporation Board of Directors", sponsored four workshops for participants. The first of these was on the development and approval of strategy.

This group explored the importance of the development and approval of specific strategies, the challenge of linking the development of strategy to the corporation's mandate, the relationship of the board to management and the factors which contribute to a board's success.

The second workshop was on the subject of board composition and evaluation. Discussion in these groups centred on the roles of the chairperson and the CEO, the selection and evaluation of board members, the functioning of the appointment process, board self-evaluation, the orientation and education of directors and all related communications issues.

The third workshop dealt with balancing the corporate agenda and the public good. Groups discussed the trade-offs between meeting the commercial financial objectives and achieving the

mandated public policy objectives, all within the constraints imposed by the accountabilities of a public enterprise.

The final workshop addressed meeting the information needs of the board. Participants examined the information needs of the board from a variety of perspectives, including the often unique perspectives of the exempt crown corporations referred to in Bill C-263.

Work is continuing in these areas. Options for an education program for newly appointed directors of crown corporations are under review, which will strike the balance needed between the fiduciary responsibility of directors and the public policy role of the crown corporation.

The auditor general maintains an ongoing brief in this area as well. All of these measures are designed to increase the accountability of crown corporations, including the exempt crowns.

I invite the attention of members to the program review decisions announced in the February budget.

The budget states that the government will undertake a fundamental review of its support and mandates of the CBC, NFB and Telefilm Canada. Strategies and mandates that were developed under radically different circumstances must be re-examined in light of today's technological possibilities and the evolution of both the audio-visual industry and the domestic market.

That and similar opportunities may be the more appropriate avenues for the hon. member to pursue his very worthwhile interest in improving the accountability of the exempt crown corporation. Such an approach will preserve the flexibility and the accountability regime for those crown corporations which require a degree of independence from the direct ability of the government of the day to intervene in their policy and administrative decisions.

[Employment Equity, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question to the hon. minister and for his concern for the Dima family.

I would like to inform him that the family has co-operated with immigration officials by returning to the United States where they can apply through the normal channels. The Quebec government has indicated that it will interview the family when they apply from outside Canada.

They have had full benefit of our refugee determination system and they were found not to be refugees. Their case was reviewed under our post-determination risk assessment criteria and the Dima family were found not to be in danger if returned to Romania. They have also had a humanitarian and compassionate review which was negative.

Over 2,900 people immigrated to Canada from Romania in 1994, the vast majority having applied in the normal manner from outside Canada. In fact, in 1993 there were 3,300 entrants into Canada from Romania.

I want to respond to the member's greeting by also wishing you, Mr. Speaker, the member, and everyone else in the House a very pleasant holiday and Easter season.

[Employment Equity, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to debate this motion. I want to say this loudly for the Canadian public. I am sure those who are watching the debate today or who will be reading Hansard will mourn the occasion this member stood in the House to ask the government to immediately end employment equity programs and the inclusion of employment equity requirements on employment or training forms because such requirements encourage candidate selection, et cetera.

What a sad opportunity it is to stand in the House to debunk some of the myths we heard a few minutes ago. The public record presents a completely different picture. It suggests hiring practices have very little to do with ability but a lot to do with discriminatory attitudes toward women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

I frankly believe the focus of the debate is on the wrong side. Rather than questioning why we need the employment equity we should be asking: Why do visible minorities, women, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities experience significantly higher rates of unemployment, sometimes twice the national level, even when they prove themselves to be eminently qualified for jobs? That is the question.

Documents and research tell us these individuals are frequently better educated and trained at proportionately higher levels than the general population to take on work opportunities. In addition to their advanced university degrees, they often come equipped with special knowledge or personal attributes that can also contribute to the job.

Let us look at it from a strictly pragmatic, business perspective. Visible minority members, for example, may be immigrants from other parts of the world. They bring with them firsthand knowledge of foreign market conditions which may be invaluable to Canadian exporters.

We heard quite a few businesses cited and we heard some misinformation given in terms of statistics. Women who make up more than half the population know better than anyone the needs of Canadian consumers, their families and themselves. Aboriginal people have a wealth of experience in traditional approaches to a multitude of disciplines, from the earth sciences to holistic healing to dispute resolution. With advanced education they are well positioned to marry traditions with the best of the contemporary economy.

Who better than persons with disabilities to offer insights into the specialized needs of people who are physically or intellectually challenged, one of the growth markets of the next century.

The member across the way threw out a case study. In that diatribe we were subjected to, the member mixed so many things together, the apples and the oranges and the myths. Too many employers continue to erect barriers to employment of these talented, work-ready people.

We can take statistics from Max Yalden, the Canadian human rights commissioner. He has publicly stated his concern about a growing mean-spirited attitude in Canada. He has warned of a backlash against members of society's most vulnerable groups by critics that claim they enjoy special workplace and hiring advantages. The statistics clearly show nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Yalden noted that while white male Canadians make up just 45 per cent of the workforce, they account for 55 per cent of all hirings. Men constitute nearly 95 per cent of corporate board members and more than 90 per cent of senior managers. They also earn an average of 20 per cent more than female workers. A study was recently done and published in the local media.

A study recently completed by Statistics Canada also concluded systemic discrimination explains much of that wage gap. Many women consider themselves lucky just to be hired.

Women's share of all hiring declined from 1988 to 1992 and has improved only slightly since then.

Women are frequently members of more than one designated group, what we call the double disadvantaged and maybe in my case triple disadvantaged. Imagine how much more difficult it is for women to compete who are aboriginal, a visible minority or someone with a disability. People in these groups are particularly subject to prejudice in hiring.

Bias is the only apparent explanation for the fact that the unemployment rate among visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities with university degrees is much higher than for white males with the same education. In fact, it can be more than double.

Reports submitted by employers under the Employment Equity Act show some worrisome trends in the hiring rates of individuals in designated groups. The same reports show that the situation for persons with disabilities is even worse. I can go on and cite other instances, but I ask the House if these figures suggest that members of designated groups enjoy preferential treatment? The answer is self-evident.

The hon. member cited the fact that in his riding he could not find one individual who was subjected to inequity. I would remind the hon. member that the Employment Equity Act is designed to ensure that an employer's hiring and promotion decisions are based solely on the bona fide requirements of an occupation and not on any other job related criteria.

The Employment Equity Act ensures that only qualified individuals be considered for a job, but most important it requires employers to remove barriers to employment for capable candidates who are members of the designated groups so we can turn these unacceptable unemployment figures around, which is only fair.

The Canadian human rights commissioner, Mr. Yalden, has reason to be concerned. The anachronistic thinking associated with this motion certainly will do nothing to advance us toward our goal of preparing Canada for the global economy of the 21st century.

It ignores the reality that we will soon experience a severe skills shortage in the country that will demand that we put every capable Canadian to work. It disregards the fact that two-thirds of new entrants to the labour market will be members of the designated group by the year 2000, a large percentage of whom are more than qualified to meet the challenge. It overlooks the importance of capitalizing on these people's diversities in an increasingly specialized, interconnected and international economy.

It is lucky for us that this is not a votable motion because it would have been voted down by members on this side of the House. The motion could have had the opportunity to, if, heaven forbid, there was an opportunity for it to be a votable motion, condone racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination, all of which we know exist in the workplace. It would permit prejudice to go unchecked and may even encourage outright acts of physical or sexual harassment of the most vulnerable.

The Employment Equity Act is not about counting numbers as the member would have us believe. It is about instituting irritating rules and regulations that somehow stand in the way of individuals in this society from being contributing members and full participants in Canadian society.

I ask every member of the House to stand firm the Employment Equity Act.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address and support Bill C-244, which proposes to recognize June 21 as a national solidarity day for aboriginal peoples.

In the last two weeks Canadians have demonstrated an understanding of the important principles behind this bill, principles of celebrating equality and partnerships. Last Friday, aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians from across the country, including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, gathered in Vancouver to celebrate the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards. Fourteen aboriginal Canadians were honoured for their outstanding contributions. On Thursday evening at nine o'clock, all Canadians can share in this celebration because it is being televised nationally on our CBC.

Canadians also celebrated the uniqueness of our cultures and heritage on March 26 at the annual Juno awards. A touching tribute to Buffy Sainte-Marie in particular highlighted the central role of aboriginal cultures in defining the broader Canadian culture.

This is what we are talking about today, marking the achievement of aboriginal people and their tremendous contributions to this great nation. These contributions span the spectrum from politics, business and law to entertainment, athletics and culinary experience.

For generations aboriginal people have made a visible, internationally recognized contribution that has for too long been largely unrecognized in our country. I firmly believe in the principle of this motion, as does the government and everyone on this side of the House.

We had these very principles in mind when we sat down to write our red book. Our goal was and is for a future where aboriginal people enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity equal to those of other Canadians. Our goal is a future in which aboriginal people live self-reliantly, secure in the knowledge of who they are as unique peoples; a future where all Canadians are enriched by aboriginal cultures and are committed to the fair sharing of the potential of our nation; a future where aboriginal people have the positive option to live and work wherever they choose; and one where aboriginal children grow up in secure families and healthy communities with the opportunity to take their full place in Canada.

This government recognizes the special relationship that exists between aboriginal people, the first inhabitants of this land, and the Crown. We are committed to fulfilling our obligations and to building a new partnership based on trust, mutual respect and participation in the decision-making process.

It was for these reasons that we put aboriginal issues at the forefront of our agenda. I am pleased to see that my hon. colleague from Kamloops also regards aboriginal issues in such a serious manner.

The goal of enabling aboriginal people to assume their rightful place as full partners in Canadian society is not a goal of one group; it is a goal shared by millions of Canadians. Clearly aboriginal issues involve more than just our aboriginal people. They involve each and every one of us. That is why I believe it is important for all Canadians to participate in marking the contributions past, present and future of aboriginal people. In these efforts, our focus should be on partnerships, commemoration and positive action.

Clearly before a decision like this is made, it is essential to seek consent from the aboriginal community. When our ultimate goal is to create a full and equal society, it would clearly be regressive for us to sit here and legislate a special day for aboriginal people without their explicit support.

I strongly feel that the hon. member's bill is worthy of our consideration and debate, particularly as we celebrate the first year of the United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples. By supporting the United Nations recommendation to pronounce August 9 as an International Day for Indigenous Peoples, we may also have an opportunity to bring aboriginal issues further on to the international stage.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing this bill before us. It is an important reminder that aboriginal issues must continue to be a priority for all Canadians. I thank him for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member.

The hon. member was not satisfied with the response of the Prime Minister to his question of December 8, 1994. The question at the time related to the process followed by the Hibernia consortium last fall when it became necessary to remove some work on drilling modules that had commenced at the Marystown shipyard in Newfoundland. The work had fallen seriously behind schedule.

In order to avoid jeopardizing the schedule for the entire project, an outcome which could lead to severe cost overruns, the Hibernia Management Development Company decided to place the completion of this contract in the hands of another shipyard on relatively short notice.

The contract was transferred to Saint John Shipbuilding for completion in New Brunswick without giving the MIL Davie a formal opportunity to rebid on the remaining work. The member knows that MIL Davie had submitted a bid on the contract when it was originally tendered but lost out to Marystown.

After the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board reported on the process, followed by the HMDC, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister again asked the Hibernia consortium to review its decision. The owners did review the decision and four out of five concurred with the chosen course of action.

With an 8 per cent ownership interest in the project, the Canadian government is not in a position to direct decisions taken by a basically private sector consortium.

I hope this clarifies the matter for the member.